PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: CelliCeL on February 19, 2001, 06:33:33 PM
-
What do you expect the ps2 games to look like when the ps2 games finally uses the ps2\'s power? Do you expect the characters to look like this?
http://www.3dartisan.com/board/data/artisan4/lek-b.jpg
post picks of what you think the games are going to look like.
-
oh and before you ask, YES. This is the rumored ps2 Soul Calibur picture.
-
most definatly like that, possibly even better, I am more interested in 3d backrounds to look as great as the pre-rendered ones.
-
i cant find any pick but i am sure when ps2 uses its full power it will, be 4 times better than bouncer graphics seeing as how they look better than mgs graphics and z.o.e. graphics, im not sure is my hypothosis is accurate but there no harm in assuming
-
I think they might be able to do an Omnimusha with real-time
3D background and with the same quality currently seen for the characters at the same time. The real-time background quality should be almost equal to the pre-rendered backgrounds currently.
-
I still cant believe Onimusha\'s characters are doing 10mpps. I herd TTT is doing 6mpps on each character. I cant wait to play that game.
-
how do you think FFX\'s backround is going to look?
-
the ps2 won\'t achive that this generation
neither will any other console, it won\'t be till later next generation (ps3) do we aproach those levels...
it takes a super computer mins to render a scene like that
thats for 1/30th of a second...
you get the idea
-
Right Chrono. Where\'s the facts to back that up? A supercomputer? I don\'t think so. Why stir up trouble anymore than you have been doing all ready tonight?
-
Originally posted by Aaron
Right Chrono. Where\'s the facts to back that up? A supercomputer? I don\'t think so. Why stir up trouble anymore than you have been doing all ready tonight?
For your information
I have a computer with a Intense 3D Wildcat 4000 Card, with a Xeon processor
its know as a super computer, used for graphics, I am learning 3dstudio MAX.
A movie like toystory take litterly hundreds of computers to render it, one computer sends frames too all the computers beacuse it takes so long, even then it can take many days to render the complete project.
EDIT:
BTW, this is called network rendering
the GSCUBE is starting to make this problem less and less, thats why it MAY be possible next generation, but not this one
-
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.3dartisan.com%2Fboard%2Fdata%2Fartisan4%2Flek-b.jpg&hash=3f6b8a211bc1e59d3b0b0f964d40e018bda88f48)
all I can say is I can expect better
-
That pic is good man. I wouldn\'t really want it any better then that. if it gets TOO realistic. Then u loss that Game feeling. I want to look at my games and say.. That is a good looking game. Not that game looks so realistic. That it looks REAL. :D
-
Originally posted by Aaron
Right Chrono. Where\'s the facts to back that up? A supercomputer? I don\'t think so. Why stir up trouble anymore than you have been doing all ready tonight?
here we go again...
Chrono, you have two mods against you, I want everything to get better. Chrono, take the rest night off and let things cool down, ok, it\'s for your own good. I\'ve supported you in everyway, but I suggest you make it easy on yourself and take the rest of the night off.
-
Shinji Mikami said it\'s possible to do EXCELLENT toy story like grapichs with the PS2, and he hopes devil may cry will be the first. He said it\'s very very hard, and small development houses won\'t be able to do it. It\'s trial and error. Like making an oil painting from scratch. The article was at coremagazine. I posted it here before.
-
This kinda looks like the GC pic of FFX...
Chrono is right,the PS2 probably won\'t achieve this quality in this generation.
-
OneBillyGunn you need to stop pointing out that there was something going on
that will only bring it out again - just let it be done with and stop mentioning it or it won\'t go away
back to topic:
well i think that the PS2 is capable of doing this kind of graphics because look at how far games came with the PSX from when it began to now
for ex. look at Tekken and look at tekken 3 - to me that is a big difference in appearence
here\'s looking to the furture of gaming...:)
-
Originally posted by Jumpman
This kinda looks like the GC pic of FFX...
Chrono is right,the PS2 probably won\'t achieve this quality in this generation.
