Tech Interview: Split/Second

By Richard Leadbetter Published 15 May, 2010

Digital Foundry gets technical with tech director David Jefferies.

Page 1 of 3

Next week Eurogamer runs its review of Disney's Split/Second: Velocity, a brand new racing game from Brighton's Black Rock studio, the developer responsible for the superb Pure.

Digital Foundry has already got to grips with the playable demo available on PlayStation Network and Xbox Live, we're big fans of Pure, and it's been a while since we've run one of our extensive tech interviews.

So, when Split/Second technical director David Jefferies offered us the chance to talk candidly about the developmental process behind the new game, we leapt at the chance.

Responding to our numerous, nosey enquiries about the Black Rock engine, Jefferies did us proud in discussing Split/Second's innovative approach to lighting, his take on cross-format console development, the ages-old 30FPS vs. 60FPS debate, the always-controversial subject of anti-aliasing, and lots, lots more.

It's in-depth technical discussion from start to finish, and we hope to be doing more of these a lot more frequently. Look out for the next one soon...

Digital Foundry: Pure was a really impressive breakthrough product and a substantial technical leap over what we'd seen previously from what was at that point Climax Studios. Can you talk us through the genesis of the engine? What were your objectives for the tech? Does it have a name?

David Jefferies: Pure's engine is based on a core set of libraries called Blimey that have been in development at our studio for the past 10 years. They provide all the basic building blocks for making a game, such as maths functions, serialisation, memory and file management and so on.

The original Blimey libraries had a PS2 and Xbox renderer and then in 2003 our Core Technology Group (CTG) started work on a next generation renderer on the PC. That renderer is still in use today in our in-house modeling tool called Tomcat. In January 2005 we began the work of porting the renderer to the Xbox 360 ready for our first next-gen title MotoGP '06. It was a good renderer, if a little feature-light by today's standards, and it had a solid lighting model at its core.

When the Pure team started up the following year they took the renderer used by MotoGP '06 and extended it greatly, particularly making advances in post-processing such as motion blur, colour grading, vignetting and bloom. For Split/Second we took the Pure renderer and used that as the starting point for the Split/Second renderer.

Digital Foundry: There's a very close parity between Xbox 360 and PS3 performance in both Pure and what we've seen thus far of Split/Second. What is your overall philosophy in dealing with the different multi-core structures and varying GPU abilities of the two console platforms?

David Jefferies: I think the key in dealing with the differences between Xbox360 and PS3 is having a deep understanding of the hardware for both. If you really want to push both consoles to their limits then you need specialised code paths for each platform.

On the Xbox 360 it's all about leveraging the powerful GPU and on the PS3 it's all about SPU utilisation - these are fundamentally different technologies that require very specific code paths. On Split/Second, the final image for each platform is nearly identical but how the pixels get into the image is very different indeed.

360
PS3

Comparison shots of Split/Second taken from the freely available PSN/Xbox Live demos. Looks and performance are both very close in what we've seen so far.

Digital Foundry: Regarding Pure, rendering all those trees was surely a headache... Could you describe how you were able to the render vast landscapes with such alpha-heavy scenes for gameplay?

David Jefferies: Pure had to render a massive amount of alpha-heavy foliage which just wouldn't have been possible using traditional techniques. We came up with some innovative new ways of rendering alpha - for more information check out our technology page.

Digital Foundry: We're big Pure fans, but there's a sense that it was overlooked by the audience. That's somewhat surprising considering the superb look and feel of the game, plus of course the favourable reviews. What is your view on that?

David Jefferies: Pure is our biggest-selling title to date and thanks to a Microsoft bundle deal has reached millions of users. It was the title that established us as a AAA games studio and whenever we speak to people about Split/Second they recognise Black Rock from Pure - it was a great expression of intent for the studio.

power1-1
power1-2

Split/Second's level one Power Plays in action. Track-based scenery is detonated in order to damage or destroy your opponents. This is the game's unique selling point and also the element causing the main technical challenges to David Jefferies and his team.

Digital Foundry: Post-Pure, looking forward to the next game, which would end up being Split/Second, what were the technological challenges you set yourself? Was there anything fundamental to the Pure engine that needed a complete overhaul?

David Jefferies: The Pure engine was very well suited to the requirements of Pure and so the overhaul required was due to the differing requirements of Split/Second rather than any deficiencies in the engine. We rewrote the render engine to be a gamma correct deferred shading renderer rather than a more traditional forward renderer.

We placed a lot of emphasis on further improvements to the post-processing pipeline with per-pixel motion blur and anamorphic lens flare. We also introduced a colour grading system whereby the artists could take a screenshot and bring it into Photoshop and then treat the image however they liked. We have some software that analyses the colour mappings that the artists had performed and recreated them in the game. This system is used at all times during gameplay to give the exact look we want.

We also invested a lot in a new VFX pipeline for the huge volumes of dust, smoke and fire in the game. There's a lot of processor power that goes into the VFX and a lot of clever tricks to be able to render huge amounts of them without exceeding the fill-rate. The particles are all correctly lit from the light sources and the smoke even moves out of the way as the vehicles travel through it.

power2-1
power2-2

The use of level two Power Plays causes enormous set-pieces to kick in that often change the large sections of the track layout itself.

Digital Foundry: The use of different routes and track-changing hazards was something that Criterion initially looked into during development of Burnout Revenge before returning to its more traditional setup for the shipping game. Bearing in mind that you have some Burnout alumni working at Black Rock, was there a sense of unfinished business there for your new recruits?

David Jefferies: I don't think so - the Burnout boys all love arcade racers and what attracted them to Split/Second was the opportunity to put a new twist on the genre they love. Right from the beginning Split/Second was its own game and the similarities with Burnout are fairly superficial.

Page 1 of 3

Comments (69) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Tallon4 #1 2 years ago

    I wish this game had 60 fps, but you can't have it all I guess

  • Retroid #2 2 years ago

    Code libraries called "Blimey"? :D

  • uglygamer #3 2 years ago

    So these guys were responsible for Pure. One of the most underrated racers of this gen.

  • Vroom #4 2 years ago

    Great interview.

