-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The Last-Stop-Speak-In-Hyperbole Official Revolution Specs Thread
- Thread starter Jeff-DSA
- Start date
OG_Original Gamer
Member
heidern said:
I'm sticking with 1024x1024 as the number I want to see used, the fact that you pointed out the resolution of a standard T.V justifies it. Why do you think DVD video looks sharper, its being displayed at an higher resolution. Although I would expect the higher resolution to be downsampled to fit a standard T.V.
With a dose of AF, 2xAA, and 1024x1024 textures the games should look spectacular.
You want to see 1024 for what? Texture for a character so that you can wrap it around him 3-4 times? Texture for a building even though it could be just a repeated 64x64? This number means nothing _unless_ it's a hardware limitation which would prevent it's use. Well, as mentioned, I don't think there is such a thing or going to be.OG_Original Gamer said:
Multitexturing and mip mapping is where all your vram goes in modern engines anyways I guess.
yoopoo said:
Thanks, yoopoo. That comparison (512 vs 1024) is very telling.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
koam said:
No, but they have a higher resolution then your standard resolution T.V.
yoopoo said:
That's a cool comparison. 128 to 256 is clearly the biggest jump, from this example.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
yoopoo said:
Thank you.
Ultra Magnanimous
Member
OG_Original Gamer said:
No they don't.
yoopoo said:
512 vs 1024 is actually a lot closer than I thought it would be. They're almost indistinguishable upon casual view
Ultra Magnanimous
Member
Forgive my ignorance, but would running at 1080i show an improvement between 512x512 versus 1024x1024?
jman2050 said:512 vs 1024 is actually a lot closer than I thought it would be. They're almost indistinguishable upon casual view
Exactly what Nintendo was thinking, i'm sure, when they decided that the Revolution would be perfectly suited for gamers with standard def television sets. I have to squint to see a difference, really.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
Ultra Magnanimous said:
Then I must of misunderstood what I read.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
GDGF said:
Now only if they would pull the camera back a good distance and you'll notice the benefits of the higher resolution texture or pull in even closer.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
Did some searching, The video resolution on NTSC discs is 720 × 480 and on PAL discs is 720 × 576.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD#Technical_information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD#Technical_information
OG_Original Gamer
Member
Matt wrote:
So Matt what did developers tell you. Did they tell you polygon numbers, flops, bandwidth something a little more telling, or are we just guessing. Maybe all they have is Mhz(GPU).
A comment like this leads me to believe all they know is Mhz.
And then this comment.
Revolution may be the only single core processor console on the market in the next generation.
So Matt what did developers tell you. Did they tell you polygon numbers, flops, bandwidth something a little more telling, or are we just guessing. Maybe all they have is Mhz(GPU).
A comment like this leads me to believe all they know is Mhz.
And then this comment.
Revolution may be the only single core processor console on the market in the next generation.
Ultra Magnanimous said:
Yes, 1080i is high definition and has a resolution of 1920x1080. 720p is 1280x720 in comparison. When textures start getting closer to the screen you will have to start stretching the individual texels(pixels) of the texture over multiple pixels on the screen. Generally speaking you want around 1:1 correspondence between max texture resolution and screen resolution. That's why 512x512 is good for SDTV and 1024x1024 is required for HDTV and sometimes even 2048x2048 is a good idea. And, actually, with 720p you can more often get away with the 1024x1024 textures than with 1080i since it is a closer fit.
The thing you have to remember is that this isn't a choice between good and bad. For example even with SDTV 1024x1024 will be better than 512x512, even though the improvement is very small. The thing is, it is not a choice between one 512x512 and one 1024x1024. The choice is you can have one 1024x1024 texture or you can have four 512x512 textures. The point is, with SDTV the texture variety will produce better results than the one higher res texture. You also have to remember that not every texture will be in the highest resolution. VRAM and even the main RAM is limited, you have to maximise the resources you have. It is all a balancing act.
OG_Original Gamer said:
Yes, that would be the same as a regular television. The only difference is that the numbers you are posting are widescreen numbers. Standard TVs also come in widescreen format.
High Definition video will be available to the public (legally) next year when HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players hit the martket. Until then, DVDs will still play in 480i/p just like normal televisions.*
Furthermore, even if DVDs were in high-def (which they aren't), if you played them on a standard resolution TV they wouldn't be any sharper than anything else that is played in standard resolution because they would be use the same resolution.
