Heavenly Sword DEV: The Cell can't HANDLE HD16 or 1080p ***DOWQNGRADE TOTAL***

[QUOTE="El_Indigo"]

[QUOTE="march1n0"] [QUOTE="El_Indigo"]Is that you NAo ?McLarenAK47

Wow I never expected you to come here your to smart for this place anyway you just owned some lemmings :D

especially ranik and ryujin. they seemed to jump on it like white on rice.

ryujin is usually smart i just dont know what happened to his first comment in this thread. oh well even smart people get carried way sometimes.:P

We constantly adapt as we learn what makes this thing tick...

We are definately not using FP16 HDR anymore, Marco implemented a cool method to get the same results using INT8. Faster and with MSAA, Winner

1080p? could still happen but I reckon 720p will be the standard but we will see. Just can't see us burning precious memory, fillrate and bandwidth for something only a few people can use...Red_Cloak

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?p=648063#post648063

IT IS USING HDR8?!??! I CAN'T THINK OF ONE X360 GAME THAT DOESNT USE AT LEAST HDR10!

THE DREAM IS DEAD, WAVE BYE TO REALISTIC LIGHTING AND 1080P COWS.

IT'S OVER, THE TRUTH IT FINALLY COMING OUT, CELL IS A DISASTER!

Denial in full force...I love it!!!

They downgraded the game cause the PS3 couldnt handle it at 1080p and 60 fps and still look the way the DEV wanted it to.

You can forget about 1080p games.

Plain and simple.

Denial in full force...I love it!!!

They downgraded the game cause the PS3 couldnt handle it at 1080p and 60 fps and still look the way the DEV wanted it to.

You can forget about 1080p games.

Plain and simple.

vacaestupida

Denial in full force...I love it!!!

They downgraded the game cause the PS3 couldnt handle it at 1080p and 60 fps and still look the way the DEV wanted it to.

You can forget about 1080p games.

Plain and simple.

vacaestupida

Read the Thread, You have been pwned

Denial in full force...I love it!!!

They downgraded the game cause the PS3 couldnt handle it at 1080p and 60 fps and still look the way the DEV wanted it to.

You can forget about 1080p games.

Plain and simple.

vacaestupida

from the dev

There's not quality loss in that method.
The pair of images that someone quoted in this thread are comparing
a rendering into a FP16 render target with a plain rendering into a RGBA8 render target.
This is NOT what Dean is talking about, he's talking about storing in a RGBA8 target a color
in a new color space that can encode with LESS bits per pixel the same amount of data/information
that you can encode using a FP16 format.
In the end it's a good choice even if one doesn't want to use AA at all, cause you get the same
quality as FP16 using less video memory and less bandwith.

[QUOTE="vacaestupida"]

Denial in full force...I love it!!!

They downgraded the game cause the PS3 couldnt handle it at 1080p and 60 fps and still look the way the DEV wanted it to.

You can forget about 1080p games.

Plain and simple.

DanoruX

You're an idiot.

Plain and simple.

Whatever man. Its clear as day. They wanted to have better AA and 60 fps so they had to sacrifice resolution and HDR16. Goes to show the PS3 has its weaknesses just like the 360. Hopefully this kills the 2x times more powerful garbage.

[QUOTE="DanoruX"] [QUOTE="vacaestupida"]

Denial in full force...I love it!!!

They downgraded the game cause the PS3 couldnt handle it at 1080p and 60 fps and still look the way the DEV wanted it to.

You can forget about 1080p games.

Plain and simple.

vacaestupida

You're an idiot.

Plain and simple.

Whatever man. Its clear as day. They wanted to have better AA and 60 fps so they had to sacrifice resolution and HDR16. Goes to show the PS3 has its weaknesses just like the 360. Hopefully this kills the 2x times more powerful garbage.

read the devs comment   they didn't downgrade anything

well come one , its the same as ms getting hit with launch some launch titles lacking fsaa .


