PS4 / Xbox One console war

[Ex-Cyber]

Okay, vsync adds lag, but what's the point of removing a frame of lag from (on average) just the bottom half of the screen? I understand not wanting to click down from (say) 30FPS to 15FPS, but that's a different tradeoff and can be mitigated in other ways.

From my understanding, the 60GB launch models of the PS3 can play PS1 and PS2 games (albeit with some input lag), and later 80GB models have software emulation for PS2.

The 80GB ones are still partially hardware; getting rid of the Graphics Synthesizer chip is what finally killed PS2 compatibility in later models.

[Udderdude]

They need to put an entire ps1, ps2 and ps3 in the thing. Obviously the best solution.

[Ex-Cyber]

The latest hot rumor is that PS4 has no support for CDs. I can see why it wouldn't need support, but it almost seems like they'd have to go out of their way to not support it.

[Udderdude]

Enjoy your exploded bandwidth caps.

I still haven't even downloaded Rage off steam, fucking thing's huge

[Ed Oscuro]

Okay, vsync adds lag, but what's the point of removing a frame of lag from (on average) just the bottom half of the screen?

Because in practice the lag is much worse than this sounds. I don't know if they're screwing up the implementation, but the last few PC native games I've played on Steam that had VSync enabled had horrendous mouse lag...and you know I'm not running with ancient hardware either (i.e. the Core i7 920).

Don't think that it's "just" saving the bottom portion: The desync "tear" can actually be anywhere on the screen, including high up, meaning that the top portion above the cutoff line is a frame behind, and everything lower is part of the new frame. By delaying the display of the new frame you've now got to wait for the next sync period, and by the time you get to that you could have nearly two frames of lag because the "current" frame is now once again mostly (or possibly even entirely, if you hit the timing exactly wrong) older than what should be the current frame.

But in practice it often feels much worse than two frames of lag. Maybe I'm more sensitive to it in a FPS than in MAME but it really can be ridiculous to wave the mouse around and feel the screen sluggishly attempt to catch up with it.

Left 4 Dead and CS:GO stood out as examples of terribly sluggish games when vsync was on.

[louisg]

Okay, vsync adds lag, but what's the point of removing a frame of lag from (on average) just the bottom half of the screen? I understand not wanting to click down from (say) 30FPS to 15FPS, but that's a different tradeoff and can be mitigated in other ways.

Exactly. You're not really removing lag, you're removing lag *sometimes* from half the screen. What you get is an inconsistent reaction time.

Also, are you seriously talking about PC gaming without having played anything since 2000-2005? vsync wasn't as big a problem with old titles back then, if it was even implemented. Today we have plenty of games with creeping per-frame complexity and even without any buffering or synchronization the time spent waiting for a frame can be significant (especially depending on the hardware and software combination). Actual experience with semi-recent games shows that it's very common for vsync to cause horrendous lag (again, I haven't fooled with buffering so much but I don't like that either). And I also find that tearing isn't usually a big problem.

This means that something is extremely broken in the game or OS or driver implementation. Sorry, but any other device that vsyncs does not cause horrendous lag. Go check out some PCBs or consoles, or even old DOS or Amiga games! This is just confirming to me that people who play games on these multitasking systems basically just expect everything to not work correctly.

[BryanM]

I don't know if they're screwing up the implementation, but the last few PC native games I've played on Steam that had VSync enabled had horrendous mouse lag...

There isn't like a "mouse acceleration" option ticked on or something?

Sometime around the era of Serious Sam 1 it became in vogue to create a complicated software routine to shittify mouse input and have that be the default option..

[Udderdude]

Actual experience with semi-recent games shows that it's very common for vsync to cause horrendous lag (again, I haven't fooled with buffering so much but I don't like that either). And I also find that tearing isn't usually a big problem.

This means that something is extremely broken in the game or OS or driver implementation. Sorry, but any other device that vsyncs does not cause horrendous lag. Go check out some PCBs or consoles, or even old DOS or Amiga games! This is just confirming to me that people who play games on these multitasking systems basically just expect everything to not work correctly.

Yeah, a lot of PC games in general are just horrendously badly coded. That so many of them are on Steam .. D:

[Ed Oscuro]

There's a difference between "badly coded" and "has to deal with unknowable hardware configurations."

This means that something is extremely broken in the game or OS or driver implementation. Sorry, but any other device that vsyncs does not cause horrendous lag. Go check out some PCBs or consoles, or even old DOS or Amiga games! This is just confirming to me that people who play games on these multitasking systems basically just expect everything to not work correctly.

This is standard and therefore everybody is doing it wrong. Do you suppose that's what Carmack was referring to?

There actually is tearing in newer consoles - i.e. Xbox 360.

I am pretty sure this is an unavoidable result of the technology shift of late. Hold-type displays, i.e. LCDs, are going to have a far more visible penalty for desync than CRTs; with a CRT you can just wait for the blanking signal and you're good to go with the next frame.

Many systems (like PCs with variable rates and resolutions) cannot rely on predictable timings like the 240p / 480i games of yore running on CRTs which take much of the timing guesswork out of the picture. DOOM looks like DOOM everywhere...on CRT, that is. If the CRT does mode 13H and the software / hardware pushes frames fast enough, it's no surprise that there's no tearing because they were programming for that resolution, with a FPS cap too (35Hz, in this case). Put it on a LCD though and you'll likely get some tearing. If you've ever seen a discussion here about "square vs. rectangular pixels" you'll know that CRTs are often very flexible in displaying not only different levels of detail per scanline, but even different numbers of lines (of actual resolution), and so it didn't matter that every old console had its own unique and special resolution and refresh rate (tailored to the capability of the hardware and programmers).

I'm sure there's something about this I've forgotten or just haven't grasped that would allow this to be explained more clearly but I am pretty sure that is most of it.

There isn't like a "mouse acceleration" option ticked on or something?

No, of course not. That's a separate option available in most games and also almost always best left off (certainly if you have a high DPI mouse where the interpolation serves no purpose).

Calling it "mouse lag" is my mistake - that's just what people popularly call it. It's really the lag perceived in the viewport movement of an FPS (for example) which in this case has nothing to do with the mouse and its support (USB and drivers).

[louisg]

There's a difference between "badly coded" and "has to deal with unknowable hardware configurations."

This means that something is extremely broken in the game or OS or driver implementation. Sorry, but any other device that vsyncs does not cause horrendous lag. Go check out some PCBs or consoles, or even old DOS or Amiga games! This is just confirming to me that people who play games on these multitasking systems basically just expect everything to not work correctly.

This is standard and therefore everybody is doing it wrong. Do you suppose that's what Carmack was referring to?

There actually is tearing in newer consoles - i.e. Xbox 360.

I am pretty sure this is an unavoidable result of the technology shift of late. Hold-type displays, i.e. LCDs, are going to have a far more visible penalty for desync than CRTs; with a CRT you can just wait for the blanking signal and you're good to go with the next frame.

Many systems (like PCs with variable rates and resolutions) cannot rely on predictable timings like the 240p / 480i games of yore running on CRTs which take much of the timing guesswork out of the picture. DOOM looks like DOOM everywhere...on CRT, that is. If the CRT does mode 13H and the software / hardware pushes frames fast enough, it's no surprise that there's no tearing because they were programming for that resolution, with a FPS cap too (35Hz, in this case). Put it on a LCD though and you'll likely get some tearing. If you've ever seen a discussion here about "square vs. rectangular pixels" you'll know that CRTs are often very flexible in displaying not only different levels of detail per scanline, but even different numbers of lines (of actual resolution), and so it didn't matter that every old console had its own unique and special resolution and refresh rate (tailored to the capability of the hardware and programmers).

I'm sure there's something about this I've forgotten or just haven't grasped that would allow this to be explained more clearly but I am pretty sure that is most of it.

I think you're confusing refresh rate with resolution. The LCD signal still goes at a pre-determined rate, and the goal is to sync to that rate. Again, many MANY games on console vsync. Games released within the last week vsync. It does not have to do with it being an LCD, though a lot of LCDs do have input lag. This input lag is regardless of when the frame is updated though, and AFAIK this is a DSP issue more than anything-- if this is happening, see if your TV or monitor has some kind of "game mode" that turns off the post-processing garbage.

