Quantcast

Page 23 of 104 FirstFirst ... 131920212223242526273373 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 345 of 1557

Thread: PS2 vs Dreamcast Graphics

  1. #331
    Outrunner
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    620
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by azonicrider View Post
    Andromeda is constantly rejecting anything that makes the Dreamcast sound impressive.
    He rejects *everything* that makes anything sound impressive. Because they involve going around the hardware limit and doing tricks. But in computing, coding and especially in drawing graphics, that is EXACTLY how you manage to do impressive stuff - not by doing something impressive, but by figuring out a trick that allows you to get an impressive result. This has been true since the beginning. Sample playback on the C64 is a trick. 8 channel audio on the Amiga is a trick. Smooth scrolling in EGA is a trick. Parallax scrolling is a trick on all hardware that doesn't outright specify scroll values for each background line (instead you just change scroll registers manually timed to the horizontal retrace). Zoom-in image galleries on websites are built using a trick (a high-res image is cut as the background of an overlay, and it moves its position according to the mouse - and in pre-css2 browsers you also had to manually adjust the background too). Cel shading on Jet Set Radio was a trick. Transparency in pre-DX11 computer hardware is a trick (but the Dreamcast could handle it). Collision detection in shoot-em ups have to be done with tricks so they don't require exponentially more computing with each onscreen bullet. FMV on the Sega CD is a trick, in fact any pre-rendered background on the Megadrive is a trick since it could only handle tilemaps. The Death Egg boss in Sonic & Knuckles is a trick - it's just a background, with small sprites for the fingers. But the Sonic 2 Death Egg boss was a trick too - it was built out of many small sprites.

    And so on and on and on.

    All of these are just ways of getting around limitations. If someone can find a way to do bump mapping on the C64 (it has been done), then the C64 is capable of doing bump mapping. The only question is whether is it worth it in regards the limits you have on the given hardware, and what else you want to do (eg. does it take up too much space or power from other more important things).

    On the Dreamcast, this was probably why you didn't see bump mapping often - just not enough juice in the box, next to running the game, transforming all polygons, handling physics, etc.

  2. #332
    Hard Road! ESWAT Veteran Barone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    6,817
    Rep Power
    142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Team Andromeda View Post
    GT 3/4 Polygons models destroy both those games and there's more than 2 cars on screen . GT 3 on the PS 2 also have a great Heat Haze effect something which I never saw in any DC racer.

    Games like GT 3, DMC and MGS 2 (demo) came out in 2001 not years latter . It was quite clear early in, that the Snes had issues with sprites to that of the Mega Drive .

    Never said more impressive 3D . Just way more polygons there is a difference .

    That's not quite true . Shenmue 1 and II had over 200 staff and some $50/60 odd million put into those titles . Code Veronica millions from SEGA and a Huge Team with SEGA,Capcom, and Nextech working on the title. Sonic Ad 170 staff (at key points) and millions and millions from SEGA. Sakura Wars 3 and IV again over 100 staff and millions spent on production . SEGA GT millions from SEGA Japan and years in development , PSO - Huge budget (not least on the music), Grandia II millions from SEGA and over 100 staff , Head Hunter millions from SEGA Europe and over 4 years in development , Skies Of Arcadia 100 staff and years in development , MSR millions from SEGA Europe and over 3 years in development .

    Not that it always takes millions and massive team to make a console sing. JSR was done in less than 12 months with a small team and production values
    Good points. Several PS2 racers also seem to have environment mapping while most of the DC ones doesn't.

    Ridge Racer V (2000) (60 fps) already had it in a limited extent (just like Le Mans 24 Hours on the DC) along with nice lighting effects and very detailed tracks which look better than most of DC racing games. However, as it seems to be running at 240i and, thus, have jaggies, it then looks like "complete ass" (since not having jaggies is the #1 graphical priority in everyone's list):
    @11:47 for non-stupid bump camera racing



    Gran Turismo 3 (2001) (60 fps) on the PS2 has some very good dynamic environment mapping which I fail to find in DC games:
    Especially around 1:14; 3:53; 7:18 and 9:30.


    This video is also a good showcase of GT3's graphics after 6:17


    You can see the heat effect you mentioned @4:25


    I also think that the lighting effects were good enough (unlike several DC racers):



    Test Drive (2002) (60 fps) also might have been programmed by hardware gods since it's not filled with jaggies, has good 3D models, some decent environment mapping and 6 cars + traffic on tracks "while looking like complete ass":







    Toca Race Driver (2002) (60 fps) has 4P split-screen support and runs at 480i.







    Initial D: Special Stage (2003) (60 fps) is another cinematic crap game for mainstreamers and has nothing on arcade gameplay despite being an arcade port by Sega.
    @2:37 for actual gameplay


    @5:50 and 10:31





    Grand Prix Challenge (2003) (60 fps), of course, looks like "complete ass" as well. With force feedback and widescreen support.






    A proper comparison:
    Cyber Troopers Virtual On: Oratorio Tangram (1999) (DC) (60 fps)



    Armored Core 2 (2000) (PS2) (60 fps)



  3. #333
    Hard Road! ESWAT Veteran Barone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    6,817
    Rep Power
    142

    Default

    From an interview with Richard Parr and Alex Fry about the Burnout series:

    Richard Parr: I'm Richard Parr, technical director at Criterion Games. I've been at Criterion since August 1999, I joined just as we started looking at the PS2. Criterion were one of the few, and possibly only companies outside of Sony to have PS2 hardware, which was one of the reasons I came here! I was lead programmer on Burnout 1 and did the same on Burnout 2, then moved into looking into both Burnout 3 and Black. I became technical director around the time that EA bought us.

    Alex Fry: I'm Alex Fry, senior engineer at Criterion Games. I joined in August 1998, and was involved in a fairly small tools and tech team before moving to the engine side of things, working on Dreamcast, then about a year later worked with Richard at looking at PS2. I worked as the lead... well, the only graphics engine coder on Burnout 1.

    Digital Foundry: So, what is the relationship between what you do and the Renderware platform that you used at the time? Were you part of the Renderware development effort, or did you have this engine that you would tinker with, exploit, and tune for performance?

    Alex Fry: Yeah all of the above, the great thing about being with Criterion is that we all sat in the same building. The core engineers working on the graphics side of it and myself became good friends, talked a lot and Criterion Games became a very trusted party and worked really closely with those guys to make sure the right decisions were made. We were pretty instrumental in the evolution of the Renderware tech from version three when we started working on PS2.

    Digital Foundry: Version three? So what about the previous versions?

    Alex Fry: The previous version was PC and Dreamcast.

    Richard Parr: Renderware was originally a software renderer for PC...

    Digital Foundry: Like Argonaut's BRender?

    Alex Fry: Yes, with the advent of PS2, Renderware became a very nicely layered rendering technology that we helped evolve.

    Richard Parr: We were at the cutting edge and we were encouraging the guys to keep their stuff customisable, then we'd customise it and feed it back to them about how it worked, and how we were finding it. Burnout 1 used a lot of the vanilla Renderware code just out of the box, with some optimisations.

    Digital Foundry: But right from the beginning, Burnout was always 60 frames per second...

    Richard Parr: Yes, it was always 60 frames. It was lacking a little in things like mip-mapping, but...

    Alex Fry: One of the decisions I always regret!

    Digital Foundry: Mip-mapping... well that probably cost you a million sales...

    Alex Fry: It made the game far too flickery, but by the time we realised that was the major cause, it was just too late. One of the questions we were always asked at developers' conferences was "Can we have your version of Renderware?" and I'd always reply with glee that "it's the same one you've got". We didn't write our own version of it. It was just out of the box, but we worked with the Renderware team to make sure we used it properly.

    ...

    Alex Fry: Once we got to the period of Burnout 3, Revenge and Black... the last PS2 games we did (the machine was epic!)... Renderware was still evolving, but we were looking at the next gen at that point. Internally we were working with EA Tech on a new version of it Ė you can call it that, but it's not got the same name Ė a new evolution of Renderware with the same ethos for use internally.

