4D graphics only on PS3

[zelion]

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

[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 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

[Sterist]

Spoiler!

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' 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

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

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
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!

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!

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