Slimebeast said:
Hey Squill, can u chime in on the discussion between Disolitude and myself about 3-D and how much computing power it requires? Especially about this split 30fps twice into 15 then to only 8 frames per second which Disloitude claims. |
Well there are many different ways to achieve 3D in games. Some are easy, some are cheap to implement, some are perfect and therefore cost a lot more performance to implement and some are crude and cost even more performance whilst not delivering the best image quality.
The Nvidia method is the crudest and requires the most performance. It can yield 3D on games not originally designed to output like that but it also has quite a few artifaces. Its simply forcing the game to render at a different camera angle at its most basic.
The Killzone 3 method renders the best 3D effect however it costs almost as much performance as the Nvidia method. It requires a scene to be rendered twice as often so the compromise is that they lower the rendering resolution by 1/2 along the horizontal axis. So 1280 by 720 becomes 640 by 720 which makes it the lowest rendering 'HD' console game im aware of in this mode.
The Crysis 2 method is an anaglyph method. It uses the depth buffer and its more efficient in that it costs ~1.4% performance to implement as the game is simply reusing the original 2D image. However it suffers the greatest number of artifacts as one eye can see parts of the scene which are not needed to be rendered in the original 2D version. For example you might only be able to see one side of a fence in 2D however in 3D you might be able to see the other side of the fence so the game must be designed to minimise these artifacts.
Tease.