Topic: Developer's Can't Count On Hard Drive (Read 714 times)

Devedander · « **Reply #90 on:** August 22, 2005, 04:28:00 PM »

QUOTE(incognegro @ Aug 22 2005, 11:06 PM)

So if 85% of the systems are gonna be premium then how does the core become the package everyone has? It only means 85% will have a hard drive so devs will cater to 85%.

mikeandbandit · « **Reply #91 on:** August 22, 2005, 04:34:00 PM »

you have a reknown developer on this forume who has already explained what he and his team will do with the HDD support. Why are you ignoring his words?

Devedander · « **Reply #92 on:** August 22, 2005, 04:37:00 PM »

QUOTE(mikeandbandit @ Aug 23 2005, 12:45 AM)

you have a reknown developer on this forume who has already explained what he and his team will do with the HDD support. Why are you ignoring his words?

Devedander · « **Reply #93 on:** August 22, 2005, 04:52:00 PM »

QUOTE(m_hael @ Aug 20 2005, 06:57 PM)

mike - it doesn't work that way... you load to RAM then cache to HD such that the NEXT time you need it you don't have to hit the DVD. Some systems use precaching where the game knows ahead of time what files it needs (linear games) but most don't do this.

m_hael · « **Reply #94 on:** August 22, 2005, 07:06:00 PM »

QUOTE(Devedander @ Aug 22 2005, 05:03 PM)

I again question if this process is so easy why is it not taken care of in the firmware/os level? After all it's not like someones going to NOT want it if available.

Devedander · « **Reply #95 on:** August 23, 2005, 02:07:00 AM »

QUOTE(m_hael @ Aug 23 2005, 03:17 AM)

the second statement answers the question preceding it...

m_hael · « **Reply #96 on:** August 23, 2005, 07:35:00 AM »

its not supported at the kernel level because its considered HIGH LEVEL programming. There are so many possible implementation that its easier for MS to simply NOT do it. Whilst people keep harping on about how hard it is I've actually done it... that code snippet .... not a joke. It really IS that easy to do caching.

As I said earlier.. pre-caching is more difficult but only slightly and it STILL doesn't require a game re-write.

In the end it all boils down to this... who here is WORKING with the console and who is guessing ?

m_hael · « **Reply #97 on:** August 23, 2005, 07:39:00 AM »

further - re: Core

the reason for its existence is to offer a system that is affordable whilst not disabling the higher functions.

premium = core + $$$

meaning someone who buys core @ $299 can go out and upgrade for their birthday to a premium. It offers parents the ability to spread the cost of the system without disabling it.

Also - those who want BC undoubtedly HAVE XBOX 1 already meaning they don't NEED it out of the box but will want it at somepoint so they can ditch the old hardware to keep their old games. Thus having core then upgrading becomes a viable and worthwhile option again.

Core is viable and does offer a cheaper (lesser) version of the console... but MS HAVE SAID that its going to be no more than an 20/80 split ... they didn't say WHEN they would begin selling in at this rate.

KAGE360 · « **Reply #98 on:** August 23, 2005, 11:02:00 AM »

QUOTE(m_hael @ Aug 23 2005, 09:46 AM)

its not supported at the kernel level because its considered HIGH LEVEL programming. There are so many possible implementation that its easier for MS to simply NOT do it. Whilst people keep harping on about how hard it is I've actually done it... that code snippet .... not a joke. It really IS that easy to do caching.

Devedander · « **Reply #99 on:** August 25, 2005, 01:50:00 AM »

QUOTE(m_hael @ Aug 23 2005, 03:46 PM)

its not supported at the kernel level because its considered HIGH LEVEL programming. There are so many possible implementation that its easier for MS to simply NOT do it. Whilst people keep harping on about how hard it is I've actually done it... that code snippet .... not a joke. It really IS that easy to do caching.

twistedsymphony · « **Reply #100 on:** August 25, 2005, 06:25:00 AM »

QUOTE(Devedander @ Aug 25 2005, 04:01 AM)

Then I have to ask, what real life benefit does the caching (or even pre caching) provide over thye non chaching method on the 360?

m_hael · « **Reply #101 on:** August 25, 2005, 07:10:00 AM »

QUOTE(Devedander @ Aug 25 2005, 02:01 AM)

Then I have to ask, what real life benefit does the caching (or even pre caching) provide over thye non chaching method on the 360?

twistedsymphony · « **Reply #102 on:** August 26, 2005, 12:19:00 PM »

I think the reason FF needs a hard drive is 2 fold:
1. The game is physically too large to fit on a DVD. The PS2 version came pre-loaded on the Hard Drive. I wouldn't be surprised if the Xbox version had an install disc.

2. The online updates to the game for bug fixes and stopping cheaters are substantial and with the game on the hard drive they can make changes directly to the game's code rather than applying the changes each and every time the game is run (like Halo 2 and others live updated games do).

m_hael · « **Reply #103 on:** August 26, 2005, 12:56:00 PM »

again it comes down to good design. A well designed game should NOT be loading LOTS of small files from disparate locations on the disk. It should load up a single file that is "The Chunk" of data required and contains ALL the little files packaged into usable form.

m_hael · « **Reply #104 on:** August 26, 2005, 10:24:00 PM »

QUOTE(Devedander @ Aug 26 2005, 09:12 PM)

So what I come away with is that only a poorly designed game would show any benefit from HD caching?

Author Topic: Developer's Can't Count On Hard Drive (Read 714 times)