Literally. There are bells and whistles.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Respawn confirms: Titanfall ships at 792p on Xbox One
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
Literally. There are bells and whistles.
Awesome - I better get some new headphones!
SolidSnakeUS
Member
1080p no AA is a best case scenario for this gameI hope they hit it!
I also assume this is a forward renderer is they are claiming they can do 1080p 60fps with the engine while talking about esram space, 2xMSAA may be blowing the esram memory budget and changing this may free up enough for a 1080p framebuffer? This wouldnt be possible with a differed renderer as a 1080p buffer uses way too much memory for the esram.
Still think the idea of a modified Source Engine game that can run at 1080p only if the AA is off on a new console is pretty bad. No AA in something is pretty damn terrible.
I feel sorry for Repawn in all this. It's clear they tried everything they could to come to what they feel is the best compromise across the board. I don't there's ever been a game who's rendering resolution upon release was so fascinatingly awaited. I'm sure they're still proud of the game they've made anyway.
Perhaps a bit fucked up how we've come to this, really.
Perhaps a bit fucked up how we've come to this, really.
On the other side of the fence. I'm also a PC gamer, bought the CE, bought the LE controller, and the res doesn't matter to me.
Impeccable
Member
Direct X12 with the power of the cloud is about to blow some minds in a few weeks. No one is ready.
Respawn, Microsoft.. please just drop it.
I hear TF2 will play Ode to Joy with every headshot.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Actually, MS has been, and still is saying their games will be in 1080p. It just isn't, and wont be happening.
We all knew the Xbox One was underpowered. But people expected compromises here and there for multiplatform titles. Not that the system would have a specific bottleneck that prevents all but a handful a games from reaching 1080p.
792p is about 20% more pixels, very big difference
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
1080p no AA is a best case scenario for this game
Do I hope they'd reach that goal? Sure.
Will they? Nope.
Neuromancer
Member
I'm surprised they just didn't tap into the 2nd, hidden GPU. Pretty lazy of them imo
LoveCake
Member
Could this be because of the game being cross-gen ?
I don't understand why games on both the X1 & PS4 are not running 1080p at 60fps the hardware is there & the majority of the devs have made PC games that run 1080p/60fps & furthermore the x86 architecture of the X1/PS4 is the same as the PC, ok i know the systems are new but it's not like the CPU/GPU/RAM/x86 hasn't been around for a while, ok the eSRAM will cause a couple of headaches but surely nothing that cannot be ironed out.
I don't understand why games on both the X1 & PS4 are not running 1080p at 60fps the hardware is there & the majority of the devs have made PC games that run 1080p/60fps & furthermore the x86 architecture of the X1/PS4 is the same as the PC, ok i know the systems are new but it's not like the CPU/GPU/RAM/x86 hasn't been around for a while, ok the eSRAM will cause a couple of headaches but surely nothing that cannot be ironed out.
Oh I totally agree, It's awful and only shows how short sighted MS were with the hardware design, but It was the right thing to do at the time to ensure 8GB RAM. Also It was dire that this wasn't running at a higher resolution to begin with 792p is dire for this game no matter how you spin it
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
It's not because its cross gen. Hell the 360 version is not even being handled by Respawn.
It's the ESRAM. And no, there is no magic Iron.
That's such an apologist and bull crap response.
Microsoft said that the power gap would be minimal. If you were excited for an XB1 and you went off of Microsoft's words, you got duped. Yeah, I knew that the PS4 would be more powerful, most here did. I don't think anybody really expected such early and consistent framerate and resolution struggles though.
Dictator93
Member
This says everything you need to know about xb1 hardware. ESRAM is a curse regardless of shading performance.
Also... do not expect 1080p non-aliased. That is an impossibility of performance given how the beta ran and how this game runs on PC. Unless you like titan sequences running at sub 30fps at times.
rselig1974
Neo Member
speaking of Titanfall.... any idea when this will be available to purchase digitally on XBL for the Xbone?
This question was real, by the way, since that approach does work.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb464139.aspx
gaming_noob
Member
I would like to watch a behind-the-scenes documentary of daily struggles of some of these developers with Xbox One development.
Playing devil's advocate for a second here, couldn't you say the same thing about KZSF's 960x1080 rendering resolution and hitting hard limits at launch?
I mean it's pretty much the nature of consoles that as time passes, ways to ameliorate limits are developed. The difference in eSRAM's case is one of severity, not kind.
Killzone runs smoother though and has A LOT more effects present.
Moral Panic
Member
Killzone doesn't hit 60fps as much as TF
It's a dumb statement anyway, every time a game drops frames it is running the hardware to the limit.
The target of 1080p with no AA or 900p with fxaa isn't great.
1080p is still a bit jaggy without AA.
Fxaa is awful and would make 900p blurry.
If they can't hit 1080 then at least use smaa instead of fxaa. Smaa has about the same performance impact as fxaa but gives you a much cleaner image.
1080p is still a bit jaggy without AA.
Fxaa is awful and would make 900p blurry.
