Can the ps2 do pixel shading?

[Dizoja86]

I know that it can't do it in hardware, but I heard it can do some shader operations in software. Been playing r-type final and I could swear it looks like pixel shading.

[Trunks0]

It can do all kinds of stuff that can look like pixel shading but honestly PS are just a faster way and more accurate way to do effects we had been able to do for years(Bump mapping for instance)

But I do beleave there is a game or two on the PS2 that has that level/ accuracy for some lighting or reflections. But nothing thats on the same level as on PC games (I beleave GT3's reflections are per pixel accurate)

[N-Rage]

"Pixel Shading" is nothing more than running a programmable subroutine for each Pixel.
The PS2 is more programmable in that respect than any "Pixel Shader" will be in the next 5 years atleast - it just operates on the Framebuffer directly, since theres no "Gap" between Components that would kill Performance like PCs have. Also the CPU and Vector-Coprocessors are way more fitted for parrallel Vector-Calculations than the x86 CPUs are. Pixel and especially Vertex-Shaders are primary workarounds for the PC-Architecture to efficiently process the Framebuffer( at the cost of more advanced programmability) - which AINT a problem for some other Architectures.
The Performance of the PS2 is way lower though( would be pretty bad if tech dint advance in 5 Years ).

[infamous_pb]

I dunno, but I know that the PS2 can burn DVDs...














LOL!



Anyways, does anyone know if the PS2 can do Antialising to reduce jaggies?

[I.S.T.]

It can, but it's Super Sampling. Thus, it is rarely, if ever used.

[DeathKnight]

GT3's reflections are not per-pixel accurate. They're actually not any kind of accurate. They're pre-computed reflection maps that do not accurately represent the surrounding tracks.

In a game like PGR2, however, the reflection cubemaps are calculated on the fly.

[Alstrong]

Originally Posted by DeathKnight

In a game like PGR2, however, the reflection cubemaps are calculated on the fly.

It only reflects the environment AFAICS. It's still pretty cool to see though.

Next gen, I expect full reflections.

[Trunks0]

Originally Posted by DeathKnight

GT3's reflections are not per-pixel accurate. They're actually not any kind of accurate. They're pre-computed reflection maps that do not accurately represent the surrounding tracks.

In a game like PGR2, however, the reflection cubemaps are calculated on the fly.

Whoops you are correct to an extent(if you go threw a tunnel it will reflect the lights). Can't remember what is was that was was per-pixel but Iam not going to bother digging up the quote off the net since it is un-important anyway and WAY to far back to bother

[Dizoja86]

Originally Posted by N-Rage

"Pixel Shading" is nothing more than running a programmable subroutine for each Pixel.
The PS2 is more programmable in that respect than any "Pixel Shader" will be in the next 5 years atleast - it just operates on the Framebuffer directly, since theres no "Gap" between Components that would kill Performance like PCs have. Also the CPU and Vector-Coprocessors are way more fitted for parrallel Vector-Calculations than the x86 CPUs are. Pixel and especially Vertex-Shaders are primary workarounds for the PC-Architecture to efficiently process the Framebuffer( at the cost of more advanced programmability) - which AINT a problem for some other Architectures.
The Performance of the PS2 is way lower though( would be pretty bad if tech dint advance in 5 Years ).

ah, so that's why performence is so unbelievably horrible when you have framebuffer effects in a psx emulator. You'd think pc's today would be able to run a psx game from 8 years ago at blazing speed, but nope

[I.S.T.]

Originally Posted by Dizoja86

ah, so that's why performence is so unbelievably horrible when you have framebuffer effects in a psx emulator. You'd think pc's today would be able to run a psx game from 8 years ago at blazing speed, but nope

nVidia cards don't have this problem. Pete(Guy who codes many of the plugins that the PS1 uses. He's pretty much the official expert on how the GPU in the PS1 works, at least in the emulation community.) says the reason ATi cards are slow at it is due to the drivers. They haven't been optimised for that, apparently. You can look it up in the readmes for the plugins, which you can find at www.ngemu.com

[infamous_pb]

But what about Antialising? Couldnt the Dreamcast do Antialising??

