The all new Carmack-inspired disk and HDD installation discussion thread* (spin-off)

[Nesh]

I am curious to that as well. I suspect that Blu Ray may have some speed read issues compared to a DVD disk. Or probably an issue of the PS3's Blu Ray drive specifically.

There are a few games that do not install anything but seem to read the game data during cut scenes.

Heavenly Sword is one example. If you skip the prerecorded cut scene you will be watching a loading screen. I am not sure with Uncharted though since on the demo I could skip the cut scene and go straight into gameplay according to the demo. Both of these games for loading purposes have some of their cut scenes prerecorded (I still wonder why on Uncharted)

MGS4 has all the cutscenes (except of one) in real time. I suspect the installation is there for either faster read or because it needed it for fast access of the cut scenes. The strange thing is that on each act it requires a new installation session

 

[patsu]

So you agree with me that disk swaps are better than mandatory installs? Great.

It's case by case. In some cases, I prefer a full game install (like GT5P or Warhawk). In others, I may not mind a short install. For MGS4, I'd prefer them to have a more complete install so that I don't have to wait for it to reinstall when I replay. Waiting for a long preinstall may be better than interrupting a game mid-way (I usually have other things to attend to). Then of course, some games are probably not worth the preinstall, long or short. In general, I dislike getting up to swap discs (playing VCD, DVD or games)

And let's stop beating around the bush here. Are you stating that the mandatory installs, generally slower load times, and other factors are purely due to memory limitations on the PS3 rather than the slower read times from disc? Yes or no?

Heh, until we have the relevant details on the table. No one knows what exactly is going on behind the scene. It would be a useless and baseless argument.

 

[PARANOiA]

Heh, until we have the relevant details on the table. No one knows what exactly is going on behind the scene. It would be a useless and baseless argument.

It's far from baseless given we have data showing BR transfer speeds are generally slower than DVD transfer speeds. What's useless is this discussion, since you won't even explicitly state your argument. Others who are interested in actual discussion (compared to posturing and "what if"s) feel free to continue, however.

 

[Nesh]

It's far from baseless given we have data showing BR transfer speeds are generally slower than DVD transfer speeds. What's useless is this discussion, since you won't even explicitly state your argument. Others who are interested in actual discussion (compared to posturing and "what if"s) feel free to continue, however.

That makes we wonder. Waiting for minutes of game installation sounded like a batter option by developers than waiting for some extra seconds?

 

[Archgamer]

PS3 would've been just as good if they went with 3 PPC cores + Nvidia GPU + UMA and it would've been easier to program.

Nvidia wasn't investing in UMA at the time. Doing so would force the PS3 to be delay even more assuming if Sony even cared about UMA. Very few developers also had little to no experience developing games on UMA at the time. As I recall, PC developers prefer the RSX to Xenos.

 

[patsu]

It's far from baseless given we have data showing BR transfer speeds are generally slower than DVD transfer speeds. What's useless is this discussion, since you won't even explicitly state your argument. Others who are interested in actual discussion (compared to posturing and "what if"s) feel free to continue, however.

Discuss your assumptions and allegations without knowing the facts behind the scene ? What for ?
Carmack has complained about Cell's async programming model and its memory subsystem on several occasions. He has not criticized Blu-ray except to note that it shows Sony's marathon strategy. He even indirectly acknowledged Blu-ray's legroom.

If the topic is about PS3 strategy, I'd rather ask what can be improved to real PS3 systems like this:
http://www.insomniacgames.com/tech/articles/1107/files/texture_streaming.pdf

There is no preinstall. HDD is streaming textures on-the-fly. Blu-ray is streaming dialogue, music and background loading.

 

[AlphaWolf]

There is no preinstall. HDD is streaming textures on-the-fly. Blu-ray is streaming dialogue, music and background loading.

So what does that tell you? That the blu-ray drive is insufficient for streaming textures?

