PDA

View Full Version : DX3 Development Roadmap



orbitaldescent
14th Sep 2008, 16:57
Do we know yet if DX3 is being developed for PC and ported to console, or if it is being developed for console and being ported to PC?

imported_van_HellSing
14th Sep 2008, 17:02
Like hell they're going to tell us. At best we'll get the nice, hollow "parallell development" catchphrase.

ewanlaing
14th Sep 2008, 17:21
I think we'll be looking at a game designed on PC and ported to consoles, but with current console capabilities I doubt they're going to have to make any compromises either way.

imported_van_HellSing
14th Sep 2008, 17:29
Ahaha. Do you know how much RAM the X360 or PS3 have?

Also, gamepads vs. keyboard/mouse.

Also, this game won't be coming anytime soon. We can expect a new generation of PC hardware before it ships, that will blow the current consoles out of the water.

jordan_a
14th Sep 2008, 17:36
I think PC players will feel it's a computer game and XBOX and PS3 players will feel it's a console game. :D

imported_van_HellSing
14th Sep 2008, 17:40
Sorry, Jordan, but I'll take anything you say with a grain of salt. I've seen enough people who got exclusive previews rave about how games are great, only to back out of their statements when their NDAs were over. Nothing personal.

minus0ne
14th Sep 2008, 18:34
I think we'll be looking at a game designed on PC and ported to consoles, but with current console capabilities I doubt they're going to have to make any compromises either way.
There are some MAJOR differences between consoles and current gen PCs, let alone when Intel releases Nehalem (30%-50% faster at equivalent clock speeds). I'm not saying DX3 should go all DirectX 11 (not literally, obviously) but if they want to make it look as good as it can on PC, they'll need two separate efforts.

Just to give you a guess as to my dream PC in 2009:
Nehalem 3,2Ghz quadcore
18GB DDR3 RAM
3x 1TB HDDs
1x 320GB SSD <1ms HDD
Next-gen AMD or nVidia GPU(s) with a minimum of 2GB video RAM

Trust me, that system will run laps around both consoles, even if it has to dedicate one core to Windows XP :p

Now I know the DX3 engine hardly promises the eyecandy of a UE3-based game, but that doesn't mean the developers can't go absolutely *nuts* with the game's "Ultra High" settings (things like super-high resolution textures, which neither console could handle, would be easy with even current-gen PC GPUs). I'm not saying they shouldn't make it scalable for less powerful PCs, but they should also aim to make the game as visually stunning as they can (not that it's traditionally one of DX's strong points, however it might be a nice bonus for DX3).

jordan_a
14th Sep 2008, 19:18
Please remember we have a thread about consoles already. ;)

Dragonlord
14th Sep 2008, 19:49
>>> Nehalem 3,2Ghz quadcore
Games can barely use 2 cores since the way games work they are mostly linear ( some tasks can made parallel but many others need to be in line to be meaningful ). Quad cores are not going to help you much there.

>>> 18GB DDR3 RAM
Doubtful. Windows fails to work with anything beyond 4G. With Linux the show would be different but we all know that todays game devs are a bit... locked... on Windows and consoles ( which can only dream of such specs )

>>> 2GB video RAM
Doubtful. My developer rig has a Radeon HD 4870 and it has 512M RAM. Factor 4 in 1 year, nah, no way :D

>>> super-high resolution textures
Texture resolution beyond 2048x2048 are not really going to give you much. It helps more to push shaders, light/shadow rendering and the various transparency situations. So higher fill-rate is more helpful than higher texture resolution ( aka more GPU RAM ).

You do not have to push the limits. Look at the specs of the current consoles and a decent PC already blows it out of the water. At SLI/CrossFire into the mix you already own all the consoles combined right now. People over-estimate consoles performance. Ever seen how engines have to be crunched to run reasonable on a console? There's a reason why console games ported to PC do not stress the hardware while the other way 'round you hit limits quicker than you can count to 3 :D

minus0ne
19th Sep 2008, 01:48
>>> Nehalem 3,2Ghz quadcore
Games can barely use 2 cores since the way games work they are mostly linear ( some tasks can made parallel but many others need to be in line to be meaningful ). Quad cores are not going to help you much there.
Well since the 3,2Ghz Nehalem is 30-50% faster than the current Q9650 quadcore clocked at 3,2Ghz, it probably will.