    Digital Foundry: Going back to what we were talking about at the beginning, you seem to lament the passing of the PS2.

    Alex Fry: It was an awesome piece of machinery!

    Richard Parr: Sony would tell you that it hasn't passed yet.

    Alex Fry: I cut my teeth on Dreamcast and unfortunately missed out on a lot of PS1 coding but the PS2 was a very cool machine.

    Digital Foundry: The lighting was incredibly good, but it's funny you should say that because when you fired a rocket launcher the screen filled with smoke. Alpha effects tend to slow the consoles down. Even Killzone 2 pares it back considerably compared to Black.

    Richard Parr: That was a bit of a PS2-driven decision really. You talk about the embedded eDRAM on 360, it's the same on PS2, you can just draw lots of pixels. What are we going to do with that? We'll cover the screen with lots of smoke.

    Alex Fry: Well you say that but the Xbox kept up as well. It rendered the world and the characters so much faster, because we went quite heavily with multi-textures at that point and the Xbox could do that better than the PS2, but it was slower at rendering particles. So whereas it might have only used a quarter of a frame rendering its characters and 75 per cent to the particles, the PS2 would've been more along the lines of 50-50... slower at drawing the world but faster at drawing the particles. It's another example of where the two trade-offs meet bang in the middle and it looks great on both.


    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/th...-one-interview
    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...rview-part-two

  4. #334
    Death Bringer Raging in the Streets Black_Tiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Vancouver
    Age
    40
    Posts
    3,816
    Rep Power
    80

    Default

    Trades offs catering to hardware strengths are how I figured DC games would have continued to evolve visually, just like other consoles. You wouldn't have seen the DC push the same things as far as the PS2 (likely polygons), but I'm sure many clever things could have been done artistically, let alone technically, using the DC's strengths.

    The biggest strength the PS2 had going for it was commercial success, just like the NES. If one of the other consoles from that generation had such a huge lead and kept going so strong for so long, then we would have seen that hardware pushed even further than we actually did.
    Quote Originally Posted by year2kill06
    everyone knows nintendo is far way cooler than sega just face it nintendo has more better games and originals

  5. #335
    I remain nonsequitur Shining Hero sheath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    39
    Posts
    13,313
    Rep Power
    127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    I see that you're badly trying to invalidate some proper observation and descriptive comparison as a good source of info, but that doesn't work with me.
    An important part of many scientific experiments rely mostly on careful observation and annotation of the details/phenomena observed. A lot of the fundamentals of actual Astronomy, for an example, is mostly built upon Kepler's notebooks. And, no, Kepler wasn't capable of measuring with discrete numbers most of his observations. However, they were and still are very valid and important notes to this day.

    I've described, previously, several details that can be observed in F-Zero GX and which aren't presented in most of Dreamcast games if any at all. You can also create a poll thread and ask people which game they think that looks better: DC's Daytona USA or GC's F-Zero GX. I think I know which will be the result, despite not having any extracensorial power.
    I also "guess" that people will often cite stuff like "texture", "lighting", "backgrounds" and "effects" when talking about their preferences.

    Of course, to produce any valid observation you have to be able to give away your special Sega's goggles; which is not always an easy task in this forum.
    Sorry bud, but you took my posting a Daytona 2001 and F-Zero GX video as some sort of absolute claim that I saw absolutely no difference in the games, which is false. What I said, and I will stand by it, is that judging from Daytona 2001 I don't see why a port of F-Zero GX would have to be obviously toned down on the Dreamcast. I then showed Magforce racing, which if I were to take the same sort of stance you are against me you think was the Best the Dreamcast could reasonably do. You don't think that do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    It probably COULD but you can't be sure that it would without a real F-Zero GX port or another similar futuristic racer featuring stuff like 4P split-screen at 60 fps as both games do.
    I agree, nothing is certain in this discussion besides.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    You always seem to miss the point that a lot of people like some effects as proper environment mapping that you usually don't see in DC games.
    You also miss the point that a lot of PC gamers back then were upgrading their video cards to actually be able to enable in their beloved PC games same/similar effects that the PS2/GC/Xbox games usually have over the DC ones.
    You also completely ignore the fact that as PCs improved so did the engines and even the development kits. I have said that the Dreamcast's CPU+FPU+GPU was fine even if it lasted into 2003, five years after its initial release. For some reason you take this and run it onto the absurd, that I won't compare later PS2 games to the Dreamcast library. What I have always been saying is that this is not a 1:1 hardware comparison. Taking games developed on later more advanced engines/systems and comparing them to games on less advanced engines/systems can only be done in context with general improvements in the industry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    Now, let me tell you something: this isn't a fact and actually it sounds awfully biased from your side.
    Taking more advanced games than even the same system were showing at the time as some sort of proof that the Dreamcast could not, in the absolute sense, keep up is unbiased? And yes, I do think it is a fact that the Dual Shock's second analog stick became an easy way for developers to get away with inferior camera AI while targeting better graphics instead. Rather than ripping my head off for it, why not give me a couple of examples to the contrary? I am thinking of the GTA games, most other Sandbox games I have sampled, Oni (an early third person shooter), and the Bloodrayne games. All of these games forced me to control the camera or deal with issues that even Sonic Adventure doesn't have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    Again, I see that you desperately try to thrash any honest descriptive observation so you can keep forcing your own biased ones. That's a trick which usually don't work with me that easy.
    Believe it or not, most of minded gamers can eyeball PS1 games from PS2 games and PS2 games from PS3 games without any assistance or extracensorial power. Wow.
    No, you ran what I wrote to the absurd again. It is possible for your "minded" gamers to eyeball polygon counts and resolutions? It doesn't seem like that is so possible that you are justified in accusing me of denying facts, again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    Be my guest:

    "Gentlemen!

    I'd like to answer a few of your questions regarding GP Challenge.

    Firstly I'd like to absolutely guarantee you that these screenshots are indeed taken from the PS2. You will get absolutely this and then some from the actual game and in fact these shots are taken directly from the game several weeks ago prior to final graphics. I should explain that the reason for the apparently high resolution of the screens is that our graphics engine generates images internally at a higher resolution than your TV can natively display. So the final on TV image is the antialiased result of the high resolution image you are seeing on your PC monitor. With its final lighting, the real, final game on PS2 really does look better than these today. Itís not like a certain other recently released PS2 racer!

    Also Iíd like to confirm that the game runs at a constant 60 frames/second regardless of how many of the 22 cars are on screen and how many effects are being generated. PS2 is both complicated and versatile and it has taken a project with time on its side to allow us to extract full results.

    We have really tried hard to push PS2 to the limit on this game whilst still progressing the gameplay and style that people enjoyed so much on Dreamcast TestDrive:Lemans. We set out to make an F1 game that fans of the GranTurismo series would feel genuinely justified in wanting and enjoying. We believe it is the first console racing game that really does rival GT3 visuals and exceeds it in pure motor racing feeling. It feels ferocious for experts (far from Ďlite F1í as mentioned in the forum!) but also has modes to encourage those new to racing and Formula 1! Without doubt you will notice a massive difference between GrandPrix Challenge and every other console F1 game released to date.

    Happy Racing,



    Andrew Carter
    Executive Producer: GP Challenge. "

    "Hey Seb, Monkey and GTMax,

    Thanks for your comments!

    I totally understand any doubts as I and many on the GP Challenge team are also sick and tired of gimmick ridden sub standard racing games being advertised as amazing.

    It makes our life difficult when we have something genuinely awesome. It's really a shame because so many make false claims in this and other racing genres that it is hard to be heard through the noise sometimes.

    I only ever get involved in these forums in this way when I'm certain racing fans will not be disappointed and then we have to make some noise!

    We're really proud of this game and I promise it really does look better running on PS2 today than in the shots. It has gameplay to match as well.

