Top
790°

Carmack confident RAGE will be 60fps on all platforms

John Carmack of iD Software reveals that RAGE's framerate suffers considerably on the PlayStation 3.

In the latest Edge magazine, programming wizard John Carmack states that the Xbox 360 version of RAGE just about matches the 60fps framerate of the PC version, while the PS3 only runs the game at around 20-30fps at this stage in development.

Previously Carmack has stated that the PS3 is a little bit slower at running RAGE, but this is the first time we've been told by just how much. However, iD Software still intends to release all three versions at 60fps and they're confident they can achieve this.

Read Full Story >>
gamezine.co.uk
The story is too old to be commented.
yoghurt3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

Did anybody really think that at this stage of dev, that that is it? they would just leave it now?

It's funny how fanboys cling onto a small piece of negative news, even if its not a finished game

Devs always try and release multi-plat games as equal as possible

lociefer3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

is this guy stupid ?

why would he even say that the ps3 is weaker while he said it was the most powerful, and why would he say it runs at 20-30 fps while theyr still not halfway through the game development

pandabear3037d ago

Yeah I'll be picking up the Ps3 version running at 60fps AND on 1 disc.

techie3037d ago

Didn't see this quote in the CVG article:

""The 360 version matches the PC's 60 fps," Carmack told Edge. "But the textures on many surfaces currently flick visibly between resolutions as you move toward and away from them, while the PS3's framrate runs at just 20-30fps."

The 360 one has flickery textures? Or did I read that wrong? Is that for all of them...or is this the advantage of Blu-ray?

RememberThe3573037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

I believe he's talking about the current version's not what the finished products will be like. But yeah, that's what he's saying.

techie3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

Thanks :) Why didn't CVG include the whole quote.

They didn't read very far. They obv didn't have the mag in front of them and just quoted from a forum.

Montrealien3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

Deep, I highly doupt that rendering issues are storage related.

As long as the game is functional and playable on both consoles that is all that should matter. Then again, this is N4G, where semantics rule right?

Tony P3037d ago

@lociefer:

20-30 FPS is not a bash, it is a progress report. Did you expect him to lie just to make you feel better?

The guy is just giving legitimate facts about the development cycle. He doesn't have to take your ego into account.

Syronicus3037d ago

But he can be a complete douche bag at times. He should just do the world a favor and STFU. He reminds me of that scientist in the movie Independence Day. That guy that claimed they didn't get out much, you know, the one with a serious social handicap.

Montrealien3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

Syronicus, who do you think is the problem? Carmack? Or the tabloid esk gaming media outlets that create the headlines out of simple interviews to feed these stupid arguments?

Its not like Carmack got on a box and shouted PS3 SUCKS! Graahawaahahaha?!!!!!

socomnick3037d ago

LOl not sure why everyone is panicking the game is not set to release until this year, by then im sure the ps3 version will atleast be able to run at a steady smooth 30fps. Plenty of time to get the games in tip top shape.

UnSelf3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

im super glad i didnt comment on yesterdays article

cuz i KNEW this was goin to happen

You'll have to have the foresight of a bat to not know

@Socomnick: lol, u kill me....ur damage control alarm is BLARING, dont wry dont wry, we wont pull up ur comments from yesterday.....well at least I wont.....heheheh

techie3037d ago

Tony - the whole reason for their issues with DVD is because they can't store their massive textures on as easily.

Qui-Gon Jim3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

Carmack said a while back that the PS3 version had higher res textures because the 360 version needed to be compressed to fit on two DVD's. Now the 360 version is going to be on 4 DVD's. I am guessing that Microsoft waived the multi-disc fee in order to avoid having the "inferior" version (especially since 360 is generally regarded as being better with textures than PS3, so that would be an embarrassment). If the issue you mentioned is related, then yes, it seems to have been at least related to the storage medium, but is likely fixed.

Edit @ below: "it's hard to believe you are just now figuring out that pled to Microsoft about disc problem has been solved." Huh? If that says what i think it says, here's my answer. I was just trying to answer the person's question. No need to attack me.

coolirisGB3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

The PS3 version's not going to be on par with the other versions if the developers are having these problems like this. In the end the developers will go for the best product they can make to compete and they will continue to make the game better leaving PS3 behind. Kind of like Ghoustbusters.

Qui-Gon Jim

Do you know what you're talking about? JC speculated about how the games would be different if they were not allowed to use enough discs, it's hard to believe you are just now figuring out that pled to Microsoft about disc problem has been solved.

