SM 1.1 vs SM 3.0 Screenshots

[jiffylube1024]

Nice shots! I don't know much about Splinter Cell: CT but I can definitely tell the SM 3.0 pics look better.

The SM 1.1 shots are a bit dark - they need brightness cranked up a tad to compare the shots easier. However, there are several areas the SM 3.0 pics are clearly better:

Shadows: the soft shadows look much more realistic, especially with the improved brightness/colours in the SM 3.0 shots
Colours: does the SM 3.0 path use HDR? Because it definitely looks more realistic (the level 2 picture in particular).
Contrast: an HDR staple is that light objects look bright and natural while the shadows still look very dark. The SM 3.0 shots have this nice contrast to them between the light and dark regions, while the SM 1.1 path has that more washed out non-HDR look. Looking at the Level 2 shot in particular, there's no contest that the SM 3.0 path looks much more realistic.

 

[Lonyo]

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.

Show me where to get a 6800GT for £225 please.
I'll take £250 if you wanna say an X800XL is only £25 less than a 6800GT.

I don't care about the value of the dollar being $1.9 : £1 that means nothing in UK terms.
£200 for an X800XL, £270 is the least I've seen for a 6800GT.



Not related to SM3 vs 1.1, but some of the graphics look pretty crappy (refering to the very squarish barrels in the Level 2 pics - unless they're meant to look like that?).
Would be nice if they did have SM2 support though, since the 9500+ series from ATi supports it, which, and as the recent Steam survey shows, the 9800 is probably the most used card by gamers, with the 9600's second (taking 20% of the Steam survey combined).
They support SM2 not SM3, they are probably the most common cards, yet their shaders are not supported, and they are forced to go to a much lower quality version. SM2 is not much worse than SM3.

Nice to have comparison screenies though, definately much brighter in the SM3 shots.

 

[imported_humey]

dug777, I dont give 2 fooks for grammer on a forum on WWW, its not a legal Doc im typing, Yanks cant talk or even spell in proper english anyhow.

Lonyo, your in UK and >fierydemise< is in USA and he questions the exchanged rate so i gave him facts.

You all will buy beer and piss it up against wall or maybe drugs but wont miss out on these vices to get something you want ? :disgust:

I miss out on a good few nights out to get a holiday abroad 1x per year.

I couldnt give 2 monkeys f00ks if anyone uses nvidia or ati, but for the sake of $50 or £25 approx id stretch and get better card.

I wasnt the one to say there was a $50 difference BTW :Q

Here >>fierydemise<<< said "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. "

I can understand someone not affording a house or car where the price is 1000's of £/$ difference but for his $50, id do without the vices for 1 or 2 weeks and get the card i really wanted.

 

[Drayvn]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

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.

Show me where to get a 6800GT for £225 please.
I'll take £250 if you wanna say an X800XL is only £25 less than a 6800GT.

I don't care about the value of the dollar being $1.9 : £1 that means nothing in UK terms.
£200 for an X800XL, £270 is the least I've seen for a 6800GT.



Not related to SM3 vs 1.1, but some of the graphics look pretty crappy (refering to the very squarish barrels in the Level 2 pics - unless they're meant to look like that?).
Would be nice if they did have SM2 support though, since the 9500+ series from ATi supports it, which, and as the recent Steam survey shows, the 9800 is probably the most used card by gamers, with the 9600's second (taking 20% of the Steam survey combined).
They support SM2 not SM3, they are probably the most common cards, yet their shaders are not supported, and they are forced to go to a much lower quality version. SM2 is not much worse than SM3.

Nice to have comparison screenies though, definately much brighter in the SM3 shots.

?!?!?! 1.9 dollars to the pound is AMAZING! for us UK guys, that means most of the stuff that you can buy in the US of A is damn cheap!

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: BouZouki
I agree, if they included Sm2 and SM3 there would be no differance at all.

wow you are sooooo wrong...Sm2.0 doesnt have parallax mapping (used as displacement mapping in the game). If you notice, there is a section where the rocks on a path actually come out of the ground, rather than 2.0 which does NOT have D-mapping (which include paralax mapping) which would use bump or normal mapping to create a fake 3d rock

SM3.0 has d-mapping, which physically changes the geometry of certain objects that a texture is applied to...sure, you could do that with normal modelling, but d-mapping saves alot of time and actually is less taxing than just modelling it.

Before you say 2.0 would look the same, read about 3.0...i doubt you have read anything.
sure, 1.1 and 2.0 would look close, but 2.0 and 3.0 wouldnt...ok, they're close, but in future games, if you say that, i'd have to slap you

 

[Robor]

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

Nice examples. I guess we can justify our 6800 purchases now right? Seriously though, thanks for taking the time to post them. The 3.0 looks significantly better than the 1.1, especially walls and floors. So much more realistic looking. And yes, eye candy does matter.

