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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - VD-Dev "pushing the 3DS to its limits"

MDMAlliance on 11 October 2013
fatslob-:O said:
MDMAlliance said:
fatslob-:O said:

@Bold What does this have to do about the discussion of how computationally expensive a 3D frame is ? 

That's cause your likely not an expert at this stuff. ;)


If you're not trolling, you clearly know way less than you think you do.  I have only seen you provide a source TWO times and BOTH of those times did NOT say what you were saying.  AKA You are wrong.  No one in here agrees with you, and there's good reason for it.  JoeTheBro isn't even that big of a Nintendo fan (not sure if he would agree he is or not).  The fact of the matter is that you're too stubborn and closed-minded to accept anything that you don't already believe.  I had already PROVED to you with REAL evidence that the 3DS is pushing better graphics than the PSP.  You tried evading it saying "oh derp, that screen shot are not representative of der game"  I bet you haven't even played the game or even have a 3DS.  I put 90 hours into the game, I know what I'm talking about when I say  that a lot of the game is just like the screenshot and a pretty large portion of the game is NOT in dark corridors AND the framerate is very stable for the majority of the game.  

On top of that, what you said about PC games before... it all depends on your PC.  PC can also sport a much lower graphical fidelity and frame-rate.  It depends on how much you're willing to spend.  So if you're okay with spending thousands of dollars every year so you never see any graphical problems or frame rate issues, I don't think you hold any realistic views here.

@Bold You clearly don't have any clue as to what I'm talking about so why don't you do some experiments before confronting me. You mean pushing better shader at the cost of better draw distances and muddy textures everywhere else ? The large part of the game is composed of dark rooms. It sounds like you didn't even play the game. BTW 22fps is still 22fps just so you know. 

Sounds like your ignorant about PC and once again go experiment if your willing too LMAO. 

Oh my it's extremely painful to explain to you. 


@Bold and when a game freezes, 0 fps is still 0 fps.  


Also, I know what I'm talking about with the PC as well.  What it seems like to me is that you don't understand what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is that to keep up with graphics and never have to expect any framerate drops (like to "22 FPS"), you will have to spend a LOT of money on not just your internet service to keep your connection speed high, you'll need to make sure your hardware is strong enough for even the most demanding games so you never have to lag.  

So in the end, you look like a fool.



Around the Network
fatslob-:O on 11 October 2013
irstupid said:
I see even after all this time, fatslob is still at it, eh

People are relentless and that expecially goes for alot of people in this thread. ;P



fatslob-:O on 11 October 2013
MDMAlliance said:
fatslob-:O said:
MDMAlliance said:
fatslob-:O said:

@Bold What does this have to do about the discussion of how computationally expensive a 3D frame is ? 

That's cause your likely not an expert at this stuff. ;)


If you're not trolling, you clearly know way less than you think you do.  I have only seen you provide a source TWO times and BOTH of those times did NOT say what you were saying.  AKA You are wrong.  No one in here agrees with you, and there's good reason for it.  JoeTheBro isn't even that big of a Nintendo fan (not sure if he would agree he is or not).  The fact of the matter is that you're too stubborn and closed-minded to accept anything that you don't already believe.  I had already PROVED to you with REAL evidence that the 3DS is pushing better graphics than the PSP.  You tried evading it saying "oh derp, that screen shot are not representative of der game"  I bet you haven't even played the game or even have a 3DS.  I put 90 hours into the game, I know what I'm talking about when I say  that a lot of the game is just like the screenshot and a pretty large portion of the game is NOT in dark corridors AND the framerate is very stable for the majority of the game.  

On top of that, what you said about PC games before... it all depends on your PC.  PC can also sport a much lower graphical fidelity and frame-rate.  It depends on how much you're willing to spend.  So if you're okay with spending thousands of dollars every year so you never see any graphical problems or frame rate issues, I don't think you hold any realistic views here.

@Bold You clearly don't have any clue as to what I'm talking about so why don't you do some experiments before confronting me. You mean pushing better shader at the cost of better draw distances and muddy textures everywhere else ? The large part of the game is composed of dark rooms. It sounds like you didn't even play the game. BTW 22fps is still 22fps just so you know. 

Sounds like your ignorant about PC and once again go experiment if your willing too LMAO. 

Oh my it's extremely painful to explain to you. 


@Bold and when a game freezes, 0 fps is still 0 fps.  


