finally VF4 ps2 pics!!!

Re: High-Res Pics...

Hi guys,

I thought I should post a follow-up here regarding the PS2 version of VF4. Whilst I have spoken to some fans who say they are not bothered about the graphics in the conversion as long as the gameplay is perfect, I know there are many VF fans (myself included) who want everything perfect. I want to reaffirm that VF4 on PS2 looks exactly like the arcade version.

Here are some points:

1) The two screens that were posted on IGN and other sites were assumed to be PS2 screens because they came from Access PR's (SOA's PR company) FTP space, in a folder specifically labeled VF4 PS2. However, historically speaking, Access PR and the majority of the press they work with, couldn't give a toss which version the screens are from. But the fact that they are difficult to identify which version they're from is a testament to the quality of the conversion. If the same shot was indeed posted months ago (and is therefore an arcade shot) then cool, however it may well be PS2 as a) the gymnasium stage has been completely finished in the PS2 version, b) it looks just like the arcade version, and funnily enough so does the home conversion in question. Therefore the origin of these shots is largely irrelevant, especially considering the following points.

2) I have played a lot of VF4, on various screen displays. I have played on the MEGALO 50" projection display, the versus city SVGA, and a versus city variant with a blurrier didplay than VGA. VF4 arcade itself looks slightly different depending on the display its played on. It is only natural that, depending on the sort of a) display and/or b) grab method being used, the PS2 screens will look slightly different. In the case of the screens discussed in point 1, there is firstly the issue of JPEG lossiness to take into account, and secondly the nature of the grab (could have been aux-based as opposed to dump-based).

3) At TGS, the display was a large multi-monitor display which is never ideal to show screens, but the 'jaggies' some have mentioned from that version (originally revealed in our shots the day before the show started) are equally prominent in the arcade versus city VGA monitor display. Do not worry about these, the aliasing is fine and the jaggies (as with all PS2 games) vary in prominence depending on the type of display you are using.

4) I have played VF4 arcade a lot and seen VF4 PS2 on several occasions now, and I've seen actual PS2 fights take place on VF4, all real-time etc. I am telling you that there is nothing to worry about, if there was I would notice. The texturing is perfect, the level of polygonal detail is perfect, the lighting is perfect, the effects (such as the water underneath the wooden platforms on Shun's Cave level) are perfect, everything is simply glorious. The only exception to this I have noticed so far is...

5) The PS2 stages revealed so far are Akira (Gym), Lei Fei (Temple), Vanessa (Harbor), Shun (Cave) and Wolf (Arena). On the latter of these, one of the most impressive features of the arcade version is not in the PS2 version YET - the crowd outside the ring. This crowd, as most of you will know from any version of arcade VF4 including test version (only difference in final is that Sega logo in ring is replaced by VF.net logo) is spectacular in terms of unique movements of all people in the crowd, smoothness and detail of all the people. This is probably going to involve a tricky bit of programming algorithm to get successfully on PS2, which I have little doubt will make it into the game with a bit of effort. From the quality of the visuals so far, to the range of features in this version, it is clear that a LOT of effort is being put into the conversion so I see no reason why the crowd will not be in there perfectly, just as everything else is.

It is just that there is a lot of BS going around about the PS2 version, when people who've seen and reported on the PS2 version (I and several others who will not even have played VF4 arcade as much as me) have all said the same thing: it's perfect. Let me get rid of all these rumors to those who care the most (the people on this board) as there is NOTHING to worry about and you're all in for a treat on Jan 31 2002.

Finally as a resource, here are some links with a lot of VF4 PS2 info / screens / movies.

Pre-TGS Exclusive: Virtua Fighter 4 on PS2
http://www.gamerweb.com/content/tgs101101_02.html

TGS: VF4 PS2 Update (Lots of Info)
http://www.gamerweb.com/content/tgs101101_07.html

VF4 PS2: 8 Movies, 10 screens, more info
http://www.gamerweb.net/movies_tgs_sega.html#vf4ps2

Hope this has been of interest.


Adam Doree
GamerWeb.com

 

Re: High-Res Pics...