    Regarding the number of cars, GT3 used to have me in awe, but since it was made several years ago we have made a real discovery on PS2 that means our game pushes close to double the polygons and more than 3 times everything else of that game. It is actually a unique 'technology feature' in GP Challenge right now that allows 22 cars with more individual detail than GT3's 6 cars at 60fps. By the way in GPC all the AI cars in the game drive with the same full physics model as the player car so they are not at all simplified either."


    "Hi max,

    A few stats for you,

    Raw car model - 8000 Polys
    With reflections / lighting - 20000 polys

    Total max displayed on screen including all cars / scenery 200,000 - 300,000 @ 60fps in game depending on the scene."



    Let me do the math for you, sheath:
    200,000 x 60 = 12 million polygons per second
    300,000 x 60 = 18 million polygons per second
    .


    "N1SMO,

    Thanks!

    As for damage, there are real physical reactions from the car including spinning, getting one or more wheels airborn and flipping in extreme cases. Wheels and wings sustain visual damage and have very cool physics when broken off in a collision. You can still limp home to the pits on 3 wheels (lots of understeer though!).

    The three selectable handling levels (Beginner, Intermediate and Expert) adjust the damage thresholds so Beginner cars are pretty sturdy and Expert cars are quite brittle.

    There is an overriding theme in the game of 'one size does not fit all', so handling can be selected from the following and subtly effects many other in game parameters:

    Beginner - just that for those new to racing and F1.
    Intermediate - Arcade style, but still with a realistic basis.
    Expert - sim (GT) style."

    This was all in the first page of this topic:
    http://web.archive.org/web/200211272...threadid=71733

    Sadly, the second page is not archived but we have quotes provided in other forums at the time:
    "Just a note on the antialiasing - I can't let too many of our techniques out, but the game runs at 640X960 pixel resolution - realtime supersampling. Almost all 'normal' PS2 games are still using 640X480 and the original early ones were a two raw fields of 640X224 - so we have a 4X improvement in resolution compared to early PS2 games and 2X most of the current others (including games on other console platforms)."
    http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...19&postcount=5

    About Andrew Carter: http://www.mobygames.com/developer/s...eloperId,2746/

    Interview with Melbourne House about GPC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltCbt9Hkqws | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbbPtkwQbhg

    GPC Q&A:
    "It is very difficult to have 22 very detailed cars with full physics and AI simulation running on richly detailed tracks at a nonstop 60 frames per second with no slowdown. Achieving this with wet weather and replays was particularly challenging, and we don't know of any other title that manages this feat."

    "When we started GPC we really set out to push the PS2 hardware. We wanted to achieve a level of graphical splendor at least equal to Gran Turismo but with the great effect of a 22-car racing field. This was very difficult. In the end it meant discovering a special graphics technique of PS2 that nobody else seems to yet know about. Basically it means we have almost twice the polygon and simulation capacity of any other PS2 title. Eye candy therefore is a big wow-factor in GPC. First the game runs at a constant 60 frames per second with zero slowdown ever. It also runs at double the resolution of many other PS2 titles. We have the most complete and detailed F1 car models (more than 11,000 polygons per raw car model, 20,000 polygons with multipass effects) running on the most complete and detailed F1 tracks (more than 500,000 polygons per track) yet. Add to this dynamic weather effects including variable-strength rain composed of up to 10,000 individual particles, sunny to wet transitions, dynamic environment mapping, per-pixel road lighting, and full-on wet-weather spray effects with all 22 cars generating up to 1,000 spray particles. We have multipass rendering for graphical effects such as reflection of real trackside environments and reflection on track surfaces. Actually there are tons of subtle and not-that-subtle effects in the game. It's "particle city" out there on the track! Achieving this with a full field of 22 cars at a nonstop 60fps is an achievement we are extremely proud of. Take a look at the stunning replay cameras--they are better than TV and show the full graphical beauty of GPC."

    " It was very difficult to be honest. There was slowdown in the game until the last days of development. There were times in the last few months of development when I didn't know for sure if we could solve all the technical hurdles. But in the end, each time we hit a wall with PS2 performance we found a new way of exploiting the hardware to make it go faster. That is really both the cool thing and sometimes the nightmare of PS2--there is always another way, another approach to get more from it. It can be very time consuming, and in the end the development schedule and our ingenuity are the only limitations."

    http://www.gamespot.com/articles/mel.../1100-2912020/


    Now, sheath, please, tell me how I'm a liar and a troll when I just layout the truth during the entire thread: DC's graphics capabilities are NOT on par with the PS2's.
    Yep, I have had Grand Prix challenge on my radar for some time now. I even have a book mark:
    http://www.gamespot.com/articles/mel.../1100-2912020/

    In these quotes you have bolded yourself you see Melbourne House, which always developed the most advanced engines, did it again on the PS2 with Grand Prix Challenge. Are you claiming that all or most other PS2 racers were up to this performance level? I have already admitted that "in a vacuum" benchmarks for the PS2 are just about triple that of the Dreamcast's peak performance. Then I looked at polygon counts for known games and found that these games were not performing at that level and proceeded from there. How this offended you so is honestly beyond me, other than the fact that I already learned not to question any of your impressions on 3DO or PS1 games even a little.

    More fun with numbers from the first page of the 6th gen page:
    "Let see, if the Dreamcast can render more polygons then it can store, and I will use 6 mpps as an example:

    6,000,000 (polygons) / 60 (frames per second) = 100,000 polygons per scene
    100,000 x 40 Bytes (size of polygon) = ~4 MB

    Since the Dreamcast only has 8 MB of video memory, that is a lot of memory!

    8 MB - 1.2 MB (640x480x16-bits double buffered frame buffer) - 4 MB (polygon data) = 2.8 MB

    Only 2.8 MB left for textures, and even with VQ compression that is not very much. At 3 mpps per second, there is 5.8 MB available for textures, and that is much better. Just shows you, that there is not much point in creating a game engine on the DC that does more than 3 million polygons per second. Anyway 90 percent of the developers out there cannot even get over a million polygons per second on the Dreamcast."

    How do you suppose, with 4MB of VRAM, the PS2 was supposed to normally function at or above this level? Why is it so obvious to you that the PS2, with 4MB of VRAM and hundreds of games that run at 240/224 lines (as your Melbourne House interview agrees with), completely outclasses the Dreamcast in graphical capabilities in the actual library? Is the answer streaming from Main RAM and how many games actually did this? Why is this such a super morbidly nasty thread? I don't like the PS2's graphics because of the majority of its games, why is this so offensive to you?
    Last edited by sheath; 01-28-2014 at 02:30 PM.

  6. #336
    Raging in the Streets azonicrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    2,588
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    I love how you can label any game as 60 FPS, even if they don't necessarily run at 60 FPS and more like 30 FPS.
    Certified F-Zero GX fanboy

  7. #337
    Outrunner
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    620
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Dear or Alive 2 was pushing 5 million polys on the Dreamcast from what I remember, and pretty sure that it was running at 60fps.

    Can't you update the VRAM during rendering though? Render the background, then swap the command list to rendering the foreground. I know that this wasn't possible on the Megadrive and Saturn since their VDPs stopped rendering when the VRAM was written to, but the Dreamcast uses totally different off-the-shelf parts, not Sega designed ones...

  8. #338
    Hard Road! ESWAT Veteran Barone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    6,817
    Rep Power
    142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Sorry bud, but you took my posting a Daytona 2001 and F-Zero GX video as some sort of absolute claim that I saw absolutely no difference in the games, which is false. What I said, and I will stand by it, is that judging from Daytona 2001 I don't see why a port of F-Zero GX would have to be obviously toned down on the Dreamcast.
    So you maybe need to see a doctor and check your eyes.
    F-Zero GX has a shitload of graphical effects that DC's Daytona doesn't have, as well as a track filled with bump mapping while on the DC all that we saw was a single coin using it or stuff like that.

