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

[eastmen]

The 360 caching should be easy enough to test and verify. Time loading on the configurations below. If the caching was as good as an install then why is MS promising a 30% decrease in load times with the new disc install?

360 no-HD
360 HD first play
360 HD second play

You can't cache the whole disc to the hardrive thats why. I believe there is 2 or 3 gigs avalible on the hardrive for a game to cache too.

 

[one]

That is pretty much correct. The blu-ray drive can't compete on load speed to the 360's dvd drive. So at some point Sony changed the load time tcr to a really low number, that for most games is simply impossible to meet with just the blu-ray drive. Hence why all of a sudden games started all requiring mandatory installs on PS3.

That sounds like SCE changed their mind only recently, but the PS3 architecture which includes standard HDD pretty much represents their view from the beginning.

 

[eastmen]

That sounds like SCE changed their mind only recently, but the PS3 architecture which includes standard HDD pretty much represents their view from the beginning.

The ps3 which launched with only a 20 gig hardrive hardly represents their views on having mandatory installs? Those owners with the 20 gig drives are left out in the wind unless they can upgrade the hardrive in which many may be put off in such a process.

 

[patsu]

I don't know. Is changing the load time TCR dependent on Blu-ray speed ? If Blu-ray has a ultra fast load speed, Sony has even more reason to lower the number. The change in TCR may just correspond to Sony's view that implementing HDD caching/loading is reasonable. Developers have 3 ways to do it: caching, optional install or mandatory install.

 

[eastmen]

I don't know. Is changing the load time TCR dependent on Blu-ray speed ? If Blu-ray has a ultra fast load speed, Sony has even more reason to lower the number. The change in TCR may just correspond to Sony's view that implementing HDD caching/loading is reasonable. Developers have 3 ways to do it: caching, optional install or mandatory install.

Its kinda hard because I believe after installing mgs4 and devil may cry i wouldn't be able to install any other game even if it was just caching . This is on a 20 gig drive. Perhaps they just don't care about that model anymore or figure those people that bought it will upgrade the hardrive. However it wont be that many installs before a 40 gig runs out of juice either.

 

[patsu]

It's certainly not ideal. Given the generally negative gamer attitude, I am surprised people don't give the developers a harder time. At the same time, I think they will improve. For a game like MGS4, some of the (transit) levels are really tiny but they still engage the load sequence (and load time) like other huge levels. So I am pretty sure the implementation can be optimized further.

BTW, can't you delete installs from the PS3 HDD in the mean time ?

EDIT: I think sticking to open standards and commodity HDD are some of the best decisions Sony made this gen.

 

[DrJay24]

You can't cache the whole disc to the hardrive thats why. I believe there is 2 or 3 gigs avalible on the hardrive for a game to cache too.

So which is it, it can't be both as good as an install and not as good. Rockster said:

My point was that this is already common practice in 360 games when it detects a hard drive. The developer can choose what data gets copied to the hard disk (cache partition) and the rest can be fetched from the DVD. The data maintained within the cache partition although only 2GB, can be managed to be relevant to your progress in the game. The data copied there is persistent between reboots and doesn't need to be re-copied unless overwritten by another game.

Which sounds great in theory, but there is no data on the speedup or usefulness of the HD on the 360? Do core owners wait longer for most of their games to load?

If someone switches between two games on the 360 then the caching system re-copies data every time? How does this not make the loading longer?

 

[-tkf-]

The ps3 which launched with only a 20 gig hardrive hardly represents their views on having mandatory installs? Those owners with the 20 gig drives are left out in the wind unless they can upgrade the hardrive in which many may be put off in such a process.

As long as they can play their game there isn´t any real issues. If they get serious about gaming they can upgrade the harddrive.

If you want a real issue with these mandatory installs because a owner of a 20GB PS3 want´s to have several games installed it´s the UI.

Sony just needs to add space keeping tools like we know them from Windows XP. So when you lack space the UI offers you to uninstall the game least played and suggest a harddrive upgrade.

And this would be an issue with 250GB machines, at some point the space is used up. Of course how many that really bought a 20GB to because they wanted to play lots of games is another question. Many were quick to point out it was primarily aimed at blu-Ray. But thats another discussion. As long as it´s out there it will always be used as a worst case scenario.

 

[Arwin]

Developers only do full installs on the PS3 because they think they can get away with it. It's definitely a big easy win for them, because they will have been developing the game all the time running from HDD and will be able to just about skip all testing of running the game from BD and using any kind of two-stage (BD to HDD to RAM) caching solutions and such. Since they're working from PC development platform and it's hard enough to port to PS3 as it is, a lot of multi-platform developers will just think it's a good tradeoff.

 

[user542745831]

If there has been a 20gb ps3, wouldn't this mean that sony likely can't allow a game which installation requires more than 20gb of hdd space?

Are there some ps3 games with installation requirement, which install themselfs completely, so that there isn't any need to read something from the blu-ray disc drive while playing, except for checking if you own the disc? Or are installations on the ps3 only used for some caching or something like that so far? If there are games, which install themselfs completely to the hdd, which games do that and what is the biggest installation size so far?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The only game I know that does that is Warhawk, which is a download title too and less than a gig IIRC. The largest install I've heard of I think is 4-5 GBs. MGS4, I think. It was certainly well below the 20 GB limit. No-one's sticking 15 GBs onto the HDD, that's for sure.

 

[user542745831]

Okay, thank you. But why should it be sure, that nobody is doing a 15gb (or more) installation? Just because there is no need for that today or because there has been a 20gb ps3? If it is of no need today, couldn't it become useful in the future? Blu-ray disc can hold up to 50gb on a dl today.

 

[patsu]

The only game I know that does that is Warhawk, which is a download title too and less than a gig IIRC. The largest install I've heard of I think is 4-5 GBs. MGS4, I think. It was certainly well below the 20 GB limit. No-one's sticking 15 GBs onto the HDD, that's for sure.

...and GT5P. Socom: Confrontation should be the next one.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It could become an option in the future, much like MS enabling full game installs. In those cases the 20 GB HDDs won't be enough, just as they won't be enough on XB360. The up-side is the ease and economy with which PS3's HDD can be upgraded - if it comes to needing a larger HDD, for those who never stop playing a game and never delete it (unlike me, who clears off everything unused!), an 80GB or 150GB or 250 GB HDD is an option for whatever low price you can find it at whatever budget you allocate yourself. You can't say fairer than that!

 

[user542745831]

Such an option would likely be very nice. When 2,5" ssd will become more popular, more advanced, bigger in space and lower in price, you could likely reduce loading times drastically using ssd and full installations on the ps3, couldn't you?

 

[Npl]

....You can't say fairer than that!

In fact I can, how about selling the PS3 without HDD for ~50$ cheaper(or whatever the HDD costs them) so you dont have a useless 40GB HDD and burn the money on the HDD you like?

 

[jandlecack]

Such an option would likely be very nice. When 2,5" ssd will become more popular, more advanced, bigger in space and lower in price, you could likely reduce loading times drastically using ssd and full installations on the ps3, couldn't you?

Yes, of course you could, since SATA2 downscales nicely. But with your mentioned criteria, you're about 4 years away from target.

 

[liolio]

In fact I can, how about selling the PS3 without HDD for ~50$ cheaper(or whatever the HDD costs them) so you dont have a useless 40GB HDD and burn the money on the HDD you like?

I heard Reeves stating that he was considering this possibility.

 

[user542745831]

Yes, of course you could, since SATA2 downscales nicely. But with your mentioned criteria, you're about 4 years away from target.

Maybe. Could you expect a significant reduce in loading times with a full installation option on ps3 using usual hdd anyway?

I heard Reeves stating that he was considering this possibility.

Source? Can you even use the ps3 without hdd? Anyway, it would be nice to have the choice to buy the hdd you like instead of being forced to buy the one coming with the console.

 

[obonicus]

Maybe. Could you expect a significant reduce in loading times with a full installation option on ps3 using usual hdd anyway?

It's anecdotal, but I've heard that just installing a 7200 RPM drive speeds up loading noticeably. Edit: actually, I may be remembering wrong. What I'm sure of is that installs run in significantly less time on a faster drive (duh).