  • Chufty #5 2 years ago

    "We work with an external studio on the PC port who takes the console versions as a starting point."

    Blur it is, then.

    Good interview though, I'd be interested to read more of these in-depth articles.

  • uglygamer #6 2 years ago

    The first reviews of this game are in at ign

    360: 8.7

    ps3: 8.5

    360 wins :)

    Should be a good game.

    Different reviewers for the games.

  • Guitarnerd87 #7 2 years ago

    Differences between the games basicly come down to whether you prefer slightly more post processing, like the motion blur, or the higher resolution. I've always preferred the crisper image with high resolution, though I know some people hate the sight of even one jaggie.

  • Pablo2k5 #8 2 years ago

    Awful awful game (from the demo) IMO

  • onezeonx #9 2 years ago

    So they decide to release it the same day as Red Dead and Mod Nation Racers......just plain STUPID!

  • BBIAJ #10 2 years ago

    I barely understood half of that, but still found the whole article thoroughly interesting.

    More of the same please DF!

  • rodpad #11 2 years ago

    Is there any word if the PC version is locked to 30fps, even if the hardware can produce more?

  • Chufty #12 2 years ago

    PC games don't need a framerate lock because all PCs are different; it doesn't make sense. It will be a shoddy 3rd party port though, so who knows what we'll end up with.

  • rodpad #13 2 years ago

    ^
    Exactly. I was also thinking in terms of animation framerates being a factor to a locked framerate on the PC version. Highly doubtful though.

  • Beano #14 2 years ago

    "The first reviews of this game are in at ign

    360: 8.7

    ps3: 8.5

    360 wins :) "

    No - both versions get 8.5 from IGN and was reviewed by the same reviewer. You lose.

  • Retroid #15 2 years ago

    There, finished reading this as I got called away earlier.

    A very interesting read and always great to hear about the development process from devs themselves! More please!

  • Retro_ #16 2 years ago

    Well, thank the lord, a developer actually taking the time to develop to both the 360 and PS3's strenghts. How very very refreshing.

    The game looks the business, well done Black Rock.

  • Pasco #17 2 years ago

    "The only factor you need to take into account when choosing whether to run at 30FPS or 60FPS is which option will give the consumer the best possible experience. The answer to that question changes on a game-by-game basis."

    Yes, let's look at Split/Second then. It's a racing game. What is more important? Nicer lights and darkened screen edges or more attention to motion?

    The last couple of years I get the feeling that racing games are more about tourism and less about the exhilaration that results from high speed.

  • Miths #18 2 years ago

    Great article. I have to admit that after this my interest in this game has been renewed. I was a bit underwhelmed by the demo, but based on the screenshots here plus the IGN video review, it looks like the demo track might have been one of less impressive ones in the game.

    I really wish I had an idea what Blur was going to be like though, aside from the recent batches of videos. I wonder if we'll get a PS3 demo next week?

    At this point I honestly don't feel like I really have a proper clue whether either game is going to be good.

    Edit: Oh, and as for the 30 vs. 60 fps debate. There have been a number of 30 fps console racers I frankly considered perfectly smooth, such as DiRT 2 as one of the most recent ones. Sure, after buying the PC version off Steam a week ago, I certainly do prefer being able to run it at 50+ fps (at 1920x1200), but I still think the PS3 version is perfectly fine.
    The most important thing with a 30 fps racing game in my opinion, is that the framerate is as close to rock solid as possible.
    Edited by Miths at 15/05/10 @ 18:34

  • Calgon #19 2 years ago

    Nice article Richard, some good questions asked.

    They are very different architectures but after really pushing both consoles for Split/Second we don't get the feeling that one is more powerful than the other - they're just different and this needs to be remembered when designing engines for them.

    I've noticed no matter how many top devs say this, its completely ignored by certain fanboys who will quickly pretend nobody has ever said it when talking about their favoured platform a week later.

    Nice to hear 360 hardware talked about, yes I am a little biased but SPU usage has been done to death by devs, always good to hear something different.

    Also nice to hear VMX128 is put to good use, shame he didnt go into more detail about it though, from the little Ive heard devs talk about it, the vmx128 registers/units are perhaps more difficult than the SPUs are to "untap" fully on 360 especially since its rarely talked about or pushed for, whereas the SPUs have been since day 1. Like we saw with the SPUs for specialised harware like that theres using it and theres using it to its full potential with good coding from the ground up. Hopefully this year there will be some new Gamefest Presentations put up with the XNA Teams updates on progress in these areas.

    It would probably be quite hard for Richard to get hold of any of the XNA Team but that would be a good read.

  • neems #20 2 years ago

    It's worth having a few more goes on the demo for those who were initially unimpressed. My first couple of goes I was definitely underwhelmed, despite having had this game on my watch list for ages... but I must have played it a couple of dozen times now, and my pre-order is in place.

    The one thing I hope for is that the full game is a bit harder than the demo.

  • Anthony_UK #21 2 years ago

    Totally baffling, I didnt really understand most of that but very intresting all the same!

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #22 2 years ago

    "I've seen much better graphics on PS3 (Uncharted 2, Killzone 2 and GoW3) than I have on Xbox 360. And I mean miles better."

    Can't believe you said that after quoting Calgons post. Nothing on the PS3 is "miles" better than the best Xbox 360 has to offer.

  • Loghorn #23 2 years ago

    Exactly, Retro_. Exactly. That's what I've been trying to tell those idiotic Sony fanboys that both the 360 & the PS3 are exactly the same in terms of power & performance & that the 360 isn't "dated," "maxed out," & all of that other gibberish. The only reason why most PS3 exclusives tend to look better than 360's exclusives has nothing to do with the power inside the system; it has to do with the developers being better at making good graphics, & that's what Sony has been pushing their developers to do it, unlike Microsoft that doesn't do it with their developers.
    Edited by Loghorn at 15/05/10 @ 23:25

  • Zappa #24 2 years ago

    360 verion is sub hd lol

  • helvetica_bold #25 2 years ago

    I picked up the retail copy (xbox 360) from a mom and pop shop that broke the street date in NY.
    Seriously this has to be the best looking arcade racer to date – its like burnout on crack!
    I love all the anamorphic lens flares–its the first game thats really feels cinematic IMO.
    The final game has better graphics than the demo – it looks like the 360 version has sharpend
    up a bit. Also the reflections on the cars have been improved.
    Great game.

