Print

[silentbob343]

QUOTE(m_hael @ Oct 17 2006, 06:44 PM)

constraints are also what brings about the biggest jumps in technology & rendering.... without them things don't change or get better, they simply get bigger.

That word word makes a difference and was not in your original statement.  Depending on your perspective the constraints will be different.  For the HD DVD and Blu Ray Alliances the constraint was how to fit more data on to the standard 12cm disc, overcoming a physical constraint.  Now if Blu-Ray and HD DVD disc were the size of old 33LP record I would agree they merely became “bigger”.

I wouldn't worry too much about encoding/rendering techniques not innovating because of the increased capacity.  In my first post in this thread I linked to a story about more effective algorithms being tested that take 1GB of textures and shrink them to 300MB.

We both agree that constraints/limits help drive innovation, but just because a limit gets pushed back further does not always mean innovation will stop.  To increase carrying capacity of discs you can; create more efficient codec’s and/or increase capacity of the media.  Both can be used, just because you implement one solution doesn’t mean you can’t have the other.

This post has been edited by silentbob343: Oct 18 2006, 02:39 AM

[Foe-hammer]

I beleive that disc space will not be the limiting factor in this generation, RAM will be.

[throwingks]

If necessity is the mother of invention, then laziness is the father of efficiency.

[m_hael]

QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Oct 17 2006, 06:00 PM)

I wouldn't worry too much about encoding/rendering techniques not innovating because of the increased capacity.  In my first post in this thread I linked to a story about more effective algorithms being tested that take 1GB of textures and shrink them to 300MB.

Allegorithmic's applications cannot be used in general purpose solutions so whilst their example is valid it isn't the norm. Their methods will NOT compress existing data, what they do is allow you to use algorithmic texture generation techniques within normal applications.

I already gave a fairly good rundown of the pro's and cons of their tech on another post... tho I can't find it now (might have been on xbox.com).

[dvsone]

Funny that sony says digital distrubution is the future, yet they are saying alot of their games will use close to 50GB of data this generation. Games need to shrink not grow in size.

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(m_hael @ Oct 17 2006, 10:18 PM)

I already gave a fairly good rundown of the pro's and cons of their tech on another post... tho I can't find it now (might have been on xbox.com).

you mean this rundown?:

QUOTE(m_hael @ Oct 8 2006, 01:54 AM)

I hate to destroy any dreams here but... and its a BIG huge freaking massive but...

Allegorithmic's "new" techniques are not new; their "solution" is new. The product they are selling is a plugin that can generate textures from a set of variables; Procedural synthesis. What it does NOT do is compress an existing texture. This is what was meant when he said Developers need to learn how to use it.

The root of the problem lies in artistic flair, if your textures are generated by an algorithm then they are inherently mathematical : regular, patterned, repeating or fractal.

Whilst I don't doubt that some games can and will benefit largely from tech similar to this and probably from this solution too, I will say this ...  artists don't like math and have an inate distrust of pixels they did not generate.

Elements this tech will be good at involve.

Asphalt
rocks
grass
tree's & foliage
noise
sky & clouds
textiles
fractals
normal maps for glass/steel/concrete
and many many more
what this tech is NOT good at is.

decals
photo-realistic anything

most games use a LOT of decals & photorealistic textures.

his estimate of 70% makes a HUGE assumption; that an entire game had EVERY texture designed using the tools they create. Sadly that tool cannot create a face, a hair style, an 'adio" shoe decal... so games which people in them simply cannot use it to the max.

It (procedural synthesis) will help - its already in use in many games - but it is not the saviour of all that is games nor is it going to ruin Blu-ray... it is simply another tool in our arsenal and in this case a product needing to sell and thus sensationalised by a sneaky headline.

[NicoBech]

QUOTE(dvsone @ Oct 18 2006, 04:44 AM)

Funny that sony says digital distrubution is the future, yet they are saying alot of their games will use close to 50GB of data this generation. Games need to shrink not grow in size.

My thoughts exactly.... why boast about e-distribution being the future, when you go out and say that games are goin to be closer to 50gB... with an ideal 10mbit down connection it would take around 14 hours to download a game.... and that would take an ecual good server... (i've got a 10mbit down and i've only come across a handfull of current server able to give me my 1meg/s down.....)

I personally doesn't think much of prerenders... give me engine-powered cutscenes and leave the cutscenes for all the new point and click adventure games that are going to be developed... (crossing my fingers and hoping..)

[redwolf]

what happens, say 3rd party developers makes a game for Xbox 360 & PS3 and takes advantage of the blu-ray space (most definitely) if it doesn't come out in multiple discs, then Xbox 360 version will lose something i guess... i doubt they will spend time compressing it, specially if mostly are pre-renders movies, trailers, making of videos etc.

[Martinchris23]

Agree with the previous posts - if the way forward is via e-distribution, then a 50GB game is unrealistic to transmit over the Internet.

IMHO it's either lazy coding (why compress/calculate on-the-fly when you have this much storage space?) or a massive inefficiency of the Cell architecture.

From experience, the less reading a drive needs to do of a storage medium the better - anyone know the MTBF for the PS3's drive?

[m_hael]

QUOTE(Martinchris23 @ Oct 18 2006, 04:18 AM)

From experience, the less reading a drive needs to do of a storage medium the better - anyone know the MTBF for the PS3's drive?

< 360

[Pheidias]

dvd will be read at 8x and BD at 2x the 360 is 12x for dvd

2x blueray is ~75mbits/s and 12x dvd is ~ 120mbits

So the ps3 will move stuff slower of the discs then the xbox360.

Not sure though but if they utilize the HDD alot then they should be able to cache alot of the game and thereby not need the speed. But If the ps1 and ps2 is any indication the load times WILL be horrible

MTBF = Mean-time-between-failure?

This post has been edited by Pheidias: Oct 18 2006, 03:05 PM

[throwingks]

^ No, no, no. MTBF = Maximum Time for Blu-ray's Failure.

[m_hael]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Oct 18 2006, 06:53 AM)

^ No, no, no. MTBF = Maximum Time for Blu-ray's Failure.

a daily acronym for sure.