Also, I know what I'm talking about with the PC as well.  What it seems like to me is that you don't understand what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is that to keep up with graphics and never have to expect any framerate drops (like to "22 FPS"), you will have to spend a LOT of money on not just your internet service to keep your connection speed high, you'll need to make sure your hardware is strong enough for even the most demanding games so you never have to lag.  

So in the end, you look like a fool.

Ignorant about PC as per usual. ;P 



JoeTheBro on 11 October 2013
fatslob-:O said:
JoeTheBro said:

Your link shows FPS in games with 3D on and 3D off. Was there something else at that link I was supposed to notice? Otherwise my comment is just as on topic as your link.

As far as being an expert, I'm obsessed with 3D even more than Kaizar is. So obsessed that I incorporated it into my profession. I'm not going to spill the beans on my credentials since I'd like to stay anonymous at least a little bit longer so if you don't believe me, I can find other sources that say the same thing.

The link was supposed to show how computationally expensive 3D is. It seems you missed the point of that link.

Then I'm sure you know why I explained how computationally expenisve it is. Do you have any explanation as to why it's not very expensive if i'm missing something ?

Sure.

First off it's practically impossible for 3D to take more than double the resources. In a hypothetical situation you could just have two 360s (or any other system really) and feed each the same controller input. I'm of course assuming the two games stay perfectly synced.

If each 360 was programed to have the camera slightly shifted to the side, one left and the other right, the outputs would be perfect for 3D. If you used active shutter glasses then the TV would alternate between each 360 twice a game frame. So if the two 360 outputs were 1080p at 30fps, the TV would be displaying a 1080p at 60fps video. If you used a passive technique like the 3DS each view would lose half of its pixels and the video would only be 1080p at 30fps. This would be perfect stereoscopic 3D with zero optimizations, and it uses 2X the power.

 

However lots of calculations don't depend on the camera's location, at least relative to the other camera. Practically everything except the GPUs are calculating identical information in the two 360 example. So this in itself gets 3D using less than 2X the computational power.

Some of the GPU calculations as well can be shared between viewpoints, but this really depends on how well the dev optimizes the code. Thus it's between 1 and 2 times the computation power, depending on the 3D techniques used.



Links

MDMAlliance on 11 October 2013
fatslob-:O said:

Ignorant about PC as per usual. ;P 

Starting to sound like a broken record.  You've done absolutely nothing to disprove anything I said.  Since I needed proof (and provided), you'll need to have proof otherwise you will be the "babbling idiot" (so to speak), not me.



Around the Network
fatslob-:O on 11 October 2013
JoeTheBro said:
fatslob-:O said:
JoeTheBro said:

Your link shows FPS in games with 3D on and 3D off. Was there something else at that link I was supposed to notice? Otherwise my comment is just as on topic as your link.

As far as being an expert, I'm obsessed with 3D even more than Kaizar is. So obsessed that I incorporated it into my profession. I'm not going to spill the beans on my credentials since I'd like to stay anonymous at least a little bit longer so if you don't believe me, I can find other sources that say the same thing.

The link was supposed to show how computationally expensive 3D is. It seems you missed the point of that link.

Then I'm sure you know why I explained how computationally expenisve it is. Do you have any explanation as to why it's not very expensive if i'm missing something ?

Sure.

First off it's practically impossible for 3D to take more than double the resources. In a hypothetical situation you could just have two 360s (or any other system really) and feed each the same controller input. I'm of course assuming the two games stay perfectly synced.

If each 360 was programed to have the camera slightly shifted to the side, one left and the other right, the outputs would be perfect for 3D. If you used active shutter glasses then the TV would alternate between each 360 twice a game frame. So if the two 360 outputs were 1080p at 30fps, the TV would be displaying a 1080p at 60fps video. If you used a passive technique like the 3DS each view would lose half of its pixels and the video would only be 1080p at 30fps. This would be perfect stereoscopic 3D with zero optimizations, and it uses 2X the power.

 

However lots of calculations don't depend on the camera's location, at least relative to the other camera. Practically everything except the GPUs are calculating identical information in the two 360 example. So this in itself gets 3D using less than 2X the computational power.

Some of the GPU calculations as well can be shared between viewpoints, but this really depends on how well the dev optimizes the code. Thus it's between 1 and 2 times the computation power, depending on the 3D techniques used.

@Bold Yet games in the benchmark like STALKER COP takes 4X more performance to push a 3D frame and modern warfare 2 is taking as much as 3X the power to also push a frame. It's not impossible for a game to take more than twice the power to output 3D since video memory space is also a limiting factor to performance. 