 

[patsu]

For the scope they want to address (3D data, hi-quality audio, video and all that jazz) and to avoid contention, probably yes. By leveraging on HDD and Blu-ray at the same time, they could also push the scope to be even larger in R2. This is a platform play. The h/w is in every PS3. Why not exploit them and push the envelope ? There is no preinstall too.

 

[-tkf-]

It's far from baseless given we have data showing BR transfer speeds are generally slower than DVD transfer speeds. What's useless is this discussion, since you won't even explicitly state your argument. Others who are interested in actual discussion (compared to posturing and "what if"s) feel free to continue, however.

Do you have a link to this data?

As for the games that require a HDD install, that's entire FUD. It was a misreport, and it's something that "the other camp" love to spread like wildfire ("hey guys, we have a crappy process, but the 360 seems to be going that way too!".) Again, if you can name examples of this game requiring an install, raise it. To my knowledge, the only exceptions have been an MMO (FFXI) and that football manager sim.

Maybe i am wrong, i didn´t really dig deep into this since i dont really care about HD installs. But aparently it was SC4 and those without a Harddrive just loses some features (like this: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1199213&postcount=35), oh well, there will be other examples down the road.

My point about Multiplatform games and BR performance was that there maybe was an issue because of the multiplatforms and the data storage. I was just guessing, the games that ran fine from and with the BR drive speaks for themselves but they are not multiplatform games.

Maybe you should add "how it´s gonna be" to your mantra and as a gamer i can promise you that the BR drive isn´t driving me nuts.
Neither would a multi disc games, even if i made it to disc 3 and had to swap discs "everytime" i wanted to play it.
And your really reaching with the 20-30 minute install "everytime you want to play a game".

 

[PARANOiA]

Do you have a link to this data?



Maybe i am wrong, i didn´t really dig deep into this since i dont really care about HD installs. But aparently it was SC4 and those without a Harddrive just loses some features (like this: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1199213&postcount=35), oh well, there will be other examples down the road.

My point about Multiplatform games and BR performance was that there maybe was an issue because of the multiplatforms and the data storage. I was just guessing, the games that ran fine from and with the BR drive speaks for themselves but they are not multiplatform games.

Maybe you should add "how it´s gonna be" to your mantra and as a gamer i can promise you that the BR drive isn´t driving me nuts.
Neither would a multi disc games, even if i made it to disc 3 and had to swap discs "everytime" i wanted to play it.
And your really reaching with the 20-30 minute install "everytime you want to play a game".

Which brings me to the way you write your posts.

http://xkcd.com/386/

As for BR vs DVD load times - you want data? Go and look at multi-platform releases, and you'll have all the data you need. As has been generally acknowledged during this thread, load times are slower on the PS3 version of multi-platform games that don't have installs. Do you dispute this? If so, please back it up.

As for your "360 games need installs", again, you're spreading fiction. There is nothing to infer 360 games will require installs going down the road other than baseless speculation. Throwing a comment out there like "oh well, there will be other examples down the road" clearly shows you are either ignorant of the facts, or trying to spread bullshit lies.

I'm happy you're comfortable with your slower load times - that's a choice you're free to make. However, don't forget the fact that this thread was initially kicked off by comments that BR was going to be an advantage, and I responded by showing that it has been an advantage on very few occasions, while on the whole it looks to make games load slower, and chews up your HDD space thanks to the slow disc reads.

You even had the nerve to call out people thinking DVD was fine as if they're suddenly gutted by JC's (rather apt) comments. I answered your call, and now you're getting upset that I dare to respond and question the value to date.

And as for your last comment, there's no need to enter "personal attack" territory. Mod:

 

[obonicus]

As for BR vs DVD load times - you want data? Go and look at multi-platform releases, and you'll have all the data you need. As has been generally acknowledged during this thread, load times are slower on the PS3 version of multi-platform games that don't have installs. Do you dispute this? If so, please back it up.

Is Burnout Paradise slower to load on the PS3? Unfortunately, there aren't many multi-platform games that don't have installs on the PS3 side. Burnout is one, and I don't think there's much of a difference.