"The PS2 stages revealed so far are Akira (Gym), Lei Fei (Temple), Vanessa (Harbor), Shun (Cave) and Wolf (Arena). On the latter of these, one of the most impressive features of the arcade version is not in the PS2 version YET - the crowd outside the ring. "

Well considering that those stages are the least taxing in terms of lighting it is not difficult to believe that those stages are being done perfectly. The problem comes when they will try to implement stages with have a lot of hardware light sources like Wolf's stage(arena) which has a lot of spot lights going on in the background and Jacky's stage which from what I have seen has up to 6-7 lights going on at one time(3-4 helicopter spot lights, moon, red lights in the corner and hit lights). These will probably be the most difficult stages to implement perfectly.

If AM2 can port this game perfectly on PS2 then they would have done something exeptional that I thought would not be possible on PS2.

PS. I think that in terms of texturing and lighting the N@omi 2 could do a lot better. The only stage with has the max free lights available is The roof top and even there it i very rare to have all 6 lights pointing in one place and even then there will be only 3-4 spot lights. Also remember that spot lights with specular are much much more taxing on the hardware than directional lights.

Regarding texturing I firmly believe that N2 is using only part of its potential and I would go as far as to say that VF4 is NOT using compressed textures. Also it is plain dumb for AM2 not to use any kind of MIP-MAPPING which would reduce the texture shimmering to a non noticeable level and would speed up the texturing hardware of the N2.

CIN

 

Re: High-Res Pics...

PS2 doesn't have any hardware T&L like Naomi 2.

All the T&L has to be done using the two Vector Unit. But considering what they have done on Saturn, programming this vector unit is far easier than programming for Saturn twin SH-2

The PS2 twin vector unit basically acts like a fully programmable T&L unit. So doing alot of spotlight probably can be done on them, using some shortcuts or optimisation.

Like for specular lighting, they can used lookup table to do the exponent part, which should save them alot of cycle.

As for texture goes, PS2 can have as good as texture as Naomi 2, it just requires alot more work from AM2, they need to divide the current N2 textures into smaller textures, so dithering can be kept at minimum.

The port would probably be closer to arcade than DC VF3tb.

 

Re: High-Res Pics...

"The PS2 twin vector unit basically acts like a fully programmable T&L unit. So doing alot of spotlight probably can be done on them, using some shortcuts or optimisation"

Yes they can do a lot of spotlights but at a huge cost. PS2 can do a theoretical 20mpps with 4 directional lights. These lights are very simple to calculate. When spotlights like the ones used in Jacky's stage are used the performance will drop considerably. When using 3 or more spotlights you will have performance in the 8mpps range max and that is with very good coding. Also considering that with 6 spotlights with specular the XBOX would go down in the 7mpps range or even lower it would be very difficult to say if there is a console which can do VF4 perfectly. Anyway I hope I am proven wrong by AM2 since this would be great for all of us VF fans

"As for texture goes, PS2 can have as good as texture as Naomi 2, it just requires alot more work from AM2, they need to divide the current N2 textures into smaller textures, so dithering can be kept at minimum."

Yes I agree, but only in the case of VF4, where it seems that AM2 are using non compressed textures or only a small amount of the 32megs for the textures(maybe to facilitate the home conversion). Even so 32megs of textures would require a lot of work to port to PS2 perfectly especially considering that to get 15+megs of textures per frame on the PS2 is practically impossible. If compression and the 32megs are used effectively N2 could have the equivalent of 256megs of textures per frame at 8:1compression. Only XBOX has the ability to match or exceed that(very difficult with hi polygon detail).

And I also agree with the point that VF4 would be closer than VF3DC.


CIN

 

Re: High-Res Pics...

Just to point things out

Naomi 2 contained the same PowerVR chip as it was in Dreamcast and Naomi. But N2 has two in parallel configuration.

It had the same SH-4 as in DC and Naomi. The only addition to Naomi 2 is the new Elan T&L that is rated at 10 million poly a sec with 6 featured light.

Those kinda number is achievable with PS2 twin Vector Unit.

Regarding Naomi 2 not using compress textures is anyone guesses. But Textures does look worst when they are compressed, just to note.

PS2 also has higher compression ratio for Texture than Naomi 2. It just alot more work need to be done in texturing for PS2.

