Tales of Vesperia Wii Rumor

[Carnivol]

Not really relevant, but trying to port Vesperia to the DotNW engine isn't going to magically add motion capture.

Ahaha. Certainly not. What I meant was that I just think DotNW gets a bit too much shit thrown after itself. It's not "that" bad (+how it even had a few "features" that its HD cousin oddly enough did not... such as the mocap)

In Capcom words, they don't believe in third party "exclusivity" for the sake of it, but they believe in "tech exclusivity" which is were Dead Rising fits. of course Dead Rising 2 will be multiplatform, but it was written from the ground as such.

Dead Rising 2 also does probably not run on MT Framework 2.0, it most likely runs on Blue Castle proprietary tech, unlike Dead Rising 1 which was (along with Lost Planet) the test subject for Framework 1.0, which at the time was not in any form or shape available for the PS3 (and, well, the PS3 port of the much simpler Lost Planet didn't fare too well... But DMC4 and RE5 both did a fine, but not perfect, job at playing catchup. But that's of course, as you said, the games being built from ground up in a proper multiplatform environment, as one actually exists in the Framework engine now, as opposed to before when it was PC/360 only)

I've read the article when it came out, I still have doubts seeing that the way they measured the output should have sacrificed the HUD as well, but my point wasn't saying that the PS3 version isn't running at less reasolution, it was more on the lines of "what if it isn't? who'd notice?"

What do you mean by "the output should have sacrificed HUD as well"?
What I read from that is that you don't quite understand how the software upscaling most likely is handled if in the PS3.

It's a simple process of:

.                      HUD (Foreground) \
.                                                     >Overlay
.                  Upscale (Background)/
.3D Render /

(ie - You render the 3D at 1280x576, upscale the 1280x576 image render to 1280x720, the upscaled 3D image is drawn as a background layer on the final 1280x720 composition and the HUD is drawn in the foreground with no scaling, as it's a native HD asset)

[DeadlyAnGeL91792]

....the people on these forums are to damn smart i feel...stupid reading all this   

[pedrocasilva]

Dead Rising 2 also does probably not run on MT Framework 2.0, it most likely runs on Blue Castle proprietary tech, unlike Dead Rising 1 which was (along with Lost Planet) the test subject for Framework 1.0, which at the time was not in any form or shape available for the PS3 (and, well, the PS3 port of the much simpler Lost Planet didn't fare too well... But DMC4 and RE5 both did a fine, but not perfect, job at playing catchup. But that's of course, as you said, the games being built from ground up in a proper multiplatform environment, as one actually exists in the Framework engine now, as opposed to before when it was PC/360 only)

Yes, I think it's confirmed that fact Dead Rising 2 is running on Blue Castle tech instead of MT Framework, and I believe they were actually chosen for their tech in the first place.

What do you mean by "the output should have sacrificed HUD as well"?
What I read from that is that you don't quite understand how the software upscaling most likely is handled if in the PS3.

It's a simple process of:

.                      HUD (Foreground) \
.                                                     >Overlay
.                  Upscale (Background)/
.3D Render /

(ie - You render the 3D at 1280x576, upscale the 1280x576 image render to 1280x720, the upscaled 3D image is drawn as a background layer on the final 1280x720 composition and the HUD is drawn in the foreground with no scaling, as it's a native HD asset)

I thought they got that number because the signal was getting outputted at 1280x576 and not upscaled internally to 1280x720 for output.

X360 can scale stuff internally for free (example: people complaining on Capcom forums on how RE5 PS3 didn't support 1080p, when whilst supported it actually was scaled up on X360. I thought they weren't scalling the signal for output at all, leaving the job of filling the "blank" lines missing to the TV.

[Carnivol]

Nah. You use the scaler (on the 360) to fit something to either 720 or 1080 and on the PS3 you (unless it's native) software scale something to 480, 720 or 1080.

That's why the 360 will output (read: stretch to) any game at 1080p (or whatever VGA resolution you've got enabled if you're using a VGA cable), regardless of what resolution the game really is or the box claims is supported. The 360 pretty much never changes display mode on your TV (a process that is usually very noticable on most HD sets and monitors. In the case of those screens that have a smooth transition, you can still follow any image format changes by just activating the display properties feature on your screen, if it has one).

If it didn't scale things to a supported resolution, pre-broadcast, a lot of screens wouldn't be able to handle the image as it'd be leaving it entirely up to your TV to handle all the target output resolution scaling. So you'd either have black bars around the screen, kinda similar to what's seen in a lot of old console games (stuff that is normally often consumed by the overscan), or you'd have some serious letterboxing going on... unless your TV has a "stretch to fit" feature that detects dark/blank areas or is manually configurable like on many CRT/VGA monitors. Not many have, and most of the time, those features are mostly intended for auto-switching between 16:9/4:3 aspect ratio on the fly. It's worth noting that the 360, when using a 16:10 monitor (or displaying widescreen stuff when in 4:3) will automatically apply appropriate letterboxing on the image it outputs (and can also choose whether or not to proportionally stretch, maintain aspect ratio or force a specific aspect ratio whilst doing media playback of videos. I believe the PS3 has similar resize options for its video output on media playback.)

The way people determine the rendering resolution in a game (via screenshots) is by what I mentioned before; pixel counting. You find some sort of object, preferably with a very nice angle (such as Estelle's sword in the digital foundry comparison), and basically check how "clean/smooth/blurry" it is up against what the resolution of the screenshot is supposed to be. Through a series of checks, involving what I suppose are just a set of simple mathematic formulas, you can determine whether or not something is scaled from another resolution and/or uses a specific type/level of AA.

[pedrocasilva]

^ I see. I stand corrected.