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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Graphics: Gamecube vs. Xbox vs. PS2 vs. Dreamcast

HappySqurriel on 19 August 2012
happydolphin said:

I'm not sure if you realize how much I want to ... you in the ... right now. Regardless, I'll try to explain.

Max polygons on Xbox (according to you): 12m @30FPS.

Capability of Xbox as seen on DoA (according to Navane): 18m.

So, how is DoA's performance > Max performance?


I would be very doubtful that DOA achieved 18 million polygons per second, especially if the character models were only 9,000 polygons each.

18 million polygons per second works out to being 300,000 polygons per frame at 60fps and 600,000 polygons per frame at 30fps. Fighting games tend to devote a relatively large portion of resources to the character models of their fighters (especially compared to other games) and you wouldn't expect a fighter to only use 3% to 6% of graphical resources to render both fighters.

In reality, I would expect that DOA was probably in the 6 to 9 million polygon per second range and rendered at 60fps; and the fighers would then account for 10% to 20% of graphical resources (much more in line with what you typically see from fighting games).



Around the Network
lilbroex on 19 August 2012
happydolphin said:
lilbroex said:

How does 9k magically become 9m?

From your own post.

Navane: "What about Dead or Alive Ultimate where they said each character model is 9,000 polygons? I see two characters at a time and that's 18,000 polygons."

 

Please explain to me how 18,000 magically tranfoms into 18,000,000

I must have gotten confused with the zeros. Had you noticed that before? I wish you could have said so 6 posts ago.

Okay, I didn't realize that mistake. So that's cleared up, and I hope that clears it up for Navane too.

No, its not okay. You just insulted me for no good reason, arrogantly at that. What part of that is suppose to be okay?

I did say so six posts ago. I don't see how it couldn't have been clear as you were still quoting and stating is properly despite your comments that suggested otherwise.



lilbroex on 19 August 2012
HappySqurriel said:
happydolphin said:

I'm not sure if you realize how much I want to ... you in the ... right now. Regardless, I'll try to explain.

Max polygons on Xbox (according to you): 12m @30FPS.

Capability of Xbox as seen on DoA (according to Navane): 18m.

So, how is DoA's performance > Max performance?


I would be very doubtful that DOA achieved 18 million polygons per second, especially if the character models were only 9,000 polygons each.

18 million polygons per second works out to being 300,000 polygons per frame at 60fps and 600,000 polygons per frame at 30fps. Fighting games tend to devote a relatively large portion of resources to the character models of their fighters (especially compared to other games) and you wouldn't expect a fighter to only use 3% to 6% of graphical resources to render both fighters.

In reality, I would expect that DOA was probably in the 6 to 9 million polygon per second range and rendered at 60fps; and the fighers would then account for 10% to 20% of graphical resources (much more in line with what you typically see from fighting games).

He started misquoting at that point. Navine said 18,000(each character was 9,000), not 18,000,000.



happydolphin on 19 August 2012
HappySqurriel said:
happydolphin said:

I'm not sure if you realize how much I want to ... you in the ... right now. Regardless, I'll try to explain.

Max polygons on Xbox (according to you): 12m @30FPS.

Capability of Xbox as seen on DoA (according to Navane): 18m.

So, how is DoA's performance > Max performance?


I would be very doubtful that DOA achieved 18 million polygons per second, especially if the character models were only 9,000 polygons each.

18 million polygons per second works out to being 300,000 polygons per frame at 60fps and 600,000 polygons per frame at 30fps. Fighting games tend to devote a relatively large portion of resources to the character models of their fighters (especially compared to other games) and you wouldn't expect a fighter to only use 3% to 6% of graphical resources to render both fighters.

In reality, I would expect that DOA was probably in the 6 to 9 million polygon per second range and rendered at 60fps; and the fighers would then account for 10% to 20% of graphical resources (much more in line with what you typically see from fighting games).

Okay this helps.

 

@libroex. It's not the first time this happens. You don't try to help or constructively discuss things, you make it hard for people to discuss because you refuse to cooperate. You thought it was obvious but if I was making such a glaring mistake it should be obvious to you that I was oblivious to it for odd reasons and that it's not because I can't count, it's just that I made a silly mistake that I was unable to see.