 

[imported_humey]

Yes but you need to try avoid tax when bring in electrical parts to UK, i get it marked as a GIFT. its never been so good since i was a kid when it was $2 or more for the £1, im 33 years old so thats long time ago.

I reg have to send cash ie $20 at a time to USA and it cost me around £10+ few odd pence, to get the $20 with no fees for converting.

Anyhow thats not toic im out of to play on my Ultra with dx9c, hdr and p.s 3.0 WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeee

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: humey
Yes but you need to try avoid tax when bring in electrical parts to UK, i get it marked as a GIFT.

While you're admitting to federal fraud, anything else you want to get off your chest?

- M4H

 

[fierydemise]

Humey give the whole exchange rate thing a rest I misread what you said thought you were talking Euros, Pounds arHumey give the whole exchange rate thing a rest I misread what you said thought you were talking Euros, Pounds are just about 2 to 1 you win on that point. Actually on topic, the fact you are saying lay off on some beer ect. I rarely drink and rarely eat fast food I'm a college student I save all the money I can and cobble together the best system possible for me $50 more is a fair amount that I?d rather save for something else the X800XL is a godsend. SM2 will work for a good amount of time by the time games start appearing for only SM3 the X800XL will be a slow card, same with the 6800GT. As to the OP great shots SM3 looks better but it does seem to exaggerate extreme dark and light.

 

[Drayvn]

Originally posted by: hans030390

Originally posted by: BouZouki
I agree, if they included Sm2 and SM3 there would be no differance at all.

wow you are sooooo wrong...Sm2.0 doesnt have parallax mapping (used as displacement mapping in the game). If you notice, there is a section where the rocks on a path actually come out of the ground, rather than 2.0 which does NOT have D-mapping (which include paralax mapping) which would use bump or normal mapping to create a fake 3d rock

SM3.0 has d-mapping, which physically changes the geometry of certain objects that a texture is applied to...sure, you could do that with normal modelling, but d-mapping saves alot of time and actually is less taxing than just modelling it.

Before you say 2.0 would look the same, read about 3.0...i doubt you have read anything.
sure, 1.1 and 2.0 would look close, but 2.0 and 3.0 wouldnt...ok, they're close, but in future games, if you say that, i'd have to slap you

I didnt think Displacement or parallax mapping was a requirement of any Shader Model...?

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: hans030390

Originally posted by: BouZouki
I agree, if they included Sm2 and SM3 there would be no differance at all.

wow you are sooooo wrong...Sm2.0 doesnt have parallax mapping (used as displacement mapping in the game). If you notice, there is a section where the rocks on a path actually come out of the ground, rather than 2.0 which does NOT have D-mapping (which include paralax mapping) which would use bump or normal mapping to create a fake 3d rock

SM3.0 has d-mapping, which physically changes the geometry of certain objects that a texture is applied to...sure, you could do that with normal modelling, but d-mapping saves alot of time and actually is less taxing than just modelling it.

Before you say 2.0 would look the same, read about 3.0...i doubt you have read anything.
sure, 1.1 and 2.0 would look close, but 2.0 and 3.0 wouldnt...ok, they're close, but in future games, if you say that, i'd have to slap you

Proof? Show me some renders in 2.0 that look different than SM3.0 else you are just spewing techno garbage.

 

[imported_humey]

How can he, i say again screen captures dont do justice to any game never mind trying to show something like that.

You would need see on your pc infront of you comparing to another pc (not need be both in front of you) but not on a website.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by: hans030390
wow you are sooooo wrong...Sm2.0 doesnt have parallax mapping (used as displacement mapping in the game). If you notice, there is a section where the rocks on a path actually come out of the ground, rather than 2.0 which does NOT have D-mapping (which include paralax mapping) which would use bump or normal mapping to create a fake 3d rock

I thought parallax mapping was anotehr term for "virtual displacement mapping." I was under the impression that no geometry was being created or modified with this effect, it just looks like enhanced bump mapping (greater depth). Am I wrong?

 

[Ackmed]

How about some kind of FPS counter.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: hans030390
wow you are sooooo wrong...Sm2.0 doesnt have parallax mapping (used as displacement mapping in the game). If you notice, there is a section where the rocks on a path actually come out of the ground, rather than 2.0 which does NOT have D-mapping (which include paralax mapping) which would use bump or normal mapping to create a fake 3d rock

Actually, I believe it is you who is wrong. Parallax mapping can run on any SM2 compatible hardware. Humus's self shadowing bumpmapping demo shows this.

http://www.humus.ca/index.php?page=3D&ID=38

 

[Pete]

BTW, Reverend's new site has some SC:CT SM1.1 vs. SM3 shots direct from Ubisoft in a zip file, one of which is IMO the best display of parallax's superiority to normal bump mapping. I don't want to link directly in case he has a bandwidth limit, but try searching for Reverend's 3DPulpit. He said he'll pull the shots in a week, so if it's gone by the time you find his site, I'll put up that one shot via ImageShack or something.