By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - DigitalFoundry Rage Analysis

anonim1979 on 09 October 2011

1GB patch (PC) was relased yesterday.
Fixed some things.

But it is true that PC version was an aftertought.

“We do not see the PC as the leading platform for games,” Carmack added. “That statement will enrage some people, but it is hard to characterize it otherwise; both console versions will have larger audiences than the PC version. A high end PC is nearly 10 times as powerful as a console, and we could unquestionably provide a better experience if we chose that as our design point and we were able to expend the same amount of resources on it. Nowadays most of the quality of a game comes from the development effort put into it, not the technology it runs on. A game built with a tenth the resources on a platform 10 times as powerful would be an inferior product in almost all cases.”

 

----------------

Changelog of PC patch:

  • Implemented workaround for AMD driver crash right after intro cinematic on Win 7 32-bit systems.
  • Disabled UBOs because they are causing animation issues with AMD drivers. Don’t allow swap-tear to be enabled on AMD while the extension is not exposed because it may crash.
  • Support for new video settings: “texture cache”, “vsync”, and ”anisotropic filter”
  • Automatically adjust vt_maxPPF based on the number of available cores.
  • Improved performance for SLI cards when GPU transcode is enabled.
  • Fix for GPU Transcoding option being disabled after exiting gameplay.
  • Added safe mode to restore video settings to default values.
  • Allow g_fov to be changed from the RAGE launch options in Steam.
  • Server now forwards text chat from clients to all other clients while in-game.
-------------


Around the Network
osamanobama on 09 October 2011
Nsanity said:
anonim1979 said:

There were also a lot of voices about H2H lackluster comarison (where they tested installed version on X360 unlike other times where they insisted on testing uninstalled only) and their 'we had X360 dip to 45fps' dropped in text (their video doesn't show it) that changed performance "win" for PS3.
As nicely Eurogamer framerate comparison shows PS3 version does it too, if not even MORE.

Framerate slipped (on both PS3 and X360) only few times on driving parts with serious explosions on screen.
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q262/anonim1979/ragefps1.jpg

There is Perfect 60fps during normal gameplay
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/rage-shooting-performance-analysis?size=med
Very occasional dips on both - lowest was 38fps on PS3 - on driving parts
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/rage-driving-performance-analysis?size=med

PS
Some other site made their comparison too
http://www.gameblurb.net/featured/versus-rage-screenshot-and-megatexture-streaming-comparison/
Most interesting was this part:
“MegaTexture streaming comparison was done with default settings (8GB PlayStation 3 install/no Xbox 360 install).”
http://www.youtube.com/v/yHZXCvjZ-_g

DigitalFoundry can go on for pages talking about in and out of games unique engine and deveolper choices, but Lens Of Truth on the other hand can only talk frame-rate and resolution which furthers proves that they dont know jack shit about what they are doing.


usually they have very similar analsis to the DF one, this is one of the only times they differ.

it just seem youre bitter from previous results they've given, that you did not apreciate much



Mummelmann on 09 October 2011
anonim1979 said:

1GB patch (PC) was relased yesterday.
Fixed some things.

But it is true that PC version was an aftertought.

“We do not see the PC as the leading platform for games,” Carmack added. “That statement will enrage some people, but it is hard to characterize it otherwise; both console versions will have larger audiences than the PC version. A high end PC is nearly 10 times as powerful as a console, and we could unquestionably provide a better experience if we chose that as our design point and we were able to expend the same amount of resources on it. Nowadays most of the quality of a game comes from the development effort put into it, not the technology it runs on. A game built with a tenth the resources on a platform 10 times as powerful would be an inferior product in almost all cases.”

 

----------------

Changelog of PC patch:

  • Implemented workaround for AMD driver crash right after intro cinematic on Win 7 32-bit systems.
  • Disabled UBOs because they are causing animation issues with AMD drivers. Don’t allow swap-tear to be enabled on AMD while the extension is not exposed because it may crash.
  • Support for new video settings: “texture cache”, “vsync”, and ”anisotropic filter”
  • Automatically adjust vt_maxPPF based on the number of available cores.
  • Improved performance for SLI cards when GPU transcode is enabled.
  • Fix for GPU Transcoding option being disabled after exiting gameplay.
  • Added safe mode to restore video settings to default values.
  • Allow g_fov to be changed from the RAGE launch options in Steam.
  • Server now forwards text chat from clients to all other clients while in-game.
-------------

As much respect as I have for Carmack, he is forgetting where he came from, and id software for that matter.



Nsanity on 09 October 2011
osamanobama said:
Nsanity said:
anonim1979 said:

There were also a lot of voices about H2H lackluster comarison (where they tested installed version on X360 unlike other times where they insisted on testing uninstalled only) and their 'we had X360 dip to 45fps' dropped in text (their video doesn't show it) that changed performance "win" for PS3.
As nicely Eurogamer framerate comparison shows PS3 version does it too, if not even MORE.

