No One Really Cares About 1080p, Says Far Cry 4 Dev

[Lightknight]

No, it doesn't. The areas outside of your focal point are blurry in real life too. The reason why there's a blur outside of the focal point is because we lose focus the further away we go from the focal point. That's literally why it's called the focal point. Because that's where you're focusing your sight and everything else is out of focus (aka, blurry).

The focal point is the point that can resolve images the best. So... who gives a shit about everything outside of the focal point since if you succeed at catering to the focal point, everything else is as accommodated as it's going to get.

Again, here is how it goes:

1. If you can't resolve pixels with your focal point, you can't resolve pixels with non-focal vision.
2. If you can't resolve pixels with your non-focal vision, you may STILL be able to resolve pixels with your focal point.

So again, why do you think non-focal vision is relevant to this discussion? It's the only thing that matters when discussing the resolution of the screen. In what way do you think people would do anything differently to account for the parts of your vision that you're not focusing on?

Sigh. I think you are misunderstanding me. Ill try to use paint, maybe that will be more clear.

Do you see why this graph is unrealistic information now? Do you see why i mentioned peripheral vision where majority of the screen remains at?

Are you commenting on the fact that the chart changes as the TV size changes? If so, I think I understand what you're getting hung up on.

The chart isn't making some sort of claim that you actually look at the entire screen as focus. As the size of the TV changes the pixel density changes. So if you had a 1080p 100" TV then it wouldn't look as crisp if you sat the same distance away from it as a 1080p 55" TV. This is because the larger the TV, the loosely packed those 1920 pixels by 1080 pixels are arranged and so are easier to resolve by the human eye.

http://teknosrc.com/resolution-vs-pixel-density-in-displays-all-you-need-to-know/

Pixel Density= Root((Horizontal Number of Pixel^2) + (Vertical Number of Pixel^2))/Screen Size

Basically, as the screen increases while the resolution remains the same, the Pixel density decreases. So it will make a difference and that's why there is a sliding scale as the TV gets larger rather than a straight line like you may have suspected. Smaller TVs with higher resolutions have SOOOO many pixels crammed in there that you have to get a LOT closer to be able to tell them apart.

PPI (pixel density or pixels per inch as the acronym means) changes directly with resolution and TV size because of what resolution is. Number of pixels high and number of pixels across.

So a typical 1920 by 1080 resolution will have 1920 by 1080 regardless of the inches of the TV. So imagine the difference in PPI on a 55" TV with that many pixels across and high compared to a 32" TV with that many pixels across and high. The 32" TV has them packed tighter together and they may even be smaller.

Does that, perhaps, clear up our disagreement? The chart uses resolutions and TV size instead of PPI because those qualifiers are more meaningful to us as consumers. Calculating the PPI isn't something everyone knows how to do and PPI isn't listed on TVs being sold as far as I've seen. So resolution and screen size is good enough even though what we're secretly discussing is PPI.

 

[Thurston]

(swirls brandy in a crystal goblet, while reclining on a silken throne)

...hmph, console peasants....

The Glorious PC Master Race STARTS at 1080p!

 

[Strazdas]

Are you commenting on the fact that the chart changes as the TV size changes? If so, I think I understand what you're getting hung up on.

The chart isn't making some sort of claim that you actually look at the entire screen as focus. As the size of the TV changes the pixel density changes. So if you had a 1080p 100" TV then it wouldn't look as crisp if you sat the same distance away from it as a 1080p 55" TV. This is because the larger the TV, the loosely packed those 1920 pixels by 1080 pixels are arranged and so are easier to resolve by the human eye.

http://teknosrc.com/resolution-vs-pixel-density-in-displays-all-you-need-to-know/

Pixel Density= Root((Horizontal Number of Pixel^2) + (Vertical Number of Pixel^2))/Screen Size

Basically, as the screen increases while the resolution remains the same, the Pixel density decreases. So it will make a difference and that's why there is a sliding scale as the TV gets larger rather than a straight line like you may have suspected. Smaller TVs with higher resolutions have SOOOO many pixels crammed in there that you have to get a LOT closer to be able to tell them apart.

PPI (pixel density or pixels per inch as the acronym means) changes directly with resolution and TV size because of what resolution is. Number of pixels high and number of pixels across.

So a typical 1920 by 1080 resolution will have 1920 by 1080 regardless of the inches of the TV. So imagine the difference in PPI on a 55" TV with that many pixels across and high compared to a 32" TV with that many pixels across and high. The 32" TV has them packed tighter together and they may even be smaller.

Does that, perhaps, clear up our disagreement? The chart uses resolutions and TV size instead of PPI because those qualifiers are more meaningful to us as consumers. Calculating the PPI isn't something everyone knows how to do and PPI isn't listed on TVs being sold as far as I've seen. So resolution and screen size is good enough even though what we're secretly discussing is PPI.