AndoCalrissian
Member
Lot of hubbub about textures, very interesting. I read something earlier tonight, from the scanned article in this thread. about texturing. Here's a summary of the pertinent info:
Apparently, id has come up with a way that one ginormous texture can be used to cover an entire map, far bigger than any textures used in games prior to this. They call it the MegaTexture. The MegaTexture can also relate data such as surface traction, and what sound effect should be made by a vehicle driving over it. Not only that, but they say that a 6GB source texture can be compressed into 8MB in ram. Oh, and it runs on the same spec as Doom 3.
I don't know if they're crazy, or what, but if this is true then they just found the holy grail of texture compression. Alos, if true, this lets us know that a lot can be done with a little. I don't think Nintendo is going to have this technology (its another Carmack one) nor will I think Revolution will be seeing ports of any id properties (namely Quake IV, RtCW2, ET:QW), but it seems like it might be possible to port them, even with Revolution's lower specs compared to PS3 and Xbox 360. Food for thought.
The game looks amazing by the way with huge open areas and vehicles. Just in case you anti-Doom 3 types were wondering.
Apparently, id has come up with a way that one ginormous texture can be used to cover an entire map, far bigger than any textures used in games prior to this. They call it the MegaTexture. The MegaTexture can also relate data such as surface traction, and what sound effect should be made by a vehicle driving over it. Not only that, but they say that a 6GB source texture can be compressed into 8MB in ram. Oh, and it runs on the same spec as Doom 3.
I don't know if they're crazy, or what, but if this is true then they just found the holy grail of texture compression. Alos, if true, this lets us know that a lot can be done with a little. I don't think Nintendo is going to have this technology (its another Carmack one) nor will I think Revolution will be seeing ports of any id properties (namely Quake IV, RtCW2, ET:QW), but it seems like it might be possible to port them, even with Revolution's lower specs compared to PS3 and Xbox 360. Food for thought.
The game looks amazing by the way with huge open areas and vehicles. Just in case you anti-Doom 3 types were wondering.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Perhaps you were thinking of DVDs which are "enhanced for 16:9 TVs" and use the entire frame for a 16:9 image, which is then either stretched horizontally for a widescreen TV or vertically downsampled when viewed on a 4:3 SDTV. However, it still remains true thatOG_Original Gamer said:
koam said:
Shouldn't the damning wait until they announce an unreasonable price?malek4980 said:
Nightbringer
Don´t hit me for my bad english plase
I must say something about the RAM.
Isn´t 88MB of main RAM, is 96MB of main RAM (32+64) and with the Mosys 1T-SRAM-Q could be doubled without no problems, is more, I believe that the alpha kits uses normal 1T-SRAM instead of 1T-SRAM-Q.
Isn´t 88MB of main RAM, is 96MB of main RAM (32+64) and with the Mosys 1T-SRAM-Q could be doubled without no problems, is more, I believe that the alpha kits uses normal 1T-SRAM instead of 1T-SRAM-Q.
Do you guys think Nintendo will ever release a powerful console after revolution? Miyamoto said a while go that they reached (with GCN?) a level where they don't have to worry about hardware and can do whatever they want. If revolution is a massive success despite competing against PS3/360, why would Nintendo ever release another console? Unless that console offers something completely new of course, like - wait for it - holograms or whatever.
With this upcoming generation we'll always wonder how the games might look if nintendo went with more powerful hardware. For the generation after that I hope there's at least another 2-3 jump from revolution. Hell, just make it as powerful as PS3. With miyamoto talking about not needing more powerful hardware and all that diminishing returns talk I have a feeling that this might be it for Nintendo.
With this upcoming generation we'll always wonder how the games might look if nintendo went with more powerful hardware. For the generation after that I hope there's at least another 2-3 jump from revolution. Hell, just make it as powerful as PS3. With miyamoto talking about not needing more powerful hardware and all that diminishing returns talk I have a feeling that this might be it for Nintendo.
Chrono, I don't know, Nintendo is confusing. Why not make a system that's half as powerful as the competition? The way technology is the price would be less than half the cost to build as the other systems, thus giving a large price differential, without as big of a gap graphically.
elostyle said:
Yes, but only two to three times more powerful. With lazy devs you won't even notice a difference. I at least hope the Rev will be able to do some of the newer graphical effects.
elostyle said:
Yeah, but that's a pretty small % compared to the hardware costs. They could still make the system half the size of a 360 under my scenario, and so shipping costs would also be halved.
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
Is this it for Nintendo with power? No. They will expand slowly. This upcoming generation is a nice leap from this generation but its not as big as this generation from the previous. Graphics will hit a saturation point. Probably not for another 10 years but still, its coming. I expect them to follow this standard. New systems that come out that are maybe 1.5 to 2 times more powerful than the system before it. Enough to see a difference but not a dramatic leap.
