Support NeoGAF

[Blimblim]

According to a recent developer video... they have more polygons in just the bridge in New York in PGR3 than they had in the whole map of New York in PGR2. I wish I had a pic of the wireframe they had of all of New York to give you reference, but it was pretty mind blowing.

For what I heard, the brooklyn bridge alone is in the 100.000s of polys. It seems quite a bit high, but maybe it's before they apply some rendering trick to it like normal mapping or whatever. It sure is an impressive number anyway.

 

[Wunderchu]

For what I heard, the brooklyn bridge alone is in the 100.000s of polys. It seems quite a bit high, but maybe it's before they apply some rendering trick to it like normal mapping or whatever. It sure is an impressive number anyway.

there's a new article on PGR3 in the latest Edge Magazine, where they mention the polys, a bit:

There is an article on PGR3 in this months EDGE.

The cars are composed of 40k polygons for the interior and 40k for the exterior. Brooklyn Bridge is 600k polygons and Manhattan Bridge 1 million polygons.

Bizzare are aiming for 60fps. They also mention the draw distance for one of the unnamed cities is 3km.

For reference one of the Tokyo tracks in MSR took up just 90k polygons in its entirety.

[source: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=533843 ]

 

[demon]

There is an article on PGR3 in this months EDGE.

The cars are composed of 40k polygons for the interior and 40k for the exterior. Brooklyn Bridge is 600k polygons and Manhattan Bridge 1 million polygons.

Bizzare are aiming for 60fps. They also mention the draw distance for one of the unnamed cities is 3km.

For reference one of the Tokyo tracks in MSR took up just 90k polygons in its entirety.

Damn, that's sick.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

Yessir, a killer app

 

[Zer0]

Check out Call of Duty 2




According to a recent developer video... they have more polygons in just the bridge in New York in PGR3 than they had in the whole map of New York in PGR2. I wish I had a pic of the wireframe they had of all of New York to give you reference, but it was pretty mind blowing.

yeah.what expect you the developer to say? everyone make big statments about millions of polygons,im tired of number,everyone gives a lot of numbers

 

[op_ivy]

a bit more from the edge article.... some repeats

Hi Guys,

Just got the new Edge today and they have loads of info.

Here are some highlights

1) No cat and mouse... They are gonna have 80 cars and none of these are gonna be low spec ones

2) There will be a photo mode in offline play. You can pause any race then rotate the camera and take a picture of your car. You will also be able to apply filters to these snaps.

3) Geometry wars will return in an updated version, called Retro Evolved. Looks very nice.

4) On one of the yet to be revealed cities the draw distance stretches 3 km. That my friends is so impressive.

5) Damage will be in, but it will be cosmetic rather than actually hurt performance.

6) There are a bunch of new screenshots. All of them are impressive, but one features a green car... maybe a Ferrari, which to my eye looks like it is cg quality. All shots are in-game.

7) You will apparently be able to progress through the game with one car. They are keen not to isolate players by forcing them to drive cars they are not interested in.

8) I know you guys know about the track editor, but apparently there will be millions of possible combinations.

geometry wars returns (awesome), and photomode will have filters and what not (like gt4 :O)

 

[Blimblim]

Damn, that's sick.

Yeah that's the numbers I had been told. They seemed so high that I did not want to repeat them here and look like a fool
Anyway, I had also been told that one artist has been working for 3 months straight just for the Brooklyn bridge.

 

[op_ivy]

is this that bridge?

damn, just imagining this shot fully textured and lit, in-game, gives me such a next-gen boner

 

[nextgeneration]

Holy crap, that's some serious geometry going on in that bridge pic. Very nice. Can't wait to see the finished product.

 

[drohne]

i say this innocently, though i'm sure it won't be taken that way: what are all those polygons doing? if you told me that tokyo shot was from a ps2 game, i wouldn't blink. oh em gee diminishing returns maybe nintendo are right.

 

[Kleegamefan]

3km(1.86 mi.) draw distances is very impressive......similar to Far Cry, no???

 

[op_ivy]

i say this innocently, though i'm sure it won't be taken that way: what are all those polygons doing? if you told me that tokyo shot was from a ps2 game, i wouldn't blink. oh em gee diminishing returns maybe nintendo are right.

to say that having seen one shot, i could maybe understand... but have you seen the recent trailer?

check out the 60fps one at xboxyde if you havent previously

 

[drohne]

i'm using an ancient computer right now. i'll download that trailer as soon as i'm on a machine from this century.

but the question stands: the polygonal complexity of that scene is probably way beyond that of current games. i don't doubt bizarre's numbers at all. but i can't see them in the environments.