Sigh. you still dont seem to understand it. No, im not commenting on the fact that the chart changes as TV size changes. im commenting on the fact that the char is based on a study with wrong assumption that your whole screen is in focus when in reality only small part of the screen is in focus. thus the part that is in focus is only small part of the screen and as such that parts resolution is much smaller than that of whole screens. thus our focus resolution > that part of screen resolution.

PPI is all good and all, but its been heavily abused. for examples the "Retina screens" does not even come close to PPI that humans can see, yet Apple falsely claim it does. humans can easily see much higher PPI differences, unless their vision is subpar (hey blind people happen).

(swirls brandy in a crystal goblet, while reclining on a silken throne)

...hmph, console peasants....

The Glorious PC Master Race STARTS at 1080p!

I guess Westerners are also elitists because they want to drink clean water even though somone in africa can only drink dirty one. because you know basic minimum standards are such elitism.

 

[Lightknight]

Sigh. you still dont seem to understand it. No, im not commenting on the fact that the chart changes as TV size changes. im commenting on the fact that the char is based on a study with wrong assumption that your whole screen is in focus when in reality only small part of the screen is in focus. thus the part that is in focus is only small part of the screen and as such that parts resolution is much smaller than that of whole screens. thus our focus resolution > that part of screen resolution.

The PPI is uniform regardless of how much you view of the screen. Basically, the PPI is all this chart is about since it's about the resolution in relation to TV size. It's the only reason why the distance where things matters changes.

Even if you were somehow focusing on the entire screen at once, the PPI would be the same as it would be if you were focusing on one square inch of the screen. That's because it's pixels per inch and as such remains the same as an average too.

So it doesn't matter that you focus on one point. Your ability to resolve points is mathematically determined once you know your vision type. If you're average, then that 300 PPI really does matter on the iPhone 4+ if you're looking at it from 12 inches away. If you're average, then higher PPI won't matter. If your vision is perfect then up to 477 PPI will make a difference and then anything higher won't.

But only about 1% of the population have 20/10 vision. So... are you advocating that we should base all of our products off of an extreme few? That the average consumer should pay hundreds of dollars more for a resolution that wouldn't necessarily benefit them? Far more people have 20/20 or less than those that have more.

PPI is all good and all, but its been heavily abused. for examples the "Retina screens" does not even come close to PPI that humans can see, yet Apple falsely claim it does. humans can easily see much higher PPI differences, unless their vision is subpar (hey blind people happen).

Soneira's claims that the human eyes can see much higher PPI ( 477 ppi at 12 inches) relied on someone with above average eyesight.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/#.VFkOfhZVW_I

So it depends. The Average eyesight has been accommodated for from 12 inches away the moment the PPI exceeded 300 but the above average group has yet to be fully catered to yet since I'm not seeing anything close to 477 PPI yet.

So you see, the topic can be mathematically discussed. It isn't a wishy washy subject that we can't get a grasp on. We know what the average acumen is and how that relates to image resolution.

 

[Strazdas]

The PPI is uniform regardless of how much you view of the screen. Basically, the PPI is all this chart is about since it's about the resolution in relation to TV size. It's the only reason why the distance where things matters changes.
Even if you were somehow focusing on the entire screen at once, the PPI would be the same as it would be if you were focusing on one square inch of the screen. That's because it's pixels per inch and as such remains the same as an average too.

PPI is uniform, but thats it seems that you are STILL not understanding. the chart is wrong because it assumes different PPI during viewing than it is in reality relative to your vision. it assumes that your focus point covers whole screen at said distance, whereas in reality it only covers part of it, and thus pixel density of focus point needs to be higher than the chart assumes to become unnoticable.

And thats only plainly seeing the pixels ignoring all other benefits of higher-than-visible resolution.

So it doesn't matter that you focus on one point. Your ability to resolve points is mathematically determined once you know your vision type. If you're average, then that 300 PPI really does matter on the iPhone 4+ if you're looking at it from 12 inches away. If you're average, then higher PPI won't matter. If your vision is perfect then up to 477 PPI will make a difference and then anything higher won't.

the 300PPI average is false too. Average human can see up to 700PPI at those distances. what your doing here is just repeating some bollocks Apple was pushing to excuse its display resolution. or are you implying that PCMR is an actual physical master race superior to everyone else?

So you see, the topic can be mathematically discussed. It isn't a wishy washy subject that we can't get a grasp on. We know what the average acumen is and how that relates to image resolution.

It could if the math wasnt intentionally tampered to pretend that we have reached the perfect number already.

 

[pilar]

When I say optimization and hardware, I mean the software by which the developers use to create their vision; if hardware was all that mattered, then these newest titles would be absolutely next gen looking on the PC instead just a little better looking and with a SOLID double frame rate -- and that's with a GTX 780!