Sony was all big at thier e3 press confrence talking about fp32 hdr let alone fp16 hdr . Now devs are using int 8 to get more speed .vacaestupida

why wouldn't they use int8    ?  it gives the same  result  for much less video memory and less bandwith along with MSAA 

PGR3 cant even do 720 resolution and you lemmings got something to say about ps3, you lemmings got some nerve.

[QUOTE="0perat0r"]there are alot of 360 games out now that dont use any HDR :| cobragt

K now tell us how many of you lemmings actually have 1080p :roll:MonkeyMan8708

Oh great, since HD "quality is all" is out, I guess sheep own you.  Unless the 10% of HDTV users have suddenly exploded to like, 40% overnight.

[QUOTE="cobragt"] [QUOTE="0perat0r"]there are alot of 360 games out now that dont use any HDR :| lookbehindyou

Exactly, how many games look like that bathtub thing.

Everyone was like "OMFG PWN"... Then it kinda turned out to be kinda worse.

Which one will have games with graphics i don't know (having a supercomputer doesn't matter if it only supports RollerCoasterTycoon2, meaning all the hardware in the world doesn't matter if the software can't adapt to it)

Heck the initial Rev titles may look better, noting that the dev kits are very gamecube like, and familier.

[QUOTE="lookbehindyou"][QUOTE="cobragt"] [QUOTE="0perat0r"]there are alot of 360 games out now that dont use any HDR :| salamisandwich

Exactly, how many games look like that bathtub thing.

Everyone was like "OMFG PWN"... Then it kinda turned out to be kinda worse.

Which one will have games with graphics i don't know (having a supercomputer doesn't matter if it only supports RollerCoasterTycoon2, meaning all the hardware in the world doesn't matter if the software can't adapt to it)

Heck the initial Rev titles may look better, noting that the dev kits are very gamecube like, and familier.

:lol: HDR8 :lol:

Take a good look at your Heavenly Sword E3 'footage' it will never be close to that, ever again.  Too funny.  :lol:

Red_Cloak

Lol @ this kid for not reading the whole thread and copying and pasting part of it.

Marco implemented a cool method to get the same results using INT8. Faster and with MSAA, Winner

kawakev

this is GOOD! you have to be retarded to think this is bad news for the cows...

See the picture posted above.  It ain't the same.  PS3 is too hard to program for so they are taking an easy way out by using the easier to code for lighting.

[QUOTE="vacaestupida"]

Denial in full force...I love it!!!

They downgraded the game cause the PS3 couldnt handle it at 1080p and 60 fps and still look the way the DEV wanted it to.

You can forget about 1080p games.

Plain and simple.

El_Indigo

from the dev

There's not quality loss in that method.
The pair of images that someone quoted in this thread are comparing
a rendering into a FP16 render target with a plain rendering into a RGBA8 render target.
This is NOT what Dean is talking about, he's talking about storing in a RGBA8 target a color
in a new color space that can encode with LESS bits per pixel the same amount of data/information
that you can encode using a FP16 format.
In the end it's a good choice even if one doesn't want to use AA at all, cause you get the same
quality as FP16 using less video memory and less bandwith.

Like Dev would say...we found a way that gives us good results...most people won't notice; however, PS3 just wasn't able to run at FP16 and give us the framerate we needed. 

*IF* PS3 was so powerful and could easily run FP16 the dev would code for it.  He wouldn't need to find a "work-around".  As  dev myself the only reason I find a work-around is because coding the way "you're supposed to" isn't cutting it.  Typically it's because of performance reasons, but it's also because of bugs.

Just ask yourself the logical question.  IF PS3 could run the game in FP16 at 60FPS, why wouldn't dev do this?  They'd be using the native hardware of the system without any software work-arounds to get similar results. 

Now there is one more possible answer...PF16 may be a beotch to code for because PS3 is definitely not dev friendly so they went with a coding technique that is easier to implement on PS3 (and then claimed it's the same as FP16).

[QUOTE="El_Indigo"][QUOTE="vacaestupida"]

Denial in full force...I love it!!!

