palancas7 said: Why call it CE3 when it's inferior to CE2?

 

The problem with CE2 was that it was pretty much a PC only engine, and it's a vastly more superior looking engine compared to the CE3 "console" version because it's built for PC only in mind originally, CE3 is built for all platforms outside of Wii( duh,) and notice that they didn't show any PC rendering, which I'll bet looks A LOT better and would just slap the consoles in the face for the presentation which would serve no point.

People who are comparing this "middleware" tech demo(which is likely not that polished, and mainly just shows the engine basics) to an inhouse project that lasted 5 years on a huge budget with many cheat tricks and hack arounds like KZ2 are ridiculous, I'll bet you that if GG released their KZ2 engine for other people to use, people wouldn't know what the hell to do with it at all where as CE3 most likely has a full dev kit and good support on the get go on any platform that it works on. You simply can't compare KZ2 to any middleware, it makes no sense at all. You should be comparing something like this to the Unreal Engine or Source Engine(or Anthenna, or whichever other ones) etc on the consoles, I really don't get what some of you guys are thinking when you post these things.

^ cheat tricks and hacks?

i stopped reading after that.

@ Baggins

Provide me one 720p 360 game which provides FP16 HDR and anti-aliasing.

Regarding Uncharted: Drake's Fortune look here:
http://www.naughtydog.com/corporate/press/GDC%202008/UnchartedTechGDC2008.pdf



No, Cell + RSX is well more powerful than Xenon + Xenos regarding graphics.

Granted the RSX all by itself has its weak spots (as well as its strong points vs the Xenos), the Cell's SPEs are far more powerful and flexible as helping hands at all the tasks the RSX is relative weak at vs the Xenos (read, a very good companion GPU for the Cell, the PS3 would be well weaker with regard to graphics potential if the system had a Xenos-like GPU instead).

An important bottleneck regarding the 360 graphics architecture is the EDRAM size, which results into developers having to resort to tiling.



Sure, please do.

Awesome.

Jo21 said: Garnett said: haxxiy said: Jo21 said: Garnett said: haxxiy said: MikeB said: @ Baggins I haven't looked but that "cartoony" look you always talk of with regards to the 360 visuals is actually HDR rendering (High dynamic range). It's something the PS3 is incapable of with AA at the same time. Something that the graphics chip on the 360 excells in. The 360 is not capable of proper real FP16 HDR, only Halo 3 has this sacrificing rendering resolution and anti-aliasing. Games usually use a semi (FP10) HDR (sometimes referred to as MDR) technique only used by the console as a trade off. Uncharted: Drake's Fortune (2007) for example provides full FP16 HDR together with anti-aliasing, but there's still was a lot of untapped potential according to the developers, so Uncharted 2 will probably push the PS3 hardware much better.   Just as a side note, I would like to add the PS3 is much better than the X360 at HDR. Many games like Far Cry 2, CoD 4 feature better lighting on PS3 while the X360 kinda struggles with similar effects.  See Halo 3 which runs at 1152x640 to keep with HDR while Killzone 2 features "controlled" HDR at 1920x1080 altogether with 2x temporal anti-aliasing. Only PS3 is capable of 128-bit precision full range HDR, much like Geforce 8 GPUs or later. Unlike many people think, Sony didn't just tap a Geforce 7800 onto the PS3 expecting things to work. There was a lot of development over it. No killzone 2 runs at 720p not 1080p,get it right. its more than 640p and thats mainly because 10mb isnt big enough to handle a 720p full antialiased, with HDR.   No, it is 640p for sure: http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=12821 Bungie itself said it. And Halo 3 does not feature anti-aliasing of any kind, since 10MB was alreay too few to contain the double frame buffer the game uses.   I know Halo 3 is 640p i just said that. And Halo 3 can have 4 player split screen with a huge draw distance which Killzone 2 does NOT do,so that means Halo 3 has the same resoultion as KZ2 with 4 players running off the same console while Killzone 2 only has to worrie about one player on the console.   killzone 2 doesn't have co op not because power, it can handle 32 players online like breeze!!!. but rather kz2 doens't have a install it reads from the disc and x2 blu ray drive it's not fast enough, it create  a ghosting and players teleporting. killzone 2 runs like butter.

It handles 32 players because it has dedicated servers,if you read the back of the game case it says

 

"SCEA Reserves the right to retire the online portion of this game within a 90 day notice".