But developers don't put any priority on those high-end GPU, which is why there are so few settings that make a noticeable difference between the platforms. Draw distance may be better among other things, but all of these settings can be made better or worse by the lack of software optimization.

The 750TI is much more powerful than a Playstation, but there's no game that's actually shown this; like Communism, there's what you see on paper, and there's what you actually get. You end up lowering the resolution, textures and other visual settings to sub Playstation just to lock a higher frame rate.

Tomb Raider was upgraded to Ultra PC settings on the Playstation 4 w/ several extra visual additions over the PC as well, because it was much, much more powerful than the Playstation 3 and with software that was better optimized for the new platform.

You can have any game in 1080p resolution, but if the textures are badly designed and the mechanics are jittery, then resolution doesn't really matter (if only to justify an overpriced GPU).
That's why SONY's exclusives are constantly in the mix for, or are usually the recipients of GOTY on several online magazines, like this one.
No matter how powerful a GPU is, you still can't beat optimized software.

Newest titles do look next gen. they did for years. On PC that is. New consoles are weak and weaker than most of PCs so obviuosly they cant show off for much. Compare games from 2 years ago on PC and on consoles - massive difference in graphics. PC was "next gen" before consoles were.

Sure, anything can be made better with software optimization. you could make Commodore 64 run Crysis. though not in a playable state. It would likely cost billions though. Its much easier to just use a more powerful GPU for better tecxtures and the like... oh.... wait... consoles dont have that.

And once again you start your smear campaign when 750 has proven to play the same games at better settings and identical resolution/framerate to that of PS4. Once again please stop spreading falsehoods.

Here is your bellowed Digital Foundry proving you wrong on Tomb Rider falsehood: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-tomb-raider-definitive-edition-next-gen-face-off

[HEADING=1]Going in Circles[/HEADING]

Crysis 3 might look as good, but that's where the comparisons end.
#WelcometoNextGen​

Tomb Raider DE added character physics, a deeper environment, and they rebuilt Lara Croft entirely--among the dozen other things they added. You might have caught this if you didn't skim through it.

Last gen titles looked great on PC if you had the hardware; and Crysis is the worst example to give because of how demanding that trilogy is on high-end GPU. And now you're implying that all AAA looked as good as them, too.

SONY's AAA developers come up with creative games. This is why you won't dare compare the game as whole, because SONY's exclusives destroy anything resembling them on multi-platform.

And the most popular PC games are mostly being played on low-end laptops and old desktops. Even I plan to build a PC later on, but not until I've bought another laptop. No one wants to sit at a desk all day to write up reports. That's why consoles are so popular. For being all about Next Gen, you sure are behind on a lot of tech trends.

 

[Lightknight]

The PPI is uniform regardless of how much you view of the screen. Basically, the PPI is all this chart is about since it's about the resolution in relation to TV size. It's the only reason why the distance where things matters changes.
Even if you were somehow focusing on the entire screen at once, the PPI would be the same as it would be if you were focusing on one square inch of the screen. That's because it's pixels per inch and as such remains the same as an average too.

PPI is uniform, but thats it seems that you are STILL not understanding. the chart is wrong because it assumes different PPI during viewing than it is in reality relative to your vision. it assumes that your focus point covers whole screen at said distance, whereas in reality it only covers part of it, and thus pixel density of focus point needs to be higher than the chart assumes to become unnoticable.

And thats only plainly seeing the pixels ignoring all other benefits of higher-than-visible resolution.

No, it doesn't. It assumes that regardless of your scope of viewing that you're still going to be looking at the same ratio of PPI. This is true regardless of if you are looking at 1 inch of the screen or the entire screen. If someone could magically focus on the whole screen all at once then they would still see the same distribution as if someone was focusing on only one part.

Because of this scalable factor (something you just conceded in acknowledging that PPI is uniform), none of the numbers would change if you changed the area of focus because that's not even part of the equation. If you're focusing at all 55" of screen you're still going to be able or not able to resolve the pixels at a given distance as you would if you're focusing on 1" of the screen from the same distance. Field of vision is simply irrelevant to the equation.

This is because, what you are resolving are the pixels. Not images on the screen.

the 300PPI average is false too. Average human can see up to 700PPI at those distances. what your doing here is just repeating some bollocks Apple was pushing to excuse its display resolution. or are you implying that PCMR is an actual physical master race superior to everyone else?

That is mathematically disproved in the source I linked. Perhaps you could do me the same courtesy and link sources if you're going to make a claim to the contrary?

