Myagi on 18/3/2005 at 02:16
Quote Posted by Karkianman
hehe... actually, the xbox does all its calculations at hdtv resolution, and then scales it down for normal TVs. So actually, hooking it up to 10** by **** wouldnt do anything except make it look better... :p
Maybe you mean if they have FSAA enabled, then they render to a larger resolution and scale down to regular resolution (how much larger depends on the FSAA scheme), as for TDS having FSAA enabled or not on the xbox is nothing I know anything about :)
sparhawk on 18/3/2005 at 10:27
Quote Posted by Raen
Brother Krypt speaks the truth - 64MB of RAM was precious little, especially considering less than 1/4 of that went to content (missions/art/animations/sound) and 3/4 was taken up by code.
Now that sounds pretty strange to me. Either you mean this in some other way than I understand it or there is somehting wrong with it.
Usually code takes up a VERY small part of most applications and even more so in games, because graphics, sounds, mesh data etc, is ultimately larger than anything you can come up codewise. Even using a VERY bad compiler and coding the worst possible way this would be hard to achieve (if not impossible). Or do you mean that you used a lot of static arrays and such and count that in to the code, which would make the only sense I could read into this. I know that 80x86 CPUs have a much longer instruction set then in the good old days where you could write complete programmins within 256 bytes of code, but still I can't believe that the code takes up to 3/4 of the RAM with only 1/4 to go for the content.
sparhawk on 18/3/2005 at 10:54
Quote Posted by OrbWeaver
Assuming that the overhead for physics, AI, input etc is negligible (which it probably isn't, but it will be small compared to the rendering), a resolution of 512x384 will give you 4 times the frame rate of 1024x768.
Actually the AI is a pretty big hit. Especially if the AI has to pathfind through complicated mazes. IMO it is easily on the same amount of the renderer.
jolynsbass on 18/3/2005 at 15:24
Quote Posted by sparhawk
Usually code takes up a VERY small part of most applications and even more so in games, because graphics, sounds, mesh data etc, is ultimately larger than anything you can come up codewise. ....[SNIP].... still I can't believe that the code takes up to 3/4 of the RAM with only 1/4 to go for the content.
If anyone has the Plextools Pro software, they will know that some code really does take a surprising amount of RAM. In Plextools case - 40+MB of RAM, and it has no AI, no fancy graphics content, or anything... Okay, really, I think that is just some kind of bloated programming... ridiculous amount of memory.
I think the reason more and more games are requiring larger amounts of RAM(isn't Unreal 2 something like 384MB minimum?) is that the code does really take a lot of space... plus dymanic allocation for AI, spawned objects, VFX, etc. I think 64MB is a very small amount of RAM to work with for a modern game.
Mandrake on 18/3/2005 at 20:44
Quote Posted by jolynsbass
If anyone has the Plextools Pro software, they will know that some code really does take a surprising amount of RAM. In Plextools case - 40+MB of RAM, and it has no AI, no fancy graphics content, or anything... Okay, really, I think that is just some kind of bloated programming... ridiculous amount of memory.
I think the reason more and more games are requiring larger amounts of RAM(isn't Unreal 2 something like 384MB minimum?) is that the code does really take a lot of space... plus dymanic allocation for AI, spawned objects, VFX, etc. I think 64MB is a very small amount of RAM to work with for a modern game.
Lack of ram was the biggest mistake Microsoft made with the X-Box, and the thing that is now obsoleting it. I remember thinking even back before it was released that 64MB simply wasn't enough. I think at the time I already had 256MB of ram in my PC, and nowadays I have 1GB, which makes the 64MB in the X-Box seem pretty puny...
Obviously TDS suffered due to this ram limitation (thanks Microsoft :devil: ) but I wonder how many other X-Box games really struggle to fit in that amount of memory these days...
Krypt on 18/3/2005 at 21:10
Quote Posted by Mandrake
Lack of ram was the biggest mistake Microsoft made with the X-Box, and the thing that is now obsoleting it. I remember thinking even back before it was released that 64MB simply wasn't enough.
The funny thing is that the Xbox has the most memory of all the modern consoles. The PS2 only has 32mb of it, and the Gamecube has 40mb I believe.
SneaksieDave on 18/3/2005 at 22:28
What's even funnier (actually, it's not funny at all, and just watch - it
will screw us all again), is that they apparently (
http://www.ferrago.com/story/4009) haven't learned.
van HellSing on 18/3/2005 at 22:32
Same with PS3. I don't get it too...
SubJeff on 18/3/2005 at 23:04
Since the hardware is dedicated and there is no OS those components give much more oomph than the PC equivalent I think. And it is a cost thing.
Vlad Midnight on 19/3/2005 at 04:11
Since were all pretty much talking about crappy framerates, does this mean that the FPS your getting is in the editor. Ive yet to build in T3ed just yet, but in my experiances with framerate in Dromed VS Thief.exe the framerates nearly double in thief.exe using FRAPS. Where I would get 19-20 :( I would get 38 in the exact same place in thief.exe. Im guessing that T3.exe is stripped of a bunch of things which would allow it to calculate faster.