 

Re: High-Res Pics...

CIN,

32 Meg is not all for textured, some need to be used for polygon data, as well as frame buffer. Texturing wise Naomi 2 is the same as the original Naomi.

PS2 can achieve as high as 20:1 in the main RAM with 4:1 CLUT over the other bus. Like I said it just required more work.

On the polygon and lighting side, Like I said before AM2 can take shortcut in their calculation of Lighting and it would be pretty difficult to notice the different. It will lose accuracy but once you put it in through analog TV, it won't make much difference.

 

Re: High-Res Pics...

"Just to point things out

Naomi 2 contained the same PowerVR chip as it was in Dreamcast and Naomi. But N2 has two in parallel configuration.

It had the same SH-4 as in DC and Naomi. The only addition to Naomi 2 is the new Elan T&L that is rated at 10 million poly a sec with 6 featured light.

Those kinda number is achievable with PS2 twin Vector Unit.

Regarding Naomi 2 not using compress textures is anyone guesses. But Textures does look worst when they are compressed, just to note.

PS2 also has higher compression ratio for Texture than Naomi 2. It just alot more work need to be done in texturing for PS2."

N@omi1

CPU : SH-4 64-bit RISC CPU (200 MHz 360 MIPS / 1.4 GFLOPS)
Graphic Engine : PowerVR (PVR2DC)
Sound Engine : ARM7 Yamaha AICA 45 MHZ (with internal 32-bit RISC CPU, 64 channel ADPCM)
Main Memory : 32 MByte
Graphic Memory : 16 MByte
Sound Memory : 8 MByte
Media : ROM Board (maximum size of 168 MBytes) / GD-Rom
Simultaneous Number of Colors : Approx. 16,770,000 (24bits)
Polygons : 2.5 Million polys/sec
Rendering Speed : 500 M pixel/sec
Additional Features : Bump Mapping, Fog, Alpha-Bending (transparency), Mip Mapping (polygon-texture auto switch), Tri-Linear Filtering, Anti-Aliasing, Environment Mapping, and Specular Effect.

N@omi2

CPU : SH-4 128-bit RISC CPU (200 MHz 360 MIPS / 1.4 GFLOPS)
Graphic Engine : 2 x PowerVR 2 (PVR2DC-CLX2) GPU's - (under the fans)
Geometry Processor : Custom Videologic T L chip "Elan" (100mhz) - (Under Heatsink)
Sound Engine : ARM7 Yamaha AICA 45 MHZ (with internal 32-bit RISC CPU, 64 channel ADPCM)
Main Memory : 32 MByte 100Mhz SDRAM
Graphic Memory : 32 MByte
Model Data Memory : 32MByte
Sound Memory : 8 MByte
Media : ROM Board / GD-Rom
Simultaneous Number of Colors : Approx. 16,770,000 (24bits)
Polygons : 10 Million polys/sec with 6 light sources
Rendering Speed : 2000 Mpixels/sec (unrealistic max, assumes overdraw of 10x which nothing uses)
Additional Features : Bump Mapping, Multiple Fog Modes, 8-bit Alpha Blending (256 levels of transparency), Mip Mapping (polygon-texture auto switch), Tri-Linear Filtering, Super Sampling for Full Scene Anti-Aliasing, Environment Mapping, and Specular Effect.

As you can see N2 has 32megs for gamecode(main ram), 32megs for texturing (graphic memory) and 32megs for polygon data(model data).

So N2 has twice the total memory of N1.

Regarding lighting there is absolutely no way that the PS2 can equal the N2 here. PS2 is very good at lighting but not as good as N2 buy quite a margin. Even XBOX would have troube, considering that it is rated at about 8mpps theoretical with 8 lights and that is for the 250mhz(or 300mhz?) GPU.

If you are going to take shortcuts then you are not rendering the same quality of lighting and thus you can't compare.

If N2 uses compressed textures there is no way that PS2 will be able match it. This is because the PS2 is limited by the gif bus and the max textures available per frame is about 15 megs. Also the more textures the less polys on PS2 because of the bus. PS2 could store all the textures in main RAM(compressed) but it will never be able to utilize them all in one frame. Also PS2 has to decompress the textures before sending them to the GS so a lot of companies just use CLUT and do not use the mpeg compression since it would involve a lot of work for a little gain.

