How did Naughty dog get textures+hdr to look so rich with only 256 ramzz?

[QUOTE="gamer082009"][QUOTE="G10mgs4"]

I have been playing uncharted all day, im on ch 8. And every time i walk acros new areas, i am allwayes amazed about how good the textures look. I mean from diffrent types of break textures,water textures leaves, ground textures, all give this kind of pop look, that i have never seen in video games. yea gow had a lil of this but, not like uncharted. the hdr lighting is top notch, everry single thing in the game cast shadows. and there motion blur....my question is, how did nd do this. 256 of ram, but yet has better textures and graphics than anything on the 360, wii(lol), and ieven rivals crysis. then theres hdr lighting, i thought people here said that the rsx, are what ever its called couldnt do hdr at all. and then there 2x aa. with only 256 amount of ram, how did nd use the cell to do all of this. just a cxouple months ago people where saying other wise about the ps3 tech.

LordMe

That is because the 360 has 512RAM for anything. So it can handle about the same amount of gfx. However the PS3 has 50gigs on its side.

Though the PS3 has 256RAM for gfx it can match the 360 through streaming textures and the Cell as added RAM. Thus they are equal. Only prolem is that Blu-Ray is getting more layers (Thank you Hitachi) and thus puts the PS3 ahead. By offering the same if not better gfx and a hell of alot more disk space.

More space doesnt' equate better graphics. All the texture need to be compressed anyways so their size on disk really isnt' important. Ram is the thing that holds current gen games back not storage media. Cool looking assets take a certain amount of time to make and no one has every said in the game development community,"man if only we had more space on the disk we could've made this more awesome". No, the only thing you'll hear artsits complain about is RAM, which directly effects what you see on screen.

I believe a more advanced use of Cell Processor and RSX did the work.

After all, it is only now that developers are slowly getting use to developers kits in PS3. And it will only get better with more passing time.

[QUOTE="xxgunslingerxx"][QUOTE="gamer082009"][QUOTE="G10mgs4"]

I have been playing uncharted all day, im on ch 8. And every time i walk acros new areas, i am allwayes amazed about how good the textures look. I mean from diffrent types of break textures,water textures leaves, ground textures, all give this kind of pop look, that i have never seen in video games. yea gow had a lil of this but, not like uncharted. the hdr lighting is top notch, everry single thing in the game cast shadows. and there motion blur....my question is, how did nd do this. 256 of ram, but yet has better textures and graphics than anything on the 360, wii(lol), and ieven rivals crysis. then theres hdr lighting, i thought people here said that the rsx, are what ever its called couldnt do hdr at all. and then there 2x aa. with only 256 amount of ram, how did nd use the cell to do all of this. just a cxouple months ago people where saying other wise about the ps3 tech.

Flavour666

first off not most ... secondly the ones that do run poorly ie mass effect(horrible frame rate), AC(worst frame rate), cod4(worst frame rate, worst textures)check game trailers or gs review for proof

I think you are mistaken. There is no way that uncharted, Heavenly sword, Lair, and Ratch and clank can run on the 360. This is because the DVD 9 can't hold amount of data. Also, in heavenly sword, without the cell processor you can't have hundreds of men on the screen with unique AIs. For this reason, Mass Effect would have been better on the PS3.

The ps3 may have 2 sets of 256 mb of ram but they cant be shared. thats why sony failed with the ps3.. the rsx can not pull ram out of the cpu's ram, and this is a prob because the cell at times doesnt need all that ram. so the rsx should pull from it, but because sony failed with it. it can not. this is the reason for poor frame rates and faded out look of games...

And how does your observation answer the TC post again?

He asked what we though Naughty Dog did to create such a beautiful game not "your" reasons of how PS3 fails in hardware department, which are by the way speculations on your part, not proof on any kind.

Stick to the topic.

lol i agree with you.[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

Rivals Crysis eh =\

Nolan16

no i think uncharted has better graphics than crysis (granted i only have nvidia 7800 in my pc and not 8800, but the difference can't be that much) graphics : uncharted > crysis

It does not my friend.

At this point of time Crysis is a king of graphics, Uncharted is a beautiful game and the best one looking on console market.

However, Crysis is not rival by anyone at Very High resolution. It does however require a very good PC to show it in such conditions, but hardcore PC gamers will always exist, and they should. :)

Don't forget one thing, graphics is only one part of a good game and to be honest without story and gameplay they don't hold any water under them. ^_^

[QUOTE="LordMe"][QUOTE="gamer082009"][QUOTE="G10mgs4"]

I have been playing uncharted all day, im on ch 8. And every time i walk acros new areas, i am allwayes amazed about how good the textures look. I mean from diffrent types of break textures,water textures leaves, ground textures, all give this kind of pop look, that i have never seen in video games. yea gow had a lil of this but, not like uncharted. the hdr lighting is top notch, everry single thing in the game cast shadows. and there motion blur....my question is, how did nd do this. 256 of ram, but yet has better textures and graphics than anything on the 360, wii(lol), and ieven rivals crysis. then theres hdr lighting, i thought people here said that the rsx, are what ever its called couldnt do hdr at all. and then there 2x aa. with only 256 amount of ram, how did nd use the cell to do all of this. just a cxouple months ago people where saying other wise about the ps3 tech.

Master__Shake

That is because the 360 has 512RAM for anything. So it can handle about the same amount of gfx. However the PS3 has 50gigs on its side.

Though the PS3 has 256RAM for gfx it can match the 360 through streaming textures and the Cell as added RAM. Thus they are equal. Only prolem is that Blu-Ray is getting more layers (Thank you Hitachi) and thus puts the PS3 ahead. By offering the same if not better gfx and a hell of alot more disk space.

More space doesnt' equate better graphics. All the texture need to be compressed anyways so their size on disk really isnt' important. Ram is the thing that holds current gen games back not storage media. Cool looking assets take a certain amount of time to make and no one has every said in the game development community,"man if only we had more space on the disk we could've made this more awesome". No, the only thing you'll hear artsits complain about is RAM, which directly effects what you see on screen.

I guess you missed the posts where we discussed texture streaming a process that allows developers to pack a game with tons of really high resolution textures that are very detailed without using up much RAM.... However when you fill a game with all these high resolution textures they will eat up allot of disk space. This explains why games like Uncharted wont fit on a DVD, it also explains why 360 games don't have the same high detail/high resolution textures.