They downgraded the game cause the PS3 couldnt handle it at 1080p and 60 fps and still look the way the DEV wanted it to.

You can forget about 1080p games.

Plain and simple.

mikasa

from the dev

There's not quality loss in that method.
The pair of images that someone quoted in this thread are comparing
a rendering into a FP16 render target with a plain rendering into a RGBA8 render target.
This is NOT what Dean is talking about, he's talking about storing in a RGBA8 target a color
in a new color space that can encode with LESS bits per pixel the same amount of data/information
that you can encode using a FP16 format.
In the end it's a good choice even if one doesn't want to use AA at all, cause you get the same
quality as FP16 using less video memory and less bandwith.

Like Dev would say...we found a way that gives us good results...most people won't notice; however, PS3 just wasn't able to run at FP16 and give us the framerate we needed. 

*IF* PS3 was so powerful and could easily run FP16 the dev would code for it.  He wouldn't need to find a "work-around".  As  dev myself the only reason I find a work-around is because coding the way "you're supposed to" isn't cutting it.  Typically it's because of performance reasons, but it's also because of bugs.

Just ask yourself the logical question.  IF PS3 could run the game in FP16 at 60FPS, why wouldn't dev do this?  They'd be using the native hardware of the system without any software work-arounds to get similar results. 

Now there is one more possible answer...PF16 may be a beotch to code for because PS3 is definitely not dev friendly so they went with a coding technique that is easier to implement on PS3 (and then claimed it's the same as FP16).

tell me what company do u work for??

[QUOTE="mikasa"][QUOTE="El_Indigo"][QUOTE="vacaestupida"]

Denial in full force...I love it!!!

They downgraded the game cause the PS3 couldnt handle it at 1080p and 60 fps and still look the way the DEV wanted it to.

You can forget about 1080p games.

Plain and simple.

McLarenAK47

from the dev

There's not quality loss in that method.
The pair of images that someone quoted in this thread are comparing
a rendering into a FP16 render target with a plain rendering into a RGBA8 render target.
This is NOT what Dean is talking about, he's talking about storing in a RGBA8 target a color
in a new color space that can encode with LESS bits per pixel the same amount of data/information
that you can encode using a FP16 format.
In the end it's a good choice even if one doesn't want to use AA at all, cause you get the same
quality as FP16 using less video memory and less bandwith.

Like Dev would say...we found a way that gives us good results...most people won't notice; however, PS3 just wasn't able to run at FP16 and give us the framerate we needed. 

*IF* PS3 was so powerful and could easily run FP16 the dev would code for it.  He wouldn't need to find a "work-around".  As  dev myself the only reason I find a work-around is because coding the way "you're supposed to" isn't cutting it.  Typically it's because of performance reasons, but it's also because of bugs.

Just ask yourself the logical question.  IF PS3 could run the game in FP16 at 60FPS, why wouldn't dev do this?  They'd be using the native hardware of the system without any software work-arounds to get similar results. 

Now there is one more possible answer...PF16 may be a beotch to code for because PS3 is definitely not dev friendly so they went with a coding technique that is easier to implement on PS3 (and then claimed it's the same as FP16).

tell me what company do u work for??

As soon as you post your mailing address, phone number and Social Security #.

Like you'd believe what company I said I worked for anyway.  But instead of challenging what company I work for, why not discuss what I posted?  You know for a fact, no big business developer is going to say our dev skills suck.  Or the system we chose to develop for isn't living up to expectations. 

It may be that the developers suck monkey balls, but that's doubtful if they are finding "creative" ways to make FP16 HDR without using FP16.  I wonder what NVIDIA and ATI would say about this technique.  My bet is they'd say FP16 HDR can only be achieved by using their hardware API calls.  Using lower bit versions and then doing some funky math can make the lower bit version look better but it won't equal FP16 HDR.

Learn to read.  Xenos has a huge frame buffer and can afford high quality lighting AND antialiasing.

PS3 HAS NO 10 MB OF EDRAM.  Period, that means crap lighting and crap AA.