Hollywood means special effects so I'm assuming the graphics card will specialize in special effects (water effects for example) and not push the envelope of polygons and textures. Game Cube isn't a powerhouse but it did do special effects nicely. I expect Revolution to do the same...but a little better.
Nintendo is all about the Benjamins. I expect the system to be cheap ($149) but the games to cost $50, like Game Cube. I wouldn't be surprised if they pushed it further and made it "premium" priced aka $60. Games that have shells included would cost at least $60, probably $70. I don't expect the virtual consoles to be cheap either. It would be more along the lines of $2 for NES, $5 for SNES, and $10 for N64. I wished it was cheap but in reality, those games would cause a lot of server traffic (downloads) so I highly doubt they would be cheap or the prices would be break-even.
Hollywood means special effects so I'm assuming the graphics card will specialize in special effects (water effects for example) and not push the envelope of polygons and textures. Game Cube isn't a powerhouse but it did do special effects nicely. I expect Revolution to do the same...but a little better.
Nintendo is all about the Benjamins. I expect the system to be cheap ($149) but the games to cost $50, like Game Cube. I wouldn't be surprised if they pushed it further and made it "premium" priced aka $60. Games that have shells included would cost at least $60, probably $70. I don't expect the virtual consoles to be cheap either. It would be more along the lines of $2 for NES, $5 for SNES, and $10 for N64. I wished it was cheap but in reality, those games would cause a lot of server traffic (downloads) so I highly doubt they would be cheap or the prices would be break-even.
Frankfurter
Member
The Experiment said:
A lot of server traffic? The biggest N64 cartridge was 64mbyte and afaik there were a few games with 2 of these cartridges, so that makes 128mbyte. "A lot of traffic" obviously is quite strechable
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
Frankfurter said:A lot of server traffic? The biggest N64 cartridge was 64mbyte and afaik there were a few games with 2 of these cartridges, so that makes 128mbyte. "A lot of traffic" obviously is quite strechable
Yeah but lets say 10,000 people download it within an hour span of time.
Ultra Magnanimous
Member
You think those prices are expensive!? Wow. If the virtual console roms are that price I'd be over the moon. My guess is $5, $10, $15.
AndoCalrissian
Member
Actually, they said the opposite about game pricing. They'd rather do games that range from $20-50 depending on the content. Huge games like Mario and Zelda would still be $50 ($60 if they have special editions like TP will), but smaller games like Brain Training or Wario Ware would cost less. We'll see if it happens, but it would be nice.The Experiment said:
Given the supposed weakness of the console/similarity to GCN, the development costs would be lower than the other consoles which might make this more feasible.
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
AndoCalrissian said:
I'm just basing that on how Nintendo never makes cheaply priced software. Even their Player's Choice was more expensive than Greatest Hits or Platinum Hits. Nintendo isn't known for cheap software. I doubt we'll see regular Nintendo games go for any less than $50 or $60. Maybe low budget filler like Brain Training could go for $40 or $35.
Gahiggidy
My aunt & uncle run a Mom & Pop store, "The Gamecube Hut", and sold 80k WiiU within minutes of opening.
By the way, is there still a chance we can still have a massive # polygons in the Revolution? If the GPU is fast enough, will the lower RAM and CPU hold the polygon perfermance back in any way?
That's what I'm most looking forward to in respect to better graphx, lots and lots of polygons.
That's what I'm most looking forward to in respect to better graphx, lots and lots of polygons.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
And if they were totally unconcerned with hardware, why the improvements over GCN at all? It seems easy to believe that if this route is successful for them, they could do something similar in a few years, which would be a full generational improvement relative to Revolution at a similar cheap price. There's also the matter of any new control elements they wish to standardize.Chrono said:
Given the developer comments at IGN, it doesn't exactly suggest a polygon powerhouse. What I'm curious about now is what can be done with the polygons. I remember two big points in the GCN vs Xbox arguments of 2000 and 2001 were the number of local lights and texture layers per pass. Even with a 0 increase in clock speed, improvements in things like those could give an improved look.Gahiggidy said:
AndoCalrissian
Member
I know. And they did sell the Classic NES series for like $30. I was just kind of saying what they did, and giving a possible reason for it. I'd like it to happen, but we'll just have to wait and see.The Experiment said:
AndoCalrissian
Member
Polygon numbers will no doubt increase, but I think the most important thing graphically is shader support.Gahiggidy said: