-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
NVIDIA Medusa technology demo
- Thread starter RavenXXX2
- Start date
OMFG, that fps you are getting is unreal, i managed 10 fps average at 1680x1050 with no AA.
It does run out of mem, read my comment above
My 9800GX2, which is generally atleast as fast as the GTX280, gets 10 - 20FPS because of not enough memory (on a lower res with no AA aswell).
Last edited:
It would help if you actually understood what I was saying
I wasn't talking about this tech demo I was talking about a tech demo in contrast to a full game... and the fact that if your only loading some meshes and the textures for them you can run some high res assets in a relatively low amount of vram... you obviously don't know as much about the technology as your trying to project.
Its the other way around, you know nothing... unless i've traveled back in time to 2004 or earlier.. then what you said is incorrect, maybe 4 years ago 256MB would have done for a few characters in a fancy tech demo, but not by todays standards.
256MB is not enough for even a single character with no background/scenery in a tech demo these days for a high end card.
Theres a NV demo of just a mans head for the 8800GTX/Ultra, this uses more than 512MB VRAM, so even my 9800GX2 will not run it well.
If they used 256MB in textures for that particular demo it would look crap by todays standards and no doubt people would rip into it.
Last edited:
That looks awesome! So fluid and life like. The colours are incredible. Looking forward to 4870XT.
Come on ATI, your time is now!
RoEy
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
*coughs* I am a game developer, I not only create 3D content and textures with regard to resource budgets but I've recently branched out into 3D engine programming so I know exactly how objects and textures are loaded into the memory.
You are mistaken in thinking that textures are only loaded for the objects on screen. Most of the textures that are used in the map you are loading are all loaded at startup. If you look at the memory resources used at one point in a map and then again when you're just looking at a wall you won't notice much difference. It takes too much time to have to load each texture when it comes onto the screen. That's why we have video memory in the first place.
If you need any more proof that they can do better then that armour then just look at crysis. This is a tech demo for pitys sake, I would have forgiven it if it was a game but in a tech demo they are supposed to push the boundaries of what's possible. Just look at ATis ruby demo.
Is it too much to ask that they use higher resolution textures for the main closeup characters? I haven't seen the full demo in motion, I'm judging it based on these screenshots so if there are dozens of characters all with the same detail as the one in the screenshot above then I can realise why they can't use individual high resolution textures for each.
Seriously mate what actual professional/educational experience do you have in this field to be judging people so quickly?
That head demo brought into play a massive amount of shader operations including sub surface scattering and many more. All of which use up a lot of vMem. This demo on the other hand doesn't really seem to look that impressive. I see no sign of any high end shader use.
All we are trying to say is that for something that uses up 512mb of vMem it really doesn't look that great. They should have prioritised higher texture resolutions on the closeup models and sacrificed resolution on the further away models.
It's pretty obvious that you don't actually really know much about the technology in use here so maybe do yourself a favour and read up on it a bit. It's quite fascinating and surprisingly easy enough to get into if you have programming experience and a good visual mind.
If your using dds - you can easily create a tech demo with a couple of very high res characters and a bit of scenery that will run in 256Mb... of course its pushing it a bit with todays tech especially if your running high res and using a lot of buffer objects... but I've not seen any tech demos yet that couldn't be created to run fine on 256Mb with that target in mind.
I wasn't the one who was so quick to judge or make it personal in the first place... I don't pretend to be an expert on this - far from it - most of my experience has been directx 7 level engines.
If you want to tack professional experience onto this then you'd be hard pressed to beat mine - but they wouldn't be an accurate representation of my actual ability (which is lower than they'd suggest).
I wasn't the one who was so quick to judge or make it personal in the first place... I don't pretend to be an expert on this - far from it - most of my experience has been directx 7 level engines.
If you want to tack professional experience onto this then you'd be hard pressed to beat mine - but they wouldn't be an accurate representation of my actual ability (which is lower than they'd suggest).
Firstly, i've been doing 3D modelling for many years. But this is all pointless mentioning stuff like that as so many people just say it these days to make it look like they know what they're talking about.
This demo uses more than 512MB VRAM, i've already mentioned that. Which is why 512MB cards cannot run it well. From these pics you do not see much, it's set in a very detailed area, all mapped in high res textures, theres also atleast 25 other character that have been turned to stone.
It's unfair judging the demo from a few screenshots that just show close ups of the characters. I mean, you're commenting on something you have not seen, using one single image as the basis for these comments, and i'm the one that does not know about this stuff?
As for your comment on Crysis, that game does not have textures as high res on the scenery as this demo. If you actually get this close to the armor in Crysis when playing it does not look any better, becomes just as blurry. When Crysis switches to the cut scenes higher-res textures and better character lighting is used.
And lastly, i'd like to point out - i've already mentioned they could have done better on the armor in this demo, BUT the first shot showing the armor in this demo is pretty much one of the worst shots in the whole demo. It does not look that bad 99% of the time, and has bump mapping, something that is not visable in that shot which makes it look flat and tacky.
Last edited: