4D graphics only on PS3

[Sterist]

via Playstation Universe (http://www.psu.com/4D-Graphics--A-Reality-Only-For-PlayStation-3--a1063-p0.php)

according to this article, "upscale PCs and playstation 3's" are the only systems capable of rendering 4D games at playable speeds


We all know what 3D graphics are - length, width & depth, but how many know what 4D graphics are? If you are one of the millions of people thinking 'What the %&$* are 4D graphics?', don't be alarmed. You've already seen them. Shocking isn't it? We all remember Kutaragi proclaiming not too long ago that PS3 would utilize 4D graphics, but what exactly did he mean?

4D, from a developer’s point of view, is is the progression of Life in time. It is where every tangible object in your game is living and constantly changing. As a result, change becomes an integral part of 4D graphics.

But how does all of this become possible? The answer is the dynamic rendering of procedural textures. Sounds complicated, but it's not. Let me explain; Procedural textures are textures which are linked to an algorithm. Instead of the texture being drawn pixel by pixel, you define the way these pixels have to be lit to produce the texture you want.

When the procedural texture is placed somewhere, you utilize an engine for actually generating these bitmap textures. They have life. They can change in a way you define them, especially through time. In a lot of the current games, the randomized textures method is used. Developers use one bitmap and just map it on randomly in the environment to create the design for that specific area. Every texture is not defined or unique. So, the method to create procedural textures allows for more control.

Allegorithmic is a utility set which allows an extensive realization of procedural textures. With it you define the procedures way using MaPZone, and then use ProFX to rasterize the images, producing the final result to be displayed by a renderer or a game engine.

for the full article and a couple video demonstrations of the sexy 4D graphics, click the link at the top of the post :thumbup:

Edit aug 31st:

for an "almost full explaination" of what 4D and 5D is, read this:
hope this clears things up a lil. thank you wikipedia

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/8444/diceanalogy1to5dimensiozm0.png

1. -- gaming not possible in 1 dimension

============================

2. most first-gen games used 2D. NES and SNES were the last consoles that had a focus for 2D (sidescroller) games

============================

3. third dimension games are what you've been seeing if you started gaming around 1992~1995. 3D games did exsist before but few and far between

============================

4. xbox360 and PS3 are the only consoles that can handle 4D. only PS3 can handle at playable rate. textural 4D exceeds what a "vista upgraded" PC could handle in a high-res game. textural 4D, in terms of gaming, is when all the pixil-level graphics are 4 dimensional. the resolution in which it's projected from determins how many calculations the system will need to make. a modern vista pc does not have the means necesary to produce this at the pixil-level as a game environment.

------------------------------------------

4th dimension is indeed time. time, on that analogy, is the darker/thinner shadow-looking cube. when looking at 4 dimensions you will find that the images have more "clarity" in their motion, as it's shadowing anything in motion. i don't want to go into too much detail on it as it's not THAT hard to picture. the lines that appear red in the analogy are 3D hinges and are not part of the visual texture. they cannot be (im making this word up, i think) unparallelize the parent from it's shadow texture or vice-versa. the harry/fuzzy-looking green lines are hinges but can only move on the 2D level in which the parent 3D model defines, as long as the perpendiculat lines attached to them on both sides of the "harry/fuzzy-looking" green lines are SIAs, or Supplimentary Interior Angles, or for short -- add up to 180°. all plains on the parent model cannot be unparallelized/unperpendicularized by the motion in it's vector field. vector fields are 2D. the corresponding lines and their angles on the shadow can move in the same manor. if you still dont understand what a SIA is, look up the name (which is in italics) on wikipedia or dictionary.com

===========================

5. "only possible on a super-computor" on the notes from 2006 i found. this obviously will change as computors advance in time. cannot be done with the CPU of one or two units, atleast... for now

------------------------------------------------

in the fifth dimension:

1. the lines depicted above in the 4th dimension explaination which could move in 3D can now move in 4D -- or in otherwords, can now unparallelize the parent texture from it's shadow.

2. the lines depicted above in the 4th dimension explaination which could move in 2D can now move in 3D -- or in other words, can now unsupplimentarize the two horizontal plains but cannot unparallelize them.

===========================

[Elven6]

Who concluded this bit of research?

[ICE]

to be honest with all the raw power the ps3 has i would be disappointed if it couldnt do stuff like that.

[Man]

This isnt truely 4 dimensional as having four dimensions would not be seen by the human eye, its merly upscaled 3D. I remember reading that the human brain canot accually veiw 4 dimensional objects as the 4th dimension is somthing that the human brain cannot comprehend. although this is mighty kickass

[ICE]

well the 4th dimension is time so its not a physical 4th dimension but an intangible one. its a neat idea though.

[quzar]

This is such BS. Anything that has any animation already takes the dimension of time into account, even if it is a simple cycle.

Yay for Sony's ability to say silly things to hype their systems. This sounds exactly like them saying that the PS2 could render Toy Story in real time.

[Sterist]

This is such BS. Anything that has any animation already takes the dimension of time into account, even if it is a simple cycle.

Yay for Sony's ability to say silly things to hype their systems. This sounds exactly like them saying that the PS2 could render Toy Story in real time.

there are more than 4 dimensions and they arent on a physic-defined order

the article has a whole paragraph on it. should prolly read the whole thing tho

[ICE]

someones biased..

[quzar]

there are more than 4 dimensions and they arent on a physic-defined order

the article has a whole paragraph on it. should prolly read the whole thing tho

I read the whole article, and besides the typos which really exemplify the point of people forgoing proofreading due to the availibility of spellcheckers, it really has nothing new. They are simply describing with lofty terms animated textures, the only thing that is different between this and what has existed for ages is the complexity of it.

Think of any shooter game where if you shoot a wall a bullet hole appears. What this is describing is a system where the bullet hole would actually be dependant on the surface you shoot, the angle of the bullet, etc. Each object (or at least many) would be "alive" so that through gameplay interactions with other objects change them realistically. Again, this isn't different from anything that already exists in anything but complexity.

Yes, I'm biased, but I also own a PlayStation and PlayStation 2, and you can't really say that the source "Playstation Universe" would be unbiased.

