DVD9 limits PGR4 (HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT)

Since 7137 Days

Posted by GriftGFX

Yup, beautiful! I'd say that's good enough, when it comes to different lighting conditions, although I would have preferred to see the difference extend to night and day. Still, stunning visuals!

Yeah, good enough is a good way to put it.

In reply to

Phaethon360

Since 6861 Days

You guys complaining about a good looking game? Sigh.

I'm glad we can't race at night. I'm scared of the dark. Oh God. My text is in the dark! HALP!

In reply to

Phaethon, the forum Spectre.

GriftGFX

Since 7016 Days

We can race at night -- but on night time tracks, we can't race in the day light! I think we're complaining because a feature of PGR3 has now gone missing.. but we're also acknowledging that it's been replaced by other features and content so it's more forgivable.

In reply to

LEBATO

Since 7137 Days

Posted by GriftGFX

We can race at night -- but on night time tracks, we can't race in the day light! I think we're complaining because a feature of PGR3 has now gone missing.. but we're also acknowledging that it's been replaced by other features and content so it's more forgivable.

Yeah, I wouldn't even call it complaining. It's just disappointing.

In reply to

GrimThorne

Since 6888 Days

Posted by LEBATO

Ok more info from Bizarre, they try to clear things up a bit. You can read about it here:

http://www.bizarrecreations.com/article.php?articl...

LEBATO, While I did enjoy the discussions that came from the topic you created, I have to say that given Bizarre's response that you seemed to have created a "Storm in a Tea Cup" over the DVD9 issue. lol

Bizarre's solution isn't one I would have chosen, but it works and the results are quite impressive.

Sometimes you have to give the developer an opportunity to explain their position before you run into a forum declaring "huge dissapointment" Although I know you weren't attacking Bizzarre, only the DVD9 format.

In reply to

GriftGFX

Since 7016 Days

Posted by GrimThorne

LEBATO, While I did enjoy the discussions that came from the topic you created, I have to say that given Bizarre's response that you seemed to have created a "Storm in a Tea Cup" over the DVD9 issue. lol

Bizarre's solution isn't one I would have chosen, but it works and the results are quite impressive.

Sometimes you have to give the developer an opportunity to explain their position before you run into a forum declaring "huge dissapointment" Although I know you weren't attacking Bizzarre, only the DVD9 format.

It does look great. Maybe I should change the topic title to, "Minor, insignificant disappointment!" ;P

In reply to

SimonM7

Since 7039 Days

Well, if I recall right we lost a couple of settings from 2 in 3 too. Or maybe it was from 1 to 2...

I think there was like day, night and dawn/dusk? Or did I dream that?

In reply to

LEBATO

Since 7137 Days

Posted by GrimThorne

LEBATO, While I did enjoy the discussions that came from the topic you created, I have to say that given Bizarre's response that you seemed to have created a "Storm in a Tea Cup" over the DVD9 issue. lol

Bizarre's solution isn't one I would have chosen, but it works and the results are quite impressive.

Sometimes you have to give the developer an opportunity to explain their position before you run into a forum declaring "huge dissapointment" Although I know you weren't attacking Bizzarre, only the DVD9 format.

Well they didn't have to clear anything to me, I understood things when Ben first said it. Whatever they say, DVD9 did limit the game, and whatever they say, it is a huge disappointment for me. Of course that's not to say the game doesn't impress me anyways.

In reply to

ItsOK_ImaNinja

Since 6329 Days

Posted by Acert93

You have no clue what you are talking about.

Parallax mapping is vertex shading intensive, not pixel.

It generates geometry and requires a tessellation unit in order for it to be processed in a single pass.

Both of these statements are incorrect and your followup obfuscates your original statements with even more foggy information.

Parallax Mapping is not pixel shader light / vertex shader heavy, and it doesn't require a tesselation unit.

In the new world of unified shaders, it's best to just call it shading - I guess.

Unified shaders is hardware resource model to adapting [essentially] math units [shaders] for a broader range of computations; current shader models still make clear distinctions between pixel shader code, vertex shader code, and geometry shader code.

