Chozofication_
Banned
The room you're in doesn't just vanish when it loads the next. Thats 2 not 1.Yes. One gets loaded, not all at once.
Tell me why we arent comparing fps to fps again?
The room you're in doesn't just vanish when it loads the next. Thats 2 not 1.Yes. One gets loaded, not all at once.
The pc version is hideously low poly as well.That's silly to say, normal maps are cool for sure but you do want as many polygons as you can push underneath too, if they could they would have used tons more so the models of Doom 3 for example would be closer to the PC version rather than so low poly and angular.
Not as low poly as on Xbox. Why's this a reply to what I said anyway? That guy talked as if because you can do normal maps you don't have to push high polygon numbers when it's far from the truth, ideally you want both, even as normal maps were being used polycounts of later generations kept increasing too, and now normal maps are being phased out in favor of actual geometry enhancing techniques like tesselation too.The pc version is hideously low poly as well.
I think it is I mean the guys you first meet on the ship have the same octagonal heads on pc. Maybe theres a subtle difference but not a big oneNot as low poly as on Xbox.
The room you're in doesn't just vanish when it loads the next. Thats 2 not 1.
So yeah, i guess i don't see your point.Did I ever say that? I'm talking about the moving in and out of data per part of a area; I'm talking about the amount of rooms that gets loaded, and that's one per moving towards said room.
That's silly to say, normal maps are cool for sure but you do want as many polygons as you can push underneath too, if they could they would have used tons more so the models of Doom 3 for example would be closer to the PC version rather than so low poly and angular.
So yeah, i guess i don't see your point.
It's still a less constrained game than a fighter so *shrug*
We probably mean the same thing. Don't worry about it. It's not the amount of rooms or loadings then, but how much geometry the GameCube can handle at once. And that is far, far less than a single stage in Dead or Alive 2 Ultimate.
We're not going to agree on this one! Certainly not in the case of the Xbox Dead or Alive games with their destructible geometry.
Loading takes time, they didn't want pauses and hitches and waiting so the game begins loading the next area in the background before you reach and open the door (and that still causes the door to take a while to open sometimes). That's not less efficient. Also loading it doesn't mean it's rendering it fully, culling could still take effect (dunno).Do you know based on the video, if it's just loading one room at a time or is the previous room still loaded? That's what I'm wondering about is the previous area. Not sure why they load more than one room, that actually makes the developer look less efficient.
Loading takes time, they didn't want pauses and hitches and waiting so the game begins loading the next area in the background before you reach and open the door (and that still causes the door to take a while to open sometimes). That's not less efficient. Also loading it doesn't mean it's rendering it fully, culling can still take effect (though who knows maybe it does).
Do you know based on the video, if it's just loading one room at a time or is the previous room still loaded? That's what I'm wondering about is the previous area.
One. Imagine a room with three doors; when you move towards one, the previous one (the one you entered the three-doors room with) gets out of memory to make room for the one you're moving towards to. So, Chozofication_ is right when he refers to two rooms at once (the one you're about to leave and the one you're about to enter). These doors are cleverly masking the GameCube's memory limitations by restricting you with them.
Yeah the xbox takes advantage of its superior gpu tech and directx sfx to do things like normal maps. It is also why multiplats looked much better with Splinter cell being a good example. Directx was very easy to use and all of the graphical effects were ready to go and did not need to be programmed like on ps2 and GC saving huge amounts of time and money.But you've failed to prove anything is pushing more polygons than Xbox on a like for like basis. You keep saying "more polygon pushing power" without any real comparison. All the Xbox games we talk about are using normal maps, which are very taxing but greatly reduces polygons, so how would that even make sense to have games built around normal maps with more polygons? You don't have a basic understanding of how it works. It's like bragging about your car using more gasoline to someone with a hybrid car, yet the electric car, in this case, is faster and more efficient with better range. Btw I prefer gas.
Uhm, that's the exact opposite of a programmable pixel shader pipeline.all of the graphical effects were ready to go and did not need to be programmed like on ps2 and GC saving huge amounts of time and money.
And when it shuts, the previous area isn't rendered?
That's silly to say, normal maps are cool for sure but you do want as many polygons as you can push underneath too, if they could they would have used tons more so the models of Doom 3 for example would be closer to the PC version rather than so low poly and angular.
Yeah the xbox takes advantage of its superior gpu tech and directx sfx to do things like normal maps. It is also why multiplats looked much better with Splinter cell being a good example. Directx was very easy to use and all of the graphical effects were ready to go and did not need to be programmed like on ps2 and GC saving huge amounts of time and money.
I'll post some xbox videos tomorrow for a comparison showing GCs superior polygon pushing power.
I agree with this.That's silly to say, normal maps are cool for sure but you do want as many polygons as you can push underneath too, if they could they would have used tons more so the models of Doom 3 for example would be closer to the PC version rather than so low poly and angular.
I agree with this.
