PS3 OS Resources.
- Thread starter Aeoniss
- Start date
It probably does. It's just we don't know what from Sam's comments.
Hmm, a correction to my above comment about people not trying to guess. One upshot is when people make crazy assumptions, often it annoys developers enough that they speak out in correction, which means it does do its job in the end!
Kind of like somebody saying ludicrous on these boards so Dean will show up and lay the smackdown?:sly:
Maybe so, but I doubt it would be required unless something significant was required. After all the game ran fine on the previous firmware back at E3.
Like I say you might be right, but I think the "evidence" points to something more significant.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
I don't know, at best Sony could have managed something like 10MB of additional free memory from the OS, but that's hardly that significant. I don't think the reserved memory has never been such a big issue for the Sony first parties, when they have the ability to build the game for PS3 specs from the ground. It was bigger issue for multiplatform devs that have to convert games from the 360.
I think the optimizations Naughty Dog have done or could do to the code might easily be much more significant to the end result than some quite small amount of additional memory. Of course it's still possible that the latest firmware did free some memory, I just don't think it's that important as far as first party devs go.
Yeah, I don't see any evidence that firmware 2.80 contributed directly to U2's visuals or improved performance. It's credited to Naughty Dog's Engine 2.0 update by arne's account. Would love to see ND share more of their technologies out.
There are other speculations about firmware 2.80 (e.g., to support early SDK for the new controller). Don't think we'd ever get to confirm any of the rumors -- even if we lay the trap for DeanA and archie4oz. In the first place, it's none of the consumers' business yet.
That's interesting. Thanks for the post !
There are other speculations about firmware 2.80 (e.g., to support early SDK for the new controller). Don't think we'd ever get to confirm any of the rumors -- even if we lay the trap for DeanA and archie4oz. In the first place, it's none of the consumers' business yet.
That's interesting. Thanks for the post !
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I don't see how we could come to that conclusion.
He was pretty specific that all enhancements were due to the work they did on the 2.0 version of the engine...
The 2.8 update was only mentioned in that the current build of the engine requires it. Whether for updated sound libraries, control libraries, perhaps better network libraries, home integration, whatever.
To jump from his comments to PS3 OS is now much leaner is a big leap of faith. When in all likely hood it's just like PSP or X360 when there is a new firmware available. Going forward from that point, all games are required to use it whether there is any game relevant updates in the firmware or not.
Regards,
SB
SCEE has denied it. And I'd expect it's more about the 50mb mark.
Any link?
So we are to believe the latest version of Uncharted 2 will not run without the 2.8 firmware but this is all conincidental?
The way I see it is they've inadvertantly let a cat out of a bag and are trying to get it back in there.
Uncharted 2 "requires" firmware 2.8 now so 2.8 contains something they need for the current build that wasn't in previous firmwares.
Maybe it isn't less memory, maybe it's something else, but it's pretty clear something has been done with 2.8 so much so it's made Uncharted 2, which ran fine on previous firmwares, no longer compatible with them.
The way I see it is they've inadvertantly let a cat out of a bag and are trying to get it back in there.
Uncharted 2 "requires" firmware 2.8 now so 2.8 contains something they need for the current build that wasn't in previous firmwares.
Maybe it isn't less memory, maybe it's something else, but it's pretty clear something has been done with 2.8 so much so it's made Uncharted 2, which ran fine on previous firmwares, no longer compatible with them.
But here * and others in page 6 and 7 on this thread we see information about 2.20 firmware its 43MBs,so maybe today with 2.80 is even less.
* http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1276079&postcount=152
grandmaster
Veteran
It goes like this. Sony periodically updates its SDK. When it does so, it makes sense to move your current project onto that SDK. Typically when a game goes into certification one of the TRCs is that it needs to be running on a recent SDK.
When you master a disc, even a debug build, it will not run unless the firmware matches or exceeds the SDK the game was compiled with.
Assuming all this, the bloke was just making sure that the debug PS3s were running the latest firmware so the game would actually run for the demo in question! More than that, what has ND got to lose or gain by backtracking or lying? ND doesn't tend to operate like that.
Ooooh...where's more evidence for this? 43mb including both GPU and CPU ram? That's beyond excellent if true!
Oh and:
http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/formats/playstation3/scee-there-s-no-secret-in-ps3-fw-2-80-$1314634.htm
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I find this rather interesting...
So Sony will not have it put on record that memory useage is below 72 mb. What do they have to lose by just saying it's less than 72 mb now without disclosing an actual number? The only thing I can think of is that it's still possible in certain scenarios for the OS to shoot to 72 mb or more if certain modules are used.
And possibly the useage may go up if they do implement more advanced image recognition and skeletal tracking with Eye Toy + Motion Controls, and thus don't want to put themselves in a corner.
Regards,
SB
So Sony will not have it put on record that memory useage is below 72 mb. What do they have to lose by just saying it's less than 72 mb now without disclosing an actual number? The only thing I can think of is that it's still possible in certain scenarios for the OS to shoot to 72 mb or more if certain modules are used.
And possibly the useage may go up if they do implement more advanced image recognition and skeletal tracking with Eye Toy + Motion Controls, and thus don't want to put themselves in a corner.
Regards,
SB
What they say in public and what the devs have access to are not terribly related. If they are 50MB for the basic OS (and give it away for use) they can never raise it later, ever. It would break games. Now if they release libraries that devs decide to use that is not really the same thing as the OS footprint.
I doubt the PR person understands what's being asked, wouldn't have the authority to talk about that, and doesn't actually know whether it's 10mb or 200mb
You're reading too much into it...i doubt they even brought up the 72mb in questioning, just what the OS mb is now.
What they say in public and what the devs have access to are not terribly related. If they are 50MB for the basic OS (and give it away for use) they can never raise it later, ever. It would break games. Now if they release libraries that devs decide to use that is not really the same thing as the OS footprint.
That's it. We KNOW that certain things add to the memory...eg. image taking. The OS footprint is what it is without the additions.
It's also much more complex, going by comments from other developers. Several libraries are 'optional' for instance, but since you almost always need them (for say, accessing highscores or something like that) and they can't be loaded and unloaded only for certain screens, that means a developer will always have less than the minimum footprint anyway. If those optional libraries are all available through that basic 32MB that the 360 offers (as it seems to be) then that makes the discussion about the absolute minimum footprint irrelevant in those cases.
Similar threads
- Sticky