Its very unlikely
I just don\'t want people to get their hopes up of this occuring this generation, if by some sorta luck the ps2 is super duper (OMG, I just said super duper...!) powerful then I even think... then it may happen.. but people
please don\'t expect it
-
Very unlikely is a much more reasonable statement. I think they could get close. It\'s got a long life ahead of it so we\'ll all have to wait and see. Could anyone imagine Gran Turismo when the psx first came out? Probably not. I think we\'ll be surprised by what we see in three years.
-
Well as Emperor, I use my PS2 to launch nukes. :laughing:
-
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
That pic is good man. I wouldn\'t really want it any better then that. if it gets TOO realistic. Then u loss that Game feeling. I want to look at my games and say.. That is a good looking game. Not that game looks so realistic. That it looks REAL. :D
I like when a game has a more realist flavor too it. I can see back kick my feet up and let the game take me too a whole other place:p
-
Is it just me, or is there going to be a point where graphics can\'t get any better?
I mean, once they get to the point where they can produce Final Fantasy Movie type graphics, what will the point be of a new console coming out.
Multi-colored?
To get back on topic, I think it will be possible to do something a little less than Toy Story type graphics at the end of its life span, but not get THAT good.
It would be cool though.
Imagine playing a FPS with those kind of graphics.
That would rock
BTW, when does Wolfenstein 3D come out.
-
Even when Graphics get so good they look real there will still be a strong desire and need for Artisitic content.
We will still see creative gamish looking content, just much more detailed
As games get even more popular we will see a trmendous amounts of different styles techniques, looks and feels something will appeal to everyone. Variety will be large
After Graphics and online comes interaction and then Virtual Reality.
And 3D worlds are a far cry from perfected. There\'s alot more 3d to discover and master
-
That shot could very well be running on PS2 hardware, but rendered at a high resolution. You would never be able to see that much detail anyway when it got put onto a TV screen. Even on a HDTV it would never be that sharp. So technicly, unless TV technology changes drasticly in the next 10 years, even the PS3 wont be able to put out that much detail. It could but at a point you would have more pollys on the screen then pixles and anything beyond that would be overkill.
-
Examples about the Playstation "evolution" ( compare this to the young PS2 ):
Wipeout. One of the first PS -titles. Fast gameplay, impressive graphics ( they were ). Compare to Timesplitters.
Wip3out. Title wich is two years old. Made about 3 years after Wipeout ( if I\'m right ). Really impressive graphics, really fast gameplay. Think what PS2 games will look 3 years ahead.
Ridge Racer. One of the first PS -titles. Gameplay: good and slick, Graphics: bad, compared to the PS-standards today. Compare to RR type 4. What will racing games look 3 years ahead on PS2?
There\'s many more examples of this.
You can see a graphical evlution between Final Fantasy VII and VIII also, and then compare VIII to FFIX, wich is even BETTER. Also, you can compare Tekken with Tekken 3. You can clearly see the improvement. Don\'t even come to say you haven\'t.
It takes time from game developers to fully realize the powers of PS2, like it did on PS as well. Don\'t forget the fact that PS2 is a complex beast as well. Someday, after 3-4 years we will look back to the games we played, such as RRV and Timesplitters, and laugh at them and say how their graphics were so much worse than they are ( or will be :) )
-
hey! I posted that picture before
No! ps2 will never do that, look at the textures, not possible with only 4mb of vram. The poly count is way beyond ps2. I\'m kinda losing my faith in ps2 very quickly, so I\'m a bit sceptical.
Xbox can do this stuff though!
-
Ya the PS2 can do that, PS2 has more than 4mb of vram cause thats not even vram, its buffer ram... god people these days. and if your saying that then you should know that the X-Box has a whole *0* vram and *0* buffer ram... so how your explaining it if PS2 can\'t do that cause of lack of texture ram then theres no way in hell x-box is doing it!
FYI: All systems use it about the same way, the texures are stored in the MAIN ram (PS2,GC,XB). Difference is the PS2 has 4mb v-buffer, GC has 3mb v-buffer and x-box has none, just more main ram.