Unified shaders is a hardware implimentation that has not obscured the distinction between vertex and pixel processing (or ROP processing either) in the way you are suggesting.

Virtex shading deals with vertices (geometry) and pixel shading deals with pixels. Vertex shaders can use textures (vertex shading, R2VB) to augment real geometry; pixel shaders can use textures (various bump maps like normals and parallax maps) to augment pixels to appear to represent geometry -- hence drawing flush to geometry with a parallax map will clearly show the geometry hasn't been altered.

Edit: Wiki is your friend (as it seems you don't believe me).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_mapping

Displacement mapping is an alternative technique in contrast to bump mapping, normal mapping, and parallax mapping, using a (procedural-) texture- or height map to cause an effect where the actual geometric position of points over the textured surface are displaced, often along the local surface normal, according to the value the texture function evaluates to at each point on the surface. It gives surfaces a great sense of depth and detail, permitting in particular self-occlusion, self-shadowing and silhouettes; on the other hand, it is the most costly of this class of techniques owing to the large amount of additional geometry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_mapping

Parallax Mapping (also, Offset Mapping or Virtual Displacement Mapping) is an enhancement of the bump mapping or normal mapping techniques applied to textures in 3D rendering applications such as video games (including open source games like Sauerbraten). To the end user, this means that textures such as wooden floorboards will have more apparent depth and realism with less of an influence on the performance of the game. Parallax mapping was introduced by Kaneko, T., et al[1] in 2001.

Parallax mapping is implemented by displacing the texture coordinates at a point on the rendered polygon by a function of the view angle in tangent space (the angle relative to the surface normal) and the value of the height map at that point. At steeper view angles the texture coordinates are displaced more, and so give the illusion of depth due to parallax effects as the view changes.

Parallax mapping described by Kaneko is a single step process that does not account for occlusion. Subsequent enhancements have been made to the algorithm incorporating iterative approaches to allow for occlusion and accurate silhouette rendering[2].

Please do not pretend to be an expert on the subject. I can quote wiki too, and you are confusing yourself over terms.

Posted by Wiki

Requirements

Stable real bump mapping requires either a built in shader programming unit on the GPU (vertex shader) or a dedicated vector processing unit connected to the GPU. The GPU must also have multi-pass rendering capabilities or bump mapping will be the only type of texture effect available due to a two texture layer limit.

The Emotion Engine on the Sony PlayStation 2 is an example of handling bump mapping through a vector processing unit. Sony included 2 vector processors rather than a GPU shader that could be used for bump mapping operations. The system could calculate height maps independently while the per-pixel calculations were carried out in one of the vector processing units. Unfortunately this capability was not used much until nearly the end of the system's life cycle with games such as Hitman: Blood Money[1].

Most other systems, including the Sony PlayStation 3, Microsoft Xbox, Microsoft Xbox 360, and most PC graphics cards do bump mapping using pixel shaders.

So you see, real bump mapping uses vertex shaders. Faster methods run on pixels shaders.

You are confusing yourself over terms. You need to make clear distinctions between methods in your points.

I already explained the terms I was using and how I was using them. If you want to ignore them and all we are doing is arguing over terms.

We won't come to proper analysis if you do not define what you mean when you use terms like bump mapping. Obviously you believe it to be a pixel shader process.

I'm telling you that it is not - but also that the effect can be run on pixel shaders.

I can't explain that any simpler.

In reply to

[quote=Acert93]You have no clue what you are talking about.

[quote]Parallax mapping is vertex shading intensive, not pixel.[/quote]
[quote]It generates geometry and requires a tessellation unit in order for it to be processed in a single pass.[/quote]

Both of these statements are incorrect and your followup obfuscates your original statements with even more foggy information.

Parallax Mapping is not pixel shader light / vertex shader heavy, and it doesn't require a tesselation unit.

[quote]In the new world of unified shaders, it's best to just call it shading - I guess.[/quote]

Unified shaders is hardware resource model to adapting [essentially] math units [shaders] for a broader range of computations; current shader models [b]still[/b] make clear distinctions between pixel shader code, vertex shader code, and geometry shader code.