I wish you would change, so no it's not okay on your end either. Let's agree to both improve because you made me very impatient and I didn't insult you I made sure to censor so as not to insult. So no I didn't insult you and you need to change your attitude.



happydolphin on 19 August 2012
lilbroex said:
HappySqurriel said:
happydolphin said:

I'm not sure if you realize how much I want to ... you in the ... right now. Regardless, I'll try to explain.

Max polygons on Xbox (according to you): 12m @30FPS.

Capability of Xbox as seen on DoA (according to Navane): 18m.

So, how is DoA's performance > Max performance?


I would be very doubtful that DOA achieved 18 million polygons per second, especially if the character models were only 9,000 polygons each.

18 million polygons per second works out to being 300,000 polygons per frame at 60fps and 600,000 polygons per frame at 30fps. Fighting games tend to devote a relatively large portion of resources to the character models of their fighters (especially compared to other games) and you wouldn't expect a fighter to only use 3% to 6% of graphical resources to render both fighters.

In reality, I would expect that DOA was probably in the 6 to 9 million polygon per second range and rendered at 60fps; and the fighers would then account for 10% to 20% of graphical resources (much more in line with what you typically see from fighting games).

He started misquoting at that point. Navine said 18,000(each character was 9,000), not 18,000,000.

Oh now you spell it out. Good for you, that attitude will bring you far.



Around the Network
SvennoJ on 19 August 2012

I've only scanned this thread for the lovely screenshots, good memories.
But I seriously need to get hold of that Rebel strike game, I missed it last gen, looks stunning. Does it look good on the Wii too in 480p or should I dig up my old GC. Flying over those huge star cruisers, is that actual game play?



lilbroex on 19 August 2012
happydolphin said:
lilbroex said:
HappySqurriel said:
happydolphin said:

I'm not sure if you realize how much I want to ... you in the ... right now. Regardless, I'll try to explain.

Max polygons on Xbox (according to you): 12m @30FPS.

Capability of Xbox as seen on DoA (according to Navane): 18m.

So, how is DoA's performance > Max performance?


I would be very doubtful that DOA achieved 18 million polygons per second, especially if the character models were only 9,000 polygons each.

18 million polygons per second works out to being 300,000 polygons per frame at 60fps and 600,000 polygons per frame at 30fps. Fighting games tend to devote a relatively large portion of resources to the character models of their fighters (especially compared to other games) and you wouldn't expect a fighter to only use 3% to 6% of graphical resources to render both fighters.

In reality, I would expect that DOA was probably in the 6 to 9 million polygon per second range and rendered at 60fps; and the fighers would then account for 10% to 20% of graphical resources (much more in line with what you typically see from fighting games).

He started misquoting at that point. Navine said 18,000(each character was 9,000), not 18,000,000.

Oh now you spell it out. Good for you, that attitude will bring you far.

You were quoting and typing it yourself. Why would I need to restate what you had already typed with your own hands?

That is why I asked, "Can you count?" I thought that  made it clear that you were counting the numbers incorrectly. Apparently not.



lilbroex on 19 August 2012
SvennoJ said:
I've only scanned this thread for the lovely screenshots, good memories.
But I seriously need to get hold of that Rebel strike game, I missed it last gen, looks stunning. Does it look good on the Wii too in 480p or should I dig up my old GC. Flying over those huge star cruisers, is that actual game play?

It would look exactly the same. Everything that was in the GC is in the Wii and then some.

I do believe it was 480p on the GC.



happydolphin on 19 August 2012
lilbroex said:

You were quoting and typing it yourself. Why would I need to restate what you had already typed with your own hands?

That is why I asked, "Can you count?" I thought that  made it clear that you were counting the numbers incorrectly. Apparently not.

I just made a mistake. Had you said "happy, you wrote 18k, not 18m, and 18k is not close to 12m", I would have just laughed and said "oh, you're right lilbro, my bad".

Just next time try to make an effort to say explicitely what you see is wrong rather than "can you count?", since I can certainly count you've seen me around. And comparing 18k to 12m is not a counting mistake, it's a flagrant misread at best. I just wish you'd cooperate and make me look less like a jerk.



jamesmarkus87 on 19 August 2012

Definitely Xbox. Nothing on PS2 or GC looked as good as Panzer Dragoon Orta, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, Ninja Gaiden, or Doom III.