Re: SBK2001 textures - how do they do it?

In article <3a02a61a$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> So, what is the secret of the amazing look of SBK2001? If I open up some > GP3 textures using a jam editor, they look pretty good. My eye says "yep, > those are nice little photos sitting on my monitor". When those same > textures get wrapped onto the polys in the game, the result is a little more > garish, and game-like. F1-2000 also looks nice, detailed etc, but it is > still very much a game. SBK2001, on the other hand, looks flat out amazing. > Are the textures bigger? Are they doing something special with them? Why > does it look so realistic (and move along with a fabulous framerate)? >

CGI Magazine did a review of SBK2000 this month, and this is what they had to say: The Atomizer is a feature that makes textures look very detailed despite their actual relative low resolution. For example, it applies a second texture map over grass and asphalt with higher detail only where you're nearest with your point of view, it then fades gradually into the distance. This turns blurred, small textures into very detailed, large ones, thus enhancing the game's speed and creating the 'illusion' of maintained detail... Pretty cool stuff! Runs smooth as glass, doesn't it?

So, what is the secret of the amazing look of SBK2001? If I open up some GP3 textures using a jam editor, they look pretty good. My eye says "yep, those are nice little photos sitting on my monitor". When those same textures get wrapped onto the polys in the game, the result is a little more garish, and game-like. F1-2000 also looks nice, detailed etc, but it is still very much a game. SBK2001, on the other hand, looks flat out amazing. Are the textures bigger? Are they doing something special with them? Why does it look so realistic (and move along with a fabulous framerate)? Stephen

"Stephen Ferguson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3a02a61a$[email hidden]... > So, what is the secret of the amazing look of SBK2001? If I open up some > GP3 textures using a jam editor, they look pretty good. My eye says "yep, > those are nice little photos sitting on my monitor". When those same > textures get wrapped onto the polys in the game, the result is a littlemore > garish, and game-like. F1-2000 also looks nice, detailed etc, but it is > still very much a game. SBK2001, on the other hand, looks flat outamazing.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Are the textures bigger? Are they doing something special with them? Why > does it look so realistic (and move along with a fabulous framerate)? > > Stephen > > >

I don't know, but I've said it before and I'll say it again. I wish to hell that EA would make the SCGT people sit down and have a serious chat with the SBK people. Otherwise can the SCGT people and hand the whole motorsports division over to the SBK people.

Stephen Ferguson <[email hidden]> wrote in message 3a02a61a$[email hidden]... > So, what is the secret of the amazing look of SBK2001? If I open up some > GP3 textures using a jam editor, they look pretty good. My eye says "yep, > those are nice little photos sitting on my monitor". When those same > textures get wrapped onto the polys in the game, the result is a littlemore > garish, and game-like. F1-2000 also looks nice, detailed etc, but it is > still very much a game. SBK2001, on the other hand, looks flat outamazing.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Are the textures bigger? Are they doing something special with them? Why > does it look so realistic (and move along with a fabulous framerate)? > > Stephen > > > The secret is ..............Atomizer, a new technic with you can applicate

precise textures on the ground like terrain,tracks etc. good......isn't it?

In article <eRJM5.1832$[email hidden]>, simon- [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Sounds a bit like the multi-texturing that Unreal used (and UT I think) to > give a greater level of detail for close-up textures. I wonder why the > whole industry hasn't adopted this approach, it looked wonderful in Unreal. > > I tried the SBK 2001 demo and it ran quite a lot slower than SBK 2000. When > I was close up behind another couple of bikes it went quite jerky (p3-650, > gf2). Does the finished game give better performance? >

On first run, yes it can be a bit choppy. But the retail game allows you to run a system check, after which it automatically sets the detail level and graphic performance. Afterwards, the game runs beautifully with my PIII 450, 128Mb, TNT2 card.

I love the SBK2000 and I didnot think there is anything left to improve..... maybe just the sense of speed / acceleration. How is SBK 2001 in this aspect ?? Stephen Ferguson <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3a02a61a$[email hidden]... > So, what is the secret of the amazing look of SBK2001? If I open up some > GP3 textures using a jam editor, they look pretty good. My eye says "yep, > those are nice little photos sitting on my monitor". When those same > textures get wrapped onto the polys in the game, the result is a littlemore > garish, and game-like. F1-2000 also looks nice, detailed etc, but it is > still very much a game. SBK2001, on the other hand, looks flat outamazing.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Are the textures bigger? Are they doing something special with them? Why > does it look so realistic (and move along with a fabulous framerate)? > > Stephen > > >

No such troubles here (full game)... I'm not sure if it's actually that much faster than SBK2000, it just slows down less when things get busy. P3 450MHz 128Mb RAM 2xV2 SLI, 640x480 with detail nearly maxed out. 800x600 does give me some slowdown, but I assume that's just my "dinosaur" 3D cards. ;-) Jan. =--- Simon Brown wrote... > <snip> > I tried the SBK 2001 demo and it ran quite a lot slower than > SBK 2000. When I was close up behind another couple of bikes > it went quite jerky (p3-650, gf2). Does the finished game give > better performance?

In article <eRJM5.1832$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Simon Brown) wrote: > I tried the SBK 2001 demo and it ran quite a lot slower than SBK > 2000. When > I was close up behind another couple of bikes it went quite jerky > (p3-650, > gf2). Does the finished game give better performance? I have the full game here and it runs great at 1000 x 800 with pretty much everything on, not sure of the frame rate (how can I tell?) I'm using a 650 Duron Athlon (clocked at 900) on a Asus A7V m/b with 128 pc133 Ram and a V3 2000 (clocked at 170) and a 17" monitor. Its an awesome sim.... 8-) *Peter* - http://www.cix.co.uk/~peterpc/home.html

Sounds a bit like the multi-texturing that Unreal used (and UT I think) to give a greater level of detail for close-up textures. I wonder why the whole industry hasn't adopted this approach, it looked wonderful in Unreal. I tried the SBK 2001 demo and it ran quite a lot slower than SBK 2000. When I was close up behind another couple of bikes it went quite jerky (p3-650, gf2). Does the finished game give better performance?

Quoted text (12 lines)

> CGI Magazine did a review of SBK2000 this month, and this is what they > had to say: > > The Atomizer is a feature that makes textures look very detailed > despite their actual relative low resolution. For example, it > applies a second texture map over grass and asphalt with higher > detail only where you're nearest with your point of view, it then > fades gradually into the distance. This turns blurred, small > textures into very detailed, large ones, thus enhancing the game's > speed and creating the 'illusion' of maintained detail... > > Pretty cool stuff! Runs smooth as glass, doesn't it?

Thanks for the replies everyone, you've convinced me :) Just need to find some of that 'money' stuff.... "BriGuy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > On first run, yes it can be a bit choppy. But the retail game allows > you to run a system check, after which it automatically sets the detail > level and graphic performance. Afterwards, the game runs beautifully > with my PIII 450, 128Mb, TNT2 card.

On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 09:14:36 +0100, "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote: >No such troubles here (full game)... I'm not sure if it's actually that much >faster than SBK2000, it just slows down less when things get busy. > >P3 450MHz 128Mb RAM 2xV2 SLI, 640x480 with detail nearly maxed out. 800x600 >does give me some slowdown, but I assume that's just my "dinosaur" 3D cards. >;-) I had a look at the SBK2001 demo when it was first released and I had a V3-3000. Soon after I bought a Hercules 3D Prophet 2 and the full version of SBK. I soon discovered that while the 3D Prophet is a very fast card the game sure did look better with the V3. Must be a glide versus D3D thing? Tony