[Dizoja86]

hmm, I had the same problem when I was using an nvidia card.

[Trunks0]

Originally Posted by infamous_pb

But what about Antialising? Couldnt the Dreamcast do Antialising??

The DreamCast can do AA and it make use of it I do beleave in a number of games

And yes the PS2 can do AA(SuperSample AA) but it takes a massive performance hit to use, and because of that I can't think of any PS2 game that use's it

[I.S.T.]

Originally Posted by Dizoja86

hmm, I had the same problem when I was using an nvidia card.

that is weird, my GF2 MX400 never has had that problem. What card did you have?

[BadLoser]

Originally Posted by I.S.T.

nVidia cards don't have this problem. Pete(Guy who codes many of the plugins that the PS1 uses. He's pretty much the official expert on how the GPU in the PS1 works, at least in the emulation community.) says the reason ATi cards are slow at it is due to the drivers. They haven't been optimised for that, apparently. You can look it up in the readmes for the plugins, which you can find at www.ngemu.com

What are you talking about?
ATI cards 9500+ is the only cards capable of running Pete's opengl2 plugin smoothly and without errors, All nvidia cards up to and including the FX series have problems. However Nvidia's 6800 cards may perform good too, haven't heard anything about those.

But it's true that with the regular DX and opengl plugins, then ATI's cards are slower.. But there just isn't any reason to use those for an ATI user, his opengl2 plugin is the most compatible out there, capable of displaying many in-game effects than the others can't. I.e the silence spell effect in FF9, it isn't displayed correctly in other plugins.

The only downside is the lack of Anti-aliasing in opengl2, but there's shaders to produce a similar effect. The ARB program on maximum effect is highly recommended.

[Dizoja86]

Originally Posted by I.S.T.

that is weird, my GF2 MX400 never has had that problem. What card did you have?

same card. same problems.

[I.S.T.]

Originally Posted by BadLoser

What are you talking about?
ATI cards 9500+ is the only cards capable of running Pete's opengl2 plugin smoothly and without errors, All nvidia cards up to and including the FX series have problems. However Nvidia's 6800 cards may perform good too, haven't heard anything about those.

But it's true that with the regular DX and opengl plugins, then ATI's cards are slower.. But there just isn't any reason to use those for an ATI user, his opengl2 plugin is the most compatible out there, capable of displaying many in-game effects than the others can't. I.e the silence spell effect in FF9, it isn't displayed correctly in other plugins.

The only downside is the lack of Anti-aliasing in opengl2, but there's shaders to produce a similar effect. The ARB program on maximum effect is highly recommended.

I was referign to the Framebuffer effects only. Also, I think the P.E.Op.S. software plugin is the most compatible. That is the official line from Pete last I heard, anyway.

[BadLoser]

Originally Posted by I.S.T.

I was referign to the Framebuffer effects only. Also, I think the P.E.Op.S. software plugin is the most compatible. That is the official line from Pete last I heard, anyway.

Yeah it's true about the framebuffer. Although you won't really notice it that much with the opengl2 plugin.

Hehe, the software plugin is probably the most compatible yes. I was only thinking of the ones that actually looks good..

[I.S.T.]

I myself use the software plugin if I can get away with it. I tend to not use any sort of image enhancing options in my emulators, unless the game is real ugly. Hell, I tried that recently and they somehow made the game WORSE looking.... Think it was due to the way the GFX engine in the game was made. Game sucked anyway, lol.

The software plugin does have a few options to make stuff look better, BTW. The filters. It has around 1500(Well, more like 8 or so, but still, that is a lot.) filters. You can also turn on the G-Shaded polygons feature. You can set it to only shade the polygons that the game requests, or all polygons, IIRC. Check the software plugins's readmes and **** to be sure.

Edit: Grammar and typo fixes.