  • DoctorFouad #26 2 years ago

    Interesting interview !

    so this multiplatform developer is implying that :

    1- the xbox360 GPU is more poweful than the PS3 GPU
    2- The PS3 CPU is more powerful than the xbox360 CPU
    3- But overall they are pushing the two consoles to their limits and they concluded that the two consoles are equally powerful

    MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM..........suspicous....we will see than, if their racing game (split second) will be as technically impressive as motorstorm 3......
    Edited by DoctorFouad at 16/05/10 @ 10:21

  • DoctorFouad #27 2 years ago

    @Loghorn :
    "the only reason why PS3 exclusives tend to look better than 360 exclusives has nothing to do with the power inside each system, it has to do with the developers being better at making good graphics..."

    LOL
    thats simply pejorative against xbox360 exclusive developers...so you think RARE, BUNGIE, EPIC, LIONHEAD...etc are all less capable than the ps3 developers in making good graphics ?!

    LOL

    thats a contradiction, and contradictions means there is an error in the statement...

    believe me but if HALO3 has been developed exclusively for ps3 instead of xbox360, it would have been technically a far more impressive video game, due to a simple fact : the PS3 is more powerful than the xbox360 (because of the impressive CELL processor).

    and if MGS3 was developed for xbox1 instead of ps2 it would have been a technically more impressive video game...
    and if killzone 1 was developed for xbox1 instead of ps2 it would have been a technically more impressive video game...
    due to a simple fact : the xbox1 was more pwoerful than ps2 (due to the superior graphics chip and more RAM)

    stop lying to yourself : hardware power is important for graphics....with the same talent of developers, xbox1 was capable of better graphics than ps2 or GC, the ps2 was capable of better graphics than dreamcast...and the ps3 is capable of better graphics tan xbox360...

    now of a multiplatform developer come and say : the 2 consoles are equally powerful !
    what do you expect him to say ?!! I am developing on both consoels producing the same graphics, but one console is more powerful than the other ?!! so he will simply tell you : I a am a less capable developer than sony exclusive developers ?!!!...lol
    Edited by DoctorFouad at 16/05/10 @ 13:39

  • Razz #28 2 years ago

    Spliff/Second

  • Collymilad #29 2 years ago

    Lol at the fanboys, especially Doctor - how much you getting paid?

    PS3 has done better graphics, but to call them "miles better" makes you look like an idiot.

    They are slightly better, not much more. Also, most of the games with brilliant graphics come from 1st/2nd party Sony devs who are helped heavily by Sony, so what do you expect?

    God of War 3 looks amazing, but beyond the excellent lighting and how clean the game looks, there's really nothing that sets it apart from the best looking 360 games.

    People seem to talk as if we're talking PS2:Xbox1 margin of difference here. We're not, it's more like Gamecube:Xbox1, if that (minus all the things that made the Xbox1 special, e.g. built in HDD, of course) If the 360 has reached it's peak, so what? The games still look brilliant.

    Finally, to the people who so rabidly attack the 360 as being weaker, take it you never had a PS2 last gen then? You know, since graphics matter so much I assume you had an Xbox? No? Ah surprise there.
    Edited by Collymilad at 16/05/10 @ 17:25

  • Lord_BeeJee #30 2 years ago

    This is the first I hear about the pc version being a conversion by an external studio, gonna be another port with added resolution options to rub in the lowres textures :/ Bring on a new console gen so we can get some improved graphics, my pc is sitting not being stressed by anything...

  • vizzini #31 2 years ago

    Tried the demos on both systems, and both are much the same, nothing special imo.

    I'm sort of surprised Eurogamer is wasting big coverage on a very average cross platform racer.

    I suspect the developer was trying to go for a Motor-storm crash version of ridge racer or need for speed; which hasn't really come off.

    The last generation was filled with games that used Criterion's Renderware engine (prior to EA's acquisition), and this game instantly felt like it was another Renderware engine game; which it probably isn't.

    The demo wasn't bad; but after 10 years of racers that are rarely memorable; as only the best add or alter a playability element to justify their existence. I quickly started to ask myself (when trying the 2nd demo), why am I not playing a karting game, a racing simulator or a game that really looks next gen such as Pacific Rift instead?

    This is a classic 6/10 game for me, and a potential 9/10 or 10/10 for newcomers.

  • Moopy #32 2 years ago

    The gameplay sounded meh and now this game sounds technically meh too. They are saying "gamma correction" is a big feature. The demo dropped frames whenever there were any major effects and the aliasing on PS3 is terrible. I think its Blur for me. The Blur beta was rock solid on 360 and runs at full 720p. [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-blur-beta-performance-blog-entry
    ]http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digita...[/link]

  • helvetica_bold #33 2 years ago

    Don't go by the demo alone – I bought the 360 version and it runs beautifully.
    You don't even notice the slight hit to the res, trust me, the full game looks sharper than the demo.
    Its really a beautiful game and I believe there is some amazing lighting effects.
    Its a lot fun and it feels a lot like the older burnout games.
    Edited by helvetica_bold at 16/05/10 @ 22:28

  • hesido #34 2 years ago

    I dunno, I really like the look of Burnout, and it ran at 60fps. Sure this has gigantic explosions and aircraft crash landings, but still, I'd have preferred the smooth ride that is 60fps. But we live in a world where the game's entire graphics capability is decided from still screenshots or 30fps videos, not many know how pleasing games would be at 60fps.

  • helvetica_bold #35 2 years ago

    ...it might be me but in the final 360 version there are so many post processed
    effects and motion blur that the game feels like its running at 60 fps.
    I 'm a huge fan of old school arcade racers, Outrun online arcade, Burnout, etc..
    If you're like me you will love the game.