 

[-tkf-]

As for BR vs DVD load times - you want data? Go and look at multi-platform releases, and you'll have all the data you need. As has been generally acknowledged during this thread, load times are slower on the PS3 version of multi-platform games that don't have installs. Do you dispute this? If so, please back it up.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=42157

As for your "360 games need installs", again, you're spreading fiction. There is nothing to infer 360 games will require installs going down the road other than baseless speculation. Throwing a comment out there like "oh well, there will be other examples down the road" clearly shows you are either ignorant of the facts, or trying to spread bullshit lies.

Ok, i am very very sorry i didn´t want to upset you so much that you needed harsh words to get back at me. Very sorry. But you do agree that SC4 requires a harddrive for all features? And you did mention 2 games yourself?
And i am not the one suggesting there will be installs, Dan Houser hinted at it and i think JC did as well, and i am sure alot of developers are hoping for it as well.

I'm happy you're comfortable with your slower load times - that's a choice you're free to make. However, don't forget the fact that this thread was initially kicked off by comments that BR was going to be an advantage, and I responded by showing that it has been an advantage on very few occasions, while on the whole it looks to make games load slower, and chews up your HDD space thanks to the slow disc reads.

BR has an advantage, it is in theory (until someone would be so nice and prove otherwise) just as fast. It has a wast space advantage. And it will keep most games to one disc to avoid the C64 days of floppy swapping.
Not to mention it is the next format of choice for HiDef movies.

You even had the nerve to call out people thinking DVD was fine as if they're suddenly gutted by JC's (rather apt) comments. I answered your call, and now you're getting upset that I dare to respond and question the value to date.

"Those people" (maybe even yourself) did a fine job of making a point that very few 360 games needed more than one disc. I find it amusing that one of the reasons was a question of Microsoft punishing developers that wanted a 2nd or 3rd disc. How many games do you think would have taken up more than 1 disc if it weren´t for a expensive license fee?

And as for your last comment, there's no need to enter "personal attack" territory. Mod:

You posting style reminds me more of other boards, i guess the mods doesn´t agree with me or they would have seen the humor

 

[PARANOiA]

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=42157





Ok, i am very very sorry i didn´t want to upset you so much that you needed harsh words to get back at me. Very sorry. But you do agree that SC4 requires a harddrive for all features? And you did mention 2 games yourself?
And i am not the one suggesting there will be installs, Dan Houser hinted at it and i think JC did as well, and i am sure alot of developers are hoping for it as well.



BR has an advantage, it is in theory (until someone would be so nice and prove otherwise) just as fast. It has a wast space advantage. And it will keep most games to one disc to avoid the C64 days of floppy swapping.
Not to mention it is the next format of choice for HiDef movies.



"Those people" (maybe even yourself) did a fine job of making a point that very few 360 games needed more than one disc. I find it amusing that one of the reasons was a question of Microsoft punishing developers that wanted a 2nd or 3rd disc. How many games do you think would have taken up more than 1 disc if it weren´t for a expensive license fee?




You posting style reminds me more of other boards, i guess the mods doesn´t agree with me or they would have seen the humor

OK, from the top.

This is getting very old, TFK. As I started my posting in this thread, show me games that load faster. You've gone and replied by throwing me theoretical advantages in rare occasions. I'll ask you again, can you show me games that run faster on PS3 while not requiring installs.

I'll start you off.

• Lost Planet. 360 version does not require install. PS3 does.
• GTAIV. 360 version does not require install. PS3 does.
• Soulcalibur IV. 360 version does not require install. PS3 has optional install, however even with optional install load times are slower than DVD. Refer to the resolutions thread in your sig for a link detailing comparisons
• VF5. Same as SCIV, optional install, but awful loading times without it.
• DMC4. 360 version does not require install. PS3 does.

Want me to keep going? For reference, too... if I was a buyer of the 20gb PS3, I wouldn't be able to play all of the above games with installs without deleting data from my HDD. Check my gamercard to see I have played all of them, too, if you're thinking "you don't need to buy them all if you don't want to". So if you don't think BR being slower on many occassions (at your link) is a disadvantage, maybe you'd like to clarify the above?