I think your understimating how demanding stereoscopic 3D is. 

Can I see some games where stereoscopic 3D only takes 70% more power then ? 



fatslob-:O on 11 October 2013
MDMAlliance said:
fatslob-:O said:

Ignorant about PC as per usual. ;P 

Starting to sound like a broken record.  You've done absolutely nothing to disprove anything I said.  Since I needed proof (and provided), you'll need to have proof otherwise you will be the "babbling idiot" (so to speak), not me.

The irony here is the proof is in resident evil revelations LOL. Remember those muddy textures and low draw distance and the 22fps to boot. So much for finding out that you've used a double edged sword on yourself. If you call me an "idiot" then you are the epitome of ignorance. 



JoeTheBro on 11 October 2013
fatslob-:O said:
JoeTheBro said:

First off it's practically impossible for 3D to take more than double the resources. In a hypothetical situation you could just have two 360s (or any other system really) and feed each the same controller input. I'm of course assuming the two games stay perfectly synced.

If each 360 was programed to have the camera slightly shifted to the side, one left and the other right, the outputs would be perfect for 3D. If you used active shutter glasses then the TV would alternate between each 360 twice a game frame. So if the two 360 outputs were 1080p at 30fps, the TV would be displaying a 1080p at 60fps video. If you used a passive technique like the 3DS each view would lose half of its pixels and the video would only be 1080p at 30fps. This would be perfect stereoscopic 3D with zero optimizations, and it uses 2X the power.

 

However lots of calculations don't depend on the camera's location, at least relative to the other camera. Practically everything except the GPUs are calculating identical information in the two 360 example. So this in itself gets 3D using less than 2X the computational power.

Some of the GPU calculations as well can be shared between viewpoints, but this really depends on how well the dev optimizes the code. Thus it's between 1 and 2 times the computation power, depending on the 3D techniques used.

@Bold Yet games in the benchmark like STALKER COP takes 4X more performance to push a 3D frame and modern warfare 2 is taking as much as 3X the power to also push a frame. It's not impossible for a game to take more than twice the power to output 3D since video memory space is also a limiting factor to performance. 

I think your understimating how demanding stereoscopic 3D is. 

Can I see some games where stereoscopic 3D only takes 70% more power then ? 

Guess I need to again say fps!=computational power.



Links

Dr.EisDrachenJaeger on 11 October 2013
fatslob-:O said:
Dr.EisDrachenJaeger said:
Well people seem to think Graphics means physics these days

No but it means better interactivity. ;)


That's what better physics are.

More actions, more reactions, more moving parts. Whether its buildings breaking into a million pieces or the amount of people you have roaming about in the city of Watch Dogs.



fatslob-:O on 11 October 2013
JoeTheBro said:
fatslob-:O said:
JoeTheBro said:

First off it's practically impossible for 3D to take more than double the resources. In a hypothetical situation you could just have two 360s (or any other system really) and feed each the same controller input. I'm of course assuming the two games stay perfectly synced.

If each 360 was programed to have the camera slightly shifted to the side, one left and the other right, the outputs would be perfect for 3D. If you used active shutter glasses then the TV would alternate between each 360 twice a game frame. So if the two 360 outputs were 1080p at 30fps, the TV would be displaying a 1080p at 60fps video. If you used a passive technique like the 3DS each view would lose half of its pixels and the video would only be 1080p at 30fps. This would be perfect stereoscopic 3D with zero optimizations, and it uses 2X the power.

 

However lots of calculations don't depend on the camera's location, at least relative to the other camera. Practically everything except the GPUs are calculating identical information in the two 360 example. So this in itself gets 3D using less than 2X the computational power.

Some of the GPU calculations as well can be shared between viewpoints, but this really depends on how well the dev optimizes the code. Thus it's between 1 and 2 times the computation power, depending on the 3D techniques used.

@Bold Yet games in the benchmark like STALKER COP takes 4X more performance to push a 3D frame and modern warfare 2 is taking as much as 3X the power to also push a frame. It's not impossible for a game to take more than twice the power to output 3D since video memory space is also a limiting factor to performance. 

I think your understimating how demanding stereoscopic 3D is. 

Can I see some games where stereoscopic 3D only takes 70% more power then ? 

Guess I need to again say fps!=computational power.

I know that so please show me some evidence as to why you don't approximately 2X the power atleast to do do stereoscopic 3D. :(