  • LondonSquare82 #36 2 years ago

    @Chufty. Regarding the PC port being done by another company, I heard that Blur was also the same situation. Being developed jointly between another Activision Studio and a small company in Liverpool called Spiral House? They have a hidden Activision logo on their site waiting for the official news to come out I guess:

    [link url=http://www.spiralhouse.co.uk/aboutus.html
    ]http://www.spiralhouse.co.uk/aboutus.html
    [/link]

  • peterfll #37 2 years ago

    :-/

    I definitely want this game, but I was thinking of picking it up for my new PC. Now I don't know whether to just go for one of the console versions (probably the 360, I prefer the pad for racers).

  • vizzini #38 2 years ago

    Most Jefferies' articles in Develop mag are quite an interesting read. But they always seem like he has put on an old pair of fanboy trousers and this interview seems no different imo.

    I'd would have liked him to confirm if the 360's sRGB gamma correction workaround, uses ~11 gpu instructions per pixel, and if it actual matches the sRGB output of the PS3/PC versions.

    Or whether using 6.7% less resolution (in every depth render target, plus overdraw) still results in an inferior approximation; using the piecewise method described in the GDC publication.

    [link url=http://www.valvesoftware.com/publications/2008/GDC2008_PostProcessingInTheOrangeBox.pdf
    ]http://www.valvesoftware.com/publication...[/link]

    In real terms, the reduced resolution of the 360 version is probably resulting in 25% less work being done in depth testing per frame.
    So the real question is, if both currently look quite similar, why didn't both versions get the same reduced resolution(1280x672)? so the RSX could use that headroom to anti-alias in the fragment/pixel shader?

    I would assert, that as a cross-platform developer (leading on 360), he has very little interest in making the PS3 version better than the 360 version, and hence the slant of the responses in the interview.

    On one hand he says that the 360 GPU is powerful (implying the RSX is not), while at the same time, admitting that it is tasked with less work; and still achieving a non-identical output.

    I'd like him to answer the question again, has the 360 plateaued graphical?

  • seasidebaz #39 2 years ago

    Zappa is sub hd lol

  • seasidebaz #40 2 years ago

    @vizzini:

    2 things.

    1. They'll only be using 1 depth buffer and then re-using it. No point making more than 1 is there?
    2. The reason for the reduced rendertarget resolution is so it can have higher precision (more bits per pixel, you see?) without leaking out of memory. There's only 10MB available before tiling occurs.

  • vizzini #41 2 years ago

    "1. They'll only be using 1 depth buffer and then re-using it. No point making more than 1 is there? "

    What's about a depth map image from each light source; or are we assuming it doesn't do any shadow mapping (like Motor storm) and all the occlusion is prebaked?
    Edited by vizzini at 17/05/10 @ 13:36

  • seasidebaz #42 2 years ago

    I suggest reading their SIGGRAPH stuff. It explains how they do the lighting.

  • DoctorFouad #43 2 years ago

    @vizzini :

    I agree with you, there are some contradictions in the answers of the developer,

    in one hand he is saying the two consoles are equally powerful, in the other hand he is admitting the 360 version of the game is running with less pixels than the ps3 version...mmmm...

  • vizzini #44 2 years ago

    I was talking about occlusion (the absence of light), where one or a combination of the following methods are typically chosen.

    1)Pre-baked shadows (light mapping from last gen games like Quake 3),
    2)Creative labs method (more commonly referred to as Carmack's reversal, from Doom 3)
    3)Projected geometry (like the kart shadow in Mario kart DS)
    4)Real-time Ray tracing, which is still another generation away for those resolutions, used by film studios/pixar and for FMVs.
    5)Shadow mapping (Eg, percentage closer filtering, cascaded shadow mapping, variance shadow mapping, etc)

    I therefore assumed, like most games in this generation, they went with option 5 for moving items and option 1 for the buildings/scenery that have a fixed position to lighting source relationship.

    If the game uses dynamic shadow mapping in anyway, it will require more depth passes; and these typically incur some overdraw, even with amazing (real-time) PVS solutions.

    I wouldn't have bother mentioning, but the interview wrongly suggests that both systems are equal; when they are clearly not.

    Their game looks similar on both systems, but that is not quite the same thing.

  • JimmyT67 #45 2 years ago

    Finally a developer who's written for each engine independently yet the fanboys are still arguing. LMFAO

    360 - better framerates/post processing effects at the cost of resolution due to it's 10MB eDRAM
    PS3 - higher resolutions at the cost of post processing/ high framerates due to it having to push around more pixels.

    THESE ARE THE ONLY NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 360 & PS3s GRAPHICAL POWERS.

    "but this exclusive game proves it's miles better" ROFL

  • DoctorFouad #46 2 years ago

    @jimmy + android

    the xbox360 is equally powerful to PS3, really ?!! thats really what you concluded when comparing those same types of games ?

    HALO3 vs Killzone2
    Forza3 vs GT5
    Gears of War 2 vs Uncharted 2
    Ninja Gaiden 2 or Bayonetta vs God of War 3

    ...etc

    Are you serious ?!! (I just wanna know if you are serious or just kidding...)

  • vizzini #47 2 years ago

    The RSX is not less optimised; it just doesn't have ATI/AMD's patented “HyperZ” technology which makes great savings in specific rendering conditions; as it can give geometry processing and fill-rate savings by assessing if work needs done at all.

    [link url=http://developer.amd.com/media/gpu_assets/Depth_in-depth.pdf
    ]http://developer.amd.com/media/gpu_asset...[/link]


    But in brute force battles Nvidia cards sometimes work alot better; as they don't rely so heavily on avoiding work and therefore have the gpu performance to carry out all the work.

    Doom3's shadow mapping algorithm was such a task where the work just had to be done(very fillrate intensive with all the stencil buffer updates), which is why the 9800 Ati cards struggled, where the Nvidia cards didn't.

  • Kestana #48 2 years ago

    @vizzini

    You forgot to mention it was Nvidia's Geforce 6-series cards, which had Shader Model 3.0 support. You get better shader precision. Nvidia's Geforce 5-series was a disaster and it had nothing on ATI's R300.

    @ android123 and DoctorFouad

    You should take your quarreling via private messaging. Your squabble has nothing to do with game tech, rather you talk about and compare the individual components of those games (i.e. gameplay, online, graphics, etc) and you attribute it directly to the capabilities of their respective consoles. Basically a "my cock's bigger than yours" quarrel. Be objective, not subjective. Also, empirical evidence in games for tech talk is foolhardy. Things are always done differently.

    P.S. If you really wanted to talk numbers, you could've easily said that Halo 3 employs two frame buffers, which basically means it renders TWO (2) 1152x640 images in a single pass. There, it makes the Xbox 360 look impressive because it technically does render more pixels than Killzone 2, regardless of the different resolutions of the render targets in Killzone 2. Are you happy now? But resolution doesn't make a game visuals. Can you say that Virtua Tennis 3's 1920x1080 resolution makes it look better than Killzone 2's 1280x720?

  • vizzini #49 2 years ago

    Yeah, you are right, I should have added that info.

    All I was trying to say originally, was that I didn't think either demo was better than average; like any unmemorable racer from the last generation. And certainly less graphically impressive, and less fun than Motor Storm Pacific Rift.

    Changing engine technology to Deferred renderer, with higher resolutions/colour precision, accurate gamma(or nearly accurate on 360) didn't make this game feel that different from past generation racers for me.

    The cinema production article (by the same person), concerning 24fps & tone mapping seems to have made the game feel like the lighting is somewhere inbetween this generation, and the last; although that might be a lack of (pronounced?) dynamic shadow casting from the power play items, I'm not too sure.

    The camera angles don't lend themselves well to seeing possible shadows from the rockets, helicopters, debris & crashes; as it is restrictive for looking down at the ground, too far into the distance. But I guess the camera setups are designed to give the best sensation of speed for the frame rate, and to minimize the amount of distant on screen geometry.
    Edited by vizzini at 19/05/10 @ 22:55

  • Kestana #50 2 years ago

    @vizzini

    Perhaps the camerawork was also designed to help with the LOD management. Regarding the lighting, it feels familiar. I can't tell whether it's the color palette or simply the global lighting and luminance. I wasn't paying much attention when I played the demo. Need to download it again. But from what I saw, it's again in excess of bloom, similar to many recent racing title (not coincidentally, their old title 'Pure' was overloaded with bloom and had low-precision HDR. It easily looked like a picture taken without a polarizer). Same goes for more recent racing titles like DIRT 2. To be honest, I want to see a racing game that emulated natural optics, just like in Halo 3. The norm today always seems to be exaggeration, as if it's difficult for the audience to notice without exaggerating things. Then again, that's my personal taste -- subtle and natural.

  • zedzee #51 2 years ago

    Split/Second seems to have the originality of a Rolex watch bought in a Chinese flea market.

    The car feels like it's from Riiiiiiiiiidge Racer! While the destruction is a rip off of Burnout and the American "OK, now we need to punch through, using Power-Plays" accent is becoming rather annoying now.

    Boring.

  • rodpad #52 2 years ago

    Unfortunately my suspcions were right about the PC version. It is indeed locked at 30fps.

  • DoctorFouad #53 2 years ago

    @Kestana :

    Wow ! another know-all I am more informed than you, I have a superior knowledge than you kind of talk LOL

    this kind of talk make me really laugh...

    and by the way I recommend you to read more about the techology used in Halo 3 compared to killzone 2...and reading about triple buffering of uncharted 2 to eliminate V-sync issues will do good to your (superior) knowledge too...maybe also more details on how GOW3 team managed to implement the morphological anti aliasing within SPUs...

    Sigh...
    Edited by DoctorFouad at 20/05/10 @ 15:20

  • DoctorFouad #54 2 years ago

    @Calgon :
    LOL another (know all, superior knowledge than you) arrogant mentality talk...thats funny...apparently my comments are doing a good job in attracting those kind of comments...LOL

    "If MS were to really push for the 360 CPU to be truely stretched to its limits the same way Uncharted's engine does for CELL it would make for some interesting comparisons, to do that though it would require MS to drop some of their restrictions from what I gather, perhaps stop worrying about Backwards compatability/PC ports later down the line."

    When reading this, I wonder who is providing the typical comedy releif in an otherwise sensible discussion if we were looking for the best example of a hypocrite fanboy in this thread I wonder it would be whom ?...

    Mark Rein the boss of Epic would laugh loudly when reading your comment !
    he would say : wow ! I didnt know that microsoft is restricting the power of the 360 CPU for our unreal engine 3 !!! thanks god "Colgan" pointed this to us, so now we are going to talk to microsoft to let us exploit and stretch the 360 CPU to its maximum !!! maybe this would allow us to improve a lot our Unreal engine 3 on 360...

    What I dont understand is why some people just do not want to accept the obvious truth ?!!!!!!

    the CELL PS3 processor is far more powerful than the xbox 360 CPU, and thats why the ps3 is more powerful than the 360 , thats why Killzone 2, Uncharted 2 and God of war 3 are the benchmarks for console technology this generation.

    (by ow much PS3 is more powerful than the xbox360 we dont know, only time would tell us, but I expect that it is more powerful by an important margin, we will see when comparing Gears of war 3 technology with Uncharted 3 technology in the future)

    But denying the obvious fact, maybe that is the true fanboyism after all...fanboys are those who ignore and deny obvious facts, that would be a good efinition for fanboyism...

    And believe me I have all consoles, and my favorite video game this geneation is by far Mass Effect on xbox360...But i just cant ignore the fact that the ps3 is more powerful than the 360...I would be lying to myself...but apparently fanboys do not have a problem with lying to themselves before lying to others...denying the obvious truth = fanboyism...
    Edited by DoctorFouad at 20/05/10 @ 18:48

  • Calgon #55 2 years ago

    Ok... anyway I've been doing quite well at staying clear of the typical fanboy arguements so far, no offence to anyone but its just boring to me these days, Im happy to let people beleive nonsence if they want to. :p

    Slightly more on topic regarding what I said on the first page, it seems MS have put up this years gamefest presentations but it also seems it's password protected too which is a big shame. I quite liked reading up on the progress devs were making and the ways forward ect. I have a feeling alot of that has to do with Natal though(I just hope it hasn't overshadowed everthing else though or that would be an even bigger shame, as Im not that interested in the Natal side, although it does sound promising in concept), anybody here know what an Xbox Central password is? lol

    http://www.microsoftgamefest.com/pastcon...

