Another question, as I am not very educated on optimizations and how well certain hardware will perform. But if one could max MP3 and keep around 60 fps and really only dip in the most extreme of sequences, would they be able to play V with high settings at a smooth 60? Assuming the optimizations MP3 had make their way into V (not sure why they wouldn't though, as you said that is a step backwards as a studio).
If you take some of the "known examples" (the shots from the manual, the shots where you blatantly see "a different breed" of effect going on - higher shadow resolution, higher textures to the point it is not just anisotropy aside the cases where it is just anisotropy etc,) and then you go through the whole collection that GTANet has here on GTAV.net, you can start to see, okay, this one doesn't have any depth of field at all, this one has regular textures that look great but are not good up close, this one has the bokeh blur, that one has a dx9 substituting it on the lights (one that looks faked seems to be cut from final game, can't blame them for trying), etc - you'll see a lot of things.
You gotta make room of course for developmental overshoot and aesthetic changes. Room for completely changed textures and models for example, the easy example is the ever changing look of Michael's face and eyes throughout development. But then there are the effects, the shadows and so on.
A nice level of anisotropic filtering is not real bad at all on performance, they could easily pump that up, but I guess it's low to help it look better. Or perhaps everything else is just so taxing even small gains are important. I've seen lots of great optimizations though. Like, cars still tick at 25fps, regardless of the game's rate. And a really nice one is that the radar will skip frames and update on staggered frames instead, which is a really smart and elegant touch, that feature and much else about the radar seems pretty heavy compared to the ones in the past, so it's costly on its own, but having the whole thing take back seat to the world action like that is brilliant and not at all as jarring as i thought it would be when I only suspected it was so.
Lemme shorten this up before the question - you can see lots and lots of different settings in the screenshots. The final settings of the game, it could have looked many ways like those screenshots throughout development, through all the changes, for sure, but they never were being run looking that sharp. The resolution and obvious downscaling was the #1 most strong evidence for me from the start. I know what's possible with 1280x720 little squares, and I know to achieve the images we see, you can only do it with deep AA or with downscaling Like the Social Club iFruit pics, they go down 50% as we covered ealier in the thread. 1280x720p, as you know, but for others reading, is 50% of PC rage engine max res, 2560x1440. So that was a dead giveaway what made me start to look a little closer and realize I was seeing modern graphics.
Once the trailers started running, I lost my mind lol.
Onto Max Payne 3 -
That game is testament to an incredibly strong maturation of RAGE. It's the first game that we got to see RAGE since GTA IV. I think Bully went to PC after IV, maybe it was before, but it was gamebryo. And LA Noire used and got some help from Rockstar's games and logic and people and such, but was in a different engine as well. Don't know much about their tech other than how the facial stuff works. Max Payne was the first time we saw RAGE since IV.
Let me tell ya though, Max Payne is a completely different game than IV. When you go inside of, say, the museum in IV, you'll get similar performance to Max Payne, if not, then, there's some optimization, but you'll be close for sure. When you're in Niko's apartment, it's easy to attain high steady fps and really strong, smooth gameplay.
The radar is dumped from the render and you're just seeing your interior map pic, the shadows are alleviated of the outside world, if you can't see it out through a window, it's turned off, and so on. GTA IV was DX9 only, with some early dx10 extensions all platforms afaik, it had a unique night shadows feature giving lights in the scene shadows, headlights etc, and a unique separate shadow system in "very high" shadows, the clip editor (the source of the most notable performance problems, turn it off if you're not using it! lol), and it used a few extra little effects here and there and of course was fully configurable.
That all being said, Max Payne is using the same engine, but definitely has some unique bits of its own. I'm not intimate with it, but what I can say is that it is a wholly different beast that has roughly the same heart.
Most of it, even when outside, could be and probably should be considered almost like being in an interior in GTA IV, except that it is massively detailed and littered with all kinds of dynamic stuff that is more sparsely peppered around in GTA, yet very prevalent in its interiors (busting chunks off of walls and pillars when shot and stuff littered around the levels, soda bottles and physics props).
The big difference is that while there are big views out away where you can't go, they are not like GTA's world. There's a lot less collision data being considered, a lot of room for all those props and vegetation, a lot less tris being thrown at the shadows, like being inside in IV
All of that considered - the biggest indication that you will be just fine if you're getting performance like that in Max Payne 3 maxed out, is that the consoles are getting phenomenal performance for a GTA game. If you're running IV even like a console - 20 to 30 fps and crunching along like I used to with my old dual core - then you're sure to be alright in V, cause the consoles are. I mean, it is running pretty good. IV runs much better on my PC than it does on the consoles at this point, but when it first came along, I chugged along "slightly better looking", or ran nice and quick "even lower than console".
And my specs were under console (1.86ghz dual core). So now, seeing how well IV runs for me and most gamers today, now we have those "future PC's" rockstar said it was built for, I am quite sure that the performance on consoles is an indicator that at the very least you will run some pretty damn high settings and still do way better than IV ever did. A sh*tload of optimization has occurred, we see it in MP3, but can't judge it side by side and really be sure, different beasts as I said, but what we can do is look at how well IV runs, even if it runs bad it still runs like it did on the consoles, right? So, looking how well V runs on the consoles, nice high FPS on occasions, I haven't seen much slowdown at all yet to be honest, just pop in and pauses in dialogue to stream it in. Won't have either problem on nice maintaned PC, no doubt in my mind you will easily get even better performance from GTA V than the gap between IV and V on consoles, because PC will enjoy not just graphical boosts from DX11, but also DX11 performance related optimizations, allowing you to push those settings even further than you could with IV before you start to feel the crunch
It's a beatiful future for GTA V on PC and nexgen consoles, for sure. After the fully adequate and awesome GTA V we see on the ending gen consoles, I mean, look at the screenshots, think about the optimizations DX11 brings to high fidelity rendering, think of watch dogs how different it looks current gen vs new gen, wow, what really is in store for us? What settings were DISABLED in the screenshots, what can we NOT yet find?
Exciting. This adequate GTA from the 17th, what is in store for the modern one?
edit: took video off, because i cant even find the sh*t I was showing in it, maybe wrong one, there is a sick vid from the leaks showing nuts bumper to bumper realistic traffic. Look how many cars the consoles have, holy crap there will be a lot on PC xD