Does gt4 use photo fixed back grounds?

[cobragt]

Originally posted by Glut
IMHO cobraGT the article that you posted is quite biased in favour of the PS2, to the point where it's making some silly statements, comparing CPUs from 2 totally different platforms without running the same program on both is garbage, the insides are so different it's impossible to compare solely on clockspeed or register size, or even GFLOPS.
I'm not going to bother on the rest of the article, suffice to say that the mistakes made during the comparison make it hard to believe that GT3 only uses 25% of the PS2 total power. For all I know, it's only using 25% of the sound processing, but 100% of the video processing.

I think that the PS2's biggest prob. will be the lack of ram when dealing with very large textures (such as the high detail backgrounds) compression can only do so much.

Also, on the topic of 'phtorealistic textures' the vast majority of textures in the GT racetracks would be modified photos, 'making up' textures yourself simply doesn't look good.

Well I know nothing about hardware and some one who knows hardware and software wrote that, I guess we have heard that the xb is so powerful but in reality the ps2 is just as good, this is not ps1 vs. xbox here and that's how some ppl make it seem but w/e, I'm cool with the games coming to the ps2 like gt4 and mgs3. One thing I like about the ps2 more is it can make games closer to reality, look at silenthill3, gt4, or mgs3. That's because the ps2 is the poly pushing monster and I'm impressed with that more than I am with the xb but I hope I'm not being a fanboy because I'm not at any means, look at xb's best looking game, halo2, does it look real? Nope, look at mgs3, amazing now I'm not saying halo2 doesn't look amazing but I think games that look real are more impressive but lets get back on topic here.

 

[T5-R]

Originally posted by cobragt
So I guess you were the product Analyzer? PD said they maxed out the ps2 with gt3 but like I said and c9ountless others, gt3 didn't even use 25% of the ps2. Now gt4 is coming and it looks better. But believe what you want man you aren't a programmer for the ps2 so you know nothing about it.

True I'm not a PS2 programmer but I've been training to program the last 3 years & I have common sense to know GT3 pushed the PS2's hardware to far more than 25%!

Originally posted by cobragt The ps2 is just complex to work with and when the EE and GS are combined they can make graphics more complex than the xb, I know nothing about hardware or the ps2 but I got my info from people who know more then you and I. See that's your problem you have heard and read so much about the xb being the best when in reality there's no best console. The ps2 is just as good as the xb and that info I posted is all correct but believe what you want I want make you believe but keep in mind you're wrong. Just read tyhe info I posted and it's all true man, the ps2 is just as good as the xb, as long as a developer knows what they are doing with its hardware.

Yes but that statement can apply to any console, in 3 years time Xbox games will be better programmed (if its still going) & they will look slightly better & have slightly better physics engines just like the PS2 will. But if theres power avaliable the developers gonna use it all especially with a game like GT3.

BTW when PD said they were using 100%, they mean they are using a 100% of their sikills and resourses to push the ps2, not the ps2's direct power, we won't see the ps2 maxed until the ps3 comes out because there are many ways of pushing the ps2 more and PD has picked their way.

Of course they were, look what they achieved out of relatively poor hardware, they managed to make GT3 the best looking racing game out there.


Don't get me wrong please, I've been a fan of GT since the first (hell I bought a PSX & PS2 primarily for GT games) but the PS2 isn't as powerful as you make out. And GT3 did use just about 100% of its power, if it didn't they could have easily done more. GT4 will simply be optimised code & will look slightly better (& I suspect may drop a few frames per second as a result like GT2 did)

Sigh if GT4 is gonna look 75% better it should look just about real, anything less isn't 75% & from what I've seen GT4 is not photo realistic even if it does look very good.

/And yes that 'hardware' article is biased as hell, makes out the PS2 as some supercomputer people made fun of the PS2's emotion engine when it came out, coz it was all bollocks.

 

[Griffith500]

Originally posted by cobragt
That's because the ps2 is the poly pushing monster

No, the Xbox is far better at pushing polygons on its own, the ps2 needs fancy software to do it as well as the Xbox (it's down to the developers in the case of the PS2)

The PS2's emotion engine is capable of producing some clever filter effects and ambient and special effects (MGS2, anyone?) which makes the graphics appear more lifelike, even though they may be 'lacking' in terms of polygons and texture size with respect to other platforms (like the Xbox)