pixelsword says:

@Torrence Davis,

>On another note, why did they not increase texture detail for Fallout 3?

I believe Fallout 3 suffered badly because they rendered mostly, if not solely on the RSX. Julian Eggebritch stated that to get the 1080p, with all of the physics, volumetric smoke, thousands of characters, large detailed levels, particle systems, real-time lighting, and complex animations of the dragons plus the sim water, that his data had to run through the cell processor, then that processed data goes to the RSX, to which the RSX renders everything.

Actually, Julian Eggebrecht stated that understanding fill rate was key for him getting his game to 1080p; and from there, Factor 5 based their mathematical algorithms for what they wanted to draw onscreen upon that understanding. When you do that, the power of the RSX is really, really plentiful for running games in 1080p.

Given the nature of the Cell/RSX relationship, and depending on the formatting of your data in respect to the nature of your game, you you can do ALL of your vertex work or pixel painting on the Cell Processor, or you can do NONE of your vertex work or pixel painting on the Cell Processor.

Now when you don’t format your data to run through the cell processor when it calls for it, I believe that will result in a loss in image quality. That’s why most games suffer immensely when they are ported to the PS3 from PC or the 360; the data, I believe, is formatted as such that it’s easier for developers to try to run everything from the RSX instead of them reformatting their data to run through the cell processor and then to the RSX.

From what I read, The Cell Processor and RSX in essence works together as one giant unified rendering system.

********

On GTA IV, I agree with you Tor; GTA IV was only intended to be one city. Rockstar never EVER said that they were going to make more than one city that I can recall. The fact is that if Rockstar wanted to add more cities, they would’ve merely added more discs. As I understand it, it would’ve in theory been one disc per city, which isn’t a problem if:

- The discs are labeled accordingly, even if they made the DVD labels look like maps.

- When you enter the city, the missions would compel you to remain in the city for a reasonable amount of time. I say compel because you shouldn’t be “locked” out of going to any city on either console version.

Now the only “problem” with a multi-disc solution that I can see is when the game goes online. If (let’s say GTA V for the sake of argument) were to have online, finding games and switching maps would be slightly tedious, as you would have to end the game, and put in another disc to switch maps. or you could not have online co-op missions that spanned across more than one city, as you would have to end the game and find your group again when you put in the other disc. Not impossible, but slightly tedious.

This is why I used UTIII as an earlier example. UTIII could’ve easily been on two discs, it’s just that after a certain level in the game, you would’ve had to switch discs. Going online would’ve put part of the maps online per disc. Again, NOT a problem until you have to switch discs, and that is even if you want to switch discs.

pixelsword says:

Oh, yeah; if anyone wanted to know where Julian Eggebritch stated those things, it was on a 1up.com video interview. I think the title had “Lair walkthrough” on it or something like that.