 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/14/2011 9:16 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/14/2011 2:23, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Because they can't, just to use the obvious example of games, make
>> something
>> that runs fine,
>
> I can't even figure out who "they" is or what "something" it is that
> doesn't run fine.
>
Uh.. They = developers, something = anything using the damn graphics
card, in this case games. Yeah, I know, the "they" might be different
people porting the things to a PC, from the console, but again.. You
don't "write" games *on* consoles, so how one can run like crap on the
development platform, but not on the end device... I just don't get it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/14/2011 16:23, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Uh.. They = developers, something = anything using the damn graphics card,
> in this case games.
So you're complaining that games under Linux on the PC don't run as well as
games on the xbox? Or games under Windows don't run as well as on the xbox?
If they're expecting to release it on the xbox, and then you want it to run
as well under Linux, well, that's a problem. Especially if one targets
directx directly instead of with some thin layer that can be replaced.
I am not even sure how one does 3D graphics under X, honestly. Last I looked
at the low-level stuff, that wasn't really supported.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:17:49 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> I am not even sure how one does 3D graphics under X, honestly. Last I
> looked at the low-level stuff, that wasn't really supported.
Mostly implemented using OpenGL or Mesa - outside of X.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/04/2011 17:03, Darren New wrote:
> I'm pretty sure the individual blocks of jpeg are independent (unlike
> PNG for example). You ought to be able to de-convolve an entire jpeg in
> parallel at least, once you de-huffman it.
I believe they are. Note, however, that "progressive JPEG" exists.
That's where the data is reordered so that you can generate a low-res
preview quickly, after only downloading the first few KB of the file. I
don't know how that affects the ability to process the thing in
parallel. (I'm not sure whether the rearrangement is a simple
permutation, or whether it depends on the data. The former shouldn't
impede parallel processing. The latter would.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/14/2011 8:17 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/14/2011 16:23, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Uh.. They = developers, something = anything using the damn graphics
>> card,
>> in this case games.
>
> So you're complaining that games under Linux on the PC don't run as well
> as games on the xbox? Or games under Windows don't run as well as on the
> xbox?
>
Sigh.. Lets try this again.
1. Development platform - PC with some flavor of Windows.
2. Destination platform - xBox, running a stripped down form of Windows.
3. Port platform - The same Windows used in #1.
So.. What the hell happens between 2 and 3, which makes it run like
shit, and require 2 cores, more memory, etc.?
The issue has nothing to do with Linux, which is a whole different
problem, mostly resulting from the fact that OpenGL tends to run
"behind" DirectX, when it comes to some things, due to the way hardware
developers do their job (or, more often are paid to not do so).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/15/2011 20:15, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> So.. What the hell happens between 2 and 3, which makes it run like shit,
> and require 2 cores, more memory, etc.?
Oh. No idea. So far everything *I* have written runs way better on the PC
than the XBox.
> The issue has nothing to do with Linux,
Oh. Because you mentions Linux, which was confusing.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/04/15 23:15, Patrick Elliott a écrit :
> On 4/14/2011 8:17 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 4/14/2011 16:23, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> Uh.. They = developers, something = anything using the damn graphics
>>> card,
>>> in this case games.
>>
>> So you're complaining that games under Linux on the PC don't run as well
>> as games on the xbox? Or games under Windows don't run as well as on the
>> xbox?
>>
> Sigh.. Lets try this again.
>
> 1. Development platform - PC with some flavor of Windows.
> 2. Destination platform - xBox, running a stripped down form of Windows.
> 3. Port platform - The same Windows used in #1.
>
> So.. What the hell happens between 2 and 3, which makes it run like
> shit, and require 2 cores, more memory, etc.?
>
> The issue has nothing to do with Linux, which is a whole different
> problem, mostly resulting from the fact that OpenGL tends to run
> "behind" DirectX, when it comes to some things, due to the way hardware
> developers do their job (or, more often are paid to not do so).
During 1, the devlopment is aimed at the console.
Between 1 and 2, there is LOTS of optimistion specificaly aimed at the
xbox. Also, the console resolution is usualy somewhat low. When the xbox
was new, it was mostly connected to normal resolution TV sets...
When going to 3, the user wants greatly beter graphics. You want 32 bits
colours, at least 1600x1200 resolution, over 30 fps, greater vewing
distances, perfect anti aliasing,...
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/16/2011 12:16 PM, Alain wrote:
> Le 2011/04/15 23:15, Patrick Elliott a écrit :
>> On 4/14/2011 8:17 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> On 4/14/2011 16:23, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> Uh.. They = developers, something = anything using the damn graphics
>>>> card,
>>>> in this case games.
>>>
>>> So you're complaining that games under Linux on the PC don't run as well
>>> as games on the xbox? Or games under Windows don't run as well as on the
>>> xbox?
>>>
>> Sigh.. Lets try this again.
>>
>> 1. Development platform - PC with some flavor of Windows.
>> 2. Destination platform - xBox, running a stripped down form of Windows.
>> 3. Port platform - The same Windows used in #1.
>>
>> So.. What the hell happens between 2 and 3, which makes it run like
>> shit, and require 2 cores, more memory, etc.?
>>
>> The issue has nothing to do with Linux, which is a whole different
>> problem, mostly resulting from the fact that OpenGL tends to run
>> "behind" DirectX, when it comes to some things, due to the way hardware
>> developers do their job (or, more often are paid to not do so).
