X1 eSRAM + DX 11.2. From 32Mb to 6GB worth of textures.

  • 65 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@zaccheus said:
@flippyandnod said:

Oh and one more thing, you may want to look for some FACTUAL evidence of just how many developers actually used software based tilable textures last generation. Come back to me, when you figure this one out and have some proof.

I'm not your monkey. When you baldly assert that you are going to declare that you will consider yourself correct unless I prove to you otherwise, it changes nothing for anyone but you. I am neither required nor enticed to act. If you want to educate yourself so as to improve your knowledge or to improve the impression you leave upon others it is up to you to do it.

I don't even know what you people are talking about, but this sentiment really hit me. "I will assert this as fact based upon nothing and it's your fucking job to prove me wrong!" So typical internet douchebaggery.

His crying is actually quite ironic considering he came into this thread downplaying the technology, introducing 3 irrelevant terms which he didn't define or explain at the time that he used them(I had to explain them) making the insane claim that good developers who are proficient in tesselation, mipmapping and level design would not see any benefits other developers would from partial resident resources moving to hardware. Then failed to provide any proof or sources to back this claim with anything other than his own logic based on poorly drawn assumptions that just don't factually hold water.

And the only proof he has shown so far in this thread is a link to a wikipedia article that he didn't take the time to actually read all the way to realize my explanation was perfectly acceptable.

I agree though, it's its douchebaggery, but in this case it becomes ironic when he's crying about being asked to prove himself considering I don't think anyone here would disagree I have been providing secondary sources to back up just about everything I have been explaining beginning with the opening post.

But I will get to him in a minute when I have a bit more time.

#52 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@flippyandnod said:Absolutely mipmapping can add to the amount of RAM you use. But if you load only the levels you need for a given scene it can reduce it too. For the far away parts of the scene you don't load the highest resolution version. So no, you aren't storing the entire texture in its highest available resolution in RAM (especially video RAM). Not if you're a good developer.

No, you're right ....in that scenario, your "only" loading the highest native resolution for all the other textures in your scene that are now right in front of you and need to be displayed in high detail.

@flippyandnod said: But more importantly. No, tessellation is not the process of creating 3G geometry from textures! Geometry is geometry and textures are how you paint them. You don't make geometry from textures.

Learn something:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessellation_(computer_graphics)

If you can't be bothered to read it or can't understand it, at least note the word "texture" doesn't even appear on the page.

Maybe you should stop looking up graphics techniques in wikipedia, stop clinging on to terminology, take your own advice, and stop arguing about things you don't completely understand?

That's simply because they're using terms such as "displacement mapping" to describe one of its primary application. It's a little bit lower down the page if you would have just "bothered to read". I prefer to stay away from using technical terms as much as possible when talking in a typical video game forum and present a general language anyone could understand so I'm not surprised you would google it up on wikipedia and think you are once again on to something. If you are truly smart and intelligent you would have no issue figuring this one out. And yes displacement mapping, can in fact be generally described as the process of extracting 3D geometry from a 2D textures(because this makes more sense to someone reading this), and it has been by far the #1 usage of tessellation this previous generation.

This is tessallation:

In this case it works on the principle of typically loading a black and white displacement map OR texture OR image, of the original texture and using it to control the level of geometry being extracted, or extruded or displaced(if you prefer I stick to correct terms), from a 2D plane, or box, or simple geometry, dynamically dependent on the distance between you, the player, and the object. The further away, the flatter it gets, until its only a 2D image on a flat plane. The closer you get, the more geometry is created, dynamically, in real time to accentuate the level of detail. While you can use tessellation for more advanced techniques, such as subdividing geometry, its primary application in your video games this past console generation, and as it could possibly relate to this topic being discussed, has basically been that and its usage of texture-derived geometry. To create actually 3D bricks or roads or detail, from a 2D texture. And that is my definition. From my personal knowledge, experience and working with it, not from me looking it up in wikipedia. I commonly get tesselation and displacement mapping for certain objects if I'm working on a scene straight from the original texture, and don't even bother with a black and white. I almost always do it when I need to put something together fast. And I guarantee you more people understand what it is and what it does from my explanation than from your wikipedia link. And once again, it has jack shit to do with what is being described in this thread. Especially the other usage of tessellation, since this discussion is about textures and partial resident resources. If you aren't talking about tessellation as it pertains to textures, why the hell are you even bringing up tessellation in this thread?

