Quick question about blu-ray
- Thread starter Gerard
- Start date
The rough guide is:
PS3 with 2x Blu-Ray: 9MBps
360 with 12x DVD: 16MBps
Now that is simplified, but roughly comparable figures (according to what I have read). Suddenly that decision to put in Blu-Ray drives into the PS3 isn't quite as great for games as Sony make out. The irony is it can read normal DVDs faster than Blu-Ray disks.
PS3 with 2x Blu-Ray: 9MBps
360 with 12x DVD: 16MBps
Now that is simplified, but roughly comparable figures (according to what I have read). Suddenly that decision to put in Blu-Ray drives into the PS3 isn't quite as great for games as Sony make out. The irony is it can read normal DVDs faster than Blu-Ray disks.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 9,204
Caustic said:
I vote we go back to cartridges, solid state ***. {<<edit omg "EFF" "TEE" "double u" is a censored acronym!?! why i ask you! WHY"}
I forget the exact tech spects of flash memorey but i believe it to be in the region of 100,000,000 MB/Sec surely the best answer
Well this is the problem, isn't it. Optical disks have loads of space, esp Blu-Ray, but not that great transfer speed, and awful access times. Carts have much much less space, good transfer speeds, and great access times. But alas they cost way too much. The problem, is that they aren't that much faster than optical media for transfer rates and cost several orders of magnitude more.
Well its now started. Dark messiah is 10gig's available on download on steam, so games are now using more than DVD size.
Seems we now have an answer to 'when will we get a game that needs that size' has now been answered. And it cant be poor compression techniques, as steam will want the size to be a small as possible as its a digital download.
Seems we now have an answer to 'when will we get a game that needs that size' has now been answered. And it cant be poor compression techniques, as steam will want the size to be a small as possible as its a digital download.
NokkonWud said:
Ifs and buts my friend
At present we have reached the time when we have incurred the limit. Sure people may start using this new algorithm to build games, but that will all take time as they will need to want to do it, and learn how to get the 70% compression and get it all working well. which could feasibly be a wee while away yet.
Also, isnt that only an algorithm to reduce texture sizes by 70%?
If so then thats a good thing, image maps are what make files a huge side, models themselves aren't huge in size (in comparison to textures).
For example, a house could be modelled and weigh in at 35kb, but the textures would weigh in at 1-2mb. Those are raw straight from a modelling program too.
For example, a house could be modelled and weigh in at 35kb, but the textures would weigh in at 1-2mb. Those are raw straight from a modelling program too.
Yeah but its still not going to be the full game reduced in 70% size, i dont know what % the textures make up by the time you total up physics engines, sounds, models etc, you will have a better idea.
But the biggest problem it will face in converting people, sure the maker says its wonderfull and great, but getting folk to switch from what they have been using for years, is a hard process lol Especially when its a powerhouse like Adobe they are trying to replace (if i read the article right)
So until then i can't see many using it, the only benifactor will be the xbox 360 and anyone who uses edistribution (which wont amount to a lot of companies), PC's wont really care as they have bags of storage and you are only ever going to need the 2nd disk once, and BD on the PS3 will have the storage to cover it, so is there a need for them to change over, for xbox 360 and steam? Only time will tell i guess
But the biggest problem it will face in converting people, sure the maker says its wonderfull and great, but getting folk to switch from what they have been using for years, is a hard process lol Especially when its a powerhouse like Adobe they are trying to replace (if i read the article right)
So until then i can't see many using it, the only benifactor will be the xbox 360 and anyone who uses edistribution (which wont amount to a lot of companies), PC's wont really care as they have bags of storage and you are only ever going to need the 2nd disk once, and BD on the PS3 will have the storage to cover it, so is there a need for them to change over, for xbox 360 and steam? Only time will tell i guess
Texture maps, if memory serves (from lectures), take up around 50-65% of a discs space.
I personally have nothing against multiple disc games (it never stopped FFVII from being an all-time classic), but if this compression does take off it will be revolutionary to say the least.
I personally have nothing against multiple disc games (it never stopped FFVII from being an all-time classic), but if this compression does take off it will be revolutionary to say the least.
