Long load times aren't unheard of on the 360 or the PC for that matter. Obviously it varies game to game. And particularly with demos of games that are still in development. The lack of context is the lack of having much of a point in the first place. I think I'll take Bad_boy's advice from here, it's OT enough.
New technical info on the PS3 version of Oblivion
- Thread starter PSman
- Start date
Long load times aren't unheard of on the 360 or the PC for that matter. Obviously it varies game to game. And particularly with demos of games that are still in development. The lack of context is the lack of having much of a point in the first place. I think I'll take Bad_boy's advice from here, it's OT enough.
Of course not, I'm saying the lower sized maps will probably be on equal or less time in loading. It only makes sense, you said it yourself (larger maps are most likely longer in loading). But in respects to the 40 player map, I was saying that 17 seconds may be the longest we see (thats my own speculation as cheddar george is supposed to be one of the largest maps), but definately not the smallest. Saying 22+ seconds as the average loading time would probably be a inaccurate guess until we have the game in hand. Especially when that 22seconds was in a single player demo.
Somebody could always email/pm one of the Insomniac team members for more clarification, they are pretty nice guys over on their forums. But until that or the game comes out, yeah...
scooby_dooby
Legend
Seriously what do you guys expect? You want huge 22GB games and then you miraculously think the load times will also be short?
There's a limited amount of ram for streaming, and the limiting factor by far is the BR drive transfer/seek speeds. The HDD should help, but not all that much, I think long load times on PS3 will be a reality. Of course, not in all games. 360 varies from 3-4 seconds (kameo) to 45seconds+ (oblivion.)
But really, no one cares about load times, so what dos it matter? Oblivion it will be/is an issue because they are overly long, but in most other games...whatever.
Hopefully more games will use the Halo type method where they create a huge cache to begin with, the first load is verrrry slow, but then quite quick after that. Very few XBOX1 games took advantage of the HDD this well though, maybe this gen will be different as HDD support is much more widespread.
There's a limited amount of ram for streaming, and the limiting factor by far is the BR drive transfer/seek speeds. The HDD should help, but not all that much, I think long load times on PS3 will be a reality. Of course, not in all games. 360 varies from 3-4 seconds (kameo) to 45seconds+ (oblivion.)
But really, no one cares about load times, so what dos it matter? Oblivion it will be/is an issue because they are overly long, but in most other games...whatever.
Hopefully more games will use the Halo type method where they create a huge cache to begin with, the first load is verrrry slow, but then quite quick after that. Very few XBOX1 games took advantage of the HDD this well though, maybe this gen will be different as HDD support is much more widespread.
Last edited by a moderator:
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Uhh.. What? The most amusing part of this slightly OT discussion is that the load times for Resistence actually came into evidence to provide context.
They weren't missing context, they were the actual context to show that Oblivion could very well have longer load times on the PS3 than the already long load time encountered on the PC/360 and in full support of what the Developer Himself actually said!
And that actually isn't OT at all. Now a discussion about the lack of context for the context that was being used to describe the circumstances around PS3 load times and how it's possible that Oblivion knows what they're talking about when they say the biggest difference between the two version is load times that are 2x longer, probably is OT.
If thats the case 16 seconds for a 22gb game aint bad, not bad at all.
lol In all "serious-ness", It really depends on the developer and how hard they work to improving the load times. There are FPS PC games that take much longer than 30 seconds to load even with the game running purely off the HDD and more ram as their advantage.
But I agree, with anything less than 30 seconds for loading, I couldnt care less unless of course the loading screens are more frequent. Say for example a fighting game where you have to load after each match. eeek!
So in other words, what was written and you quoted was actually a restatement of what was said. For instance it could have gone like so:
Howard : "In some cases, the transfer rate of the Xbox's DVD drive will be twice the PS3's Blu-Ray drive's <goes on about how seek time advantages of BR seeking, redundancy reduces that difference> so you shouldn't expect a reduction in load times on the PS3 version"
GI then writes down what he catches and understands and regurgitates it in a form they think will interest the reader while maintaining the truth.