I'll link it again below and now I'll even include commentary on the link to make it more convenient for your use. The author of this article is an expert in resolution who spent years calibrating the camera in the Hubble Telescope as part of his resume:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/#.VFkOfhZVW_I

The following is a summary of the author's work I cited above:

Resolution is actually the ability to see two objects very close together. Resolution as we see it is actually measured as an angle. Because it is viewed as an angle, we can measure it in terms of distance. Think of the angle of the inside of one corner of a triangle that is opposite the two corners representing one object each, the narrower the angle in which those two objects can still be distinguished, the higher the resolution.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2010/06/resolution_angles.jpg

So a 1 foot ruler that is 57 feet away would appear to be 1 degree across. If your eye had a 1 degree resolution then the ruler would appear exactly as 1 dot. Your resolution limit is when two objects appear to be one object.

Now, perfect vision is .6 Arcmin resolution. That's the number Soneira used to criticize Apple's comments. But the average vision is 1.0 Arcmin Resolution.

With 1.0 as the arcmin, any object that is 3438 times its own length away from you will look like a dot (so a quarter that is 1 inch across would appear as only a single point at 3438 inches away or a 1 foot ruler that is 3438 feet away would also look like a single dot. Closer and it looks wider, further away and it's still a dot. So you can use this math pretty darn easily to figure out how big an object must be before you can no longer resolve it. At 12 inches away, an object must be larger than .0035 inches before you can start to resolve it if you have average eye sight (12 inches/3438= .0035 inches). Ok, so how can we use this? Well, the iPhone 4 had a PPI of 326 pixels per inch. Well... 1/326 in is .0031 inches, which you'll note is smaller than the threshold of .0035 inches and so is unresolvable by average eyesight from 12 inches away.

Now, for perfect vision the resolution is .6 Arcmin. That means any object that is 5730 times it's own length would appear as a dot. 12 inches/5730 = .0021 inches. That is, of course, smaller than the .0031 inches size of the pixels in the iPhone4.

So while Soneira's claim holds water for people with PERFECT vision. That's really only relevant to 1% of the population. They can resolve up to 477 PPI, by the way, not 700PPI that someone pulled out of nowhere. Closer than 12 inches and those numbers go up, but not at 1 foot away.

So you are mathematically wrong here. No subjectivity in the house. I agree with a lot of technical things I see you say but this is just math and your numbers are wrong.

 

[Strazdas]

Tomb Raider DE added character physics, a deeper environment, and they rebuilt Lara Croft entirely--among the dozen other things they added. You might have caught this if you didn't skim through it.

Last gen titles looked great on PC if you had the hardware; and Crysis is the worst example to give because of how demanding that trilogy is on high-end GPU. And now you're implying that all AAA looked as good as them, too.

SONY's AAA developers come up with creative games. This is why you won't dare compare the game as whole, because SONY's exclusives destroy anything resembling them on multi-platform.

And the most popular PC games are mostly being played on low-end laptops and old desktops. Even I plan to build a PC later on, but not until I've bought another laptop. No one wants to sit at a desk all day to write up reports. That's why consoles are so popular. For being all about Next Gen, you sure are behind on a lot of tech trends.

Yes, and if you had actually finished reading that article even after that it was still quite inferior to the PC version.

Sure, in 2008 hardware like in consoles were rare. we dont live in 2008 anymore though and according to steam surveys over half of gaming population has better hardware than that.

Cryengine is demanding, yes, but it also provides a lot for that demand and can be scaled down well for low end GPUs. Cryengine is a great comparison actually, because its one of the best engines we have.

And you try to disprove that with a gif of horrible seconds son game? that game had so many graphics problems youd think it was made to run on last gen consoles. but then i already showed them to you and you blatantly ignored them so you can keep being ignorant about it.

Hah, wait give me a breather here. Sonys AAA being creative. thats a good joke. If you argued Nintendo then perhaps we could discuss it, but Sonys exclusives are quite unimpressive. you also live under false assumption that PCs dont have creative games, whereas PCs has more games in every single genre than all your sony exclusives put together. so your going to loose exclusives argument every single time.

and seriuosly buying a laptop. and you claim i am behind trends? laptops are dieing. they are being replaced by tablets. nowadays its tablets for portability desktops for power. and no, most popular games are not being played on laptops. a 5 year old PC cant even run the 3rd most popular game - WoT (i actually tried).

No, it doesn't. It assumes that regardless of your scope of viewing that you're still going to be looking at the same ratio of PPI. This is true regardless of if you are looking at 1 inch of the screen or the entire screen. If someone could magically focus on the whole screen all at once then they would still see the same distribution as if someone was focusing on only one part.

Because of this scalable factor (something you just conceded in acknowledging that PPI is uniform), none of the numbers would change if you changed the area of focus because that's not even part of the equation. If you're focusing at all 55" of screen you're still going to be able or not able to resolve the pixels at a given distance as you would if you're focusing on 1" of the screen from the same distance. Field of vision is simply irrelevant to the equation.

This is because, what you are resolving are the pixels. Not images on the screen.

The focus area matter because of focus area resolution. our focus area has limited resolution it can resolve. however, if that focus area is smaller than the screen, the area you are seeing has lower resolution than whole screen and this comparing resolution of your focus area to whole screen resolution is incorrect, which this chart did.

