BW_JP said:
I don't think you really get it. Producing a 1080p 60hz game in 720p 30hz in each eye isn't really halfing the power of the PS3, and there is a lot more to it than just producing the same output twice. 30hz in each eye is virtually the same as 60hz over both eyes, so you wont notice any loss in performance, what you will notice is the resolution drop of course, however each eye is going to be getting a 720p image, it's hard to say what the perceptional differences will be is it not? That being said, what we hear so far points to a mind blowing gaming experience and I cannot wait.
"Yeah, you do have a point. Consoles do have an advantage of not requiring as much raw horsepower as PCs since they are purpose built for gaming and are much more optimized."
No, consoles themselves have no advantage over PCs. That is the developers choice. Consoles do not require less raw horsepower for the same image quality, Developers need to find ways to optimize their code for the hardware on the console. If developers went and optimized their code for dual core processors and nvidia GPUs it would be the same result on PCs based on that tech. It's not like the 360 has anything in it that makes it special for gaming. Likewise with the PS3, the Cell is a monster processor for any application, it's up to developers to use that technology in different ways. Engine Engineering on the PS3 is a brand new frontier. It's completely different than anything we've ever seen in ANY game development. It's done differently. The line of thinking and logic as to how you produce IQ is like night and day compared to the 360, Wii or a PC. I suppose the point is that the consoles are not optimized, its the code thats optimized for the hardware. Alan wake, originally a launch title for Quad Core CPUS, was built with the same idea in mind, where it would only ruin in its true form on the Intel Quad Core CPUS. It was optimized for that Tech, but its not like the quad cores are optimized for gaming, as we've seen they are rather annoying for most games :P It's interesting, the PS3 was originally supposed to ship with no graphics card. But they were forced to chuck one in there because of Multiplatform developers.
|
"I don't think you really get it. Producing a 1080p 60hz game in 720p 30hz in each eye isn't really halfing the power of the PS3, and there is a lot more to it than just producing the same output twice."
Actually I do "get it" as I've seen it with my own eyes 100s of times. My PC runs Street fighter 4 with all settings maxed out at 1080p at 70-90 fps. Turning Nvidia 3D vision makes the fps drop to 35-45 fps...still perfectly playable but performance is "cut by half". All the games I've played drop the frame rate down by 1/2 when playing in 3D.
You are right that 30 fps per eye is like 60 for both but the reason why Ps3 is able to do 30 fps per eye in 3D on Wipeout is because it drops the resolution to 720p. Hence "cuting the resolution in half". To make 3d work with existing games PS3 will have to cut something in half, or go back to the development table and try to squeeze more power out of the system. But I don't see anyone pouring development money in to a game which is finished in order to get it working on 3D until the 3d sales pick up by a lot.
"Also, this is the begining. 3D game development is fresh soil and these are ports of original non-3d games where the texture streaming and particle technology was not originally developed with this in mind."
Nvidia has been doing 3D development and drivers since mid 90s...you are fooling yourself if you think the PS3 is the beginning of 3D development which has lots of room for improvement (on PS3). The only way PS3 can do 3D with existing games is if they do some-sort of 3d interlacing (checkerboard 3d pattern?) or if they drop the resolution like they did in Wipeout. As far as new games, you are right that they can be optimized better to allow for 3D...but you will not see an uncharted 2 like visuals at 720p & 30 hz per eye in 3D on PS3. Since most console games are going to be played in 2D by 99% of the people even if they do have a 3D option, I don't see many developers willing to hurt the 2D visuals to allow for same performance in 3D...which is essentially what they will have to do.
"No, consoles themselves have no advantage over PCs. That is the developers choice. Consoles do not require less raw horsepower for the same image quality"
Everyone knows PC architecture depends on drivers and development tools as well as hardware which arent nearly as optimized as consoles are. My PC graphics card is about 20x more powerful than PS3's in theory(GTX295)...but due to lack of driver optimization I get only about ~8 x the peformance. Due to the fact that consoles have unified development tools and same specs for each console, its much easier to optimize a game than for a PC environment which is different for every user.
