POS is a common retail term referring to Point-Of-Sale. Usually, in regards to the point-of-sale kiosk where you ring customers out for merchandise, check store stock, etc.
wow, you have got to be the stupidest person i have ever seen, 1010101011 was NEVER my mate, nor my friend in any way, he never challenged me, check the posts retard and I have definitely not failed ANYTHING. why dont you stop lieing to yourself. read the posts man, or are you illiterate as well as stupid??angelofevil69
Firstly - active reload much? Wow. Let's see how those blatant misses connect without AR. Secondly - "stupidest" is not a word. Thirdly - "lieing" is lying. Fourthly, and finally - are you seriously going to question his intelligence with the "illiteracy" you just displayed? Shame on you! This is the interweb. Many of those shots were very nice, no doubt. Hell, I'm sure with a capture card and a hundred hours of gameplay, I could pull off a modest two to three minutes of headshots for a 'tage. Why don't you do a little research on the active reload system? Primarily, the Longshot. Splash damage is increased two times with an active reload on that particular weapon! I'll let that settle in for just a moment. Think about it. Get back to me.
I'm not saying you aren't a good, even great, player. Just keep the "modesty" to a minimum.
I re-read your post and corrected, as such. Which is why I deleted it. You still have no clue what you are talking about. And, again, you can't come back with anything but, "...your post...is laughable..." You can't even prove me wrong with anything but condescending retort. Since you are so fond of this "Google" fella, then type yourself a phrase similar to this: straw man argument.
I'm done. You've proven yourself, yet again, that you can't be wrong in a Playstation 3 forum.
Full-scene AA renders 2 to 4 times higher and downsamples to match display. Supersampling doesn't always end up with a higher quality picture. Multi-sampling is more efficient for performance. Adaptive AA like nVidia's Transparent AA is where it's at.
Uninformed? This is my life. I am working on a masters-level degree in mechanical engineering and I'm working on my second bachelors in video game design at a presitgious art school. I'm not spewing out anything garbage or uninformed. I'm taking the level of intelligence it takes to understand these concepts and dumbing them down into lay terms. Just think of the concept in objective terminology. You are putting way to much thought into this and making your own inferences based on information you make up in your head.
[QUOTE="DavidCK"][QUOTE="VonGak"][QUOTE="Radiozo"]Id rather have a game with all eyecandy on warp speed and 60fps than 1080p with less eyecandy at 30fps. Resolution isnt everything.VonGak
Why did you set 720p at a higher framerate than 1080p? That rather ruins your "less eyecandy" comment. To make any sense you should have said 720p vs 1080p at the same frame-rate and even there it would be debatable.
[QUOTE="Radiozo"]Id rather have a game with all eyecandy on warp speed and 60fps than 1080p with less eyecandy at 30fps. Resolution isnt everything.danneswegman
i agree.. 720P is a great resolution.. it's the sweetspot for this gen. just give us smooth running games with best possible textures. LOL "sweetspot", someone has been listening way too much to Major Nelson's podcast. Can't you think for your self? You are so deep into the PR mill that you spew out direct quotes without even knowing the meaning of them.
Someone's in a b**chy mood here...
Radiozo basically said that having 1080p as screen resolution ruins the FPS and EyeCandies that 720p wouldn't have sacrificed.
As for sweetspot, I have no idea who is Major Nelson and his podcasts, why are you so sure he "spew direct quotes" based on whoever that is? I would have also said that word knowing its full meaning but not knowing what the **** is it that you are talking about.
Anyway, let's be productive here, by answering this post... I totally agree with 720p resolution for a visually intensive game such as MGS4 filled with particle effects, high res texture and high polycount. Rather than 1080p which developers might have to sacrifice some of the above for a sharper image. But if the PS3 is capable to output 1080p without much sacrifice, then of course I would choose 1080p anyday for obvious reasons. Even with a 52" Aquos, 720p still looks sweet. 1. I pointed out that not alone was Radiozo way off with his claim due to the frame rate and that even running at the same frame-rate his claim would be highly debatable. 2. Because it's not the first time danneswegman presents direct quotes from Major Nelson as his own claims, the sad thing is that people who knows how things works can see the cheesy PR which skips the truth. And he also constatly spew out unfounded crap, calling doom and goom on every PS3 title even though he got no interest in the games nor look into them Here's the thing 1080p may have 2.3x the amount of pixels but it does not take 2.3x the processing power of 720p nor does it take up much more RAM (because you lod the exact same polygon models and textures as you would have used for 720p). What it does do it to present the textures much cleaner and makes polygon edges more smooth (I made a rather long topic explaining this, just ask if you want to see it), while with a 720p resolution the developers actually needs to use extra processing power on making objects in the distance seem cleaner (hint Oblivion) not forgetting the extra AA needed. And in a franchise like MGS which avoids using AA but removes aliasing through the use of filters there's a lot to gain from a 1080p resolution. Uhhh. You sir, have no idea what you are talking about. That "2.3x" more resolution doesn't take up much more RAM? You are very uninformed. It does not require 2.3 more processing power - try about 15 times the processing power. It all comes back to physics and effects. Try this: Install HL and HL2 on your PC, and start messing around with the video settings. You will quickly realize that no matter how high you increase Half-Life's resolution - try 1600x1200, for example - it will never look anywhere near as good as Half-Life 2 running at even the lowest possible setting. The reason for this is that the Source engine of HL2 supports many more, and much more advanced, effects than that of the original game. High resolutions are unimportant. The PS3's 1080p resolution is made up of just over two million pixels. Graphics cards work by performing all necessary calculations for every single pixel shown on screen. This means that a 1080i image requires, in the best case scenario, approximately seven times more calculations - i.e. processing power - than a 480i one (because it has approximately seven times more pixels). Accordingly, a 1080p image requires almost fourteen times more processing power. To run a regular PlayStation 2 game at 1080p you will need a system fourteen times as powerful - simply to run the same old game, with the same old number of polygons and the same old effects, at the higher resolution. If you want to double the amount of polygons and upgrade the graphics with newer, fancier effects, that will cost you extra. Say twice as much for a double improvement in overall visual quality. The real question is: Is the PS3 twenty eight times more powerful than the PS2? Nobody knows. Multi-core architectures are not very well understood - even at an academic level. I believe that the extra processing power of the new consoles should not be wasted trying to push such a huge number of pixels around as is required for HDTV resolutions. The extra power should be used for higher polygon counts and more complex effects. Isn't that why we research and develop new hardware every five years or so?
Log in to comment