[Man]

well the 4th dimension is time so its not a physical 4th dimension but an intangible one. its a neat idea though.

hmmm im going to look it up later and try and remember what i meant to say, but ya this stuff is pretty cool.

[Cap'n 1time]

"4D" here, does not exactly refer to the dimensions in physics (not time), but spacial dimensions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_dimension

In any case, this is sony hyping crap. 4 spacial dimensions could be displayed or at least simulated with any 3d modeling software I think.

[Masta-G]

"Now, let’s fix a common misconception. These 4D renders can be processed on the Xbox 360 with an average mean time of 10-12 seconds. Yes. The renders are possible, but the dynamic realization of procedural texture streaming is not. The dynamic renders with characters in the scene, with progression of life through the time continuum, are not possible with the 360 system. It would take days to produce dynamic renders on the 360 in the fullest definition of 4D graphics--this with the software already optimized for it."

So the PS3 is really much more powerfull with its SPU's compared to the Xbox 360?

I recently saw Call of Juarez and Bioshock on the 360 and I was very impressed. It made me think the difference wasnt that great.

[Sterist]

"Now, let’s fix a common misconception. These 4D renders can be processed on the Xbox 360 with an average mean time of 10-12 seconds. Yes. The renders are possible, but the dynamic realization of procedural texture streaming is not. The dynamic renders with characters in the scene, with progression of life through the time continuum, are not possible with the 360 system. It would take days to produce dynamic renders on the 360 in the fullest definition of 4D graphics--this with the software already optimized for it."

So the PS3 is really much more powerfull with its SPU's compared to the Xbox 360?

I recently saw Call of Juarez and Bioshock on the 360 and I was very impressed. It made me think the difference wasnt that great.

10-12sec wait for textures is an unbareable wait to proceed through a map. that would never make it to shelves n anyone who would buy such a choppy game will be sending in love letters by the dozen.

anyway there "is" a 5th dimension which could be called the fourth if "the fourth" is not present. idk how that makes sense logically but it works. but either way i think that they ment "4D" as a better graphical display of the dimensions / better handling vs. the statements in this thread so far.

either way, it's definately overstated <--- concluded as "speculation" till further explaination / clarification from sony and what they mean by 4D

[TeenDev]

thats ****ing awesome!

[Basil Zero]

Yayz

something that should be placed in all games xD

[Sterist]

hope this clears things up a lil. thank you wikipedia

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/8444/diceanalogy1to5dimensiozm0.png

1. -- gaming not possible in 1 dimension

============================

2. most first-gen games used 2D. NES and SNES were the last consoles that had a focus for 2D (sidescroller) games

============================

3. third dimension games are what you've been seeing if you started gaming around 1992~1995. 3D games did exsist before but few and far between

============================

4. xbox360 and PS3 are the only consoles that can handle 4D. only PS3 can handle at playable rate. textural 4D exceeds what a "vista upgraded" PC could handle in a high-res game. textural 4D, in terms of gaming, is when all the pixil-level graphics are 4 dimensional. the resolution in which it's projected from determins how many calculations the system will need to make. a modern vista pc does not have the means necesary to produce this at the pixil-level as a game environment.

------------------------------------------

4th dimension is indeed time. time, on that analogy, is the darker/thinner shadow-looking cube. when looking at 4 dimensions you will find that the images have more "clarity" in their motion, as it's shadowing anything in motion. i don't want to go into too much detail on it as it's not THAT hard to picture. the lines that appear red in the analogy are 3D hinges and are not part of the visual texture. they cannot be (im making this word up, i think) unparallelize the parent from it's shadow texture or vice-versa. the harry/fuzzy-looking green lines are hinges but can only move on the 2D level in which the parent 3D model defines, as long as the perpendiculat lines attached to them on both sides of the "harry/fuzzy-looking" green lines are SIAs, or Supplimentary Interior Angles, or for short -- add up to 180°. all plains on the parent model cannot be unparallelized/unperpendicularized by the motion in it's vector field. vector fields are 2D. the corresponding lines and their angles on the shadow can move in the same manor. if you still dont understand what a SIA is, look up the name (which is in italics) on wikipedia or dictionary.com

===========================

5. "only possible on a super-computor" on the notes from 2006 i found. this obviously will change as computors advance in time. cannot be done with the CPU of one or two units, atleast... for now ;)

------------------------------------------------

in the fifth dimension:

1. the lines depicted above in the 4th dimension explaination which could move in 3D can now move in 4D -- or in otherwords, can now unparallelize the parent texture from it's shadow.

2. the lines depicted above in the 4th dimension explaination which could move in 2D can now move in 3D -- or in other words, can now unsupplimentarize the two horizontal plains but cannot unparallelize them.

===========================

[quzar]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the article. The "4th dimension" they talk about is objects growing and changing, that is, in games prior you have time taken into affect in motion and story but individual objects don't change. This is just extending time into all pieces of the game (or more).

The picture that you posted from wikipedia has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the article as it details a fourth spatial dimention, as opposed to the virtual "4th dimension" that they are talking about.

Even if you were to make a game that has 4 spatial dimensions (they exist) it would not be possible to display it properly in two dimensions (a television or monitor).

[Sterist]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the article. The "4th dimension" they talk about is objects growing and changing, that is, in games prior you have time taken into affect in motion and story but individual objects don't change. This is just extending time into all pieces of the game (or more).

The picture that you posted from wikipedia has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the article as it details a fourth spatial dimention, as opposed to the virtual "4th dimension" that they are talking about.

