*merge/rename* The Importance of an H.D.D. (e.g. caches, streaming etc)

[Shifty Geezer]

Successful ellimination of pop-in (where it's not an LOD issue) also needs effective management of the resource caching on HDD. If you want a texture and it's not in RAM, you have to load it. HDD's aren't instantaneous and by the time it's loaded, the frame can need to be drawn. Ideally you prefetch the data before the textures are accessed, and you can do that with optical disks. Last gen did it on a lot of titles. The difference is you have to prefetch way in advance to accomodate higher latency, and you can't load so much at a time, so would be looking at less variety.

But in conclusion, an HDD doesn't solve pop-in, nor is an HDD needed for streaming content, as last-gen amply demonstrates.

 

[rounin]

But we do already know Uncharted and Ratchet and Clank Future will have zero loading times once the game initially loads. There are no loading transitions between levels. So PS3 games are already reaping the benefits of the built in HD with regard to streaming.

With regards to such bigscale games, it will also be interesting to see whether or not a high-density data disc + harddrive will be necessary to meet the expectations of next-generation audio/visual fidelity. We're hearing complaints of X360 holding back development on GTA and now Uncharted developers are saying that the game is not possible on DVD.

One way to get around it would be to have X360 users require a HD to play the game, and make it necessary to install the game if they want to have a seamless experience. Otherwise, one could end up having to remove and insert discs every few minutes every time they traverse different parts of a big map.

 

[deepbrown]

What?

Of course this topic is borderline to trolling, the whole way its written is basically asking if MS sucks for not implementing HDD as standard.

Your even asking if MS did bad doing so.

Well I framed it wrongly. Which is amusing, I'm not the type to troll. There is a contrast between the two consoles...and I don't think that its wrong bringing that out. Talking about differences is important, and when it is a feature such as this, that may impact games...then I felt it was important to bring that out.

The reason I changed the post was not to look innocent, it was to bring the debate more on target, as I can see how it would have been misinterpreted.

Also it was referring to future titles for much higher-res textures...and whether an HDD may be needed for that. I'm not talking about past gen or even current gen games that uses texture streaming. It's also about the future.

 

[Tap In]

Well I framed it wrongly. Which is amusing, I'm not the type to troll. There is a contrast between the two consoles...and I don't think that its wrong bringing that out. Talking about differences is important, and when it is a feature such as this, that may impact games...then I felt it was important to bring that out.

The reason I changed the post was not to look innocent, it was to bring the debate more on target, as I can see how it would have been misinterpreted.

Also it was referring to future titles for much higher-res textures...and whether an HDD may be needed for that. I'm not talking about past gen or even current gen games that uses texture streaming. It's also about the future.

X360 can use caching also.... just not with the CORE.

this thread has been done to death several times in many forms

 

[deepbrown]

X360 can use caching also.... just not with the CORE.

this thread has been done to death several times in many forms

OK. I can't find it. All I can find is cacheing, but not about texture streaming and whether it is an advantage for developers who want to employ high-res texture streaming in future games. Do you have the link?

 

[Tap In]

There is a contrast between the two consoles...and I don't think that its wrong bringing that out.

I was referring to this which is what this thread appears to actually be trying to get at.

If there is a HDD in a system regardless of what brand it is... software devs can use it any way they are allowed or see fit.

 

[rogue]

With regards to such bigscale games, it will also be interesting to see whether or not a high-density data disc + harddrive will be necessary to meet the expectations of next-generation audio/visual fidelity. We're hearing complaints of X360 holding back development on GTA and now Uncharted developers are saying that the game is not possible on DVD.

One way to get around it would be to have X360 users require a HD to play the game, and make it necessary to install the game if they want to have a seamless experience. Otherwise, one could end up having to remove and insert discs every few minutes every time they traverse different parts of a big map.

That GTA comment you made there is completely out of context. Rockstar stated that having to take the Core 360 into account had presented some design challenges, but they also went on to say that the PS3 is giving them its share of trouble as well. They didn't specify what that was, but then again that was a Playstation centric publication.

Also, in the recent cover story Game Informer did on GTA4, all their time was spent the the 360 version of the game. It seemed as if it was going just fine.

