Actual 1080p, Constant 60 FPS

[Koleax]

Just a quick post to see how many of you actually care about full 1080p constant 60 FPS. I do. I don't need the extra detail in these tracks and ships. I like a high resolution smooth simple design aesthetic for my games and animations.

I don't remember the exact interview, but someone from the Wipeout HD team mentioned they pushed the limits of detail to get away from having redundant CPU cycles when frame buffering because they are "never wanted." Why? Can't you leave yourself some room on the CPU to always ensure 60 FPS? Isn't that what buffers are for?

I'd like to see what they can do without lowering the horizontal screen resolution and keeping a constant 60 FPS. It can't be that bad, can it? Is this not a good commitment for a future Wipeout? Or is this something that gets in the way of high-detail heavy combat gameplay and should be sacrificed, the way it presently is?

[AG-wolf]

All I know is that there are already 2 practical solutions to this problem...
1) more efficient coding (which may be difficult due to the PS3's obscure architecture
2) something that Sega figured out YEARS ago... don't render anything that the Human Eye can't see. They did this with a lot of their Dreamcast titles, along with arcade titles which used Naomi hardware (and anything more recent)... the software was designed to simply not render anything that wouldn't normally be visible... it was basically a shortcut to reduce the workload on the the CPU/GPU...

Personally, I -really- care about 1080p output... where the PS3 defaults to 720p, the 360 at least stays in 1080p mode and tries to upscale anything of a lower resolution. The PS3 is a brutal powerhouse, there's no reason the machine should do anything less than 1080p, so I don;t understand why I'm stuck with 720p titles, or WOHD constantly dropping resolution to maintain framerate... there;s no reason it shoudn't be able to maintain 1080p at 60fps all the time... I spent $1500 just to play WOHD ($1100 on TV, $400 on PS3... $30 on WOHD), I shouldn't have to "accept" these shortcomings as simply an aspect of the PS3's architecture.

[ProblemSolver]

@Koleax: I know what you're after but listen. Guarantying at least 60fps all the
time may reduce quite a lot of detail. The frame budget is 1/60s. If one now
calculates the worst-case scenario for each effect that may happen during
gameplay and add these times together, then I'm pretty sure that we will only
see half of what WipEout HD has to offer once some of those gets removed. That
is to say, a lot of things have to be discarded just to guaranty the lower
bound on the framerate. The remaining things may not even stress the CPU / GPU
at all. So one would waste a lot of cycles just to guaranty 60fps. Hence, this
is not an option. The deal is to balance all the struff, which is quite
difficult to say at least.

As AG-wolf said, more optimization may help. Btw. AG-wolf, the Cell architecture
isn't obscure, quite the contrary is the case, it's pretty clean. It's just that
one cannot apply sequential programming to an parallel architecture in the hope
to get something out of it. On a technical level, what makes Cell a bit more
difficult to program for is that is has no cache-coherent uniform memory
subsystem. One has to sent data back and forth, via DMA, between the various
units within the Cell processor, but this is where the performance kicks in
if done rightfully. Since the SPEs memory aren't a cache they don't carry the
typical burden a cache usually introduces like for example an increase in chip
complexity / logic = more heat dissipation and, much more important, an increase
in access-time latency. If I remember correctly the SPEs memory latency is just
6 cycles, which is twice as slow as a usual L1 cache, but more than twice as
fast as a L2 cache. Most multimedia application won't even profit from a cache
at all since their data goes though the memory just once (streaming). Another
cool thing is that the DMA controller of each SPE (the MFC; Memory Flow
Controller) works independently of the main computational units (the SPUs) of
said SPEs. Hence, one can bring in the data ahead of time leading to an overall
higher efficiency. Programming such an architecture isn't easy, initially, if
the only thing one knows is the 'Intel view'. But once everything is in place
you can make things fly. And that is what is actually happening when looking at
some titles released within the last year, not to mention what lies ahead of us.


... The PS3 is a brutal powerhouse, there's no reason the machine should do anything less than 1080p, so I don;t understand why I'm stuck with 720p titles ...
Up to my point of view this is a problem stemming from the RSXs fill-rate. It's
just to weak to support 1080p for all titles. And it is also known that the
performance of the RSX suffers when it comes to over-draw (smoke, fire,
semi-translucent windows, etc.). Most games on the PS3 haven't much transparency
at all. It is said that the RSX was an afterthought. Granted, it is somehow a
shame that the default resolution of most PS3 games aren't 1080p. We will never
know the reason why Sony has put such a weak graphics accelerator into the PS3
(might be Nvidia related) whereas they claimed to bring 1080p@120fps into our
living room.

The Dreamcast's graphics accelerator, the PowerVR, was actually quite a very
good one. It uses tile-based rendering and similar stuff leading to astonishing
graphics even better than on the PS2 if done right. Rumor has it that the PS4
will utilize a PowerVR 7 graphics accelerator.

Given all that, it's quite an accomplishment that SL was even able to code the
game at 1080p@60fps.

Do I care about 'full 1080p constant 60 FPS'? Oh yes. Why? Well, the problem is
that if you're very advanced at the game the occasional framedrops may kill
you. They put you off the line and in some cases may even mess up the entire
run, which isn't fun at all. I would vote for reducing some effect that are
prone to produce framedrops every so often. However, there are things which
aren't graphics related but have an effect on the framerate as well, i.e. when
a contender gets eliminated. The framedrop here is quite pronounced and lasts
for about one or two seconds.

Would be very nice if SL would release one more patch for us, a bug-fix +
performance patch before they stop touching WipEout HD ever again. Fingers
crossed!

[Koleax]

That is what I'm getting at, PS. Wipeout HD with half the detail, but smooth 60 FPS in 1920x1080 all the way? Sign me up. :nod

I don't understand why this is in your words, "not an option." As long as a simple elegant design is preferred to one so detailed, what else is stopping a Wipeout like this from being made?

I'm reminded of bridge design. Determine the maximum load, then build it so it can handle three times more. Is it totally inappropriate to apply the same lesson to software design?

[Kyonshi]

I do care about 1080/60fps, even more for such fast paced racing game like WOHD. I mean at this point, i'd dare to say its VITAL.

I couldn't go beyond what PS mentioned, he does it with such expertise that most of the answers you and the rest of us required are given. Grosso-modo the problem lies in developers to study and master this new process of programming the Cell processor is imposing. Once this is done, just look at the storm Sony is going to bring over everybody else :)

What i can add is that some other part of the problem also lies in R&D costs along with how the game system is advertised. I'll explain.

The PS3 cost a tremendous amount of cash to develop. They had priorities while doing this. I assume they had to cut somewhere at some point, and maybe this what happened with these RSXs performance being reduced, and surely being affected more versus the complexity of any given game, hence the probable result of lowered performance of some games when they encounter operations and rendering that require most of those poor RSXs fill-rate and graphic accelerator. That's one thing being sorted out.

The second thing is like i said, how they advertise the system to sell it. They advertise it mentioning it can run at 1080p of resolution and that its a marvellous feature to have. I know its not all games that show 1080p, but seeing how few of them are not done in this way is kind of a let down from Sony, when we know the technology permits it. The truth is that they give the illusion that the PS3 gives us 1080p when in reality its only possible to obtain it, when in fact there's only this low-end internal part that can't deliver what its supposed to and what its being advertised.

That's no wonder to anyone; that's how capitalism works nowadays. Where i want to go is that they build something for you that is showed to perform and do a said thing when in reality its not really giving the best result that was stated. Sony should actually invest in building up a sytem that is able to do and execute everything like its being advertised. Why they inserted a poor graphic accelerator is only to save money on mass-production costs, since the developement and implemtation of the Blu-Ray was already so expensive. Surely they didnt want to buy the high-end of Nvidia and said "Well, we'll put the minimum to be able to run the games and that's it."

This said, its not a valuable reason to operate this way, and one like Kole have all the legitimate right to request an explanation and a major improvement in operations from Sony, as a consumer maintaining them alive, like millions of others.

So yeah i care about such features, but not only because the technology allowing it should be used without a question, but also on the base of principles of fairness and honesty.

[Dan Locke]

That's no wonder to anyone; that's how capitalism works nowadays.
Actually, capitalism works by giving the Xbox 360 a bigger market share for delivering on its promises. Bad planning by a particular company is completely unrelated.

[Kyonshi]

XBOX3Fixme delivering on its promises?!? That has to be the funniest joke of the new year :D

[Dan Locke]

I meant its promises of better graphics than the PS3's. Xbox 360 versions of games have better graphics than their PS3 versions.

Also, XBLA has a far better game library than the PlayStation Store, as far as homebrew/indie games go.

[Kyonshi]

XBOX has slightly better graphic finish than PS3. Nothing dramatic. You have to concentrate to perceive something noticable. I had the chance to see and compare for myself, its nothing that important that will make somebody go WOW and prefer one system to the other. If something would put weight in the balance, it'll be more because of the game library, like you said.

Besides, games with astounding graphics like GT5, InFamous, God of War III, Demon's Souls, MotorStorm: Pacific Rift, MGS4 and WipEout HD of course, have nothing to envy to XBOX. Like, not AT ALL. ;):+

[Koleax]

I don't think the PS3 or platform choice is relevant to the topic. I only presented whether 1080p@60FPS was a worthy goal and so far I have heard people say yes, but not to the extent that it wastes CPU and sacrifices detail, which to my mind means, "not really, no."

Am I really the only one who would sacrifice half of the detail in WHD for a guaranteed constant 1920x1080@60FPS?

[AG-wolf]

Yes, but of all my friends who own 360s... which is nearly ALL of them, the only people I know face-to-face who own PS3s are FrostE and his girlfriend (my ex, whom I actually sold my other PS3 to lol)... anyway, all the people I know who have 360s and an established library of games, etc etc, don't have any interest in PS3 exlusives. MGS4 is a joke, MotorStorm is boring, God of War III is arguably enticing but it's the same thing over and over again, and theyve already played through 1 and 2 on the PS2, Demon's Souls is Difficult JRPG #4,603,182, inFamous is practically the same as the cross-platform Prototype... and the 360 exclusive Crackdown is better anyway. GT5 is a valid contender, but they need to release it before this console generation is over *cough* and even then, Forza 3 is an amazing and technical sim just like GT, even if it's more like Forza "2.5"

The point is, all of these significant "selling points" of the PS3 aren't really that amazing. There's nothing about the console, in software, online capability, console features, that makes anyone shout out OMFG I NEED A PS3, where-as the 360 has consistently maintained this kind of "energy" surrounding the machine, both in games and multimedia. Any other time in the past, I would scoff at Microsoft, but they've really done something RIGHT this time.

There are definitely Playstation devouts... but they were going to buy the machine anyway. Sony has had a very difficult time convincing other people to buy into it... from launching at an insultingly high price, forcing the blu-ray format on a general public who could not immediately see or justify the difference over DVD... up until the past year or so, half the people out there still had their crappy standard-definition TVs... there just wasn't the discrepancy between BR and DVD as there was between DVD and VHS. They've REMOVED features over the lifetime of the console thus far... their exclusive titles are either mediocre at best, or simply cater to a very specific niche.

Even third party developers recognize that the 360 is a significant player in the market... Square would probably never have even considered FF13 for the 360 if they hadn't realized it would probably be cheaper to put it on multiple consoles and reach a wider audience, rather than hope non-PS3 owners will pick up the console to play the game.

Also, "XBOX3Fixme delivering on its promises?!? That has to be the funniest joke of the new year"
The RROD and E74 stuff was due to bureaucratic oversight in pursuit of trying to provide units fast enough to keep up with the demand. Someone pointed out the design flaw before the console even launched, but some moron above the guy disregarded it. To be fair, the company offered an extended three year replacement timeframe at no additional cost. I've had a few friends whose 360s crapped out on them, they all received their machines within a week, and the only thing that they were angry about was that they couldn;t play the games they liked for a few days- it was never an issue of being pissed-off that they bought a product that had a known design flaw and how dare Microsoft try to pull the wool over their eyes. They were genuinely so pleased with the console as a whole, that a stupid problem like that didn't influence their opinion of the machine. The problem as also long since been fixed

and the other problem of scratched discs was due to one batch of early Samsung dvd drives missing some sort of stabilizer or retainer or something. It wasn't even every Samsung drive in that wave, only arbitrary ones. This has happened countless times throughout many different types of products (how many cars have had issues due to some random component that was sourced elsewhere?)

There's much more to the comparison between the two systems than just numbers on paper.
-The 360's interface is more intuitive and easier to navigate

-the online marketplace is THE most competent digital marketplace of any multimedia device (oh, and demos for EVERYTHING is a hell of a lot better than a text description for most of the stuff on PSN, or a 30 second video if you're lucky, or GASP a demo in rare instances...which is located somewhere else entirely, so if you happen to find something you MIGHT be interested in, you have to backtrack and try to find it again in the demos section, if it even has a demo to begin with)

-the quality of online play is worth a meager $50/year to get dedicated servers (on top of a slew of extra perks) versus laggy, connection-problem-ridden service from PSN... Do you want the hand-me-down 15 year old Ford Escort from mom & dad, or do you wanna go buy your own new Subaru STi? They're both cars... but the comparison stops there.