    "* Please use your Xbox Central password to access this content. If you cannot remember your password, please contact your Account Manager directly for assistance."

    Edited by Calgon at 21/05/10 @ 04:09

  • DoctorFouad #56 2 years ago

    @ "Calgon"

    "Infact I will be deleting both eventually its just embaressing to be seen having any sort of discussion with you."

    Wow this is the true spirit of objectivity, tolerance and positive communication! Wow !

    If you have good arguments I would be glad to dicuss with you, I dont see whats your problem, I just dont like arrogant talking, you could say the same thing but with positive communication...

    "name one proprietary 360 engine by a team as large and experienced as Naughty Dog that took 3 years to make the engine alone and we could maybe attempt to do fair comparison. I'll save you the effort of looking, there isn't one"

    lets try and name a few :

    Bungie :
    incredibe team of programmers and designers, what they did technologically with a launch xbox1 title (Halo1) was incredible, multitexturing, streaming, high quality textures, a lot of polygons, great draw distance, beautiful animations, impressive particle effects...all this with a launch title and in 2001 !

    they developed Halo 3 in 3 years...compare Killzone 2 technology with halo 3 technology...and judge by yourself whtis the more powerful console...and be objective please...

    Remedy :
    great developers and programmers ! they are famous for developing great engines technology (max payne 1 and 2)
    they developed Alan Wake exclusively for xbox360 in 5 years ! compare uncharted 2 with alan wake and tell me objectively which console is more powerful the xbox360 or ps3 ?

    Rare :
    great programmers ! what they did with the N64 hardware was simply unbelievable (conkersfor the 64 redefined simply what is possible on N64 hardware), conkers for xbox1 was also a great looking game...
    compare any 360 best RARE game with God of war 3, uncharted 2, killzone 2, Little big planet...and judge by yourself...


  • DoctorFouad #57 2 years ago

    "second its well known that MS do impose restrictions keeping devs going "to the metal" as it were(to expect this from Epic would be absurd to begin with), where Sony dont..."

    So it is well known that MS do impose restrictions keeping devs going to the metal like sony...really ? are you sure ? and it is well known ?!!

    1) I dont know it...do you have a link ? I would be interested in this information, but even if that is true, it is really absurd to think that if 360 developers had more access to the 360 CPU, this will make the 360 CPU as powerful as the CELL...thats absurd...
    2) and even if thats true, rstricting the power of the CPU is different than not allowing developers going to th metal...those are two different things...

    But let me tell you what i know !
    what I know is that Microsoft are an experienced software company, they created a better development kits for developers than what sony (a hardware company) did for the PS3, and this really shows in multiplatform games

    What I know is that microsoft want developers badly to create the best possible graphics on 360 to compete with PS3 and use the maximum power of 360...it is absurd to believe microsoft are restricting the power of 360...

    and what I also know is that the 360 hardware is showing clearly its age, look at the difference between gears of war 1 and gears of war 2...in the other hand the PS3 continue to impress and has a lot of potential (uncharted 2 vs uncharted 1 for example)
    Edited by DoctorFouad at 20/05/10 @ 20:33

  • Calgon #58 2 years ago

    Ok they are deleted, gave you plenty of time to read them, I know no mater how many facts I put forward(it was clear how little you seem to know of the 360 dev scene and its hardware... Id even go as far as saying you perhaps deliberatly misinterpreted restrictions on how close to the metal devs can go with their engine code as restricting CPU power on purpose) you would rather go on assuming which is how it goes when unobjective fanboys talk about their favourite console compared to its evil rival.

    You are entitled to your opinion but please accept that there are plenty of people including developers on both sides of the fence though and agree to disagree if technical discussions aren't your cup of tea.
    Edited by Calgon at 20/05/10 @ 21:56

  • vizzini #59 2 years ago

    Regardless of what developers are saying about their experience with each console, scientists(electrical engineers) are the real authority on such matters.

    There is no argument about either system's theoretical performance figures. And there is no argument about which hardware is capable of achieving near theoretical performance in real solutions; and which one isn't.

    The real disadvantage with today's software, is that everyone has moved to OOP design, which is a more natural fit for homogeneous architectures like desktop Pcs/360, and can be harder to optimise on heterogeneous architectures like the PS3 Cell processor.

    If the software design, at a high level is structural then performance on heterogeneous architectures can result in much much higher utilisation and performance.

    If distributed software development, using a structured architecture design was easier to manage than an OOP design, then multi-platform games like this would run significantly better on the PS3.

    The best PS3 engine games are still OOP designed, but they compliment the hardware from the start, which normally produces better results; than a multi-platfrom game that leads on the PC/360.

  • Kestana #60 2 years ago

    @DoctorFouad

    You try too hard. You don't even know what you're saying anymore.

    Also, yeah. You should really think that you know more than me. If that makes you feel better, by all means, I don't care.

    If you really want to know more about MLAA: [link url=http://visual-computing.intel-research.net/publications/mlaa.pdf
    ]http://visual-computing.intel-research.n...[/link]

    And if you're really serious about tech talk. I'm inviting you to our discussion at Beyond3D forum's Console Technology section: [link url=http://forum.beyond3d.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15
    ]http://forum.beyond3d.com/forumdisplay.p...[/link]

    P.S. Your English is garbage. It's less likely anyone will take you seriously, if you really are. You're also wasting your time trying to convince us without hard facts and qualitative data. All you do is throw around empirical evidence with rock, paper, scissors logic.

  • DoctorFouad #61 2 years ago

    @Kestana

    another arrogant comment...apparently arrogance is in the nature of some human beings...

    1) thanks for your advice concerning my english, it is clear english is not my first language, I am trying to improve it.

    2) I already read this paper + the comments of Cedric who developed the MLAA for PS3 and how it was deifficult for the team to obtain efficient results with the CELL, i suggest you read his comments...

    3) I was a member of beyond 3D long time ago, but due to time constraints, I have no time to waste on forums...I simply visit and read some topics thats all...