    Most (if not all) of those effects would eat a lot of CPU time on the already weaker DC's CPU. They would probably also cause problems to the bandwidth capacities of the DC. To not talk about GC's big advantage in terms of RAM. Oh, an the trackside buildings aren't shoe boxes like in most of the DC racers.

    Yeah, the infinite untapped processing power of the SH4 would handle all of that without a doubt and also without a single hit in the visuals or frame rate. Good Lord...


    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    I then showed Magforce racing, which if I were to take the same sort of stance you are against me you think was the Best the Dreamcast could reasonably do. You don't think that do you?
    Of course not. I'll just repeat that: it's the best the DC actually did with a similar game back in 2000. Just like PS2's Wipeout Fusion is MUCH less impressive than MagForce Racing but it's the best that the system did in a similar game in the same time frame we're considering in that particular case (2000-2003).
    Wipeout Fusion is 30 fps and only has 2P split screen support; the textures actually look worse than on Wipeout 3 on the PS1 IMO.

    All things considered, MagForce Racing is a quite competent game IMO. Its physics model is probably more complex/better than both F-Zero GX and Wipeout Fusion, and this is coming from a small unknown Germany company.



    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    You also completely ignore the fact that as PCs improved so did the engines and even the development kits.
    No, I don't ignore that. The thing is that, unlike you, I don't believe in a magical untapped power that would came from nowhere to save the DC's hardware from its own limitations and bottlenecks.


    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    I have said that the Dreamcast's CPU+FPU+GPU was fine even if it lasted into 2003, five years after its initial release.
    IMO it depends on what you consider to be "fine" in the context of a struggling platform like the Dreamcast was.
    It would be "fine" to keep bombing hard in Japan. It would be "fine" to receive half-assed ports from the other platforms with reduced content thanks to its "brilliant" medium.
    It would be "fine" to look outdated when compared to the other systems using all sorts of graphical effects, 'cause that's the way the industry went by the time.
    It would be fine to run NAOMI and watered down NAOMI 2 ports.
    It would be fine to run ports from 2D games.
    That's all that I can think of right now.


    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Taking games developed on later more advanced engines/systems and comparing them to games on less advanced engines/systems can only be done in context with general improvements in the industry.
    You keep finding excuses to not admit that the DC hardware was handicapped by itself when compared to the other systems.

    There's actually a limit to the "magic of evolving SDKs and programming tools". The Wii is a prime example of it (no, I'm not saying that the DC was THAT underpowered).

    The older Mega Drive remained technically competitive in the long run against the SNES not by a miracle from SDKs. It did well 'cause it had some significant advantages over the SNES hardware and 'cause those advantages remained important during that generation.
    The same for the PS1 against the N64 (also a lot thanks to the Nintendo nazi-policies for the developers).


    Now, please, tell me what are the significant advantages of the DC hardware over the PS2's? And over the GC and Xbox?
    Also, please, tell me which ones would be definitely significant in the long run considering the way the industry evolved in that generation?
    A said major advantage that the DC hardware design had over the PS2's in that it was "easier to develop for". But how long do you think it would have helped the DC? Much longer than 2001, when GT3 was released and considered the best looking console game available? Much longer than 2002 when the PS2 already had games like Burnout 2 taking advantage of its superior performance at rendering particles and also taking advantage of its far better fill-rate and bandwidth figures?
    How many units the DC had sold by 2001?

    Now, on the disadvantages.
    Multi-texturing became a must to all good looking games around 2002/2003, be them console or PC games. Multi-texturing is a nightmare on the DC.
    Particle-effects became a must to all good looking games around 2002/2003, be them console or PC games. Particle-effects are a nightmare on the DC.
    Sand-box games reached fame and glory in that gen. It's also a nightmare with DC's amount of RAM.
    The "cinematic crap" content in games also became a must in that gen, so I suppose we would be having multi-GDs releases more and more often, or just cut down versions. YAY!
    Going a bit further, the dual analog sticks controllers also became standard, so we would make the DC owners happy by requiring them to by a new controller. YAY!
    ...


    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Taking more advanced games than even the same system were showing at the time as some sort of proof that the Dreamcast could not, in the absolute sense, keep up is unbiased?
    God...
    You claimed you wanted FACTS, I gave you them and now...
    Also, uh, what about this?
    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    I guess since that's EA's article this isn't an uncommon practice. Still, there's a lot of assumptions in that figure. Do we have a single confirmed developer quote of any Xbox, Gamecube or PS2 game surpassing 5 million polygons per second? I have no delusions that the Dreamcast wasn't going to achieve that in a sustained way, but from what I've seen the later consoles benefit more from their RAM advantage than from any clear rendering advantage.
    Guess what? We have it now, sheath, but you *clearly* chose to ignore it in order to preserve the DC myth.


    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    And yes, I do think it is a fact that the Dual Shock's second analog stick became an easy way for developers to get away with inferior camera AI while targeting better graphics instead. Rather than ripping my head off for it, why not give me a couple of examples to the contrary?
    *sigh*
    If you had payed attention to my posts rather than overreact to them you'd know that I had already given the examples: FPS or TPS games. There are TONS of them, to begin with.


    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    I am thinking of the GTA games, most other Sandbox games I have sampled, Oni (an early third person shooter), and the Bloodrayne games. All of these games forced me to control the camera or deal with issues that even Sonic Adventure doesn't have.
    You seem to be gifted to *always* select the worst non-DC games in all possible aspects...


    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    No, you ran what I wrote to the absurd again. It is possible for your "minded" gamers to eyeball polygon counts and resolutions? It doesn't seem like that is so possible that you are justified in accusing me of denying facts, again.
    Weren't you repeatedly complaining about the PS2 jaggies just a few posts ago? I think that's you eyeballing the resolution of PS2 games, right?
    Too bad that you can't differ shoe boxes-buildings in Crazy Taxi from the proper looking ones in Burnout 2 though... 'Cause that "miracle" occurs thanks to higher poly 3D models.


    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    In these quotes you have bolded yourself you see Melbourne House, which always developed the most advanced engines, did it again on the PS2 with Grand Prix Challenge. Are you claiming that all or most other PS2 racers were up to this performance level?
    I'm not claiming anything. I'm posting links to primary sources and you're ignoring/dodging them, that's how this stuff is going here.

    What Grand Prix Challenge actually *proves* is that the PS2's hardware, which you love to thrash, was up to that performance level; unlike you have strongly claimed since ever.


    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    I have already admitted that "in a vacuum" benchmarks for the PS2 are just about triple that of the Dreamcast's peak performance. Then I looked at polygon counts for known games and found that these games were not performing at that level and proceeded from there. How this offended you so is honestly beyond me,
    Don't be a hippocrat.
    To keep ignoring some sources while promoting others for your own benefit is also offensive IMO. To keep spreading wrong and non-sourced info is also offensive IMO. To tag people which have different tastes as "mainstreamers" for no good reason is also offensive IMO.

    The game Grand Prix Challenge is FAR from being a "vacuum" scenario and, actually (IDK if you read any of those sources that I've provided, really); its physics engine, for an example, is more demanding than Le Mans' on the DC according to Melbourne House themselves.

    Also, why, oh, WHY you keep hiding the Crazyaces's source regarding polygonal performance comparison for PS2/GC/Xbox/PC???


    That's academic stuff by EA... Is it not good enough for you, sheath? Or the "problem" is that it shows the PS2 performing closely to the GC? Does it hurt your DC narrative so badly that you don't want to share it in a thread like this???









    In this new context, let's check some of your statements from the 6th gen thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Everything else took advantage of GPU effects to "enhance" the graphics. Other than that, the entire generation was floating within Dreamcast polygon counts. So aside from bump mapping or GPU specific environmental effects the Dreamcast version would have been the same but probably with better textures.
    Please, tell me how the DC would run THE SAME Grand Prix Challenge game with better textures.


    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Technically the PC surpassed the Dreamcast within months of the Dreamcast's Japanese launch. In technical game achievement the PC did not surpass the Dreamcast's top games during its lifetime.
    I'm just quoting this one for the sake of its mind-boggling potential.