Regarding texture quality. It is true that compressed textures look worst, but would you have 32megs of textures uncompressed or about 100 megs of high resolution compressed textures?? Also if you look at Sonic Adventure 2 you can see that compressed textures are not that bad actually(better than the CLUT textures that PS2 uses in many ways). If PS2 is that good for texturing why is it that there is no game that comes close to SA2 texture wise??

PS. I have nothing against PS2 in fact I believe that if programmed well it can deliver truly amazing visuals(GT3) but as it has its strengths it also has weaknesses. PS2 can have a larger no of polys on screen than N2 but when you add textures lots of quality lighting etc... PS2 drops down to a level much lower than N2.

With the specs PS2 has, it can have some better looking games than N2 but the developer must evaluate the pros and cons and design the game accordingly.

For example. For a N2 game I would think of a lot of textures a lot of lighting effects, few fill rate intensive effects and a 10-12mpps polygon budget.

For a PS2 game I would think of a lot of polygons and fill rate intensive effects(transparencies etc..), a few(2-3) lights and medium res textures.

Finally I would say that AM2 is doing an amazing job in converting VF4 and are utilizing the PS2 to the fullest of their abilities. VF4 may not be exectly like the arcade but it will be very very close. VF4 on PS2 is looking much better than T4 which is incredible considering that this is AM2's first attempt

CIN

 

Re: High-Res Pics...

OMG that was the longest post I ever made. It is making me dizzy just looking at all those words.

CIN

 

Re: High-Res Pics...

Bah I deleted my original post, which is the one that VIVI is replying too.

You know you quote technical jargon to the moon...

"Regarding lighting there is absolutely no way that the PS2 can equal the N2 here. PS2 is very good at lighting but not as good as N2 buy quite a margin. Even XBOX would have troube, considering that it is rated at about 8mpps theoretical with 8 lights and that is for the 250mhz(or 300mhz?) GPU. \

Vaporware...show it to me...VF4 is supposed to showcase the awesome lighting effects of the N2...

PS2 can never do the lighting effects of the N2 and can never do the textures Just look at the numbers..., therefore a perfect port of VF4 is impossible...

This is the tune everyone sang...

I still think you'll see a 100% port...

Remember hardware is only as good as the programmers behind it. The N2 is all vaporware. Seriously speaking when have we ever gone by what tech specs say...

You do realize by all intents and purposes, a G4 Super Computer as apple would like to call it is leaps and bounds better on paper than a PIII or AMD Thunderbird...by why is it that the raw computational power benchmarked is like 1/2 of the chips that Intel and AMD produce...yet on paper its way better...Vaporware my tech jargon friend vaporware...

CrewNYC

 

Re: High-Res Pics...

How do you guys know so much about all of this?
Maybe I'll get a VFDC nickname that's all in caps...

Sorry, I just had to ask. Seriously though, do you sit down and do math to determine this? Or do you just happen to pay a lot of attention to the specs press releases for each new console?


/versus/images/icons/mad.gif<font color=red>~~~ Don't make me rape you with a sharp stick ~~~/versus/images/icons/mad.gif<font color=red>

 

Re: High-Res Pics...

Vaporware...show it to me...VF4 is supposed to showcase the awesome lighting effects of the N2...

VF4 never pushes the N2 in anyway except maybe polygons(even there I doubt it). The only place VF4 showcases the N2 lighting power is in the rooftop stage. Guess why it has not been show despite being a quite simple background(skyscrapers)? Because it has a lot of lighting going on. Same goes to the arena stage missing spectators but to a lesser extent.

T4 is developed on PS2 hardware by Namco which have great programming skill and it never shows more than 2-3 lights.

PS2 can never do the lighting effects of the N2 and can never do the textures Just look at the numbers..., therefore a perfect port of VF4 is impossible...

This is the tune everyone sang...

