One would hope so. I guess it depends how much asset reuse there is twixt single and multiplayer, among other things. I guess we'll have to see, in the Q+A afterwards Carmack just talked about the game being segmented across the discs, but he didn't specify how.
Carmack console stuff begins leaking from Quakecon
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
One would hope so. I guess it depends how much asset reuse there is twixt single and multiplayer, among other things. I guess we'll have to see, in the Q+A afterwards Carmack just talked about the game being segmented across the discs, but he didn't specify how.
Small news bit, but Wolfenstein has apparently been confirmed for a PS3 release:
http://www.gamingtarget.com/article.php?artid=7342
I was wondering about that, because Carmack seemed to be hinting at a PS3 port in his keynote without confirming it.
http://www.gamingtarget.com/article.php?artid=7342
I was wondering about that, because Carmack seemed to be hinting at a PS3 port in his keynote without confirming it.
How the hell was it not obvious he meant no benefit of multi core over twice powered single core?
Read however you want. I was pointing out the lack of soundness of what was written.
You cannot be serious here. I just repeated what he reportedly said, only generalizing the subject. Reading comprehension ftw indeed.
Seriously, I said lost in note taking for a reason.
He probably wanted to or even successfully did emphasize difficulty of multiprogramming. Whatever the case is, comparing equivalently powered multi core and single core is of little value as
(1) there aren't any equivalent high end single core (single hardware threaded) and multi core processors.
(2) the advantage of multi core is getting more power.
(3) neither developers nor hardware designers will go back on the single core ship after listening Carmack.
What he should have said (again maybe he did) is it is hard to develop, or some other obvious stuff like two cores are not twice as powerful as one of its core because of synchronization, on chip latency etc.
But it's so obvious what he meant, why did you even bring it up?
The multiplayer content is typically a small fraction of the singleplayer content - it has no cutscenes (in-engine scripted or prerendered), lengthy dialogues, and typically the levels are much, much smaller because they are meant to run around in circles in them for hours and hours, rather then traverse them lineraly. If I'm not mistaken, Bungie recently said that all the multiplayer maps for Halo 3, if glued together, would make about half of one single-player level.
I was thinking more in terms of a company making the same game for both PS3 and 360,and whether or not this engine will allow similar results without a "special
PS3 programmer".
Typically in an engine like this the gameplay code is handled at a pretty high level...unless you want to change some fundamental part of the engine, it's unlikely you would need to worry a lot about PS3 specific programming. The whole point about id Tech 5 is that it smooths over platform differences so you only have to worry about more or less one game.
Titanio said:
Most of the space is probably for textures, which are unique...so there's probably not a lot of reuse (if any) going on, making segmenting pretty simple.
Which is why I was confused about the hiring of the special PS3 programmer mention. If this engine smooths out differences,why the need for a special PS3 programmer?
So I guess it's a case that the PS3 programmer is there to help develop the engine(so other devs won't need their own special P3 programmer),not the game.?.?
You don't get it, I think ... id creates an engine that other parties can use. It creates 4 versions of this engine, for 360, PC, Mac and PS3. To create the PS3 version/implementation of the engine, they still need a good PS3 programmer.
However, all that becomes transparent to the other parties that licence their engine. They can design a game that shares art and other core stuff across all platforms, and don't have to worry much about the differences between the 360, PS3 or Mac. Id's programmers (including the former Edge guy) have taken care of the basic foundation of the game engine for you.
That's what I was looking for clarification of,that the PS3 programmer is employed now while making the engine,so that other devs don't have to hire their own PS3 guru later while making their own games.I thought that's what I said...
Anyway it was confusing because it sounded like they were using this PS3 guy just to make the PS3 version of Rage run as well as the 360 version ,which would contradict the stated benefit of the engine for smoothing out multiplatform development. But I guess in the case of Id they are making the engine and Rage game at the same time. So that makes me wonder now,are they already selling this engine completed or will the engine not be ready for sale until after Rage is done? At which point all the lessons learned from the PS3 side would be incorporated into the final engine.
The problem with Carmack's argument is the days of super-scaling up the performance in single-threaded CPUs is over. Unless we fundamentally shift to something like RSFQ or rod-logic, I doubt we're going to see 10Ghz mega fast single threads. (Quantum computing also requires a paradigm shift in the programming technique)
Throughput oriented computing is our future now, massive numbers of threads, perhaps some assymetry for specialized blocks. GPUs are a classic example of massive threading.