I can't comment on the Uncharted quote since I haven't seen it. A link would be helpful.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That GTA comment you made there is completely out of context. Rockstar stated that having to take the Core 360 into account... They didn't specify what that was...

If they mentioed the Core specifically, what else can they be talking about other than absence of HDD?

 

[Todd33]

If they mentioed the Core specifically, what else can they be talking about other than absence of HDD?

The wired controller?

 

[rogue]

If they mentioed the Core specifically, what else can they be talking about other than absence of HDD?

What?

Of course the limitation of the Core was its lack of a HDD. What I said wasn't specified was what it was on the PS3 that was presenting them with challenges.

 

[Tap In]

If they mentioed the Core specifically, what else can they be talking about other than absence of HDD?

True but Oblivion devs confirmed many moons ago that the Core does not prohibit the other 360 skus from caching the games.

It is just that the CORE will not use it and I'm sure R* was referring to trying to figure how to get good performance out of the CORE without using the caching it was going to be using in the Premium, elite and PS3.

 

[woundingchaney]

With regards to such bigscale games, it will also be interesting to see whether or not a high-density data disc + harddrive will be necessary to meet the expectations of next-generation audio/visual fidelity. We're hearing complaints of X360 holding back development on GTA and now Uncharted developers are saying that the game is not possible on DVD.

One way to get around it would be to have X360 users require a HD to play the game, and make it necessary to install the game if they want to have a seamless experience. Otherwise, one could end up having to remove and insert discs every few minutes every time they traverse different parts of a big map.

Well the true GTA quote was misleading as it seems that there is issues with both architectures that R* is experiencing. It took the internet about 2 seconds to completely skew the issue.

Uncharted and many Sony exclusive developers are saying that a game cant be done on DvD and while Im sure they are correct to a certain extent, because quite frankly a game cant go from 25 gig to 8 gig overnight; although Im willing to bet that if they werent working specifically with BR they could still recreate the game on DVD through one method or another. Having said this I dont think that anyone questions the advantage that having a larger storage medium presents; the question remains in its "necessity" (which Im kind of in the middle on personally).

As far as texture streaming on the hdd, yes in a void it is an advantage but other issues surface as well (which many of them have been presented). These would be memory allocation, transfer for disk and hdd speeds, game pacing, rendering throughput etc. In a single comparison I completely believe that hdd streaming is infact faster than disk streaming ever could be, but its not an issue to be in a void. In specific aspects such as this Im not sure that having a potential hdd or programming to detect the presence of the hdd would apply quite simply as the game itself would need to revolve around its presence; this would be a good question as to what extent an optional hdd makes in specific areas when involved with game development (or if infact it makes it truly incapable as statements have suggested in the past, I personally have heard it go both ways but one knows how that is ).

I wouldnt doubt that we see considerably more 360 games that require the presence of a hdd (particularly if the mmo genre hits consoles as expected), nor at this point do I see this being much of a concern for publishers given the attach rate of the hdd. Although in the future if/when the core takes off this could limit the possibility considerably more. In the end I question the lack of a standardized hdd by MS particularly since many of their online features would greatly benefit from its presence in every console. I strongly believe that Sony made the right move on both a development and design choice by making the hdd standard (although it could be possible that it wasnt as much choice as necessity on Sony's part).

I seriously doubt we ever see a game that needs to remove and insert discs every few minutes. This seems to be number one argument as to why sandbox like titles "cannot" be done on DVD this gen. Given the visual data needed in past references of "next gen" sandbox titles I believe it would be possible to split the game through story/plot rather than through area and simply keep all visual information on both discs (or however many disks the title requires). Although, of course if I am wrong this would give Sony the biggest heads up advantage on an extremely popular genre that they could ever ask for.

 

[Tap In]

Originally Posted by rounin

Otherwise, one could end up having to remove and insert discs every few minutes every time they traverse different parts of a big map.

sorry but,

 

[rogue]

I seriously doubt we ever see a game that needs to remove and insert discs every few minutes. This seems to be number one argument as to why sandbox like titles "cannot" be done on DVD this gen. Given the visual data needed in past references of "next gen" sandbox titles I believe it would be possible to split the game through story/plot rather than through area and simply keep all visual information on both discs (or however many disks the title requires). Although, of course if I am wrong this would give Sony the biggest heads up advantage on an extremely popular genre that they could ever ask for.

