Hardware

[Dave_K.]

Didn't see a thread for this....

http://insomnia.ac/news/2008/02/lindber ... 2-round-2/

..and wanted to voice a quick comment.

Although Taito's Type X2 line is garnering some attention with impressive upcoming HD games in response to the Lindeberg, the Type X series is still just a commodity PC running Windows XP (XPe actually). Sega on the other hand has a proprietary hardware platform optimized for the arcade in both performance and cost. Combined with its software arm, Sega seems unbeatable from a business perspective. Time will tell if Taito can pull a paradigm shift in the market by leveraging lower cost Doujin title conversions without mudding the waters with crap. Seems vaguely similar to the Console v.s. PC market for gaming.

[Farpenoodle]

Seems like ex-BOARD looks to be poised to take the doujin-conversion market.

Already it has MONSTER under it's belt. It looks like Examu may be more than willing to pick up and support doujin titles. Of course, since so little is known about it at this time it's all speculation.

[icycalm]

the Type X series is still just a commodity PC

So is the Lindbergh. It's a Pentium 4 3.0 GHz with an NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GPU.

Sega on the other hand has a proprietary hardware platform optimized for the arcade in both performance and cost.

That's true, eh? They are using Linux aren't they?

Still, I doubt the cost savings are passed on to arcade operators (i.e. Lindbergh games probably cost as much as Type X2 ones), and as for performance... well, I have to admit that as far as 3D goes Lindbergh is King. But then again Lindbergh doesn't have any 2D games yet, so for people who care most about fighters and shooters the Lindbergh's performance optimization is not important.

And on the 3D side, Taito can always shove in a faster graphics chip and overcome the Lindbergh by brute force. It's a modular system, after all.

Time will tell if Taito can pull a paradigm shift in the market by leveraging lower cost Doujin title conversions without mudding the waters with crap. Seems vaguely similar to the Console v.s. PC market for gaming.

The only doujin conversion so far for the Type X2 is Trouble Witches AC. All the other games on which I am basing my comments are full-blown commercial releases (KOF XII, SFIV, Blazblue, Samurai Spirits Sen, Chase H.Q. 2, D1GP Arcade, the KOF MI games, etc.), and several of them are very very promising. In contrast, Sega has nothing coming up for the Lindbergh that is not a dedicated cabinet. The only Lindbergh games that use the Lindbergh cabinet are Power Smash 3 and VF5, with absolutely nothing on the horizon. So if an operator had to choose between a Type X2/Viewlix, and a Lindbergh cab... I mean hell. I am buying a Type X2 first chance I get, and I don't even run an arcade :)

[Molloy]

The Viewlix is in fact spelled Vewlix, as I've been reliably informed on many times by the uber nerds on killercabs.com

It's a shame that Sega are dropping the ball as far as low cost, universal cabinets are concerned. I've always hated the emphasis on deluxe cabinets by all the major publishers since the mid 90's. The arcade market is very small and can't sustain all these expensive engineering budgets and hydraulic cabinets. If they had cheaper games (and by consequence cheaper credits) there would be more choice for consumers. Trying to wow tourists and shoppers with novelty cabinets is a waste of energy. Building an audience and repeat customers would be far more valuable.

Dedicated cabinets are the reason the arcade industry collapsed in 1982. Then they brought in JAMMA and operators thrived once again. Then in the mid 90's they forgot the lessons of the first crash and repeated their mistakes. It was more of a soft crash because you had the likes of Daytona and Ridge Racer making lots of money, but the selection of games in most locations went from like 30+ to 5 or 6 in a matter of months.

[MAXCHAIN]

It's a shame that Sega are dropping the ball as far as low cost, universal cabinets are concerned. I've always hated the emphasis on deluxe cabinets by all the major publishers since the mid 90's. The arcade market is very small and can't sustain all these expensive engineering budgets and hydraulic cabinets.

Well, you can't place the blame solely on the publishers shoulders. Operators are just as guilty for not maintaining an inviting atmosphere for real gamers. Instead they appeal to jocks who bring their girlfriends there after the movies, or families with their kids who want a bunch of worthless tickets so they can purchase overpriced dollar store crap.

[icycalm]

The Viewlix is in fact spelled Vewlix, as I've been reliably informed on many times by the uber nerds on killercabs.com.

