What do u like to see in the PS3?

[Kurt Angle]

Full multiregion DVD as standard would be nice, as would PAL/NTSC compatibility for import games. I know this will never happen though.

Originally posted by Unicron!
I have to admit.Thats a marvelous idea.:eek:

But lets say a developer creates a 2 million polygon tree and small part of that tree like a small tiny branchlet for an example is made out of 1000 polygons.What if the texture requires less or more polygons to be implemented on that part of the tree?Or need the polygons differently placed in order for the texture to be manipulated correctly into polygons?
Will the hardware have to change the original polygon design until its manipulated correctly?Or the developer have to cut or add polygons accordingly?

Hmm, I think colouring polygons would require less bandwidth and memory no matter what. Think of it this way:

2 million(32 bit + polygon) < 2 million(texture + polygon)

The first route would cost 32 bit max per polygon to colour. If you\'d use textures though, you\'d have more like a few Kilobytes per polygon. I guess if you\'d want a very boring looking tree with repetive textures, you\'d probably use less bandwidth and memory. Colouring your polygons though would give you virtually no limits for textures as every polygon will take up 32 bit for colour anyway. So it wouldn\'t matter how many different colours you use, as in the end, the maximum for each polygon would be still only 32 bits. So... in the end, more polygons would equal a better looking game. The only thing I\'m not sure though is, how many polygons would an object need to have to look equally good as a textured one?

One good example would be Shenmue on Dreamcast. Thanks to the amazing textures, the developers were able to save a lot of polygons. If you were to colour polygons without any textures, you\'d need A LOT of coloured polygons to make up the lack of textures and make it look equally good. Maybe once systems start pushing 100 million polygons per Frame will we start seeing a true advantage...

100 million polygons per frame????Running at 60fps that would be a 6 billion polygons per second!!!HOLY SHIT!!:eek:Could Sony\'s Cell project be able to do such thing?

Your idea is GREAT though!

What about a combnination of texture mapped polygons and colored polygons until a hardware capable of pushing that astronomic number of polygons becomes available?

no idea.. maybe. I haven\'t given much though to it, so perhaps that would be possible. As for how fast the Cell is...

Hmm, I don\'t want to get hyped up about it, but I think it\'s fairly powerful. Last I heard, one Cell could be able do 1 TFLOP (compared to the EE\'s 6.2 GFLOPs). I also heared that the PS3 might be just about 1000 times more powerful than the PS2, although that can mean anything. 1000 times the polygons capability? If this would be the case, we\'d have roughly

20 million * 1000 = 20 billion Polygons/sec.

LOL. No way. Honestly, no matter how powerful the Cell may be, I doubt it can do that many polygons. But perhaps 1 billion to 6 billion polygons might be fairly realistic?

Well, the PSX was able to do 360\'000 polygons/sec (I think raw). The PS2 can do 66 million (raw) polygons/sec. That\'s a 183 times increase in 5 years. If the PS3 manages to beat out the PS2 by 183 times in polygon performance, we might be looking at 12\'078 million (raw) polygons. That\'s 12 billion.... not bad. The PS2 is able to do about 20 million in-game, so we might be looking at about 3+ billion polygons/sec for PS3.
Also, if the 1 TFLOP figure is correct, that\'s a 160 times increase over the PS2\'s 6.2 GFLOPs, so that might just underline our polygon number further up.

While we\'re at polygon numbers. 3+ billion polygons/sec sounds mighty impressive but this is still at least 3 years off and I fully expect the PC industry to come a long way in this time. I must say though that I hope that Sony/Tosh/IBM really max out the Cell and design something that not even the PC industry can dodge for at least a few years. I think it\'s possible, seeing that the PC industry still has the biggest disadvantage of having a bottlenecked architecture. The other thing is, the Cell is said to be built with parallelism in mind (like connecting various Cells to gain much more power). Does that mean the PS3 might be powered by multiple Cells maybe? If so, we could have a significant increase in performance...

Unfortunately we can only imagine,speculate and hope.Considering the diffference the weak "looking" VUs(I think they are a few Ks?) can do imagine what the Cells might be able to do when connected.Better not hope too much though.We dont want to be overdissapointed.

BTW:The PSX1 could do 1 million polygons raw.

EDIT:

Actually, the actual displayable flat shaded polygon count for PSX was 360,000/sec AFAIK - not more. Even if it was higher, I don\'t think any games got the machine past 200\'000 pps in-game anyway...

I dont know.I clearly remember reading in a Magazine it could do 1 million polygons raw(perhaps wire framed?).I was really convinced when I noticed on my Demo1 disk reading in one part of the intro 1 million polygons too(noticed it after reading that in the mag).

Wireless controllers too

cut the cord, or at least add 10 feet. I have to re-aarange furniture when I play my PS2

Xbox has a cord thats longer and I can sit back on my couch with no problems


and the single colored polygon thing


but lets be honest, bandwidth for the PS3 will be exponetialy larger then the PS2\'s bandwidth, as will the speed of the overall machine


determnining the color of 50 million polygons on screen at a time could be processor intensive just the same

and more then likely the PS3 will be close to capable of 100 million polygons on screen.

Originally posted by ddaryl
and more then likely the PS3 will be close to capable of 100 million polygons on screen.

Close to 100 millions? More like 1000 millions. Well, maybe not, but it will be far, far, far more than 100 millions. That\'s just 5 times more that the PS2.

Originally posted by Echo


Close to 100 millions? More like 1000 millions. Well, maybe not, but it will be far, far, far more than 100 millions. That\'s just 5 times more that the PS2.

polygons alone do not express overall power


for every increase in polygon performance there is exponetially more power being used to color, texture, light , and adding other effects to each of those polygons.

Think of how much nicer PS2 games would look with 5 times more texturing capability, and FSAA built in. Thats a lot of power added right there.

Now anticipate the PS3 using texture compression, with about 10 - 20 x\'s the texturing ability of the PS2. And now add in another dozen lighting sources, and FSAA. Just to give you an idea where the PS3 power maybe distributed to

Oh did I mention full dolby digital available for all games. Lots of places to distribute alot of power

oh and 1000 million = 1 billion


but anywho, do not expect real world PS2 games to run anywhere near 1 billion polygons per sec

I think my numbers are more accurate in a real world 60 frames per second gaming enviroment

Personally I expect more than 100 million polygons from the next generation.