Lets not forget he said they're trying to get a less capable console(for this multi threaded PC type game as John C said)to perform on par with the other platforms. People in here are acting like he said they have solved the problems and the inferior PS3 version is matched up for sure or will be for sure. lol

ape0073037d ago

then there's no doubt,im gonna buy it on ps3 cause it's on 1 disk

na2ru13037d ago

To get 60 FPS, there has to be a massive trade off on the visual part for todays console's power. You know, DMC4 and COD like. Lower res textures and SUB-HD, and perhaps smaller scale levels. Am I right in suggesting that?

Qui-Gon Jim3037d ago

I just reread both of our comments and wanted to clarify something. The PS3 version having higher res textures was an "at that point" type of thing, i'm sure they will both be equal at launch. I didn't mean to imply that the PS3 version is better, and i apologize that i may have come across that way.

Bringing up Ghostbusters to prove your point, though? How about Prototype? PS3 version of Prototype had one or two extra graphical effects that the 360 version didn't have. Namely the PS3 version had "shadow mapping" for all debris on the ground.
http://n4g.com/News-346513....

Multi-plats are starting to be virtually the same, with some being slightly better on one or the other console.

Gamertags3037d ago

Remember the GhostBusters game?

"Oh the PS3 is more powerful allowing for more of this and better of that" and guess what, that developer was completely full of crap.

The PS3 version of that game looks terrible when compared to the 360 version.

Rage will look good on both systems but honestly, we already know which system is getting the better version. The 360.

This is due to the more gaming friendly hardware and a system that is easier to develop for. When you throw in the fact that the 360 is just as powerful as the PS3 and in some cases, even more so, there is no wonder why all 3rd party games looks better on the 360.

On a different note, It is interesting to see how N4G is changing. From what once used to be purely Playstation fanboys who would bash anything good about MS and hail anything from Sony, the times are changing. Now we see that more and more gamers are putting aside their egos, growing up and accepting these systems for the strengths that they have.

People are beginning to understand that the 360 is just as powerful as the PS3 and if you want the best version of a game, you get it on the 360. The journalistic community has known this since the PS3 came out but just now are PS3 owners beginning to admit it.

It is awesome to see that fanboyism is dying (slowly but it is happening).

coolirisGB3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

Not true about RAGE Textures *to be* *may* *might* *if not* is not factual in this case. What you said is a lie and what J.C. said was speculation and theory based on his knowledge and profession. Hypothetical

Disc fee concerns and "speculation" http://www.qj.net/Carmack-R... http://exophase.com/xbox360...

RAGE 360 on 3 discs
http://www.thatvideogameblo...

Why call me out about mentioning GhostBuster and turn around and post Prototype, don't make post the vs list.

Gamertags3037d ago

You are wrong about Prototype. You make it sound like the PS3 had the better version when most of the reviews stated that the 360 version had the edge. Not only in framerate but overall better visuals.

We are all kind of confused by what your point was.

Developers will use different methods to try to mimic the graphic abilities of the 360 and that was the case with Prototype.

coolirisGB3037d ago

Report this Duplicate story (with it's selective editing)

Bleem3603037d ago

Guys, don't get your knickers in a twist here but the article header is in fact wrong.

the article actually says..

"Everything is designed as a 60 hertz game. We expect this to be 60 hertz on every supported platform," Carmack added

60hz is *NOT* the same as 60fps

Whoever decided to submit this article was wrong in their translation.

castags3037d ago

You talk about how people on N4G have grown up and being less fan-boyish, you apparently have not. "People are beginning to understand that the 360 is just as powerful as the PS3 and if you want the best version of a game, you get it on the 360." Dude...STFU

techie3037d ago

Rage will be on two dvd's. Not four, not three.

Qui-Gon Jim3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

coolirisGB: Boy, you sure called me out. 3 discs instead of 4. Doesn't negate what i was saying. True, i don't know if MS made concessions, i said it was a guess. Fact is the game is now on more discs and that should solve the issue that was mentioned. I was actually saying that the issue that might have made the 360 version look "worse" has probably been fixed. The reason i brought it up was as a counter-point to what you brought up. Don't mention one game that supports you, then say i should be above comparisons when i try to do the same.