Red_Cloak

'tard... 'nuff said.  This thread was a hopeless debate about Lemmings and their "technology"  See you at CES, suckers.

Damage control out the wazoo...

[QUOTE="McLarenAK47"][QUOTE="mikasa"][QUOTE="El_Indigo"][QUOTE="vacaestupida"]

Denial in full force...I love it!!!

They downgraded the game cause the PS3 couldnt handle it at 1080p and 60 fps and still look the way the DEV wanted it to.

You can forget about 1080p games.

Plain and simple.

mikasa

from the dev

There's not quality loss in that method.
The pair of images that someone quoted in this thread are comparing
a rendering into a FP16 render target with a plain rendering into a RGBA8 render target.
This is NOT what Dean is talking about, he's talking about storing in a RGBA8 target a color
in a new color space that can encode with LESS bits per pixel the same amount of data/information
that you can encode using a FP16 format.
In the end it's a good choice even if one doesn't want to use AA at all, cause you get the same
quality as FP16 using less video memory and less bandwith.

Like Dev would say...we found a way that gives us good results...most people won't notice; however, PS3 just wasn't able to run at FP16 and give us the framerate we needed. 

*IF* PS3 was so powerful and could easily run FP16 the dev would code for it.  He wouldn't need to find a "work-around".  As  dev myself the only reason I find a work-around is because coding the way "you're supposed to" isn't cutting it.  Typically it's because of performance reasons, but it's also because of bugs.

Just ask yourself the logical question.  IF PS3 could run the game in FP16 at 60FPS, why wouldn't dev do this?  They'd be using the native hardware of the system without any software work-arounds to get similar results. 

Now there is one more possible answer...PF16 may be a beotch to code for because PS3 is definitely not dev friendly so they went with a coding technique that is easier to implement on PS3 (and then claimed it's the same as FP16).

tell me what company do u work for??

As soon as you post your mailing address, phone number and Social Security #.

Like you'd believe what company I said I worked for anyway.  But instead of challenging what company I work for, why not discuss what I posted?  You know for a fact, no big business developer is going to say our dev skills suck.  Or the system we chose to develop for isn't living up to expectations. 

It may be that the developers suck monkey balls, but that's doubtful if they are finding "creative" ways to make FP16 HDR without using FP16.  I wonder what NVIDIA and ATI would say about this technique.  My bet is they'd say FP16 HDR can only be achieved by using their hardware API calls.  Using lower bit versions and then doing some funky math can make the lower bit version look better but it won't equal FP16 HDR.

u are fool of crap.

For more info on the Cell disaster....

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=24055475

:lol: Poor Cows :lol:

Red_Cloak

haha TCHBO where are you cows now??? huh, time to go back into the hibernation spot you guys used during the gta lcs ownage.

[QUOTE="blackbeltdaniel"]

[QUOTE="AcidRonen"]what a waste of hardwareAcidRonen

Great General Patton quote in your sig.

thanks

I did not know General Patton was illiterate.

[QUOTE="mikasa"][QUOTE="McLarenAK47"][QUOTE="mikasa"][QUOTE="El_Indigo"][QUOTE="vacaestupida"]

Denial in full force...I love it!!!

They downgraded the game cause the PS3 couldnt handle it at 1080p and 60 fps and still look the way the DEV wanted it to.

You can forget about 1080p games.

Plain and simple.

McLarenAK47

from the dev

There's not quality loss in that method.
The pair of images that someone quoted in this thread are comparing
a rendering into a FP16 render target with a plain rendering into a RGBA8 render target.
This is NOT what Dean is talking about, he's talking about storing in a RGBA8 target a color
in a new color space that can encode with LESS bits per pixel the same amount of data/information
that you can encode using a FP16 format.
In the end it's a good choice even if one doesn't want to use AA at all, cause you get the same
quality as FP16 using less video memory and less bandwith.

Like Dev would say...we found a way that gives us good results...most people won't notice; however, PS3 just wasn't able to run at FP16 and give us the framerate we needed. 

