• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Wheres our promised mac red orchestra 2?!?!?!?!?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#81
Woah... the neverending OS debate... seems like a holy war to quite a lot.

@blkmgc: Well, not digging too deep, actually a quick search on ro2 and mac on this forum let me to this thread and especially to this quite insightful comment:

http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showpost.php?p=1106693&postcount=22

which i answered here:

http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showpost.php?p=1158805&postcount=57

But You're probably right, i should have known better that these kinda threads usually get washed away by the casual OS-bashers quickly on internet gaming forums, especially with such a title... ;)

Well, whatever software i wanted to run on whatever platform i wanted it to run... ran pretty good in the end. If that software did run better because of native support by it's developers -> even better.

To each their own
Click to expand...

Exactly so, Praxius :)
 
Upvote 0
#82
Sulman said:
There's little or no reason a Win8 install would be so much faster in 3d performance you would notice it, especially given the lack of fully-supported hardware drivers, so the hypothesis that something was off in your 7 install is perfectly sensible.
Click to expand...

Windows 8 vs. Windows 7 Performance
http://www.techspot.com/review/561-windows8-vs-windows7/page2.html

The above detailed report shows Windows 8 beats Windows 7 in every category.... Nuff said.
 
Upvote 0
#85
Cpt-Praxius said:
Windows 8 vs. Windows 7 Performance
http://www.techspot.com/review/561-windows8-vs-windows7/page2.html

The above detailed report shows Windows 8 beats Windows 7 in every category.... Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Not in 3DMark11 (and a few others) :p The 3DMark11 test is what I would primarily be concerned with for gaming, even though the actual difference between 7 and 8 in negligible and not worth mentioning.

However, the other tests show improvement in Win 8 over Win 7 as it should be with a newer OS. But if your main interest was in improving your gaming performance, its unlikely you would see any performance gain.

Personally, I'll eventually upgrade to Win 8 when I do a new build for the other improvements and I know the initial bugs are ironed out. Of course, only if I don't have to look at that dumbed down juvenile Metro screen :D
 
Upvote 0
#86
TheRealGunther said:
Its obvious I struck a nerve...I still see no reason for me to change back to windows 8 at this time.The fact remains the next generation consoles will be able to do much more draw calls per frame than any hardware running windows,linux, mac its not even close.

The problem has NOT been fully remedied with drx 11 like the link I gave its a cheap workaround at best.Windows is still the best gaming OS but when the next consoles release its flaws will be very apparent.

PC gaming is not dying that was not the point of my post.I just dread seeing consoles being more capable than PC's atm this is not the case ..soon it will be im afraid.
Click to expand...

Your absolutely right about, the next generation consoles will exceed PC's. But you are only giving half the story, because as we all know, a console is just a "locked" PC. And when released, the following day that hardware, which is "locked and cannot be upgraded", will be surpassed by the next big Hardware release. Yeah the XBox360 had the ability to do very minor upgrades, but they weren't groundbreaking. The whole purpose behind a console is consistency across the board, so you will never see the ability to customize a console beyond a few basic features. But it should be expected, that a console developer would release top of the line equipment on the next generation platform, it has to, otherwise its life expectancy wouldn't live up to the development costs.

On a second note, I have actually read several articles discussing the end of consoles as we know it. If you follow the business end of gaming software, Xbox, Playstation, and Nintendo are on a frightening downward trend on game sales and profits, all of which can be directly linked to Touchscreen tablets, and phones. The just of it, why pay $60+ for a game that just gets replaced with a sequel just months down the road, when you can pay $1.99 for a game on your iPad. And as the younger generations are raised on these touchscreen devices, that is where they spend their money. And when they decide they want something bigger and better, they move on to the PC, not the console. This is exactly why Windows 8 is the way it is. Microsoft has spend a lot of money in R&D, and business trends; and that is the short term (roughly 10 years) future of the gaming industry.
 
Upvote 0
#88
I've seen a lot of people saying that the next generation of consoles will outperform PCs, but I've not seen any evidence that it's true. As far as I can think of, no console ever has outperformed PCs from the same time. The latest generation was no different; even the launch-day titles that were ported over to PCs could run better resolution, more advanced graphic effects, and loaded faster on a mid-to-high PC than on the console.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#89
PhoenixDragon said:
I've seen a lot of people saying that the next generation of consoles will outperform PCs, but I've not seen any evidence that it's true. As far as I can think of, no console ever has outperformed PCs from the same time. The latest generation was no different; even the launch-day titles that were ported over to PCs could run better resolution, more advanced graphic effects, and loaded faster on a mid-to-high PC than on the console.
Click to expand...