Even if you were to make a game that has 4 spatial dimensions (they exist) it would not be possible to display it properly in two dimensions (a television or monitor).

with the proper resolution yes you can display it on a monitor no prob. required amount of pixils go up exponentially with the number of dimensions to display. and in that article they talk about how they specially "shade" the pixils to simulate 4D, while making the calculations to double-up the image and shadow it on a constantly changing vector.

it's not exactly extending time. it's shadowing the real-time image relative to a couple miliseconds before. it's hard to explain. it can't just be called a shadow, but that's about the most basic way to explain it. a shadow and 4D cannot be compared with eachother -- apples n oranges, though they share a concept.

now then. 4D is necesary to bring the environment to life as they speak of. instead of... for example a bullet hole appearing as a picture of a bullet hole ontop of the object / wall picture, it will scar or tunnel through the texture of the object / wall. that's what requires all the extra pixils and is why it cant be displayed on today's and the near-future's monitors. it can be simulated on the most high-def TVs though with the pixil shading technique. the calculations the system performs depict a 4D world, but must be slightly "downscaled" to display without looking like a big blurr.

i pretty sure you already know what an exponential graph looks like, but for those who don't, here you go:

disregard the co-ordinates
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Exp.svg/200px-Exp.svg.png

[quzar]

with the proper resolution yes you can display it on a monitor no prob. required amount of pixils go up exponentially with the number of dimensions to display. and in that article they talk about how they specially "shade" the pixils to simulate 4D, while making the calculations to double-up the image and shadow it on a constantly changing vector.

it's not exactly extending time. it's shadowing the real-time image relative to a couple miliseconds before. it's hard to explain. it can't just be called a shadow, but that's about the most basic way to explain it. a shadow and 4D cannot be compared with eachother -- apples n oranges, though they share a concept.

now then. 4D is necesary to bring the environment to life as they speak of. instead of... for example a bullet hole appearing as a picture of a bullet hole ontop of the object / wall picture, it will scar or tunnel through the texture of the object / wall. that's what requires all the extra pixils and is why it cant be displayed on today's and the near-future's monitors. it can be simulated on the most high-def TVs though with the pixil shading technique. the calculations the system performs depict a 4D world, but must be slightly "downscaled" to display without looking like a big blurr.

i pretty sure you already know what an exponential graph looks like, but for those who don't, here you go:

disregard the co-ordinates
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Exp.svg/200px-Exp.svg.png

I don't know where you're getting that information, but it is entirely false. A fourth spatial dimension cannot be properly simulated on a 2 dimensional surface, and on top of that not only would you not be able to process the extra spatial dimension, but it wouldn't be useful in anything but the most abstract of games, as we don't have one.

[Shadowblind]

We have 3 dimensions-- Up and down, left and right, and forward in back.

Is Sony saying that they found a new dimension now or something?

[Sterist]

4D can be properly displayed on a TV that supports a resolution much larger than today's 1080i.

if you were to look at the screen close up, the pixils would be able to establish the more complex appearance of a 4D image texture that wasn't possible on a smaller resolution. comparing today's state-of-the-art displays to what it would take, the pixils on today's would need to have a dozen or so more pixils inside of it because of the increased number of points needed at the size of 'todays pixil'

[Shadowblind]

Well hate to be the bearer of bad news but...

Like the majority of the gaming population I have found little to no difference in the 360's and PS3's graphics.

So yeah. 4D or not, it doesn't seem to make the PS3 good.

[Sterist]

i'd hate to be the bearer of badder news :) but the ps3 hasn't been taken near it's limits yet. 360 games dating back almost a year ago reach the console's max capacity

ps3 is hands-down fully capable of better graphics, as well as the HDMI output. when developers learn how to fully utilize a console's resources.... who knows. but it's happened for every console from the psx / n64 era and later. that includes 360 by the way ;)

[TeenDev]

1. -- gaming not possible in 1 dimension



wat about pong and snake?

[F9zDark]

This is such BS. Anything that has any animation already takes the dimension of time into account, even if it is a simple cycle.

Yay for Sony's ability to say silly things to hype their systems. This sounds exactly like them saying that the PS2 could render Toy Story in real time.

This statement is outright wrong. Animations are defined. They are not dynamic.

A person walking in a game is static, it is hand-drawn, made to look that way. Wood rotting in real-time due to water hitting it, and never rotting the same way twice, is wholly dynamic.

Now, if developers could program a model's skeleton to animate itself depending on the obstacles it has to overcome, then sure that would be 4th dimensional.

But life, and all its dimensions, are not static.

[F9zDark]

i'd hate to be the bearer of badder news :) but the ps3 hasn't been taken near it's limits yet. 360 games dating back almost a year ago reach the console's max capacity


I don't know about last year's games, but Valve developers said they nearly maxed out the 360 with TF2, reaching 98% of its hardware capability.

[F9zDark]

wat about pong and snake?

Nope, those are 2d. 1D games are impossible, since it would consist of a line, without height/width (therefore, invisible). It could have an infinite length, but without the second dimension, we wouldn't be able to tell what we were looking at.

[Shadowblind]

I don't know about last year's games, but Valve developers said they nearly maxed out the 360 with TF2, reaching 98% of its hardware capability.

Either fake, or they lied.

btw, whats TF2? I checked IGN, they couldn't find anything with those initials.


Specs between the PS3 and 360's limits are similar. So I guess that means the PS3 is almost maxed too, huh. And I know its safe to say that, no, they have not come close to the 360 or the PS3's limits.

And yeah there is no such thing as a 1d game. Wh00t an infinite line :D

[Sterist]

Specs between the PS3 and 360's limits are similar. So I guess that means the PS3 is almost maxed too, huh. And I know its safe to say that, no, they have not come close to the 360 or the PS3's limits.

the ps3 has more advanced hardware. all, well, most hardware nowdays can do something on their own without requiring CPU usage. aka 'hardware decoding'. the graphics card is a year ahead of the 360's, and it's just getting it's commercial life started.

another famous thing on the ps3 you might hear about is game storage. the thing is, with the 9gig discs, you can either create a long game with crude to moderate graphics, or a short game with good graphics. when the developers take the "better graphic route", they still can't be displayed any higher than 720p. with 51gigs on a single layer bluray, you can have a long game AND good graphics, with a good 10 or 20gigs to spare. the 360 is on it's toes, as microsoft most likely didnt think about where 2004's technology would be in a few years to tens of years. all slack has been taken up, and all strings pulled. the PS3 on the otherhand can fit games which take YEARS (vs. months) to make, and it's internal firmware storage is under half full

[quzar]

This statement is outright wrong. Animations are defined. They are not dynamic.

That's a matter of interpretation. Either way there is only a finite number of states something can be in, dynamically generated or no. The only difference, as I've said is the level to which the effect is carried out.

