Question about PSX/PS2

[Chris++]

Okay, this is not an excuse for MS fanboys or Sony bashers to start ranting like zealots, but rather an inquiry about the PlayStation 1/2's occasional inability to handle graphics smoothly. I don't care if Sony exaggerated about the PS2's capabilities, I don't care if you think the machine's not as fast as your X-Box, and I'm not concerned about resolution or realism...this is not an anti-company post, but a question about the way graphics work on Sony systems.

 

In fact, it may not be the machine's fault at all, which leads to my question.

 

You all know that my favorite modern games happen to be available on the PSX/2. There is, however, one thing that occasionally frustrates me.

 

The first Duke Nukem and some other, more recent FPSs have this problem wherein if there are a whole bunch of enemies on the screen, or sometimes just plain ol' stationary graphics, the frame rate slows down maddeningly.

 

I recently bought Half-Life for the PS2, and had one major thought about it: YICK! It slows down way too much during the giant spider fight to really be enjoyable at all. Some moments, it's moving in such slow lurches that you can't even control your guy. I beat the game and then brought it back.

 

Now, I'm sure the PS2 probably has lesser this-or-that than other modern systems, but aren't graphics slow-downs really the faults of the game designers?

 

I mean, compare the console to a Jaguar. The PS2 really has no inherent shortcomings. Any shortcomings you might point out are only in comparison to other new machines.

 

Limitations can be worked within very easily. If the Jag games don't slow down, being on a much older machine, then why should PSX/PS2 games do so? A good designer works within the limitations of a machine. You never saw a 2600 Activision game slow down! I know the graphics modes and processes are different, but you see my point: The PS2, even if it's "slower" than other machines, still has plenty there, above and beyond dozens of machines WITHOUT this problem, for any good programmer to exploit without the drop in frame-rate.

 

So is it mainly the laziness of the designers? Could the PS2 really have something in it that ALWAYS forces slow-downs, given enough moving pixels at once? If so, then why do so many other Sony games never slow down, in spite of having just as many graphics?

 

Thanks,

CF

[MacGurl]

PS2 sucks. M$ is better. The XBox rules!!!

 

 

Sorry, I have absolutely nothing to contribute to this thread. I've noticed the same thing on some of my PS2 games.

[Mikau]

its pretty simple. the ps2 slows alot because it isnt all that powerful, compared to the gc and xbox. the ps2 has alot less RAM and a slower processor than the other systems. most of the time it really isnt all that bad, but some horrible frame-rates and terrible load times are pretty noticeable.

[Chris++]

But like I said, isn't it the programmers' jobs to make sure the slow-downs don't happen? They're obviously easily avoided! I mean, think of a new machine that will come out in two years: The GC and X-Box will be much slower than this new console. You can make comparisons until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't change my question: It's been prevented on older, slower machines than Sony's, so why hasn't it been prevented on Sony's?

 

 

CF again

 

MacGurl: Someone at your house been using your login name again.

[Eduardo]

Chris Federico:

Okay, this is not an excuse for MS fanboys or Sony bashers to start ranting like zealots.I don't care if you think the machine's not as fast as your X-Box, and I'm not concerned about resolution or realism...

 

Too late, All Hell will Brake Loose now (nods, kidding)

 

MacGurl:

PS2 sucks. M$ is better. The XBox rules!!!  

[/size]WOOOHOO now yer talking! Who let the dogs out Woof Woof Woof!

um sorry it just slipped, I will behave now...You have to admit it was too good to let it pass, it was an accident ok?

 

Chris Federico:

The PS2, even if it's "slower" than other machines... So is it mainly the laziness of the designers?

I rest my case your Honor. No Further questions will be required.

 

Ok now if you all excuse me I have to run to put a helmet, bulletproof jacket and run for cover. hahaha

 

It's all in good fun kids, all 3 modern systems are worth having even considering that kind of minor problems. Um I almost forgot to say that the low framerates are probably due to low ram, so it's not such a big deal considering that most games out there work fine with the PS2. So I wouldn't be so worried about it.

[Lost Monkey]

It has everything to do with the game design not fitting the limitations of the hardware...

 

The Jaguar has enough games with slow down as do almost all previous game systems. The 2600 doesn't, but only because the program is completely built around the display...

 

If a game such as Half-Life (designed for the PC) has elements in it which will display the weaknesses of the PS2, it is up to the game programmers to alter things enough to have it run smoothly. If they do not, or only do enough to "squeak by", you get what you currently have... slowdown...

 

It isn't always lazy programming though... you couldn't blame a programmer's inability to get Half-Life running on a SNES on laziness or poor programming.. at some point, the hardware is part of the problem.

[liquid_sky]

i love when i get to bust this article out..

 

who cares if its an older article.. it basically states even the dreamcast is more powerful than the ps2.. but thats now why im pasting it.. im pasting it cuz it says the exact weak points that you are talking about that cause the system to slow down.

 

I remember when the PS2 was first announced and the technical specifications that were bandied about at that time: 75 million polygons/second, unlimited streaming texture potential, 48GB/s of memory bandwidth, and so on. It wasn't long after this that technology analysts began to question Sony's numbers.

 

Polygon Performance

The 75 million number was reduced to 66 million. Afterwards, it was admitted that these PS2 numbers were a peak performance figure for flat -shaded, identically shaped polygons. Unfortunately, the image of the PS2 as some sort of polygon monster had already become firmly entrenched in the minds of the mainstream media.

 

Sega chose a more conservative approach, which is in keeping with their new business philosophy - to regain the trust and confidence of gamers. Since its introduction two years ago, Sega has never mislead gamers about the Dreamcast's power. 3+ million polygons is all that Sega ever claims, even though new games like Test Drive: LeMans push closer to five million in 3D scenes loaded with effects.

 

The truth is that the PS2 has never displayed more than 2-3 million polys in a game. The main problem is a memory one. With only a 4MB VRAM cache on its GS graphics processor, the PS2 is severely limited in what it can achieve on screen. While it's true that 32MB of main memory and the fairly powerful Emotion Engine processor are capable of producing in the neighborhood of 10-12 million textured and lit polygons/second, the poor design of the GS and its small pipeline to main memory restrict the final number to roughly half of that.

 

What? You mean, regardless of the power of the EE processor and the large amount of available memory, the PS2 is still only capable of displaying 5-6 million on-screen polygons? The answer, unfortunately, is yes. By contrast, the Dreamcast has only 16 MB of main memory and a processor that is only capable of one-half the number of polygons/second - ie. 5- 6 million - but the whole point of the exercise is to get these onto your television. An intelligent memory saving technique known as differed rendering, coupled with the PowerVR2DC graphics chip's hardware texture compression abilities, allow the Dreamcast to display all of its generated polygons.

 

To better understand the PS2's limitations and the Dreamcast's strengths, you need only look at the available video memory for your answer. While the DC has 8MB of VRAM, the PS2 has only 4MB of VRAM. The main problem arises because a polygon takes up roughly 40 bytes of RAM. When you have 5 million of them in a given second, this amounts to 5 million/60fps = 83,333 polygons in a give frame of animation. If each of these polygons uses 40 bytes of VRAM, you will use 3.33 MB displaying these 5 million PPS. This doesn't leave the PS2 much room for it's framebuffer which uses around 1.2MB just to display the end data, not to mention that you still need to leave room for textures to put on those polygons.

 

Now, there are a few tricks which will allow the PS2 to display 5-6 million PPS, even though it only has a 4MB VRAM cache. One of them is to update the cache more frequently than once a second. But, there are other bandwidth limitations that prevent this from happening more than two or three times per second and the net result is that the PS2 is still limited to 5- 6 million PPS.

 

Here is a table which summarizes the polygon performance of both next- generation machines:

 

System Processor Stage Graphics Stage Best Example**

PS2 EE + 32MB

12 million PPS* GS + 4MB

6 million PPS* Madden NFL 2001

2 million PPS*

DC SH4 + 16MB

6 million PPS* PVR2DC + 8MB

5 million PPS* Ferrari F355 Challenge

3 million PPS*

 

 

* All polygons are textured and lit and represent peak performance

** Only games available right now were considered

 

Unfortunately, this isn't the PS2's only shortcoming. The reason I emphasize polygon performance at all is because these number have become the defacto standard for judging a console's power, when in fact they tell less than half the story. The main disadvantage of this expensive architecture is it's poor texturing ability.