>>> 18GB DDR3 RAM
Doubtful. Windows fails to work with anything beyond 4G. With Linux the show would be different but we all know that todays game devs are a bit... locked... on Windows and consoles ( which can only dream of such specs )
Have you been living under a rock since the introduction of AMD64 and Intel 64? The 4GB limit is due to the 32-bit architecture. I'm not saying all games will fully use all that memory (but who said I was only going to use it for gaming?).

>>> 2GB video RAM
Doubtful. My developer rig has a Radeon HD 4870 and it has 512M RAM. Factor 4 in 1 year, nah, no way :D
Well I guess you "developer rig" isn't outfitted with one of these:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Description=+HD+4870+X2+2gb&x=0&y=0

Factor 4 in no time at all :lol:

>>> super-high resolution textures
Texture resolution beyond 2048x2048 are not really going to give you much. It helps more to push shaders, light/shadow rendering and the various transparency situations. So higher fill-rate is more helpful than higher texture resolution ( aka more GPU RAM ).
Last time I checked, I can still see major pixelage in recent games, even on high settings. I was just illustrating that PCs can potentially handle a lot bigger textures than consoles with their limited video memory.


You do not have to push the limits. Look at the specs of the current consoles and a decent PC already blows it out of the water. At SLI/CrossFire into the mix you already own all the consoles combined right now. People over-estimate consoles performance. Ever seen how engines have to be crunched to run reasonable on a console? There's a reason why console games ported to PC do not stress the hardware while the other way 'round you hit limits quicker than you can count to 3 :D
Dude, I'm not saying DX3 has to be Crysis eyecandy squared, just that the devs should look to really utilize high-end systems for those that have them (and of course keeping in mind ideally we'll be replaying this game for years on ever more powerful systems).

Bloodwolf806
19th Sep 2008, 01:50
It's probably being developed on all 3 platforms simultaneously.

Romeo
19th Sep 2008, 02:43
Yeah, more than likely. As I've said, from an economic standpoint, it's the console players they need to impress, that's where the market is these days. I know more people use PC's for gaming, but the last stats sheet on IGN said piracy now accounts for over 60% (don't remember the exact number, sorry) of PC games, versus 0.7 for 360 and 0.2% for PS3. Besides, as I've already mentioned, all they need to do is design the graphics for a fairly good PC first, and then tone it down for consoles and low-end PC users. Best of both worlds. That's what Oblivion did, and it worked wonderfully for them.

DXeXodus
19th Sep 2008, 03:49
But do you remember the Oblivion trailers. The Interior lighting was so much better than the final product. Full time dynamic lighting on all the objects. This was cut, presumably so that all systems could handle it. Even though one of the systems could of executed it perfectly.

I think this is being developed simultaneously on all three platforms and thus will be made to accommodate the weakest of the three.

Romeo
19th Sep 2008, 04:03
But do you remember the Oblivion trailers. The Interior lighting was so much better than the final product. Full time dynamic lighting on all the objects. This was cut, presumably so that all systems could handle it. Even though one of the systems could of executed it perfectly.

I think this is being developed simultaneously on all three platforms and thus will be made to accommodate the weakest of the three.
I doubt it was due to consoles, because things like depth of field, swaying grass, and whatnot, were also cut on consoles, yet remained on PC. There's two ways to go about things. Start for the weakest and try and build up, or start and tune down. Choosing the latter seems sensible to me.

DXeXodus
19th Sep 2008, 04:06
Agreed. It is much easier to remove features than try to add them. But, sadly, this is not how a lot of game dev's do it.

