Microsoft UWP Discussion

[Silent_Buddha]

Except Xbox = PC. That's the plan going forward for Microsoft. Xbox will just be a subset of PCs. So pushing PC also means pushing Xbox.

The days of Xbox being a separate entity from Windows was numbered as soon as Ballmer was forced out and the new investors asserted their power. Anything that isn't Windows related has no place in the new Microsoft. Of course that also includes phones. Hence, UWP getting a significant push even though it was in the works before Ballmer was ousted.

Of course, all of this started while Ballmer was still the CEO. However, the investors wanted convergence to happen faster. And for the Xbox to go away. They came into power. Plans were accelerated (hence the buggy and unfinished W10 release). And they came to a compromise with the Xbox. It becomes part of the Windows Ecosystem and it can stay.

Regards,
SB

 

[MfA]

I don't recognize the outcome of that convergence as PC gaming.

 

[willardjuice]

I thought it created 3 different exe's

That was for universal 8.1 apps. In 8.1, you could create a visual studio solution that contained two projects (one for desktop/tablet and one for phone) that shared various resources (e.g. textures, compatible .net code, configuration files, etc.) but still required you to have (some) specialized code for each project (and obviously resulted in two different binaries). I think people forget that microsoft (stupidly) created two .net versions for Windows 8 (one for desktop/tablets and one for phones) that were in general not compatible with each other. They unified them a little more in 8.1 (hence the creation of universal apps) and completely unified them in 10. Thus universal 10 apps are now truly "universal" (one binary).

In general, I'd just say making a windows store app feels more like making a mobile app than a native win32 app to me. There's some pros and cons to that, but I can see why traditional win32 developers might find the platform constricting. However for some companies, the store's pros actually far outweigh the cons. So as a power user I'm obviously a bit disappointed by some of its current limitations, but as a developer it's made my life easier in many ways. Conflicted feelings!!!

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Hardware manufacturers pay Valve to certify a hardware configuration, send a couple of boxes to Valve. Valve creates a premium part of it's store for games Q&A'd on certified hardware. I'd not involve windows at all (except as another client OS). Microsoft won't be party to improving PC gaming, the xbox saw to that a long time ago.

It sounds like you're proposing virtual SteamBox environment running in Steam on Windows/OSX/Linux?

 

[MfA]

It sounds like you're proposing virtual SteamBox environment running in Steam on Windows/OSX/Linux?

Yes, so you'd run a hypervisor, a locked down default SteamOS for the client and to run up to date unmodded games with light weight virtualization. Then allow users to boot up the games either through windows or fully virtualized instances of Linux if they need/want to (also for old games which want an older version of the steam OS kernel and drivers).

GPUs/drivers with relatively fast and non buggy FLR would obviously be a prerequisite, but if Valve put some weight/money behind it that wouldn't be an issue I think.

PS. a built in HDMI switch would be nice too, so it can switch back to SteamOS instantly without a FLR.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

In other words, you want a failed gaming platform as your main gaming platform? Have fun running the handful of games compared to non-Steam OS games.

Windows may not be to your liking but it craps all over Steam OS.

Regards,
SB

 

[MfA]

"Then allow users to boot up the games either through windows or fully virtualized instances of Linux if they need/want to"

 

[Arwin]

I thought it created 3 different exe's

Yes, it creates one for ARM, one for x86 and one for x64. But that's only the compilation bit. Everything else in your project is single target, and that's a first afaik. You define how your UI behaves according to the screen space and features of the device and nothing else.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Yes, it creates one for ARM, one for x86 and one for x64. But that's only the compilation bit. Everything else in your project is single target, and that's a first afaik.

That would be a first. How did they save the bit-endian problem?

 

[tuna]

That would be a first. How did they save the bit-endian problem?

There is one binary for every platform? As written above?

 

[Albuquerque]

There is one binary for every platform? As written above?

Yeah, the source code is the same, it's just compiled "differently." That's part of the challenge, and also part of the underlying limitations surrounding UWP - it's not just Windows on the desktop, it's every Windows ecosystem which isn't always x86.

 

[willardjuice]

Yeah it's no different than "fat" apks on android (they could include x86, arm, mips, etc.).

 

[Arwin]

But the biggest difference here now being that a UI is included? (I don't known much about Android apks)

 

[Deleted member 11852]

There is one binary for every platform? As written above?

Not the binary, common data within the single project used by the binary. Is the data in big-endian arrangement (so needs byte-swapping on little-endian systems) or little-endian (so needs byte-swapping on big-endian systems)?

This can be done at runtime or by the loader but I'm asking what they did.

 

[Shortbread]

What went wrong with Quantum Break on PC?

Quantum Break has arrived on the PC and to suggest that the results are disappointing would be a massive understatement. PC gamers are left out in the cold with another high profile release failing to deliver expected levels of performance, features and customisation. As things stand, it simply isn't possible to achieve a smooth frame-rate on any PC hardware configuration and thanks to the profound limitations imposed on gamers by the Universal Windows Platform, there's no way to fix it.

Yup. I knew it was coming. Sad...

I have a feeling the PC version is going to suffer certain performance issues (nothing pertaining to Remedy or the Northlight engine), but more so being tied behind UWP. Plus, not having certain controls (levels of sampling control) over the IQ settings, is off-putting to me as a PC gamer.