[zelion]

buckle up kids! if you buy a ps3 you can go back and forth in time!! :D

[bah]

This is just more moronic Sony PR that gets the fanboys all riled up.



i'd hate to be the bearer of badder news :) but the ps3 hasn't been taken near it's limits yet. 360 games dating back almost a year ago reach the console's max capacity

ps3 is hands-down fully capable of better graphics, as well as the HDMI output. when developers learn how to fully utilize a console's resources.... who knows. but it's happened for every console from the psx / n64 era and later. that includes 360 by the way ;)


On what basis do you make these statements of fact?

360 games reached their 'maximum potential' years back ey? The PS3 is just SO far ahead in terms of raw power?....

There is no such thing as reaching the 'maximum potential' of a console, granted you can have some poorly optimized code and use all available resources with a crap result, but If the 360/PS3 were to have a 10 year life cycle and were still profitable then I'm quite sure the games would look better then than now.

The PS3 may be slightly superior in one way or another, but it also has a rather retarded design that does not lend itself easily to current game coding methods. Its hard to create parallelism that is actually of that much benefit.
If you want to forecast the weather on your PS3 then its a great design choice.

The elite SKU has HDMI, just not HDCP which is only of use for HD video playback with its associated insane level of restrictions.

That crap about '12 seconds to do it on a 360' while suggesting the PS3 is rendering scenes with these textures in real time (at 60fps and taking into account the rest of what the game is doing at the same time, thats quite a difference) is just utter marketing BS.

I do not believe there are any calculations that take less than 1/60th of a second on the PS3 yet 12 seconds on the 360.

They have different designs and each have their good and bad points, but there just is not that much of a difference to anyone but those who believe everything PR departments tell them.

PC games have had had high res textures and run at resolutions comparable to 1080 for some time, I would like to know how much of the size of these games that just wont fit on a DVD9 is HD video (we're at a point where cinematics really should be in game engine anyway), bloated audio formats/bitrates or just plain filler. How big is the steam version of Bioshock again?

Also, everybody knows that to take advantage of the 4th dimension requires a flux capacitor, which is what makes time travel possible.

[Sterist]

This is just more moronic Sony PR that gets the fanboys all riled up.





On what basis do you make these statements of fact?

360 games reached their 'maximum potential' years back ey? The PS3 is just SO far ahead in terms of raw power?....

There is no such thing as reaching the 'maximum potential' of a console, granted you can have some poorly optimized code and use all available resources with a crap result, but If the 360/PS3 were to have a 10 year life cycle and were still profitable then I'm quite sure the games would look better then than now.

The PS3 may be slightly superior in one way or another, but it also has a rather retarded design that does not lend itself easily to current game coding methods. Its hard to create parallelism that is actually of that much benefit.
If you want to forecast the weather on your PS3 then its a great design choice.

The elite SKU has HDMI, just not HDCP which is only of use for HD video playback with its associated insane level of restrictions.

That crap about '12 seconds to do it on a 360' while suggesting the PS3 is rendering scenes with these textures in real time (at 60fps and taking into account the rest of what the game is doing at the same time, thats quite a difference) is just utter marketing BS.

I do not believe there are any calculations that take less than 1/60th of a second on the PS3 yet 12 seconds on the 360.

They have different designs and each have their good and bad points, but there just is not that much of a difference to anyone but those who believe everything PR departments tell them.

PC games have had had high res textures and run at resolutions comparable to 1080 for some time, I would like to know how much of the size of these games that just wont fit on a DVD9 is HD video (we're at a point where cinematics really should be in game engine anyway), bloated audio formats/bitrates or just plain filler. How big is the steam version of Bioshock again?

Also, everybody knows that to take advantage of the 4th dimension requires a flux capacitor, which is what makes time travel possible.

using these 2 sections, i could dismiss your post as 360 fanboyism :D :p well anyway, i'll comment on a few things, after i say this: i aint a fanboy of any kind (well, except homebrew :)), and dont put words in my mouth

when running at 60fps, 1/60th of a second is 1 frame. not 1 calculation. a frame can carry anywhere from 10 to 100,000 calculations each, depending on... well, everything. the ps3 is in the 5,000~10,000 range. i doubt anything gets near 100,000 other than massive-multi-core CPUs similar to Folding at Home. the ranges i said above are merely examples. not necesarily accurate and don't intend to be, as that's not my point.

hi res pc games are nothing new at all. but if you're getting at 4D somehow (can't tell what you're trying to say) then no it is not nearly enough to display 4D to it's fullest at the pixil level, nor process it. and whatever it may be filling up any disc, the fact is that any kind of DVD cannot keep up with the demand for HD games. mind you, i'm not one to care for HD. i just like the games :)

ummm..... uuh.. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

you're cute

[bah]

Hahaha, I own neither, and have no intention of buying either until some pretty significant price drops. Besides, neither Sony not M$ are worthy of your loyalty, they are as good as their current products.

I own a PSP and original Xbox for homebrew for what its worth.

Considering your stance seems to be the PS3 is somehow incredibly more powerful than the 360 and mine is that both consoles will produce pretty similar results, how exactly can you call me a 360 fanboy?

Ok, ill do this without the annoying colours.

Red: Notice the word calculations you quoted has an 's' at the end, and the previous sentence contains '(at 60fps and taking into account the rest of what the game is doing at the same time, thats quite a difference)' IE: There is obviously a lot more going on in a game than this super ultra mega 'new' texturing. Folding at home is very similar to weather forcasting in terms of processing in that you take a (portion of a) data set and apply lots of different, often independent, processes on it. This lends itself to parallelism in a way that gaming does not (streaming masses of data through a smaller set of processes and requiring tight control of what will be finished when to prevent everything being held up by one core/cpu/spe.

Blue: You stated as a fact that the 360 had 'hit its limit' some time ago, the only way that could be even somewhat true is if you were referring to media capacity and not processing power.
EDIT: You also stated this "the thing is, with the 9gig discs, you can either create a long game with crude to moderate graphics, or a short game with good graphics. when the developers take the "better graphic route", they still can't be displayed any higher than 720p. with 51gigs on a single layer bluray" which is provably incorrect by looking at PC games. Blue ray is ~25GB per layer not 51 as well.

Green: Uhm, ok then. My point stands that games have not hit some arbitrary limit of the 360 from which point games will never look/play better.

You missed my most important point also, no flux capacitor, no deal. :)

Could you expand on your theory that '4D gaming' requires a higher res than 1080 to work please?

