scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> The CPU is routinely used for graphics effects in the PS3, here's the 
> first reference I could find via google:

> "We're doing all the post-processing effects on the Synergistic 
> Processing Units." Screen Space Ambient Occlusion for example, was done 
> completely on the SPUs"

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncharted_2:_Among_Thieves#Graphics_and_technology

  Well, I suppose that if the CPU has direct fast access to the different
GPU buffers, it could be used for that purpose.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >    The scene geometry cannot be loaded all at once onto the GPU RAM if the
> > scenery is huge (which is the case at least with open sandbox games and even
> > non-sandbox ones if the scenery is very detailed). The scenery has to be
> > loaded dynamically as the player moves. The more RAM you have, the less
> > loading needed and the faster the game.

> Why should loading the scenery from disc slow down the game?

  Odd question. Because the disc is really, really slow?

  The more RAM you have, the more scenery you can preload, which allows
showing more detail at greater distances, reduce the amount of visible
changes in level-of-detail when you move, and overall works as a larger
"cache" for the scenery.

  If you have less RAM, this "cache" gets filled a lot quicker needing
a lot more loading from disc as you move around, and it reduces the amount
of detail you can show and introduces more visible changes in LOD levels.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Why should loading the scenery from disc slow down the game?
>
>    Odd question. Because the disc is really, really slow?

The CPU and GPU can carry on working whilst a file is loading, you don't 
have to block everything whilst the file loads (thankfully!).

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> Why should loading the scenery from disc slow down the game?
> >
> >    Odd question. Because the disc is really, really slow?

> The CPU and GPU can carry on working whilst a file is loading, you don't 
> have to block everything whilst the file loads (thankfully!).

  It's hard to work on something that has not been loaded.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>    It's hard to work on something that has not been loaded.

There's an obvious solution to that, which I think most large-world 
games use, even on the PC (due to slow transfer between CPU and GPU 
RAM).  IIRC on GTA3 if you hacked the cars to go really fast, you could 
drive to places before the high-resolution textures and models had 
loaded, then after a second or so everything would suddenly get more 
detail :-)

Post a reply to this message

Le 01/04/2011 14:47, Warp a écrit :
> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>>>> Why should loading the scenery from disc slow down the game?
>>>
>>>    Odd question. Because the disc is really, really slow?
> 
>> The CPU and GPU can carry on working whilst a file is loading, you don't 
>> have to block everything whilst the file loads (thankfully!).
> 
>   It's hard to work on something that has not been loaded.
> 
Right.
But you can usually split the scenery in areas. You only need the
current area and its neighbour in memory.
New area could be loaded when changing the list of neighbour (in fact,
you could just keep the current area, its neighbour and its neighbour's
neighbour. When the neighbour become current, there is still plenty of
works for CPU & GPU while loading the new neighbour's neighbours.)

That's the difference between games that put you in a tunnel/corridor,
and the ones which don't: the former only manage a 1D of areas, usually
as a basic list... the latter is more complex.

-- 
Software is like dirt - it costs time and money to change it and move it
around.

Just because you can't see it, it doesn't weigh anything,
and you can't drill a hole in it and stick a rivet into it doesn't mean
it's free.

Post a reply to this message

Warp escreveu:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Oh, agreed in all ways. It's not like we're comparing the Wii or something.
> 
>   It's curious that technically the Wii is like 10 years old, yet if you
> look at the sales, it surpasses the Xbox 360 and the PS3 combined. By a
> large margin.

Unless you're considering sales only in one particular region.  Global 
sales for 360 and PS3 combined are higher than for Wii.  Which is a good 
thing as far as true gaming is concerned.

Wii didn't target gamers who are into this media for ages.  They tried 
to bring a new audience into the media, by offering a new largely 
buttonless control experience.  Unfortunately, the people playing Wii 
are more acurately described as the people playing Wii Sports and a few 
other casual games -- besides the die-hard loyal Nintendo fanboys.  Part 
of this audience is now buying Kinect instead.

But Wii was just the begining into bringing down the industry to more 
primitive and cheaper gameplaying experience.  Just look at Apple and 
the 99 cents one-shot games proclaiming the death of Nintendo and even 
consoles...

I for one had my fair share of primitive (but far more challenging) 
gameplay in the 80's.  They are all the rage again now, except with no 
challenge and much arrogance...