Gamertags: My point was to say that multi-plats are getting to be equal after a time of 360 generally getting better versions. As far as "developers trying to mimic the capabilities of the 360," do I really have to bring up the whole "where are the 360 games that match up to PS3 exclusives" thing? If anything, it's a matter of developers trying to force the PS3 to run like a PC rather than PS3 not being as good as the 360.

Bleem: How is 60 Hz NOT the same as 60 fps? Hertz is the accepted term. Like i said in another post, should i doubt that "The Dark Knight" on blu-ray is running at 24 fps because my TV tells me "24 Hz" instead?

Edit @ below: But when Carmack says the GAME will be running at 60Hz, we can take that to mean the game will run at 60Hz. The definition of Hertz is "per second" and it is used in many other contexts besides a displays refresh rate. To say that "Hz is not the same as fps" is a little ridiculous, imo. You appear to be searching for anything that supports your view, rather than being willing to adjust your view to the facts.

Bleem3603037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

@Qui-Gon Jim

Hertz are not the same as FPS - Hertz is a way of describing the refresh rate of a Progressive Scan display, not how many FPS can be displayed on it.

Example : PC monitors and TFT's frequently run at rates higher than 60Hz, new displays even go up to 120Hz - this does NOT mean content is displayed at that framerate. You can have a 60htz monitor and still have games running on it at 30fps.

ThatCanadianGuy3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

POG..er, i mean, cooliris is in damage control !

Edit: LMAO!

Hold up.Who was it you called me the other day? Mooey & lyod something?
Now piratethom and greywulf? LOL! I only need one account to say what i want.Unlike a certain someone else who agrees with himself disagrees with anyone who makes him look foolish..

By the way,What am i defending? Where's my comment on here about it? The only thing i'm doing is laughing at your insecurity.

You truly are delusional.

Edit 2: 3 disagrees in 2 minutes? I must of hurt your feelings :)

ShabzS3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

knew it... i called this bs the moment i heard it ... no way they're gonna let it stay that way and say hey ... 60 fps for you guys ... and erm 20 fps for you guys .... coz you guys just suck... enjoy

now if you guys can just take back all the carmack sleeps with gabe jokes ... we're all good then

coolirisGB3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

How so PirateThom, I mean ThatCanadianguy420 or is it Greywulf? You PS3 fans are the ones defending a console in a article about how it's not performing on the same level and has an inferior build of the game. Some guy called *cahill* started PM-ing me two days ago saying the same things after I made comments acting hostile in a very personal way just like you. Stalking style

EDIT
2 minutes? looks like 17 minutes to me lol. How in the hell did my comment with the links get disagrees? did I offend you?

You truly are delusional.

Qui-Gon Jim3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

Actually, you're the one that's in an article about how both versions will run at the same framerate, claiming that one version is inferior. Even claiming that "Hertz isn't the same as fps."

Edit @ below: I really don't see how you can take that from this article. I'm out of bubbles now, though, so you have a good day and i will leave it to others to refute your claims.

coolirisGB3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

I'm in a article about the PS3 version lagging behind and how the devs hope to match the PS3 version with the others.

SevWolf3037d ago

@ coolirisGB: I'm just wondering what GB stands for..lol, you can talk out of your ass all you want, but don't talk about Piratethom, he's one of the coolest guys on this site, and NO he doesn't have multiple accounts not everybody is like you fanboys who have multiple accounts thinking you have multiple "friends"

coolirisGB3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

The classic PS3 fanboy reaction. Are you guys all kids? your anti social hostile attitudes amuse me. Don't like what some one says Personally attack them lol. I have no idea what you are talking about.

EDIT

Just stop kid for all I know you're the same person too. You joined the attack. Get Real. I think that was a little more than defending your friend. Let me guess your little show will feature only xbox fans? lol.

SevWolf3037d ago

lol, thanks for giving me a good laugh, you are joining omega on my gametrailers sig, so I'm a "PS3 Fanboy" and an "antisocial hostile" for defending one of my good friends on this site? Have you ever played on line with any of the users you claim to have multiple accounts, YOU act EXACTLY like the multiple accounts people say you have, Piratethom acts nothing like greywulf or the others, man.....anyway look for your quote on one of the sigs

peacock13037d ago

"You PS3 fans are the ones defending a console in a article about how it's not performing on the same level and has an inferior build of the game."

If its an inferior build shouldnt it run worse? If the code hasnt been fully debugged and optimised it wont run well, and wont give optimum performance. (hence lower frame rates)

This stage of development does not represent what the end product will be like. For all we know the 360 version may have 60 fps but with no lighting or physics ect, while the ps3 might have 20fp with all of them running.

