Unless you are going to be using 64bit xp or vista, 4 GB of RAM is worthless.

And yet his opinion is anything above 3GB is a "waste".
Wrong.
It's no more a waste than a quad core, whose cores you will never fully utilize.

So what if you have 512MB unused, maybe you may want to upgrade to Vista 64 in the next year or two. Or maybe you want to use /3GB for certain games that are large address aware, leaving more RAM available to the game instead of paging. Besides x64 deals with the same reserved memory address issues, not being able to fully utilize 4GB RAM either, so you can say 4GB on x64 is "wasting" RAM too.
Combining 2x1GB and 2x512 is also silly and has potential pitfalls. 4x1GB or 2x2GB is not the end of the world and even will have advantages over 3GB RAM limit in certain current games already.


This comment was edited on Sep 14, 11:08.

Do what F.E.A.R. and some other games do and build a peformance test into the game. Multi-core CPU support is certainly detectable, and the game can run a benchmark level to determine if the PC can handle the extra effects.

As was pointed out below, the mere presence of DirectX 10 does NOT mean that the PC can actually handle the advanced effects. I seriously doubt that a PC with a low-end DirectX 10 compatible video card such as an ATI 2400XT or Nvidia 8400 is going to run the game better than someone with a top of the line DirectX 9 card like anb Nvidia 7950 or ATI X1950 especially when it comes to physics.

I understand that, but as simple as you make it sound, their are many other pitfalls to doing a pure HW seperation. An API is a far easier line of demarcation, from a programming challenge perspective.

Yes I know DX10 will have some weaker HW, that is obvious. But it will have the true API benefits available, if they are leveraged, and it will have a geometry shader. Things like the DX9 batch issues could have problems with all the objects.
Like I tried to explain, there is many reasons a DX10 cutoff makes sense from a development complexity scenario.

Unfortunately no other game has really shown what DX10 can do that DX9 cannot, maybe this is the game.

This comment was edited on Sep 14, 10:49.

When it comes to physics well HL2 did an ok job without DX10
& so have many other titles in the past. SO the hype about quand core for Physics was BS? Now we need DX10 to have the physics effects.

You will still have physics in DX9. You will probably have great physics in DX9.

You don't need DX10 for physics effects, you need DX10 hardware to render the huge amount of objects in their enhanced explosions. DX10 has a geometry shader that can render procedural geometery and it also allows particle systems to be completely independent of the CPU. Furthermore the DX9 batch issue has a limit on objects rendered, where DX10 can do many more thousands. Etc, etc, etc

So they could actually be the first developer to actually leverage the DX10 API and do some things that cannot be done in DX9 (instead of all other current so called, DX10, games). That is horrible, really horrible.

DX9 will have great physics, so lets not get crazy now.

this move strikes me as unnecessary and it sounds like they've received a nice fat cheque from Microsoft.

I think Crytek's explanation needed more meat to it , so techies could get their head around it.

Almost every developer that does a DX10 path gets compensated, so what. The problem is most other games have very little benefit or tangible differences (no extra assets) to use between DX9 or DX10, they just add it as fluff and call it DX10. The reason DX10 cannot take off, is because of req'd DX9 support currently and being able to keep them MP friendly online forces devs to keep DX10 support limited. To be able to make DX10 and DX9 MP friendly requires that your DX10 changes are nothing tangible as to changes in the gameworld (most games). Frankly, I am tired of some of these recent DX10 paths, they are a joke and don't take advantage of the API's or offer anything really beneficial at all.

Crtytek is being faulted because they have built in enhancements into the engine for higher end HW, and chose DX10 as the line of demarcation. Now someone that is a programmer of some years of experience may see why this whole dilemma comes up this way and realizes why they can't just add new functionality based on HW. Which BTW, no developers give real tangible extras to high end HW, you get the same limitations as the 4 year old HW to the tangible game world in most games.

They added enhancements for higher end physics, but can't you just seperate by HW(multicore or GPU) as easy as that sounds?
Can you just detect a fast enough CPU and GPU on either API and switch on the extra effects?
How exactly?
Where do you make the cutoffs in HW for each possible platform combination?
That is also two major codepaths for each render path and API and is a huge potential bug fest and makes tracking them down, very difficult.
How do you then seperate servers then for the people that have more objects and assets due to their HW cutoff?
How do people know which server to join if they reached the higher HW level?
Their is also likely DX10 API functions used to handle more objects in explosions, where DX9 would choke on some of that.

For once, someone looks to be actually leveraging DX10!
The penalties of having to do it are you can't play MP with those effects, which other devs avoid by making a vanilla weak DX10 render path.

DX10 as a cutoff, makes this easiest for developer and user really.

The major reason this is coming up now is that Crytek seems to have gone farther with their DX10 renderer and has actually had to face the ultimate problem that any other developer will have to, who implements anything in DX10 beyond the usual crappy effects we have seen thus far(which could really be done in DX9), and that is, that DX9 and DX10 will not be compatible online if you really take advantage of the DX10 API enhancements and change the game worlds assets between the two API's. If I see a fallen tree which is hiding an enemy, and the enemy sees no tree. it's a problem.