Romeo
19th Sep 2008, 04:11
I could never figure that out. It makes sense in every possible way to do it high to low.

ThatDeadDude
19th Sep 2008, 12:55
I think this is being developed simultaneously on all three platforms and thus will be made to accommodate the weakest of the three.

Lol, I just hope that the Wii isn't included in the list of platforms... otherwise that weakest is going to be quite a few rungs down.

Seriously though, at the risk of being beaten down, I hope they are including consoles. I prefer playing on PCs, but I am unlikely to be able to afford one that's any better even than my 360 any time soon :(

Romeo
19th Sep 2008, 22:55
Well, not to shamelessly promote things, but there are a couple of sites you could consider:

www.directcanada.com (Cheap, new computer parts.
www.powersourceonline.com (Cheap, used computer parts)
www.ibuypower.com (Cheap, custom made computers)

And another option I did, is depending on what generation your Xbox 360 is, it might have a 65nm CPU in it. Seeing as how those are a triple 3.4Ghz core, you might consider planting that in a computer. I did on an old Pentium IV I had and it really kicked things up. And seeing as how the bottom end Xbox is less than two hundred dollars now, it's a decent bargain for the performance. The GPU ain't half bad, but you'll want to replace the fans, motherboard and RAM units with something else, as the fans are noisy as hell, the motherboard is hardwired to only play Xbox products and files, and to boot, they're difficult to tailor to computer parts (Toshiba connections + video game outlets). Also, the RAM is a pathetic 512mb, which is not going to do you any favors. Lastly, if you want a laptop, you might consider taking apart the harddrive, as it's a free 60GB extra harddrive these days (On the $270 model, not the one I suggest tearing apart).

Dragonlord
19th Sep 2008, 23:56
I could never figure that out. It makes sense in every possible way to do it high to low.
Yes... and no at the same time. It can heavily backfire on you. It's easy to slap in full dynamic lighting ( deferred rendering engine, full shadow map using depth textures and depth cube maps on GPU4 class hardware, stenciling until your ass falls off ) but if you need to tone this down to a weak console system you suddenly have troubles since fast graphics without all the dynamic shader bells and whistles requires some major changes ( additional map informations, often different shader/code path, new media content to provide the faked informations ). It's better to develop for the end system from the beginning. Upscaling is usually easier ( just slap in more of this and more of that ) than trying to step down.

K^2
20th Sep 2008, 00:05
Dragonlord, what the heck are you developing? Banking software? Everything you say is at odds with how video games are made.

@OP: The core engine would be in parallel development for all target platforms, since it is based off Crystal Dynamics. So at least, you know it will be pretty will optimized regardless of which system you get it on. But as far as later development, in particular controls, level sizes, etc, I don't know. I really hope that Eidos Montreal won't repeat the Ion Storm's mistakes.

Romeo
20th Sep 2008, 05:38
Dragonlord, what the heck are you developing? Banking software? Everything you say is at odds with how video games are made.

@OP: The core engine would be in parallel development for all target platforms, since it is based off Crystal Dynamics. So at least, you know it will be pretty will optimized regardless of which system you get it on. But as far as later development, in particular controls, level sizes, etc, I don't know. I really hope that Eidos Montreal won't repeat the Ion Storm's mistakes.
Yeah, based upon Tomb Raider: Underworld, graphical prowess on any of the three shouldn't be a problem, and as long as they design controls for PC, and then controls for the 360/PS3 (As they're nearly identical), everything should be hunky-dorey.

Dragonlord
20th Sep 2008, 13:15
Dragonlord, what the heck are you developing? Banking software? Everything you say is at odds with how video games are made.
It's not but I'm not discussing this here ( and some I said here comes from AAA developers ).

Romeo
20th Sep 2008, 19:47
Oh, helmets and gloves, right here, right now. =P

Nah, but still, technically speaking it SHOULD be easier to start high, and then turn things off for lower powered applications. If you start low, you're trying to make a bad game look good, which, logically, seems harder than making a good game look bad.