Pemalite said:
HollyGamer said:
You can scaling down games engine
But you will possibly lose the benefit of future hardware and more powerful hardware can do. The tech will stagnant like how COD use the same engine from PS3 era or Bethesda on every Fallout Games.
|
CoD has made some great strides in visuals over the years, despite being based on a derivative of the Quake 2 engine.
It's just they have different design goals, low latency, high framerate is generally the goal for those engines...
For example with Modern Warefare 2, they introduced texture streaming which meant that texturing wasn't limited to the tiny pool of DRAM that the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 had, resulting in a substantial uptick in visual fidelity, especially on the texturing side.
https://community.callofduty.com/t5/Call-of-Duty-Modern-Warfare-2/Modern-Warfare-2-Texture-Streaming/ba-p/9900744
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-modern-warfare-2-face-off
We saw increases with Advanced Warefare when it brought a new lighting model and much improved post-process pipeline.
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-face-off
Call of Duty Modern Warefare reboot saw great strides in geometry, improved lighting, shadowing and more.
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2019-cod-modern-warfare-delivers-series-most-advanced-visuals-yet
Every time they updated the engine they improved the core visuals. -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IW_engine
Call of Duty 2 (IW 2.0 engine): - Normal Maps, Bloom, Improved Shadowing.
Call of Duty 4 (IW 3.0 engine): Improved Lighting, Particles, Self Shadowing.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (IW 4.0 engine): Texture and Mesh Streaming for better textures and models.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (IW 5.0 engine): Improvements to streaming for larger environments, Improved Shadowing, Improved Reflections.
Call of Duty: Ghosts (IW 6.0 engine): Model geometry subdivision, HDR Lighting, Displacement Mapping, Tessellation, Specular Particles.
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare (IW 7.0 engine): Physically based rendering for more accurate materials and lighting.
And I can keep going. Point is, it doesn't make sense to reinvent the wheel... Because these days, developers do not rebuild engines from scratch anymore.
Take the creation engine for instance, yes it looks dated today... But when it debuted with Skyrim in 2011 it was a decent looking engine that showcased what the 7th gen consoles could do with an open world environment... And that engine is based upon Oblivion's Gamebryo Engine from 2006... Which in turn is based on Morrowind Net Immerse engine from 2002.
Again, that engine spans multiple console generations and has scaled across hardware really well. - Elder Scrolls 6 is likely to be built on those same engine foundations and look absolutely stunning doing it.
Here is the jump from Morrowind on Xbox to Skyrim on Xbox 360.
Generational leap, no?
Even Unreal Engine is based on the engines that came before it, Unreal Engine 3.0 and 4.0 still contains code from the original Unreal Engine from the late 90's for example. Again. - Why reinvent the wheel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Engine
Essentially that engine technology has scaled from (In terms of hardware power) the Dreamcast right up to the Xbox One X.
The latest Battlefield being a graphical powerhouse (Especially on PC) is based on the Frosbite engine, the same engine which debuted with Battlefield: Bad Company on the Xbox 360 back in 2008. - The engine has had some massive overhauls since with Frostbite 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0... And I wouldn't be surprised if code from refractor still lingered somewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frostbite_(game_engine)
I think the reason why there is this misconception that older game engines hold back newer platforms is because people do not fundamentally understand what a game engine is or what it actually does.
A game engine is NOT just the "thing" that draws the pretty pictures on your display... A Game engine is a bunch of components working under a "framework" - Be it Audio, Physics, Networking and more. - Thus you can rewrite a part of the engine like with say... The lighting and materials shaders and take advantage of a newer platforms graphics capabilities.
But you can bet your ass that most game engines today are derived from technology of yesterday, because they scale.
HollyGamer said:
12 teraflop confirmed, LOL. in GCN number Navi teraflop are equal to 1,4 times of GCN performance 12X 1.4 = 16.8 teraflop of GCN from Xbox One = 16.8/1.3= 12.9 times more powerful than Xbox One. |
God dammit.
A flop is a flop.
Navi doesn't have 1.4x more "theoretical flops" than Graphics Core Next. It just doesn't.
Flops is based on the number of Stream Processors * Instructions Per Clock * Clock Rate.
Navi gets 1.4x more performance, not because of flops, but because of everything else in the GPU, if you were to throw a purely compute task at Graphics Core Next, it would be able to achieve some impressive flop numbers, often higher than Navi. - But when it comes to gaming, games need more than just flops, ergo Navi is able to pull ahead.
Thus a flop on Navi is the same flop as Graphics Core Next. - Navi is just more efficient.
|