    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Resident Evil 4 on PS2 running at 900k polys per second at 30FPS while Shenmue's and Berserk's polygon counts were similar with better textures and lighting shows that the Dreamcast was in the same league as the rest.
    Oh, look at you eyeballing/inventing/inflating polygon counts to promote the magical untapped power of the DC's hardware!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    The other systems were never going to match the Dreamcast in fillrate, ever.
    This link that I provided in this thread says that you're wrong about that: http://www.segatech.com/technical/consolecompare/


    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    By all means please explain exactly how much slower the Dreamcast's CPU is in comparison to the Xbox and Gamecube CPUs.
    Again, that same link has some interesting numbers for you: http://www.segatech.com/technical/consolecompare/



    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    The Dreamcast's hardware capabilities outperformed Quake III's upper limits handily.
    Hummm, sheath's Dreamcast vs Sega's (a.k.a. real) Dreamcast:
    Quote Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118 View Post
    We could just look at benchmarks from the time frame if that's your concern:

    http://www.thedodgegarage.com/3dfx/bench.htm

    This one uses a 1GHz Celeron which is from 2001, though there were Pentium III's in 1999 that were clocked at 900MHz which would probably give similar or better performance.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...oo3,100-6.html

    This is a review of the Voodoo 3 cards when they came out and how they compare to other cards on the market. Now the cards do have issues when he does test with AGP-Texturing, though again we're at resolutions well above what the Dreamcast is running at for those tests.

    http://www.3dgw.com/hardware/benchmarks.php3

    This one is a bit more enlightening for comparing to the Dreamcast. This one benchmarks Quake III with Geometery on High, texture detail on max and a few other settings. It's also using a 450 MHz Celeron, which was available in 1998. When we look at the frame rates we see that the Voodoo3's (and the other cards he uses in the test), are smoking the Dreamcast. The Dreamcast struggles to maintain 30fps at 640x480 on Quake III with lower geometry detail and running on a custom engine for the Dreamcast. At that same resolution all the other cards are approaching the 60fps mark with higher settings.

    There's also this from October of 1999, 1 month after the Dreamcast launched in the US:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...vidia,134.html

    This is a review for the first GeForce card. You can see when they get to Quake III it again just blows right past the Dreamcast port. At max settings at 640x480 it's running at around 80fps. The Voodoo 3's don't handle Quake III on max settings but when they have it on normal settings both cards again are running that game much better than the Dreamcast did.


    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Anyway, the biggest thing that bugs me about the PS2 is the controller, the second biggest is the virtually formless texture mapping in 99% of the games.
    Again, I'm just quoting this one for the sake of its mind-boggling potential.



    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    The bottom line is the Dreamcast was more capable of surpassing 3 million polygons per second than the PS2 and the entire generation floated around 1 million with a few exceptions on each platform.
    Again, sheath's Dreamcast vs Sega's Dreamcast: sheath's Dreamcast wins!!!!!!

    One more primary source for you to add to your ignore list:

    ""No matter what game you are working on, no matter what platform, it is always a challenge trying to make everything you want to put in the game fit into whatever platform you are developing for," said Kudo Tsunoda, the game's producer. "The great thing about working on the PS2 is that we're suddenly able to get a lot more of what we actually want to put in the game, in the game. It is a great piece of hardware. Having a lot less restrictions makes development easier in many ways.""

    ""But there are definitely things that make developing for the PS2 more challenging," Tsunoda continued. "First off, it is a new piece of hardware. We had to spend extensive R&D time figuring out the best way to develop the AM: AA2 engine for this new version. Fortunately, 3DO gave us enough development time to make sure we are creating a technology base that can really push the PS2 to its limits, even for a first-generation product."

    "The game will run at a brisk 60fps in both the single-player and two-player modes, allowing for a sharp, swift game pace. When asked about the game's technical prowess, Tsunoda was quick to boast: "The game will feature full-scene antialiasing - this eliminates all the jagged edges you see on a lot of PS2 models. We're also rendering 80,000 polys a frame at 60fps, which equates to 5 million polys a second. Air Attack 2 will also feature real-time shadows - all objects have unique shadows that are dynamically cast on other objects in the game. So when the helicopter flies under a giant plant, you can see the shadows passing over the helicopter.""

    Published By:
    3DO
    Developed By:
    3DO
    Genre:
    3D, Action, Shooter, Team-Based, Third-Person
    US Release Date:
    September 2000
    http://www.gamespot.com/articles/arm.../1100-2660875/



    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Yes, the PS2's VRAM was intended to be high speed cache,but it still needs to store the polygons and frame buffer I'm sure.
    It isn't supposed to store any polygon data. It's used for frame buffer, z-buffer, texture buffer, and CLUT AFAIK, "with the vector units being able to stream geometry through a dedicated channel parallel to CPU operations".



    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    I would hazard a bet that most PS2 games only use the 4MB for everything.




    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    My experience is very few games this generation even achieved a solid 30FPS, and even fewer managed 60FPS, most of which are on the Dreamcast or are graphically unimpressive games.
    Your experience is very far from the actual reality of that generation of games. And sounds biased too.



    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Yeah, those specs were as outrageous as the PS2's specs. I don't think any of these systems breached the 5 million per second mark.
    Since the DC didn't, any other system is not allowed to do so... Great.



    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    The point of the polygon counts discussion is that the marketing for the PS2 and Xbox, and to a lesser extent the Gamecube, have "proven" to people that these were more powerful than the Dreamcast when they apparently were_not.
    Several sources proved that the Dreamcast "apparently" was LESS powerful than those systems. For how long will you keep ignoring them, sheath???



    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    For whatever reason 4 to 5 million polygons per second was all any developer boasted of their engines for the entire generation.
    Aside from Gran Prix Challenge on the PS2, there must be several other games, especially on the GC and Xbox well beyond that mark. But feels like you don't want that to "happen", right?


    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    The PS2 got a lot of hype early on, and empty promises of games with 10 or even 20 million polygons per second, but that never happened.
    You're proved wrong in this thread. But feels like you'll not admit that since you had already "forgotten" about Crazyace's advice as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Meanwhile the Xbox swung with the trend of using bump mapping to improve lower polygon models' appearance.
    Sources???


    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Why do I want to discuss the technical matters? Because the assumptions floating around here and there on the Internet are more frequently wrong than the actual games demonstrate.
    So, uh, were you dismissing those "assumptions" by eyeballing games?
    What about your assumptions???



    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    other than the fact that I already learned not to question any of your impressions on 3DO or PS1 games even a little.
    It's not my fault if you ask for sources and then choose to ignore them at your own will in order to preserve your DC-biased narrative intact.



    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    More fun with numbers from the first page of the 6th gen page:
    "Let see, if the Dreamcast can render more polygons then it can store, and I will use 6 mpps as an example:

    6,000,000 (polygons) / 60 (frames per second) = 100,000 polygons per scene
    100,000 x 40 Bytes (size of polygon) = ~4 MB

    Since the Dreamcast only has 8 MB of video memory, that is a lot of memory!

    8 MB - 1.2 MB (640x480x16-bits double buffered frame buffer) - 4 MB (polygon data) = 2.8 MB

    Only 2.8 MB left for textures, and even with VQ compression that is not very much. At 3 mpps per second, there is 5.8 MB available for textures, and that is much better. Just shows you, that there is not much point in creating a game engine on the DC that does more than 3 million polygons per second. Anyway 90 percent of the developers out there cannot even get over a million polygons per second on the Dreamcast."
    I know that you quoted it from a Thenewguy's quote in another and feels like you don't know where it came from...
    Well, it happens that it came from the same sources that I've provided in this thread, here: http://segatech.com/technical/polygons/index.html




    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    How do you suppose, with 4MB of VRAM, the PS2 was supposed to normally function at or above this level?
    How? By NOT having the same misconception about the PS2 hardware and how a 3D game is rendered as you do.

