digitalwanderer
Legend
YES!!!
RAGE: That's actually what you do when trying to get the PC version to work
- Thread starter Farid
- Start date
If you guys missed it, you might want to watch/listen to the presentation about Rage virtual texturing and the transcode function that Evan Hart posted a few pages back. Interesting even for clueless folk like me.
http://nvidia.fullviewmedia.com/gtc2010/0921-a1-2152.html
http://nvidia.fullviewmedia.com/gtc2010/0921-a1-2152.html
That would be possible. And because texture data would be repeated they'd also gain storage space to allow less agressive compression. I think the reason they didn't go that far is because that would further break locality. Basically you could have to load two different texture pages that are stored on opposite ends of the DVD and still show them at the same time. For PCs this wouldn't be much of a problem because a) always installed on HDD and b) more memory for caching thus repetition would ensure future uses would likely mean a cache hit. However it would be quite a blow to consoles, especially if the texture page was stored on disc (XBOX Arcade or PS3's remaining BD storage). It's left as an exercice to the reader if JC's latest comments on the PC version of Rage had any bearing.
Carmack talks abit about this in his QCon '11 keynote where the artists started doing something similar (without repetition). Skip until you see him discuss "texture islands".
You know what I've been waiting for since MT was announced in 2006? A Resident Evil/Alone in the Dark remake where you have a uniquely textured mansion (and environment). A whole team spending an entire month doing a single room to perfection!
Your dream, my nightmare
Then again some of the guys here have spent more than a month on modeling a single asset... too bad the project got cancelled...Carmack is born again and sees the light
Developing Rage for Consoles Was a Huge Mistake
Software founder and programming legend John Carmack has just given a bold statement that may not pleased consoles gamers. He said, "one of the larger mistakes" he made with RAGE was allowing consoles to have an equal place in development alongside the PC.
In an interview to PC Gamer, John Carmack said, "When we started on the game six years ago, I looked at the consoles and said ‘These are as good as the PCs that we're on here’, and our development strategy was set up such that we basically developed live on all the platforms there. And now when we’re looking at PCs that have ten times the horsepower of the consoles... I’m making a large change in my direction, just saying ‘We should be focusing on building things efficiently on the PC and [then] deploying on to consoles.’ And we didn’t make that as crisp of a distinction as we should have."
Carmack further explain how that will change going forward, "My development system now has twenty-four threads and twenty-four gigs of memory, and we can start putting on half a terabyte of solid state drives, and these are the things that are gonna drive the development process on the PC. So, I’m actually as excited about how we’re developing tht titles in this coming generation as the graphics enhancements and things that I’m gonna make."
http://www.gamepur.com/news/5668-carmack-developing-rage-consoles-was-big-mistake.html
Developing Rage for Consoles Was a Huge Mistake
Software founder and programming legend John Carmack has just given a bold statement that may not pleased consoles gamers. He said, "one of the larger mistakes" he made with RAGE was allowing consoles to have an equal place in development alongside the PC.
In an interview to PC Gamer, John Carmack said, "When we started on the game six years ago, I looked at the consoles and said ‘These are as good as the PCs that we're on here’, and our development strategy was set up such that we basically developed live on all the platforms there. And now when we’re looking at PCs that have ten times the horsepower of the consoles... I’m making a large change in my direction, just saying ‘We should be focusing on building things efficiently on the PC and [then] deploying on to consoles.’ And we didn’t make that as crisp of a distinction as we should have."
Carmack further explain how that will change going forward, "My development system now has twenty-four threads and twenty-four gigs of memory, and we can start putting on half a terabyte of solid state drives, and these are the things that are gonna drive the development process on the PC. So, I’m actually as excited about how we’re developing tht titles in this coming generation as the graphics enhancements and things that I’m gonna make."
http://www.gamepur.com/news/5668-carmack-developing-rage-consoles-was-big-mistake.html
I think they just underestimated hardware progress, and that's strange for id. Part of it was surely caused by the development time. I'm sure it was very efficient to essentially build to one target though. What will probably happen now will be them targeting the new machines coming instead and that will make a game similar on all platforms anyway since the tech won't be much different for the first few years. Although Doom4 will probably still have some PS360 to it.
Sounds like damage control to me. I've also recently heard him make the argument that consoles are where the money is, so my guess is he's just trying to placate PC gamers.
The simple fact is the PC version of Rage was complete shit. Blaming consoles for it is nothing more than a pathetic excuse.
The simple fact is the PC version of Rage was complete shit. Blaming consoles for it is nothing more than a pathetic excuse.
Last edited by a moderator:
The chronology is wrong, that statement about being a mistake to lead on consoles is a couple of months old, IIRC it was one of those QCon private interviews or some such. This latest comment about consoles being where the money is from last week right after the PC version shit hit the fan.
BTW, while I'm highly critical of id and the PC version, without having played it I'm sure you're going too far calling it a "complete shit". It IS however disappointing to see id, of all companies, release a PC game without graphical options, etc. etc. "Complete Shit" is too much, going way beyond reasonable hyperbole.
Look no matter what we say at the end of the day they made their money charging whatever they are for a copy of the game. Now they can say whatever they want, it's just crap and meaningless. They made their money by releasing mediocre software. That is a fact of life. Why do you guys act all surprised? Just because it is from iD?
It's the most beautiful game I've seen on PC for now, BF3 might outdo it but I'd personally expect it to do better in just some aspects and not altogether. It really is striking IMHO.