-
Hey! I got an idea! Let\'s all get ourselves hyped up because of one prerendered picture and speculate about somthing we can\'t know at this point, and we\'re very emotional about! Yea, that sounds like fun! And we can pat ourselves on the back right now about our great $300 purchase because we are sure we\'re right!
LOL, i just couldn\'t resist. Let\'s not get hyper about our assumptions, and desires. I\'d love to see Sony bring out a really dope VR visor that blocks out distractions, and has resolution good enough for DVD\'s, but I shouldn\'t get myself worked up, starting threads about how dope it\'d be, and say I think it\'ll happen. That\'s retarded. PS2 may or may not look that good ingame eventually. No one here knows, and since it\'s not something that enhances the substance of a game, the speculation doesn\'t warrent a thread. Well, that\'s just my opinion, I could be wrong...
-
Ethugg, it\'s not nice to crush their dreams either!
-
Originally posted by Robert R. Lawrence
Ya the PS2 can do that, PS2 has more than 4mb of vram cause thats not even vram, its buffer ram... god people these days. and if your saying that then you should know that the X-Box has a whole *0* vram and *0* buffer ram... so how your explaining it if PS2 can\'t do that cause of lack of texture ram then theres no way in hell x-box is doing it!
FYI: All systems use it about the same way, the texures are stored in the MAIN ram (PS2,GC,XB). Difference is the PS2 has 4mb v-buffer, GC has 3mb v-buffer and x-box has none, just more main ram.
Um...no. You\'re really struggling with this one Mr. Lawrence, so I\'ll be a good Reverend and give you a hand. PS2 only has 4 MB of VRAM, that\'s been established ages ago. The ace up the PS2\'s sleeve is the super-fast pipeline between the GS and the VRAM. The only problem is that most developers haven\'t mastered how to take advantage of this yet. As for the Xbox, it has a unified memory architecture (UMA). That means that Xbox\'s 64 MB of RAM can be used in any way the programmers choose. So theoretically (notice I said THEORETICALLY!!!) Xbox could use up to 64 MB of RAM for the Graphics (VRAM).
Programmers on the Xbox could use 32 MB of for main RAM, 16MB for graphics and 16MB for sound. Or they could do 48MB for main, 8MB for graphics and 8MB for sound, or... You get the point? The 64 MB of RAM in the Xbox is like a pool for a created player in a videogame. You can divide it up amongst many different components, so technically, Xbox doesn\'t have "main RAM", just a big ole chunk of 64 MB that can be used for anything.
PS2 graphics can\'t be stored in main RAM because it is solely reserved for CPU functions only.
-
So what you are saying, Reverend, is, PS2 uses a new and innovative way of streaming graphics that nobody knows how to do, but can greatly benefit this industry, while Microsoft wants people to make games the old PC way? Thats what you are saying.
-
Well, yes in a way (except the PC part). The 4MB of VRAM is cost efficient, but developers have to learn how to use it. As far as the UMA goes, I don\'t know of many PC\'s that use that feature, so you kind of lost me there. Let\'s just say UMA gives the developers a choice, while the PS2\'s architecture FORCES developers to learn how to deal with it. It\'s all a matter of philosophy. Some may like it, some may not.
-
Ehm except for being cost efficient the PS2\'s VRAM can do great textures.After programmers get used to the technology Sony is planning to release new technologies with cheaper rams but with incredible results.
Sony is trying to establish the PS2\'s style hardware for future plans also.
Can you imagine 128MB of streaming VRAM?Cheaper than a 256MB VRAM but can produce 4-8 times better textures as well.
Its a revolutionary way of texture mapping.
-
Originally posted by Animal Mother
So what you are saying, Reverend, is, PS2 uses a new and innovative way of streaming graphics that nobody knows how to do, but can greatly benefit this industry, while Microsoft wants people to make games the old PC way? Thats what you are saying.
