Lol, what happened to gameplay first?
Well aside from having much higher resolution, better lighting effects, better textures and more particles, BF4 also runs at a consistently higher frame rate on the PS4.
So, uh, yea...
Lol, what happened to gameplay first?
Shadows are definitely cast on the track and cars, we've seen that before. The problem is that they're low quality, and not truly being thrown by the trackside detail. They're just approximations, as you can see from the below screenshots:
It's because this isn't AO, not even a low-quality version. It is instead a simulation of AO, using a black shadow cast directly downward onto the track, no matter where the lighting comes from. Forza has used this technique in previous games.
Yep. It's weird crashing into a 3 foot high wall and somehow having the shadow from it cast on top of your 5+ foot car.
I don't understand Tiled Resources:
"Tiled Resources" allows for significant enhancement of in-game textures by making it possible to simultaneously access GPU and traditional RAM memory and create a single large buffer where large textures can be stored. This technique was demonstrated with a model of Mars which displayed a 3 GB texture using just 16 MB of GPU memory and in Graphine’s Granite Flight Simulator that showed "a remarkably detailed island with gliders constructed out of 64 megapixels."
Seriously though, if 720 is really that big of a deal breaker for Call of Duty?
Did that really happen? I saw one of the demos and it seemed like the reflections on the top and sides of the car were not quite right. Like it was reflecting stuff that was too low on the horizon that shouldn't have been bouncing off the hood as a reflection...
I edited and put those links for you. good night and I really look forward to what you find tomorrowIt's 3am. I'll have to try to find some footage tomorrow.
No, a lot of other people also seem to like more aliasing, no ambient occlusion, crushed black levels and overdone sharpening.
Seriously, download the direct feed gameplay videos. The aliasing is hideous.
You're right, in this example just looking at a fraction of a screenshot, I can't tell the difference. They both look equally blurry and bad which still doesn't help the PS4 version's case.
Microsoft itself has made the story about parity with the competition, when highlighting what makes Xbox One unique in terms of exclusive games, services and functionality - along with more effort in returning some of the magic to Kinect - may have served Xbox One more effectively in the run-up to launch.
Well, Silverstone is overcast and Indy is near noon, so only Spa and Sebring really have shadows on track. And a lot of the running time of these videos is in cockpit or hood cam, where shadows cast on the car body aren't visible. Plus Youtube compression adds ragged color blocking to the mix. All this equates to very few opportunities to look for the kind of shadowing process in question.can you spot any of these things in the recent ("near final") direct feed gameplay videos? (true question)
Grimløck;88488221 said:I did the same with my gf and she called me a nerd.
The consistently sunlit buildings on the right side of the track are equally bright in both shots.It could also be an HDR lighting effect, or something similar, automatically dimming the whole screen slightly when the whole vehicle is in the shadow? Have you checked whether the brightness of objects other than the car (objects that are in the light in both frames) changed?
The shadow that the car enters in the "shade" shot barely reaches and doesn't strongly darken the wall on the right side of the track. I don't think it's a reflection issue. My shots are from about 20 seconds into the video, if you'd like to look more closely.wouldnt that right side of the car change luminosity, since anyways it has a bicubic map that before car enters the shadow, the map SHOULD reflect the white wall on the right, while when being under shadow, the wall is not bright white any more?
The shadow that the car enters in the "shade" shot barely reaches and doesn't strongly darken the wall on the right side of the track. I don't think it's a reflection issue. My shots are from about 20 seconds into the video, if you'd like to look more closely.
"shadow maps are slapped top down"... really?
if they are "slapped top down" and that shadow is the second rail as you claim, please show me the slapped-down shadow of the third (top) rail. by what you say, it should be further up on top of the car. right?
(eventhough this is a fucking ANCIENT pic you are drawing conclusions from)
I see what you mean, but the change in luminosity there is not as high as in my prior example. Plus, look at how close the car had to be for the rumble strip to reflect: right on top, basically, but in my comparison the white wall is a good 30 or 40 feet away. And finally, while looking back over my shots I noticed that, in fact, you can see the wall reflection quite clearly! It's the bright white line that runs across both cars:to be sure, please check this for me: just a few seconds later, 28-31 sec the car takes a right turn and the sun is now opposite.
so you have to look at the left side.
you can clearly see that while the left side darkens in places, the reflection of the red & yellow curb clearly illuminates/reflects parts of that left side of the car, and the luminosity lowers as the car moves towards the center and does not reflect the yellows any more.