Anyways - Sub 30FPS is a big no no, but anything over that its hard to tell the difference between.

Aquanox3037d ago

We've already danced this piece.

* Developer states differences between platform, favoring one over the other.
* Publisher and/or fans put preassure on dev.
* Dev states that both games will end up being the same.
* Game gets Released.
* Original developer's concerns are shown in the final games while by a slightly smaller scale.

The Game will run better on PC and Xbox 360... get over it already.

Gamertags3037d ago

Say that I am a fanboy for stating the truth and then tell me to STFU? Now who is the fanboy here?

Like I said, it will take time but fanboyism is dying.

phosphor1123037d ago

"Oh, I don't mind swapping discs as long as we have better frame rate."
Grasping at straws much?

Of course they'd get the game up to 60 fps! This is iD we are talking about. They are PC developers, not PS3 devs, so they are getting used to the architecture. Their powerful history shows they tend to make sure games run perfectly, so it will hit 60 fps in the end. Not to mention they aren't compressing the game on the PS3 like the 360, so it WILL LOOK better too.

mastiffchild3037d ago

I would hope that iD can manage to get the game pretty similar on each platform-Carmack hasn't half tied himself in a great big knot with all his interviews this year though-IDK why he keeps doing it,maybe he thinks he has to appease people gaming on each platform and keeps regretting the laast outburst. Whatever, it's a bit odd, imo.

I don't see the issue with multiple discs mind(well not as they already said the game's been reduced from threee to two areas anyway-and I can only see the royalties as a reason)unless you yave destructive kids like mine or a 360, again like mine, that has scratched the odd disc in the past though.

OGharryjoysticks3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

I guess at this point he doesn't want to stop development on the PS3 version now and cut his losses even though the game all along has been developed on PC then 360 so there really isn't a way it can be better on the 3rd option (PS3).

It will be interesting to see the Wolfenstein performance on PS3 since it's due out soon. I expect to see a ton of articles showing how all the other versions of that one run better too.

techie3037d ago

Bleem360 lol. Did you ever stop to think that they are talking about a GAME ENGINE and not a monitor or TV. When you say 60hrz in reference to a game engine, it means fps.

Greywulf3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

Why is it that the 360's can pretend insignificant minor differences between games is a show of technical power for the 360, yet in the face of...I dont know, all PS3 technical powered titles. The 360 can't even show up to the competition? We are talking graphical power here. Not gameplay, not anything when you're crying about FPS(when its HZ in the first place). Graphics, you know the 360 has yet to prove it can trump Ratchet & Clank Future Tools of Destruction, let alone Uncharted & Killzone2.

- You know that Devs always claim they cant blah blah blah with the PS3. Yet the games are Splitscreen close. Most 360 owners don't even have HDTV's so im willing to bet the differences would be even more subtle on a 24 inch SDTV. Even people without super Naughty Dog/Infinity Ward skill can get the ps3 closest to the 360's maximum capabilities, since Multiplatforms are evidently max performance.

- We go over this multiplatform circle all the time. The PS3 has its prime examples of titles that are always compared, but ignored for the idiocy of the multiplatform argument, but which are always more advanced and visually superior. And what happens at release? Motorstorm2 still runs circles around the title in every way imaginable. Same happened with PURE, that one game with the guiness book of world record terrain, and looked terrible. Same happens with sports games vs MLB. Same happened with Prototype and Infamous.

What is the point of deluding yourself into thinking that because ID isn't familiar with the PS3, that their product is the best example of the PS3's capabilities? When there isn't any speculation about the PS3's hardware capabilities, you can pickup the worlds most advanced console games only on the PS3. Console players pretend these small differences matter in gameplay, play any multiplatform on a PC. If a little anti-aliasing here, or a texture filter method there decides a purchase, then my friends. You would be buying NO console games. PC produces higher quality textures, resolution, HERTZ, and framerate.

At the end of the day 360's celebrating owning games that look worse than PS3 exclusives. Yay?

and as Omega once said..

"As long as it still plays good and is still fun, thats all that matters to its millions of fans." - Omega4 on graphics. \

GUNS N SWORDS3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

i thought that carmack already stated about fitting the game on two discs, that was just last year on n4g. did it change?

well anyways, going by what the title says "Carmack confident RAGE will be 60fps on all platforms" 60 fps is a dangerous achievement to achieve, at this point i'm hoping that the graphics at least beat the COD series.

