SM 1.1 vs SM 3.0 Screenshots

[lopri]

I rarely cross-post over forums but it took some time for me to take these shots and sign on photobucket.com, so I thought I might share this pics with you guys.

-------------------------------------
Some screenshots of SM 1.1 vs SM 3.0 (with all the fancy stuff)

From Level 1
SM1.1
SM3.0

From Level 2
SM1.1
SM3.0

From Level 8
SM1.1
SM3.0

Tried to capture as close the scenes as possible, but surely they're not identical. Still you get the picture.

Every setting was maxed (including 16X AF) so surely the game wasn't smooth running. But like I said in the other post, HDR itself doesn't seem to be too harsh on the frame rate. (High Quality Soft Shadow, on the other hand, is quite a torture)

lop
-------------------------------------

 

[otispunkmeyer]

we've had countless threads on this lol, one discussing/flaming sm3 and sm1.1

and another comparison thread, not to worry though

HDR isnt too bad at all, infact FRAPS messed my fps up alot. since i left it off its well smooth, sm1.1 has some apparent banding with the way light reflects off walls..its definately worth the small performance hit to use SM3 imo

NICE PICS

you say HQ softshadow is a torture?

i run 12x10, SM3, HDR, parallax mapping, etc etc, 8xaf, hardware whatever shadows thing at the bottom (not sure what it does since theres no performance diff) and HQ soft shadows too...on my 6800GT at 400/1.1 its like glass smooth

 

[McArra]

Same here, SM3.0 without running fraps, 1280x1024 HDR everything max and 8xAF is smooth.

 

[lopri]

Umm... It took me more than 30 mins to take the screenshots and export them!! More comments please!!

 

[stelleg151]

ATI Cards run SM 2.0 correct?

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: stelleg151
ATI Cards run SM 2.0 correct?

Yes, and thanks for the priceless comment.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: stelleg151
ATI Cards run SM 2.0 correct?

Correct. There is no SM2 for this game, so they fall back on the SM1.1

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: stelleg151
ATI Cards run SM 2.0 correct?

Correct. There is no SM2 for this game, so they fall back on the SM1.1

Which is a joke, where is the outrage? I'm pretty sure 2.0 is in there, just disabled for $$.

 

[fstime]

I agree, if they included Sm2 and SM3 there would be no differance at all.

 

[Munky]

I don't know how different sm2 and sm3 are from a programming perspective, but AFAIK the game had sm1 from it's xbox origins, and then they added sm3 for the PC port. Adding sm2 would have cost additional expenses to develop the game, so I'm guessing that's the reason for no sm2 support. Either that or they were bribed by nvidia. Anyway, it's only one game, don't you all start fussing that if you don't have sm3 then you'll be playing future games in sm1.

 

[Pete]

Great shots, lopri. Consider your efforts appreciated.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Considering the vast majority of DX9 cards are SM2.0 only, its hard to fathom why a company like Ubisoft will ignore them completely. Eye candy sell games (sad fact), and by not providing a SM2.0 rendering path to cater for these prospective buyers (along with Ubi's recent anti-copy antics) is a case of self-inflicted commercial suicide.

I'm not a games developer, but my conjecture is Ubi can code SM2.0 easily if they wanted to since there isn't much of a difference between SM2.0 and SM3.0 anyway, and what's more SM2.0 can produce the same eye candy as SM3.0 anyway.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
Considering the vast majority of DX9 cards are SM2.0 only, its hard to fathom why a company like Ubisoft will ignore them completely. Eye candy sell games (sad fact), and by not providing a SM2.0 rendering path to cater for these prospective buyers (along with Ubi's recent anti-copy antics) is a case of self-inflicted commercial suicide.

I'm not a games developer, but my conjecture is Ubi can code SM2.0 easily if they wanted to since there isn't much of a difference between SM2.0 and SM3.0 anyway, and what's more SM2.0 can produce the same eye candy as SM3.0 anyway.

how true is that, ive bought many games because the graphics looked awesome....when i get home though the game was pretty sh!t

it still happens with demo's! i d/l a demo coz the graphics are nice, then the game turns out to be tripe...good thing d/l demos is free

 

[lopri]

Thanks Pete, you're a gentleman.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
Considering the vast majority of DX9 cards are SM2.0 only, its hard to fathom why a company like Ubisoft will ignore them completely. Eye candy sell games (sad fact), and by not providing a SM2.0 rendering path to cater for these prospective buyers (along with Ubi's recent anti-copy antics) is a case of self-inflicted commercial suicide.

I'm not a games developer, but my conjecture is Ubi can code SM2.0 easily if they wanted to since there isn't much of a difference between SM2.0 and SM3.0 anyway, and what's more SM2.0 can produce the same eye candy as SM3.0 anyway.

It's not too hard to fathom:
SM3 is supposed to be much easier to code in. Not a programmer, but that's what I've read. So why do the extra work to code the game in SM2? nVidia's cards for the last year have had SM3, ATIs will at some point this year. For those who have chosen for the last year not to keep up with the MS standard, they have SM1.1.