    First, read this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Chilly Willy View Post
    Good Lord! I don't even know where to begin with this... first, you never render the ENTIRE display at once - you do it bits at a time. A scene made up of a total of 4 million polygons is NOT actually composed of 4 million polygons... it's made of maybe a few hundred different objects (maybe a few thousand at most) which are in turn made up of other things that are rendered a bit at a time. The DC is EASILY capable of rendering hundreds of millions of polygons in a single frame... as long as you don't need real-time display. Shoot, even the 32X is capable of hundreds of millions of polygons in a single frame - just give it a few days to render that frame.
    In short, IF you assumed that a polygon takes 40 bytes of memory to store, I can render 4 million polygons in a frame in just FOURTY BYTES!... just render the one polygon 4 million times and Bob's your uncle!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chilly Willy View Post
    I already did.

    Let's try again... a scene made up of (for example) 1 million polygons is not rendered as ONE BIG ARRAY OF ONE MILLION POLYGONS. That would be stupid. Let's pretend that those 1 million polygons are cubes... a cube can be rendered in as little as six polygons. So perhaps that 1 million polygons is really only six polygons rendered in 166,667 loops. Silly example, but it shows how you avoid huge amounts of polygons - break it into smaller pieces that are rendered one piece at a time, then show the whole thing when it's done. Perhaps half those million polygons are procedurally derived landscape polygons drawn a few thousand at a time. Maybe a quarter are foreground structures drawn one structure at a time. Maybe the last quarter are entities (players/NPCs/whatever) each drawn individually. In NO CASE do you EVER have a million polygons which are then rendered in a single operation.
    In case you were wondering, a player character with 2000 polygons is considered LOW DETAIL on a modern game. It's not uncommon for modern games to feature entities with tens of thousands of polygons, which modern boards COULD do all at once, but probably aren't... they're probably broken down into parts that can be moved or animated separately, like arms and legs and heads and hands and anything else that might change from one character pose to the next.

    Second, as I've already said above, the polygon data is NOT stored in VRAM on the PS2. You can also read this to have some idea of how the console which you thrash every day actually works (it's A LOT different from the DC):
    1) http://archive.arstechnica.com/revie...n2/m-ee-1.html
    2) http://www.philvaz.com/games/PS2.htm


    Third, as you'll probably ask about textures...
    Quote Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118 View Post
    PS2 can use it's Main RAM however if wants though. So it's really 32MB + that 4 MB cache. Though you have to share that 32MB with sound and program data as well.
    The PS2 has 2MB of audio RAM, so you don't necessarily have to share that 32 MB with "sound".
    Unlike on the DC, using the main RAM is actually feasible.


    Some "primary sources" regarding textures on the PS2 for you to add to your "Sources that I like to ignore in order to preserve my mythical narrative about the Dreamcast" list:

    "Reverend-IGN Tech fun again!: In the last chat you said that low video RAM was limiting things like the textures and anti-aliasing. Isn't there some way you can take some Main RAM and assign it to be video RAM? And if not, why?

    DavidBioWare Yes, the video memory situation has improved dramatically since last time.
    DavidBioWare The problem was that there was too little video memory to fit all our textures, and the machine can't use a texture unless it's specifically in video memory.
    DavidBioWare What we've found since then is that the PS2 has enough bus bandwidth to transfer each texture from main memory to video memory as it's needed.
    DavidBioWare That's on the order to 100s of Mb per second. We hadn't anticipated that the PS2 had that kind of brute horsepower on its bus. No other machine I've used does, including any PC or the Dreamcast.
    DavidBioWare We had to reorient our thinking after that. So now we have almost more texture memory than we know what to do with."

    http://www.ign.com/articles/2000/11/...hat-transcript


    "Regarding the quality of the textures that color the environments, Tsunoda had this to say: "The game will enjoy 128MB of texture data compressed down to 1MB at real-time. This means we will be able to create completely unique environments. No two parts of any level will look alike.""

    http://www.gamespot.com/articles/arm.../1100-2660875/


    Fourth, PS2's VRAM is significantly faster than the DC's.


    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Why is it so obvious to you that the PS2, with 4MB of VRAM and hundreds of games that run at 240/224 lines (as your Melbourne House interview agrees with), completely outclasses the Dreamcast in graphical capabilities in the actual library?
    You wouldn't ask that once you get a grasp of how the consoles of that generation actually worked and of which direction the industry was going; OR if you weren't ignoring sources like you have done OR if you could actually eyeball the differences of a shoe box from the Empire State Building while using your Dreamcast's goggles.



    Well, time to share some other interesting sources in the name of the "mainstreamers" in this thread:

    Naughty Dog Chat Transcript

    Question: What are your thoughts on the anti-aliasing problems with PS2?

    Jason Rubin: We have been working with the PS2 for quite a while now, and I think I have a pretty good idea of its strengths and weaknesses. We don't find the "anti-aliasing" issue to be that big of a concern. Yes, the Dreamcast has some hardware that does some pretty neat stuff mixing a few frames together to get a smooth screen. But I would take the PS2 polygonal strengths, which we are now seeing (after months of hard work!), over a little blurring any day.

    Question: Have you had any trouble working with the PS2 hardware? And what kind of tools have you been working on?

    Jason Rubin: We were very early on PS1. I think that we were the 30th project started. We were also EA's second Genesis title. Both of these starts happened before the hardware was on the shelf in Japan, and well before America was going to see the systems. This is a hard fight. New hardware is never complete. And even as it completes, you still have the uphill battle of fighting to do things that have never been done.

    The PS2 is hard as well. But this is not because the hardware is difficult, it is because there are more new things that can be done than ever before.

    We think that the jump from Genesis to PS1 is SMALLER than the technical hurdles between PS1 and PS2. This is NOT because the hardware is specifically harder, but because technology is really changing

    We went from trying to simulate everything cheap on the PS1 to actually being able to do it on the PS2. But we have never done these things before, and that is challenging the industry.


    Question: Do you think there will be any major advantages to the Dynamic hardware setup of the PS2 as opposed to traditional PC-esque hardware, it seems to making mainly problems for developers?

    Jason Rubin: Yes, I do think that there are advantages to the hardware setup of the PS2. The multiprocessor setup of the system allows the PS2 to do so many things at the same time (if programmed well) that the hardware is actually far more powerful than its spec. They say the X-Box is going to be either 600mhz or 1000mhz. The PS2 is only 300mhz. But if you can have your background engine running in 10% CPU and 50% VU1 time, then you have far more power.

    That is how we are doing our programming for the next game. I think that the problem with the current games (the ones you have seen) is that they have opted to take the easy way out and they are only doing CPU code.

    So think of it like this. They are actually leaving a significant part of the power of the system on the table. We plan to bring that power into the game.

    And yes, of course there will be more powerful systems in the future. That is how technology works. But the X-Box may not be that system.


    Question: In what ways do you think the PlayStation 2 will change gaming as we know it today? Do you think that it'll be revolutionary?

    Jason Rubin: The PS2 will first be evolutionary... and then later, revolutionary. First, you will see games that are similar to the past, but a whole lot better looking and smoother. Later, you will see games that do things that have never been done before.

    Broadband will have a lot to do with the Revolutionary part of the cycle. We will go beyond deathmatch, and beyond the glorified chat room of EverQuest and get true multiplayer online gaming with interaction. That is something we haven't seen yet.

    Question: How do you feel about the VRAM in the Ps2? Is it better than much of what's in PC's today because of its high speed? Or is it worse because of its tiny amount?

    Jason Rubin: The VRAM on the PS2 is both better and worse than the PC. Sure it is smaller. A LOT smaller. But it is also much faster, which allows for more polygons, and hence better usage of the texture space.

    I am not sure whether or not low polygon/high texture is better than high polygon low texture. And I guess that that is going to be the developers challenge on all systems this generation.

    We are not having a problem with the texture space at Naughty Dog. I guess only time will tell whether or not this is a problem for other developers.