"Carmack states that the Xbox 360 version of RAGE just about matches the 60fps framerate of the PC version, while the PS3 only runs the game at around 20-30fps at this stage in development."

well, because they so much want 60 fps for the game, accommodations will be made on all versions to meet that requirement. i just hope that they still utilize each console's power.

at the moment i'm looking favorably towards crisis but i'll keep this game on my hit list too,

my two cents :)

Hudahudahuda3037d ago

I agree with greywulf. If people seriously cared that much about having a superior version of a multiplat they would have ditched both consoles and went with a PC. It's not even close between consoles and PC. Consoles can't even run Modern warfare 2 on a real HD resolution.

MGSR THE HD VERSION3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

to (greywulf)

360 can handle graphics, it just depends on how skilled the developer is and how they prioritizes that subject on their games.

http://i32.tinypic.com/xp9c...

3037d ago
Greywulf3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

In the entire history of the 360, not 1 single game has been able to compete with the PS3 when it comes to pound to pound graphics. Not Halo, not Gears of War, not Mass Effect, Not Just Cause, Not Crackdown..

But

GHOSTBUSTERS?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?? !!??!?!?!?! Is the title you want to put up against Uncharted1(and use an early build photo to cheat?)

3.5 years into the 360's lifestyle, and you think GHOSTBUSTERS looks better than Uncharted? Are you merely going based on screenshots alone? Because if GHOSTBUSTERS is the best the 360 can do.. well..

Am I really seeing this?

Not only do you try to cheat with an old build of uncharted(the hair shaders aren't even done in your images):

http://farm4.static.flickr....
http://farm4.static.flickr....
http://farm4.static.flickr....
http://farm4.static.flickr....
http://farm4.static.flickr....

But you use GHOSTBUSTERS in your defense? I would say its sad, but you clearly know you're lying and thats why you use old images of Uncharted.

3037d ago
Greywulf3037d ago

The 360 is an old PC. For the sake of upgrading hardware to run games is it not? Yet it runs PDZ fine, and COD Fine. Am I right? Because the game is optimized to run on the hardware requirements. Right.

Media PC's at the time of the release of the 360, ran games in higher resolutions/technical advancements than the 360. You do not need to upgrade a PC to run a console game, that has to run on a machine with 512mb of ram. Its never going to be the case. Sure, if you have an EMACHINE from 1994, then clearly you aren't into PC gaming, and would need to update to stay current.

The 360's top games are running in DATED engines that don't come anywhere close to Crysis or Arma2 for requirements. Why on earth would you need to upgrade to run a game that's highest requirements to begin with, is a dated console? Left 4 Dead, is the old source engine. Which ran on older hardware(than the 360) when Half Life 2 was new. Same applies to the Unreal engine.

I know its a constant theme for console owners to save face and pretend that PC gaming isn't worth it because you have to spend $5000 dollars to get it to run, but you dont. Maximum settings for HL2/Wuxga Resolution could be had on a machine for $400 dollars, or LEss. That game would run in higher quality than the console counterparts, and you could easily use your 360 controller or any other controller to play from a couch. Which is what most PC gamers with HDMI/TVout/Do in the first place. PC gaming isn't restricted to a desk, are you not aware of wireless?

If you literally had a PC that could play HL2 on max, Doom3 on Max, Quake4 on Max, Farcry on Max. You're playing COD4/MassEffect/All PC versions of console games on max. There are some PC games taht actually step back and utilize recent technology like GTA4, but even then, you could play higher resolution than the consoles, without any investment.

techie3037d ago

Why are you all so frigging stupid about this Hz thing!?

When Hz is said by itself it generally means TV frames per second.

When Hz is said in reference to a games engine itself it means the frames per second that the engine outputs. Just go and read up on it on B3D, or Gamezine's responses!

MGSR THE HD VERSION3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

to (Greywulf)

ghost busters was made by sony.

alright fine then it doesn't matter to me, lets use your pics as a comparison.

hair.

http://farm4.static.flickr....

http://i30.tinypic.com/51f4...

who's version depicted real threads of hair vs clumps and spikes. (and also lack of transparencies.)

http://farm4.static.flickr....

http://i27.tinypic.com/1nxl...