-Cross-platform titles are typically programmed for 360 and ported to PS3, resulting in better graphics on the 360 version.

-360's backward compatibility may not cover every single original Xbox game, but they never illuded people about it, they acknowledged that not every game would work. Sony just removed PS2 compatibility all-together... and even the consoles which ARE backward-compatible have issues; all games have slight lag when displayed in an HD format because the PS2 side of the hardware does not directly control the video hardware, rendering fast-reaction games either unplayable or frustrating.


I dunno, it's still a hard argument to make because some people have completely justified every penny they've spent on their PS3 without ever even touching a 360 or giving it any consideration outside of "LOLRROD$50ONLINEPLAY," and other people are nowhere NEAR as passionate about all of it but they just grab the 360 because to them it's just a much more obvious choice.

The "magic" of the Playstation is gone... the first two consoles were AMAZING (and I'll fully admit, I'm a hardcore Sega Saturn fan but I f*cking love PSX), but Sony just got too full of themselves with the PS3... they genuinely expected it to sell just because it had the name Playstation on it. They never once considered that Microsoft actually did a LOT of research and quickly learned what short-comings their first console had and how it affected public perception and decision making... Microsoft actually managed to make an awesome game console and entertainment experience, and Sony didn't put much effort into analyzing any of the finer points of the market as they worked on the PS3... as a result, the machine suffers... it doesn't have the appeal of their previous entries, it therefore hasn't received all of the support from third-party developers like their older consoles (the PSX and PS2 were even starting points for some companies who otherwise probably wouldnt have had any success at all), people aren't excited about it... It's just a disappointment.

[ProblemSolver]

... I don't understand why this is in your words, "not an option." As long as a simple elegant design is preferred to one so detailed, what else is stopping a Wipeout like this from being made?
It is an option for me, but not an option for the average player. You have to
consider that WipEout HD wasn't build just for the die-hards out there. An
average WipEout HD player won't even recognize the framedrops at all, neglecting
Eliminator mode, of course! xD Presenting only half the features would remove
quite a lot from the game, I'm pretty sure about this. So removing half the
feature for all the people just to guaranty 60fps is way too much, since the
framedrops aren't that pronounced for the average player and if ever, they do
only happen every now and then in normal races. The situation is totally
different when considering true competitive racing. Granted.



I'm reminded of bridge design. Determine the maximum load, then build it so it can handle three times more. Is it totally inappropriate to apply the same lesson to software design?
I know that rule as well, but there is a fundamental difference here. The given
safety factor should save one's life.


... Am I really the only one who would sacrifice half of the detail in WHD for a guaranteed constant 1920x1080@60FPS?
The question is; how much is 'half of the detail'? It's difficult to say.
Anyways, what I've noticed (like most of us did) is that most of the weapon
effects do harm the framerate quite a lot esp. if they stack up together. It
would be preferable if the game would run like on a Time Trail / Speed Lap
session all the time. I think we can take this as a goal to reach despite
there are some minor framedrops here as well due to the complexity of the
geometry at some given locations on some (Fury-) track.
How to reach this goal? One thing is for sure, SL won't most likely touch the
effects ever again just to lower them in quality, since this would require a
lot of work and testing. But there is a much simpler solution. If one develops
a game then most of the effects aren't finished the day the 3d engine is up
and running. That is to say, most of the items and effects are represented by
symbols / icons and simple animations, respectively.
I would do the following; I would offer an in-game option to display all the
items and effects with their respective icon and 'iconified' animation,
respectively. This isn't even an usual thing at all. I remember doing this for
Quake and other games. Many people did that. But not only because of the the
framerate, but also to reduce unnecessary clutter while fighting a tough fight.
Given competitive ag-racing, it isn't really necessary to see all the smoke
rising from an impact of a rocket and similar things. Hence, given such an
option will lessen the burden on the RSX quite a lot and would yield a much
more stable framerate.