Now this chart used PPI to interpolate the distance changes which is fine, its the first presumption in there that led it astray.

I admit i was wrong about the 700 PPI though.

 

[pilar]

Tomb Raider DE added character physics, a deeper environment, and they rebuilt Lara Croft entirely--among the dozen other things they added. You might have caught this if you didn't skim through it.

Last gen titles looked great on PC if you had the hardware; and Crysis is the worst example to give because of how demanding that trilogy is on high-end GPU. And now you're implying that all AAA looked as good as them, too.

SONY's AAA developers come up with creative games. This is why you won't dare compare the game as whole, because SONY's exclusives destroy anything resembling them on multi-platform.

And the most popular PC games are mostly being played on low-end laptops and old desktops. Even I plan to build a PC later on, but not until I've bought another laptop. No one wants to sit at a desk all day to write up reports. That's why consoles are so popular. For being all about Next Gen, you sure are behind on a lot of tech trends.

Yes, and if you had actually finished reading that article even after that it was still quite inferior to the PC version.

Sure, in 2008 hardware like in consoles were rare. we dont live in 2008 anymore though and according to steam surveys over half of gaming population has better hardware than that.

Cryengine is demanding, yes, but it also provides a lot for that demand and can be scaled down well for low end GPUs. Cryengine is a great comparison actually, because its one of the best engines we have.

And you try to disprove that with a gif of horrible seconds son game? that game had so many graphics problems youd think it was made to run on last gen consoles. but then i already showed them to you and you blatantly ignored them so you can keep being ignorant about it.

Hah, wait give me a breather here. Sonys AAA being creative. thats a good joke. If you argued Nintendo then perhaps we could discuss it, but Sonys exclusives are quite unimpressive. you also live under false assumption that PCs dont have creative games, whereas PCs has more games in every single genre than all your sony exclusives put together. so your going to loose exclusives argument every single time.

and seriuosly buying a laptop. and you claim i am behind trends? laptops are dieing. they are being replaced by tablets. nowadays its tablets for portability desktops for power. and no, most popular games are not being played on laptops. a 5 year old PC cant even run the 3rd most popular game - WoT (i actually tried).

[HEADING=3]Next Gen IS Cryengine[/HEADING]

Most likely 1080p uncapped;
and which is amazing given the hardware.​

You're nitpicking Second Son; and which is fine since you never sound objective anyways. It's a visual and mechanical art, but you can't get past the occasional pop-in. You must own a 980 to keep away from those peasant mid-range GPU that suffer the same problems.

Witcher, Arkham Knight, Dragon Age etc... are all day-1 purchases for PC and console users (although SONY has launch discounts) and will easily take 1+ month of gaming to complete. And then there's the console AAA, which aren't worth talking about since the closest you'll ever get is skimming articles about them.

Star Citizen won't be out of Alpha/Beta state until 2016. And you need to be a contributor for Early Access. I've looked into this. That's why I'm waiting on a PC build. That, and the fact that developers are getting lazy with optimizing for AMD's and Nvidia's GPU architecture, which means I'll need an i7-k & $450+ 780TI just max future games @ 1080p60.

Nintendo hasn't tried "original" since the Wii. List their latest new IP this moment--you can't w/out a Google Search. Sadder too that all anyone wants is a new Zelda.

Good to know that you skipped the Tomb Raider: DE article and went straight down to the conclusion.

 

[pilar]

snip

snip

[HEADING=1]Going in Circles[/HEADING]

Crysis 3 might look as good, but that's where the comparisons end.
#WelcometoNextGen​

Tomb Raider DE added character physics, a deeper environment, and they rebuilt Lara Croft entirely--among the dozen other things they added. You might have caught this if you didn't skim through it.

Last gen titles looked great on PC if you had the hardware; and Crysis is the worst example to give because of how demanding that trilogy is on high-end GPU. And now you're implying that all AAA looked as good as them, too.

SONY's AAA developers come up with creative games. This is why you won't dare compare the game as whole, because SONY's exclusives destroy anything resembling them on multi-platform.

And the most popular PC games are mostly being played on low-end laptops and old desktops. Even I plan to build a PC later on, but not until I've bought another laptop. No one wants to sit at a desk all day to write up reports. That's why consoles are so popular. For being all about Next Gen, you sure are behind on a lot of tech trends.

Last gen titles on last gen consoles were playing at SUB 720p, LESS then 30 fps and ULTRA LOW settings.
Do you have a PC that does 720p, Medium settings? Good, you already are having a superior experience to the PS3 and 360.

The CryEngine is one hell of an optimized engine actually. It may need a good GPU for Ultra, but it looks good enough to justify it. No "current" gen game has beaten it or Metro Last Light. And both these guys run on old and weak PCs very well.