People always assume normal maps is always a substitute for more polygons, but that's not true.
Even in VFX/Cinematic Movie production, characters with millions of polygons are still given bump maps to help improve shading quality.
It's true that games still use normal maps to cope for the fact they can't render the same dense geometry found in film, but it displays an obvious weakness when you look at the silhouette of an object.
The object on the left has a bump map whereas the one on the right is using real geometry to displace the objects' surface. Look at the shadows of both objects and the normal maps don't actually alter the sphere's shape whereas the sphere that does have a high poly surface does.
I worded it wrong. On xbox things like normal and bump mapping are part of the direct library. Much easier to implement than programming effects from scratch,like on GC and ps2.Uhm, that's the exact opposite of a programmable pixel shader pipeline.
Pixel shaders are not "canned" visual effects, unlike the fixed-function T&L pipeline (GeForce 2 series).
But what is the point in comparing a weak xbox game that doesn't utilise the gpu? It's like using multiplats as a power benchmark.I mean we already know the main Xbox games. If there are examples where they didn't use normal maps to compare, that would be great.
When normal maps are used, the games will have less geometric detail.I don't get why everyone is assuming that because the Xbox can use bump maps it automatically renders less polys on screen lol., that's absurd.
But what is the point in comparing a weak xbox game that doesn't utilise the gpu? It's like using multiplats as a power benchmark.
I don't get why everyone is assuming that because the Xbox can use bump maps it automatically renders less polys on screen lol., that's absurd.
It wasnt necessary to use flashlight in halo 1, but I was using it anyway because textures with bump mapping looked jaw dropping that way. DX8 features were groundbreaking and could turn low poly game like Riddick into one of the most visally stunning games on 6'th gen. GC fans try to downplay DX8 importance because GC just cant compete in that area and it was evident when Splinter Cell games were ported to GC.For me, the xbox's lighting gave it one of the biggest advantages in any console generation. Just toggling the flashlight at night In halo, and seeing the way the light hit the textures was mind blowing at the time, and halo's lighting isn't as good as some other examples.
Metroid Prime 2 destroys Riddick and pretty much every other xbox game out there in geometry/polygon count. Even you just admitted Riddick is low poly.It wasnt necessary to use flashlight in halo 1, but I was using it anyway because textures with bump mapping looked jaw dropping that way. DX8 features were groundbreaking and could turn low poly game like Riddick into one of the most visally stunning games on 6'th gen. GC fans try to downplay DX8 importance because GC just cant compete in that area and it was evident in Splinter Cell games the most.
Metroid Prime 2 is a corridor shooter, without shaders, without dynamic shadows, with low resolution textures, and some really low poly character models (and there's no bump mapping to mask low poly models in this game) and yet some people consider it the most impressive 6'th FPS game
Yes, Riddick has low poly models, but with DX8 featues these low poly models are masked and looks good (sometimes like real)Metroid Prime 2 destroys Riddick and pretty much every other xbox game out there in geometry/polygon count. Even you just admitted Riddick is low poly.
Metroid Prime 2 destroys Riddick and pretty much every other xbox game out there in geometry/polygon count.
I don't see the low poly anywhere in Riddick if anything looks higher poly than the average 6th gen game, but I guess we have to downplay Xbox somehow
You're the one that needs a grip and are arguing like this is some war lol. You dont want to look outside your box.But dude, have you SEEN Rogue Leader?
Jokes aside, this conversation is getting ridiculous. Riddick and Doom 3 look a generation beyond anything on gamecube. And for the people complaining about the graphics in Doom 3 PC, please get a grip. That game looked way beyond anything at the time and people were upgrading their PCs just to play it.
You're the one that needs a grip and are arguing like this is some war lol. You dont want to look outside your box.
Which one of us has praised xbox games like gaiden, ralli, conker, doa?Actually this is pure projection on your part, and pretty ironic too. I'm familiar with all of these games and I think metroid prime is a much better game than either Riddick or Doom 3. That said, when it comes to graphics, it's not on the same league. You're the one who refuses to acknowledge that when it's been shown multiple times with screenshots in the thread. Even with your own screenshots above, even if it wasn't intentional.
And you suggest Metroid Prime 2 models looks better?
Nasty modeling, same size or smaller environments, and runs at a not so stable 30fps compared to echoes 60. Prime 1 looks better.
Prime looks better in motion while riddick will look worse due to frame rate.
I have played Riddick yesterday and I dont remember performance problems although resolution dips below >480p if you will use flashlight. When it comes to aiming in this game, shooting mechanics has some weight to it to make aiming harder.I just tested Riddick, this is an unlocked framerate. It's hitting 60fps pretty damn well with a few dips in the 6-7 combat encounters I had. I'd guess 50-60fps The biggest problem is the controls are kinda jerky which hinders the smoothness.
But lol 30fps with dips. No way.
pawel86ck I'd be interested to see if your results are similar.