Starscream Wrote:Back on topic:
I think some people are overestimating this first Metroid game. I was able to run the game at full speed with my current CPU at 2.6GHz. Having said that, I was only using EFB to RAM when needed, and switching to EFB to Texture for the majority of the game. I will concede that I have not played through the entire game, but I was not having any issues as far as I could see early on. Saying that you would need an Ivy Bridge overclocked seems a bit excessive. I'm quite aware of which games need a great CPU overclocked to run, but this game does not seem like one of them.
If anyone has any doubts, feel free to post an NTSC memory card save and I will be happy to run it and post my results.
For me it' was a big hit or miss on my old rig. Since some of the visors don't work properly with efb copy to texture I had to leave efb copy to ram on all the time later in the game. It ran at fullspeed in a lot of places and the audio had only a few minor bugs with HLE. However in a lot of places it did not run well. I did actually play through the entire game. The random crashes (which it still encounters to my knowledge) were extremely annoying and seemed to become more frequent later on.
The worst spot I found was the boss fight with flaghra (or however you spell it, the giant plant monster). On my Q6600 @ 3.2GHz this ran at 20 fps with HLE audio. Which actually made the fight extremely easy since at 1/3 speed predicting and dodging his moves is even easier. The second worst was the first room in the crash pirate frigate zone (the big room at the top). I noticed that generally it runs extremely slow in big outdoor areas. Another example of this is the outside of the pirate frigate in the intro.
@garrlker
Most of what you posted is wrong or lacking context. You also didn't really answer his question. I'll respond to it tomorrow.
I do have time to respond to cruzar though since his post is much shorter.
Cruzar Wrote:Actually, I'm pretty positive it's lazyness.
There are games with shadowing that looks just fine on PS3 the only issue is it's only devs that sony owns that have done it right, everyone else saved the goods for 360, what some devs have done is taking whatever won't fit in ram, typically just textures and streamed them from the Hard-Drive they could have easily done that for instance
The vast majority of xbox360 and ps3 games do what you just described. It's called texture streaming. I can assure you that the engine IW uses for all CoD games since CoD4 uses this technique on both the xbox360 and ps3 versions of the game. The ps3 still has less usable memory. Texture streaming can't fix that.
Shadow maps cannot be streamed. They are not static, they are dynamic. So this doesn't really relate to this problem at all.
You really need to read more about how 3D graphics are rendered before you start passing judgement on developers like this. Also the term you're looking for is "shadow mapping" not "shadowing". Shadowing is the act of following someone.
Cruzar Wrote:plus used the Cell processor for Graphics (which is what Uncharted 2 and 3 have done) and ditched the shitty crippled nvidia chip altogether.
I may not have a ps3. I may not have made any ps3 applications. I may not follow ps3 game development much if at all. But I know this is completely wrong because I have read some of naughty dogs whitepages because of my interest in 3D graphics. They did not "ditch the crippled nvidia chip". In fact it does most of the rendering work since it's much faster than the cell be SPEs at most 3D rendering tasks. Their engine uses a custom pipeline for 3D rendering with a mixture of hardware accelerated (GPU) and software (cell be) rendering stages. The SPEs on the cell are used mostly for the transformations if I recall. They also do some minor post-processing with the SPEs (DoF and AA are both implemented cpu side, I'm not sure what else).
Cruzar Wrote:Though now that I think about it, Sony should have added extra ram to PS3 rather than just making a not so very needed "Slim-Line 2" model. In-fact I think that's what all the big "Console" companies should do, including nintendo. I don't mean tossing in 128gb ram or some crazy stuff, like 2GB? Well toss in another 2GB then. it's not that expensive.
This is a terrible idea for several reasons.
1. It's more expensive than you might realize. Especially since the ps3 uses xdr ram for main memory which requires a license from rambus to produce.
2. It makes the console bigger if you don't wait for memory densities to come down.
3. It changes the memory space which forces all software tools to in turn be changed. At this point you might as well upgrade the rest of your hardware anyways since you'll have to redo everything either way.
4. It completely defeats the point of a console by fracturing the software and hardware forcing the devs to make different versions of the product. You've effectively created a whole new console/platform. The PS3.5. This was the primary cause of the video game industry crash of 1983, extremely fractured hardware and software sucked any profitability out of both sides of the industry. Sega also did this too much in the 90s and it ruined them.
"Normally if given a choice between doing something and nothing, I’d choose to do nothing. But I would do something if it helps someone else do nothing. I’d work all night if it meant nothing got done."
-Ron Swanson
"I shall be a good politician, even if it kills me. Or if it kills anyone else for that matter. "
-Mark Antony
-Ron Swanson
"I shall be a good politician, even if it kills me. Or if it kills anyone else for that matter. "
-Mark Antony