The Exclusive's argument is going to start off in a funny way. We will show you that quantity is vastly, VASTLY higher on PC. You will claim quality is with Sony. We will post this ( https://scontent-b-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/1901151_699439903451950_1252014092_n.jpg?oh=dbd8e647ffc7e283719a0c35892a73c5&oe=54D77F3B ). Then you will say PC does not have the specific exclusives you want. That is how it will be.

True, the most popular PC games arent too demanding. Dont see what does is supposed to mean though.

Also, here, a low budget Eastern European PC exclusive from 2008:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAYLHAPPkvw&list=PLD2B82E405CF9650C&index=3

[HEADING=1]# never lie[/HEADING]

Not really a good guide since the PS4 was barely 1 1/2 months old.​

A Simple Wiki tells us that there are 388 Games being developed for the PS4 with 144 games already playable and 9 exclusives to the PC's 36.

The console hasn't even been out a year and it's numbers are about to eclipse everything!

 

[Lightknight]

[HEADING=3]Next Gen IS Cryengine[/HEADING]

Most likely 1080p uncapped;
and which is amazing given the hardware.

Naughty Dog is particularly astounding at getting the most out of a system. Their optimizations are amazing and were quite clear starting with Uncharted on the PS3. So they're really the best ones to look to for setting the bar and forging the direction for other studios to follow. I think Uncharted 2 was one of those first real, "Wow" moments I had regarding character modeling and environments in gaming.

Pilar, I don't know who you are but keep posting. I'm loving the formatting and informative responses you're putting here. Do you write articles elsewhere? I'd be interested in seeing your work if you do stuff like that. Otherwise, way to raise the bar yourself on posting.

The focus area matter because of focus area resolution. our focus area has limited resolution it can resolve. however, if that focus area is smaller than the screen, the area you are seeing has lower resolution than whole screen and this comparing resolution of your focus area to whole screen resolution is incorrect, which this chart did.

The study isn't just comparing resolution. It's comparing resolution in relation to screen size. That's actually PPI. This is literally a graph on what PPIs make a difference at what distance.

Sure, the number of pixels across and high change when you view a smaller box, but it SCALES. You already acknowledged that the PPI is uniform so viewing a 1 inch section of the TV will be the same PPI as all 55" of a 55" TV. There is no difference in your ability to resolve the pixels when looking at a smaller area of a TV or more. It's all going to be the same mathematical equation as the one I discussed with you early that you address below.

Your ability to resolve the pixels of a TV follows the same math as the math I presented with the phone because you aren't talking about the screen itself when addressing PPI, you're talking about your ability to resolve the individual pixels from one another. That's why it doesn't matter how much of the TV you're looking at.

Now this chart used PPI to interpolate the distance changes which is fine, its the first presumption in there that led it astray.

There's no presumption that's made that would impact the chart at all. Those distances are purely basic math distances. If you actually do the math from those distances, you'll see that the next resolution cone starts to make a difference when the PPI threshold is hit for average eyesight. So, going from less distance to more distance, the 4k+ ends at distances where the PPI hits the threshold of being unresolvable by the average eye but 1080p is also unresolvable so 4k isn't necessarily better if your viewing distance is that far away. It literally doesn't matter how much of the screen you're looking at since being to resolve points is just one pixel in relation to adjacent pixels. The actually resolution of the area doesn't matter because of scalability of resolution. That is to say, no matter what the resolution of the area of the screen you're looking at, it isn't going to change the PPI. This is because as the area of the screen you're focusing decreases, so does the resolution. So if you were to look at 1/10th of the screen the resolution would be 1/10th of the screen too. Since PPI is an average that remains the same.

I admit i was wrong about the 700 PPI though.

Thanks for acknowledging that.

 

[pilar]

snip

snip

snip

Last gen titles on last gen consoles were playing at SUB 720p, LESS then 30 fps and ULTRA LOW settings.
Do you have a PC that does 720p, Medium settings? Good, you already are having a superior experience to the PS3 and 360.

The CryEngine is one hell of an optimized engine actually. It may need a good GPU for Ultra, but it looks good enough to justify it. No "current" gen game has beaten it or Metro Last Light. And both these guys run on old and weak PCs very well.

The Exclusive's argument is going to start off in a funny way. We will show you that quantity is vastly, VASTLY higher on PC. You will claim quality is with Sony. We will post this ( https://scontent-b-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/1901151_699439903451950_1252014092_n.jpg?oh=dbd8e647ffc7e283719a0c35892a73c5&oe=54D77F3B ). Then you will say PC does not have the specific exclusives you want. That is how it will be.

True, the most popular PC games arent too demanding. Dont see what does is supposed to mean though.