 

Texturing Performance

The way texturing works is simple. Polygons and texture data arrive into video memory, textures are applied to the polygons and the result is displayed on screen. Most PC users are used to games with 16MB or more of texture data. A diehard Quake III player might have a setup capable of delivering 32MB of textures during the game. 32MB? But the PS2 and DC only have 4MB and 8MB of VRAM respectively. How can they hope to compete? The answer is that consoles do not hold all of a scene's texture data in memory at once. Usually, the data is streamed over the bus from main memory in a continuous manner.

 

The Dreamcast is a wonderful texturing beast, due in large part to the efficiency of the PVR2DC's graphics methodology. Two things help the PVR2DC - hardware texture decompression and infinite planes deferred rendering. Unlike the PS2's GS graphics processor, the PVR2DC is capable of decompressing textures on the fly. Thus, DC programmers usually take 20-25MB of texture data and compress it at a 5:1 (sometimes 8:1) ratio to reduce the amount of texture data to only 4 or 5MB. Then, the texture data is sent over the bus to the PVR2DC which simply decompresses the data at the moment of rendering into it's original huge size.

 

By contrast, the PS2's GS processor has no ability to decompress textures on the fly. This means that all texture data must flow over the relatively small pipeline between main memory and the GS 4MB VRAM cache, at it's original large size. Currently, this fact has limited PS2 games to only around 10 MB of texture data/frame, and this is why the buildings look so similar in Ridge Racer 5. Lack of variety in texturing has made most PS2 games look extremely plain when compared to Dreamcast games like Sonic Adventure, Shenmue, and even Draconus: Cult of the Wyrm.

 

Moreover, the PVR2DC belongs to the only processor family on the market that uses deferred rendering to texture only those polygons which are facing the gamer in any given frame. Other graphics chips must texture the backs of polygons as well as the front facing polygons. The net effect is to reduce the amount of texturing that the DC has to perform in a given scene by a factor of two or three depending on the complexity of the scene. The greater the scene complexity, the more you see the benefits of deferred rendering. This is why you never see any really large free-roaming 3D games on the PS2. Crazy Taxi, Ecco the Dolphin, and Shenmue are simply not possible on the PS2, because it doesn't have deferred rendering.

 

Test Drive LeMans on the Dreamcast.

 

GT3 on the PS2.

 

Here is another table which summarizes texturing performance for bother machines:

 

Texture Data Streaming Capacity System Capacity Decompressed Texturing Ability Best Example*

PS2 10MB/frame (Main Memory -> GS Memory) 10MB/frame on screen Dead or Alive 2: Hardcore*

DC 5MB/frame (Main Memory -> VRAM 25MB/frame on screen Shenmue, Ecco the Dolphin*

 

 

* Only games available right now were considered

 

These two performance measure give you a pretty good idea of why the PS2 is, technically-speaking, a poor hardware design. The biggest problem of all with this architecture, however, is the difficulty that development houses are having extracting reasonable performance out of the machine. All the power in the world under the hood, doesn't do anyone much good if the games don't look good.

 

Development Environment

The PS2 shipped to developers with incomplete kits last year. By contrast, Sega has been giving excellent support to developers both large and small. Most DC developers are using 5th generation development kits, known as Set 5 Dev Kits. Sony mistakenly made the assumption that third-party PS2 developers would want bare bones development kits so they could program the hardware directly like they have during the last days of the PSX. Unfortunately, key features that are very hard to implement, like anti-aliasing to remove jagged edges from on-screen polygons have not yet surfaced.

 

Developers have responded to these PS2 programming challenges in a number of ways. Some developers like THQ (Summoner) have used a form of CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) blending to fake the effects that true anti- aliasing would offer. This is something which the DC has had for over two years, but unlike the DC CRT method, the PS2 method results in washed out, blurry textures. Tekken Tag Tournament is the perfect US launch title example. While they have eliminated the jagged edges which plague the Japanese version, the end result is that all of the textures in the game seem blurry or washed out. Hardly what I would call revolutionary for a next-generation console.