That's too bad :(

Because this site is the no. 1 Google search result for 'Viewlix'.

[Dave_K.]

That's true, eh? They are using Linux aren't they?

Sorry, with a little searching of course you are right. Don't know why I thought this was an extension of the proprietary Naomi architecture. And being linux based means they can't easily port from windows like Taito can, not that it was ever a concern for Sega.

[CosMind]

sega died once they started killing off their super-rad pocket studios (smilebit, uga, etc., etc.).
they rose from the grave as some hideous slobbering beast.

and type x 2 being essentially a pc in a cab...
good!
means that we're 99.9% more likely to see console revs of the games built for them :)

[elvis]

System 16 have a good breakdown of the internals of various systems. No mention of software however.

Lindbergh:
http://www.system16.com/hardware.php?id=731

Type X:
http://www.system16.com/hardware.php?id=677

Type X+:
http://www.system16.com/hardware.php?id=678

System 16 hasn't seen many updates in a while, which is a shame. Not that I'm having a go at them (lord knows, finding time for hobbies gets harder and harder the older I get). But I'd hope someone could pick up from where it left of with the great style of documentation they've done.

As for Vewlix, here's Taito's official flyer:
http://www.arcadeflyers.com/?page=thumb ... db&id=5378

[Recap]

I was looking at the latest Blaz Blue's screenshots revealed in Japanese media and I remembered Icycalm's article on Vewlix and whatnot. Seems nobody's noticing for now but we'll be facing a brand new problem with 2D games in this HD era of ours. Blaz Blue's screenshots at their native rez are WXGA-standard. That's 768 lines versus HDTV's 720. I guess it's due to Vewlix' monitor benchmark, but it's going to be a major issue in home ports of games like this and KOF XII. Especially the latter, which seems to have the sprites almost as big as the whole screen's height. Whichever they do, we won't be getting "perfect ports", and there's the possibility of even being totally ruined, if they take the scaling route they love so much.

Just anticipating.

[icycalm]

That is indeed worrying. It will be a fiasco of mythical proportions if we get Type X2 to 360/PS3 ports that are not AT LEAST perfect.

There is still hope though. The 360 has an option to output at WXGA resolution, and I think so does the PS3. This resolution is not supposed to be used natively by games, but at least the option is there if those in charge of the port(s) care enough to use them.

At any rate it was just a stupid move to make Blazblue a WXGA game in the first place, and to go even further it was stupid of both Sega and Taito to even use this resolution in their latest arcade boards and cabinets.

[Recap]

Well, it's sure both home systems are able to output WXGA (or any resolution mode the programmers can figure, if you ask me; the video hardware should have enough flexibility for it). But who cares? Nobody is using WXGA-capable monitors these days outside the arcades. Hence, the PS3 and the XB360, their games, are conceived [only] for HDTVs. Even if they add an option for a WXGA resolution mode (quite unlikely), who's going to use it? Those with 1080p TVs for a non-full-screen display? Sounds like a down-grade.

So my point was that indeed there's no way these ports CAN BE perfect due to, once again, digital standards.

I'm quite convinced that those who downloaded that Battle Fantasia demo for the PS3 and know the original version well enough could already tell us about graphic imperfections. 3D graphics are of course just another world, but textures have a native resolution whatsoever, and it's not the same to scale and to distort them for one resolution display or to do it for the other. And yet more importantly, WXGA and HD mean totally different aspect ratios.

and to go even further it was stupid of both Sega and Taito to even use this resolution in their latest arcade boards and cabinets.

I'm not sure about that, though. As I told you, WXGA and HD imply different "aspect ratios". Let's not forget that the 16:9 format doesn't help the video-game experience, much the contrary. Not that the 5:3 one makes for a huge difference, but still, it's not that absurdly wide.

The arcade industry has always gone with its own precepts, you know. Back in the day arcade makers didn't use low-ROM PCBs in order to make the games suitable for a "perfect" home port. Today, arcade makers just believe that 16:9 is not a good aspect ratio for video-games. (The question here, of course, is why the hell did they think that WXGA's 5:3 is, but whatever).

[icycalm]

Even if they add an option for a WXGA resolution mode (quite unlikely), who's going to use it? Those with 1080p TVs for a non-full-screen display?