Also, here, a low budget Eastern European PC exclusive from 2008:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAYLHAPPkvw&list=PLD2B82E405CF9650C&index=3

[HEADING=1]# never lie[/HEADING]

Not really a good guide since the PS4 was barely 1 1/2 months old.​

A Simple Wiki tells us that there are 388 Games being developed for the PS4 with 144 games already playable and 9 exclusives to the PC's 36.

The console hasn't even been out a year and it's numbers are about to eclipse everything!

The comparison there was PS3 and 360 to PC. At least those PC titles that get metascores (not all do)..
That part of your argument is invalid.


You did not respond to my rest

BTW, the PS4 is a notebook CPU + a 7850 and 8 GB of specialized GDDR 5 Ram. You do know that, right?

The graph is pretty straight forward; and how many of those PC exclusives are 5 year old MMO's vs anything new? So much unsaid, so much presumed! But by God, you put that in a PC Gaming thread and they gush all over it like a picture of Kate Upton.

And here we go with another the Playstation is actually just low budget notebook with a ___ and ___. TechnoBuffalo [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ruo84asvQo] covers the hardware pretty well; similar to a GPU, but they are powered by an APU. The architecture is much easier on developers, but it has more limitations than a fully powered desktop GPU. The Uncharted 4 in-game trailer basically looks like Crysis 3, and which was crushing on PC.

There's so much misinformation coming down from PC Hardware Youtube Channels, it's just pathetic. That said, they're the only reason I know how to build a PC, so you take the good with the bad.

 

[pilar]

[HEADING=3]Next Gen IS Cryengine[/HEADING]

Most likely 1080p uncapped;
and which is amazing given the hardware.

Naughty Dog is particularly astounding at getting the most out of a system. Their optimizations are amazing and were quite clear starting with Uncharted on the PS3. So they're really the best ones to look to for setting the bar and forging the direction for other studios to follow. I think Uncharted 2 was one of those first real, "Wow" moments I had regarding character modeling and environments in gaming.

Pilar, I don't know who you are but keep posting. I'm loving the formatting and informative responses you're putting here. Do you write articles elsewhere? I'd be interested in seeing your work if you do stuff like that. Otherwise, way to raise the bar yourself on posting.

Thanks! I usually comment on things that interest me. I got a PS3 for FFXIII but fell in love w/ Uncharted. This game feels so high production when you play it; like every dollar was put effective use, and that the studios were so cooperative. "District 9" is a movie that feels this way, too.

 

[Strazdas]

[HEADING=3]Next Gen IS Cryengine[/HEADING]

Most likely 1080p uncapped;
and which is amazing given the hardware.​

You're nitpicking Second Son; and which is fine since you never sound objective anyways. It's a visual and mechanical art, but you can't get past the occasional pop-in. You must own a 980 to keep away from those peasant mid-range GPU that suffer the same problems.

Witcher, Arkham Knight, Dragon Age etc... are all day-1 purchases for PC and console users (although SONY has launch discounts) and will easily take 1+ month of gaming to complete. And then there's the console AAA, which aren't worth talking about since the closest you'll ever get is skimming articles about them.

Star Citizen won't be out of Alpha/Beta state until 2016. And you need to be a contributor for Early Access. I've looked into this. That's why I'm waiting on a PC build. That, and the fact that developers are getting lazy with optimizing for AMD's and Nvidia's GPU architecture, which means I'll need an i7-k & $450+ 780TI just max future games @ 1080p60.

Nintendo hasn't tried "original" since the Wii. List their latest new IP this moment--you can't w/out a Google Search. Sadder too that all anyone wants is a new Zelda.

Good to know that you skipped the Tomb Raider: DE article and went straight down to the conclusion.

No, cry engine was made to run on last gen consoles too actually.

ALso your image caption is incorrect, as that gif is from the 30 fps capped version.

Im sorry but i cant take anyone seriuosly that claims second son is mechanical art, unless your the person that thinks bum prints is also "Art". because when it comes to technical stuff thats how artistic second son is.

Are you Ubisoft? because just like Ubisoft you claim to know exactly what people want to purchase and how long they will play it. Remmeber what happerned when Ubisoft tried to claim that? yeah.

You are right that consoles AAA is not worth talking about, but for different reasons than you think.

Yes, GPU architecture is so not being optimized that they are inventing new APIs just to push anything extra possible from it. thats totally not optimizing! Also need i remind you again that both Xbox One and PS4 runs standard 86x architecture that is the exact same architecture used by both AMD and Nvidia in PC GPUs? so if you optimize for that artchitecture you optimize for all platforms equally.

Start Citizen is actually supposed to launch in 2015 according to developers, but i dont doubt it may strech into 2016, GabeN knows it has feature creep all over the place. Not like its end all be all for PC gaming though. Heck, Elite: Dangerous is more playable and impressive right now (though closed beta still).

Good to know that you still havent read the Tomb Rader article.

