Uncharted graphics, cows have low standards or bad eye sight?

Nice detailed wall..

What the hell happened?

Nice and detailed

A flat mess in reality

Looks bump mapped doesnt it?

Oh... it's actualy not

And the worst thing is? You get camera angles while playing that show these faults off....

Do you have a clue what the screen resolution is?

What is this.... Maybe I should go check out some of those amazing Halo 4 textures eh... :P

UC looks good, shut up you. Badosh

It doesn't look that good close up but when you're actually playing the game it looks quite remarkable, especially considering the weak hardware it is running on.

[QUOTE="Badosh"]UC looks good, shut up you. mrfrosty151986

Off screen Pics + High Sharpness Level on TV = Any game looks bad

[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"][QUOTE="Badosh"]UC looks good, shut up you. Maneil99

Off screen Pics + High Sharpness Level on TV + Any game looks bad

What is this.... Maybe I should go check out some of those amazing Halo 4 textures eh... :P

Maneil99

[QUOTE="Maneil99"]

[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"] So what is it for you? low standards or bad eye sight?mrfrosty151986

Off screen Pics + High Sharpness Level on TV + Any game looks bad

Even some PC games have awful textures if you go looking for them. Crysis' rocks for instance and even some ground textures.

[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"][QUOTE="Maneil99"]

Off screen Pics + High Sharpness Level on TV + Any game looks bad

Maneil99

Even some PC games have awful textures if you go looking for them. Crysis' rocks for instance and even some ground textures.

You should learn what parallex occlusion mapping is.A lot of PC games use it too.

They are flat textures that appear 3D when looked at it head on. On a really steep angle they look flat. Tessellations are replacing PoM. If Sony and Microsoft are smart, they'll put a decent tessellation unit in the next gen consoles so that console games can take advantage of it.

To anybody who thinks this is just "console tricks", you are extremely wrong and ignorant. Crysis 1 and 2 use PoM heavily as well as STALKER. STALKER really abuses the crap out of PoM. Brick walls and brick paved roads are actually flat texutres with PoM.

Uhhh yeah, most games use a texture fill on large flat surfaces. What? You actually expected a pattern of hundreds of bricks to be that many polygonal renders for each and every brick?

There isn't a facepalm big enough for this one :roll: :|

Uhhh yeah, most games use a texture fill on large flat surfaces. What? You actually expected a pattern of hundreds of bricks to be that many polygonal renders of a large surface?

There isn't a facepalm big enough for this one :roll: :|

AdobeArtist

With tessellations those flat walls become nothing but tons of polygons. But that's the point of tessellations. Millions of polygons, very little performance hit.

Tessellations are better than PoM because they don't just simulate depth, they are physical polygons. A tessellation unit can run millions of tessellations easily allowing you to throw 100k polys on a wall with no performance hit. Actually you gain performanceby replacing PoM textures withtessellations as PoM requires some pretty math heavy stuff that has to run through the pipeline instead of rendering on the dedicated unit.

All of the consoles look awful unless played on a 15" screen from 6 feet away. Roll on next gen.

For **** sake, textures are always flat. Consoles can't pump out a lot of polygons considering they can't do things like tessellation. Not to mention that looks like MP and MP in Uncharted 3 is pretty downgraded from its SP. Not to mention those are terrible quality images to even use to come up with an conclusion. Nonstop-Madness

Textures are flat, but with PoM and bump mapping you can give them a lot of depth and have lighting calculations applied to them. Neat tricks to save on a lot of polygons that could be used for more important things.

That's all graphics are on ALL platforms. Tricks to make your game look as good as possible. Even PC games work on a resource budget. Gotta make the best use of what you have.

Nathan Drake from a distance

But get a little closer and you'll see

But then get EVEN closer, and you'll see...

[spoiler] [/spoiler]

You should learn what parallex occlusion mapping is.A lot of PC games use it too.

They are flat textures that appear 3D when looked at it head on. On a really steep angle they look flat. Tessellations are replacing PoM. If Sony and Microsoft are smart, they'll put a decent tessellation unit in the next gen consoles so that console games can take advantage of it.