    Question: Can you give us some tech info about Ps2?Is it really possible pushing 10+ million polygons/sec while applying FSAA, high quality textures and running a highly advanced physics engine?

    Jason Rubin: To answer your question directly: Yes, I do believe that that is possible. You are talking about 166,000 polygons a frame at sixty frames a second, and I not only believe that to be true. I KNOW it to be true.


    Question: Can you explain exactly why the lack of anti-aliasing and shimmering backgrounds seem apparent in the early batch of PS2 software?

    Jason Rubin: Yes: The PS2 gives you a raw frame buffer. It does not blend past frames with the current frame to create the blurry effect the Dreamcast gets. For a bad TV, the Dreamcast method is great. But on a good monitor, or with a RGB cable, the Dreamcast method is limiting because it tends to take away from your ability to get small details.

    The texture capabilities of the PS2 are very complicated. We have spent over 2 months simply looking at our options in regards to texture usage, and have found a good solution to the mip-mapping and filtering issues of the system.

    The early PS2 games did not have time to do this. That is why these games flicker horribly. With time, and effort, you can overcome the flickering issues to a great extent.

    I think that you see this with MGS2. There were not as many issues in this game as there were in the early release titles. Time will improve them all.


    Question: Jason talked about it a little earlier, but can we have your thoughts on the issues of anti-aliasing and mip-mapping on PlayStation 2? Also, some developers have said that getting the game running at 60hz and high-res will fix most of the problems? Can you elaborate on that?

    Andy Gavin: This PS2, like all the machines of this generation is an interlaced machine. This raises a lot of issues. Interlace is how TV's work. Essentially, they display about 640 x 240 pixels every 60 MHz field (at peak this is about 700x300).

    Interlace means that every other field is jittered up and down by half a pixel. One way to deal with this is to have a 640x480-frame buffer and just draw half the lines every field. However, this consumes a lot of VRAM.

    So most machines tend to allow you to draw a squashed half screen at 640x240 and every other line into each. However, either way, small horizontal features (particularly alternating dark and light horizontal lines) jitter because a 1 pixel high line only exists every other field. This is inherent in interlaced signals. So interlace has a sort of crawly look that has to be combated by using various filtering techniques.

    Fast moving objects also tend to tear, because they are moving at 60mhz but their lines tear by odds and evens. These are just the usual technical problems that us game programmers have to slog through.


    http://www.ign.com/articles/2000/06/...hat-transcript




    Another R&C 1 Interview

    What's your experience of working with the PS2 hardware? How hard do you feel you've pushed the system?

    Hastings: The PS2 has been a much bigger challenge than we initially anticipated. The multiple CPU architecture is especially difficult because the main processor and the two vector units each have two instruction pipelines.

    The only way to get anywhere near optimal results is to write assembly code that micro-manages all six pipelines, while also taking advantage of all the instruction and data caches. No-one has ever written a C compiler smart enough to handle even a fraction of this complexity, so you simply have to program your entire engine in assembly. We also had to handle all our collision detection and physics in assembly code, since the sheer
    number of moving objects in the game would have otherwise prevented us from running at 60Hz.


    Beyond pipeline issues, we also use the IOP chip to decompress data on the fly in order to get the most out of the RAM space. Then there is the issue of shuffling several megabytes of textures into VRAM through the DMA each frame. To put it simply, I don't think anyone has ever overstated the complexity of programming for the PS2. But, on the other hand, the Xbox libraries won't allow you anywhere near the actual hardware, so there is little room for optimisation. Plus, the Xbox doesn't have the high speed vector units of the PS2, which may be why even the best Xbox games run at 30Hz.

    I seriously doubt we would have been able to make Ratchet and Clank run at 60Hz on the Xbox without drastically reducing the number of moving objects. So, ultimately, I think we've made the best platform choice for our game.

    It's very difficult to put a number on how far we've pushed the PS2 at this point. If I had to estimate, I'd say Ratchet and Clank may use about 50% of PS2's maximum potential.

    http://www.insomniacgames.com/commun...nterview-Vault




    Melbourne House: Transform!

    Eurogamer: The key question is: how the hell did you manage to get the game looking so good on a format that most developers moan about getting results on?

    Andrew Carter: Thanks! Well, ya know, it's all right, we'll survive! Really there are three things though. We have a vision and a firm opinion about what should be possible, what is acceptable and how to approach it on PS2. Play to its strengths. I'm not sure why developers moan today about PS2. It's a hard platform to get started on, but only because it is unique and requires special approaches compared to other platforms. But that pays off later and actually, although industry hype might argue with this, no other console, even Xbox, can match PS2's flexibility, Vector Unit power or polygon drawing speed. We design everything to exploit those strengths.

    Lots of people will say they have great PS2 technology, but other than [Gran Turismo developer] Polyphony Digital, I usually don't think so! Our PS2 technology today is really great though, especially the visual and rendering systems, which I believe are the fastest and most powerful on PS2 - no one can display as many polygons at 60fps. Finally we have great artists that really work with the technical constraints and we try to balance art, technology and entertainment in equal measure.


    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/i_transformers_ps2



    Also:
    http://www.computerandvideogames.com...uise-part-one/
    http://www.computerandvideogames.com...ive-interview/
    http://web.archive.org/web/200509101...1728.19642.htm
    http://web.archive.org/web/200502180...1600.12301.htm


    And here's a quite extensive and detailed analysis of both Xbox and Gamecube (each page has links on their bottom for the other parts of the articles) (WARNING: Xbox-biased):
    Hardware Behind the Consoles - Part I: Microsoft's Xbox - http://www.anandtech.com/show/853
    Hardware Behind the Consoles - Part II: Nintendo's GameCube - http://www.anandtech.com/show/858

  9. #339
    End of line.. ESWAT Veteran gamevet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    6,355
    Rep Power
    87

    Default

    I love how this guy puts anandtech in its place about the power of the Gamecube hardware.

    http://www.anandtech.com/comments/858//41


    cubeguy2k5 - Monday, December 20, 2004 - link

    feel that anandtechs article on xbox vs ps2 vs gamecube didnt go in depth enough, guessed at too many things, and intentionally got others wrong, not sure where to discuss this at, would like to get a thread going.....

    "However details on this processor are sketchy at best but the information we've been able to gather points at a relatively unmodified PowerPC 750CXe microprocessor " - where did they gather this from? gekko isnt a PPC 750CXE or it would be marked as such.

    "The Flipper graphics core is a fairly simple fixed function GPU aided by some very powerful amounts of memory bandwidth, but first onto the architecture of the graphics core. Flipper always operates on 4 pixels at a time using its 4 pixel pipelines; each of those pipelines is capable of applying one texture per pipeline which immediately tips you off that the ArtX design wasn't influenced by ATI at all. Since the Radeon and GeForce2, both ATI and NVIDIA's cores have been able to process a minimum of two textures per pixel in each of their pipelines which came quite in handy since none of today's games are single textured anymore." - who told them that gamecube only has one texture unit per pipeline? it wasnt nintendo, i could just as easily say it has 2, doubling texel bandwidth....... who said it was fixed function?

    "Planet GameCube: In a recent IGNinsider article, Greg Buchner revealed that Flipper can do some unique things because of the ways that the different texture layers can interact. Can you elaborate on this feature? Have you used it? Do you know if the effects it allows are reproducible on other architectures (at decent framerates)?

    Julian Eggebrecht: He was probably referring to the TEV pipeline. Imagine it like an elaborate switchboard that makes the wildest combinations of textures and materials possible. The TEV pipeline combines up to 8 textures in up to 16 stages in one go. Each stage can apply a multitude of functions to the texture - obvious examples of what you do with the TEV stages would be bump-mapping or cel-shading. The TEV pipeline is completely under programmer control, so the more time you spend on writing elaborate shaders for it, the more effects you can achieve. We just used the obvious effects in Rogue Leader with the targeting computer and the volumetric fog variations being the most unusual usage of TEV. In a second generation game weíll obviously focus on more complicated applications."