Tsar4ever013036d ago

Remember peeps, Xbox/x360 and the up and coming NEXBOX are practically CLOSED PC units, any game developed as well as ported off the PC architect will ALWAYS have a distinct advantage on the xbox console. Ps3 wanted to go a completely new and innovative route and as of now it's costing them. Not on the 1st party exclusive mind ya'll, but on 2nd and 3rd party developments, which is some cases more important than 1st party because of one reason, MASSIVE GAME LIBRARY!! And xbox have turned alot of sony's 3rd party's exclusive into multiplats because of it's easier and more traditional dev tools. And ya'll already know which console owns the better multiplats titles.

It's too bad the finished product is gonna be what we've been seeing all through this gen of multiplat titles. Blu-ray is gonna be sony ONLY advantage on this game but grapfics and perfomance going to go to microsoft, regardless of the multiple disc. Just my view.

And your reading THIS from a SONY LOYALIST! Not a F**KING FANBOY, cuz I also own X360 and a Wii.

+ Show (49) more repliesLast reply 3036d ago
-EvoAnubis-3037d ago

Well, no sh*t. The game is more than a year away. id Software is a company well known for releasing games "when they're done" and ignoring the concept of release dates.

As I said before, that last article took a tiny piece of a ten page feature and made a far bigger deal out of it apparently just for hits.

castags3037d ago

Totally agree with you dude. How the hell do you have so many disagrees for a nonfanboy comment? Wait, i know, cause this site is full of them.

HammockGames3037d ago

I've always loved id's games going back to the original Doom. But it's not a surprise that they're struggling a bit to get their heads around the architecture of the PS3. Seems like most programmers that are relatively new to the PS3 need a bit of a grace period to work out the kinks, but once they do the results are usually pretty slick. I'm trying to remember if this is id's first or second PS3 attempt (I think someone else handled Quake Wars, but I'm not certain).

Regardless, I'm pretty confident id will churn out a good version on each platform. And as long as it's solid on whatever system an individual owns, who cares what platform that actually is.

Bottom line: just enjoy the damn game when it comes out.

RememberThe3573037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

Good to hear they're sticking to their guns. I'll probably be picking up the PS3 version so it's nice to hear that it will be running at the same level as the other versions.

"The work remaining is getting it locked so there’s never a dropped frame or a tear, but we’re confident that we’re going to get that."

Music to my ears. :)

Gamertags3037d ago

How many developers have we heard the exact same thing from only to be let down when the games release.

You should be calling the guys that make the point concerning the 360 fanboys when they are simply stating a fact. There is a difference.

sorceror1713037d ago

Oy. Let's quote from the article: "The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's what a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3."

The 360 is like the PC, using multiple identical cores. The Cell's cores aren't symmetric - the SPUs aren't quite like the main core... but there are more of 'em, and they are *very* fast. Carmack confirms that above - they can use the standard PC solution on the 360, but they need to partition the tasks differently for the PS3, structure the threads a bit differently. That's all.

Carmack has his limitations as a game designer, but as an *engine* designer and tech head he's damn near without equal. If he says they'll get 60fps on the PS3 - and he does - I think we can believe it.

jhoang3037d ago

ok this made my day a bit better. the ps3 got so much crap from the other article.i didnt belive for a second that well get like 20 -30 fps. and we still have 1 disc but i wonder what the install will be if there is one

aGameDeveloper3037d ago

What a lot of gamers may not realize is that when game developers force vsync in their engines to avoid screen tear (for better visual quality), it means the fps may vary between 60, 30, 20, 15, or even less fps (even multiples of the .0166 seconds between the monitor's 60 hz refresh rate).

Even though it looks better, a game that jumps randomly between these fps values doesn't feel very smooth (especially when you get into the lower ranges). This not only affects the consistency of the player controller feedback, but systems such as physics are pretty sensitive to the time-step. So, if the non-locked fps of the game varies between 55 and 65 fps, the developer may choose to hard lock the game to 30 fps by waiting for every other screen refresh every display period, rather than push the frame at every chance. This way, he can tune player control, physics, vehicle simulation, etc. for a single 30 fps/hz frame.

So, if Rage is going to be a cross-platform 60 fps/hz game, the engine needs to run internally at slightly faster than 60 hz on all platforms. If one platform is lagging behind at present, they may simply choose to demo it at 30 hz for the time being so that it looks/feels better.

Natsu X FairyTail3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

"The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it," Carmack told Edge. "The rasteriser is just a little bit slower - no two ways about that."

"The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's what a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3."

max b tone:owww thats not wavy