bluheim said:Really ? I was sure you could skip any cutscene without a single loading.
You can.
bluheim said:Really ? I was sure you could skip any cutscene without a single loading.
MikeB said:Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction uses a similar approach, actually I was quite surprised when I dropped a nano-swarm just before entering a cutscene and see it within the cutscene.
BrainZEROX said:Uncharted's cutscenes are not really realtime rendered, Ratchet & Clanck's neither.
Not quite. MOST of Ratchet's cutscenes are realtime. If the framerate wasn't enough to clue you in, go ahead and check out the cutscene viewer from the menu. It only allows you to view pre-rendered scenes. The majority of the story scenes in Ratchet are not available in there and are realtime.Uncharted's cutscenes are not really realtime rendered, Ratchet & Clanck's neither.
Yes, I'm sure. If you finished Uncharted, check the gallery and play some cutscenes. You'll find compression artifacts around various edges in the picture. There aren't many of them because Naughty Dog made a wise use of the storage available on a bluray disc, but they exist. I think it's a smart approch from Naughty Dog because we win on every level: few loading times, cutscenes are consistant with ingame scenes, etc...bluheim said:Really ? I was sure you could skip any cutscene without a single loading.
steve said:I am going to have to try this.
Realtime cutscene are often very static so the PS3 does not need to load more data (except sound of course).MikeB said:I remember it was a scene with Ratchet talking to his new female friend, Talwyn and her two jokester robots.
dark10x said:Not quite. MOST of Ratchet's cutscenes are realtime. If the framerate wasn't enough to clue you in, go ahead and check out the cutscene viewer from the menu. It only allows you to view pre-rendered scenes. The majority of the story scenes in Ratchet are not available in there and are realtime.
The pre-renders were captured at 30 fps and have slightly artifacting while the realtime cutscenes look exactly the same as the game and run at 60 fps (with occasional slowdown).
SRG01 said:R&C is 60fps?! .
GT5, R%C Future, DMC4, CoD4, RR 6, NBA '07/'08, MLB the Show '08,...SS4Rob said:Reading about how so many things that can be off loaded to the SPUs for parallel processing, freeing up the general Cell CPU and RSX GPU for other tasks the question is begged... Where are my 60fps PS3 games? R&C? What else? MGS4? Now that the hardware has been out for a while and Sony continues to update their SDK and developers gain more and more experience... there should be no excuses.
Yup, a trademark ^.^steve said:Correct me if I'm wrong, but Burnout runs at 60.
But to say that a game *needs* 50 GB and then fill... let's say 35, with uncompressed 7.1 PCM... well, again, that would be ignorant.
BrainZEROX said:I think MGS4 will use the same technique and that's the reason why Kojima may need a dual layer bluray disc. Lots of veeeeeery long HD cutscene will easily consume gigabytes of data... And I'm fine with that!
Grayman said:MGS1 had some video in longer dialog scenes, did 2 and 3?
test_account said:This isnt exactly about SPE usage, but anyone knows how much RAM the PS OS uses when you play the games? All i can find is this page:
http://www.innerbits.com/blog/2007/08/21/ps3-180-sdk
But its for 1.80 (i guess the SDK versions follow the firmware versions, or?).
MikeB said:With regard to memory usage for the current version of the SDK, devs so far have been tight-lipped.
Gattsu25 said:I'm sure I've said it before but this thread is one of the better threads on the gaming forum. So informative. Wish there was more discussion like this at GAF
Too technical for me. I've tried lurking thereFirewalkR said:Beyond3D is your friend. Not always for the layman though.
MikeB said:There have been rumours of dramatic reductions of reserved memory for version 2.0, but IMO they are likely fake as Sony is still planning on adding many crucial features to the PS3's GameOS. Every bit of reserved RAM you give to developers you cannot suddenly take back later on without breaking games with future firmware updates.
Although note every PS3 comes with a default harddrive which helps with regard to memory usage for games, similar like a harddrive can be used as virtual memory for other systems and like Insomniac pointed out streaming game engines (from Blu-Ray disc) reduce system memory requirements as well.
With regard to memory usage for the current version of the SDK, devs so far have been tight-lipped.
test_account said:Ok, thanks for the info I wondered because i know that Xbox 360's OS uses 32MB RAM, but still the multiplatorm games looks relatively identical on both PS3 and 360. Is the 360 version gimped to be able to be on PS3 or is PS3 more powerful that it can preform so to say the same gfx with less RAM?
SRG01 said:Both systems have different memory architectures. The 360 uses a shared bank of 512 memory while the PS3 has a split bank of 256/256. There are advantages and disadvantages to both implementations.
That's a simplified explanation, since it does not take into account things such as bandwidth and so on.
test_account said:True, but still, PS3 should have less RAM overall to work with overall. I also though that the way 360 uses the RAM was better than how the PS3 does it since on 360 you (as you mentioned) shared RAM.
commariodore64 said:What was this thread about? :lol
test_account said:Ok, so the 360's cant access both system and GPU RAM at the same time? I'm not so into this, but how does that work?
360:
CPU GPU
| |
\/ \/
|---------------------------------------------|
PS3:
CPU GPU
| |
\/ \/
|---------------------| |----------------------|
commariodore64 said:oh what the hell....I'll bite.
I think it's been pretty well known that most devs state the 360 has more ram available and this directly relates to the higher-level of texture quality in many games.