    The TEV pipeline is completely under programmer control, so the more time you spend on writing elaborate shaders for it, the more effects you can achieve. COMPLETELY UNDER PROGRAMMER CONTROL MEANS NOT FIXED FUNCTION, and on fixed function GPUs you cannot do advanced shader effects in realtime can you? rogue leader and rebel strike use them EXTENSIVELY.... anandtech.... wheres your explanation?

    ill provide more examples later....



    "Julian Eggebrecht: Maybe without going into too much detail, we donít think there is anything visually you could do on X-Box (or PS2) which canít be done on GameCube. I have read theories on the net about Flipper not being able to do cube-mapped environment maps, fur shading, self-shadowing etc... Thatís all plain wrong. Rogue does extensive self-shadowing and both cube-maps and fur shading are not anymore complicated to implement on GameCube than on X-Box. You might be doing it differently, but the results are the same. When I said that X-Box and GameCube are on par power-wise I really meant it. " looks like a PROVEN DEVELOPER just proved anandtech is WRONG... nice..... factor5 was involved in the creation of cube, they know it better than ANYONE else, including anandtech....


    come on anandtech, i know you see this article... what about this?

    you clearly state that you believe xbox is ageneration ahead of gamecube technically, when you COULD NOT do any of the shader effects nor the amount of bumpmapping thats in rogue leader even, on a pre GF3 GPU, let alone rebel strike..... what about the water effects in rebel strike, mario sunshine, waverace, i do believe that in 2001, not one game had water even on pc, even CLOSE to waverace in terms of how it looked, and the physics behind it, and in 2002 there wasnt one game close to mario sunshine as far as water goes, wow!..... what about all the nice fully dynamic lighting in RE4, and rebel strike? you couldnt pull that off on a fixed function gpu could you? apparently they cant even pull it off on xbox, when halo2 has massive slowdown, mostly static lighting, an abysmal polygon count, coupled with lod pop in, and various other problems/faked effects.... nice, what about ninja gaiden ? same story, good character models, very bad textures, non existant lighting, shadows that seem to react to non existant lightsources that exist inside of walls..... cute.....

    http://www.geocities.com/cube_guy_2k5/ng3.jpg

    nice textures and lack of lighting... low polycount and invisible lightsources that seem to only allow ryu to cast shadows, not the environment, wow.... what bout the faked reflections used in the game?... neat
    A Black Falcon: no, computer games and video games are NOT the same thing. Video games are on consoles, computer games are on PC. The two kinds of games are different, and have significantly different design styles, distribution methods, and game genre selections. Computer gaming and console (video) gaming are NOT the same thing."



  10. #340
    Hard Road! ESWAT Veteran Barone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    6,817
    Rep Power
    142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gamevet View Post
    I love how this guy puts anandtech in its place about the power of the Gamecube hardware.
    Yep, I think it's heavily Xbox-biased but I found it worthwhile.
    I also dig the best looking GC games.

  11. #341
    Raging in the Streets azonicrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    2,588
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    Did they expect the Xbox to have 128 MB RAM in 2001?
    Certified F-Zero GX fanboy

  12. #342
    Hard Road! ESWAT Veteran Barone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    6,817
    Rep Power
    142

    Default

    I've never seen this game mentioned in PS2 graphics discussions but I think it has some great graphics, especially in terms of textures and colors. It's also available for the Xbox (a bit iffy frame rate) and GC with slightly improved graphics. This is also one of the best 3D platformers of that gen IMO.

    I-Ninja (2003) (PS2) (60 fps)







  13. #343
    Death Bringer Raging in the Streets Black_Tiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Vancouver
    Age
    40
    Posts
    3,816
    Rep Power
    80

    Default

    Anyone know if the DC would have benefited from running at low resolutions like many PS2 games did? Or would there not be enough of a boost in performance to justify it?
    Quote Originally Posted by year2kill06
    everyone knows nintendo is far way cooler than sega just face it nintendo has more better games and originals

  14. #344
    Smith's Minister of War Hero of Algol Kamahl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Portugal
    Age
    27
    Posts
    7,907
    Rep Power
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Tiger View Post
    Anyone know if the DC would have benefited from running at low resolutions like many PS2 games did? Or would there not be enough of a boost in performance to justify it?
    Would have saved some VRAM, that's about it.
    This thread needs more... ENGINEERS

  15. #345
    Hard Road! ESWAT Veteran Barone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    6,817
    Rep Power
    142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Tiger View Post
    Anyone know if the DC would have benefited from running at low resolutions like many PS2 games did? Or would there not be enough of a boost in performance to justify it?
    IDK if the DC can work internally at resolutions like 640 x 224 as a lot of early PS2 games do, I think it can't. Also, I think it can't match the Grand Prix Challenge resolution which is said to be 640 x 960.
    AFAIK the DC works in 320x240 or 640x480 in terms of NTSC-friendly resolutions.

    The PS2 has a plethora of resolution modes (from 256 x 224 to 1280 x 1024), just like the PS1 had but it includes higher ones (PS1 topped at 640 x 512) also AFAIK. I think you can use all of those weird resolution modes that some PS1 games used, like 368 x 240 or 512 x 256 but IDK if the game developers actually used them on the PS2.

    For what I've read, you can check those internal resolutions using emulators and I pretend to do that soon; I think it would be interesting to know which resolutions were actually used and to determine which games were using them would be important in terms of comparisons to the other platforms.
    Until now, what I know is that a lot of early titles seem to have used a 640 x 224 resolution mode and I wouldn't be surprised to find games using 320 x 240. On the PS1 there were games like Floating Runner: Quest for the 7 Crystals, Robo Pit and Jumping Flash!, Jumping Flash! 2, Ghost in the Shell which were using the 256 x 224 resolution mode.
    Later on (around 1997-1998) a lot of PS1 games were using 512 x 256 while most of the N64 and Saturn games were running at 320 x 240. The N64 also can only do 320 x 240 and 640 x 480 AFAIK.
    Only Internal Section uses the 640 x 480 mode in game on the PS1 AFAIK and it doesn't use textures (the PS1 VRAM was surely a limitation; the Saturn had a bit more VRAM with all little portions combined); oh, and there's also the vector-based games in those Atari collections which also have options to run at 640 x 480 on the PS1. In terms of titles and menu screens, Dead in the Water is the only game which uses the 640 x 512 mode, for its title screen. Games like Blood Roar 2 and DOA use 512 x 480 (opposed to 704 x 448 on the Saturn) in game, other 60 fps games use stuff like 368 x 480 or 384 x 480.
    On the PS2, I don't know about any game using an internal resolution higher than 640 x 960 in game and I doubt I'll find one, at least a textured one.

    Going back to the DC, I think that 8 MB of VRAM was more than enough for 640 x 480 at the time, especially considering that it could use compression. So I don't see a good reason for the developers to use the 320 x 240 mode, which would probably make the game look "pixelated" in comparison to the other ones.

    On the PS2, the 4MB of VRAM and lack of proper texture compression support probably forced most of the developers to initially use the lower res modes with lower quality textures in order to avoid further complexity in the way they were handling the textures.
    Given that the system was pretty hard to explore at first and require full assembly programming for the most part, the developers probably tried to avoid the need to the use software tricks for compression/decompression and/or faster update of the textures in memory and/or texture loading from the main RAM and went with a more orthodox use of the VRAM which required lower resolutions in order to save VRAM and fit more poor textures in its tiny 4 MB (from which probably only around 1MB would left for textures).

    In the case of the PS2, screwing up when trying to workaround its VRAM limitation could probably hurt the frame rate of the game.
    In the case of the DC, it wouldn't be necessary for a long time since 8 MB of VRAM and compression support was more than enough to easily provide good looking textures for those games. IDK how it would handle things later in that gen, but it would probably just rely more on compression-related tricks than anything else. The main RAM amount would be a problem but not the VRAM IMO.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •