PDA

View Full Version : Nintendo filing displacement mapping patents for revolution?


lowkey
12-12-2005, 08:21 AM
Just stumbled upon this:

"Nintendo has filed two patents concerning displacement mapping, which is a technique that is used to render detailed surfaces while successfully simultaneously keeping polygon count low. [...] it should be noted that displacement mapping is nothing new, but Nintendo is patenting ways to optimize it for their own private use."

(source: http://www.playbomb.com/2005/12/11/124/nintendo-displacement-mapping-patents-discoverec/)

Wintermute
12-12-2005, 08:50 AM
Hopefully the Revolution will pack that kind of power in the GPU (which is still the wild card in the specs, as I recall). Definitely looking forward to some previews of upcoming titles.

playmesumch00ns
12-12-2005, 08:55 AM
The method sounds a lot like parallax mapping, i.e. you don't displace the surface, but do your texture lookups as if the surface was displaced, thereby giving you the important occlusion effects that you lack with bump mapping

I think what they're patenting is a series of technologies to do it in their hardware, rather than the algorithm itself. At least I hope so.

Lorecanth
12-12-2005, 10:30 AM
...thank god for prior art...

In any case those patents are for fancy normal mapping. There is no way that they're going to be able to throw that much geometry around and get any kind of real time deformation.

laureato di arte
12-12-2005, 12:17 PM
yea thanx for finding the info. I saw it on a few messageboards but i couldnt find a link.

DevilHacker
12-12-2005, 12:28 PM
Hopefully the Revolution will pack that kind of power in the GPU (which is still the wild card in the specs, as I recall). Definitely looking forward to some previews of upcoming titles.I doesn’t make too much of an difference how fast your CPU's or GPU's are if you don’t have enough ram to transport all that information… And that is the problem. The Rev. will only have 128MB’s of ram… That’s how much the original Xbox had… there is no excuse for it.
:surprised

UrbanFuturistic
12-12-2005, 02:45 PM
So don't buy one then.

regards, Paul

xeav
12-12-2005, 03:16 PM
That’s how much the original Xbox had… there is no excuse for it.
:surprised xbox has 64 mb of ram :]

http://www.xboxmagonline.com/xbox/info/xbox_spec.html

Recursive
12-12-2005, 03:48 PM
xbox has 64 mb of ram :]

http://www.xboxmagonline.com/xbox/info/xbox_spec.html

haha! From the link:

Polygon Performance

Xbox: 125 M/sec

PS2: 66 M/sec

GC: 6-12 M/sec




Specs really are worthless... just look at the games.

PattyMelt
12-12-2005, 04:25 PM
Why are you concerned with the Revolution having the same amount of ram as the first XBox when no one has fully utilized the power of the xbox? I mean I'm going to get a 360, but I haven't been impressed with the games currently for it. Plus, have we forgotten that games need to keep us interested to play, whatever happened to gameplay and story. Why is there such a concern for the best graphics when most games that do lose out on gameplay. As long as a game runs smoothly and keeps us hooked, i believe that's enough for a game to be good. And multiplayer mayhem offline and online.

Anyway, I find it interesting that Nintendo is having patents on a way displacement maps are utilized. It's like having an artist patent a brush techinque for oil painting or a person putting copyrights on an origami crane. Hahahaha. i just find it funny, but hey it may help stir competition or better quality into games. We'll just have to wait and see.

Apoclypse
12-12-2005, 04:51 PM
Patents are evil.

Spankspeople
12-12-2005, 05:20 PM
And where, exactly, has Nintendo officially revealed the final specs for the Revolution, anyways?

Ninjas
12-12-2005, 05:25 PM
The patent mentions hardware a number of times. Maybe granting a patent on this isn't the best idea, but a GPU for paralax mapping would be awesome.

SheepFactory
12-12-2005, 05:25 PM
haha! From the link:

Polygon Performance

Xbox: 125 M/sec

PS2: 66 M/sec

GC: 6-12 M/sec




Specs really are worthless... just look at the games.

Exactly ,

resident evil 4 on gamecube is the best looking game of the old gen consoles for example.

enygma
12-12-2005, 05:40 PM
haha! From the link:

Polygon Performance

Xbox: 125 M/sec

PS2: 66 M/sec

GC: 6-12 M/sec




Specs really are worthless... just look at the games.
I remember the debate on those specs on the IGN boards when the systems were released. Basically, Microsoft and Sony were using more marketing tactics showing raw performance, which I assume is just the speed the GPU can process a number of untextured, unshaded polygons, basic triangles. Nintendo on the other hand focused more on real world performance. Once those polygons are textured, lit and shaded, then what kind of performance would the XBox and PS2 get. Nintendo estimated about 6-12 million per second.

Sonk
12-12-2005, 05:56 PM
You guys, this is a patent for the Flipper, not the Rev GPU. it has nothing to do with Rev. If the Rev can do displacement mapping that so can the 360/PS3.

heavyness
12-12-2005, 06:04 PM
if this an hardware solution, i hope the call the chip the Super FX/2 Chip or the RevFX Chip...

brings me back to the day i saw Starfox with my own eyes; polygons moving and the game rocked [yes, i know not the first game to use polygons]. who cares about horse power when you got "Nintendo gameplay"... something that can't be generated/duplicated with all the cpu power in the world.