[HEADING=1]# never lie[/HEADING]

Not really a good guide since the PS4 was barely 1 1/2 months old.​

A Simple Wiki tells us that there are 388 Games being developed for the PS4 with 144 games already playable and 9 exclusives to the PC's 36.

The console hasn't even been out a year and it's numbers are about to eclipse everything!

Its funny how your own titles fit you so perfectly. Going in circles, lieing, you constantly seem to mock yourself.

The image says its for 2013 which is why new console titles are small, however old consoles had whole year and yet look at it, they all combined has less high rated games than PC.

Also please dont lie, the only thing PS4 is about to eclipse is its own ego. PC gaming is pretty safe from any PS4 "Eclipsing", the consoles dont even come close to either functions or numbers.

The Uncharted 4 in-game trailer basically looks like Crysis 3

ah, yes, prerendered best possible angle trailer looks almost like a 3 year old PC game! wow such an achievement!

P.S. there is no such thing as in-game trailer.

 

[pilar]

snip

No, cry engine was made to run on last gen consoles too actually.

ALso your image caption is incorrect, as that gif is from the 30 fps capped version.

Im sorry but i cant take anyone seriuosly that claims second son is mechanical art, unless your the person that thinks bum prints is also "Art". because when it comes to technical stuff thats how artistic second son is.

Are you Ubisoft? because just like Ubisoft you claim to know exactly what people want to purchase and how long they will play it. Remmeber what happerned when Ubisoft tried to claim that? yeah.

You are right that consoles AAA is not worth talking about, but for different reasons than you think.

Yes, GPU architecture is so not being optimized that they are inventing new APIs just to push anything extra possible from it. thats totally not optimizing! Also need i remind you again that both Xbox One and PS4 runs standard 86x architecture that is the exact same architecture used by both AMD and Nvidia in PC GPUs? so if you optimize for that artchitecture you optimize for all platforms equally.

Start Citizen is actually supposed to launch in 2015 according to developers, but i dont doubt it may strech into 2016, GabeN knows it has feature creep all over the place. Not like its end all be all for PC gaming though. Heck, Elite: Dangerous is more playable and impressive right now (though closed beta still).

Good to know that you still havent read the Tomb Rader article.

snip

Its funny how your own titles fit you so perfectly. Going in circles, lieing, you constantly seem to mock yourself.

The image says its for 2013 which is why new console titles are small, however old consoles had whole year and yet look at it, they all combined has less high rated games than PC.

Also please dont lie, the only thing PS4 is about to eclipse is its own ego. PC gaming is pretty safe from any PS4 "Eclipsing", the consoles dont even come close to either functions or numbers.

The Uncharted 4 in-game trailer basically looks like Crysis 3

ah, yes, prerendered best possible angle trailer looks almost like a 3 year old PC game! wow such an achievement!

P.S. there is no such thing as in-game trailer.

[HEADING=1]These platforms are not a 100% match[/HEADING]
SONY's system is different from the PC, and which is different from the XOne--there's too many articles on this to list. And I got my info about Star Citizen on the wiki site.

PS4 will have 15 million consoles by year's end, and their signature major exclusives and new AAA IP's haven't come out yet. I don't know why you're so down on a console that's breaking sales records--only a PC user would disparage the games industry over a piece of hardware they will never own.

[HEADING=3]You just said you didn't care about consoles, so it's been an absolute waste talking to you[/HEADING]

 

[Strazdas]

[HEADING=1]These platforms are not a 100% match[/HEADING]
SONY's system is different from the PC, and which is different from the XOne--there's too many articles on this to list. And I got my info about Star Citizen on the wiki site.

PS4 will have 15 million consoles by year's end, and their signature major exclusives and new AAA IP's haven't come out yet. I don't know why you're so down on a console that's breaking sales records--only a PC user would disparage the games industry over a piece of hardware they will never own.

[HEADING=3]You just said you didn't care about consoles, so it's been an absolute waste talking to you[/HEADING]

And i never claimed they were. However all of them are using x86 architecture which is same set of instruction for hardware to work.

Indeed PS4 sales are fast, but the first year is quite insignificant for console sales as it happens. Hardcore fanboys will always buy it at launch. its sustaining the rate 3 years into the systems life that will show the results much clearer. Now, i dont deny that PS4 is selling pretty damn fast. This however is no cause for lieing about its capabilities. It seems to be doing quite fine without that.

And yes, shouting propaganda at me is absolute waste, however some seem to have been taken.

 

[Rozalia1]

Indeed PS4 sales are fast, but the first year is quite insignificant for console sales as it happens. Hardcore fanboys will always buy it at launch.

The PS3 really seems to trip you up often when it comes to talking consoles, trying to play down the numbers by responding with "fanboys" simply doesn't cut the mustard. The PS4 is a draw brother jack dude.
Sony has always had good workrate and by extension story telling so I'm confident they'll keep the people at home entertained for many years to come.