[Shadowblind]

Well you dont have to be a rocket sientist (or smart for that matter) to realize that the 360 is not only not at its end, its not near its end.

Like it? Well its true....

None of the new age systems are close to being fully optimized.

Be wise to learn that now.

None of them. Not eh Wii, PS3, PSP, and certainly not the 360. Advance hardware--the PS3 has a great processor. But if its better then the 360's 3, then its only by a small margin. Verrry small.

Wh00t, one less square pixel. I'll warn the media when someone cares.

Ah well. Cell Processor--Blu-Ray--fancy names, not so fancy hardware...

If the PS3 is truly passed the 360 in power, I have yet to see any trace of this being true.

Dont give me somethin' like the devs haven't maxed the console. Of course they haven't maxed he console, they haven't maxed any console!

Come on people, with most 360 y PS3 games, such as Rainbow Six, Final Inertia, and Madden, the 360 still beats the competition. No, the devs aren't being lazy. They're being practical.

True potenial or not, its been around 6 months (Or a year?) since it was released, and its been developed for before its release.

What am I getting at? I dont know....but is has something to do with the paragraph i wasted my time writing as im not in school AND SHOULDN'T BE WRITING A DANG THING :D

[Sterist]

Hahaha, I own neither, and have no intention of buying either until some pretty significant price drops. Besides, neither Sony not M$ are worthy of your loyalty, they are as good as their current products.

I own a PSP and original Xbox for homebrew for what its worth.

Considering your stance seems to be the PS3 is somehow incredibly more powerful than the 360 and mine is that both consoles will produce pretty similar results, how exactly can you call me a 360 fanboy?

Ok, ill do this without the annoying colours.

Red: Notice the word calculations you quoted has an 's' at the end, and the previous sentence contains '(at 60fps and taking into account the rest of what the game is doing at the same time, thats quite a difference)' IE: There is obviously a lot more going on in a game than this super ultra mega 'new' texturing. Folding at home is very similar to weather forcasting in terms of processing in that you take a (portion of a) data set and apply lots of different, often independent, processes on it. This lends itself to parallelism in a way that gaming does not (streaming masses of data through a smaller set of processes and requiring tight control of what will be finished when to prevent everything being held up by one core/cpu/spe.

Blue: You stated as a fact that the 360 had 'hit its limit' some time ago, the only way that could be even somewhat true is if you were referring to media capacity and not processing power.
EDIT: You also stated this "the thing is, with the 9gig discs, you can either create a long game with crude to moderate graphics, or a short game with good graphics. when the developers take the "better graphic route", they still can't be displayed any higher than 720p. with 51gigs on a single layer bluray" which is provably incorrect by looking at PC games. Blue ray is ~25GB per layer not 51 as well.

Green: Uhm, ok then. My point stands that games have not hit some arbitrary limit of the 360 from which point games will never look/play better.

You missed my most important point also, no flux capacitor, no deal. :)

Could you expand on your theory that '4D gaming' requires a higher res than 1080 to work please?

the 4th dimension is more of the 'aging' effect and the over-time decay / change from whatever acts upon it. a TV could not display all the change. the holes from bullets, footprints from walking, dents in armor, etc. will have x,y, and z co-ordinates. in 3D games, the difference in early and "next-gen" 3D games is sprites / environment are polygons which have been receiving more and more sides and on those sides are illusional 3D graphics. take for example, a wrinkle is a darker colored area rather than a physical appearance of a wrinkle -- and same for cloths. currently, in animations, the way the cloths move (which a sprite is wearing) is a "smart" stretch-and-bend of the still/motion-caption skin stored on the disc.

like i said earlier, a bullet hitting a wall will leave a picture of a bullet-hole on the texture used for the walls.

in 4D, that bullet would go foreth into the wall, discintegrate(sp?) into pieces according to the composition of what and how it hit, and chip out pieces of the wall -- uniquely to the xyz co-ordinates of where the bullet was shot from and where it hit, effectively creating a UNIQUE bullet hole EVERY time, then over time the rough edges would corrode to a smoother surface. same thing with steps... etc. The hole itsself is not what makes "4D". it's the object being able to be inflicted upon, and the aging that goes on everywhere in real life such as paper turning yellow, canyons forming from rivers, metal rusting, organic material rotting -- you get the idea. the change that .... whatever .... acquires, would have so many variants at the micro (or zoomed) level that would not be possible to display as it would appear on a screen as it would in real life, because the pixils on a tv can only display 1 shade of color at a time and they would need to be a lot smaller in size and greater in numbers to properly show everything which was a result of whatever action. the solution is to blend them to appear as close to the real thing as possible, at the smallest level possible.

you don't need a flux capacitor to show the process of over-time occurances. only to recall past occurances as they happened or fore-see them as they will happen -- those are present in 5D. see a dict. / encycl. for more information on that. it would take an hour just to explain what happens in real-time

p.s. i think the order is 'super mega ultra' :cool: maybe it's just me

[Shadowblind]

If so then you could sorta call dynamic scripting, 4D right?

Cool!!! It'd be like a game that can't be beat :D

As for the bullet thing--although useless, that would be cool. But yeah, there have already been games like that. So we've been playing 4D for a while.

[Sterist]

If so then you could sorta call dynamic scripting, 4D right?

Cool!!! It'd be like a game that can't be beat :D

As for the bullet thing--although useless, that would be cool. But yeah, there have already been games like that. So we've been playing 4D for a while.

the bullet thing was merely an example. same thing would happen with say... basket ball. the ball would bounce strictly according which xyz angle it hit the ground. courts will have 'screech marks' from the shoes, and the shoes will have "micro" waring.

everything that moves involves drastic calculation for what happens in the 4th dimension (reaction / change over time) and a corresponding visual change with it which would (usually) require a microscope to see in action in real life. unfortunately you can't really look at a TV like that. atleast... i cant

it would not make any games unbeatable at all. it's more of a sync. between "what would happen in real life?" and "what would happen only in a game?"

edit: i LOVE unbeatable games by the way :D
2nd edit: if they're ment to be that way ;)

[Shadowblind]

That waring thing...they technically could do the same thing on Wii too. Thats not really a hard thing. BUT!!!!

