PDA

View Full Version : PGR3 - Xbox 360 - Check this "3D Screenshot" out - wow!



Lude
09-06-2005, 11:36 AM
http://www.bizarreonline.net/index.php?action=fullnews&showcomments=1&id=52#3dscreen

mattclary
09-06-2005, 02:28 PM
Man that was freaking slow....

Verlon
09-06-2005, 02:42 PM
"Motion blur" means that things in the distance are blurred, whilst the stationary car is kept in focus. Also, we make use of a technique called "depth of field."

Funny, I always thought motion blur was the blur of things in motion, and depth of field caused caused things closer or further away from the subject to not be in focus. Who would've thunk it?

cc3d
09-06-2005, 07:05 PM
"Motion blur" means that things in the distance are blurred, whilst the stationary car is kept in focus. Also, we make use of a technique called "depth of field."

Funny, I always thought motion blur was the blur of things in motion, and depth of field caused caused things closer or further away from the subject to not be in focus. Who would've thunk it?


Wow! they came up with a new technique called "motion blur" and it has nothing to do with motion. What a concept. They should try that depth of field thing in photography, I bet it'll take off!

mkiii
09-06-2005, 08:50 PM
"Motion blur" means that things in the distance are blurred, whilst the stationary car is kept in focus. Also, we make use of a technique called "depth of field."

Funny, I always thought motion blur was the blur of things in motion, and depth of field caused caused things closer or further away from the subject to not be in focus. Who would've thunk it?

Motion blur... Ermm... if the object is static in relation to the camera, and the objects in the foreground are whizzing past it, then the background will be blurred, not the car. They are correct. Remember that the PoV in a game that is most likely to get motion blur treatment is with the moving object fixed in view, while the BG goes past.

Depth of field in a real camera is just as likely to be used to keep all objects sharply in focus as they are to blur the bg.

Signal to Noise
09-07-2005, 08:12 AM
So, were the models/renderings done in LightWave or...? What's the connection between PGR3 and/or 360 and NewTek? :confused:

Doom3 and Burnout3 made good use of LightWave. :thumbsup:

Lude
09-07-2005, 08:18 AM
No connection this is the "General Discussion" area but it is some nice 3D work.

Keep in mind itís Real-Time.

Burnout3 was good use of Lightwave but was it used for the new Burnout game coming out?

BeeVee
09-07-2005, 08:32 AM
Yes, and it has been used for their FPS Black too...

B

Captain Obvious
09-07-2005, 09:29 AM
"Motion blur" means that things in the distance are blurred, whilst the stationary car is kept in focus. Also, we make use of a technique called "depth of field."

Funny, I always thought motion blur was the blur of things in motion, and depth of field caused caused things closer or further away from the subject to not be in focus. Who would've thunk it?
It was probably just poor wording on their side. They most likely meant that the background is blurred because it's in constant motion, more so than the car itself.

Sande
09-08-2005, 01:53 AM
Nice, but nothing spectacular and you could do the same scene with any modern PC. It would be nice to see some actual gameplay footage... :)

Captain Obvious
09-08-2005, 01:58 AM
Nice, but nothing spectacular and you could do the same scene with any modern PC. It would be nice to see some actual gameplay footage... :)I think ATI's test scene of a rotating car is much more impressive, and even my old Radeon 9600 could handle that...

Lude
09-08-2005, 08:33 AM
I think ATI's test scene of a rotating car is much more impressive, and even my old Radeon 9600 could handle that...

Cool must check it out - u got a link?

Mebek
09-08-2005, 10:01 AM
Interesting, but both the model and background were not exactly impressive. The depth of field was way too strong and the background was too blurry, even with the "motion" blur applied.

Captain Obvious
09-08-2005, 10:06 AM
Cool must check it out - u got a link?
http://www.ati.com/developer/demos/macss2/index.html

It's for OS X. I'm sure they have the same thing for Windows as well.