But when you see tearing, what this is, is this: The system is pushing graphics to the LCD *at a consistent framerate*. But, some frames that it pushes to the display have the next frame partially written over the data. This causes graphical distortion. It's like if you loaded a picture in Photoshop and pasted another picture over the lower half. This is what your computer is sending to the television-- but it is still going at the specified framerate (set by your drivers-- probably 70hz or so). Nothing is being sped up by turning it off. Your monitor isn't going faster. In fact, as far as your monitor is concerned, you *are* vsynched. Again, if you are seeing a dramatic difference in response time with vsync on, then something is actually wrong.

Older consoles could tear too-- this is a programming issue. For example, some games on the XBox did. Some Playstation games, too, and I'm sure others. But it's not desirable and is to be avoided. If I program a game, generally I can tell the drivers whether I want to vsync or not.

[Ex-Cyber]

This is standard and therefore everybody is doing it wrong. Do you suppose that's what Carmack was referring to?

Probably.

Many systems (like PCs with variable rates and resolutions) cannot rely on predictable timings like the 240p / 480i games of yore running on CRTs which take much of the timing guesswork out of the picture.

There's a big difference between variable refresh rate and merely not knowing the refresh rate at compile time. You may not be able to assume a specific mode, but you can still pretty safely assume that any given mode will have a fixed refresh rate.

[BryanM]

Oh.

LCDs are just shit, I dunno how a hardcore gamer could justify buying one. At my old place of work (granted, it was surely on the low end of quality).. it had ghosting. On the desktop. From moving the mouse cursor.

It gets really tiresome when people select gamma levels based on LCD's lack of black...

Just a weird fad. I'll be relieved when it's just a forgotten nightmare.

---

Monitor refresh rates and getting 2d games to not look like ass can be an extreme pain in the ass, srsly. You'd like sprites (or at the very least, the camera.) to move at a smooth, even number of pixels per frame... and getting that to go at an equal rate between 60 frames, 70, 85, 100, whoever the hell knows the beam could be running at... I completely understand why MAME often runs a game ~5% faster than the original, more than any human really should.

Like most things, it's always full of tradeoffs. Look like ass and run consistently, or don't look like ass. Life is a series of compromises.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think you're confusing refresh rate with resolution.

I have no idea where you got this idea.

The LCD signal still goes at a pre-determined rate, and the goal is to sync to that rate. Again, many MANY games on console vsync.

Speaking of confusion, what is an "LCD signal?" And many of those consoles tear.

It does not have to do with it being an LCD, though a lot of LCDs do have input lag.

Of course it doesn't have to do with it being an LCD - but CRTs naturally ameliorate some amount of the effect. Of course it's not input lag. I don't see why you should be accusing me of confusing things when you have been throwing in a number of totally off-topic concepts. Stay focused please!

This input lag is regardless of when the frame is updated though, and AFAIK this is a DSP issue more than anything-- if this is happening, see if your TV or monitor has some kind of "game mode" that turns off the post-processing garbage.

True, but irrelevant.

But when you see tearing, what this is, is this: The system is pushing graphics to the LCD *at a consistent framerate*. But, some frames that it pushes to the display have the next frame partially written over the data.

You really don't have to summarize the links I sent you.

Nothing is being sped up by turning it off. Your monitor isn't going faster. In fact, as far as your monitor is concerned, you *are* vsynched.

I'm afraid the conversation is regressing.

Again, if you are seeing a dramatic difference in response time with vsync on, then something is actually wrong.

Again, if you haven't played any PC games within the last 8 years I don't see how you can talk so confidently about the problems, since you haven't experienced them.

Older consoles could tear too-- this is a programming issue. For example, some games on the XBox did. Some Playstation games, too, and I'm sure others. But it's not desirable and is to be avoided. If I program a game, generally I can tell the drivers whether I want to vsync or not.