So my point was that indeed there's no way these ports CAN BE perfect due to, once again, digital standards.

Plenty of LCD VGA monitors support that resolution in 1:1 mode. If the option is included I couldn't care less who might use it -- I certainly will. And in that case I will certainly consider the port perfect, from a graphics perspective at least. At the end of the day you can always hook up the PS3/360 to a Vewlix cab, if you have a problem with tiny black bars. The bars would not be the port's fault in that case -- it would be your monitor's.

Let's not forget that the 16:9 format doesn't help the video-game experience, much the contrary.

I don't know why you'd say that. It obviously depends on the game. FPSes etc. work great in widescreen. As far as arcade games go, my limited experience with VF5 and Battle Fantasia has left me impressed with how much the wide aspect ratio can add to the immersion factor. Obviously, if we are talking vertical shooters things change. But I can't think of many genres which have a similar problem...

Today, arcade makers just believe that 16:9 is not a good aspect ratio for video-games. (The question here, of course, is why the hell did they think that WXGA's 5:3 is, but whatever).

Your premise is wrong, that's why you are left with that question in the parenthesis. I have seen VF5 played in both 4:3 and Wide, and though it is quite playable in 4:3, the game loses a lot in that aspect ratio. Sega, Taito, SNK et al. know this.

[Recap]

Plenty of LCD VGA monitors support that resolution in 1:1 mode. If the option is included I couldn't care less who might use it -- I certainly will. And in that case I will certainly consider the port perfect, from a graphics perspective at least.

"Plenty"? We're talking of 1280 x 768 LCD PC monitors here, Icycalm. Do you know when they stopped selling those? And worse yet -- do you happen to know the maximum screen size they were? ...

But hey, good luck.

At the end of the day you can always hook up the PS3/360 to a Vewlix cab, if you have a problem with tiny black bars. The bars would not be the port's fault in that case -- it would be your monitor's.

I think I need you to rephrase that 'cause I can't get anything you meant there.

Let's not forget that the 16:9 format doesn't help the video-game experience, much the contrary.

I don't know why you'd say that.

Because I'm not counting as video-games the pieces which want to be movies instead of games, I guess. But also because of human perception at the standard distance for this purpose. 4 : 3 is more "harmonic" and helps to focus. Paper, canvas, etc. are usually 4 : 3 for a reason.

Your premise is wrong, that's why you are left with that question in the parenthesis. I have seen VF5 played in both 4:3 and Wide, and though it is quite playable in 4:3, the game loses a lot in that aspect ratio. Sega, Taito, SNK et al. know this.

If the game is developed for a particular aspect ratio, it's normal it loses in the other.

[icycalm]

"Plenty"? We're talking of 1280 x 768 LCD PC monitors here, Icycalm.

You misunderstood me. I said there are plenty of LCD screens which can display that resolution in 1:1 mode. Any decent 24"+ PC monitor can do that, and I am willing to bet the same is true for any decent 24"+ LCD TV. There are squillions of them that are native 1366x768, so it's just a matter of picking one.

At the end of the day you can always hook up the PS3/360 to a Vewlix cab, if you have a problem with tiny black bars. The bars would not be the port's fault in that case -- it would be your monitor's.

I think I need you to rephrase that 'cause I can't get anything you meant there.

If the Blazblue port outputs at its native resolution then the port is perfect. It's your job to find the appropriate monitor then. If you have a problem with black bars it's not the port's fault.

And in fact, I think that you'll get black bars even in the arcades, since the Vewlix cab has a 1366x768 display, if I am not mistaken [Edit: Close, 1360x768].

Because I'm not counting as video-games the pieces which want to be movies instead of games, I guess.

Fair enough. But since I knew this I gave you my reply regarding arcade games as well.

But also because of human perception at the standard distance for this purpose. 4 : 3 is more "harmonic" and helps to focus. Paper, canvas, etc. are usualy 4 : 3 for a reason.

Man, I only know what my eyes tell me. And I couldn't take them off Battle Fantasia, even though I didn't really like the game. 32" widescreen monitors are the best thing to happen to the arcades in years, as far as I am concerned.

(Well, as long as companies don't go under trying to develop games that properly run on them :)

If the game is developed for a particular aspect ratio, it's normal it loses in the other.