Imho, that's the only thing we can hope for. And I'm not going to believe that
SL is 'willing' to optimize the effects even further since all the effects work
pretty good on average. Problem is, we are running out of time. WipEout HD gets
dated. But I think one more patch is in the works, the one that will make
WipEout HD playable in 3-D. According to Sony, 3-D is just a firmware update,
but its out of the question that we can play WipEout HD in 3-D at 1080p@60Hz
if there aren't any performance-wise enhancements to the game itself. Fingers
crossed! ;)


XBOX3Fixme delivering on its promises?!? That has to be the funniest joke of the new year :D
:nod

@AG-wolf: You are now the off-topic king. :D About your PS3 rant, Coolface has
to say the following; click (http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/3339/1260635886597ub3h.jpg).

http://www.consolewars.de/messageboard/images/smilies/SC06.png

Well, the PS3 is a pretty solid packages these days. What essentially makes
the PS3 stood out is its gaming line-up. And speaking from my local (German)
community, www.consolewars.de (biggest German console gaming webpage), there is
a huge shift towards the PS3. Many of the former 360 die-hards have now a PS3.
And even IGNs 360 die-hard Ryan Geddes has bought a PS3 (http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/105/1059102p1.html). :eek

[Lance]

I'm sure that someone else will soon take over the title of King of Offtopic.

[Dan Locke]

Am I really the only one who would sacrifice half of the detail in WHD for a guaranteed constant 1920x1080@60FPS?
I wouldn't. I haven't experienced any framerate trouble, and the graphics beat anything else that I've seen before, on the PS3 or the Xbox 360.

[ProblemSolver]

@Lance: http://www.consolewars.de/messageboard/images/smilies/SC06.png

@Dan Locke: True. The game runs better than many other games in terms of
framerate and similar things. Up to my point of view, the overall quality of
WipEout HD is cutting edge.

[Koleax]

I know that rule as well, but there is a fundamental difference here. The given safety factor should save one's life.

It's not so fundamental, I think. This general principle for physical safety should to be the same for virtual safety. We have the technology. Why not?

[Dan Locke]

Of course, I should probably mention at this point that I'm playing on a CRT set, albeit a rather recent one. Is the resolution-shifting really noticeable on HD screens?

[eLhabib]

No, it is not. I have a 46 inch bravia and I never notice it. That's also why I find this whole nitpicking discussion rather pointless.

[yeldar2097]

:clap

Maybe it's our eyes eL? :P

[Koleax]

Yeah, it could be an eyes thing.

Yeldar and eL, I can't tell from your posts if you can't notice it at all or if you do and you just don't think it's a big deal.

[yeldar2097]

Can't notice it...do you still get the same thing going on in photo mode or not?

[Koleax]

Yeah, but in photo mode I notice a lot of screen tearing more than anything. Except for the zone transition bug of course. :)

The screen tearing happens during gameplay too, but it's much more apparent in photo mode when panning the camera around slowly.

[eLhabib]

Honestly, mate, are you really saying that in the middle of a high-speed race you notice a slight drop in horizontal resolution?! Because I don't believe it's possible to spot it at all, unless maybe if you're sitting next to someone playing the game, and don't have to focus on the race itself, looking for resolution drops deliberately.

[Koleax]

I notice the frame dropping much more during the race. Lower resolution is much more apparent in photo mode, but yes I do notice the resolution change in the middle of a race sometimes, particularly during zone transitions. It's not as bad as the frame dropping, but I'm not a fan.

[ProblemSolver]

The actual resolution change is quite noticeable when everyone is on a rampage
or when you fire a quake yourself. For me it's kinda annoying since it puts me
of the line at times. Frame dropping isn't good either but it's more a problem
while zoning. The frame drops in photo mode are due to being able to move
the line of sight where every you want. I've read somewhere that WipEout HD's
developers have implemented a technique called Potentially Visible Sets (PVS)
to pre-compute potentially visible polygons to quickly obtain an estimate of
the visible geometry at runtime. For a racing game like WipEout this makes sense
since it isn't too hard to say which polygons you are going to see while racing.
But if you move the camera freely around, then the 3d engine may not find a
pre-computed PVS with respect to your line of sight and has as such to use the
full occlusion culling algorithm without any PVS as an estimate.

Without this technique I wouldn't think WipEout HD could run in 1080p@60fps.
If it could, then many other developers would do something wrong. For a first
person shooter the use of PVS diminishes drastically. Other techniques must be
used to to cull the scene efficiently.

[Koleax]

What about the idea of running Pure and Pulse on the PS3 and simply having them render in 1080p? No graphical modifications or changes to anything, just the resolution at which they render. How close could they get to a constant 60 FPS?

More importantly, who would want to play it? I would for sure and I'd think they'd be worth at least as much as the retail price for the PSP versions. Why not?

And, isn't this how the idea for Wipeout HD originated? Some programmer was just curious how Pure and Pulse looked in higher resolutions? Then they were inspired to make the textures and everything more detailed? Is it possible they got a little carried away?