I see what you mean about the kinda--

"If you were to hit the couch with a wrench, the couch in the game would react like a real couch would"

Yeah that would be freakin sweet! :D

But this is always due to the games engine itself, not the console. 'Course, the console plays a massive part in being able to utalize the engine.

But really im pretty sure the 360 can do that too. It can emulate pretty much any game engine made.

But the PS3 is very messy when it comes to the U3 engine, so I've heard from R6V and Final Inertia. So...

EDIT: The unbeatable game thing, now I really want to get Oblivion! 100 hours + awesome gameplay, W00T! :)

[Sterist]

That waring thing...they technically could do the same thing on Wii too. Thats not really a hard thing. BUT!!!!

I see what you mean about the kinda--

"If you were to hit the couch with a wrench, the couch in the game would react like a real couch would"

Yeah that would be freakin sweet! :D

But this is always due to the games engine itself, not the console. 'Course, the console plays a massive part in being able to utalize the engine.

But really im pretty sure the 360 can do that too. It can emulate pretty much any game engine made.

But the PS3 is very messy when it comes to the U3 engine, so I've heard from R6V and Final Inertia. So...

EDIT: The unbeatable game thing, now I really want to get Oblivion! 100 hours + awesome gameplay, W00T! :)

if you can beat obliviion in 100 hours, or 500 for that matter, you're pretty unbelievable lol

emulating an engine is one thing. a specially-built (aka "made for") engine is a whole nother. emulating usually takes 150% to 300%+ of the normal mHz required to get the job done. the ps3's graphic card is able to, to an extent, co-process these types of environments (--not sure what system the engine was made for though, if any)

edit: in electronic-4D, ware is generated (not recorded usage) while taking all environment variables into account. other way around in 95% of 3Ds

[F9zDark]

Either fake, or they lied.

btw, whats TF2? I checked IGN, they couldn't find anything with those initials.


Specs between the PS3 and 360's limits are similar. So I guess that means the PS3 is almost maxed too, huh. And I know its safe to say that, no, they have not come close to the 360 or the PS3's limits.

And yeah there is no such thing as a 1d game. Wh00t an infinite line :D

Team Fortress 2. The specs are similar, on the surface. But the Xbox360's processor is more similar to a standard PCs. While the PS3's processor is more similar to a server/number crunching computer.

Both have their pros and cons though.

[F9zDark]

There seems to be alot of confusion about "4d" graphics (named hereafter as Procedural Textures, following the name given to them by ProFX, the "inventors" of them.) First off, the ARTICLE author really has no idea what he is talking about.

I will share with you with a 2 part theory as to what Procedural Textures are based on some research I have done.

Procedural Textures ARE possible on the 360. In fact, an XBL Arcade game, called Roboblitz uses Procedural Texture technology licensed from ProFX (the only company who has made the technology) in their game. The reason? It took a texture footprint of 1 gb, and made it into mere kilobytes (61kb if I recall correctly).

So how can a game use Procedural Textures to make their games much smaller?

Simple. Procedural Textures are non-descript, pre-game. Unlike traditional textures which must be painted before hand, Procedural Textures display no image initially. They are PROGRAMMED to display what they are supposed to display.

For example, lets assume your room, which contains a bed, couch and TV, is covered in Procedural Textures. So now they are, lets assume, all white. So now you want to make your room look good.

So you program the Procedural Texture on the floor to look like low pile, white carpet. You program the Procedural textures covering the walls to be off-white, satin finish. You program the Procedural texture on your couch to be black leather and so on.

How does this cut down on the texture footprint? Since written code takes up MUCH LESS space than does a painted image, its much more efficient to make a texture that can be whatever it is programmed to be, rather than paint it by hand.

The second part of my theory is how this applies to the forth dimension. Since these textures are programmed to have a certain appearance, they can also be programmed to CHANGE their appearance at a certain time, or over the span the time.

Unlike standard textures, these aren't "set in stone".

[ICE]

yeah the idea is a cool one but its something i could live without. it doesnt surprise me that ps3 can do it though. ps3 is a powerhouse that just hasnt been used right by devs. more power than 360 from what ive heard.

then again gamecube had more power than ps2 lol..

[kid11111]

it's best not to look too deep into this 4d pheonenon. rabbits have 360 degree vision but nobody cares. so let the developers decide how to use this new power. and when it come around and when you see it you will shit yourself.

just like the gamecube, nice graphics but with nobody to make games for it. it's a lonely console. i mean all i have is zelda twilight princess. sure i have smash bro too. but who in the right mind would play that? i think they decide to go retro as plan b. the wii plays n64 games too right?

[Sterist]

Unlike standard textures, these aren't "set in stone".

that's what i've been sayin :D

[bah]

That all sounds nice (and possible on a 360), but why would that require a resolution higher than 1080x1920?

Why couldn't you do that at 640x480?
Sure it wouldn't look as good due to the low res but you could still have all the dynamic textures you want. Thats a matter of 'lack of HD' not an inability to display '4D'.

The lower res would make it easier on the system obviously, and you can deal with particles in a game engine that are smaller than the relative size of one pixel on your display to the object its part of composing.

Also, to have a truly destructible wall as you say that can be shot away bullet sized piece by bullet sized piece would require a LOT more polygons than a single solid wall as well as fancy texturing.
Whenever a game claims things are going to be fully destructible I'm rather wary. They generally break down into limited pre-defined elements.

F9zDark's example of what your talking about is a 360 game so it obvious procedural textures can be done on other systems.
That game uses procedural textures to reduce the size of the game to speed downloading/reduce HDD use. But does it use them truly dynamically to produce effects not possible with standard textures, does it allow more detailed/varied textures to be used in a level or does it inflate them all in the loading time (ala kkrieger (http://theprodukkt.com/home) meaning your really not saving ram or adding anything really dynamic to the game).

I'm assuming this 'only on the ps3' claim means the textures are constantly being 'recreated' in real time as you play to create this 'life'. The ps3 with its SPEs may have some small advantage in this way, but the 360 does have a triple core CPU so its not like its some far-behind lightweight.

[F9zDark]

The biggest reason why Roboblitz uses these textures, from I read from developers on the topic, was that they wanted to release the game on XBL Arcade. And apparently, Microsoft only wants games on there that can be done under 50 megabytes.