I would phrase that more like "So the PS2 uses a unfamiliar way of doing graphics while the Xbox uses the standard that all PC developers use". Another thing is the Xbox cant "stream" graphics that well. The CD/DVD drive is way too slow for that. What you really need is a HD (which the PS2 will have soon) for that. So, no matter how you wanna spin it the 4 megs of VRAM is not a benefit in any way, shape, or form. It only hurts it. But that isnt to say the PS2 is a weakling, cause its not. But, its not as strong as it could be.
-
Off to Console Debating we go. Weeeeeeeeee!!!!
-
Hey! I got an idea! Let\'s all get ourselves hyped up because of one prerendered picture and speculate about somthing we can\'t know at this point, and we\'re very emotional about! Yea, that sounds like fun! And we can pat ourselves on the back right now about our great $300 purchase because we are sure we\'re right!
LOL, i just couldn\'t resist. Let\'s not get hyper about our assumptions, and desires. I\'d love to see Sony bring out a really dope VR visor that blocks out distractions, and has resolution good enough for DVD\'s, but I shouldn\'t get myself worked up, starting threads about how dope it\'d be, and say I think it\'ll happen. That\'s retarded. PS2 may or may not look that good ingame eventually. No one here knows, and since it\'s not something that enhances the substance of a game, the speculation doesn\'t warrent a thread. Well, that\'s just my opinion, I could be wrong...
Uh, no. Knowone is getting hyped up by anything. You think this topic is about the
prerendered picture? All I said is when the ps2 uses its full power what would the games
look like. The picture is just to show you if you think the ps2 games are going to look like that using its full power.Its just a matter of opinion, a guess, a prediction on how well you know the
ps2\'s hardware. Read my post, people just got a little out of hand posting in this topic.
-
wow thats awesome is that really running on ps2 hardware
-
I would be amazed to see graphics like that in an in-game situation on any of this generations consoles.
-
Originally posted by SLIMSHADY739
wow thats awesome is that really running on ps2 hardware
Uhm.
One word.... NO .
-
I wouldn\'t want graphics to get much better than that... unless it it\'s a leisure suit larry game... hehehehe
-
here is little something about amount of texture memory and swapping..
Here\'s beginning and bit from end of John Carmack\'s plan from 3/7/00.
theres LOTs of very technical stuff in middle which I leave out becouse of space.
-------------------
3/7/00
------
This is something I have been preaching for a couple years, but I finally got around to setting all the issues down in writing.
First, the statement:
Virtualized video card local memory is The Right Thing.
Now, the argument (and a whole bunch of tertiary information):
If you had all the texture density in the world, how much texture memory would be needed on each frame?
For directly viewed textures, mip mapping keeps the amount of referenced texels between one and one quarter of the drawn pixels. When anisotropic viewing angles and upper level clamping are taken into account, the number gets smaller. Take 1/3 as a conservative estimate.
Given a fairly aggressive six texture passes over the entire screen, that equates to needing twice as many texels as pixels. At 1024x768 resolution, well under two million texels will be referenced, no matter what the finest level of detail is. This is the worst case, assuming completely unique texturing with no repeating. More commonly, less than one million texels are actually needed.
--- HUGE SNIP ---
Aside from all the basic swapping issue, there are a couple of other hardware trends that push things this way.
Embedded dram should be a driving force. It is possible to put several megs of extremely high bandwidth dram on a chip or die with a video controller, but won’t be possible (for a while) to cram a 64 meg geforce in. With virtualized texturing, the major pressure on memory is drastically reduced. Even an 8mb card would be sufficient for 16 bit 1024x768 or 32 bit 800x600 gaming, no matter what the texture load.
--- snip ---
--------------------
Missing mid part contained lots of stuff about ways to deal with limitations of normal Video memory limitations and management.
oh and i consider most of that image to be possible with ps2, tough not sure about bumpmapping/or texture filtering.
-
What do you know about streaming Textures in Mpeg2 Format from the DVD in real time? Haven\'t they a compression of 10:1 ? I heard that developers will take advantage of this technique in 2nd and 3rd generation of games...
-
Im happy ps2 can finally display games with clean graphics such as ATV and super crazy fast framerates...this game is called Rumble Racing.
Take a look at ps2.ign videos and tell me is there other current consoles that can go faster than this game?