Well, I've seen VF4 (4:3) and VF5 (Wide) side by side, and I'd still take 5's viewpoint/layout any day. I don't know man. Maybe I am missing something.

[Recap]

You misunderstood me.

Lol. It's worse than that, I'm sorry. I was missing some essential data here, so actual communication was not really possible. I was assuming that HDTVs were either, 720p or 1080p. But I was wrong since most of the "HD-ready" models you can buy right now are indeed "1360 x 768", as I'm finding out. That shows my interest and love for digital screens, I guess.

So forgive me for the nonsensical lines there (I still believe the point about WXGA PC monitors is valid, though -- those are just non-existent today, but that's not relevant now).

So now I need you to illuminate me a bit more: Why in the world has become 1360 x 768 a standard for "HD" TVs? That's not even "HD"! Is it for PC-compatibility purposes?

More importantly! -- What do these "768p TVs" do with HD (non-1080p) games? Upscaling them (laughs!) for the full-screen display? Adding a black frame (laughs!!)? Or are indeed these games designed natively for 1360 x 768 now? If not, what are they waiting for?

And in fact, I think that you'll get black bars even in the arcades, since the Vewlix cab has a 1366x768 display, if I am not mistaken [Edit: Close, 1360x768].

That was another wrong assumption of mine, I'm afraid. I thought that Vewlix' monitor was indeed 1280 x 768 (WXGA), given Balz Blue's screenshots. So forget all the pointless rant about arcade makers too. They're simply idiots (unless they designed the Vewlix and Lindbergh cabs after that new "768p TV" standard, that is).

Anyhow, if no 768p games have been made for home systems to this day (not even the Battle Fantasia ports), the situation is indeed worrying.

[Molloy]

Mind you, I was just thinking arcade gaming is probably one of the only situations where "true HD" is actually important. There aren't really any other entertainment situations where the person is seated that close to the screen.

That said I'd say that's another reason why widescreen isn't that important an issue. I've always thought that aspect ratio was more attractive in a cinema environment, or in dedicated home entertainment room where you have a very large screen and you're sat a good distance away from it.

[icycalm]

That said I'd say that's another reason why widescreen isn't that important an issue.

This statement is profoundly wrong. It is exactly because you are sitting so close to the screen that widescreen is an important issue. Once you play on a Vewlix or Lindbergh cab you will realize this. The screen basically covers your entire peripheral vision. It's freaking awesome.

But I was wrong since most of the "HD-ready" models you can buy right now are indeed "1360 x 768", as I'm finding out.

They are in fact 1366×768, which is the highest resolution out of all the WXGA ones:

* 1280×720
* 1280×768
* 1280×800
* 1360×768
* 1366×768

So now I need you to illuminate me a bit more: Why in the world has become 1360 x 768 a standard for "HD" TVs? That's not even "HD"! Is it for PC-compatibility purposes?

It's a complicated issue. I've been wondering about it since the launch of the 360, back when I was trying to decide what kind of new display(s) to buy. In the end I bought a 720p projector, which is still by far the best choice for 360/PS3 display.

But back to the question. The answer seems to revolve around the concept of 'overscan'.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/21/wh ... 366-x-768/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overscan

Once I figure everything out I will write an article on the subject...

More importantly! -- What do these "768p TVs" do with HD (non-1080p) games? Upscaling them (laughs!) for the full-screen display? Adding a black frame (laughs!!)? Or are indeed these games designed natively for1360 x 768 now? If not, what are they waiting for?

I've never used one of those screens, so I don't know. My 360 has an option to output at 1366 x 768, however, so, you know, the console simply redraws the game at that res and sends it to the TV... I bet in 3D games the difference is unnoticeable, and I don't think the slightly higher res has any impact on things like frame rate. It's like picking a slightly higher res at which to display a PC game.

Don't ask me what happens with 2D games though (or with 2D cutscenes/menu screens in 3D games).

[Molloy]

Profoundly wrong is a bit harsh. I've played on the Lindberg cabinets. It's a matter of taste. I don't like a screen covering my peripheral vision. If I got to the cinema I always want to be seated in the back half of the room for this reason. Being closer is just sensory overload.

[icycalm]

That statement was profoundly wrong irrespective of your personal preferences on this issue.