I applaud Crytek for looking like a developer that is actually trying to really leverage DX10, for once! As well as give people with higher HW some benefits, something no other developers do beyond the usual basic crap of enhanced shadows, lighting, textures.

Props to Crytek, but they need a better explanation to the reasons.


This comment was edited on Sep 14, 09:49.

Are you guys thinking that DX9 Crysis will look like shit?

I mean the explanation wasn't full enough for my tastes, but most of you should have known their was going to be extras in the DX10 path. Why would Crytek make a DX10 path and not put extras in it over DX9, would make DX10 look worthless and a waste of time?
I knew this was going to happen, I even called a week ago in a forum saying that their enhanced physics was going to be held off for DX10, it was a guess, but an educated one.

Now when one version has falling trees and different assets effected by physics and the other doesn't, you can't do MP together properly with versions that can't exactly duplicate scenes, that is common sense. It should have been explained that way.

I'm a bit suprised their was no mention of multicores for physics, since their physics thread is multithreaded and physics is primarily CPU based regardless of the GPU rendering it. I also thought some of that enhanced physics was going to be requiring multicore. But they probably didn't want another level of seperation between versions. Oh well.

Shadowrun = Vista only?

No wonder I never heard of it.

I don't understand the bile getting spewed here. If you think the offer is unreasonable, then don't take it. It's not a big deal. I think Jaguar's are horribly overpriced, so I don't buy one...but it doesn't mean I have to go around spitting at Jaguar owners and dealers.

IOW, grow up a little.

Russ, let me help you understand. Each time a a new pricing model appears it is a test case. If this test case becomes succesful it changes the landscape of gaming forever. This king of pricing models need to be pushed down vigorously, as if it were starforce. Or pretty soon that is what we will be left with for gaming, like as in this case give me $150 to fund my research with no actual promises or commitments...

I'm fine with holding out for 5 stellar expansion packs = $150. Show me the content then ask for my money, don't try and pass go and immediately try and collect $200.

Everyone that buys into this is helping change the PC gaming scene into monthly fee model. It's ugly.
More money to the publisher does NOT equal better games.

I don't fault them for charging what people are willing to pay, I blame fools for their ignorance in teaching EA they can overcharge like this.

Oh no, it's an easy question! And you answered it!!

hehe glad to do the heavy lifting.
I was still suprised not to see a blurb at the very least of one of the most anticipated games, maybe that's just my hype though.
Although, maybe this is more up your ally...
Incrysis will be getting beta handouts, no fees required...
http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=468

So what? Still no mention of the Crysis beta that started last night???

http://www.fileplanet.com/promotions/crysis/beta/temp_closed.aspx

First set of keys was already doled out last night.

The only problem, you have to pay to get in the beta, it's all about Fileplanet making subscriptions. I'm not paying to test someones game.

"$400 for a 40GB PS3 is pretty exciting because that will likely push the price of a used 20gb system down below $300, and that is where the prices actually start looking good!"

Most expensive freaking hard drives I've ever seen. $100 for every 20 GB, insane.

Does anybody know if anyone found a way to image a PS3 hard drive and replace it with a larger one?

OK NM, I found it, it's as easy as pie to put in a proper sized HD, so yea 20GB is the PS3 to buy.
http://www.gamepro.com/sony/ps3/games/features/127009.shtml

This comment was edited on Sep 11, 04:56.

That AMD NDA scandal is pretty wild.

So everyone that went to Singapore, had to sign an NDA which means anything they write about barcelona has to be pre-approved by AMD...

It was so good, I decided to include a relavent summary snippet...

First off, the non-disclosure agreement covered everything confidential said or written over the next two years on the product, and had a duration of five years, during which anything published or used in marketing would have to receive written approval from AMD before it could be used. Worse, at the end of the five years, all copies of the information made would have to be returned to the chipmaker.

Translated, that means those who sign the NDA must get their work approved in writing by AMD before they can be published. If that's not unethical, then we need to rewrite the dictionary.

What Does This Mean To Us?

AMD will be launching their new Quad-Core Opteron (Barcelona) processor tomorrow, September 10, 2007 amid much fanfare and simultaneous article and press releases from websites all over the world. The synchronicity of the whole affair will be ensured by the NDA being enforced on all those who signed it.

It is highly probable that the same NDA will be used to force everyone to toe the line and publish only suitably-positive, pre-approved articles. It's either that or face the threat of lawsuits. So, keep that in mind when you wade through the inevitable deluge of articles and reports on the AMD Quad-Core Opteron (Barcelona) processor from tomorrow onwards."

Interesting, I wonder how many hardware sites went to Singapore.

dupe
This comment was edited on Sep 4, 00:40.

According to Inquirer's latest on it, the 'mainstream only' aspect is not true, that indeed there will be a high end part like was initially talked about. Likely called the 9800.