To anybody who thinks this is just "console tricks", you are extremely wrong and ignorant. Crysis 1 and 2 use PoM heavily as well as STALKER. STALKER really abuses the crap out of PoM. Brick walls and brick paved roads are actually flat texutres with PoM.

Wasdie

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

Uhhh yeah, most games use a texture fill on large flat surfaces. What? You actually expected a pattern of hundreds of bricks to be that many polygonal renders of a large surface?

There isn't a facepalm big enough for this one :roll: :|

Wasdie

With tessellations those flat walls become nothing but tons of polygons. But that's the point of tessellations. Millions of polygons, very little performance hit.

Tessellations are better than PoM because they don't just simulate depth, they are physical polygons. A tessellation unit can run millions of tessellations easily allowing you to throw 100k polys on a wall with no performance hit. Actually you gain performanceby replacing PoM textures withtessellations as PoM requires some pretty math heavy stuff that has to run through the pipeline instead of rendering on the dedicated unit.

I thought this was funny. Technically you could argue it's correct (it's more physics than physical) but it made me think of some kid running to his mom because he just cut himself on a bunch of tessellated polygons.

I'd like to see the TCs artistic talent in 3D modeling. TC comes across as a fckng btch, IMO--quit fckng whining.Heirren

If you could some how run Uncharted 3 at native 1080p, with more AA, AF, and at 60fps, it would be one of the best looking games on the market. Naughty Dog did what they could with the limited hardware they have.

I also believe Naughty Dog doesn't use any software upscaling in the PS3. So the game is forced to be run in 720p even if you've set your PS3 to 1080p. This helps the screen stay very clear as the software upscaler in the PS3 makes the image a bit blurry, more so than if your just let the TV handle the upscaling to 1080. Remember, you're always seeing the native resolution of your TV depsite what the signal is, so the picture is getting upscaled at a point.

Naughty Dog uses pretty much every trick in the book to get Uncharted 3 to look like it did. They did a fantastic job considering the PS3 only has 512 mbs of total system RAM. If you could throw that game more hardware, it would really shine.

Wait, you're really looking for tessellation in PS3 games?

:lol:

Also, snapped console shots will always look like @ss.

There's a reason why you're supposed to play consoles at a distance and on a TV which smoothens out some of the edges...

[QUOTE="Heirren"]I'd like to see the TCs artistic talent in 3D modeling. TC comes across as a fckng btch, IMO--quit fckng whining.mrfrosty151986

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

You should learn what parallex occlusion mapping is.A lot of PC games use it too.

They are flat textures that appear 3D when looked at it head on. On a really steep angle they look flat. Tessellations are replacing PoM. If Sony and Microsoft are smart, they'll put a decent tessellation unit in the next gen consoles so that console games can take advantage of it.

To anybody who thinks this is just "console tricks", you are extremely wrong and ignorant. Crysis 1 and 2 use PoM heavily as well as STALKER. STALKER really abuses the crap out of PoM. Brick walls and brick paved roads are actually flat textures with PoM.

mrfrosty151986

PoM does look fine, if you don't veiw the edges of the objects where PoM is applied too (then you can see how the surface is flat and the PoM simulates depth, but that's it).

Here's a great example. Notice on the bottom left picture the wall's corner is flat compared to the tessellated one on the bottom right. (View it in it's full size to see this the best)

STALKER applies some pretty intense PoM while Crytek went a lot less liberal with the tessellations.

PoM costs more to run though. Tessellations are better than PoM in every way. You just need to have the hardware to run the tessellations. The Xbox 360 has a weak tessellations unit. OpenGL supports tessellations now too. I would expect the PS4 and next xbox to have a tessellation unit (they are cheap now).

Wait, you're really looking for tessellation in PS3 games?

:lol:

nameless12345

TC just fired'em up....

But yeah, overrated it is. :P

[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

You should learn what parallex occlusion mapping is.A lot of PC games use it too.