So finally we come back to the topic and agree on something! I would call it a complexity issue. On old systems, particularly sprite-based ones, it's (relatively) dead simple to profile how much CPU time is necessary to push a frame out, and your routines for sound, AI, or whatever are probably well profiled too. Since the 3D console era it's becoming nearly impossible to profile something even on a "fixed" system, let alone the PC version of the same which might run with hardware power less (tearing due to not enough frames) or more (tearing due to too many frames into the buffer, although max refresh rates should solve this to a large degree it seems reasonable to expect you may still get residual mismatched frames, unless you effectively idle the GPU) than the "reference" system.

LCDs are just shit, I dunno how a hardcore gamer could justify buying one. At my old place of work (granted, it was surely on the low end of quality).. it had ghosting. On the desktop. From moving the mouse cursor.

That's just a shit LCD screen. They've gotten significantly better in the time I've been using one.

For all the downsides of tearing, backlight flicker (and some residual phase flicker in some gray tones if you connect via VGA still, like I unfortunately do) is still much preferable to scanline flicker from CRTs. CRTs have nothing on the best LCDs in terms of color reproduction and image stability. Black levels are apparently still problematic but in practice even these are very nice.

And I hate to break it to ya, but all the LCD replacement technologies being mooted are hold-type, so we will still end up with many of the fundamental problems of tearing here. Until somebody creates another true raster scan display we're screwed, basically.

[trap15]

You don't have to have everything "timed" to do VSync. You just have to do something like this:

Code: Select all

while(1) {
  while(!InVsync()) wait;
  DoGameLogic();
}

And that's implying you're doing all the drawing yourself (for a 2D-based thing, or whatever).

For 3D stuff, it's usually just passing a single flag to the 3D driver saying "Hey, turn on vsync please?"

There's absolutely no good reason for tearing on anything what-so-ever.

[Ed Oscuro]

Passing the single flag, checking the single box - sure it's simple in theory but in practice it doesn't work right with the current implementation.

[trap15]

Because people are too retarded to code anything right.

[Aguraki]

haven´t read all thread but what does it means games will play on ps vita?
isn´t vita weaker than a ps4?
someone explain it to me in simple language please

[Ed Oscuro]

haven´t read all thread but what does it means games will play on ps vita?
isn´t vita weaker than a ps4?
someone explain it to me in simple language please

streaming, like radio basically

[BryanM]

We'd really like it if you'd buy a PS Vita.

Myself, I'd just get a 3DS if I really needed to play something on the pooper, and pay a few dollars less for the console.

.... hurm, there isn't a 3DS thread. Seams like the kind of thing we'd have around here...

Years-later edit: I am a moron who didn't think about the possible XLSDTYSupreme attached initialisms to the device.

[MX7]

So if you buy a PS4 and a PlayStation Vita, you can play a port of something no one cared about first time on a tiny screen and not very good controls? Great.

[brentsg]

.... hurm, there isn't a 3DS thread. Seams like the kind of thing we'd have around here...

I don't think we have a resident Nintendo fluffer.

[Jonathan Ingram]

So if you buy a PS4 and a PlayStation Vita, you can play a port of something no one cared about first time on a tiny screen and not very good controls? Great.

How do you figure? I, for one, would like to play PS4 games on Vita provided the lag from streaming is kept to a minimum. I`d wager the picture quality would be really good because of downsampling.

[BryanM]

I don't think we have a resident Nintendo fluffer.

Damn, how're we going to be fair and balanced without one?

[BryanM]

Eh, I had a realization that there are actually things that get between you, and the game. They're just not the kind of things a PR person would ever use:

* Animations.
* Cut scenes.

[louisg]

Passing the single flag, checking the single box - sure it's simple in theory but in practice it doesn't work right with the current implementation.

In practice every damn thing on PCs is broken. This is what I've been complaining about! The fact that a mechanism as simple as vsync is never done right is just mind-blowing to me. And as both an engineer and a gamer it drives me up the wall when nobody seems to care if things are done right or not. Going back to my original statement: That's why I like consoles: they're designed from the ground up to play games.