    And I have an advice for you : stop the arrogant talking please

  • Calgon #62 2 years ago

    @Vizzini - I beleive the term you were looking for is computer scientists not electrical engineers(you are neither a computer scientist or a developer) and no they aren't all in agreement(its the whole reason they go in different directions), plenty will tell you CELL had some bad choices in memory and data management, yes even when compared to Xenon.

    There is no argument on the theoretical specs? Sure if all we are doing is taking a look at the RAW theoretical specs... but thats basically a quick scan of the spec list and calling it a day... thats not how people who know what they are talking about do things though.

    No argument on real world performance? Thats a blatant lie, there is a BIG argument there, one which ultimately will be hard to prove or disprove, the best we can do is make educated guesses based on: what we do know of the technology, how far devs have come with it, what is left to try and the software itself up untill this point.

    So your attitude is a blinkered one... you are basically saying "Developers who work with the hardware know nothing only *SONY* engineers do", thats not a well balanced or rational argument at all.

    Your impression of an ideal engine for 360 is an inaccurate one too(noticed how you keep refering it as if PC and 360 should be treated as a joint platform), it would be not unlike the approach PS3 devs take, there was an interview recently with Corrinne Yu(Principal Engine Architect at Halo Team) a person with vast experience within the feild(very impressive resume) who touched upon this subject. She talked of developers who'd done alot of optimisations for the SPUs finding not only did it speed up performance there but the same code magically made the 360 version faster(in some cases games where PS3 was the LEAD platform the 360 version actually outperformed it, Dirt, Ghostbusters ect), both benifit from data decomposition where code is fragmented into smaller components to make it easier to process things in parellel which is something that XNA encourage developers to do in their presentations all the time... its the best way to do things for 360 but the difference is performance isn't disappointing without doing that like it would be on PS3 i.e its encouraged not forced upon developers which is why she firmly beleives 360 hasnt been nearly pushed enough by developers thus far like PS3 has(she has also talked about VMX128, custom texture formats and how she'd like to see people experiment in those areas, very insightful and passionate about the feild). The ease of development on the 360 platform has been both a blessing and a curse since its not hard to get decent performance, most developers are happy with decent performance than doing it the hard way or experimenting with new techniques to get the best performance out of it.

    The rest of your post reads like the ramblings of someone drunk on CELL hyperbole and slightly biased since you are quick to dismiss a large number of devs which make your comments seem a little off the mark to say the least, theres very little you could say I'd wager, that I havent seen before. This is why I feel discussions like this are a waste of everyones time because you enter with your OPINION(thats all you have) and have every intention of leaving with the same no matter what is said(dismiss anything that you dont want to hear).
    Edited by Calgon at 21/05/10 @ 19:36

  • vizzini #63 2 years ago

    So your whole misconception is based on the words of a few developers; versus the expertise of the company that won all three CPU console contracts(IBM); interesting.

    My previous comment doesn't contain an opinion, it can all be checked by budding scientists/engineers or developers.

    “Regardless of what developers are saying about their experience with each console, scientists(electrical engineers) are the real authority on such matters.

    There is no argument about either system's theoretical performance figures. And there is no argument about which hardware is capable of achieving near theoretical performance in real solutions; and which one isn't. “

    Why don't you add to this technical article with something about the game engine.

    Maybe give opinion on whether the gamma correction in the 360 version is accurate, or almost accurate.

    Maybe give opinion on if you think all the shadows in the game's 15 minute gameplay video are consistent with the cars shadow & the suns position.

    Maybe give opinion if you think the 70 render targets (textures) used per frame in the Deferred renderer are all 6.7% smaller on the 360 version. And if so, what performance advantage that might give,

    Maybe give an opinion on whether you think every final framebuffer pixel does a full 70 texture sampler lookups.
    Edited by vizzini at 22/05/10 @ 00:26

  • BuckEntropy #64 2 years ago

    @Kestana - "To be honest, I want to see a racing game that emulated natural optics, just like in Halo 3."

    Man that got me even more depressed than I already was... I only just got around to trying this demo cause the article was interesting, and my sentiments are similar. It's just another game focused on wowing with the screenshots, but it mostly looks like a mess when playing. I still haven't seen anything this gen that looks as nice as Rallisport Challenge 2 or Burnout 2. (Paradise is good, just lacks clarity) I've made peace with the fact my tastes seem to differ from the mainstream, but it's almost impossible for me to care about a racer if it's not 60fps at this point. And track-side detail is so freaking irrelevant, what matters is the sense of depth and parallax; less minutia, more draw distance and terrain definition all the way IMO.

    So yeah, I could so imagine a racer with lighting like Halo 3, as long as it's 60fps and puts the geometry into substance over finish.

    -

    @DoctorFouad - Sorry I just can't seem to let this pass...

    "...and reading about triple buffering of uncharted 2 to eliminate V-sync issues will do good to your (superior) knowledge too...maybe also more details on how GOW3 team managed to implement the morphological anti aliasing within SPUs..."

    It's really hard to tell what (if any) point you're trying to make with that, I mean, are you somehow under the impression that triple buffering would be a problem for 360? The principle is ancient, and technically speaking it's something more of a trade-off than a straight advantage. I'm sure the reason few (if any?) 360 games employ triple buffering is because it's a generally less desirable trade-off, as things like the unified shader architecture and fewer bottlenecking issues overall, tend to average out performance much better. So basically, 360 games don't use it because they have very little reason to.

    And custom edge AA solutions are a very cool subject, but it's hardly "MLAA FTW" just yet. I also suspect there's a few 360 examples around that just never get discussed...

  • Calgon #65 2 years ago

    So your whole misconception is based on the words of a few developers; versus the expertise of the company that won all three CPU console contracts(IBM); interesting.

    The most recent comments from members of the IBM team(including perhaps the lead authority amongst them all) that worked on both projects weren't at all in line with yours(remember the allusions to Sony partly funding Xenon in so many words? Infact I've good mind to dig that out if thats what you've based your whole arguement on), neither is the list of developers who have said they are close "few" compared to those that favour the PS3... quite the opposite infact(even Multi format devs who have been pro CELL prior to release have had to eat humble pie I shouldnt need to mention them again), you seem to have a seriously selective memory my friend.

    "Game Informer: Microsoft used your processor in a more traditional way than the Cell. Looking at how the processor was used in both systems, which one was the more effective or powerful?