Now that's out of the way, let's get something straight since you're apparently moaning about me telling you to do your homework.

You are the one who came in here and made the argument this is not going to benefit developers who take good usage of mipmapping and intelligent design(no matter how much you want to backpedal from it this is what you are trying to say) and proceeded to throw unrelated terms of graphical techniques such as procedural textures, mipmapping and tesselation. You've also made claims that developers have been using software based tiled resources extensively in previous generation. I have asked you to provide some proof to back you your claims of its wide usage. You have provided none.

You have brought in here 3 unique terms referring to 3 unique graphical techniques that you have attempted to leverage as suitable alternatives to the benefits explained in the topic.

Let me make this clear for you: I'm the guy who created the OP, with facts, video, images, sources explanations for partial resident resources and the advantage of RAM savings and efficiency in their move to hardware-based applications. You're the guy who's making the stupendous claim that it's not going to benefit good developers, bringing up all this other irrelevant crap with a wikipedia link pointing to a definition of tessellation with nothing but your own interpretations of how developers are using these same techniques to achieve alternative results.

The level of expertise by developers or usage or quality of these 3 techniques you brought into this conversation which you failed to correlate, by developers, absolutely do not mitigate the advantages they will see from partial resident resources, and specifically from the benefits of partially resident resources moving to hardware. If anything, developers who are proficient in getting the most by using those types of techniques, will no doubt, be just as proficient in getting the most out partial resident resources(in fact they are actually used in conjunction with PRR).

Your entire argument is built on a poor premise, a premise that stems from your misunderstanding of the terms and techniques you are throwing around and how they are actually applied in video games. Including partial resident resources. The burden of proof is on you, not I, to demonstrate to everyone, using some actual proof, how those techniques are being used as an alternative method in providing similar RAM savings the way partial resident resources will, how it mitigates the advantages as derived from and described in the methods in the opening post. Because you are the one making the claim, using nothing but your own simplistic logic and assumptions which I have called you out on. At that point, it's time for you to back it up.

#53 Posted by jpinard (1 posts) -

Alex Glass - if ESRAM is so great, then why are so many games coming out at a lower resolution on XboxOne vs. PC or PS4? While your argument seemed persuasive, if it was such a great leap and made things so much easier for developers with increased speed... why is nothing working out to show this? In fact, if it was just a better upgrade from the EDRAM on the Xbox 360 you wouldn't have Call of Duty Ghost or Battlefield 4 being forced to run at a lower resolution. Developers should be able to hit the ground running with it, not makes sacrifices on cross-platform titles for Xbox One. Something just doesn't add up and blaming the developer for "not getting it" is counter to the entire argument you made about it being a great tool for developers. I mean, I love the theory behind it, but theory is one thing - having it actually function properly without forcing developers to put an unrealistic amount of time into a single function because your console decided to go with cheap RAM is another. And let's not fall into the marketing machine claiming MS went with DDR3 because of memory latency's. They explicitly went this route to save money. Early on there was an edict that stated MS would not subsidize the price of Xbox One's like they did with Xbox 360's at launch. To make it work, they went with cheap RAM, and ti fix the cheap RAM problems they added their ESRAM... The fact their engineers were surprised it could read/write at the same time indicates the ESRAM was not some brilliant design decision but more of a stop-gap.

Even with the Xbox exclusives' like Ryse they're not running at 1080P, and this is despite Crytek going to bat for Microsoft. Something doesn't add up and I think the reality is, MS went cheap and it will affect the performance of the XBox One throughout its lifetime... parity will never be reached with the PS4. And I don't even care for Sony, I've never owned a Playstation and probably never will. But honesty is a commodity in short supply in today's world and maybe the reality is DDR3 is never going to compete with DDR5 no matter what you do. Heck, MS could have gone with DDR5 AND ESRAM if it was so great and they wanted to best console out there. I think the reality is someone at Microsoft gambled a few years ago that Sony would go cheap and use DDR3 and they were caught off guard and not able to make the switch.

#54 Edited by Blu3V3nom07 (4030 posts) -

Now we have three of these people. Great!

And no one has an avatar.

#55 Edited by Korwin (2721 posts) -

Now we have three of these people. Great!

And no one has an avatar.

Plants don't need no Avatar's son, or a sense of time judging by the amount of thread necromancy going on here.

#57 Posted by JasonR86 (9379 posts) -

The bone's got textures for days.

#58 Posted by jgf (366 posts) -

Alex? *click* of course it is...

#59 Posted by devilzrule27 (1235 posts) -

I just want to say this thread title is fantastic and I'm sorry I missed it two months ago.

#60 Posted by Snail (8473 posts) -

@humanity said:

Pretty funny how people are so anxious to shit all over this because it is associated with the XBO instead of seeing the merits of evolving technology.

But yah LOL transistors right?

From what I gather, based on the discussion going on in this thread, the technology being trumpeted here has been part of OpenGL for about 2 years now.

#61 Edited by confideration (387 posts) -

There are some great technical nuggets in this thread in between the bickering.

Software can do amazing things. It's always fascinating when a developer can do something amazing with hardware that others can't seem to do. A classic example for me during this generation has been what Naughty Dog has been able to do with the PS3. Just thinking about it makes me want to boot up The Last of Us.

#62 Posted by Slvrshot (1 posts) -

I don't know all the technical hooblah and have played neither console in person but it seems the textures look better (I'm referring to the BF4 footage) in the XB1 version as opposed to PS4. They look more detailed, sharper, refined, and seem to have better lighting than the PS4, which surprisingly looks muddier. Why is this?

#63 Posted by Nictel (2312 posts) -

@slvrshot said:

I don't know all the technical hooblah and have played neither console in person but it seems the textures look better (I'm referring to the BF4 footage) in the XB1 version as opposed to PS4. They look more detailed, sharper, refined, and seem to have better lighting than the PS4, which surprisingly looks muddier. Why is this?

Because they threw the sharpness crazy high. It's like going to a store to buy a TV, all the TVs have their sharpness crazy high as is the vibrance of the colours. There is a +150 page argument on Neogaf about it already. In short it probably comes down to personal preference but purely looking from a technical standpoint the PS4 graphics are better.

#64 Edited by Korwin (2721 posts) -

@nictel said:

@slvrshot said:

I don't know all the technical hooblah and have played neither console in person but it seems the textures look better (I'm referring to the BF4 footage) in the XB1 version as opposed to PS4. They look more detailed, sharper, refined, and seem to have better lighting than the PS4, which surprisingly looks muddier. Why is this?

Because they threw the sharpness crazy high. It's like going to a store to buy a TV, all the TVs have their sharpness crazy high as is the vibrance of the colours. There is a +150 page argument on Neogaf about it already. In short it probably comes down to personal preference but purely looking from a technical standpoint the PS4 graphics are better.

It's the result of the PostAA solution that DICE include in Frostbite. It's not enabled on the Xbox version of the game along with the HBAO method. The AA solution is shader based and unfortunately DICE were extremely lazy when it came to tuning it to the assets, as a result a lot of the textures end up looking a lot blurrier than they should. I leave it turned off on the PC. The contrast is due to the less accurate flavour of AO being used on the Xbox one which can tend to over shadow a scene.

#65 Edited by Sinusoidal (1155 posts) -
#66 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

Somebody throw the Xbone a bone, it can't even do the 1080Ps on Battlefield or Ghosts, that's less Ps than the PS4 with its 1080Ps!

#67 Posted by confideration (387 posts) -

I want all the Ps. Even the ugly ones.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.