 

Another developmental problem, which is the reason for the jaggies in the first place, is serious lack of kit functions that will intelligently enable developers to overcome some of the limitations of the small size of the GS VRAM cache. While all Dreamcast games run at 640x480 resolution, many PS2 games only utilitize a 640x240 field- rendered display which fakes a 640x480 display. Bad jaggies are the result, and these need to be hidden through some form of anti-aliasing (AA, not yet available), or by using the CRT method described above, with all its unintended consequences.

 

Moreover, the EE processor is actually three separate CPUs in one core. Most developers, for lack of proper tools, are using only one third of the EE's processing ability, because both vector units (VP1 & VP2) are too hard to program. Certainly future games will take advantage of these units, thereby freeing the main CPU to implement some fairly nice AI routines, but the cost of developing these techniques has become enormous - something which I will outline in the next article.

 

The sad fact is that only a few development houses like EA have been able to extract reasonable next-generation performance out of the PS2 architecture. Even Namco and Konami, the kings of PSX development during the 32 bit era, are having a hard time getting more than 2-3 million PPS out of what is supposed to be the end-all of gaming machines. The fact of the matter is that Namco's 18 month old Soul Calibur on Dreamcast looks worlds better than the newly released Tekken Tag Tournament on PS2. Not very impressive compared to the promises that have been made by Sony and it's cabal of industry sycophants.

 

Overall

The Dreamcast is the best machine on the market. Tomorrow nothing will have changed. Technically speaking, nothing on the PS2 comes close to the beauty of Shenmue or Ecco, the speed and power of F355 Challenge or Test Drive: LeMans 24, and the sheer elegance and gaming grace of games like Metropolis Street Racer and Jet Grind Radio. If one full motion video demo of Metal Gear Solid 2 has convinced you that the PS2 is the better machine, then you haven't opened your eyes to the reality before you. The best next-generation machine from a technical standpoint is the Sega Dreamcast. Let other less informed individuals buy a machine capable of less, on the promise of one game thirteen months from now. In the meantime, you and I will be enjoying the technically best games for months to come.

[joeybastard]

Chris,

I agree with you. If the machine can't handle certain displays without slowdown those displays should be changed to match the hardware. That would probably mean less polygons, less texture and less lighting effects but that isn't what makes a game good. A good example of this on the retro angle would be H.E.R.O. on the 2600 vs. the 5200 version. Same gameplay different graphics because of the hardware. The people designing games with dropping framerates need to look back to the old days.

[Chris++]

I agree completely, Joey.

 

Liquid: Now THAT is a complete answer!

 

I never liked any of the Metal Gears. I don't know quite why. Anyway, thank you for your detailed explanation. It seems as if the crux of the problem lies in the "poor design of the GS and its small pipeline to main memory," if I read your dissertation right. Curiously, this is the same reason for which none of our eyes are perfect. All of those nerve cells, all having to stick their information through one skinny optical channel to the brain!

 

Quite a bummer to read that stuff, I admit. My favorite games are STILL on the PS2. This might have something to do with the fact that I find racing games and fighting games dull. They're all the same, no matter how pretty you make them. But it's sort of a shame that the PS2's design is so hard to get around for certain programmers.

 

Thanks for the answers, Monkey and Liquid! I know so little about how modern machines work that I just can't understand why designers can't approach a console with its limitations in mind. It can obviously be done, and to remarkable effect: Deus Ex, MOH:FL and other PS2 games that don't have such problems really shine amidst such overcome quirks. This sort of thing really separates the bad designers from the good ones. Little has changed since the 2600 in that respect, even if we're talking about completely different ways of programming graphics.

 

 

CF again again

[Lost Monkey]

... I just can't understand why designers can't approach a console with its limitations in mind.

 

Why? Money!

 

I had a Saturn in the 32 bit era, so I got stuck with all the crappy non-optimized ports of PSX games. It was easy to see which machine was more powerful (for the press and PSX fanclub) just based on the games that were released for both systems... because most of the ported over PSX code ran like molasses on the Saturn... Unfortunately, developers tend to write a game from the ground up once... and all the other versions are ports of the original code.

