[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.