I haven't tried due to the low bitrate (though I bet there might be some countable stuff in the open cockpit view of the Atom video). I don't really think it's necessary, though; I did count the Bernese Alps video that was just a little older, and found it to be full HD. I have no doubt whatsoever that Forza has always been 1080p and will launch that way.ps. and by the way, these videos are shitty compressed, but did you find a surface part that is good enough for some pixel counting?
given that I am not a very patient man when looking at badly compressed images for details, I'll take your educated guess
It doesn't change luminosity between the shots, and it wouldn't be the source of the dimming area even if it did. None of that is to say I'm definitely right; I could easily be wrong about how Forza is doing shadows. I just think there's no definite verdict yet.
Yeah, though this is such a rough approximation that it's getting into the realm of "kludge" or "stopgap". Whatever you call it, I'm not saying it's an invalid approach; it's certainly better than nothing! It's so imprecise that even untutored viewers can notice, though.
ChiliManiac
Banned
(Yesterday, 10:29 PM)
Here is a gif I made of the new KTM XBOW footage.
The shadow in question has a large dark area and a softer gradient area on the left. You can see the gradient end of the shadow on the left of the center of the vehicle, which is where he drives over it. But if the shadow is being cast from the left to the right, you should see more evidence of the car being occluded by the shadow on the left side.
Honestly that shadow is very weird. It looks like they're from trees. Which is why that blob shadow exists, but you can kind of see it gradient out to the left of that blob, and then you see several "lines" shooting out far left to the trees. Those lines don't look thick enough to be trunks, but it could be some approximated soft shadows. The gradient appears very briefly as a soft shadow on the "left" side of the car, but that massive blob on the right should also have been occluding the car on the left side.thats very strange, I had to go look at the video like 3 times.
if its the turn at ~1:00 (I am sure it is), this "shadow" i cant understand from what it is casted, but it looks like there is actually NO SHADOW where the car passes, but only towards the right side of the road.
if you go just 2 seconds before what you picked, there is another shadow (trees shadow?), which we can see is casted all the way from the left to the right, and when car passes the shadows are perfect..
its hard to understand everything without a free cam, but maybe the one you picked is a shadow of an object ..hanging somewhere above? or a very thin and tall trunk, with the actual bushy part high up so that it doesnt cast shadows right in the middle of the track, but only in the right edge? what do you think?
I'm not sure what shadow you're referencing to. Anyway, like I said, Forza has been using this technique for years now.here;s is the shadow i see as correct, and immediately after is the ..strange shadow in your gif.
>>>> http://youtu.be/SFEdHskMkq4?t=56s
what do you think about this?
also, did you observe stuff like this many times, or this is the single case?
Wow. You guys are analyzing the enjoyment right out of the game! lol.
They had a XBone at the walmart I hit up last night. Forza was running.
While I didn't play it, I watched the demo for a little bit. Gotta say, did not look very impressive. Aliasing galore.
Worse still, I think the Xbone was overheating. Framerate kept hitching all over the place.
Yeah, I'll test it out next time I have the chance. Assuming it's still running lol.I need to check my local shops to see if they have one. I'll play a couple laps to see how it's improved, but I want to do donuts and such to test out tire smoke and lighting, etc.
They had a XBone at the walmart I hit up last night. Forza was running.
While I didn't play it, I watched the demo for a little bit. Gotta say, did not look very impressive. Aliasing galore.
Worse still, I think the Xbone was overheating. Framerate kept hitching all over the place.
those monstersWow. You guys are analyzing the enjoyment right out of the game! lol.
I did some quick photoshopping to see the difference between 1080p native and 720p upscaled. All I did was take a 1080p picture of Killzone: SF, resize it down to 720p and saved it, then resized that saved 720p file back up to 1080p. This is the difference it made. How indicative is it of real results?
I think the gif you picked is of a case that is more like this:
I did some quick photoshopping to see the difference between 1080p native and 720p upscaled. All I did was take a 1080p picture of Killzone: SF, resize it down to 720p and saved it, then resized that saved 720p file back up to 1080p. This is the difference it made. How indicative is it of real results?
Entrecôte;88591082 said:It probably wasn't, but hope that is old code floating around.