Unified shaders is a hardware implimentation that has not obscured the distinction between vertex and pixel processing (or ROP processing either) in the way you are suggesting.

Virtex shading deals with vertices (geometry) and pixel shading deals with pixels. Vertex shaders can use textures (vertex shading, R2VB) to augment real geometry; pixel shaders can use textures (various bump maps like normals and parallax maps) to augment pixels to appear to represent geometry -- hence drawing flush to geometry with a parallax map will [b]clearly[/b] show the geometry hasn't been altered.

Edit: Wiki is your friend (as it seems you don't believe me).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_mapping

[quote][b]Displacement mapping is an alternative technique in contrast to bump mapping, normal mapping, and parallax mapping[/b], using a (procedural-) texture- or height map [b]to cause an effect where the [u]actual geometric position of points[/u] over the textured surface are displaced[/b], often along the local surface normal, according to the value the texture function evaluates to at each point on the surface. It gives surfaces a great sense of depth and detail, permitting in particular self-occlusion, self-shadowing and silhouettes; on the other hand, it is the most costly of this class of techniques owing to the large amount of [b]additional geometry[/b].[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_mapping

[quote][b]Parallax Mapping (also, Offset Mapping or [u]Virtual Displacement Mapping[/u])[/b] is an [b]enhancement of the bump mapping or normal mapping techniques [u]applied to textures[/u][/b] in 3D rendering applications such as video games (including open source games like Sauerbraten). To the end user, this means that textures such as wooden floorboards [b]will have more [u]apparent[/u] depth[/b] and realism with less of an influence on the performance of the game. Parallax mapping was introduced by Kaneko, T., et al[1] in 2001.

Parallax mapping is implemented by [b]displacing the texture coordinates[/b] at a point on the rendered polygon[/b] by a function of the view angle in tangent space (the angle relative to the surface normal) and the value of the height map at that point. At steeper view angles the texture coordinates are displaced more, and so give the illusion of depth due to parallax effects as the view changes.

Parallax mapping described by Kaneko is a single step process that does not account for occlusion. Subsequent enhancements have been made to the algorithm incorporating iterative approaches to allow for occlusion and accurate silhouette rendering[2].[/quote][/quote]

Please do not pretend to be an expert on the subject. I can quote wiki too, and  you are confusing yourself over terms.

[quote=Wiki]Requirements

[b]Stable real bump mapping requires either a built in shader programming unit on the GPU (vertex shader) or a dedicated vector processing unit connected to the GPU.[/b] The GPU must also have multi-pass rendering capabilities or bump mapping will be the only type of texture effect available due to a two texture layer limit.

The Emotion Engine on the Sony PlayStation 2 is an example of handling bump mapping through a vector processing unit. Sony included 2 vector processors rather than a GPU shader that could be used for bump mapping operations. The system could calculate height maps independently while the per-pixel calculations were carried out in one of the vector processing units. Unfortunately this capability was not used much until nearly the end of the system's life cycle with games such as Hitman: Blood Money[1].

[b]Most other systems, including the Sony PlayStation 3, Microsoft Xbox, Microsoft Xbox 360, and most PC graphics cards [i]do bump mapping using pixel shaders.[/i][/b][/quote]

So you see, real bump mapping uses vertex shaders. Faster methods run on pixels shaders.

You are confusing yourself over terms. You need to make clear distinctions between methods in your points.

I already explained the terms I was using and how I was using them. If you want to ignore them and all we are doing is arguing over terms.

We won't come to proper analysis if you do not define what you mean when you use terms like bump mapping. Obviously you believe it to be a pixel shader process.

I'm telling you that it is not - but also that the effect can be run on pixel shaders.

I can't explain that any simpler.

LEBATO

Since 7137 Days

Uh oh, time to use my new pic.

In reply to

GriftGFX

Since 7016 Days

More like, "Caution: Misinformation ahead!"

In reply to

LEBATO

Since 7137 Days

Posted by GriftGFX

More like, "Caution: Misinformation ahead!"

