Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowblind
Both have their pros and cons though.
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".
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..
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?
that's what i've been sayin :DQuote:
Originally Posted by F9zDark
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 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.
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.
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'.
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).
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".
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). 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.
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."
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by bah
If they did, then I don't think we'd be playing games whatsoever.
4D is all around us, but we are just unable to see it, which is why I think this is labeled wrong.
So...the PS3 can render a dimension I can't see?
no your wrong. the ps3 is 4D because it looks really good and its bigger than all the other consoles so it better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elven6
That is the most logical thing I have ever heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by PS3Fanboy
NOT
http://www.morethings.com/fan/borat/...instructor.jpg
-_-;; 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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cloud_952
hey nice sig cap'n 1time
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap'n 1time
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
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by PS3Fanboy
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowblind
Ok, let me rephrase this:Quote:
Originally Posted by F9zDark
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....
Yes, it's pushing back, but not moving. The interactions between electrostatic forces are what push back, the earth does not move.Quote:
Originally Posted by F9zDark
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by quzar
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.
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....
No, your gravity exerts a force on the earth, but that does not cause it to move ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap'n 1time
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! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by F9zDark
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowblind
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.