Komag on 15/3/2005 at 23:10
inflation is pretty low now
OrbWeaver on 16/3/2005 at 17:44
Quote Posted by jolynsbass
I think these things impact game performance quite a bit, too. I'm not saying that if you were somehow able to actually select 512x384(who'd want to... It'd look terrible on a computer screen) that your frame rate would be in the 100's, but I'd bet it would be much smoother.
It could well be in the 100s.
Assuming that the overhead for physics, AI, input etc is negligible (which it probably isn't, but it will be small compared to the rendering), a resolution of 512x384 will give you 4 times the frame rate of 1024x768.
Mandrake on 16/3/2005 at 19:17
Quote Posted by OrbWeaver
It could well be in the 100s.
Assuming that the overhead for physics, AI, input etc is negligible (which it probably isn't, but it will be small compared to the rendering), a resolution of 512x384 will give you 4 times the frame rate of 1024x768.
Err, since when ?
Graphics cards don't work like this I'm afraid. You'll only get framerate scaling in proportion to resolution IF fill rate limitations of the graphics card are the bottle neck.
With todays high fillrate cards, this would only ever happen with a very old graphics engine such as the Quake1 engine that will give you frame rates in the several hundreds.
With an engine that is highly CPU/GPU dependant like the Thief3 engine, you'll find that provided your video card has decent fill rates, the framerate is limited by CPU/GPU performance, and you'll get very little difference in frame rate regardless of what resolution you run.
This is in fact the case if you try it - on my FX5900XT I get a few FPS improvement (about 5) going down from 1024x768 to 800x600, and very little further improvement going down further resolutions, because fill rate simply isn't the limiting factor - CPU and GPU performance are.
And BTW, X-Box games run in 640x480, not 512x384.
OrbWeaver on 16/3/2005 at 20:00
Quote Posted by Mandrake
Graphics cards don't work like this I'm afraid. You'll only get framerate scaling in proportion to resolution IF fill rate limitations of the graphics card are the bottle neck.
Of course you're right. I was confusing modern pipelined 3D cards with Ye Olde per-pixel software renderers.
If the rasteriser produces pixels from 3D data, but the 3D data is not "ready", then obviously it does not matter how many or how few pixels are to be produced.
It does make me wonder why there is a slight FPS change between resolutions. Surely if the rasteriser is not the limiting step, there should be no change whatsoever? Perhaps there are some internal optimisations that cull polygons earlier in the pipeline if they would ultimately be too small to affect the final image.
rujuro on 16/3/2005 at 20:13
There is a slight change that becomes a massive one as you go higher. This is beacuse fill rate CAN be an issue with an engine like Thief 3 (or Doom 3) which requires multiple render passes to dynamically light the scene. When you have to redraw a polygon for every light that hits its surface, it becomes the bottleneck at high resolutions.
Although I think that the number of passes required depends on the video card, I think newer cards can handle more than one light in a single pass, not sure about that though. If it's a shadow casting light I'm pretty sure each one requires its own pass due to the nature of casting shadows using stencil volumes.
goldwolf on 16/3/2005 at 20:45
Hey rujuro, how is your level coming?? Any new pics? :D
rujuro on 16/3/2005 at 23:29
It's coming, nothing exciting to show yet, I'm still getting the full layout of the level blocked in. I want to make sure the spaces connect and feel right before I start tossing in all the detail work. Also need to make sure there's adequate hiding space, how the light layout will work, etc.
So far I'm feeling good about it, I've got the major technical issues I was worried about out of the way, hopefully I'll have more to show soon. Glad people are still interested.
Karkianman on 17/3/2005 at 02:41
Quote Posted by jolynsbass
I bet if the Xbox were to try and run the game at twice its native resolution, it's frame rate would drop into the single digits...
hehe... actually, the xbox does all its calculations at hdtv resolution, and then scales it down for normal TVs. So actually, hooking it up to 10** by **** wouldnt do anything except make it look better... :p
jolynsbass on 17/3/2005 at 04:55
I stand humbly corrected on my Xbox knowledge. All I know is that : most people play video game consoles on a standard TV, which doesn't seem to display anything better than about 400x300 resolution(scanline limitations). I haven't played a video game console in years, though. I wasn't aware of how fancy they are becoming...(Plus isn't the Xbox getting a little old now? I'm just remembering the trend of a new machine coming out every couple of years or so. Yes, I'm really out of it, I guess.)
downwiththatsortof.. on 17/3/2005 at 09:36
Quote Posted by Karkianman
hehe... actually, the xbox does all its calculations at hdtv resolution, and then scales it down for normal TVs. So actually, hooking it up to 10** by **** wouldnt do anything except make it look better... :p
I'm not sure how true that is, the vast majority of XBOX games (including T:DS)
support only 480p (640 x 480), only a tiny minority have 720p/1080i(HD) support.
For a list see here
(
http://www.hdtvarcade.com/xboxlist.htm)
I would find it highly unlikely that a game would have all calculations done at HD
rates and then only allow 480p output. Yes, the XBOX can do HD rates, but doesn't
seem to do so for most games.