 

Jo21 said: Garnett said: haxxiy said: Jo21 said: Garnett said: haxxiy said: MikeB said: @ Baggins I haven't looked but that "cartoony" look you always talk of with regards to the 360 visuals is actually HDR rendering (High dynamic range). It's something the PS3 is incapable of with AA at the same time. Something that the graphics chip on the 360 excells in. The 360 is not capable of proper real FP16 HDR, only Halo 3 has this sacrificing rendering resolution and anti-aliasing. Games usually use a semi (FP10) HDR (sometimes referred to as MDR) technique only used by the console as a trade off. Uncharted: Drake's Fortune (2007) for example provides full FP16 HDR together with anti-aliasing, but there's still was a lot of untapped potential according to the developers, so Uncharted 2 will probably push the PS3 hardware much better.   Just as a side note, I would like to add the PS3 is much better than the X360 at HDR. Many games like Far Cry 2, CoD 4 feature better lighting on PS3 while the X360 kinda struggles with similar effects.  See Halo 3 which runs at 1152x640 to keep with HDR while Killzone 2 features "controlled" HDR at 1920x1080 altogether with 2x temporal anti-aliasing. Only PS3 is capable of 128-bit precision full range HDR, much like Geforce 8 GPUs or later. Unlike many people think, Sony didn't just tap a Geforce 7800 onto the PS3 expecting things to work. There was a lot of development over it. No killzone 2 runs at 720p not 1080p,get it right. its more than 640p and thats mainly because 10mb isnt big enough to handle a 720p full antialiased, with HDR.   No, it is 640p for sure: http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=12821 Bungie itself said it. And Halo 3 does not feature anti-aliasing of any kind, since 10MB was alreay too few to contain the double frame buffer the game uses.   I know Halo 3 is 640p i just said that. And Halo 3 can have 4 player split screen with a huge draw distance which Killzone 2 does NOT do,so that means Halo 3 has the same resoultion as KZ2 with 4 players running off the same console while Killzone 2 only has to worrie about one player on the console.   killzone 2 doesn't have co op not because power, it can handle 32 players online like breeze!!!. but rather kz2 doens't have a install it reads from the disc and x2 blu ray drive it's not fast enough, it create  a ghosting and players teleporting. killzone 2 runs like butter.

lolno, KZ2 dosent have splitscreen because the PS3 would probably blow up trying to render killzone 2 twice.

 

Jo21 said: ^ cheat tricks and hacks? i stopped reading after that.

 

well, you shouldn't, KZ2 used a lot of short cuts with the way they rendered a lot of the things, and I think they did a very good job doing so and that's console gaming at it's finest, which is not something you do with middlewares in it's intial package, so comparing a tech demo of an engine to a 5 year long product is very very short sighted.

Looks good.

Picking sides over which looks best is pathetic guys especially given the poor capture and low resolution. Also lets not forget that the low resolution provides AA to mask defects also.

tmbh said:   All I did was point out two points from that video where the same section is shown on both consoles as a comparison. I make no claims whatsoever as to which looks better!

 

Ok, so you were saying check both the 360 and PS3 versions around :53, then check them both around 1:19?  I'll believe you.  Though, note that what is onscreen at those two moments are: the PS3 inside shot at :53, then the 360 outside shot at 1:19.  It really seemed from your post like you were comparing them, rather than comparing similar shots from each console.

I didn't even notice a PS3 analog for that particular 360 shot, either...which may have compounded the confusion.  Anyway, my apologies, since you weren't claiming what I thought you were.

dahuman said: Jo21 said: ^ cheat tricks and hacks? i stopped reading after that.   well, you shouldn't, KZ2 used a lot of short cuts with the way they rendered a lot of the things, and I think they did a very good job doing so and that's console gaming at it's finest, which is not something you do with middlewares in it's intial package, so comparing a tech demo of an engine to a 5 year long product is very very short sighted.

 

 a middle ware engine that been development for years also!.

a over 40 million budget game isn't cheap tricks and hacks.

@

TowlieFTW

its not twice resolution of the game is cut, and ps3 had 4 player offline co op with haze,  and they already explain ghosting/teleporting players was the problem due the heavy disc streaming.

killzone 2 only have an initial load screen and its fast.

co op haze : http://www.joystiq.com/2007/05/22/haze-will-have-four-player-co-op-campaign/