 

[fierydemise]

Or for those who want the best bang for their buck, SM3 is great but it comes at a premium, for those of us on a budget if the choice is between a 6600GT or an X800XL, I think almost anyone here would take the higher performance of the X800XL over SM3 of the 6600GT.

 

[imported_humey]

Why, will you really see the few FPS difference, id rather not have a 2 year old tech card and see nice eye candy, cause the 2 cards will play it at decent Framerates.

 

[McArra]

between X800XL and 6600GT the choice is obvious, but they aren't in the same league, at least where I live X800XL is the same price as 6800GT more or less.

 

[imported_humey]

Sh!t i though it said 6600GT, WTF are peeps doing, compairing 6600 GT to X800XL, thats not to fair.
Now the 6800 GT is more fair a comparision and i know what i would take hands down if i didnt have a Ultra

 

[fierydemise]

I would also take the 6800GT hands down to an X800XL but I (as well with alot of other people) don't have the money the 6800GT is at least $50 more, with similar performance it all comes down to SM3 which is great if you can afford it.

 

[imported_humey]

Just generalising this to no one directly.

If price difference is the fooker between a 6800 GT and X800XL

Dont drink beer for a week and get a new tech card (well 1 year old tech now) not 2 years old ATI tech, and thats fact if you dont like to admit it so be it.

Not everyone inc me is rich, i sacrifice to get things, id rather stretch $50 more which is like £25 to get better/newer card and miss out on a few beers and mc donalds that week.

Or wait till may-june get it for less when new cards appear.

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: humey
Just generalising this to no one directly.

If price difference is the fooker between a 6800 GT and X800XL

Dont drink beer for a week and get a new tech card (well 1 year old tech now) not 2 years old ATI tech, and thats fact if you dont like to admit it so be it.

Not everyone inc me is rich, i sacrifice to get things, id rather stretch $50 more which is like £25 to get better/newer card and miss out on a few beers and mc donalds that week.

Or wait till may-june get it for less when new cards appear.

Under your logic why not just starve for a week or two so you can have enough for an SLI setup. The point is SM3 is a nice feature to have but its not rrquired for games now, I'll use my X800XL until games start requiring SM3. Also on a somewhat irrelevent note $50 closer to £40 the dollar hasn't devalued that much yet.

 

[imported_humey]

My logic makes sence your comment doesnt.

Since when do you not eat main meals to get a GPU, i said miss out on beer and mc donalds (junk) prob ate for the sake of it certainly not my main meal.

You said this >>"irrelevent note $50 closer to £40 the dollar hasn't devalued that much yet."

Wanna bet its nearly $2 US for £1, i send dollars to USA every month normally $20 and its cost me around £10 to convert to $20 (give or take few pence either way and there is no charge) in Post Office so thats fact, last i did this was 4 days ago.

If i had to guess id say its $2 = £1.91+ at least going by my reciepts.

I could get around $75 for £40 right now, thats also why i buy some items from USA.

DX9C is required for all my new games(the games ask to install if u not got) so id rather have a real DX9C hardware card than just DX9C supporting card and the few games i got that are using P.S 3.0 look nice and i have the choise to run them in any mode not just look at pics on websites that dont even look good anyhow as pictures of games never will show it properly.

I also like the HDR although its only new and not 100%, again i got option to have it on or of.

This is april 2005 not 2003, Nvidia have had this tech 1 year +, so i see no point in anyone buying older cards, wait and get new ones or get thses current nvidias when price dropped as it will when new cards arrive.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: humey
My logic makes sence your comment doesnt.

Since when do you not eat main meals to get a GPU, i said miss out on beer and mc donalds (junk) prob ate for the sake of it certainly not my main meal.

You said this >>"irrelevent note $50 closer to £40 the dollar hasn't devalued that much yet."

Wanna bet its nearly $2 US for £1, i send dollars to USA every month normally $20 and its cost me around £10 to convert to $20 (give or take few pence either way and there is no charge) in Post Office so thats fact, last i did this was 4 days ago.

If i had to guess id say its $2 = £1.91+ at least going by my reciepts.

I could get around $75 for £40 right now, thats also why i buy some items from USA.

DX9C is required for all my new games(the games ask to install if u not got) so id rather have a real DX9C hardware card than just DX9C supporting card and the few games i got that are using P.S 3.0 look nice and i have the choise to run them in any mode not just look at pics on websites that dont even look good anyhow as pictures of games never will show it properly.

I also like the HDR although its only new and not 100%, again i got option to have it on or of.

This is april 2005 not 2003, Nvidia have had this tech 1 year +, so i see no point in anyone buying older cards, wait and get new ones or get thses current nvidias when price dropped as it will when new cards arrive.

your grammar is appalling

your point is tired and worn tho and the effort that the OP put in in posting the screenies wasn't intended to create yet another fux0rring Sm3.0 flamewar

 

[mwmorph]

does anyone notice sm3 brightens up some things too much? i mean ,it's a pretty dark game so why is that thing at the end of the hall so damn bright(like a big metal sun?)