Lamont
09-09-2005, 05:33 PM
I think ATI's test scene of a rotating car is much more impressive, and even my old Radeon 9600 could handle that...With the processing overhead of user input, AI for the cars/drivers, possible network play, vastly larger environments, animated objects, physics and collision detection and resolution, displaying at 1080i, mesh deformation, skinned characters... yeah a 9800 can render a static model like that just fine, all you're doing is rotating around an object and flicking switches. :D

Yeah, the blur thing really bugs me when it's amplified like that. I know it's to give a real sense of speed, but it can mess with the gameplay.

Captain Obvious
09-09-2005, 05:56 PM
With the processing overhead of user input, AI for the cars/drivers, possible network play, vastly larger environments, animated objects, physics and collision detection and resolution, displaying at 1080i, mesh deformation, skinned characters... yeah a 9800 can render a static model like that just fine, all you're doing is rotating around an object and flicking switches. :D
You must admit it puts things into perspective.

Verlon
09-09-2005, 11:34 PM
Well, my geforce 6800 Ultra renders Half-life 2 in 1600*1200 (>1080i), has better AI than a racing game (racing and flight simulators have notoriously weak AI), uses Havoc physics engine, supports network play AND gets my email in the background.

Further, since the 7800 is twice as fast as a 6800 ultra, I would hardly say it was faster than any pc.

Its a decent render, but I am not buying an $600 gaming console package just to have one by Christmas (word is the only way to avoid the wait is to get a package). I'd sooner upgrade the PC with the same money and stick to regular xbox games for another year.

Lamont
09-10-2005, 01:13 AM
HL2 does look nice, and yeah, it's even better when running at 1600x1200... but 1600x1200 is not more than 1080i. You would be quite surprised what kind of AI goes into a racing game. They are not just going from point A to point B as fast as possible now-a-days.

Current in-game Havok is just using a proxy model. No where near as accurate as Havok in a 3DS Max, or next-gen games.

1920000 = 1600x1200
2073600 = 1920x1080 (1080i)

Verlon
09-10-2005, 01:45 AM
1600*1200 = 1920000 drawn 60 times a second on my LCD
1080*1920 = 2073600 BUT its INTERLACED (that's the i part) so it only draws half that (1036800) and it draws that half 30 times a second instead of 60. Even 1080P would still be drawing half as often.

So 1600*1200>1080i.

And AI in a game like HL2 where you have different enemies and different allies using different weapons is much more complicated than winning a race, more so when its a racing game as opposed to a racing simulation.

Captain Obvious
09-10-2005, 03:37 AM
HL2 does look nice, and yeah, it's even better when running at 1600x1200... but 1600x1200 is not more than 1080i. You would be quite surprised what kind of AI goes into a racing game. They are not just going from point A to point B as fast as possible now-a-days.

Current in-game Havok is just using a proxy model. No where near as accurate as Havok in a 3DS Max, or next-gen games.

1920000 = 1600x1200
2073600 = 1920x1080 (1080i)
You're thinking of 1080p, not i. 1080i is essentially half the amount of pixels, since it's interlaced. Either way, you cannot compare it like that, since console games often have a set frame per second rate, which is quite uncommon among PC games.

Lamont
09-10-2005, 03:47 AM
The AI in both games are "Beat Player". The "weapons" differ, but are used to the same end. The AI doesn't know that I used all the ammo in my most powerful weapon, I have 3 shots left on my hand gun and 30 health. They will still charge at me in the same fashion they did the first twelve times I played the game. They would react the same even if I had a wet towel and a tuna samich'. Change the weapon, change the mesh, the orders are the same. It only varies between enemy types.

Racing games are more or less the same, 'cept they don't shoot you, they just pass you, apply boost, drift and what not...

You're right on the 1080i thing Verlon.
-------------------------------------

Out of all the next-gen games Killzone and RE5 are the ones I am looking forward to.

Verlon
09-10-2005, 03:44 PM
The AI is to beat the player...

But...ah heck with it.....ask someone who programs AIs.

If you are in this field, it shouldn't be to hard to find them. In a racing game there is usually one path (the race track, though sometimes there are alternate routes).

The AI in a game like HL2 has to account for pathing to you, obstacles, range of weapon, area of effect, and what kind of weapon.