 

Here is an example of this practice leaning in your favour: The new Need for Speed was written for the PS2, and then ported to the Xbox and GCN.. so the PS2 version is the smoothest.. or so I have heard...

[CPUWIZ]

its pretty simple. the ps2 slows alot because it isnt all that powerful, compared to the gc and xbox. the ps2 has alot less RAM and a slower processor than the other systems. most of the time it really isnt all that bad, but some horrible frame-rates and terrible load times are pretty noticeable.

 

* MUST RESIST TO COMMENT * ... ARRRGH !

[Chris++]

Ah, go ahead, CPU. You know you want to.

[Mikau]

Overall

The Dreamcast is the best machine on the market. Tomorrow nothing will have changed. Technically speaking, nothing on the PS2 comes close to the beauty of Shenmue or Ecco, the speed and power of F355 Challenge or Test Drive: LeMans 24, and the sheer elegance and gaming grace of games like Metropolis Street Racer and Jet Grind Radio. If one full motion video demo of Metal Gear Solid 2 has convinced you that the PS2 is the better machine, then you haven't opened your eyes to the reality before you. The best next-generation machine from a technical standpoint is the Sega Dreamcast. Let other less informed individuals buy a machine capable of less, on the promise of one game thirteen months from now. In the meantime, you and I will be enjoying the technically best games for months to come.

 

nice post. i read the whole thing! and i totaly agree, the DC was, and still is very powerful. just look at soul calibur! that game pushes better visuals than anything i've seen on a ps2 game! the dreamcast is probably one of the best systems ever, sega made so many great decisions with it, with the great hardware and kick-ass games!

 

 

its pretty simple. the ps2 slows alot because it isnt all that powerful, compared to the gc and xbox. the ps2 has alot less RAM and a slower processor than the other systems. most of the time it really isnt all that bad, but some horrible frame-rates and terrible load times are pretty noticeable.

 

* MUST RESIST TO COMMENT * ... ARRRGH !

 

reading my own post back... that was a pretty dumb post. pretty ignorant of myself to rush a post like that, i guess i didnt know where this topic was going...

[sdstuff64]

Overall

The Dreamcast is the best machine on the market. Tomorrow nothing will have changed. Technically speaking, nothing on the PS2 comes close to the beauty of Shenmue or Ecco, the speed and power of F355 Challenge or Test Drive: LeMans 24, and the sheer elegance and gaming grace of games like Metropolis Street Racer and Jet Grind Radio. If one full motion video demo of Metal Gear Solid 2 has convinced you that the PS2 is the better machine, then you haven't opened your eyes to the reality before you. The best next-generation machine from a technical standpoint is the Sega Dreamcast. Let other less informed individuals buy a machine capable of less, on the promise of one game thirteen months from now. In the meantime, you and I will be enjoying the technically best games for months to come.

 

Yep,it is all true and well said.Good job liquid.

 

its pretty simple. the ps2 slows alot because it isnt all that powerful, compared to the gc and xbox. the ps2 has alot less RAM and a slower processor than the other systems. most of the time it really isnt all that bad, but some horrible frame-rates and terrible load times are pretty noticeable.

 

* MUST RESIST TO COMMENT * ... ARRRGH !

 

It's ok,we all are tying not too.

 

nice post. i read the whole thing!  

 

reading my own post back... that was a pretty dumb post. pretty ignorant of myself to rush a post like that, i guess i didnt know where this topic was going...

 

Why wouldn't you read the whole thing?

 

And yea,I hate to say it but that was a dumb post.We all make them,accept for me.

[Lost Monkey]

* MUST RESIST TO COMMENT * ... ARRRGH !

 

I wish you would! But not about Mikau's post....

[CPUWIZ]

* MUST RESIST TO COMMENT * ... ARRRGH !

 

I wish you would! But not about Mikau's post....

 

Details ?

 

BTW, did you get your package yet ?

[Lost Monkey]

* MUST RESIST TO COMMENT * ... ARRRGH !

 

I wish you would! But not about Mikau's post....

 

Details ?

 

BTW, did you get your package yet ?

 

No package.. it'll be a few days yet I imagine...

 

Your perspective on the original topic Chris brought up.... is it the hardware or the programming?