They are flat textures that appear 3D when looked at it head on. On a really steep angle they look flat. Tessellations are replacing PoM. If Sony and Microsoft are smart, they'll put a decent tessellation unit in the next gen consoles so that console games can take advantage of it.

To anybody who thinks this is just "console tricks", you are extremely wrong and ignorant. Crysis 1 and 2 use PoM heavily as well as STALKER. STALKER really abuses the crap out of PoM. Brick walls and brick paved roads are actually flat texutres with PoM.

Wasdie

PoM does look fine, if you don't veiw the edges of the objects where PoM is applied too (then you can see how the surface is flat and the PoM simulats depth, but that's it).

Here's a great example. Notice on the bottom left picture the wall's corner is flat compared to the tessellated one on the bottom right. (View it in it's full size to see this the best)

STALKER applies some pretty intense PoM while Crytek went a lot less liberal with the tesselations.

PoM costs more to run though. Tessellations are better than PoM in every way. You just need to have the hardware to run the tesellations. The Xbox 360 has a weak tessellations unit. OpenGL supports tessellations now too. I would expect the PS4 and next xbox to have a tessellation unit (they are cheap now).

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"] POM in stalker looks fine and in many ways looks better then the tessellated walls in Crysis 2...mrfrosty151986

PoM does look fine, if you don't veiw the edges of the objects where PoM is applied too (then you can see how the surface is flat and the PoM simulats depth, but that's it).

Here's a great example. Notice on the bottom left picture the wall's corner is flat compared to the tessellated one on the bottom right. (View it in it's full size to see this the best)

STALKER applies some pretty intense PoM while Crytek went a lot less liberal with the tesselations.

PoM costs more to run though. Tessellations are better than PoM in every way. You just need to have the hardware to run the tesellations. The Xbox 360 has a weak tessellations unit. OpenGL supports tessellations now too. I would expect the PS4 and next xbox to have a tessellation unit (they are cheap now).

Actually PoM is not very cheap. It's quite expensive compared to tessellations. The only thing is that you don't need a special unit on your GPU to run PoM.

Low standards.

[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

PoM does look fine, if you don't veiw the edges of the objects where PoM is applied too (then you can see how the surface is flat and the PoM simulats depth, but that's it).

Here's a great example. Notice on the bottom left picture the wall's corner is flat compared to the tessellated one on the bottom right. (View it in it's full size to see this the best)

STALKER applies some pretty intense PoM while Crytek went a lot less liberal with the tesselations.

PoM costs more to run though. Tessellations are better than PoM in every way. You just need to have the hardware to run the tesellations. The Xbox 360 has a weak tessellations unit. OpenGL supports tessellations now too. I would expect the PS4 and next xbox to have a tessellation unit (they are cheap now).

Wasdie

Actually PoM is not very cheap. It's quite expensive compared to tessellations. The only thing is that you don't need a special unit on your GPU to run PoM.

someone cried in silence since last year VGA result ..... ain't that right MrFrosty151986?hippiesanta

But then get EVEN closer, and you'll see...

[spoiler] [/spoiler]

Ly_the_Fairy

lol

[QUOTE="hippiesanta"]someone cried in silence since last year VGA result ..... ain't that right MrFrosty151986?mrfrosty151986

I've turned POM on and off in Crysis and STALKER in the past and I only gained, literally, a couple of FPS... You can go crazy with the amount of steps usd in POM ( Steps determine the quality ) and really bring GPU's crashing down, however running correctly the performance cost is very low. It's also good to see hat Crytek have made a new 'Pixel Accurate' POM that can receive shadows, they had to create this new version as they were not happy with the tessellation performance in CryEngine 3mrfrosty151986

The same amount of tessellations to replace that PoM would cost less. It just would. PoM is more expensive. Relatively it's not that expensive, but tessellations are still less expensive.

[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"][QUOTE="hippiesanta"]someone cried in silence since last year VGA result ..... ain't that right MrFrosty151986?hippiesanta

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

Uhhh yeah, most games use a texture fill on large flat surfaces. What? You actually expected a pattern of hundreds of bricks to be that many polygonal renders for each and every brick?