Sonk
12-12-2005, 06:15 PM
who cares about horse power when you got "Nintendo gameplay"... something that can't be generated/duplicated with all the cpu power in the world.

rofl, that made me chuckle...

parallax
12-12-2005, 08:11 PM
I hate to break i to you lot for the Nth time, but the only 'winners' in this battle are those who can sell the most consoles to run Fifa soccer/Madden/NBA/Nascar/Tekken/What-have-you part 34.

The name 'revolution' better be an understatement, or else it will be Nintendo's last console.

laureato di arte
12-12-2005, 09:13 PM
I hate to break i to you lot for the Nth time, but the only 'winners' in this battle are those who can sell the most consoles to run Fifa soccer/Madden/NBA/Nascar/Tekken/What-have-you part 34.

The name 'revolution' better be an understatement, or else it will be Nintendo's last console.

we will see...

The actual name of the revolution hasnt been decided yet, I am hoping that they simply call it , The NES or the nintendo entertainment system, got a coolness to it. It is in the same way that the gamecube was called project dolphin, and the N64 was called project reality, and the Nintendo ds was called ,.... ummmmmm ds lol.

Recursive
12-12-2005, 11:04 PM
I hate to break i to you lot for the Nth time, but the only 'winners' in this battle are those who can sell the most consoles to run Fifa soccer/Madden/NBA/Nascar/Tekken/What-have-you part 34.

The name 'revolution' better be an understatement, or else it will be Nintendo's last console.

I somehow doubt thats the opinion of the stock owners.. ie the owners of the companies. They might actually want a little bit of profit aswell.

enygma
12-12-2005, 11:22 PM
we will see...

The actual name of the revolution hasnt been decided yet, I am hoping that they simply call it , The NES or the nintendo entertainment system, got a coolness to it. It is in the same way that the gamecube was called project dolphin, and the N64 was called project reality, and the Nintendo ds was called ,.... ummmmmm ds lol.
Don't forget Ultra64 as well... :D

DevilHacker
12-13-2005, 03:54 AM
I somehow doubt thats the opinion of the stock owners.. ie the owners of the companies. They might actually want a little bit of profit aswell.Yes. They would.
Nintendo’s main profits are not coming from their home consoles; but their handhelds. If they got out of the console business and focused exclusively on the handheld market, they would be made…
:thumbsup:

EpShot
12-13-2005, 04:46 AM
considering they don't sell their consoles at a loss of $100-200 each. i think they will be just fine.

zzacmann
12-13-2005, 05:49 AM
I read on one of the other threads about this that what the Rev will lack in the amount of memory, it will make up for in the speed and type of the memory. Its so fast its like having a giant L3 cache on the processor. It also said that one of the big advantages of this would be able to load larger texture files much more quickly. If thats the case, then heavy use of displacement mapping seems likely and more physable.

Nichod
12-13-2005, 08:10 AM
I read on one of the other threads about this that what the Rev will lack in the amount of memory, it will make up for in the speed and type of the memory. Its so fast its like having a giant L3 cache on the processor. It also said that one of the big advantages of this would be able to load larger texture files much more quickly. If thats the case, then heavy use of displacement mapping seems likely and more physable. This is very true. I wish the computer industry would take this into consideration. There are quite a number of bottlenecks in computer hardware today, and it seems the only thing people care about is the processor speed.

Recursive
12-13-2005, 08:17 AM
Yes. They would.
Nintendo’s main profits are not coming from their home consoles; but their handhelds. If they got out of the console business and focused exclusively on the handheld market, they would be made…
:thumbsup:

Your math is a little odd, you say that their main profits are not comming from the console side, that might very well be true. But in this statement you say that the console side is profitable, so why would their profits go up if they stopped making consoles?

Nichod
12-13-2005, 08:20 AM
Your math is a little odd, you say that their main profits are not comming from the console side, that might very well be true. But in this statement you say that the console side is profitable, so why would their profits go up if they stopped making consoles? This is obvious. Less money spent on R&D for consoles, less manufactoring costs, not as many employees needed, etc. The extra money can be spent to increase game development, and on R&D and manufactoring of portables.

Recursive
12-13-2005, 08:32 AM
This is obvious. Less money spent on R&D for consoles, less manufactoring costs, not as many employees needed, etc. The extra money can be spent to increase game development, and on R&D and manufactoring of portables.

In his statement I would not say it is obvious since he said that both parts were profitable, both the console side and the portable side.

Ie the money recovered from the selliong of consoles and consoles oftware made upp for the R&D, manufacturing and employee costs for consoles. So if you cut all of that out, the overall profits would go down.

Nichod
12-13-2005, 08:44 AM
In his statement I would not say it is obvious since he said that both parts were profitable, both the console side and the portable side.

Ie the money recovered from the selliong of consoles and consoles oftware made upp for the R&D, manufacturing and employee costs for consoles. So if you cut all of that out, the overall profits would go down. Ok.:thumbsup: Not going to argue with you.

CGTalk Moderation
12-13-2005, 08:44 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.