BTW if it makes anyone feel better, I work in computer audio, and that's pretty much every bit as screwed up half the time as anything else on computers

I don't think we have a resident Nintendo fluffer.

Damn, how're we going to be fair and balanced without one?

I'd be up for it, but Nintendo really lost me in the last few years. I've got a Wii, and I enjoy it from time to time, but there's just not much stuff on it I like to play. I'll defend the SNES though, if you need me to do that

[Friendly]

Was that one of the early 2006-2007 versions? Which model could actually play PS-1 & PS-2 games and could it play PS-1 & PS-2 games from any region?

Only the first revision of PS3 had full hardware backwards compatibility (CECHA/CECHB, only sold in Japan and America for about a year). It had both a PS2 Emotion Engine chip (CPU) and a Graphics Synthesiser (GPU). Before the European launch, the EE chip was removed and emulated via software (CECHC/CECHE), while the GS chip was kept. As a result, the compatibility and quality of PS2 playback wasn't as good as on CECHA/CECHB (which is perfect, afaik). The Graphics Synthesiser was then dropped from the next revision (CECHG), which was the end of PS2 BC.

PS1 and PS2 games are region locked. So if you wanted a PS3 to play Japanese PS1/2 discs, you'd have to find a Japanese launch model (CECHA00 (60GB version) or CECHB00 (20GB version)).

[Ed Oscuro]

Speaking of morons, I don't see why I should've asserted that CRT would be faster than LCD in terms of displaying the image (aside from lag-related discrepancies in the hardware) when both are vsynced - ideally, meaning that both are starting to draw the frame at the moment there's data in the frame buffer, but unless the CRT can start drawing from the buffer before it's completely full, LCD doesn't have an apparent drawback in that case. Sorry for the confusion!

I wonder that one possible reason we see tearing in many games is that they are designed without any "smart" consideration of how many frames the system (including the display) actually can display. And part of this may well just be the legacy of old thinking about benchmarks and game performance. Many old games used to perform in a way such that people reported smoother performance by running part of the software at a higher rate than the display itself. It's very impressive for the person who bought the latest video card to be able to say they can push 300+ frames per second, but in practice it's worthless and the GPU might as well be idling a bit. (And although tearing looks bad, if you're getting a half-frame update for the bottom of the screen, this might actually have some benefit over full frames - 100Hz+ displays should reduce any benefit from this but maybe it's worth thinking about.)

And in related news: Microsoft Publishes Linux GPU Frame-Buffer Driver

[ST Dragon]

Was that one of the early 2006-2007 versions? Which model could actually play PS-1 & PS-2 games and could it play PS-1 & PS-2 games from any region?

Only the first revision of PS3 had full hardware backwards compatibility (CECHA/CECHB, only sold in Japan and America for about a year). It had both a PS2 Emotion Engine chip (CPU) and a Graphics Synthesiser (GPU). Before the European launch, the EE chip was removed and emulated via software (CECHC/CECHE), while the GS chip was kept. As a result, the compatibility and quality of PS2 playback wasn't as good as on CECHA/CECHB (which is perfect, afaik). The Graphics Synthesiser was then dropped from the next revision (CECHG), which was the end of PS2 BC.

PS1 and PS2 games are region locked. So if you wanted a PS3 to play Japanese PS1/2 discs, you'd have to find a Japanese launch model (CECHA00 (60GB version) or CECHB00 (20GB version)).

Thanks! Its great that finally somebody cleared that up for me. But seeing as there are practically no Shmups on the PS-3, I won't be getting one any time soon. Then again, I never liked the lower position of the D-pad cross on the Xbox360 controllers either. I'm old-school and prefer the standard Saturn / SNES / Genesis type of pads, but I haven't seen anything like that for the Xbox360 to play the shmups with...

[Friendly]

PS-3

Sorry to nitpick, but since you keep doing it: These acronyms are officially spelled without hyphen. It's PS2 and PS3.

[ST Dragon]

PS-3

Sorry to nitpick, but since you keep doing it: These acronyms are officially spelled without hyphen. It's PS2 and PS3.

OK, thanks for noting that!