Which will probably end up with things getting ugly :P

In reply to

newbielives

Since 6954 Days

Since you call a pixel shader a vertex shader because its using vector math then in your world there is only a vertex shader ? because I can't think of a time when I didn't use Vector math in a pixel shader.

Posted by ItsOK_ImaNinja

Parallax mapping is vertex shading intensive, not pixel.

Posted by ItsOK_ImaNinja

Most other systems, including the Sony PlayStation 3, Microsoft Xbox, Microsoft Xbox 360, and most PC graphics cards do bump mapping using pixel shaders.

Posted by ItsOK_ImaNinja

I prefer to call it vertex shading, as the core math is vector math. But there is nothing wrong with calling it pixel shading, as the most intensive part if pixel shading.

In the new world of unified shaders, it's best to just call it shading - I guess.

All forms of bump mapping, including parallax require vertex shading, which is basically heavier as you move towards parallax mapping.

And I see that the old play on words of confusion is at it again.

To clear things up:

Parallax Mapping = Displacement mapping
Virtual Displacement mapping = somebody just made that up - it's a dirty fast way of doing Parallax mapping, which is the same as Displacement mapping.

You could also call Virtual Displacement mapping = Virtual Parallax mapping

Now people have taken to calling parallax mapping the dirty fast way of doing displacement mapping, which you appear to be doing - but forgive me for saying, that is just wrong.

As far as I can remember:

Parallax Mapping = Displacement mapping
Parallax Mapping != Virtual Displacement mapping

Virtual Parallax Mapping = Virtual Displacement mapping

Make sense?

In reply to

Since you call a pixel shader a vertex shader because its using vector math then in your world there is only a vertex shader ? because I can't think of a time when I didn't use Vector math in a pixel shader.

[quote=ItsOK_ImaNinja]
Parallax mapping is vertex shading intensive, not pixel.
[/quote]

[quote=ItsOK_ImaNinja]
Most other systems, including the Sony PlayStation 3, Microsoft Xbox, Microsoft Xbox 360, and most PC graphics cards do bump mapping using pixel shaders.
[/quote]

[quote=ItsOK_ImaNinja]
I prefer to call it vertex shading, as the core math is vector math. But there is nothing wrong with calling it pixel shading, as the most intensive part if pixel shading.

In the new world of unified shaders, it's best to just call it shading - I guess.

All forms of bump mapping, including parallax require vertex shading, which is basically heavier as you move towards parallax mapping.

And I see that the old play on words of confusion is at it again.

To clear things up:

Parallax Mapping = Displacement mapping
Virtual Displacement mapping = somebody just made that up - it's a dirty fast way of doing Parallax mapping, which is the same as Displacement mapping.

You could also call Virtual Displacement mapping = Virtual Parallax mapping

Now people have taken to calling parallax mapping the dirty fast way of doing displacement mapping, which you appear to be doing - but forgive me for saying, that is just wrong.

As far as I can remember:

Parallax Mapping = Displacement mapping
Parallax Mapping != Virtual Displacement mapping

Virtual Parallax Mapping = Virtual Displacement mapping

Make sense?[/quote]

JXB

Since 6348 Days

This thread got good.

In reply to

ItsOK_ImaNinja

Since 6329 Days

Posted by newbielives

Since you call a pixel shader a vertex shader because its using vector math then in your world there is only a vertex shader ? because I can't think of a time when I didn't use Vector math in a pixel shader.

No I think you took my words out of context. That is why we have unified shaders, because from a capabilities differences pixel shaders and vertex shaders are very close to each other. It's a hop and a skip to turn one into the other.

Obviously, a pixel shader can be used to apply a pixel only affect like a screen filter for example, or even AA.

But the same can be accomplished by using a vertex shader - its all about how you approach the task.

Shaders are just specialized processors that handle certain types of tasks really well.

There's nothing that a shader can do that a normal processor can't do slower.

In reply to

Indiana Jones and the Great Circle

Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver 1-2 Remastered

Assassin's Creed Shadows

The First 43 Minutes of Loco Motive

Our Switch video of Ys X: Nordics

The Callisto Protocol is now PS5 Pro Enhanced