Wrong:

That said I'd say that's another reason why widescreen ISN'T that important an issue.

Fixed:

That said I'd say that's another reason why widescreen IS a very important issue.

[Recap]

The answer seems to revolve around the concept of 'overscan'.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/21/wh ... 366-x-768/

I'm afraid that link sucks. If the guy had stopped his answer right here:

Rob that is a great question and one that has come up many times before. I even asked the Pioneer representative at CES this year the same question. His response was that it was a PC resolution that has been standardized.

...he would have given Rob a reasonable explanation to his simple question. But instead he preferred to add the usual blah, blah, blah with no actual relation to the question itself hence showing us he has no clue about what he's talking about.

So nope, overscan has nothing to do with the 1366 x 768 standard, that's for sure. Seems it's just for PC-compatibility purposes, as I thought. Which of course exposes once again how full of shit that industry is, which created a standard to promptly kill it in favour of another standard which existed even before of that HD wonder of theirs. Let's just lol and hope game devs realize it. 2D ones at least.


Edit: Forgot this and I believe it's important enough if you want to write an article on this sunject:

My 360 has an option to output at 1366 x 768, however, so, you know, the console simply redraws the game at that res and sends it to the TV... I bet in 3D games the difference is unnoticeable, and I don't think the slightly higher res has any impact on things like frame rate. It's like picking a slightly higher res at which to display a PC game.

HD systems are not my thing you know, but I'm quite sure that option of your XB360 to output at 1366 x 768 is just digital upscaling. The machine does not "redraw" the game at that rez, it simply "stretches" it and then sends it to the TV (hence, it just can't have any impact on "frame rate", since the rendered pixels are the same; it may have impact on vertical synch, though).

That's why it's all in the devs's hands and video options are useless per se.

[icycalm]

I'm afraid that link sucks.

I know it does but I am still not sure whether overscan is a completely unrelated issue... I'll have to look a bit more into it.

HD systems are not my thing you know, but I'm quite sure that option of your XB360 to output at 1366 x 768 is just digital upscaling.

I am fairly certain you are wrong. Because if you were correct image quality would be diminished when you pick resolutions higher than 720p, and I've never noticed anything of the kind.

[Recap]

I know it does but I am still not sure whether overscan is a completely unrelated issue...

Actually, that link, despite the guy's efforts, lets you know indeed that it is. The overscan is the total of lines intended to be hidden by the apparatus. It means that out of our 720 lines from whichever input, say, 20 of them are not intended to be part of the actual picture you should be seeing. In other words, 700 visible lines instead of 720 would make a better work in that case. For that reason, increasing the displayed resolution just goes against the concept of overscan itself, so it's easy to understand that the 1280 x 768 standard can't have anything to do with the overscan artifacts.

But hey, do your research or whatever.

I am fairly certain you are wrong. Because if you were correct image quality would be diminished when you pick resolutions higher than 720p, and I've never noticed anything of the kind.

Well, in the case of the 1366 x 768 option being anything else than a mere digital upscaling (with the corresponding filtering), then the option just can't be hardware-based, but software-based. That is, every game should be designed to be rendered at that display resolution besides of the usual 720p. That's why I believe I'm not wrong.

On the other hand, I thought you said you only had experience with your 720p projector...

[icycalm]

Well, in the case of the 1366 x 768 option being anything else than a mere digital upscaling (with the corresponding filtering), then the option just can't be hardware-based, but software-based.

I am fairly certain its hardware-based. It's the same with PC games. The graphics sub-system can draw the game at a number of different resolutions. I mean with a 360 you can even hook it up to a VGA monitor and get 1024x768 or 1280x1024, and those aren't even widescreen resolutions. Games look great.

On the other hand, I thought you said you only had experience with your 720p projector...

Yeah, extensive experience. But I've seen games run on 768p and 1080p screens in stores/shows/friends' houses, etc.

[Recap]

I mean with a 360 you can even hook it up to a VGA monitor and get 1024x768 or 1280x1024, and those aren't even widescreen resolutions. Games look great.

You can do that with every game? No exceptions?

As far as I know with PC games it's always software-based -- the games have some predetermined modes you can use. Some games just can read what are the modes currently on your Windows/graphic card and make them available by scaling and filtering the pic, but that's it.

..."As far as I know", which is not much, actually.