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

scott escreveu:
>> I just noticed that things on the PS3 seem less ... shiney. :-) Like,
>> there's much more detail in batman's cape on the xbox than the ps3, from
>> what I can notice without having them physically side-by-side. Maybe the
>> dev tools for that sort of thing are easier on the xbox, so more work
>> goes into making it prettier. Or it might just be my imagination. :-)
> 
> I haven't played on the xbox360 very often (I don't own one) but my 
> impression is games on the PS3 use motion-blur and depth-of-field 
> approximation effects more.

hmm, there's DOF in Assassin's Creed whenever you target someone.  Is 
there none in 360?

> Maybe the devs are just trying to find ways 
> to use up the spare CPU cores, but often it makes the game look quite 
> bad in still shots, when you can see that they are just faking the effects.

Most new effects in this generation only make them justice in motion. 
Normal and spec maps are wonderful, but in shots they just look like 
more texture.  You don't see lighting dynamically changing them.  DOF 
and motion blur much the same.

> Mind you, apart from the shadows (why use low resolution shadow map 
> textures in such a polished game??), Gran Turismo 5 is beautiful.

Shadow maps are another incredible effect, allowing for much shadowing 
on characters and even self-shadowing.  They are lowrez after all, but 
still impressive.

It's amazing how we've gone from blocky characters with almost no 
texturing besides goraud shading and circular ground shadows in the 
first generation of 3D hardware, to fine textured models with all 
fingers and shadow projections in the environments in the second 
generation to fully detailed models with fine details provided by 
normal/spec maps and self-shadowing and environment shadows casted upon 
them nowadays.  It's a marvel to behold.  Guess nextgen high quality AA, 
motion blur, hirez shadow maps, HDR lighting, screen space AO, screen 
space Subsurface scattering and real-time tesselation will pretty much 
provide Pixar-level excellence in 60 frames per second...

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

On 4/1/2011 11:22 AM, nemesis wrote:
>
> Shadow maps are another incredible effect, allowing for much shadowing
> on characters and even self-shadowing. They are lowrez after all, but
> still impressive.
>

Have you ever played Splinter Cell for the 1st Xbox? Shadow maps really 
gave that game justice.

> It's amazing how we've gone from blocky characters with almost no
> texturing besides goraud shading and circular ground shadows in the
> first generation of 3D hardware,

Super Mario 64 was great...

> to fine textured models with all
> fingers and shadow projections in the environments

Even the character in Driver 2 had shadows (plus a way to work your way 
into any building)...

> in the second
> generation to fully detailed models with fine details provided by
> normal/spec maps and self-shadowing and environment shadows casted upon
> them nowadays. It's a marvel to behold.

It must be. I don't know whether to get a handhold emulator or the next 
best Xbox... (or a Wii, because Mario games /rock/)

> Guess nextgen high quality AA,
> motion blur, hirez shadow maps, HDR lighting, screen space AO, screen
> space Subsurface scattering and real-time tesselation will pretty much
> provide Pixar-level excellence in 60 frames per second...

Ah, someday realistic 3D rendering will merge completely and 
unequivocally with gaming technology. Hopefully those cards will be 
optimized for raytracing. Can you imagine making a game with POV? (I 
can, but the SDL needs some work :) )

____________
Now Playing:
  Clonk Rage
   Also Playing:
    Landslide, Smashing Pumpkins
     irony: 100%

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] freefr> wrote:

> > scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >>>> Why should loading the scenery from disc slow down the game?
> >>>
> >>>    Odd question. Because the disc is really, really slow?
> > 
> >> The CPU and GPU can carry on working whilst a file is loading, you don't 
> >> have to block everything whilst the file loads (thankfully!).
> > 
> >   It's hard to work on something that has not been loaded.
> > 
> Right.
> But you can usually split the scenery in areas. You only need the
> current area and its neighbour in memory.

  Which is exactly where more RAM helps a lot: You can have more detailed
models and higher-resolution textures (and other types of bitmaps) for
larger visiblity distances, and overall have a larger "buffer" for the
scenery, allowing for less visible changes in LOD levels.

  I don't even understand why we are having this conversation. What I'm
saying should be patently obvious. The counterargument makes it sound like
one doesn't need RAM at all to draw a 3D scene in real-time.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message