    Dave Shippy: I think they're fairly equal. The interesting thing is that the PowerPC that's common to both is used in completely different ways. If you look at the CPU chip for the 360 and PS3, and the programming models and architecture, they came up with completely different solutions. And yet they use this same common core. "

    David Shippy was the chief architect of the power processing unit for the Cell, and overall technical leader and architect for the team that created the Power Architecture-related microprocessors that ended up in both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3.

    But can Shippy's insight on both console's processors finally answer the age-old debate about which console is actually more powerful?

    He concludes: "At the end of the day, when you put them all together, depending on the software, I think they're pretty equal, even though they're completely different processing models."

    So there we have it, overall it's fair to say CELL is the stronger of the two CPUs but not by the margin some are desperate to beleive(and Xenon has it's strengths too).

    Why don't you add to this technical article with something about the game engine.

    Because Im not pretentious enough to argue with a dev about his own engine or pathetic enough to pretend I know more than I do.

    You are claiming this developer is lying now? Is that what you are telling us you beleive? o_O

    His own engine's performance where he says neither platform shows a significant advantage over the other... and you STILL want to beleive the PS3 version is doing "more work" even though a) DF clearly shows the IQ and FX on the 360 version are clearly greater. b) the developer has told you this isnt the case in so many words, it looks like the opposite of what your saying when we add it all up which is why you come across as blinkered.

    "Maybe give opinion on whether the gamma correction in the 360 version is accurate, or almost accurate. "

    Haha someone has been scanning B3D(I read that recently too) and to be honest you have no idea what gamma correction they are using here... the most important point is they aren't limited in anyway to Xenos' solution... nice try but it's coming off as a bit desperate.

    As for the rest of your arguments the best person to ask on the overall outcome has already spoken, deliberately focussing on one small area to say the PS3 version is doing more is fooling nobody(also it sounds like you are misunderstanding the concept of game design, if theres a cheaper option of getting the SAME result/quality on one platform and not the other it's pointless trying to turn it into an advantage for the platform that has to go the more wastefull route... eg the EDRAMs advantages)... he really wouldn't have said what he did, they wouldnt have chosen to reduce the resolution at all... if overall it gave them some sort of ADVANTAGE... you are desperately trying to turn this into a disadvantage only its too obvious for you to get anywhere with it.

    Lets run through this again You = presumptious fanboy who peices together arguements from the information he wants to beleive aswell as dismissing any information that shows 360 has an advantage in any way(with inaccurate assumptions of how 360 software development works) and then we have, the person who had a lead role in developing the game = what he says is how it was with that game/engine in particular... you cant argue with it so you just claimed he's biased when theres no reason for him to be.

    Like I said, the best advice I can give you is to agree to disagree because you have nothing to offer in this argument that shows "there is no argument cos the PS3 is best"... sorry to break it to you but its not fooling me or anyone else who knows what they are talking about.
    Edited by Calgon at 31/05/10 @ 00:42

  • womble #66 2 years ago

    @KingAntoine "He sounds proud that Pure only sold because Microsoft give it away with everything :/ "

    Umm, they would have scored a hell of lot of royalties from that detail, and would have received a LOT of exposure for future products. Getting a bundle deal with the console is a major win for any company.

  • womble #67 2 years ago

    @DoctorFouad

    Please mate, as one PS3 owner to another: STFU.

    No wonder PS3 fanboys have such a bad reputation.

    The developers have said that overall, there's not much difference between the consoles, it's how you use them. And I'm going to take the word of someone who knows what they're talking about, rather than some random PS3 troll.

  • Nebula #68 2 years ago

    vizzini wrote: The RSX is not less optimised; it just doesn't have ATI/AMD's patented “HyperZ” technology which makes great savings in specific rendering conditions; as it can give geometry processing and fill-rate savings by assessing if work needs done at all."

    Nvidia had their system for saving upp fillrate by compressing zbuffer etc. Better or worse than ATIs implementation I dont know but they had it.


    "But in brute force battles Nvidia cards sometimes work alot better; as they don't rely so heavily on avoiding work and therefore have the gpu performance to carry out all the work."

    If you talk about Nvidia 7xxx series vs ATI x18xx/x19xx series then ATIs had far more brute force perfomance.


    "Doom3's shadow mapping algorithm was such a task where the work just had to be done(very fillrate intensive with all the stencil buffer updates), which is why the 9800 Ati cards struggled, where the Nvidia cards didn't."

    The 9800pro never struggled neither did the 9600XT and Geforce5 was greatly inferior. 1024x768 with max settings bar highest texture settings (512MbVRAM requirement) and 4xMSAA, 16xAF was a pretty smooth 30fps with 1024x768 res so was Far Cry with max settings. Only with Geforce 6xxx series did Nvidia come back with top notch perfomance and better feature set than 9xxx series and x8xx series.

  • vizzini #69 2 years ago

    That comment was amend/clarified in-line with a similar point to yours by
    Kestana.

    But IdSoftware would have expect their FPS to be at 60fps for single & multi player (in particular).

    The use of DirectX(Direct3D) for Split/Second's design; in preference to a superior cross platform industry standard for graphics was always going to hinder the Nvidia RSX with such software.

    ATI had far more say in choosing the Direct3D standard for Microsoft in recent years; which better compliments their products performance. Much in the same way it worked for Nvidia on Xbox1; and some Nvidia Cg choices better support Nvidia cards now.

    By contrast, games designed around OpenGL/ES tend to perform better; and have better features than the equivalent Direct3D (through ARB extensions).

    This is best illustrated by the way graphics features are suppressed(don't get enumerate) in Microsoft's Graphics API under Windows XP; giving a big reason for PC gamers to upgrade to Vista/Windows 7.

    As expected, these features, additional functionality and greater pipeline freedom exist through OpenGL on all platforms with up to date graphics drivers, but require more testing and add to potential consumer trouble shooting for PC gamers, but not console gamers.

    Maybe this is what Steven Tovey was meaning in the Blur Tech interview

    “There are some specific ideas we're playing around with at the moment, which should help to accelerate the RSX on our forthcoming titles, but nothing I can really talk about”