 

[Blimblim]

i'm using an ancient computer right now. i'll download that trailer as soon as i'm on a machine from this century.

but the question stands: the polygonal complexity of that scene is probably way beyond that of current games. i don't doubt bizarre's numbers at all. but i can't see them in the environments.

Trailer in 640x360 resolution and 30 fps. Any computer better than a P3 600 should be able to play it :
http://www.xboxyde.com/leech_1535_en.html
If you have at least a 1.4 Ghz CPU, the same one in 60 fps :
http://www.xboxyde.com/leech_1536_en.html

 

[nextgeneration]

but the question stands: the polygonal complexity of that scene is probably way beyond that of current games. i don't doubt bizarre's numbers at all. but i can't see them in the environments.

I agree. I don't really see it either, as the Tokyo scene seems to be lacking in polys. However, having seen the hd footage of this, it looks really good in motion.

 

[KingJ2002]

I finally got a chance to see the high quality HD trailer the other day... the game looks amazing... almost unreal. I thought I was watching a CG trailer at times... if it werent for the fans in the stands i probably wouldnt believe it was in game. PGR 3 is an incredible looking game with an insane amount of detail. I can't wait till they show off other cities in the game.

but I wonder... what will the online portion be like? will it use an automated optimatch feature like Halo 2? all i hear is "Gotham TV" all the time... no other features have been mentioned.

 

[shpankey]

but the question stands: the polygonal complexity of that scene is probably way beyond that of current games. i don't doubt bizarre's numbers at all. but i can't see them in the environments.

why do you think Jason Jones (Bungie) and John Carmack (id Software) and a lot of other big name developers have been saying now for quite awhile it's not about more polys's and it's all about the textures and the effects with the textures and how they light and shade them (Bump Mapping, Poly whatever they call it, shading techniques, etc etc)??

Because as most devs have known for awhile now... more polys on an object, after a certain point, doesn't get you much.

But what they can do with the texture effects, lighting and shading makes the world of difference. It's all about the effects they can do on the polys they have already. Gamers need to realize having high poly counts is not what it used to be. Gamers now still key on that WAY too much. It's kind of like looking at the clock rate of CPU's... it's no longer as valid as it used to be.

 

[GhaleonEB]

why do you think Jason Jones (Bungie) and John Carmack (id Software) and a lot of other big name developers have been saying now for quite awhile it's not about more polys's and it's all about the textures and the effects with the textures and how they light and shade them (Bump Mapping, Poly whatever they call it, shading techniques, etc etc)??

Because as most devs have known for awhile now... more polys on an object, after a certain point, doesn't get you much.

But what they can do with the texture effects, lighting and shading makes the world of difference. It's all about the effects they can do on the polys they have already. Gamers need to realize having high poly counts is not what it used to be. Gamers now still key on that WAY too much. It's kind of like looking at the clock rate of CPU's... it's no longer as valid as it used to be.

Very true. A good example of this is the Master Chief model in Halo vs. Halo 2. The model in the sequel actually has fewer polys than the original game, but he looks way better thanks to better texturing and lighting models.

 

[mrklaw]

when you use complex shading and lighting techniques, you can simulate the effect of lots of polygons.

But lots of polygons is still good.

Imagine lots of polygons *and* complex shading simulating even more polygons.....

 

[Wunderchu]

when you use complex shading and lighting techniques, you can simulate the effect of lots of polygons.

But lots of polygons is still good.

Imagine lots of polygons *and* complex shading simulating even more polygons.....

;drool;

 

[nitewulf]

when you use complex shading and lighting techniques, you can simulate the effect of lots of polygons.

But lots of polygons is still good.

Imagine lots of polygons *and* complex shading simulating even more polygons.....

would it matter though? if lighting/shading simulates polygons, the extra polygons wouldnt be necessary. hence diminishing returns.

 

[Neex]

I disagree that we're at the point where more polygons don't matter.

 

[xexex]

when you use complex shading and lighting techniques, you can simulate the effect of lots of polygons.

But lots of polygons is still good.

Imagine lots of polygons *and* complex shading simulating even more polygons.....