*IF* PS3 was so powerful and could easily run FP16 the dev would code for it.  He wouldn't need to find a "work-around".  As  dev myself the only reason I find a work-around is because coding the way "you're supposed to" isn't cutting it.  Typically it's because of performance reasons, but it's also because of bugs.

Just ask yourself the logical question.  IF PS3 could run the game in FP16 at 60FPS, why wouldn't dev do this?  They'd be using the native hardware of the system without any software work-arounds to get similar results. 

Now there is one more possible answer...PF16 may be a beotch to code for because PS3 is definitely not dev friendly so they went with a coding technique that is easier to implement on PS3 (and then claimed it's the same as FP16).

tell me what company do u work for??

As soon as you post your mailing address, phone number and Social Security #.

Like you'd believe what company I said I worked for anyway.  But instead of challenging what company I work for, why not discuss what I posted?  You know for a fact, no big business developer is going to say our dev skills suck.  Or the system we chose to develop for isn't living up to expectations. 

It may be that the developers suck monkey balls, but that's doubtful if they are finding "creative" ways to make FP16 HDR without using FP16.  I wonder what NVIDIA and ATI would say about this technique.  My bet is they'd say FP16 HDR can only be achieved by using their hardware API calls.  Using lower bit versions and then doing some funky math can make the lower bit version look better but it won't equal FP16 HDR.

u are fool of crap.

i told the cows...

...but they NEVER listen...

..cows.. keeping the dream alive..:lol:

[QUOTE="McLarenAK47"][QUOTE="mikasa"][QUOTE="McLarenAK47"][QUOTE="mikasa"][QUOTE="El_Indigo"][QUOTE="vacaestupida"]

Denial in full force...I love it!!!

They downgraded the game cause the PS3 couldnt handle it at 1080p and 60 fps and still look the way the DEV wanted it to.

You can forget about 1080p games.

Plain and simple.

ps2_rocks234

from the dev

There's not quality loss in that method.
The pair of images that someone quoted in this thread are comparing
a rendering into a FP16 render target with a plain rendering into a RGBA8 render target.
This is NOT what Dean is talking about, he's talking about storing in a RGBA8 target a color
in a new color space that can encode with LESS bits per pixel the same amount of data/information
that you can encode using a FP16 format.
In the end it's a good choice even if one doesn't want to use AA at all, cause you get the same
quality as FP16 using less video memory and less bandwith.

Like Dev would say...we found a way that gives us good results...most people won't notice; however, PS3 just wasn't able to run at FP16 and give us the framerate we needed. 

*IF* PS3 was so powerful and could easily run FP16 the dev would code for it.  He wouldn't need to find a "work-around".  As  dev myself the only reason I find a work-around is because coding the way "you're supposed to" isn't cutting it.  Typically it's because of performance reasons, but it's also because of bugs.

Just ask yourself the logical question.  IF PS3 could run the game in FP16 at 60FPS, why wouldn't dev do this?  They'd be using the native hardware of the system without any software work-arounds to get similar results. 

Now there is one more possible answer...PF16 may be a beotch to code for because PS3 is definitely not dev friendly so they went with a coding technique that is easier to implement on PS3 (and then claimed it's the same as FP16).

tell me what company do u work for??

As soon as you post your mailing address, phone number and Social Security #.

Like you'd believe what company I said I worked for anyway.  But instead of challenging what company I work for, why not discuss what I posted?  You know for a fact, no big business developer is going to say our dev skills suck.  Or the system we chose to develop for isn't living up to expectations. 

It may be that the developers suck monkey balls, but that's doubtful if they are finding "creative" ways to make FP16 HDR without using FP16.  I wonder what NVIDIA and ATI would say about this technique.  My bet is they'd say FP16 HDR can only be achieved by using their hardware API calls.  Using lower bit versions and then doing some funky math can make the lower bit version look better but it won't equal FP16 HDR.

u are fool of crap.

that red coat guy or w/e his name is, is a true fanboy.  no matter what he does wrong or how much he gets owned by his own material, he still denies it.  that is a true fanboy. 

i told the cows...