NokkonWud said:
So if its 50% assuming the compression gets full effect you are only going to save 25% of the space on a disk, with a current game reaching 10GB, will bring it down to 7.5.GB then its already stillll starting to struggle. (i know it will fit, but it will only have just over a gig worth of room to play with)
Revolutionary is a bit of a strong word imo, as from an end user pov there isnt a huge benefit from it, unless its going to increase frame rates and mean we will get greater textures with no performance loss then yeah it may well be.
Multi disk games dont particularly bother me neither, but i would rule out MS saying 'oh well some games will actually only be released on HD-DVD.' Which would prove Sony right all along with the need for disk space. And if you need to buy an HD-DVD add on to the 360 to play some games, think i will be stopping buying 360 games.
Games don't really need much more space than a DVD can hold. Yet. In the future, they might do, but even then, very few games will actually need it. And as people have said, games on two disks is not a major problem and even can be cool.
Thinking about the spave thing, GC disks could hold 1.2GB. Thats not much when both the PS2 and XBox can hold 9GB, but it didn't make the GC games any worse, and they used dual disks for some games.
Thinking about the spave thing, GC disks could hold 1.2GB. Thats not much when both the PS2 and XBox can hold 9GB, but it didn't make the GC games any worse, and they used dual disks for some games.
NokkonWud said:
I would say that is a little high. It depends upon the game and platform etc. Sound, music and videos would (on average and at a guess) all take up around the same space as textures. Also, many games add in extra stuff to fill the space if they have got it. They compress the videos less, less compressed sound, have more/longger fmv etc.
Will the space be useful? Yes. Is the extra space going to allow developers to do things they couldn't before? Nah, not really.
Sound and music are the same. They are generally VERY compressed audio files and don't take up as much space as you might think, usually under 1gb. Video's ingames aren't that intensive either as most are shot using inengine so the console will render the scene in real-time (hence why your new clothes in Saints Row/Dead Rising appear in the cut-scene).Caustic said:
NokkonWud said:
Not always true on both counts. Sounds and music differ because of how they can be played. One is often needed to be stored in memory, whilst the other can be streamed. Music is usually more compressed because there is only the one stream and much longger but higher quality. Sounds like spot fx are often lower quality because they have to be stored in mem and multi effects played at once and at the drop of a hat.
Yes many games use ingame videos, but many don't, or mix the two. Most games have more little videos than it first seems. They can be used as backdrops in menus or as textures on tv screens in game. However, sometimes they just record ingame footage and replay that.
I would be interested to have a look at some games and see what the space is used for. It would make a fascinating article as nobody seems to be sure.
Caustic said:
yeah me too, because it would put into perspective the 70% compression, as at first i thought it was everything, then realised it was just textures. As i do think over the next 12 month we will start to see more and more games at 10GB+
Maybe nintenjo could help also, isnt he an artist for a games dev?
I understand that fully, but I was on about in regards to space on a disc they are the same thing, audio.Caustic said:
Again, very true, however most games now don't as the technology is there to do it on the fly. Generally the only videos are as you say, behind the menu or as a sample for the game if you leave it on the 'press start' screen. You also have the producer and developer logo's, sometimes the logo of the engine used and the credits.Caustic said:
I have a lesson with the head of games development, now it was his job to overlook all these things before coming to teach so he'll be more than aware, if I remember I'll ask him at the end of class, he knows far more than I do about this. The guy is a genius, though his brother is absolutely phenomenally intelligent (and head of computing at TeessideCaustic said:
), and actually has a doctorate in Video Games. Matthew Holton, PhD! *jealous*.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 1,646
- Location
- UK
Gerard said:Can anyone tell me what the hell theyre gonna use 30-50 gigs of storage capacity for in games? How many games on ps2 or pc actually used the full 8.5 gigs of storage and needed 2 discs? I can't think of any besides some of the resident evil games which didn't even use full capacity discs.
It's a format war nothing more nothing less, sony has thrown a blu-ray drive into the PS3 in the hope it gains higher market penatration over hd-dvd. Winning the format war means mega mega bucks. Personnally i think it was a terrible move on sony's behalf. it should have been optional.