The 'polygonal' Truth about the PC version compared to XB360 version | Forums

[Knot3D]

I do 3D character modeling, I've worked on a Xb360 game as a 3D modeler ; i can 'read' ingame assets like character models ; thus i'm able to compare polygon budgets a bit better than anyone who doesn't know graphics.

Anyway, I made some comparison screens. The white outlines show the polygon quads / rows of poly edges. Always look at the silhouette to get an estimation of the model it's polygon count. As you can see ; the PC version is a clear downscale of polybudget compared to the Xbox360 version, and it's certainly not only that particular Sam model ; also NPC's and other ingame Sam models which feature more polygons in the XB360 version. Some other dude posted Okhotst screens where you can clearly see the more detailed textures on the guard his trenchcoat arm ; the guard on PC version also features less polygons than on the XB360 version. Count the poly edge rows. Ubi tried to compensate the lack of polygons in the PC version by adding strong normal maps where polygon geometry would be in the Xbox360 version : but normal maps can't fool the eyes of a 3d modeler and gamers who want 100% value for money.

...and yes, the screens were taken on my PC (X1900XTX) with "MAX Next Gen settings"
PC screenshot 01 : less polygons


PC screenshot 02 : less polygons


Xbox360 screenshot 01 : more polygons


PC versus XB360 screenshot : more polygons and better textures on XB360


Why does the PC version features lower polygon assets ? Well because of the lowest PC denominator : graphics cards of yesteryear like the 6800's with only 6 vertex pipelines ; those can't push the Xbox360's polygon budget.

Anyone who thinks the PC version = Xbox360 version, graphically speaking, or even better ; is fooling him/herself.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"You're MINE !"

[S.a.S-Akbari]

Good job knot Interesting <div class="ev_tpc_signature">


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I used to be a hero, Now I'm a no lifer, I am a WoW Geek" - Akbari, the
day he started World of Warcraft -- WoW addict till June 2006 R.I.P.

"salami akbari", "Amalahad Akbari" -- LoGiCaL_ - Proof nubs do get older then 2 years.

Xfire -- Thanks Dojomann for the siggeh!

[CaedusSaevire]

Damn, 60 Minutes couldn't have done it better.

[Ashura287]

I figured they dumbed it down somewhere, but wow. I hadn't actually seen a direct comparison.

And here we thought almost no one could run it the way they released it. Imagine if they had given us a direct port.

This second wave of 360 titles is starting to use the extra power of the machine. I knew there was a performance gap, but I guess it didn't occur to me that it was this large. Only way to overcome that will be with the DX10 cards, I'm afraid.

[Cirap]

I pretty much knew this already, but it's good to see it White On Black

[zootia]

The only reason the x360 has better frames with better graphics is because the game was built for the x360. Take a look at quake4. They had to dumb down the graphics for the x360 version and it still runs choppier than the pc version.


THe whole key is in optimization and native platform

[Ashura287]

Not necessarily. It still beats anything short of the 8800GTX. A couple 7800s or newer in SLI can probably match it or close to it, but thats a $1000 setup for the cards alone... The 360 wins on power for the time being, and probably will continue to be the more economical choice for graphics junkies for about a year.

[Knot3D]

^^ Like i said earlier : the pc version has lower polygon budget, hardcoded ; because of mid range graphics cards.

probably a single 7950GTX, single X1950XTX or 7900GTX Sli or 8800GTX could do the polybudget of the XB360 version, with reasonable framerates ...

BUT,

they decided to scale it down otherwise the people with 6800's, 7800GS's and X1600's wouldn't be able to play reasonably at all ; the geometry load would be too much for those cards.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"You're MINE !"

[braiog]

Knot, you seem to have a knack for 3D, so I got a question.

To your knowledge, how what aspects of SCDA make it so that I can only play it at 800x600 with all effects off and still just get 20FPS, when Ubi "claims" that this is a modified version of their SCX engine, where I could run what "looks" like the same quality graphics/polygons at 1680x1050 at Med/High and get 30-45FPS?

That's such a huge performance drop. Even with everything disabled, what is it about SCDA PC that makes the framerate so low?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Death by Lethal Injection?

PC does NOT mean a Ported Console version.

[MCPO.PA]

Originally posted by S.a.S-Akbari:
Good job knot Interesting

I agree. Nice Comparison.

But why are they considerated of ppl who have a GeForce 6xxx when they require SM 3.0, it would not make a big difference if those with a GF6 could not play the game either because of the `low` performance with their card. I would favor a NICE looking game over a reduced number of polygons and being considerated of ppl with a GF6, there r so many people out there that r not able to play it, so why does UBI reduce the # of polygons just to make the game run faster on GF6