Framerate slipped (on both PS3 and X360) only few times on driving parts with serious explosions on screen.
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q262/anonim1979/ragefps1.jpg

There is Perfect 60fps during normal gameplay
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/rage-shooting-performance-analysis?size=med
Very occasional dips on both - lowest was 38fps on PS3 - on driving parts
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/rage-driving-performance-analysis?size=med

PS
Some other site made their comparison too
http://www.gameblurb.net/featured/versus-rage-screenshot-and-megatexture-streaming-comparison/
Most interesting was this part:
“MegaTexture streaming comparison was done with default settings (8GB PlayStation 3 install/no Xbox 360 install).”
http://www.youtube.com/v/yHZXCvjZ-_g

DigitalFoundry can go on for pages talking about in and out of games unique engine and deveolper choices, but Lens Of Truth on the other hand can only talk frame-rate and resolution which furthers proves that they dont know jack shit about what they are doing.


usually they have very similar analsis to the DF one, this is one of the only times they differ.

it just seem youre bitter from previous results they've given, that you did not apreciate much

Lens of Truth analysis are nowhere as indepth as DigitalFoundry, so dont even go there.



osamanobama on 09 October 2011

@nsanity
(from my phone so I cant quote)
I agree, digital foundry is way more in depth, but that doesnt make lens of truth a joke. Not in the slightest.lens of truth does a great job. If lens of truth and DF happen to disagree, sure, I would likely side with DF, like in this case. But to call lens of truth a joke, is very disingenuous, and just makes u seem bitter. Which im sure most people know why you would be biter at lens of truth.



Around the Network
ZaneWane on 09 October 2011
anonim1979 said:

There were also a lot of voices about H2H lackluster comarison (where they tested installed version on X360 unlike other times where they insisted on testing uninstalled only) and their 'we had X360 dip to 45fps' dropped in text (their video doesn't show it) that changed performance "win" for PS3.
As nicely Eurogamer framerate comparison shows PS3 version does it too, if not even MORE.

Framerate slipped (on both PS3 and X360) only few times on driving parts with serious explosions on screen.
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q262/anonim1979/ragefps1.jpg

There is Perfect 60fps during normal gameplay
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/rage-shooting-performance-analysis?size=med
Very occasional dips on both - lowest was 38fps on PS3 - on driving parts
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/rage-driving-performance-analysis?size=med

PS
Some other site made their comparison too
http://www.gameblurb.net/featured/versus-rage-screenshot-and-megatexture-streaming-comparison/
Most interesting was this part:
“MegaTexture streaming comparison was done with default settings (8GB PlayStation 3 install/no Xbox 360 install).”
http://www.youtube.com/v/yHZXCvjZ-_g

really messed up this time



Silver-Tiger on 10 October 2011

Interesting.
They nearly look the same on both consoles, although the 360 version sometimes has the higher resolution.



updated: 14.01.2012

playing right now: Xenoblade Chronicles

Hype-o-meter, from least to most hyped:  the Last Story, Twisted Metal, Mass Effect 3, Final Fantasy XIII-2, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, Playstation ViTA

bet with Mordred11 that Rage will look better on Xbox 360.

Silver-Tiger on 10 October 2011

made some comparison shots:

they nearly look identical, though the Xbox 360 edges out this one by very small margin.



updated: 14.01.2012

playing right now: Xenoblade Chronicles

Hype-o-meter, from least to most hyped:  the Last Story, Twisted Metal, Mass Effect 3, Final Fantasy XIII-2, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, Playstation ViTA

bet with Mordred11 that Rage will look better on Xbox 360.

kitler53 on 10 October 2011
RolStoppable said:
Dr.Grass said:
Why is it either 60fps or 30fps!? 60fps games are silky smooth, and 30fps are ok. Why not go for 40fps or something? Higher framerate than 30 with more fidelity than 60 is surely a good idea?

I think it's because the average TV runs at 60 Hz, meaning it puts 60 pictures per second on the screen. That is in progressive scan. In interlaced mode it would be 60 half-pictures per second. That's not upper half, then bottom half, but every other horizontal line of pixels receiving an update.

Anyway, in either case (progressive or interlaced), running games at 60 fps is preferable and the reason why developers opt for 30 fps as the next step below it is because it keeps being smooth. Instead of updating the action of a game at every theoratically possible step, the TV does so only at every other step. Not as smooth as 60 fps, but at least still consistent. Breaking up the TV output of 60 Hz into 40 parts leads to an uneven result. At times you have the picture being updated at every possible step, other times you have not. For a smooth result at 40 fps the TV would need to run in a 40 Hz mode, but that isn't an industry standard at all.





Dr.Grass on 10 October 2011
kitler53 said:
RolStoppable said:
Dr.Grass said:
Why is it either 60fps or 30fps!? 60fps games are silky smooth, and 30fps are ok. Why not go for 40fps or something? Higher framerate than 30 with more fidelity than 60 is surely a good idea?

I think it's because the average TV runs at 60 Hz, meaning it puts 60 pictures per second on the screen. That is in progressive scan. In interlaced mode it would be 60 half-pictures per second. That's not upper half, then bottom half, but every other horizontal line of pixels receiving an update.

Anyway, in either case (progressive or interlaced), running games at 60 fps is preferable and the reason why developers opt for 30 fps as the next step below it is because it keeps being smooth. Instead of updating the action of a game at every theoratically possible step, the TV does so only at every other step. Not as smooth as 60 fps, but at least still consistent. Breaking up the TV output of 60 Hz into 40 parts leads to an uneven result. At times you have the picture being updated at every possible step, other times you have not. For a smooth result at 40 fps the TV would need to run in a 40 Hz mode, but that isn't an industry standard at all.




Actually makes a good point tbh.