I heard this podcast as well, and while I believe they truly had difficulty executing on different systems, it was still an anecdote with tons of possible explanations. The leading explanation, in my opinion, would be the display they used. In any case, facts and data need to be shown either way, and the OP has presented evidence that there isn’t a noticable difference between the two systems.
Of course in the end we will get nowhere because people will argue about everything.
Arcade version. as in, them bright heavy-looking cabinets with pretty lights.
Jeez, a first posting of mine, and an arsey response. Still, you miss-read , so i guess maybe you’re in some kind of shock or something. But hey, maybe you could learn to chill out a bit more, despite. 
And you’re right, I can’t link 100%. I probably hit 3 out of every 4 links on my x-box. When I play at the arcade (machine…not mode), cant hit a thing. Feels like I have to slow my timing down somewhat. I can’t comment on a PS3, I’ve only read on here that some people feel, the PS3 is closer to the arcade version than the x-box is.
There are soo many different HDTV’s, inputs, sticks, controllers and shit out there, that could be what started this rumor in the first place.
Take for example, if you had an HDTV and your PS3 was connected HDMI, 360 connected HDMI. In this case, you have TV upscaling the PS3 version, while the 360 upscales the 360 version internally. Depending on your TV, which varies GREATLY, input lag could be present due to the upscaling, making 360 seem faster.
This is just one possible scenario of about 100,000,000.
Thank you Sabre for myth busting this once and for all.
Visual and sound queues might come into it, but I think it’s more correct to believe it’s muscle memory.
My current theory is that if there really is a difference between versions, and it has nothing to do with the game speed, then it may have something to do with USB polling rates. If both controllers only poll once per frame for example, then the timing is going to be different for both of them. I don’t have a link for it, but I remember reading that the default polling rate for a PS3 controller was about 10ms, and Toodles increased the polling rate in the Cthulhu for barely noticeably better performance.
Before everyone jumps off a game speed and onto a controller lag bandwagon, I should mention that I know jack about electronics, and again, Toodles did mention that you really shouldn’t notice any difference.
Let’s compare to the PC version when it releases.
I honestly never noticed a difference between the PS3 and 360 version at all.
Its just in people’s minds dood.
How accurate of a test is this?
I’m with MagMan on this.
You can see it in the video too. If you pause at :35 and :40 you can see how 360 Ryu crouches before the ps3 Ryu to get ready to jump again. Ps3 Ryu is practically still standing.
EDIT:
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/6065/sf4p.jpg
It probably doesn’t prove anything as to what I’m saying. But I still think a more accurate test needs to be done. But thanks for even testing in the first place!
That wouldn’t affect gameplay at all (unless the slowdown is caused by random processing spikes as opposed to constant slower performance), because the 1 frame lag happens over a long period of time, so you would automatically adjust as the game continues. You’re right that more testing needs to happen though. There are two issues at hand - input handling differences and gameplay speed differences. Both need to be tested.
I don’t know how the turbo function is implemented on TE/SE sticks, but that could perhaps be used to test input polling. If turbo is implemented in a consistent fashion, then it could just be a matter of recording repeated attacks, synching up the video, and then comparing the end.
Go to training mode, turn on turbo and record yourself doing repeated non-chainable attacks. Then record it on a different console (same platform) to check and compare the video. This must be done to check that the test is repeatable. If the video is different, then the test is unreliable (although, you could do a series of recordings and then compare averages). If not, perform the same test on a different system. If the moves go out of sync, then it could be an indicator that input polling could be a factor in messing up people’s combos. It could also obviously be a lag issue again, but input polling differences should be apparent over a short period of time.
Wasnt the jump test done on 3rd Strike as well? Between the Xbox and PS2? I used both of them and always found the timing on both of them different. Xbox being slightly quicker, or having the need to press the button earlier to do what I want. Even if there were numerous visual tests done, id refuse to believe it. I would always feel a timing difference. I am as stubborn as a mule on this.
I am not too sure about SF4 like I am on 3rd strike, but I do notice a difference. Theres a card shop ~ 10 miles from my house that has tv setups, all crt’s, to hook up both consoles. Both had either TE sticks or modified SE sticks. You can take the setups as it is.
I don’t know how many times I’ve had to adjust, although slightly, to some of my links going from XBOX to PS3. The most evident one is the F MK, FF, ST.HP (Abel). When going from XBOX to PS3, my hp does NOT come out before minor adjustments (linking or not linking mind you), where as it came out on the XBOX fine 10 minutes ago. Same with my poke strings to F+MK. Exact same thing happened when someone wanted me to do Kens challenge mode combo after he saw me do it on the XBOX version; slight adjustments were required. Other people noticed the same thing. What was the adjustment? Wait ever so slightly to hit that button. I also found PS3 easier to link combos. Just like I found 3RD Strike on PS2 to give you more time to hit confirm.