It is true PS2 can never do the lighting effects as good as N2 as long as they are using about 6 spot lights or equivalent.
I still belive that a 100% arcade perfect port is impossible until it is proven otherwise. Oh I would like to be wrong regarding VF4

And regarding the vapourware because of specs. Did you know that in this gen only DC equalled and actually surpassed what was written in the specs?? PS2 will never come close to the inflated specs Sony showed and this is true for XBOX as well. Only the cube has a chance of equalling the specs since Nintendo gave out the ingame specs and not some synthetic benchmark specs.

Regarding N2 the specs are actually more in line with 12-13mpps with 6 light sources than the quoted 10mpps and this was actually confirmed by IMG(PowerVR). Remember that the limit of DC was 6.7mpps with full effects(PVR2DC is the limit) so N2 should have double that but SEGA chose to just say 10mpps which is more realistic in game and believe me when I say that this is perfectly attainable.

Now the only problem would be how to utilize all this lighting power since there are very few occasions where you would need more than 3 lights. One good place where AM2 use some of this power is the rooftop stage in VF4 with up to 3 maybe 4 spot lights and a couple of other simple lights.

So I think that N2 does all that is quoted on the specs and more To this day the same can't be said of other hardware unfortunately. Maybe Sega will change that when they develop on new hardware like they are on PS2.

Creed. You should really consider changing your name to an all caps one. HAHAHA
j/k

I happen to be curious about a lot of things and especially I like to know how things work. I have read lots about how PS2 and other similar hardware works and I have read a lot about PowerVR. So this is why I happen to know a little bit(not much unfortunately)about hardware. If you guys begin to talk about OTB combos, urumanawari(sp?) etc.. you would totally outclass me. But I will try to close the gap when I buy the PS2 ver of VF4.

BTW I learn everthing from my bro Kaede regarding VF3-4 since he is really good. Unfortunately it is very difficult to find VF machines here but at least I get to play SCUD RACER often.

CIN

 

Re: High-Res Pics...

CIN,

I also hope you realised the different between Segmented memory and Unified memory architecture ?

Naomi 2 have that many different memory bank because it needs the bandwidth, alot of Data needs to be duplicated in between those banks, its not as clear cut as you think. The main memory need to contained polygon data, animation data, game data, the Elan T&L memory would required to have the same thing for it to function.

Each PowerVR also had their own 32MB Banks of memory. This obviously contained the Textures, but also the polygon data after the T&L operation from the Elan chip, which can be pretty big. There is also frame buffer to take into account. So in the end you might end up with only 16 MB worth of Textures spaces.

Naomi 2 is also drawing limited instead of T&L limited. Remember that PowerVR DC is limited to 3.5 to 4 million polygon/s. Where as SH-4 can T&L 5 million poly/s. Although they are front facing polygon, and assuming that the two PowerVR is working efficiently than you would get 7-8 million front facing polygon on screen.

Given all that, PS2 is not at much of disadvantage, if at all. The only disadvantage of PS2 is that AM2 need to program most of the game engine, especially the graphic core from scratch, which they did. They need to take care of Texture to used the 4:1 CLUT compression over the GIF bus if needed.

Like you said PS2 can do 15 MB worth of texture worth per frame, using CLUT this is equivelent of 60 MB. But the artist need to take care in using CLUT, if not it will look like ass.

Looking at the texture quality of VF4, I doubt they are using compression as high as VQ 8:1, all objects that are close to the player (e.g Fighters and Stages floor) will used texture that uses low compression ratio or no compression at all. The object further in the background would used more compressed Texture.

Regarding the Lighting algo, there are alot of model to choose from and Sega never released which algo is implemented in Elan T&L.

That Elan T&L could be like the old Geforce T&L, which means it can only T&L the background and all static polygon, the characters it self and other object that required vertex movement (e.g Cloth, characters skin,etc) has to be T&L by SH-4.

Naomi 2 is not all that, that's for sure, Its not a leap frog in Technology like Sega used too, The leap in graphic technology was bigger from Model 2 to Model 3 than N1 to N2.

 

Re: High-Res Pics...

VIVI

I know the difference between segmented and Unified memory. I think both have pros and cons. In short Segmented memory is good since you get more bandwith while Unified gives you more storage space.

N2 may have to duplicate some data across the various memory banks but it is not as bad as you are making it out to be.