[BadLoser]

The filters are good for 2D games imo, especially super2xsal. Wish there was an "emulator" meant for old pc games with those filters.. There is ScummVM for Lucasarts games though..

I myself am a pc user, but also a FF fan, so that kind of forces me into using an emulator, since I personally can't stand pixelated graphics. My first FF game was FF7pc, and then FF8pc, soon after that I discovered the wonders of max AA, and found fixes to improve the music quality to psx standard. After improvements, the only thing lacking in FF7 compared to the ps1 version is the movie resolution. FF8 is superior on pc though..

Then one day, when my pc wasn't working. I borrowed a ps2 and FF9, and thought to myself "it can't be that bad, after all the graphics improved from 7 to 8, it has to be ok" And I sure was shocked.. I just couldn't believe how ugly FF9 looked.. Of course I played it anyway, but after that It was pc version, emulator or nothing for me.

Of course I had to play FFX and FFX-2 on ps2.. my eyes hurt from all the flimmering and jaggies, but the graphics is ok otherwise. I'm still waiting for a working ps2 emulator, but that'll probably take quite a while..

Ok, I'll stop babbleing now..

[I.S.T.]

I've always thought FF8 and 9 were ugly as hell. I hate the engine they used with a passion. The colors in FF7 were more defined. It was smoother too, at least on my TV. The artwork in it was also better. I can't wait for a good PS2 emu as well. You just gave me an idea for a poll.....

[Dizoja86]

FF8 had the best graphics out of the three, and I liked ff7's style much more then ff9.

[hobs0n]

Originally Posted by BadLoser

found fixes to improve the music quality to psx standard.

Kewl, explain about this

Originally Posted by Dizoja86

FF8 had the best graphics out of the three, and I liked ff7's style much more then ff9.

Hmm, from what I remember FF8 looked like absolute shite due to they using textures on the chars/monsters that were really low res. I cant seem to find any good pics of it now tho..

[BadLoser]

Originally Posted by hobs0n

Kewl, explain about this

Check out this page: http://ffsf.cjb.net/.

[Sasquach]

Originally Posted by BadLoser

Check out this page: http://ffsf.cjb.net/.

That page hasnt been updated in a year....

oh well, if it ever goes down the toilet, i will always have the fixes downloaded on my comp and saved on a CD

[hobs0n]

Ah nice *me goes download* So now I can get 3d acceleration with a non-nvidia card in FF7?

[BadLoser]

Originally Posted by hobs0n

Ah nice *me goes download* So now I can get 3d acceleration with a non-nvidia card in FF7?

That's not a problem with the newest patch.
Works fine on any radeon, you just won't get AA. Which is reason enough to play the ps1 version in a emulator instead. Newer cards like Radeon 9500+ and Geforce FX+ don't support 8-bit palletted textures, and that makes it impossible to get AA without ugly looking green lines over the screen.

[Treeckcold57]

I believe that about Xbox console is very good pixel shader than PS2, but PS2 does put pixel shader for any games. Well Xbox had nvidia chip (which it from base Geforce 3 Ti 500). PS2 does had Graphics Synthesizer, 150 MHz. Well Xbox 2 console will possible to be powerful, it going take ATI R500 core, three 64-bit processors. http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...0203023711.htm

[Dizoja86]

Originally Posted by BadLoser

That's not a problem with the newest patch.
Works fine on any radeon, you just won't get AA. Which is reason enough to play the ps1 version in a emulator instead. Newer cards like Radeon 9500+ and Geforce FX+ don't support 8-bit palletted textures, and that makes it impossible to get AA without ugly looking green lines over the screen.

as long as you disable the battle swirl effects.

[Dizoja86]

Originally Posted by Treeckcold57

I believe that about Xbox console is very good pixel shader than PS2, but PS2 does put pixel shader for any games. Well Xbox had nvidia chip (which it from base Geforce 3 Ti 500). PS2 does had Graphics Synthesizer, 150 MHz. Well Xbox 2 console will possible to be powerful, it going take ATI R500 core, three 64-bit processors. http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...0203023711.htm

uh, huh?