[CPUWIZ]

1.) Mostly the programming, it is very expensive these days to fully take advantage of the hardware, often the high-up management doesn't understand that it takes time to kick the crap out of the metal so sacrifises are made.

 

2.) Designers are often at fault as well because they don't follow the programmers guidelines as to what and what not to do.

 

3.) And then there is also people who use off the shelf libraries which always results in bad performance.

 

I could write a 3 page document about this that's one of the reasons I said * MUST RESIST *, I don't have the time. I have all 3 development kits on my desk and believe me I know what each one of them can do.

[MegaManFan]

I've never noticed any LACK of smoothness to games like Jak & Daxter, GTA3, or NBA Street. On the other hand, I was BLOWN AWAY by how much better Smugglers Run looks on GameCube than it does on PS2.

[Mikau]

1.) Mostly the programming, it is very expensive these days to fully take advantage of the hardware, often the high-up management doesn't understand that it takes time to kick the crap out of the metal so sacrifises are made.

 

2.) Designers are often at fault as well because they don't follow the programmers guidelines as to what and what not to do.

 

3.) And then there is also people who use off the shelf libraries which always results in bad performance.

 

I could write a 3 page document about this that's one of the reasons I said * MUST RESIST *, I don't have the time. I have all 3 development kits on my desk and believe me I know what each one of them can do.

 

wow. for now on, i will never generalize about game development. having someone like you that knows what they are talking about really showed me how little i know about actual development... so thanks, i learned something today!

[DeV0]

I have never been happy with my ps2, I fell for the Sony hype BS that i swore to myself i wouldnt. Frankly i've become very anti sony with the amount of crap products i've bought with their label,,, PSX anyone? well my original melted and needed to be turned over to play anything,, I was horrified that i'd spent so much at the time for a machine with the most cheap ass components imaginable at the time.

 

The result is a black DVD player and the 2 tony hawks and red faction.

 

liquid_sky, are we sure saturn VS psx?? game development was the downfall here. Powerslave/ Exhumed on the saturn trashes the PSX as does saturn alien trilogy. Doom was just poorly written. Basically every 2d capcom / snk fighter on the saturn runs rings around psx, Arcade perfect in some cases.

 

 

Oh, i write this while watching pixel by pixel disappear on my $2000 2 year old sony monitor.

[Lost Monkey]

liquid_sky, are we sure saturn VS psx?? game development was the downfall here. Powerslave/ Exhumed on the saturn trashes the PSX as does saturn alien trilogy. Doom was just poorly written. Basically every 2d capcom / snk fighter on the saturn runs rings around psx, Arcade perfect in some cases.

 

Exactly... Many games developed for the Saturn from the ground up were quite strong... Panzer Dragoon(s), Nights, Sega Rally, Quake, Duke Nukem, DOA....

 

However, most of the popular titles such as the sports series, were not handled as "Saturn" titles first.. they were ports of PSX games that ran like crap on the Saturn. Since it is easier to make comparisons when using the same games, the Saturn usually lost...

[MacGurl]

Chris,

 

I'd say just get an XBox. It's the best gaming system on the planet. Microsoft is that best company out there. I hope they rule the world someday.

[kisrael]

I think there's always a difficult balance between eye candy and playability. The closer the programmers take it to the edge, performance wise (and depending on their skills and resources, the edge is at different places for different teams), the more likely it is that the extreme cases are going to get bogged down. (GCN 3 player Time Splitters 2 w/ lots of bots gets a little jittery, but not too bad.)

 

This lets me bring up one of my favorite points: I hate how pretty much every non-realistic FPS (usually the non-realistic shooters throw tons of bad guys at you and let you take tons of damage) just make corpses fade away, probably to prevent the polygon count from going too high. DOOM, even on a 486, uses Sprites, could throw hundreds of enemies at you at once, and their corpses would leave a breadcrumb trail of where you've been. That really rocked. Any modern console could run DOOM to perfection ten times over, but gamers expect more detailed environments, and the ability to look up and down and all of that. (alas, I think GBA doom has corpses fading away.)

[Starscream]

Chris,

 

I'd say just get an XBox.  It's the best gaming system on the planet.  Microsoft is that best company out there. I hope they rule the world someday.

 

 

 

..................