At 10,000,000pps you need
10,000,000 / 60=166,666 polygons per frame
166,666*40byte=6.36megs
6.36 1.2=7.56megs(1.2 is the 640*480*16 double buffered frame buffer)

I listed only 32megs for the PVR CLX because the data has to be duplicated in the other 32megs since it is required to make the GPUs work correctly.\

So in the end you would still have ~24megs for textures. 24megs x 8(average VQ compression ratio)=192megs of textures.

N2 is not drawing limited. Each PVR CLX can render up to 6.7mpps(x2=13.4mpps). SH4 can T&L more than 10mpps if needed.

The 10mpps with 6 fully featured lights figure is not a benchmark only figure but that is sustained and in game.

Regarding the use of clut. CLUT textures generate a very poor image if a lot of them are used. So it is unreasonable to expect large nos. Even if they where used PS2 is still at a huge disadvantage since N2 can have 100 megs per frame.

I think that VF4 is not using compressed textures. This would mean about 20megs of textures at most which is possible to achieve on PS2. Also by using VQ compression the textures if designed well will not look bad. In fact they will appear to look much better because the will be of higher res. And if you are using texture compression it is a little dumb to use low compression texturing in objects near the player. I would go for high compression with mip-mapping which would look much better.

Regarding lighting. N2 utilizes a rather processor intensive lighting algorithm. The reason that it is so fast is because the ELAN is a highly parallel processor and thus the first 6 lights are free. It can support up to 16 lights per object. All current hardware is at a disadvantage against ELAN in lighting. Additionally ELAN can T&L Static and Dynamic Geometry.

Regarding the jump in tech. I agree with you completely but remember that M3 cost much more back then. And the more tech advances the less the improvements. In fact you could say that M3=2xM2 and N2=2xN1. But the visual improvement is not of the same magnitude. I still think that SCUD RACE looks as good as GT3 even though it is on inferior hardware and GT3 pushes a lot more things around.

For some info about N2;
http://www.segatech.com/arcade/naomi2/index.html

About DC(CLX included);
http://www.computer.org/micro/articles/dreamcast.htm

N@omi 2 press release;
http://www.powervr.com/Release.asp?ID=10

CIN

 

Re: High-Res Pics...

CIN,

I thought N2 uses 32 bit frame buffer ?, Actually I think it is 32 bit internal.

Yep, I agree with your calculation. You also need to double that 6.36 MB value, because to make room for the polygon data that Elan T&L had done while Power VR draw that frame. If not the process would stall.

I don't see why PS2 can't fit all the N2 data into its memory.
Unlike N2, PS2 doesn't need the polygon data to be kept in its VRAM or Main RAM, though it could if necessary. PS2 is not a tiler like PowerVR.

That 6.7 million poly is the limit ? Pretty closed to my 7 million/s that I heard before, But that is not in game. In game is what Sega/Power VR claimed on the DC 3.5 million front facing poly/s.

My belive on that 10 million poly/s with 6 featured light source is the in game polygon pushing power of Elan T&L. But its not N2 capability, as N2 capability would be bottleneck by SH-4 or PowerVR CLX or other things like bandwidth.

Regarding texture data size, it don't really matter to us, since it is what we are looking on screen that will be our ultimate judgement which is followed by our own personality. That is the fact of all lossy compression used for Multimedia files.

But yes N2 would be able to put in more texture data, but doesn't mean PS2 can equate them.

Yes, CLUT, the texture need to be broken into smaller texture, if not it will lose its color fidelity. But if the texture is small and many of them, the color fidelity will be attained, its just alot more work for the artist to do that, and most PS2 dev team don't like doing that, that's why some games look like ass. I don't agree with the use of CLUT as well I think VQ TC or S3TC is better. But saying PS2 can't achieved 32 bit color would be wrong..

Like you said, if the texture is design well it won't look bad with VQ, the same can be said about PS2 So there is hope

In regards to SH-4 T&L more than 10 million/s, I think it can do it, but it doesn't have internal bandwidth, to sustain it. The thing that is fast about Elan T&L is that it is hardwired. The light calculation is all done in parallel, I agree with that. The disadvantage about parallel system is if you don't used the parallelism you would be disadvantage. So if it calculate 6 lights in parallel, to use less would be underutilising it to use an additional one, would be the same as using 6 more additional lights.

