4D graphics only on PS3

[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



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

[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

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?