So it was either, cut their profits, releasing the full fledged game on disc, or work a little harder and earn more profits releasing it as a downloadable game.

As I said, both consoles have their pros and cons. From what I read, the 360's triple core can handle gaming much like that of a multi-core desktop CPU. Programmers can dole out different jobs to different cores as needed.

The PS3 however, when developers use the SPUs, they have to keep in mind what each SPU is doing and play a balancing act. For instance, from what I read, developers can't just pile on 1000 AI instructions onto 1 SPU and advanced audio handling onto another (for example, lets say the AI instructions use 50% of SPU 1 and the audio uses 10% of SPU 2. This cannot be done, as developers have to balance the workload, distributing it to be 30% on each SPU used in that case.)

That might explain why developers bitch about the Cell as often as they do, especially if they are used to developing PC games.

[Shadowblind]

The 4D thing sounds awesome!

But, Sony really did make it sound far more awesome then it its. I mean comne on, 4D sounds like actually being INSIDE the video game (which would be freakin' awesome! :D )

I really guess I can't say whether the 360 can or cannot produce that kinda thing, since its never been attempted on the 360. So you never know just yet. Give it time, If there comes a few multi console games where the PS3 has this and the 360 doesn't then I'll say that wow the PS3 sounds cooler. But ya know since this hasn't happend yet, I'll just keep on a-waitin'.

[nataku92]

This article seems utterly laughable to me, especially since a lot of the information in it appears to be completely made up:

"Now, let’s fix a common misconception. These 4D renders can be processed on the Xbox 360 with an average mean time of 10-12 seconds."

Where does the author get this information? I don't see any credible sources that verify this claim. Even Allegorithmic's (the company that the author uses as an example) website clearly shows that its tools are available on both the xbox360 and the ps3 (link (http://www.profxengine.com/index.php?PAGE=FEATURES.SPECIFICATIONS)).


Oh, and Sterist, why do you keep on going on about "pixils" (you mean pixEls, right?) and how 4d requires more than what current televisions/monitors have? As far as I can tell, pixels are merely the output and have nothing to do with 4d (or at least the 4d textures the article talks about). The closest thing I could think of to what you were describing are "texels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texel_%28graphics%29)".

Feel free to correct me and point out if I missed anything obvious.

Edit: After looking around a bit more on the Allegorithmic website, the demo in the first video has nothing to do with change over time. It's an example of the advantages of procedural textures (link (http://www.profxengine.com/index.php?PAGE=GALLERY.DEMOS.bayou)). That means that the entire paragraph below:

"If you look closely at the calm boat dock scene above, the docks are being splattered by rain. The wood is literally degrading with every drop that hits it. The light poles are rusting with every second. The light bulbs are degrading with every photon of light they are emitting. The wooden cabin is degrading, while the grassland outside is rotting slowly. These all fit into the core realization of 4D graphics."

is entirely false.

[bah]

I love this quote:
" The following is the main closing featurette of this editorial. This entire PlayStation 3 ad is based on 4D and provides clues most people missed that give meaning to what Sony has been talking as 4D in games. Afrika for one; a clue in itself.

As you are watching this closing main featurette trailer, keep a close eye on the part where the Giraffe chews. This is another prime example of 4D graphics. He chews while the muscles are realistically moving ad the entire head moves. A tiny effect such as this, would take days to render on other consoles. When you are finished, sit back and take time to marvel at what you have just learned. "

A) Thats not new, nor exclusive to the PS3 in any way. Days on other consoles?
B) WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH PROCEDURAL TEXTURES AND 4D?
C) The ad talks about HD a lot, never mentions 4D nor shows anything regarding changes over time.

I think the author was either drunk or was just stringing together tech sounding words in a sony-positive way in the hope of ending up with a coherent article.

EDIT:
Sterist: I believe your 'almost full explanation' in the spoiler of the 1st post is confusing a 4th spacial dimension (which has nothing to do with this 4d gaming), and time as the 4th dimension. 2 Different things. Your example image was taken from the 4th spacial dimension wikipedia entry not the spacetime one as is relevant to the article.

From Wikipedia: "When a reference is used to four-dimensional co-ordinates, it is likely that what is referred to is the three spatial dimensions plus a time-line. If four (or more) spatial dimensions are referred to, this should be stated at the outset, to avoid confusion with the more common notion that time is the Einsteinian fourth dimension."

[F9zDark]

I love this quote:
" The following is the main closing featurette of this editorial. This entire PlayStation 3 ad is based on 4D and provides clues most people missed that give meaning to what Sony has been talking as 4D in games. Afrika for one; a clue in itself.

As you are watching this closing main featurette trailer, keep a close eye on the part where the Giraffe chews. This is another prime example of 4D graphics. He chews while the muscles are realistically moving ad the entire head moves. A tiny effect such as this, would take days to render on other consoles. When you are finished, sit back and take time to marvel at what you have just learned. "


Yeah I found that very disconcerting. The giraffe chews the food because it was ANIMATED. Animations don't "take days to render" on any console...

If they did, then I don't think we'd be playing games whatsoever.

[Elven6]

4D is all around us, but we are just unable to see it, which is why I think this is labeled wrong.

[Johnny Rash]

So...the PS3 can render a dimension I can't see?

[PS3Fanboy]

4D is all around us, but we are just unable to see it, which is why I think this is labeled wrong.

no your wrong. the ps3 is 4D because it looks really good and its bigger than all the other consoles so it better.

[Cap'n 1time]

no your wrong. the ps3 is 4D because it looks really good and its bigger than all the other consoles so it better.

That is the most logical thing I have ever heard.

NOT
http://www.morethings.com/fan/borat/borat-47-driving-instructor.jpg

[cloud_952]

-_-;; that's bs and an abuse of the term '4D'. If they want to coin a cool new research term, go ahead, but it's NOT four dimensions. Stuff like that's massively annoying and misleading.

[bah]

All other games consoles only have games that are still images that never move you see (I dont get why they don't just call them pictures)....

Only the ps3 has movement (time), its one of the great new features. Its almost like your 'playing' the game.

[Cap'n 1time]

-_-;; that's bs and an abuse of the term '4D'. If they want to coin a cool new research term, go ahead, but it's NOT four dimensions. Stuff like that's massively annoying and misleading.