[G'Kyl]

More importantly, who would want to play it? I would for sure [...]

We all would. :) Well, most of the people here would. I'd love to, that's for sure! But honestly, I don't think anyone else wanted to pay money for that kind of "port". ;)

Did the designers who were trying to get Pure/Pulse up to 1080p got carried away? I don't think so, either. On PS3 WipEout HAD to be something different than on a system with, let's say, less impressive specs. As I said before: You want people to pay money for your game, and they only will if you offer something original. So, no, I don't think they got carried away. They got carried to right way!

On a side note: I don't know who it was, but some developer recently made a statement about how 60 fps doesn't sell games. The overall graphics do, smooth 30 fps do, the game itself does. Only hardcore gamers complain about frame drops and stuff, but at the end of the fiscal day they are a minority (though an important one). And then, the so called hardcore gamers, the ones who complain the most, still buy the most games, anyways. :)

Ben

[ProblemSolver]

@Koleax: I would love to see a pimped version of any former Wipeout game,
like Sony did with God of War I & II. Btw; there is a thread over at NeoGAF,
called Wii emulator can do 720p HD (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=19313073#post19313073), where someone shows some
screenshots of F-Zero running in 720p (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19313073&postcount=2033) (@45fps) with 4xAA and 16xAF.

@Ben: It was Insomniac Games who were talking about going back from 60fps
to 30fps.

[kanar]

ah ah so I should consider myself as an hardcore gamer lol. I agree with you G'Kyl, 60fps is not a priority, cos' the majority doesn't care about a glorious framerate; I can't understand myself how you can play MAG for example, instead of mw2. Of course I'm respecting that, different gameplay and so on, but this is just I'm totally allergic to 30/45fps now, even a smooth one (Killzone2, same stuff). That's why I'm so in love with wipeout, cos' it's just state of the art, masterpiece, well awesome stuff gah lol. If I remember correctly, resistance was runnig at 60fps, spent good times with it in the earlier days of the ps3, and when I tried the 2nd opus I said to myself OMG what did they do with the framerate?? So I quickly erased the demo. Well we all know resistance 2 had good sales, so yeah, the majority doesn't care about what I would call, euh, technical perfection? Hopefully GOW3 or GT5 will run at 60fps!

[MiguelX69]

If I care about 1080p and 60FPS?

My opinion varies from game to game. Well, on wipeout yes. 60FPS are a must have when we need to beat records, whereas their TT/SL or even Zone's.
The 1080p is important because it makes the game more pretty.
But if you ask me if I care about constant resolution dropouts to mantain 60FPS, my anwser will be: I don't care. If the game dropped you from 1080p to 720p maybe I would care, but in a case like wipeout I barely notice the diference.

[icarasDragon]

I wouldn't mind if they dropped to 720p because as long as it gets V-Sync and looks smooth...

You finally realize that while flying at 723KP/H you are only going too see a 720p equivalent blur :|

(Still I wouldn't mind if they could get 60fps/HZ V-Sync AND 1080p, although that would be pushing limits):g

[ONlock]

Since it's a racing game I believe 60fps contant is the most important, and because it's a racing game, gameplay should (in my eyes) be the top priority.

So I hope they lower the resolution instead of cutting down on the smooth feel of 60fps on the 3D version.

It's called "WipEout [HD]" for a reason.

Maybe the new one should be called "WipEout HD-ready", if my hopes are right. :P

[Cyberio]

A simple question:

Anyone knows what is the native resolution of WipEout HD?
I mean, i read somewhere that is between 1280x720 and 1920x1080, not 1920x1080 but upscaled.

Anyone knows? That's really native 1080p?

Thanks.

[drell]

You can read this Tech Interview by Eurogamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-wipeout-hd-fury-interview). It is very tech oriented (I don't understand it at all mostly) but they do speak of 1080p a lot.

[Sausehuhn]

In short: WOHD can change the resolution its running at on a frame-by-frame-basis. So the game does run at 1080p most of the time. But when there's too much going on, the resolution can drop to 720p (and different resolutions between 720p and 1080p as well) to keep the game running fluently. That means if there's too much action going on for – let's say – a half second, the resolution only drops for a half second and then runs in 1080p again.

As far as I know this technique was invented by Studio Liverpool and was completely new when WOHD was released.

Hats off to Studio Liverpool for that solution.

[Feisar Ltd.]

I think the system they've come up with is nothing short of genius. The only thing I'd suggest is dropping resolution in the same console multiplayer to keep a solid 60fps splitscreen.