When you said it utilised processor intensive lighting algorithm, can you give me the lighting mathematical equation, as there are lots of lighting model that was considered processor intensive before and now its not, and other that will still be too processor intensive even in the next 3 years.

I would really like to know about ELAN Lighting algotrithm as I've been searching it for my self to no avail.

In regard to Elan T&L can do static and dynamic geometry, So Elan T&L is programmable to the same level of DX8 Vertex Shader and not the legacy DX7 T&L ?

I know that you can pick the type of lighting for each of the featured light, for parallel, spotlight that can either be diffuse or specular. But I am unsure about the vertex ops required for skinning the characters in VF4, is done only through Elan T&L with no data being prepared by SH-4.

And in regards to GT3 and Scud Race, Scud Race still look better in my eyes. GT3 tried to be real, but it hasn't succeed yet, while Scud Race is very successful in what it is trying to be.

Thanks for the Link, if you can give me the Lighting algo for Elan, it will be all and well Thanks

 

Re: High-Res Pics...

I think that the PS2 version of VF4 is going to be closer to the arcade than the VF3tb version for DC because the "man" is behind this port, Yu. While Genki did an admirable job, it's just not the same is it?

- The VF Student -

 

Re: High-Res Pics...

Genki's effort was poor. The gameplay was retained but the home conversion could have had so much more to it. I hope Yu Suzuki and AM2 will strive to beat the amount of detail they gave the conversion of Virtua Fighter 2 for the Saturn. Now that was a home conversion.

Things are looking good so far regarding the PS2 conversion. VIVI and CIN have done an excellent job of expressing the technical factors involved but, already options like A.I. mode and Character Edit and an in depth training mode have guaranteed that I will buy the game.

Adio.

 

Re: High-Res Pics...

VIVI

I do not know the algo but I read somewhere(I will try to find the link)some months ago that it produces high quality lighting(vertex). As you can see from VF4 the spot lights in the rooftop stage are very high quality. CLX can also use perturbed bump maps if needed. In fact I do not understang why it was never used

Yes N2 uses 32bit internal and can use either 16 or 32 bit external.

Regarding memory. There is no reason that PS2 would not be able to fit the data in memory. The problem comes when you are using 100megs+ of (compressed) textures in one frame. This is impossible to achive on PS2.

The 6.7million is for the setup engine and there is no reason that if there is enough data it cant reach that no. In fact TDLM for DC used apprtoximately 5mpps when it was running at 60fps. The 3.5mpps that SEGA claimed was because if more polygons where used there would be a really small ammount of memory left for texture data. DC was not limited by PVR or by CPU im many cases but by memory.

N2 can reach those Nos easily. At 10mpps you would be using about 5mpps from each CLX which are limited at 6.7mpps. SH4 has only to calculate game code and help a little the ELAN in some cases. (With ELAN the CPU will do about 1/10th of the work needed without it.)

Regarding the rest I agree with you completely.

PS. Regarding the dynamic geometry generation. That was written in the press release. So I assume it can do dynamic geometry.

PPS. I think that VF4 on PS2 will be very close. And considering the additional modes incorporated it will be one sweet conversion. Probably the best VF arcade to console conversion ever.

PS2 is really good but lacks some features that the competitors have but it has the best Vertex processors(VU1,VU0). And they can do practically everything the XBOX vertexshaders do and more

Regarding XBOX. It can do better visuals than N2 simply because of the Pixel shaders.

And the GC is really powerful too.

CIN

 

Hmm...I think there's no way to hide the aliasing on the PS2...take a look at the newest pics... http://www.outerspace.com.br/jogos/v/virtuafighter4/ps2/virtuafighter4-slide.htm

 

Nope....These are arcade vf4 pics. This pic for example (supposedly for ps2):



looks exactly the same as this (arcade pic released a while back):



I don't know why SEGA is passing N2 pics off as PS2 pics, but then again, this is not the first time SEGA has done this. I'll eat a broom if PS2 version jacky stage looks like this:

 

Oi Ad
I'll bring a broom along to ur place next yr if the quality is indeed 'arcade' perfect *hehehehe*