RUMOUR HAS IT that upcoming G92 is a mainstream chip, not the high-end refresh that the net has been wibbling about.

Well, we can tell you that this rumour is nothing else but a bit of good old FUD, since either G92 is a high-end refresh or the company decided that a replacement for 8800GTS will be significantly faster than GeForce 8800 Ultra, leaving its high-end offering in shambles...The company has already had some revisions of the board sent to their favourite game developers and other partners, and we can now tell you that the board is almost identical to old 8800 GTX/Ultra ones.

There you have it, a rumor to discount a rumor.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42015

Some people are calling this just a die shrink like a 8900, but that doesn't really add up, I've heard comments implying it being more like a 8900, and other comments that it will be evolutionary and pretty bad ass. Their use of a new generation series nomenclature (G92 - geforce9800) should suggest something, and they will be only 4 months away from the date that they usually ship a next generation (14 - 16 months).

It's possible they are compromising some new features to get this next gen out quicker (since competition is lack luster), only so they can get started on their next next gen even faster, and almost be a generation ahead of ATI. Since ATI gave them so much latitude, they maybe skipping this from including too much on the card feature wise, and their next product may be more of the revolutionary design with wddm2 support (and all the goodies it brings), which has been said they are working on by MS. I guess we'll know pretty soon.

This comment was edited on Sep 4, 00:42.

"According to the article, G92 may just be a new midrange line, like the HD2900XT. That's disappointing. I've been holding off on buying a new videocard with the expectation that G92 will completely pwn the 8800 series but if the speculation is true, that's not going to happen. If only Nvidia would confirm..."

This is the first time this info came out on the G92, coming in a midrange rather than high end part initially. But I can see how it could be true, since it's the first time they have NO competition in high end. Why dethrone their own existing 8800 GTX and force it's price down when ATI doesn't even come close in competing to it's performance. They can reduce costs of G92 production by going with lower priced silicon and memory speed, and offer a midrange that is better than the 2900xt.

They can hold back on the high end part until their is a need to spin a faster/better G92 (Geforce 9800/maybe even a dualie for a normal high end price). When ATI does come out with that their next gen, the G92 production should be very mature, less expensive and faster parts available, and they will be able to easily produce a very fast card and dominate ATI again at the appropriate time(will look great to stock holders).

Low to Mid-range is where all the sales are at anyway, so it could be true since they have no competition in high end right now, so why show their cards until they need to.

This comment was edited on Sep 3, 21:55.

"Ever since UO I've never understood why levels and leveling have to be such an integral part of MMO. 10 years later and levels is STILL the paradigm for MMOs. But I disagree with this. There is a way to make level-free MMOs that are just as fun as WOW. If any company could achieve this they would be very wealthy."

Because they focus on catering to specific psychological needs, that is why they are always the same in recipe. That's what makes them so successful and wealthiest of all(WOW), psychology 101. It's the same base psychology that is found in psychological addictions in drugs, gambling, shopping, etc. Following the carrot but never actually getting it and never really being satisfied, is as old as the oldest con.

Oh nevermind, sorry to mention the reality behind it, MMO's ftw. :/


This comment was edited on Aug 29, 23:14.

"I probably won't be able to play it.....any requirements yet?

Should be within 2 weeks for official specs.
Considering they have recently gone out of their way to talk crazy, they said the specs on the back of the vista box is a target, also Cervat said they are trying to get to 4 year old HW. That's insanity in my book!
But Sm 2.0 should be fine, and I'm sure you have no stipulations for 60 fps or anything so you should be fine really.

I say, provide the most amazing game and assets that money can buy and they will come. Not try and make the game playable at 10-15 fps for 4 yr old hw and sacrifice the quality and number of assets and models, for the rest of us, to suit it.

This comment was edited on Aug 29, 03:13.

Very few developers can afford to say this.
Fewer have the balls to say it.

Developers that write cross platform will not be able to do a true DX10 only game from the ground up. Plus DX9 on XP needs to be supported for years to come as mainstream. Also, their is very little real reason to upgrade to Vista.

Bring on wddm2 and DX11, then we can start getting serious in a couple years.

I'm fine with DX9.

It's going to have Securom...So who is going to skip it?

Come on, stand up, put up your fists and show these sons a bitches they won't get you to play the demo with that DRM/rootkit/draconian malware. Man up, show em who's boss, skip Crysis!

*Runs off to make his pre-order*

"Retard, they are'nt little girls..they are POLYGONS..I guess the UK has turned into a whiney little island like the U.S. did...LOPL"

Some people obviously lack understanding of what immersion or playing a role actually means for some people. Not everybody has a simplistic and shallow view of games as just moving colored triangles like you. Some people like to become immersed in the characters and the crafted world.

This comment was edited on Aug 27, 19:51.

Crysis Yay!
EA Boo!

Creston

And yet, that is the "huge suprise", EA will pwn Crytek.