TurnDragoZeroV2G
Regular
I wouldn't expect there to be seek time advantages for a CLV drive versus a CAV drive, everything else equal (of course there are differing factors, like data density...). So, is there any source for BR having better seek times?
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
For starters, I don't care about load times either, as long as they aren't annoying long. Like.. Uhh.. PS2 load times for GTA:SA, which required me to get up and go do laundry while waiting for the game/level to load (my gf, on the other hand, liked that about the game..)
Also, providing that we can trust Hardknock to have provided the actual text, it still doesn't say that the PS3 load times are longer. Only that the addition of an attached HDD doesn't reduce the load times because of the BR disc read time.
So I really don't get what all the fuss is about, I thought we knew this? That the BR drives going into the PS3 were slower than the DVD drives going into the 360, but the availability of HDD pre-caching would help offset that issue.
It doesn't seem like Bethesda's comments say anything differently.. Only that load times aren't reduced on the PS3. They could be equal, they could be greater. The assumption in this thread seems to be that they are greater, but that wasn't what was stated.
Also, providing that we can trust Hardknock to have provided the actual text, it still doesn't say that the PS3 load times are longer. Only that the addition of an attached HDD doesn't reduce the load times because of the BR disc read time.
So I really don't get what all the fuss is about, I thought we knew this? That the BR drives going into the PS3 were slower than the DVD drives going into the 360, but the availability of HDD pre-caching would help offset that issue.
It doesn't seem like Bethesda's comments say anything differently.. Only that load times aren't reduced on the PS3. They could be equal, they could be greater. The assumption in this thread seems to be that they are greater, but that wasn't what was stated.
Supernatural
Newcomer
Because that is what the sky looks on Oblivion PC when you turn HDR on.
This is a comparison with HDR OFF (left) and ON (right) on the PC (and before you ask.. yes, there is bloom on):
source: http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/in...ask=view&id=40&Itemid=29&limit=1&limitstart=3
Look at the sky.. and at the hilight on the big stone. The same differences that you found on the PS3 screens:
Oblivion PS3
Oblivion XBOX 360
So the question remains: do the PS3 version of Oblivion use HDR?
Last edited by a moderator:
and exact time of day
What...? The GAME loaded very slowly, but it only took 2 minutes, whats 2 minutes for not having to load the game ever again(outside videos)? I'd gladly wait 2 minutes in the start of the game, so I wouldn't have to wait for loading ever again, I'm pretty sure you would like it too.
that's really reaching IMO
It may be but its the same with Fight Night on PS3 aswel, the HDR is alot more natural in that game aswel, again its FP10 vs FP16. Surely the extra range FP16 has would alter the lighting?
Can anyone of the tech guru's shed some light on this?
The range is still the same. What's different is the resolution. FP10 will suffer from more banding artefacts. There might be a situation where they suffer from large banding troubles and so scale back the range of intensity to reduce them, but I find that unlikely.
Overheating
Banned
Oh wee!
Are Oblivion on PS3 going to have HDR+AA??
Are Oblivion on PS3 going to have HDR+AA??
While we're on the subject of HDR + AA, with a game like Oblivion probably not using the SPE's all that much, could you use an SPE for AA? Shouldn't be too hard, should it? I mean, maybe the RSX can't do HDR and AA at the same time, but does it have to? Or is AA something that you really can't leave to Cell?
TurnDragoZeroV2G
Regular
For an SPE to do actual MSAA, it would require that the SPE handle all blending and backbuffer writes/reads. I suppose something different, like an edge-based blur filter over the final frame would be possible, though I don't know if that would just produce even worse results or not. (I don't even mess with photoshop, for reference)
FP16 + MSAA isn't possible, but in that case, I'd just bet on a different storage format instead. While they've been fixing the LOD algorithm, and they're working on a fixed platform, I wouldn't put it past them to work out a storage format. Or perhaps not.
FP16 + MSAA isn't possible, but in that case, I'd just bet on a different storage format instead. While they've been fixing the LOD algorithm, and they're working on a fixed platform, I wouldn't put it past them to work out a storage format. Or perhaps not.
Similar threads
- Locked