>
> During 1, the devlopment is aimed at the console.
>
> Between 1 and 2, there is LOTS of optimistion specificaly aimed at the
> xbox. Also, the console resolution is usualy somewhat low. When the xbox
> was new, it was mostly connected to normal resolution TV sets...
>
> When going to 3, the user wants greatly beter graphics. You want 32 bits
> colours, at least 1600x1200 resolution, over 30 fps, greater vewing
> distances, perfect anti aliasing,...
>
>
> Alain
No, I want the damn thing to bloody run. Given that I can't even "lower"
the specifications of the game so it matches the performance it had on
the console...
And, seriously, some of the BS I see is like the case with Bioshock 2,
where their "optimization" was to cram flash animations into the
"vending machine" system, and run those on a separate thread, something
that probably helped them with all the "improvements" in graphics, but
which effectively made the "main" game run well, the vendors run like
hell, even if you deleted all the damn flash files (or renamed them, so
it couldn't find and load them), but at least made it possible to play,
and the game completely unplayable *if* you had a single core, and
didn't realize that nuking the flash files would fix it.
Seriously? This was necessary, or even helpful? lol
No, often the problem is just that they "re-optimize" the stuff for the
PC to the point where it runs like shit even of the hardware that
supposedly "supports" all the still they tweaked.
Hmm. Another example. Assassin's Creed. Their "recommendation" is for a
higher speed than I have, but not two cores. The *only* problems I ran
into was some "slight" lag during combat, which made some of the fights
a bit.. annoying. But, like Bioshock II, which *does* say you should be
using duel cores for best operation, it isn't strictly necessary, even
with most of the graphics tuned a bit above "default". So.. Why, again,
is Force Unleashed such crap? Because, according to people that did get
it installed, it runs like crap no matter what card you have, how much
memory is installed, or how many cores, or what settings you use. They
simply screwed up the port to the PC so badly that no sane person would
play it, without *way* over building the machine they put it on, never
mind trying it with the "recommended" hardware.
This is, imho, completely ridiculous.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/16/2011 16:59, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> No, I want the damn thing to bloody run.
Here's what I think is happening.
Game designers like to target the consoles, not because they're particularly
good, but because they're only broken in one way.
Given that some 85% of BSODs are video drivers crashing, it's clear that
nobody really builds video drivers that work 100%. OK, so maybe your PC
works 98% of all its functionality perfectly. Maybe the xbox works 95% of
all its functionality perfectly.
So you write the game, you test it out on the xbox, and you don't do the
stuff that doesn't work on the xbox. 5% of your rendering code consists of
working around bugs in the xbox hardware and software.
Now you have to port it to the PC. But not just Patrick's PC. Everyone's PC.
Maybe 20 different graphics cards/chips/OS version combinations. Each of
which have only 2% instead of 5% of the stuff not working. So you wind up
with 95% of the stuff you want to do on the xbox working, and 60% of what
you want to do on the PC working. Sure, you can compensate on the PC for
each broken thing, working around each bug, rewriting that code 20 times,
testing against the versions you can get your hands on. Or you can release a
game that people will buy anyway and just turn off any optimization that
doesn't work on every card.
Remember that every game that says "make sure you have the latest video
drivers" is really saying "we're relying on something working that was
broken in the first N official versions of the driver software."
It's equivalent to saying "wow, google released this web site that works
great under Chrome, but it looks awful under IE6. How unprofessional is
that?" And that's exactly where we'd be all the time if people updated
their web browsers as often as they replaced their video cards.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/17/2011 1:13 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/16/2011 16:59, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> No, I want the damn thing to bloody run.
>
> Here's what I think is happening.
>
> Game designers like to target the consoles, not because they're
> particularly good, but because they're only broken in one way.
>
> Given that some 85% of BSODs are video drivers crashing, it's clear that
> nobody really builds video drivers that work 100%. OK, so maybe your PC
> works 98% of all its functionality perfectly. Maybe the xbox works 95%
> of all its functionality perfectly.
>
> So you write the game, you test it out on the xbox, and you don't do the
> stuff that doesn't work on the xbox. 5% of your rendering code consists
> of working around bugs in the xbox hardware and software.
>
> Now you have to port it to the PC. But not just Patrick's PC. Everyone's
> PC. Maybe 20 different graphics cards/chips/OS version combinations.
> Each of which have only 2% instead of 5% of the stuff not working. So
> you wind up with 95% of the stuff you want to do on the xbox working,
> and 60% of what you want to do on the PC working. Sure, you can
> compensate on the PC for each broken thing, working around each bug,
> rewriting that code 20 times, testing against the versions you can get
> your hands on. Or you can release a game that people will buy anyway and
> just turn off any optimization that doesn't work on every card.
>
In my experience, the assumption is that if its supposed to do it, they
assume it will, and hope the next driver doesn't break it (which can
happen). Sometimes they *may* include the feature, but off, waiting for
the time it will go live, but not often. So, there are things that
"known" stages of card development will always, generally, do right,
with minor exceptions, recommendations on the box, telling you what the
one they developed it for was, usually a copy of the driver that they
had at the time *with the game*, and dozens of forums on the net based
around, "I have this card, which is better than the other one, but
everything looks fuzzy!", problems. So, no, that isn't what is going on
here, from what I can tell.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
