Bored4life said:
supermetalrockdave99 said:
Mifely said:
supermetalrockdave99 said:
All those numbers when comparing the Wii with the Xbox 1 don't really mean anything since the Wii is *supposed* to be developed completely differently than the other systems due to it's unique architecture (which Third Parties don't seem to know or care or use)
Read this: http://revoeyes.blogspot.com/2007/09/wii-can-do-lot-more-graphically-factor.html
Another Factor 5 interview but this time the Wii is being compared to the PS3. Remember that raw numbers don't mean anything; it's the performance and the resulting look of the game that are the key and Julian from Factor 5 explains why this is true for the Wii and why games can look almost as good as PS3 in SD. |
I remember CNN posting an article about a decade ago about how, before or by 2008, robots would be intelligent enough to threaten mankind. Here's a link: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9802/18/swiss.robot/ Don't believe everything you read. Heck, Julian Eggbrecht is a designer, not an engineer, even, isn't he? |
Bad example my friend, Julian Eggbrecht and Factor 5 helped research the development of the Gamecube and they probably know the system better than Nintendo themselves. Rebel Strke is proof enough since that game still looks awesome with something like 20 million full shaded textured polygons running at a consistant 60 frames per second. Trust him when he says he knows what the Wii can do in relation to the other systems. I actually thought it was pretty funny that you thought that was a fake story.... |
Rogue Leader was 16 million. The engine allowed it to do 22 million with full bump mapping at 60 fps. |
...
I think I realize why this discussion has continued so long. Keep in mind that a single vertex is typically represented by at least 3 floating point values. Each floatiing point number is 4 bytes... that's 12 bytes per vertex, assuming you have no color, no texture coordinates, etc. Lets say you have decent artists, or triangle stripping tech, and they share verts pretty well... so that, on average, each triangle only needs about 2 verts, due to triangle fans and strips.
Throw in a single texture coordinate (2 more floats == 8 more bytes)... 20 bytes/vert, 40 bytes (on average, per polygon, because your artists are good). 40 bytes per polygon... divide the system memory by 40... how many polys can you fit in memory at once, with NO code or other data on the machine? How many if you used some custom 16-bit fixed-point values instead of 32?
I think you're misinterpreting what you're reading, gentlemen. A single game level may have that many polygons it, streamed i, in small quantites at a time, while you traverse the level. At 60 fps, the GC could probably push no more than 350K one-pixel, untextured, unlit, etc. polygons to the framebuffer at best. Probably less. The Wii is probably about 600K at 60 fps, again with tiny, untextured, unlit polys. Tiny, untextured, unlit is a hella lot faster than your typical textured, lit, decently-sized game polygon.