In fact, in HL 2 the AI DOES react differently to weapons at your disposal. They will take cover when being fired on, but might charge closer if you have nothing but a crowbar.

The AI in racing simulations does not try to ambush you. You have no allies in a racing sim.

Lamont
09-10-2005, 06:58 PM
If you play the latest racing games, you do affect how other drives behave. You can make them act more agressive towards you (crashing into them), they can form alliances, they can even help you. There is pathing in a racing game, and it involves hazards on the road, other drivers and the shape of the course, where the other drivers are in relation to itself...

The humanoid enemies in HL2 react to grenades I think and that's it. I walked into a room with a RPG, and well, they ran the same routine they did when I came into the same room with a machine gun. They do not ambush, it's called "Triggers". I kill almost all the enemies, lure one to where the next trigger is, kill him (he's the trigger), kill his buddies that have just been activated and move on. That's how narrow the AI is in HL2. If you've played the game at least twice through, I know nothing surprises you. You know what's going to happen and when.

Actually, I don't want to pick on HL2 anymore. AI is not very impressive in just about every game I play. Console or PC. This is not a knock on the AI programmers at all. They know what they are doing. There has to be ballance so the player will keep playing. If the AI in say Metal Gear Solid 2 was really intelligent, the player would have never made through the boat. Snake would have been captured at the first call for help.

Hey, we're bickering at eachother. PM or e-mail me if you want to discuss further.

Bill Carey
09-17-2005, 06:09 AM
Yes, the AI's all tend to be pretty stupid, that's why the online gaming is taking off on the consoles, particularly the xbox. You go through the single player game just to get yourself up to the point where you won't make a complete fool of yourself online. Seems the push now is to get more people in a game without lagging,

Once you get 20-30 people on a side playing capture the flag, strategy is going to take over from the twitch players, maybe the 13 year olds will finally be at a disadvantage, lol.

Lamont
09-19-2005, 09:45 AM
If you have not seen the MGS 4 video, SEE IT NOW!!!

Kojima has always been known to use in-game cut-scenes. Yeah, I am sure this will run on a 9800 ;).

Lude
09-19-2005, 09:54 AM
Seen it, will believe it when I get to play it.

I donít believe a word that comes out of Sonyís mouth.

Donít get me wrong I think with the extra time Sony could come out with the best of the bunch but this isnít game footage it MIGHT be real-time but itís scripted real-time at best in my opinion.

Just look at the whopper they came out with about kill zone being real-time!

Does look class though if they can pull it off.

Lamont
09-19-2005, 09:56 AM
No, no, no. Since when has there been a pre-rendered Metal Gear trailer? When you find one, I will PayPal you 10 bucks for each one.

Kojima is ALL ABOUT making people think what he's done is not realtime. When the trailer for MGS2 came out, people did think it was pre-rendered. I remember the forum flames.

Lude
09-19-2005, 09:59 AM
lol ok Lamont

Lude
09-19-2005, 10:00 AM
by the way have u a good link to it. The one i seen was tiny?

Lamont
09-19-2005, 11:15 AM
I am waiting for IGN to post a high-res one. But it looks like everyone is getting it from Konami's site.

Lamont
09-19-2005, 11:25 AM
I understand people being skeptic when it comes to next-gen games and how they look, no thanks to the marketing folks who only care about $$$. Professional liars I tell you.

Artist - "This was made using real-time techniques"
Marketing Slob - "So you're saying it's real-time."
Artist - "No, just pre-vis, it's a work in progress. People aren't really supposed to see."
Marketing Slob - "Really? Because we need to show this."
Artist - "Well, we should say it's a work in progress."
Marketing Slob - "Can't do that."
Artist - "Why?"
Marketing Slob - "Already sent video to the press, and did print ads to the mags."
Artist - "What?!?! When!?!?"
Marketing Slob - "Just now. While I was stalling you... we've just wrapped up a commercial spot too."

Bigboy
09-19-2005, 12:12 PM
Its funny coz its true.....

(except the part where the PR people actually ask the art team anything in the first place.....)

:bangwall: