"Metro 2033" to Have Nvidia 3D Vision Support

[jmke]

your just disagreeing with what i said..

"you're"

I disagree with your assessment of "low res textures" for this game to be released in 2010 based on a highly compressed video from youtube and screenshots from 2006.

if we are lucky, the bad stuff is the old stuff, and the final game will be polished off nicely and have great textures and graphics.

let's hope so, and that the textures they were using in 2006 were place holders and they upgrade them with high res versions.
if this is to be a PC only title, it has to match Crysis GFX IMHO;

[saaya]

"you're"
I disagree with your assessment of "low res textures" for this game to be released in 2010 based on a highly compressed video from youtube and screenshots from 2006.

let's hope so, and that the textures they were using in 2006 were place holders and they upgrade them with high res versions.
if this is to be a PC only title, it has to match Crysis GFX IMHO;

i faind it hart to belif dat dey showt off theyr game with castratit textores in 2006... yu alwais wanna show yur gaim frum the pritty site...

but jah, eye can actualee agri wif dat, it defenetely shood luk at lees compirible to crisus... doh i haf to sei, if de stori ant gameplei is ahsum, the grafiks ken bee HL2 or wurs 4 all eye ker...

[Chumbucket843]

no offense saaya but you seem to be really cynical about new games especially texture res. is this high enough quality for you?

[saaya]

no offense saaya but you seem to be really cynical about new games especially texture res. is this high enough quality for you?

yes and no, that demo doesnt use high res textures everywhere, you can tell that when he zooms onto the flower the grass and leaves below it dont improve.

well personally i believe bad textures to be the biggest problem of modern games... adding more geometry detail doesnt improve the visual appearance of games all that much, adding more realistic light and shadow effects makes a bigger difference, depending on the environment, but still isnt all that much of an improvement when you compare how incredible a game can look with truly detailed hq textures...

im annoyed that games dont use my hardware properly...
why can i select the highest options for graphics details and textures and still end up with more fps than i need and blurry low res textures?
if its possible during normal gameplay, to get 20cm close to a texture, then, that texture should be in a resolution and of a quality that makes it look awesome even from a virtual 20cm difference... easy as that...

and if our hw is too slow for that, then guess what, as soon as the hardware makers realize that this is what customers want, they will build the hardware that CAN do this at good enough performance, and in the meantime people can chose to spend loads of money on somehow getting the performance it requires, ie multi gpu and overclocking.

i believe that game developers not implementing propper max detail settings in the graphics menu is one of the reasons the pc gaming industry has slowed down this much. its like the engine wouldnt support those high resolution and high quality textures, its not like the game would be too big in size to download or burn on a dvd, and even if, sell it on a 16gb usb stick or put it on a bd... and its not like todays top hardware couldnt perform well enough with those high res and high quality textures either...

its simply negligence and ignorance from the game dev in combination with publishers that want games to run well on even the cr4ppiest 5 year old hardware... its a shame that fans and enthusiasts have to HACK games and mod them to really make it shine...

[Final8ty]

yes and no, that demo doesnt use high res textures everywhere, you can tell that when he zooms onto the flower the grass and leaves below it dont improve.

well personally i believe bad textures to be the biggest problem of modern games... adding more geometry detail doesnt improve the visual appearance of games all that much, adding more realistic light and shadow effects makes a bigger difference, depending on the environment, but still isnt all that much of an improvement when you compare how incredible a game can look with truly detailed hq textures...

im annoyed that games dont use my hardware properly...
why can i select the highest options for graphics details and textures and still end up with more fps than i need and blurry low res textures?
if its possible during normal gameplay, to get 20cm close to a texture, then, that texture should be in a resolution and of a quality that makes it look awesome even from a virtual 20cm difference... easy as that...

and if our hw is too slow for that, then guess what, as soon as the hardware makers realize that this is what customers want, they will build the hardware that CAN do this at good enough performance, and in the meantime people can chose to spend loads of money on somehow getting the performance it requires, ie multi gpu and overclocking.

i believe that game developers not implementing propper max detail settings in the graphics menu is one of the reasons the pc gaming industry has slowed down this much. its like the engine wouldnt support those high resolution and high quality textures, its not like the game would be too big in size to download or burn on a dvd, and even if, sell it on a 16gb usb stick or put it on a bd... and its not like todays top hardware couldnt perform well enough with those high res and high quality textures either...

its simply negligence and ignorance from the game dev in combination with publishers that want games to run well on even the cr4ppiest 5 year old hardware... its a shame that fans and enthusiasts have to HACK games and mod them to really make it shine...

[Chumbucket843]

yes and no, that demo doesnt use high res textures everywhere, you can tell that when he zooms onto the flower the grass and leaves below it dont improve.

its a demo, wait for artists to make materials for a AAA title. the point of this is to show that you can have massive textures. AF isnt even supported yet. d3d11 supports up to 16,384x16,384 texels, d3d9 & 10 are 8,192x8,192 texels. megatexture supports 128,000x128,000 texels. this shows how much better pure software rendering is. we are d3d slaves, yet some like it. maybe future PR will brag about not using directx:P

well personally i believe bad textures to be the biggest problem of modern games... adding more geometry detail doesnt improve the visual appearance of games all that much, adding more realistic light and shadow effects makes a bigger difference, depending on the environment, but still isnt all that much of an improvement when you compare how incredible a game can look with truly detailed hq textures...

textures are weak, but i think geometry is worse. at least id tech is working on both. we already have multiple texture samples per pixel but usually 30 pixels cover a single triangle. this is really noticeable in characters. i.e. faces or clothing. you have to remember they are going to cut corners. when people play games they usually dont get really close to walls or other uninteresting objects so its wasteful to have massive textures in some areas.

im annoyed that games dont use my hardware properly...
why can i select the highest options for graphics details and textures and still end up with more fps than i need and blurry low res textures?
if its possible during normal gameplay, to get 20cm close to a texture, then, that texture should be in a resolution and of a quality that makes it look awesome even from a virtual 20cm difference... easy as that...

and if our hw is too slow for that, then guess what, as soon as the hardware makers realize that this is what customers want, they will build the hardware that CAN do this at good enough performance, and in the meantime people can chose to spend loads of money on somehow getting the performance it requires, ie multi gpu and overclocking.

your hardware is not exactly what gamers have though. 512MB is still most common. its tricky for artists to scale up textures and make them look right. you will notice tiling a lot. its more work than it sounds.

basically what you described is MIP mapping. you take several smaller texture samples off of the largest and use them in distant objects.

i believe that game developers not implementing propper max detail settings in the graphics menu is one of the reasons the pc gaming industry has slowed down this much. its like the engine wouldnt support those high resolution and high quality textures, its not like the game would be too big in size to download or burn on a dvd, and even if, sell it on a 16gb usb stick or put it on a bd... and its not like todays top hardware couldnt perform well enough with those high res and high quality textures either...

its simply negligence and ignorance from the game dev in combination with publishers that want games to run well on even the cr4ppiest 5 year old hardware... its a shame that fans and enthusiasts have to HACK games and mod them to really make it shine...

game devs are limited by time. its lots of work. there is a lack of motivation more than anything else. notice that capcom launches pc games with better graphics but it comes a little later than console version.

[saaya]

yes, but why upscale textures?
why not create them in really high res (isnt that what artists actually do?) and then just use LOD and mipmapping to reduce the size...
or offer 2 sets of textures and the user can select which one to use in case mipmapping hurts perf if the original textures are too large...
i dont get why this is so hard

[trinibwoy]

saaya, there's a reason virtual texturing and texture streaming technology like Megatexture was invented. While I agree that we need much better textures the problem is a simple one - there just isn't enough memory available to store them. I'm sure the artists who create those textures want to see the full glory of their work out there too instead of the downsampled and mipmapped mess we usually get.

[Nedjo]

saaya, there's a reason virtual texturing and texture streaming technology like Megatexture was invented. While I agree that we need much better textures the problem is a simple one - there just isn't enough memory available to store them. I'm sure the artists who create those textures want to see the full glory of their work out there too instead of the downsampled and mipmapped mess we usually get.

sad part is that limiting factor is distribution media!
Going beyond two DL DVDs on XB360 (~15GB) is very expensive and complicated due to some rules set by Micro$oft.

Things would be seriously different if Blu-Ray was excepted earlier as a mainstream standard! with 50 gigs DL-BD medias and cleaver streaming algorithms we wouldn't had these problems!

Only solution is that Microsoft will accept BD for 2012/13 XBOXNext, and with proposed 66GB DL expansion of the standard DL medias.

[saaya]

saaya, there's a reason virtual texturing and texture streaming technology like Megatexture was invented. While I agree that we need much better textures the problem is a simple one - there just isn't enough memory available to store them. I'm sure the artists who create those textures want to see the full glory of their work out there too instead of the downsampled and mipmapped mess we usually get.

well how reliable is gpu-z in meassuring used gpu memory? i just played some fear2 with everything maxed out at 1920x1080 and the game only used 400mb of my cards 900mb...

again, why cant I chose how big i want the textures?
why isnt there an advanced menu that lets ME, the guy who paid for the game and financed the work of the developers, to be able to actually get the best out of what I paid for?
im tired of companies asking me for money to then tell me what I want and dont want and what I need and dont need... wth man!
why do we have to crack and mod games to actually get what we paid for?

all those games claim to be eye candy titles, but as soon as we receive those graphics ferraris we realize that the engine board is artificially limiting the engine to a mediocre rpm... how messed up is that?
so yes, i am very sensitive to ugly textures...

sad part is that limiting factor is distribution media!
Going beyond two DL DVDs on XB360 (~15GB) is very expensive and complicated due to some rules set by Micro$oft.

Things would be seriously different if Blu-Ray was excepted earlier as a mainstream standard! with 50 gigs DL-BD medias and cleaver streaming algorithms we wouldn't had these problems!

Only solution is that Microsoft will accept BD for 2012/13 XBOXNext, and with proposed 66GB DL expansion of the standard DL medias.

that doesnt sound very plausible to me...
its not like the PS3 that has lots of extra storage available uses better textures than the xbox360, on the contrary...
and why is an xbox360 limited to 30gb of storage per game with mediocre textures at best, but pc games offer better textures and come at 10gb or even less?

[trinibwoy]

again, why cant I chose how big i want the textures? why isnt there an advanced menu that lets ME, the guy who paid for the game and financed the work of the developers, to be able to actually get the best out of what I paid for?

Lol, you buy a product if you like it but can't demand that people make whatever you want. You don't finance them, just help them pay back their financiers

I don't know what gpu-z does but the only limitation on texture size is available memory (both on distribution media and on the cards themselves).

[trinibwoy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MuLbLLM1tk

[Olivon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MuLbLLM1tk

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...5&postcount=53

[trinibwoy]

Heh, my bad. In that case saaya is a lost cause

[Nedjo]

that doesnt sound very plausible to me...
its not like the PS3 that has lots of extra storage available uses better textures than the xbox360, on the contrary...
and why is an xbox360 limited to 30gb of storage per game with mediocre textures at best, but pc games offer better textures and come at 10gb or even less?

with multiplatform approach devs must take in consideration the lowest possible denominator, and in this case it's XBOX360 DL-DVD!

By definition devs are targeting streaming on DVDs 'cos of XBXOX, and DVD an offer much less streaming BW compared to BD, or naturally HDD on PC

[saaya]

Lol, you buy a product if you like it but can't demand that people make whatever you want. You don't finance them, just help them pay back their financiers

i dont demand anything... im just saying what i want and what i think many people want... and its not like it would take lots of money and time to implement, im asking for a limitation to be removed... just let me put whatever value i want in the cfg and ill be happy, i dont need a fancy menu for the graphics details...

and i dont finance them , i just help them pay back their financiers... well isnt that the same? sure, there are many customers not just me, but if you dont take your customers seriously and give them what they want, who WILL help you to pay back your financiers?

I don't know what gpu-z does but the only limitation on texture size is available memory (both on distribution media and on the cards themselves).

well clearly not...
the limitation is obviously the game, as my card and hdd are far from maxed out when it comes to available memory...

with multiplatform approach devs must take in consideration the lowest possible denominator, and in this case it's XBOX360 DL-DVD!

By definition devs are targeting streaming on DVDs 'cos of XBXOX, and DVD an offer much less streaming BW compared to BD, or naturally HDD on PC

yeah but why cant they work with high quality textures and when they do the xbox360 version they resize all textures and recompress them to lets say half the size?