Hasn't Oblivion already proven that this isn't a real concern?

 

[woundingchaney]

Hasn't Oblivion already proven that this isn't a real concern?

Yes and no. Oblivion uses generated information to create its expansive enviroments (which is something Im willing to bet that is done on all or many of the sandbox genre titles), while the amount of graphical features is very impressive many dont consider it to be a true comparison. There is also the line drawn between expansive rural areas and congested urban areas. Looking at other sandbox title from this gen (SA, CrD, etc) the graphical/visual data isnt anywhere near what many are estimating (its about 2 gig or under IIRC).

GTA is the big one on everyones mind and how well it relates to what has been done so far this gen is anyones guess. I personally think GTA is going to answer a lot of the questions regarding DVD9 this gen be it good or bad (as this genre is the number one exclamation point as to why DVD9 is inefficient). Right now I honestly have no guess, it could go either way on the issue.

 

[scooby_dooby]

If they mentioed the Core specifically, what else can they be talking about other than absence of HDD?

Rounin's statement was a misquote, taken out of context. He referred to needing both HD disc, and HDD for next gen games, and the statement following states "the 360" was holding back development on GTA. Since both systems have a HDD, one would assume he's referring to the 360's lack of a HD disc.

Seeing Rockstar's actual quote, in context, it's obvious they are referring to lack of HD, and not DVD limitations. So, thanks for setting that straight.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

. Looking at other sandbox title from this gen (SA, CrD, etc) the graphical/visual data isnt anywhere near what many are estimating (its about 2 gig or under IIRC).

What is SA? San Andreas? Because that game is 2.3 gigs big in the Xbox Triology edition.

 

[scooby_dooby]

GTA is the big one on everyones mind and how well it relates to what has been done so far this gen is anyones guess. I personally think GTA is going to answer a lot of the questions regarding DVD9 this gen be it good or bad (as this genre is the number one exclamation point as to why DVD9 is inefficient). Right now I honestly have no guess, it could go either way on the issue.

Well the question has already been answered really, or at least seems to be.

GTA4 is coming out on DVD, and looks to be equal in terms of size and graphical fidelity to the PS3 version. All the ridiculous arguments about how this would not be possible, and we would see 8x increase in game sizes seem dead in the water.

We'll have to wiat until the final verdict is in, and of course, people will still argue that Rockstar catered to the lowest common denominator (which is true), but really with the announcement of GTA4 on a single DVD, I pretty much consider this issue to be put to bed.

As for the lowest common denominator thing, well I guess the Sony hardcore are going to have to realize that because of BR, and the high cost of the system, this is going to be the case for almost all games. 360 has the largest install base, and this isn't going to change any time soon.

 

[woundingchaney]

What is SA? San Andreas? Because that game is 2.3 gigs big in the Xbox Triology edition.

Sorry I meant SR (saints row), SA was a typo.

 

[-tkf-]

Well the question has already been answered really, or at least seems to be.

GTA4 is coming out on DVD, and looks to be equal in terms of size and graphical fidelity to the PS3 version. All the ridiculous arguments about how this would not be possible, and we would see 8x increase in game sizes seem dead in the water.

We'll have to wiat until the final verdict is in, and of course, people will still argue that Rockstar catered to the lowest common denominator (which is true), but really with the announcement of GTA4 on a single DVD, I pretty much consider this issue to be put to bed.

As for the lowest common denominator thing, well I guess the Sony hardcore are going to have to realize that because of BR, and the high cost of the system, this is going to be the case for almost all games. 360 has the largest install base, and this isn't going to change any time soon.

Noone has any idea of what the 2 versions is gonna look like, or did i miss something?

If Rockstar have a production pipe that supports both platforms strenghts, i see no reason why they couldn´t up the texture res on the PS3 version, IF the engine supports it. And if their draw distance is limited by media Speed, they may include a texture install on both versions.

But i guess that would be dreaming