That means if you want maximum performance in the future, you face a paradigm shift in the way you program, and must work to parallelize your algorithms as much as possible. (And if another person tries to bring up Amdahl's law again, they need to be slapped, because a) most of the time the so-called 'inherently serial' algorithms being claimed do in fact have parallel versions and b) most of the game engines aren't being limited by the inherently serial sections, but by the fact that the programmers have not made enough effort to parallelize.
Carmack himself suggests the program isn't parallelization, it's just the extra work needed to do it. So sure, for a few more years, you may get away with avoidance of concurrency or just use very coarse grained parallelism, but 10 years from now, you're going to have to do the work anyway.
So you better start learning now. This is an area where Sweeney is conceptually ahead. Sweeney has seen the writing on the wall and is seeking to build new languages and tools to make the work easier, whereas Carmack is still resisting change.
Throughput oriented computing is our future now, massive numbers of threads, perhaps some assymetry for specialized blocks. GPUs are a classic example of massive threading.
That means if you want maximum performance in the future, you face a paradigm shift in the way you program, and must work to parallelize your algorithms as much as possible. (And if another person tries to bring up Amdahl's law again, they need to be slapped, because a) most of the time the so-called 'inherently serial' algorithms being claimed do in fact have parallel versions and b) most of the game engines aren't being limited by the inherently serial sections, but by the fact that the programmers have not made enough effort to parallelize.
Carmack himself suggests the program isn't parallelization, it's just the extra work needed to do it. So sure, for a few more years, you may get away with avoidance of concurrency or just use very coarse grained parallelism, but 10 years from now, you're going to have to do the work anyway.
So you better start learning now. This is an area where Sweeney is conceptually ahead. Sweeney has seen the writing on the wall and is seeking to build new languages and tools to make the work easier, whereas Carmack is still resisting change.
That's what I was looking for clarification of,that the PS3 programmer is employed now while making the engine,so that other devs don't have to hire their own PS3 guru later while making their own games.I thought that's what I said...
So that makes me wonder now,are they already selling this engine completed or will the engine not be ready for sale until after Rage is done? At which point all the lessons learned from the PS3 side would be incorporated into the final engine.
Not sure if you still get it. The PS3 developer, ex Naught Dog programmer and EDGE contributer, is not creating the idTech5 engine for the PS3, but rather optimizing Carmarck's engine code to run efficiently on the PS3's SPE's.
For a guy who is best known for pushing technology to their limits such as John Carmack, he should be fascinated with the PS3 design even though is it hard to program initially but as he mentioned it was not as bad as the ps2, so in the future i want to see this guy pushing the PS3 to its limits especially the Cell processor.
Argh...internet discussions! Aren't you really splitting hairs here and at the same time missing the bigger point I was trying to get at. Anyway I think you've already answered my question,I'm going to to walk away before I pull more hair out.
Edit:
Am I the only one who sees what seems like a contradiction in the two statements"Our engine will make cross platform development easy to produce the same results" and "we hired a special PS3 programmer to optimize the PS3 code"?
Edit.Edit.
What is a game engine besides code? And if this ps3 guy is involved in creating optimized code,is he not contributing to the development of the engine?
Last edited by a moderator:
iceberg187
Regular
Wow, that had to be a big blow for Sony. He probably leaped at the chance to work with Carmack though. Hell, if I programmed, I would.
How is that a big blow? He goes from working on one PS3 engine to another, either way the person is contributing to getting games on the PS3 platform, and really more so than probably he would have with EDGE as now he is working on an engine that makes going multi platform much easier.
iceberg187
Regular
Sony is developing their own internal engine and if he was one of the people that was integral to making that engine 'go' in the first place, he's a big loss. I'm sure Sony would want that kind of person to still be in their camp over being in a 3rd party.
I think you hit it in your prior post (and it seems Xenon did miss main your point). In the case of idTech5 they're specifically aiming to make multiplatform development easier. Rage is their proof of concept, and neither the game nor the engine seem to be quite done yet. I don't think their PS3 guy isn't making Rage in particular run well on the PS3; I think he's helping the implementation of idTech5's multiplatform goal on the PS3 end.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
- Locked