It isnt exactly incorrect to suggest it is capable of displaying 4 spacial dimensions. You are right though, it's still misleading and damn annoying.

[lmtlmt]

hey nice sig cap'n 1time

[F9zDark]

It isnt exactly incorrect to suggest it is capable of displaying 4 spacial dimensions. You are right though, it's still misleading and damn annoying.

I find it very misleading, not from the perspective of whats capable. The 4th dimension as most anyone outside the insane-geometry realm will know of as time. Games have used time (whether it be real-time or CPU time) for years.

Daggerfall had weather that changed with in-game time. Winter months there would be snow on the ground, lakes would be solid, snow would fall, etc.

This was undoubtedly predetermined (if month = 1 then groundtexture = snow), but the perceived effect is the same as "4d textures" to an extent.

The fact that they are called 4d is misleading because, while they have the capacity to change in real-time without being preprogrammed to a set course of change (for instance, they can change periodically, and at random; rather than the example I showed above.

But these textures were seemingly not designed for this purpose. It seems to me from reading about games that use it, that it was solely developed for taking textures that don't exist and making it take any appearance the developers want.

That is the only way a developer could take a game that has a texture set of 1000 megabytes and turn it into a texture that set that takes up 61 kilobytes.

The real term for these "graphics" are Procedural Textures, and fortunately, is a lot less misleading.

Added

Read this, it is far more insightful than that fanboy article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_textures

[Shadowblind]

no your wrong. the ps3 is 4D because it looks really good and its bigger than all the other consoles so it better.

:rofl:

That is comic! Purely comic! :rofl:

Boy that has gotta be the funniest thing I've heard in a while. Good show! :thumbup:

Oh, and by dimensions textbook definition it is no more possible to see, hear, create, or sense a fourth dimension then it is move a planet with a push up.

Which Chuck Norris can do, by the way.

And trust me, Sony is noooo Chuck Norris.

[F9zDark]

Oh, and by dimensions textbook definition it is no more possible to see, hear, create, or sense a fourth dimension then it is move a planet with a push up.


Actually, that is incorrect. Newton's Third Law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So when you do that push up, the earth is pushing back up on you with equal force.

[Shadowblind]

Actually, that is incorrect. Newton's Third Law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So when you do that push up, the earth is pushing back up on you with equal force.

Ok, let me rephrase this:

It is no more possible to create, sense, feel, see or whatever a 4th dimension(or whatever I said) then it is to freeze someone to death with a flamethrower in space riding a camel and fighting martians. There darnit.

Fairly certain there isn't a Newton's law for that :D

Opposite reaction, yeah. the earth is pushing back at you, your not moving the earth. newton woulda known that....

[quzar]

Actually, that is incorrect. Newton's Third Law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So when you do that push up, the earth is pushing back up on you with equal force.

Yes, it's pushing back, but not moving. The interactions between electrostatic forces are what push back, the earth does not move.

[Cap'n 1time]

Yes, it's pushing back, but not moving. The interactions between electrostatic forces are what push back, the earth does not move.

I am fairly certain that my physics teacher two semesters ago discussed that you in fact make the earth move (an infinitely small amount) every time you jump due to your own gravity.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/news/worldjumpday.html
there is that page that disproves that would could defeat global warming by jumping up and down (which sounds retarded all by itself, no need for a bad astronomy page.) but It does not disprove that we could move the earth a few millionths of an atoms widith as my professor describes. If We need to return to the topic, but if anyone has anything to add please post a topic in offtopic as it is quite interesting.

[Shadowblind]

Aye, but that can't be proven or disproven. But really this is horribly off topic, I only used that as an example, which I fixed with the freezing Martian thing....

[quzar]

I am fairly certain that my physics teacher two semesters ago discussed that you in fact make the earth move (an infinitely small amount) every time you jump due to your own gravity.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/news/worldjumpday.html
there is that page that disproves that would could defeat global warming by jumping up and down (which sounds retarded all by itself, no need for a bad astronomy page.) but It does not disprove that we could move the earth a few millionths of an atoms widith as my professor describes. If We need to return to the topic, but if anyone has anything to add please post a topic in offtopic as it is quite interesting.

No, your gravity exerts a force on the earth, but that does not cause it to move ;)

[F9zDark]

Move was perhaps the wrong word, but it still reacts to what we do, no matter how minuscule that reaction may be.

Now whether or not we can perceive the 4th dimension, well, I have no idea. Biology runs on its own clock, just as we have our own "constructed clock". Live in a cave for a few days where our conscious brain can no longer keep the time, and our biology will pick up the slack.

Why Sony and others call these graphics 4 dimensional is beyond me. Sure its "Time" per se, but the human construct of time (seconds, minutes, hours) while based loosely on the environment surrounding us, has absolutely no bearing on the 4th dimension.

[Shadowblind]

Move was perhaps the wrong word, but it still reacts to what we do, no matter how minuscule that reaction may be.

Now whether or not we can perceive the 4th dimension, well, I have no idea. Biology runs on its own clock, just as we have our own "constructed clock". Live in a cave for a few days where our conscious brain can no longer keep the time, and our biology will pick up the slack.

Why Sony and others call these graphics 4 dimensional is beyond me. Sure its "Time" per se, but the human construct of time (seconds, minutes, hours) while based loosely on the environment surrounding us, has absolutely no bearing on the 4th dimension.
Yeah, thats what we were arguing about. Now what Sony MEANT by 4D sounds absoulutely awesome though. They just said it the wrong way, lol! :D

Hmmm....We can't sense a 4th dimension, so could it really be real? Another direction in which humans can see, kinda like the 6th sense?....

[F9zDark]

Yeah, thats what we were arguing about. Now what Sony MEANT by 4D sounds absoulutely awesome though. They just said it the wrong way, lol! :D

Hmmm....We can't sense a 4th dimension, so could it really be real? Another direction in which humans can see, kinda like the 6th sense?....

Well Einstein proposed it in his theories (General Relativity if I am not mistaken). Scientists, from what I read, have proven his theory to be correct to an extent (when a person travels at significant velocity, time will travel slower for them.

Scientists have on going research to prove time dilation. Its effects on us, is uncertain, but scientists did it with muons, and those muons that were moving from point a to point b, decayed 10 times slower than their stationary counterparts.