/vr/ - Retro Games

>>6458753
and more impressive texturing than any other 5th gen game

N64 doesn't just do bilinear filtering, but almost every game does trilinear filtering as well. It's why a game like Banjo-Kazooie doesn't have any shimmering on distant landscape textures.

Conker's Bad Fur Day probably churns out more unique texels on screen at once than any PS1 game, though it doesn't use trilinear filtering (you can see the shimmering).

>>6127062
To be fair though, the way the pixels appear on that tree might just be the result of really shitty and inaccurate emulator UV texture mapping.

But anyway, the interesting thing is that filtering didn't really cost anything on N64. The reason texture resolution was often low on N64 is because the console had constrained memory bandwidth due to z-buffer and such. Texture filtering was just "free" a cudgel for the console to get away with low-res textures

But Conker had pretty high-res textures, and with filtering they looked good too.

>>4803903
It's lucky you used the word "most", son.

>>4581132
nah carts were good

>>4489092
>shit textures

>>4009318
>N64 did way less polys
Wrong
>worse textures than ps1
Wrong

Conker would have been impossible on PS1

>>3736910
here's what one of the best looking N64 games looks like on real hardware

>>3602169
Play Conker some time. It has better textures than anything on PS1.

>>3356165
PS1 in theory can do a 256x256 texture per draw call, but loading such large textures frequently puts too much pressure on memory bandwidth. 64x64 RGB textures (4 KB) were pretty much the reasonable limit of what PS1's memory bandwidth could safely accommodate.

N64 can only draw from its 4 KB texture cache, so that is forced size limit per call. However, in practice textures were usually even smaller than that for two reasons.

1) N64's memory bandwidth is high but extremely optimization sensitive due to a very high random access latency. If programmers were able to defragment their memory pools to reduce random accesses then it's really fast, if they didn't do it effectively then it's really slow. The thing is, if you want more performance it's way easier to dumb down your textures than to program a more effective memory manager, so most developers followed the path of least resistance.

2) Mipmaps (if desired, which usually were) reduce texture limit to 2 KB per draw call.

That being said, I am very confident that the N64 with good memory management will beat the PS1 in overall framebuffer texture resolution. Ultimately the N64 has more bandwidth and a larger texture cache than the PS1 so it should in theory churn through those draw calls faster.

Conker's a good example - it doesn't have super high resolution textures, but virtually everything is textured even at a distance, and repetition is low. You couldn't wrestle this kind of quality out of the PS1 - at best you'd need to do heavy tiling or LOD to produce something comparable.