Uncharted has a few (but very few) fully realtime rendered cutscenes as well. For example, one when Drake gets the spyglass and looks across the sea to the ruined building. There's few short scenes like that which are realtime, you can tell easily if you change to a different outfit/character, while you play.dark10x said:Not quite. MOST of Ratchet's cutscenes are realtime. If the framerate wasn't enough to clue you in, go ahead and check out the cutscene viewer from the menu. It only allows you to view pre-rendered scenes. The majority of the story scenes in Ratchet are not available in there and are realtime
I think he was commenting about "loading and decompression" part, which the game does pretty transparently, even if you skip the cutscene instantly. I think the game streams, decompresses and caches data (to a 2GB swap file) constantly, no matter if it's playing cutscene or not. Of course, having videofiles for cutscenes helps, as it's probably a more condensed read from the disc than if it was realtime rendered.BrainZEROX said:Yes, I'm sure. If you finished Uncharted, check the gallery and play some cutscenes. You'll find compression artifacts around various edges in the picture.
SRG01 said:Past 360 games had better textures because of technology implementations. When your CPU only uses around 100MB of data, then of course there is going to be more room for texture memory.
On the other hand, high bandwidth on the PS3 allows for texture streaming (see: Uncharted and many future games). It's a solution that is more technologically difficult to implement, but the tradeoff is worth it.
SS4Rob said:Reading about how so many things that can be off loaded to the SPUs for parallel processing, freeing up the general Cell CPU and RSX GPU for other tasks the question is begged... Where are my 60fps PS3 games? Ridge Racer? GT5 sometimes? R&C? What else? MGS4? Now that the hardware has been out for a while and Sony continues to update their SDK and developers gain more and more experience... there should be no excuses.
commariodore64 said:At what cost? Also - having textures stored in RAM is MUCH quicker and has no hit on the CPU, correct? So, while texture streaming is a great thing (Many current 360 and PS3 engines implement it to varying degrees) it is not as efficient or as desirable as having physical RAM to spare due to the hits taken elsewhere in engine performance (where the spe's come in handy - but require RAM as well to use)
Wouldnt the transfer speed of the BD/HD be the bottleneck for streaming?SRG01 said:The superhigh bandwidth of the PS3 pretty much ensures that the streaming performance hit is negligible. (ie. with respect to the number of cycles needed to do a job) Note that each of the SPUs have local stores, which means it is much faster than DMA and, combined with streaming, it's pretty much a monster.
MikeB said:Regarding DiRT on the PS3, mostly audio related:
"The PS3 is so fast - tens of GigaFLOPs on each of seven CPUs available to us - that high-order Ambisonics suits it very well. Most of the optimisation effort went into the trigonometry needed to go from game-style orthogonal vectors and matrices to the azimuth and elevation model now standard for Ambisonics. After that, the encoder and decoder are very fast, especially as they parallelise well, without pipeline bottlenecks like division and tight operand dependencies.
Overall Ambisonics complements other aspects of nextGen PS3 game audio, like good quality sample-rate-conversion - rather than the noisy LERPs still sadly common on PCs - plus modern psychoacoustically-modelled decompression, and phase-coherent 512 band filtering on each voice. Theres so much CPU power on PS3 that all this, and multiple reverbs, can run on a single SPU (Synergistic Processing Element, an eighth of the PS3s Cell processor array) with time to spare.
There are six independent reverb units running in the PS3 version, versus two stereo ones on Xbox360. These are not just for reflections in tunnels or when you get close to trackside objects - they works beautifully for reflections from other vehicles too, and give exciting effects when the car goes out of control - the sort of emergent behaviour you look forward to getting when you combine several advanced systems in one game!"
"The HDMI 7.1 on PS3 already allows us to have six speakers in a regular hexagon, ideal for Ambisonics, without breaking the Blumlein stereo panning rules or Dolby cinema guidelines (so the front centre and sub are available for audio conceptually outside the soundfield, like co-driver calls, checkpoint notifications and front-end sounds)."
"Your best bet for the time being is to find a well-configured PS3 with HDMI in 7.1 on matched speakers, and hear the game respond to you directly. Its a lot of fun, especially if youre a good listener."
Source: Ambisonia.com
commariodore64 said:At what cost? Also - having textures stored in RAM is MUCH quicker and has no hit on the CPU, correct? So, while texture streaming is a great thing (Many current 360 and PS3 engines implement it to varying degrees) it is not as efficient or as desirable as having physical RAM to spare due to the hits taken elsewhere in engine performance (where the spe's come in handy - but require RAM as well to use)
Zabka said:Wouldnt the transfer speed of the BD/HD the bottleneck for streaming?
Zabka said:Wouldnt the transfer speed of the BD/HD be the bottleneck for streaming?
commariodore64 said:At what cost? Also - having textures stored in RAM is MUCH quicker and has no hit on the CPU, correct? So, while texture streaming is a great thing (Many current 360 and PS3 engines implement it to varying degrees) it is not as efficient or as desirable as having physical RAM to spare due to the hits taken elsewhere in engine performance (where the spe's come in handy - but require RAM as well to use)
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I've made my share of mistakes) but The PS3 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 25.6 GB/s of RDRAM bandwidth for a total system bandwidth of 48 GB/s where Xbox 360 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and a 256 GB/s of EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth.
Zabka said:Wouldnt the transfer speed of the BD/HD be the bottleneck for streaming?
SRG01 said:The superhigh bandwidth of the PS3 pretty much ensures that the streaming performance hit is negligible. (ie. with respect to the number of cycles needed to do a job) Note that each of the SPUs have local stores, which means it is much faster than DMA and, combined with streaming, it's pretty much a monster.
Onix said:The reality is that any game haveing lots of detailed and varied textures on a given level is going to require texture streaming on BOTH systems.
Yes, you're wrong.
eDRAM BW doesn't have to do with what we're talking about.