If they can't hit 1080 then at least use smaa instead of fxaa. Smaa has about the same performance impact as fxaa but gives you a much cleaner image.
BruiserBear
Banned
I think there is more to it than that.
I too think their transparency is awesome on this front. Letting us know what they're working on, and contemplating. I kinda think I'd rather see 1080p without AA, rather than bringing FXAA into the fold. Then again, I really want the highest resolution without screen tearing and big framerate drops, so I might almost prefer keeping 792p if they can have almost no screen tearing at all.
I definitely think Microsoft has just opened up some additional GPU overhead for developers, and the Respawn guys just aren't allowed to explicitly say that. I believe that's why they weren't able to get this in for launch, as those additional resources were just recently made available.
haha
KZSF's MP situation becomes weirder the more I look at it. The framerate average is certainly higher in MP than Campaign, which is a full 1920x1080, but I noticed more times when the campaign hit a full 60fps than MP. The reprojection technique was expensive enough to not give a massive overall FPS boost despite the drop in res. It really seems like it was just a band aid to try to get the framerate up in a game that was designed around 30fps, whereas Titanfall was aiming for 60 the whole time.
That said, both consoles will improve significantly and both situations are far from ideal. I don't expect XBO to have huge jumps in resolution, just better results at the resolutions it uses.
True about the 60fps, but compare screenshots at their full resolution and it becomes painfully obvious that Killzone is a much more hardware taxing game. Like, it's not even close.
Whatever. I'm still very happy with Titanfall, but the XB1, not so much...
Memorabilia
Member
From what I understand they did see it coming from an absolute performance perspective, but failed to predict RAM market price trends that would put them at a disadvantage. GDDR5 was expensive at the time so they figured itd be an impossible target for Sony to land 8GB GDDR5. They moved ahead with their plans for DDR3 and assumed esram would give them a performance advantage. Then GDDR5 prices tumbled and they were left with an obsolete design that moving forward will ironically be more expensive to mass produce.
Fixed, in my opinion anyway.
GluedOnBeard
Member
This is a Source engine game. This is an assumption but I would imagine this is not the best engine in the world to utilize such a unique architecture and is probably harder to work around in regards to the ESRAM.
I could be completely wrong however.
I could be completely wrong however.
That doesn't sound like something that you can implement transparently on the engine-agnostic RTE or driver level. From what I know about renderers, the renderer has to be built with awareness of that approach. Nevertheless, since Respawn did build a custom renderer instead of using vanilla Source, I honestly wonder why this approach wasn't viable.
Targets 60fps, just like cod, just like killzone, just like bf4.
From what I've seen of this gen, the more taxing games drop huge frames consistently
Basically this.
It was the correct decision when they made it, but it was a gamble that didn't pay off.
Still, I'm dumbfounded on how subpar the GPUs are in the new consoles
sweetvar26
Member
Absolutely.
Both the consoles just came out and they both are struggling in getting visuals at 1080p while the X1 is struggling a bit more.
It has been 8 years since the 360 and 7 years since the PS3 came out and we still can't get 1080p on all games natively. No matter what the reasons are, that is just disappointing.
I've never understood this point of view, or the whole concept of "maxing out the hardware". All consoles get maxed out immediately. It's not like the developers sit there with their game and say to themselves:
Dev A: "Hmmm... We could probably get away with some more AA here, or maybe increase the LOD on some of these models. What do you think B?"
Dev B: "Nah, save that for year 3"
It just makes no sense at all. Was Perfect Dark Zero the best the 360 could handle? Was Enchanted Arms the limits of PS3 graphics? Devs use all the available performance available to them, even at the start of the gen. All that's really changing is how efficiently they use it as the gen goes on.
BruiserBear
Banned
Let's not sugar coat things. Almost every game is 1080p on the PS4 so far. Far less have hit 1080p on the XB1.
Yeah I realized after the fact it was an XNA Studio feature not the SDK proper so I edited.
Its one thing to get use to new and exotic hardware compared to PCs x86 architecture and another thing when you have to handle bottlenecks like the ESRAM. Sure, its needed to widen the memory bus, but it ultimately restricts whats possible. The framebuffer cant go higher than the 32MB and if you have many post precessing effects you'll find out that 60 frames or even 30 in 1080p becomes impossible with complex games and renderers.
Oh, the good, old times, when experiments were done before shipping a product. It's baffling to me how a dev can say something like this and make it sound like it's a standard procedure for development.
Also, it's a good thing Respawn isn't handling the Xbox 360 version, I suppose they would have came up with something like 780 x 440 to fit the render targets in 10 MB (because, of course, evaluating different ways to do AA before shipping the game is too much effort).
Luft Vanship
Banned
Fanboys need to drop it aswell, there getting there hopes up and believe that Direct X12 is some how going to make everything better, first is the power of the cloud, then it was the suppose dual GPUs on the XBONE, its getting sad....
I guess they didn't expect so much attention on resolution, CoD games ran at bizarre res for a long time and no one seemed to care.
Similar threads
- Poll