Again, just so I'm transparently clear, TKF. Show me a list multiplatform game where the BR version hasn't been at a disadvantage to the DVD version. Posting your link to a source I initially referenced in my first post here is a bit poor, as if there's something I'm missing

As for SCIV, I wasn't aware you couldn't edit CaS without a HDD - I'd love to see a link, since that doesn't really make any sense to me. How did this mode work on PS2? Surely they don't need to save the character as opposed to a set of numbers (eg, hat 42, shirt 12, etc). Either way, you've done nothing to prove that 360 games require installs - you've gone as far to insinuate that there have been recent games that did, you were proven wrong, and now you're muddying the argument with "but I didn't claim it, developers did!"

It's hard to continue talking about this with you when you won't give me a clear indication of your stance. Maybe you should itemise which parts of any of my posts you disagree with, since you're jumping around and changing what your position is so much, it's getting hard to keep up!

And your ending - asking for speculation about something neither of us can know, and another personal insult. TKF, I'll say one thing, there's nothing gracious about you losing a discussion.

 

[jonabbey]

OK, from the top.

This is getting very old, TFK. As I started my posting in this thread, show me games that load faster. You've gone and replied by throwing me theoretical advantages in rare occasions. I'll ask you again, can you show me games that run faster on PS3 while not requiring installs.

Oblivion on PS3 apparently loads faster, due to repeated instancing of data on the BD, to reduce seek latency, etc.

I'll start you off.

• Lost Planet. 360 version does not require install. PS3 does.
• GTAIV. 360 version does not require install. PS3 does.
• Soulcalibur IV. 360 version does not require install. PS3 has optional install, however even with optional install load times are slower than DVD. Refer to the resolutions thread in your sig for a link detailing comparisons
• VF5. Same as SCIV, optional install, but awful loading times without it.
• DMC4. 360 version does not require install. PS3 does.

Can you provide a direct link for the SCIV claim? Everything I've seen indicates the PS3 loads faster than the 360 (as it should) after the optional HDD install.

 

[obonicus]

How many games on both platforms do not require installations? How do these perform, load-wise?

 

[patsu]

• Lost Planet. 360 version does not require install. PS3 does.
• GTAIV. 360 version does not require install. PS3 does.
• Soulcalibur IV. 360 version does not require install. PS3 has optional install, however even with optional install load times are slower than DVD. Refer to the resolutions thread in your sig for a link detailing comparisons
• VF5. Same as SCIV, optional install, but awful loading times without it.
• DMC4. 360 version does not require install. PS3 does.

Want me to keep going?

As I mentioned, the list does not prove Blu-ray is slow though. There could be other non-Blu-ray reasons for the slower load time (e.g., smaller available memory requiring more "round trip" loading, more complex setup to prep the environment, ...).

I do want to see if exclusive games can shine with dual HDD + Blu-ray streaming though.

 

[eastmen]

As I mentioned, the list does not prove Blu-ray is slow though. There could be other non-Blu-ray reasons for the slower load time (e.g., smaller available memory requiring more "round trip" loading, more complex setup to prep the environment, ...).

I do want to see if exclusive games can shine with dual HDD + Blu-ray streaming though.

Blu-ray
mechanism 405 nm laser:
1× at 36 Mbit/s
2× at 72 Mbit/s
4× at 144 Mbit/s


DVD

8× 84.38 Mbit/s
12× 126.60 Mbit/s

I don't know what speed the ps3 is that's why I posted 2x and 4x . But even so as you can see its slower than DVD. From a quick Google search I find its a 2x drive. Which means even it slower than the 360 drive which I believe is 12x single and 8x dual layer reading. I couldn't find anything about that with a quick Google search though. So if we go with 2x vs 12x your looking at 54Mbit/s speed difference. I don't see how that can't relate to slower load times . Lets also not for get that the 360 can also cache to the hard-drive when it has one available. In the future you can speed up load times even more by installing to the hard-drive. Personally i wouldn't mind seeing an option to play from both the DVD and the hard-drive for both systems as its bound to speed things up even more . Now you may be right and they may not be optimizing games for blu-ray, then again perhaps its just not cost effective to do so. As an aside does anyone know how fast the ps3 can read dual layer blu-ray discs ?

