test

@Cheeburga
it's ["size=10"]TEXT["/size"] by the way. Without the "s of course.

Nonetheless, I don't know why people get so wound up by this. It's a framerate. You're really grasping at straws to prove your fanboyism if you're complaining about something that you can barely notice.
Seriously, I bet the videos for this comparing the two will have so little difference it just shows that it was pointless making a ruckus in the first place.

30fps is plenty smooth. I still don't see what the problem is.

@pedrovay2003 - That too.

I dont see the issue yet. No one on consoles ever notices framerates unless its unstable till someone tell them. That plus the game isn't out yet

The difference between 30 and 60 fps is definitely noticeable if you have some basis for comparison (e.g. the inevitable comparison videos that will flood the internet).

Anyway, the game will probably suck. Carmack should stick to making engines. See, e.g., Doom 3.

Nobody notices that he says pc & 360. What kind of specs are we talking here? If you have to have a $3k pc for 60 fps then it means nothing.

@Losari

You're strange.

Seriously.

If a game can run the same graphics at either 30 or 60 frames, then there is absolutely no benefit to the lower framerate.

I'm hoping your comment was a joke.

I can't believe you can choose 30 over 60. For cinematic experiences (heavy rain, uncharted) 30 may be *forgiven* but for fps and racing (RAGE has both) the more the better.

@brainderailment
I know, what the hell is up with that. I think maybe he means a PC with 360 like specs.

at least you only need 1 Blue ray disc to play it on the ps3

@ Quest - Because ND is a 1st party for Sony. They _only_ make Sony games. It gives them a bit of a step up, with regards to their developement process. Id and Valve, both started as PC developers, and therefore, have never had to restructure their dev teams around a new bit of tech, such as the PS3. As such, the learning curve for them, is going to be a bit steep.

What's more bothersome, is their inability to pick up a phone, and contact the folks from ND, Insomniac, or Sony's internal emergency team, for assistance with whatever they aren't figuring out.

They'd probably be having an easier time of things if the PS3 wasn't an onion.

Backseat game devs.

If this was the way it was at launch, great let's take up pitch forks to the man with the Ferrari, but this happens all the time, even in PC development. Sometimes some engines do not work right on ATI until they tackle the specific issues keeping ATI rendering working right. or nVidia, or AMD specific optimizations. or Intel.

id lost a lot of street cred with me on Doom 3, so I'm more worried about the game being enjoyable than 20-30 fps.

It would be a real shame & huge disappointment if the PS3 version of RAGE only runs at 30 frames per second, even if it's a smooth, consistant, locked 30fps. The whole POINT of id's Tech 5 engine, as John Carmack said, was to have a 60fps engine. After finishing Doom 3 / id Tech 4, they experimented with a different engine that ran at 30fps with a higher level of detail and more effects. Carmack determined that he wanted to do a 60fps engine for various reasons including the level of smoothless that 60fps provides that 30fps does not. So id developed their Tech 5 engine that powers RAGE with the goal to have it running at 60fps on all platforms: Xbox 360, PC, PS3, Mac (and Linux). If Carmack is now saying the PS3 version currently runs at 20 to 30 fps, you can EXPECT that by the time the game ships, the PS3 version will PROBABLY most likely have been locked down to a consistant 30fps, not 60fps that the Xbox 360 version will run at. I suppose it's POSSIBLE they'll get the PS3 version upto 60fps by the time its done, but I highly doubt it.

The RSX GPU in PS3 is significantly weaker than the Xenos GPU in Xbox 360. The RSX is merely a downgraded variant of the NV47 / G70 (GeForce 7800) that came out in summer 2005. The RSX is downgraded in a number of ways. 1.) the number of pixel rendering pipelines (aka ROPs) was cut in half from 16, to 8. this is not to be confused with the number of pixel SHADER pipes/ALUs which is 24 in both PC 7800 and PS3 RSX. The cut in ROPs results in a lower pixel fillrate. 4000 Mpixels/sec with PS3 RSX vs 6800 Mpixels/sec with PC 7800. 2.) The external memory bus was cut in half from 256-Bit to 128-Bit. This reduced the bandwidth from 54 GB/sec with 7800 to 22 GB/sec with RSX. These things severely impact performance of PS3 games. The Xbox 360 does not have this problem because it's fillrate efficincy is 2x that of RSX when 4xAA is used, and the bandwidth situation is much better because of the massive 256 GB/sec internal bandwidth on the EDRAM. This allows Xbox 360 to push graphics at a faster rate than PS3 most of the time. And please, do not bring PS3's CELL into this discussion, it absolutely CANNOT help PS3 as far as pushing more pixels or help the bandwidth problem which both impact framerate.