 

[Ike Turner]

The way the Northlight engine renders (frame reconstruction) has nothing to do with the UWP thought and this is N⁰ 1 complaint ( "Boo blurry image!" Etc)after the frame passing issues (which are not a UWP specific issue either). It's fairly clear that QB was designed and developed around the Xbox One HW and that porting at the last minute to PC wasn't going to cut it. Once again this has nothing to do with UWP. But the current anti-UWP narrative is the way to go lately so...
Alan Wake was ported to PC nearly 2 years after it's X360 release..Ryse was ported to PC more than a year later, GTAV...well you get what I'm trying to say. Console exclusives which were developed around specific HW shortcomings/features/architecture don't get ported easily.

I find it funny that 3 of the most technically impressive console games have been dubbed "OMG Blurry!!"..Ryse, The Order, Quantum Break... well you are either "Blurry" with great AA or shitty aliasing everywhere but not "Blurry" (DriveClub). (Infamous is an outliner here though...)

 

[Shortbread]

Once again this has nothing to do with UWP. But the current anti-UWP narrative is the way to go lately so...

Let me guess everyone is Anti-Microsoft... including Eurogamer, Maximum PC gamer, Anandtech, and so on.

The problem stems from UWP platform as a whole. And Quatum Break isn't the first triple AAA game under the new platform that has suffered these issues. So please, stop the preemptive we hate MS BS!

Universal Windows Platform: This is a drum we cannot beat loud enough - the Universal Windows Platform architecture is a huge issue for the PC right now. There are problems with this game, such as frame-pacing, which could be fixed by users right now but that becomes impossible due to UWP's limitations. In the case of Quantum Break, this means that we're basically held hostage waiting for improvements from the developer or from Microsoft itself, as if this were a console game. In a perfect world, games would ship without any issues, but that just doesn't always happen, which is why it's so important for PC gamers to have the option to work around these problems with established tools and GPU control panel options. Also: bonus points to UWP for overwriting our Xbox One completed game save with fresh PC data instead, eliminating our existing progress completely.

 

[steveOrino]

But the current anti-UWP narrative is the way to go lately so...

Could you make a case as to why anyone should purchase a UWP game then (especially if a win32 version of the game exists). RotTR is a fine (and sadly, rare) example that goes against your opinion that UWP is being unfairly judged. Should MS not have any responsibility for showcasing its own tech in the best light to consumers? I guess you could somewhat defend QB's PC experience if it weren't for the fact that Microsoft is the publisher and was willing to release QB in this state on its own platform.

I find it funny that 3 of the most technically impressive console games have been dubbed "OMG Blurry!!"..Ryse, The Order, Quantum Break... well you are either "Blurry" with great AA or shitty aliasing everywhere but not "Blurry" (DriveClub). (Infamous is an outliner here though...)

Now if only the core gameplay of the first two of the listed titles could match the brilliant sheen displayed on screen (I haven't played QB so I won't judge the gameplay). Graphics are only a part of a technically impressive showcase.

In regards to blurry or aliasing, people have different tolerances to image quality sacrifices. In QB's case, having the image quality stable standstill then go off the rails in motion creates inconstancy that can be jarring to a lot of people. I feel the same way about titles that have dynamic frame buffers with large deltas for example.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

In regards to blurry or aliasing, people have different tolerances to image quality sacrifices. In QB's case, having the image quality stable standstill then go off the rails in motion creates inconstancy that can be jarring to a lot of people. I feel the same way about titles that have dynamic frame buffers with large deltas for example.

What? You mean like just about every movie or television show ever made where detail degrades significantly anytime there is motion? Especially for movies with their ~24 frames per second?

I wonder if they used full resolution key frames like compressed video (high bitrate instead of full resolution in their case) if that would help with the perceived sharpness of motion. Or if that's even possible considering the whole rendering pipeline probably needs to be at the same resolution.

IMO, looking at video's for the game, it does a decent job of imitating a "filmic" effect where still shots are sharp and motion shots are blurry/undefined. Maybe if they had called it a "filmic" technique, they would have gotten a pass similar to another game that people are fond of pointing at as a graphical showcase.

Regards,
SB

 

[CSI PC]

What? You mean like just about every movie or television show ever made where detail degrades significantly anytime there is motion? Especially for movies with their ~24 frames per second?

I wonder if they used full resolution key frames like compressed video (high bitrate instead of full resolution in their case) if that would help with the perceived sharpness of motion. Or if that's even possible considering the whole rendering pipeline probably needs to be at the same resolution.

IMO, looking at video's for the game, it does a decent job of imitating a "filmic" effect where still shots are sharp and motion shots are blurry/undefined. Maybe if they had called it a "filmic" technique, they would have gotten a pass similar to another game that people are fond of pointing at as a graphical showcase.

Regards,
SB

The thing about films/TV is that it is not just the frame rate but also shutter angle-degree (rate) that defines exposure time and this can affect strobing-blurring.
Yeah many use a shutter speed of 1/48 but changing the shutter angle improves clarity.
I think a good example was Saving Private Ryan that used a shutter angle-degree of 45 giving shutter speed of 1/192.
Still probably blurring
But also need to consider TVs affecting motion blur.

Edit:
http://www.shutterangle.com/2012/cinematic-look-frame-rate-shutter-speed/
http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=15407
Cheers