 

[-tkf-]

As an aside does anyone know how fast the ps3 can read dual layer blu-ray discs ?

May i suggest you read the link i provided in my post:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=42157

The best try so far on establishing any kind of speed on the DVD/Blu-Ray drives.

 

[eastmen]

Well all I can do is add to the fact that the DBZ fighting game loads faster on the 360 (with the hardrive) than the ps3 version.

 

[-tkf-]

OK, from the top.
This is getting very old, TFK.

This tone i not needed on this board, just stop discussing with me instead.

As I started my posting in this thread, show me games that load faster. You've gone and replied by throwing me theoretical advantages in rare occasions. I'll ask you again, can you show me games that run faster on PS3 while not requiring installs.

Sorry i dont have a 360 yet and if i had i doubt i would be buying 2 set of games just to compare with a stopwatch. What i wanted to show you was that in theori that the Blu-Ray drive didn´t have a disadvantage. Maybe a developer could provide an insight on what could be the issue with the BR drive. Maybe you could start a website that timed the different games loading time, level loading etc. It would be facinating. But it still wouldnt show any of us on a techincal level what drive is the faster.

I'll start you off.

• Lost Planet. 360 version does not require install. PS3 does.
• GTAIV. 360 version does not require install. PS3 does.
• Soulcalibur IV. 360 version does not require install. PS3 has optional install, however even with optional install load times are slower than DVD. Refer to the resolutions thread in your sig for a link detailing comparisons
• VF5. Same as SCIV, optional install, but awful loading times without it.
• DMC4. 360 version does not require install. PS3 does.

Want me to keep going?

Well thanks for showing me that the reason the games load slow isn´t because of the BR drive, but because of the developers. Unless your saying that the DVD drive i the 360 is faster than the Harddrive in the PS3? Very good information you found there, actually usefull.

For reference, too... if I was a buyer of the 20gb PS3, I wouldn't be able to play all of the above games with installs without deleting data from my HDD. Check my gamercard to see I have played all of them, too, if you're thinking "you don't need to buy them all if you don't want to". So if you don't think BR being slower on many occassions (at your link) is a disadvantage, maybe you'd like to clarify the above?

And thanks for pointing out that a 20GB drive is very small, it came as a surprise to me. It´s nice that Sony at least is providing a fantastic deal with a 80GB drive, of course that would only support something like 3 times the games you mentioned, so at some point you would have to delete/uninstall games again. A total shock that a Console can´t provide us with unlimited space.

Again, just so I'm transparently clear, TKF. Show me a list multiplatform game where the BR version hasn't been at a disadvantage to the DVD version. Posting your link to a source I initially referenced in my first post here is a bit poor, as if there's something I'm missing

Well it was a feature you seemed to like, and from the short google i did to find the source of "FUD and lies from the HATERS" on the mandotory installs it turned out to be SC4 and aparently it was because of that feature that the "FUD and lies from the HATERS" got started.

It's hard to continue talking about this with you when you won't give me a clear indication of your stance.

The BR drive is not slow, it´s the developers we have to blame.
I dont care about installs (i would get very bored looking at the mass effect flight sequence).
DVD is the weakest part in the 360, the price for being first to market.
Installs will be a part of 360 games at some point.

TKF, I'll say one thing, there's nothing gracious about you losing a discussion.

This is another proof of your posting style, you can not win an internet discussion, i could post another comic here but i think it would be removed as well.

This "discussion" at least did bring forward one very nice point. Thanks to your list (if it´s correct) the BR drive isn´t to blame for the slow loads since multiplatform games even load slow from the PS3 harddrive. Makes me wonder if there is some on the fly converting of assets being done. At least something fishy is going on.