And yes, El Fuerte’s infinite needs to be done a bit slower on the arcade compared to the XBOX. I actually tried it earlier in the night. I was surprised how each hit connected between each iteration while doing it slightly slower.
The only test that I can think of is trying a 1-frame link on a dual-modded joystick, performed simultaneously. ( if thats even possible )
Take my anecdotal evidence for what its worth. I’m very nit-picky on execution timing and crap like this.
No it doesnt.
This testing they did should pretty much be the end all 360 / PS3 SF4 comparison. Seriously, now you guys are just being nitpicking.
Usually I wouldn’t even dignify this kind of ignorance, but in the spirit of improving understanding, why do you think so?
Why do you think the amount of processing power it takes to render a jumping character is the same as what it takes to render a FADC into Ultra? (check the SFIV benchmark program if you don’t understand what I mean)
Why do you think that testing a character jumping up is enough to debunk the idea that input is handled differently between different systems?
Advanced:
Why do you think the two scenes will always render in exactly the same way, especially since you don’t understand the implementation (think multi-threading, scheduling, caching etc)?
Just because it’s a well-produced video with good intentions, it doesn’t mean it’s gospel.
Three words…
Does it matter?
Honestly.
Then why are you even posting here!?
Don’t answer that…
I posted here cause I can.
Seriously, to show appreciation to the peeps who took their time and make the test. Then you get a bunch of people bitching and moaning cause it doesnt show this or that or whatever.
Is that a joke? Sure they made the video, but there was a point to it. That point is what we’re talking about. They didn’t prove it sufficiently and they should be rewarded for that? Yay, good for them that they spent time and effort trying to prove something that they didn’t prove.
It DOES matter if there’s a timing different between the 360 and PS3 because guess what, that’s what we’re talking about. One frame links are serious business to great SF players and if two consoles have different timings, it should be known.
0.0006ms is serious business.
Keep the discussion civil or the thread’s getting closed.
Are you being sarcastic?
Cause I dont know.
0.0006ms isnt that serious to me dawg.
And civil is my middle name.
ajhahaahahahahahahahahaaa I want to see.
Cross platform games are usually developed on the console with lower hardware specs, then ported to the other one(s). The games usually end up as quick ports for the more powerful one, without much work going into tweaking speed, or taking advantage of console specific hardware instructions. A perfect example is Army of Two - with fps drops and big loading times on PS3, but none of these issues on 360. With this in mind, a 0.0006ms is nothing.
Most non-arcade tournaments use PS3s because they’re more stable than 360s. Never seen pro players that play at home on 360s complain about differences between the ports. And if this isn’t noticeable for high level play, why are people still bitching about it?
Once again. This video is to prove game speed differences. Not timing differences. Even tho speed and timing are semi-related. I could spend many many hours making a video comparison on every stage, but I won’t. I can assure you the basic game speed is universal on all stages.
Frame skipping, slowdown, etc, is another issue. My vid does not debunk this. The original arguments that ran rampant on srk is that 360 version is too fast, or vice versa. And blamed timing problems due to that. I’ve done a basic video to show they run same speed. If there is indeed a problem between versions, its definitely not the basic game speed causing problems.
People bringing up slowdown on ultras? Are you guys serious? First pf all, I never seen slowdown, but frameskipping is definitely there. Viper, ken, and fei immediately come to mind. But all these situations are during non gameplay moments where it’s not a factor.
I also recognize the fact that there’s frameskipping issues on diner stage, mainly on the right side of the stage during moves with flame effects(akuma red fb is a big contributor to this). But to be fair, I seen threse issues on both versions and even arcade. Its too inconsistent to prove which version does it more, but its there on all.
The only things that could be a culprit to timing differences, is if there’s random fame skipping in super small intervals that also causes to skip inputs presses during those skipped frames(good luck trying to test that theory). Or it could be the ps3 having natural input lag via it’s usb port, which would be a hardware issue, not software. Or it could be people with hdtv setup that’s setup incorrectly, which is insanely common. And from personal experience, ps3 seems to have a harder time auto detecting the tv’ native resolution as opposed to 360(360 isn’t perfect either tho). Truth is, majority of hdtv owners incorrectly set the wrong resolutions and never realize it.
The other theory is all you guys are hallucinating and there really is no real difference. I have both versions, both hooked up using hdmi, same hdtv. Both feel fine. Links and all.