Quantcast
The Official ALAN WAKE Thread

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - The Official ALAN WAKE Thread

WereKitten said:
donsterydo2 said:
Remedy about the resolution:

http://forum.alanwake.com/showpost.php?p=69940&postcount=885

Interesting. So, it is a deferred renderer with specific different applications of AA to the different buffers, a-la-Unreal engine, that is actually how I read their previous statements about AA and foliage, contrary to what the majority of people seemed to infer from those.

Also, according to this the pixel counters could be right in that the geometry rendering could be at a lower resolution than some other buffers (HUD among them).

Pixel counters were absolutely right: he's basically saying that they're using 80 MB of memory for render targets. He says that 80 MB of renders tagets can hold over 20 (that is about 25) buffers at 720p, but they're using 50 buffers (as he states in the first line of the last paragraph), so the resolution of the render targets must be (1280x720)*25/50 ~ 960x540. It's not by chance that's the same resolution found by pixel counters.



Around the Network

Ignore.



                                                                                                                                            

I would take Alan Wake over Heavy Rain anyday. To me, Alan Wake is the 'movie' and not Heavy Rain. Just my opinion. Shame it isn't coming to the PC.



 

sjhillsa said:
I would take Alan Wake over Heavy Rain anyday. To me, Alan Wake is the 'movie' and not Heavy Rain. Just my opinion. Shame it isn't coming to the PC.

This kind of stuff isn't appropriate for an Official Thread.



                                                                                                                                            

Ignore.



                                                                                                                                            

Around the Network

If only we could CGI.



Booh! said:
WereKitten said:

Interesting. So, it is a deferred renderer with specific different applications of AA to the different buffers, a-la-Unreal engine, that is actually how I read their previous statements about AA and foliage, contrary to what the majority of people seemed to infer from those.

Also, according to this the pixel counters could be right in that the geometry rendering could be at a lower resolution than some other buffers (HUD among them).

Pixel counters were absolutely right: he's basically saying that they're using 80 MB of memory for render targets. He says that 80 MB of renders tagets can hold over 20 (that is about 25) buffers at 720p, but they're using 50 buffers (as he states in the first line of the last paragraph), so the resolution of the render targets must be (1280x720)*25/50 ~ 960x540. It's not by chance that's the same resolution found by pixel counters.

That's a lot of speculation you have there: the buffers can have different resolution and different bit depth, so that math is questionable.

I'll wait for the final version to be in the hands of players and reviewers. And of course none of these technical details will make or break the overall visual quality of the game by itself. The Remedy guy was absolutely right in saying that it's a complex process, with oh so many factors influencing the final result.

If people loved what they saw in the gameplay videos, it shouldn't be a resolution number to change their opinion.



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman

WereKitten said:
Booh! said:
WereKitten said:

Interesting. So, it is a deferred renderer with specific different applications of AA to the different buffers, a-la-Unreal engine, that is actually how I read their previous statements about AA and foliage, contrary to what the majority of people seemed to infer from those.

Also, according to this the pixel counters could be right in that the geometry rendering could be at a lower resolution than some other buffers (HUD among them).

Pixel counters were absolutely right: he's basically saying that they're using 80 MB of memory for render targets. He says that 80 MB of renders tagets can hold over 20 (that is about 25) buffers at 720p, but they're using 50 buffers (as he states in the first line of the last paragraph), so the resolution of the render targets must be (1280x720)*25/50 ~ 960x540. It's not by chance that's the same resolution found by pixel counters.

That's a lot of speculation you have there: the buffers can have different resolution and different bit depth, so that math is questionable.

I'll wait for the final version to be in the hands of players and reviewers. And of course none of these technical details will make or break the overall visual quality of the game by itself. The Remedy guy was absolutely right in saying that it's a complex process, with oh so many factors influencing the final result.

If people loved what they saw in the gameplay videos, it shouldn't be a resolution number to change their opinion.

I never talk about visual quality, just of rendering. So... about the rendering, I find very hard to believe that they use buffers with many different resolutions and different bit depths. Such a solution would be very heavy: you could save a bit of vram, but the computational cost for the GPU would be unbearable. Scaling (and converting if they're at different bit depth) every buffer(or a large number of) at every frame would be impossible. It's much easy (and reasonable) to use a small number of native resolutions (like 2 or 3), then compose the scene at low resolution and then upscale (once or twice).



Booh! said:

I never talk about visual quality, just of rendering. So... about the rendering, I find very hard to believe that they use buffers with many different resolutions and different bit depths. Such a solution would be very heavy: you could save a bit of vram, but the computational cost for the GPU would be unbearable. Scaling (and converting if they're at different bit depth) every buffer(or a large number of) at every frame would be impossible. It's much easy (and reasonable) to use a small number of native resolutions (like 2 or 3), then compose the scene at low resolution and then upscale (once or twice).

The point about visual quality was not specifically about something you said. It was just to underline that the end result is much more than the technical specs. As such maybe this kind of conversation should not drag on much longer as the thread tends to focus on the game as a whole and its impression on people rather than these details.

As for the different resolutions: the scaling of buffers will be computationally intensive if they are somewhat arbitrary, but will come almost for free if you can use modulo arithmetic in the same shader code that composes the buffers (say, a quarter-resolution buffer for the mist). Anyway, I think we should move this elsewhere :)



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman

can't wait for this game but I don't see it being anymore than 12 hours. I really hope it has a lot of reply value...