...but they NEVER listen...

..cows.. keeping the dream alive..:lol:

hd28guy_basic

there;s something in ur cranium that seems to be dead, mind telling me what it is??

[QUOTE="hd28guy_basic"]

i told the cows...

...but they NEVER listen...

..cows.. keeping the dream alive..:lol:

McLarenAK47

there;s something in ur cranium that seems to be dead, mind telling me what it is??

TCHBOSavageBananaMan

did you even read through the   thread ?

TCHBOSavageBananaMan

heh no surprise! you're next gen consoles aren't a "godsend" like you guys make them out to be! _Spock_

did you read read throught the whole thread ?  this guy got owned by   a dev   who regesterd here and set him straight 

[QUOTE="_Spock_"]heh no surprise! you're next gen consoles aren't a "godsend" like you guys make them out to be! El_Indigo

did you read read throught the whole thread ? this guy got owned by a dev who regesterd here and set him straight

I'm not going to spend the time reading 11 pages of guys flaming each other.. but even the 7800GTX that powers the ps3 is going to be brought to its knees throwing that FP16 HDR everywhere

[QUOTE="El_Indigo"]

[QUOTE="_Spock_"]heh no surprise! you're next gen consoles aren't a "godsend" like you guys make them out to be! _Spock_

did you read read throught the whole thread ? this guy got owned by a dev who regesterd here and set him straight

I'm not going to spend the time reading 11 pages of guys flaming each other.. but even the 7800GTX that powers the ps3 is going to be brought to its knees throwing that FP16 HDR everywhere

from the dev himself 

First off: FP16 HDR runs perfectly fine, we render everything in RGB Colourspace into a FP16 buffer. Then run a tonemapping algo to bring in down to LDR for display on a monitor/tv. The 'normal' way of HDR. Its all runs at the speed you would expect and it quite playable.

But RGB space is **** for lighting calculations, its simple the wrong place. Why? Originally RGB colour space was defined on the range [0,1] for each channel. With a 1 being the most strongest pure colour *POSSIBLE* in that channel. So RGB<0,1,0> is the most purest green possible. RGB was designed (long long time ago) as an absolute colour space. But even a trivial look tells you as you move to simple HDR (allow values above 1) its a vast waste of space. What exactly does the colour RGB<0,1000,0> mean? Something that 1000x purest green?

The reason is because you haven't sepereated hue (colour) from lumonsity. When we talk about HDR we not talking about more colour range but more lumonsity. So we change the colour space to one where lumonsity can go very high but the colour range just keeps the same range as before.

So what we do (Marco will have to give the details) is at the end of each pixel shader tap on a RGB->ColourSpace converter (its about 5 instructions I think). This colour space is much more quantizable, so it looks virtually the same packing it into an INT8 versus a RGB FP16 framebuffer. We still have the same range of lumonsity as FP16, still have the same colour fidelity but we just save bandwidth (and other things) by using a few shader instructions. Its also handy when it comes to tonemapping, as that involves calculating the scenes lumonsity.

Its got nothing to do with the current speed of FP16 rendering, its because we worked out how to do HDR better. FP16 rendering is slower on ALL hardware versus INT8 rendering (more memory access and having to process floats).
Its clever software beating hardware, you'd probably want to use this on PC, X360 (its much better then FP10), PS3, Rev etc. Its simple a better HDR method... Its beats FP16 HDR in almost all cases, so as I've said why wouldn't you use it?

Ironincally for the X360 ******s its even more relevant on X360... X360 sucks at FP16 HDR, particular because of the tiling (64 bit framebuffers use twice as many tiles). Swap to our colour space and the X360 gets FP16 HDR quality without the lose in speed it suffers from if you use real FP16 HDR.

So just to reiterate (in condensed form for cut and pasted on various forums...)
We DON'T use ARGB8 HDR we use a custom colour space HDR that has the quality of FP16 HDR but takes half the space. This is a win on every platform in the world and nothing to do with PS3 capability.