Why? The game doesn't really have that many options anyway, beyond the virtual texturing the engine is dirt simple. What do you miss from the tweakable options? No real variation in texture detail, shadow detail, shader detail... maybe draw distance for small objects? But I personally don't miss it at all, it runs fast, looks nice, I don't need anything else.
Not surprised, just disappointed. My personal outlook for Rage has been trending downhill since mid 2009, roughly when I posted this comparison shot in another forum (the red rectangle evidences the fact this is the same room). So, not surprised but for a company which prided itself on its PC roots it is disapointing. Every shot you saw pre-game wasn't using the compression we get now. This makes little difference for consoles because people sit 5-10 feet away from a 720p resolution screen.
This also isn't suprising btw, I still remember the Unreal 2 shadow-gate. I'm just disappointed every time it happens.
This also isn't suprising btw, I still remember the Unreal 2 shadow-gate. I'm just disappointed every time it happens.
Perhaps. Or maybe you're just cutting id too much slack? It does seem like quite a few PC gamers had trouble with the game. I know I certainly would not be happy with the experience people were describing.
By the way, I am playing the 360 version of Rage, and I haven't seen any of the problems that apparently plagued the PC version. Perhaps if PC games had to undergo a certification process like the consoles this mess could have been avoided?
At any rate, I just get tired of consoles being used as the default scapegoat for all of the issues with PC gaming.
I don't have Rage so I can't discuss beauty. I do like some of the screenshots I've seen of it. OTOH I have tried the BF3 open beta and it runs on ultra @ 1080p at 60fps. That's with full dynamic lighting and destructible terrain and 64 players and vehicles and God knows what else. It's definitely a tradeoff and if you dig up some old posts of mine and Nebula circa 2008 where we discussed which game would have better visuals Rage or Crysis 2, I kept arguing that while Crysis 2 would probably have higher res textures, the uniqueness of texturing in Rage would appeal to me more after my experience with ETQW.
I did not expect the texture res in Rage to be as low or as agressively compressed as it turned out however. The game also took far longer than us and id expected and while baked lighting for 60hz might have felt like a good tradeoff in 2009, right now with BF3, Crysis 2 and other examples, it's starting to feel less impressive. Anyway, Nebula also learnt that his precious CryTek 2 engine wasn't as optimised as he thought. =)
The fact nVidia had to post an article on editing .cfg files and the the first patch puts in some options is telling. They made a mistake. They probably had too much confidence on their auto-balancing heuristics. I don't crucify them for it as they did more damage to themselves anyway.
Personally, I'd like to have control on what happens on my computer. I've always preferred eye-candy to performance (with a minimum obviously) and I've always preferred more IQ to higher screen resolution.
So, in Rage, if I could, I'd dial every IQ option to max and tweak resolution. Except the stock game didn't allow. Is it the end of the world? No. Is it the end of the world for them to surface these options in the menu when they already had it functional in the console? Also no. Basically, because PC was never an equal partner to consoles (JC's latest comment supports this - regardless of comments made in 2007) let alone lead so it obviously slipped under the radar.
Again I'm disappointed. I'm not crucifying them.
the next DOOM better not have this micky mouse shit though, I'm a DOOM nut and I WILL go balistic then
Ike Turner
Veteran
I'm nearing the end of the game (Already 12hours in) and this is frankly the most beautiful game ever. Remember that I dissed the heck of it not long ago by posting screenshots from the trailers showing the horrible texture res. I have to admit though.. the whole package is phenomenal in many ways. Only thing missing IMO: Dynamic lighting system, less compression/higher texture res and some POM here and there. But as of right now it's a work of art (I won't proper SSAA or better Aniso though.. shader aliasing kills it at times).
In my opinion it looks even better on my screen than the screenshots. Granted, I'm looking at it from an artist's perspective at least to some extent, but I'm constantly amazed by the visuals and I do enjoy the game as well. Just completed the Mutant Bash TV run and it was a pure adrenaline bomb for my aged reflexes (though I'm after a pretty exhausting day too, meetings and workouts and whatever).
I don't give a damn about the occasional low res texture or the lack of dynamic lighting. Most of the Nvidia config tweaks are now available in the game's video options: texture res, aniso, vsync. I never had any kind of problem with it, no lockups or freezes or visual glitches either. I'm personally fully satisfied with the IQ as well, the only thing that's curiously aliased is character shadows.
But I do enjoy that I don't have to waste time with timedemos and options and instead the game just works. Yeah I've been on the X360 for years and got used to its simplicity, but I do believe that hardcore PC gaming should head to that direction if it wants to survive, too.
As for Doom... expect the unexpected?
I don't give a damn about the occasional low res texture or the lack of dynamic lighting. Most of the Nvidia config tweaks are now available in the game's video options: texture res, aniso, vsync. I never had any kind of problem with it, no lockups or freezes or visual glitches either. I'm personally fully satisfied with the IQ as well, the only thing that's curiously aliased is character shadows.
But I do enjoy that I don't have to waste time with timedemos and options and instead the game just works. Yeah I've been on the X360 for years and got used to its simplicity, but I do believe that hardcore PC gaming should head to that direction if it wants to survive, too.
As for Doom... expect the unexpected?
BF3 is multiplayer only though, is it not? So not really an alternative for those who want to play a real game, with a storyline and all the trimmings.
It has a single-player campaign, and a co-op one as well.