EXACTLY

 

[DopeyFish]

I disagree that we're at the point where more polygons don't matter.

i think it's more or less if it's actually worthwhile instead of if they actually matter.

if you could fake it to the point where it's almost perfect while saving time modelling and adding the ability to add more effects on top of the faked effect. (since there is less computation time on geometry)

 

[op_ivy]

Trailer in 640x360 resolution and 30 fps. Any computer better than a P3 600 should be able to play it :
http://www.xboxyde.com/leech_1535_en.html
If you have at least a 1.4 Ghz CPU, the same one in 60 fps :
http://www.xboxyde.com/leech_1536_en.html

:lol my celeron 733 (iirc) chokes on all but igns low quality freebie version!

by the way, i finally transfered your 60frames per second video to my modded xbox and watching that in xbmc blew my mind. 60 fps owns, and the video was crystal clear on my tv. i really feel like i got a dececnt idea how the game will end up looking. thanks

 

[shpankey]

I disagree that we're at the point where more polygons don't matter.

not completely no... but don't look at it so polarized. it's a matter of: throwing tons of more polys doesn't make a big enough difference after a certain point, until at least you can take them poly numbers to the uber extreme (tons and tons of polys). but the performance price for rediculously high polys for the somewhat small payoff is just not worth it. not when you can get a pretty decent and similar look just using texture, lighting and shading techniques.

remember the movies Jurrassic Park? Not very many polys there in the Dinos at all, but their convincing look is faked with texture, lighting and shading tricks. Much like today's games.

so yes, in a degree, it is a bit of diminishing returns (tho not %100, of course not).

 

[sangreal]

:lol my celeron 733 (iirc) chokes on all but igns low quality freebie version!

by the way, i finally transfered your 60frames per second video to my modded xbox and watching that in xbmc blew my mind. 60 fps owns, and the video was crystal clear on my tv. i really feel like i got a dececnt idea how the game will end up looking. thanks

I didn't even think of watching the video on my TV before I read your post for some reason. Now that I have I am truly amazed, much more so than from watching it on my PC

 

[Blimblim]

I've watched that trailer many times already on my 720p DLP TV, via DVI on my PC. It's just awesome to think I'll be playing a game with this image quality in just a few months.

 

[Gregory]

:lol my celeron 733 (iirc) chokes on all but igns low quality freebie version!

by the way, i finally transfered your 60frames per second video to my modded xbox and watching that in xbmc blew my mind. 60 fps owns, and the video was crystal clear on my tv. i really feel like i got a dececnt idea how the game will end up looking. thanks

So the 733mhz PC doesn`t manage to play it smoothly but the 733mhz Xbox does. Pretty funny. And another reason why PC`s suck.

 

[GhaleonEB]

So the 733mhz PC doesn`t manage to play it smoothly but the 733mhz Xbox does. Pretty funny. And another reason why PC`s suck.

With a whopping 64 megs of RAM, no less. :lol

 

[Blimblim]

So the 733mhz PC doesn`t manage to play it smoothly but the 733mhz Xbox does. Pretty funny. And another reason why PC`s suck.

It's a problem with this PC, the old celeron 650 we have at work have no problem playing the 30 fps 640x360 version of the PGR3 trailer.

 

[rod]

why are ths trees still flat well in that pic anyway

 

[TAJ]

>>>remember the movies Jurrassic Park? Not very many polys there in the Dinos at all, but their convincing look is faked with texture, lighting and shading tricks. Much like today's games.<<<

I'm 99.9% sure that the Jurassic Park dinos were made with spline patches, in other words with no polygons. (though their renderer would have diced those patches into millions of micropolys at render time) They didn't have much detail modeled in, though. You could probably get the same geometric detail with around 60,000 polys.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

would it matter though? if lighting/shading simulates polygons, the extra polygons wouldnt be necessary. hence diminishing returns.

Although Im loathe to ever bring it up in any GAF thread...lets just call it a certain demo that rhymes with Fill Bone. Well a good example of the difference really high poly makes compared to "faking it" with quality normal mapping would be that particular demo compared to the Unreal 07 demo. The normal mapped Unreal character looks great (and he was actually real time ), but to the discerning eye Mr. Fill Bone was sporting an obscene amount of detail in comparison due to the raw poly difference (combined with great texture/lighting).

Personally even though the "faking" tricks have gotten extremely good at suspending disbelief, as a gamer low poly can still stick out visually to me and take away from the overall solidity and realism of a given 3d space. Doom 3 comes to my mind as a low poly eye sore despite everything else it does so well.