There isn't a facepalm big enough for this one :roll: :|

Wasdie

With tessellations those flat walls become nothing but tons of polygons. But that's the point of tessellations. Millions of polygons, very little performance hit.

Tessellations are better than PoM because they don't just simulate depth, they are physical polygons. A tessellation unit can run millions of tessellations easily allowing you to throw 100k polys on a wall with no performance hit. Actually you gain performanceby replacing PoM textures withtessellations as PoM requires some pretty math heavy stuff that has to run through the pipeline instead of rendering on the dedicated unit.

Ok, now it was my understanding that the reason devs used texture renders with added lighting effects to simulate a surface, was that more polygons resulted in more number crunching that in turn strains the CPU/GPU. Fewer polygons are preferrable, where texture renders are used to simulate uneven surfaces.

So how do tesselations which is comprised of even more polys, end up being more resource efficient than fewer polys with texture renders?

Ok, now it was my understanding that the reason devs used texture renders with added lighting effects to simulate a surface, was that more polygons resulted in more number crunching that in turn strains the CPU/GPU. Fewer polygons are preferrable, where texture renders are used to simulate uneven surfaces.

So how do tesselations which is comprised of even more polys, end up being more resource efficient than fewer polys with texture renders?

AdobeArtist

Tessellations are not normal polygons run through the GPU's pipeline. They are a different algorithm run through special hardware that is built for cramming millions of polygons really quickly. Tessellations are not run through the pipeline like standard polys so the GPU does less work there. Thus you get more surfaces for way less resources with tessellations.

PoM was used to reduce the amount of polys and free up the renderer before they had a tessellation unit that could cram millions of seemingly unecessary polygons.

Both PoM and tessellations are going to be faster than just having very high res meshes over everthing and cramming those calculations down the pipeline.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

Uhhh yeah, most games use a texture fill on large flat surfaces. What? You actually expected a pattern of hundreds of bricks to be that many polygonal renders for each and every brick?

There isn't a facepalm big enough for this one :roll: :|

AdobeArtist

With tessellations those flat walls become nothing but tons of polygons. But that's the point of tessellations. Millions of polygons, very little performance hit.

Tessellations are better than PoM because they don't just simulate depth, they are physical polygons. A tessellation unit can run millions of tessellations easily allowing you to throw 100k polys on a wall with no performance hit. Actually you gain performanceby replacing PoM textures withtessellations as PoM requires some pretty math heavy stuff that has to run through the pipeline instead of rendering on the dedicated unit.

Ok, now it was my understanding that the reason devs used texture renders with added lighting effects to simulate a surface, was that more polygons resulted in more number crunching that in turn strains the CPU/GPU. Fewer polygons are preferrable, where texture renders are used to simulate uneven surfaces.

So how do tesselations which is comprised of even more polys, end up being more resource efficient than fewer polys with texture renders?

My guess, not working in this particular field, is that tesselations run on specific hardware dedicated to doing just that. If you have the correct hardware the overhead is lower. I could be wrong though.

Edit: *See above, I'll shut-up, wasn't too far wrong though :P*.

[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"]I've turned POM on and off in Crysis and STALKER in the past and I only gained, literally, a couple of FPS... You can go crazy with the amount of steps usd in POM ( Steps determine the quality ) and really bring GPU's crashing down, however running correctly the performance cost is very low. It's also good to see hat Crytek have made a new 'Pixel Accurate' POM that can receive shadows, they had to create this new version as they were not happy with the tessellation performance in CryEngine 3Wasdie

The same amount of tessellations to replace that PoM would cost less. It just would. PoM is more expensive. Relatively it's not that expensive, but tessellations are still less expensive.

Dude, KZ3 and Crysis graphics are the best on any console. Uncharted is good, but not the best.

[QUOTE="hippiesanta"][QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"] Dude I game on a very high end PC.... my reason for crying would be exactly what? That I have better graphics in every way?mrfrosty151986

don't have too, I played games b4 u even born:twisted: