It's all well and good that there is 11 mill polys per frame, that's amazing, but the LOD distance and pop in is an eye sore because of this. I'd rather it had been less poly intensive per frame to kill the pop ins.
No , it doesn't render 11 million polygons per frame . That title is misleading , read the article . The engine draws those polygons but doesn't render until character gets closer . Which means that , those are total polygons on entire map and not all of them are there when you look at distant objects . There are only few polygons to make the geometry of distant object similar to actual one . When you get closer , more polygons are rendered and added to it and it becomes more detailed . Meanwhile , polygons in area behind you , are reduced as you move further away .
Exactly. But cows will continue having a circle jerk over just the title of the thread. I can bet none of them even read the damn article, not even the gpuking himself.
Not only that but he copy pasted comment from NeoGaf about Star Citizen Cruiser , without doing any research about the game itself . The thread was pretty weak from the start , for discussion because of that comparison . Not to mention that nowhere in the article it says that all of those polygons are rendered at the same time . Actually it clearly states that , problem do occur when player moves faster and engine fails to render extra polygons at same speed , which results in blurry textures and terrible pop ins , and someone already posted pics about that glitch in this thread .
The game indeed renders 11 million polys per frame if you climb on the roof and get a panorama view of the entire city, there are more than enough spots to get those shots, so there's absolutely no cheating.
The engine streams environment blocks on a 100 meters grid. Each block loads 33 MiB (Mebibytes, basically a techie version of a megabyte) of data including everything (physics, scripts, AI and particle). Below you can see a visual representation of those blocks.
Only 10 blocks are displayed at any given time. An extra 7 are loaded but not rendered to help with I/O (input/output speed) from the hard disk.
Each object has between 1 and 3 LODs (levels of detail based on distance) for near to mid distances.
FAR LOD uses baked imposters.
In the worst case the player can move 20 meters per seconds before overtaking the speed at which the world can be rendered..
As stated in last point , doesn't look like 11 million polygons are rendered here .
Oh dear, that looks absolutely terrible. I'm sure this is the worst case scenario, but gawd.
infamous is pushing an order of magnitude more polys than any currently available pc game. that part is not up for debate. will star citizen push more? who knows, altho i doubt it. the cruiser comparison is pointless, tho not for the reasons pc fanboys are bringing up. the 7 mil polys the cruiser is made up of will never all be displayed at once. in order to even see the entire carrier youd have to be far enough away and at that distance not using any lod models would just be poor optimization. thatd be like using the number of polys the entire city in infamous is made up of at lod0 and passing that off as the games poly count in any given scene.
I assume you have proof to back up that statement. How many polys per scene are Battlefield 4, Crysis 3 or AC4 pushing on PC?
Furthermore, I just have to laugh at the way you cows now act like polygon count is the most important aspect of real-time graphics when it is actually well down the list. Once you reach several million polygons per scene you start to enter a point of serious diminishing returns. It also matters a lot how the artists use those polygons. The polygon count itself doesn't tell you all that much about how good a game will look.
I mean, Infamous SS is apparently pushing upwards of 11 million polys per scene yet you still get objects that look like this:
When you consider how aggressive the LOD changes are in this game and how simplistic the models become I think that polygon count could have been used more effectively.
"This drastic case of diminishing returns is caused by numerous factors. The most simple explanation is that, visually, there is a much bigger difference when you jump from 500 to 5,000 polygons per object, rather than 5,000 to 50,000."
go load up a crysis 3 level in the sdk and check. bf4 is extremely low poly, much more so than bf3. its by far the worst looking "next gen" game there is. DIce should be embarrassed trying to pass off such crap as next gen. AC4 by the nature of its extreme lod is also not even going to be a contender.
You can distribute that poly budget however you wanted, who says you can't have a lot of low poly geometry rather than a few of very high poly geometry? There will always be low poly objects so go ahead and nit pick some more.
Do you honestly believe that PS4 with it's 1.84 tflops computing power, can even come to close a high end PC? High end PC running a sli setup can get up to 12tflops. PS4 can't even keep steady 60 frames on BF4, while a PC running sli setup up can run it 150-250 fps @ 1080p. Not to mention 4k, which looks amazing and you cant tell how huge the difference between 720p and 2160p is unless you see it in person, 2160p is THREE TIMES the resolution of a 720p (http://www.dr-lex.be/info-stuff/infoimages/res-sizes.png) Cmon, get real.
PS4 can barely keep 30 frames in this game and that is utterly disgusting. Also the graphics in that youtube look average, nice cherry picking. And even the cherry picked screens aren't that good.
Also PC can run stuff like this, http://eoinn.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/eyefinity-3.jpg
Question is how does that even look good? Rowe looks blurry and lacks detail.
Lighting probably. It's not zoomed into the character, but you can notice the improved detail on the wall with different lighting.
Still not as good as these textures shown in above pics .
Lighting is just a distraction . It doesn't make textures look better .
I never said it was, stop being so insecure.
Even with the lighting change Rowe still looks like crap
Right click open in new tab.
You can count the threads, so...unless you want to be able to zoom into the atoms I'd say that's pretty good for an open world game.
Yeah, it's decent, but it doesn't blow me away. Even Dead Space 3 had similar detail in the fabric of the character model.
Bad company 2 is older and has detailed thread too
Nobody cares. Point is people too cheap to buy a console to supplement their computer are acting insecure and making asinine comments, especially now that there's threads everywhere with awesome looking photo mode screenshots.
post a screen from the same spot on the map if you think im fudging the settings. took some sp screens just to shut down ur other argument
Thanks for proving the point? Those are all far more detailed than your other screenshots from multiplayer. Also here's some better multiplayer screens that better represent what the game looks like. I'm not bothering to reinstall the game, but these prove the point, and most of them are from the PS4 version except the last one. They look better than what you posted in every area but the crappy resolution. I don't know how you even got your water to look that bad if it really is ultra, which I doubt honestly. Even gamespot's beta screenshots look better than yours.
Not that it makes a difference anyway, no one was talking about BF4. Making this point is a wasted effort.
first of all bf4 is always mentioned as a graphics king if its running on pc. secondly your shots dont look better than mine..its the same shit.
Wrong on both counts. Arma 3 and Crysis 3 and Metro 2 are mentioned far more often as graphics king contenders, and everything is better in my screens save the resolution. Just look at the damn palm trees in my last shot compared to your first shot. But even if they were "the same shit," mine are from the PS4 version and yours are supposedly from ultra. Clearly you've done something horribly wrong.
your last shot is with the resolution slider cranked waaaaaay up. im not going to post unplayable screens. my screens are native 1920x1200 ultra settings w/ nvidias trssaa at 4x. as for the ps4 comments, the biggest difference is AA, which you can clearly notice between our shots.
your last shot is with the resolution slider cranked waaaaaay up. im not going to post unplayable screens. my screens are native 1920x1200 ultra settings w/ nvidias trssaa at 4x
lol if you say so, but I think the images speak for themselves, and the last image is 1080p from the PC version, hardly cranked way up. Your shit just smells, there isn't much getting around it at this point. Here are the specs this shot was played at.
@CrownKingArthur: I dont get it. You guys make big deala about how good the game looks but is it out yet? Have you played it? No. Dark Souls II looked insane too until they released it. It looks 20 times worse. Not to mention the framerate. Graohics like that come at a price. Its not just going to magically happen. Go buy yourself a 3000 dollar pc to play one game and have to update it in a year because you cant play battlefield 5 while the consoles still run it at 60 fps 1080p. Your arguementa are invalid when your shits fried in a year buddy