The aliasing in the (better compressed) videos really was very noticeable. It is looking like they don't have enough horsepower to apply it though.
I did some quick photoshopping to see the difference between 1080p native and 720p upscaled. All I did was take a 1080p picture of Killzone: SF, resize it down to 720p and saved it, then resized that saved 720p file back up to 1080p. This is the difference it made. How indicative is it of real results?
I did some quick photoshopping to see the difference between 1080p native and 720p upscaled. All I did was take a 1080p picture of Killzone: SF, resize it down to 720p and saved it, then resized that saved 720p file back up to 1080p. This is the difference it made. How indicative is it of real results?
And it’s not just hardware physically, the amount of resources that each system is allowing the game developers to use isn't the same. So from our standpoint that’s something that could change, y’know? We might get more resources back at one point. And that could make things change dramatically for the Xbox One, for instance. It’s a long complicated road that will take years to develop, and I think at the end we’ll have games looking very similar, usually, on both systems.
My little painting was to just show that it appears that where the shadows land don't really matter how much is occluded, it just happens to occlude everything in the vertical frame.I think the gif you picked is of a case that is more like this:
and the video I put, it simply starts IMMEDIATELY before the proper shadow I talk about, and the next second it passes over your gif-shadow,
what I see as a tall tree casting shadows towards the right edge of the track, or the shadow of an object held high, like a sign or something.
therefore its correct
very easy to see, just click, and watch from 0:56 that starts, 58sec it passes over normal shadow, up to 1:01 it passes the "elevated" one, where your gif also ends
http://youtu.be/SFEdHskMkq4?t=56s
It's kind of hard to find examples. FM5 seems to have difficulty in shadows or something. Look at the beginning of the video where the XBOW is driving along the shadow with it going down the middle of the car, yet the lighting of the car isn't changed at all. So it's hard to find these things.also, I ask again, did you find anything else other than the one you posted?
boot a pc game at 720p, grab a screen
boot the same game at 1080p, grab a screen
.
.
profit
Not that good, since you downsampled the shot to 720p instead of rendering it at 720p. That means that the geometry and AA and everything is calculated from a lot more pixels, so much more clear, then reduced to fewer pixels, then blown up again. That makes it blurrier, but it also took out the aliasing on the OWL in the process, for example.
If you have an image rendered using fewer pixels and then blown up, everything would be more jagged and more pixelated instead of simply blurred.
Err, I mean
Such 720p
Much awesome
So amaze
Outputting much 1080p
etc, etc
It's kind of hard to find examples. FM5 seems to have difficulty in shadows or something. Look at the beginning of the video where the XBOW is driving along the shadow with it going down the middle of the car, yet the lighting of the car isn't changed at all. So it's hard to find these things.
Even in the 600mb direct feed file that Turn 10 release a while back of the Alps, you don't see any shadowing AT ALL.
come on now phosphor, you are better than this.. first you use a pic from before e3,I wouldn't say that Alps footage is "old as shit" since it's only a month old, though the lighting of it isn't representative.
boot a pc game at 720p, grab a screen
boot the same game at 1080p, grab a screen
.
.
profit
come on now phosphor, you are better than this.. first you use a pic from before e3,
and now the alps video which is not even near final build.
and even the above vids, they are not *final*, like case closed.
admit the game looks sweet
also admit there are no eye-popping gfx flaws. or find them
I just did this with Crysis 2, and I got the same kind of results. Everything in the upscaled 720p picture is fuzzier and more blurred in the same way the Killzone picture was. I didn't see an increase in aliasing. Is this because the screenshots are already a preset map of pixels that just soften when stretched?
very cool 8)I do think the game looks great. When the Spa footage was finally shown, I thought it looked fantastic. I also love the reflections even if it does show the z-buffered UI elements. It's clean, it's accurate. I'm just simply pointing out the flaws that I see in the lighting engine.
Not that good, since you downsampled the shot to 720p instead of rendering it at 720p. That means that the geometry and AA and everything is calculated from a lot more pixels, so much more clear, then reduced to fewer pixels, then blown up again. That makes it blurrier, but it also took out the aliasing on the OWL in the process, for example.
If you have an image rendered using fewer pixels and then blown up, everything would be more jagged and more pixelated instead of simply blurred.
Err, I mean
Such 720p
Much awesome
So amaze
Outputting much 1080p
etc, etc