Atm this is the case PC's are much more capable than the consoles.With the next generation of consoles it will not be the case though.For example a console can render 10-20,000 geometric units per frame.While PC's having to have a OS to tell the GPU what to do .Developers are lucky to get 2 -3,000 units per frame without having performance problems.A HUGE difference when it comes to draw calls also depending on what game is being developed.


Just like TWI fixed its early performance problems.For example instead if rendering a thousand bricks on the ground as separate objects.They can render all the bricks as one object all connected.In game it looks the same but takes a huge load off the draw calls.

Where its going to show is in the next gen console games that is pushing poly limits and geometric's per frame.Unless something is done for direct x it will be a PAIN to make PC games that do the same thing as the new consoles can.What will be needed is a OS with a much more streamlined access to its hardware just like the consoles have.

This is why I hate windows 8 its not just the touch screen interface.Its the fact that they haven't fixed the PC's limitations when it comes to draw calls.Having a streamlined OS that's solely designed to run games is what is needed.
Even if its just a game mode the OS switches too while still retaining its non gaming applications advantage.

Consoles can pretty much run their games just off their video cards.Freeing up CPUs for sound and physics making it much easier to program for.Atm this is just not possible on PC.Everything done in games has to go through the OS and that is handled by the CPU and is why many games is so cpu dependent.

Even tho the next consoles will be running close to current hardware that's available now.It will take some MAJOR upgrades on PC's to run the same games on lesser hardware.With time I have no doubt PC's will regain the lead in gaming.With sure horsepower of updated hardware but PC games could be SO MUCH more if they had a better OS to run games on.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#92
:rolleyes:

Go to Wikipedia and glance at the latest Mac vs PC marketshare for 2012.
It tells you point blank why TWI is unlikely to ever put out a Mac version.

Linux is no issue since you can emulate windows, and therefore run RO2.

It not an OS vs OS issue. Never was. It's a business model issue.
Why would a company burn payroll to put out a game version for 10%
of the marketshare when you can burn payroll to put out a version that can be consumed by both the Windows and Linux market; approx 88% share.

Its all about the money honey. Charity is nice; but unless you run the Bill & Melissa Gates Foundation, it won't keep yer business afloat.
 
Upvote 0
#93
TheRealGunther said:
Atm this is the case PC's are much more capable than the consoles.With the next generation of consoles it will not be the case though.For example a console can render 10-20,000 geometric units per frame.While PC's having to have a OS to tell the GPU what to do .Developers are lucky to get 2 -3,000 units per frame without having performance problems.A HUGE difference when it comes to draw calls also depending on what game is being developed.
Click to expand...

Do you have any cites as to these performances? As far as I was aware, the next generation of consoles is entirely speculative. The current generation of consoles was, at best, comparable to mid-to-high-end PCs on release (So long as you focus only on render quality, and ignore all the issues caused by the much smaller amount of memory, such as long and frequent load times and smaller maps), and rapidly fell behind PCs in the seven years since.

I have to admit, I've never seen the term "geometric units per frame" before. Do you mean polygons per frame? Although if that's the case, 10k polygons per frame is more like PlayStation (Original) levels.
 
Upvote 0
#94
PhoenixDragon said:
Do you have any cites as to these performances? As far as I was aware, the next generation of consoles is entirely speculative. The current generation of consoles was, at best, comparable to mid-to-high-end PCs on release (So long as you focus only on render quality, and ignore all the issues caused by the much smaller amount of memory, such as long and frequent load times and smaller maps), and rapidly fell behind PCs in the seven years since.

I have to admit, I've never seen the term "geometric units per frame" before. Do you mean polygons per frame? Although if that's the case, 10k polygons per frame is more like PlayStation (Original) levels.
Click to expand...

Geometric units per frame is just a fancy way of saying draw calls I could be wrong that's just my understanding of it.Its not the polygons its objects per frame no matter the poly count. Every separate object in game requires a draw call.The workaround has been linking multiple object together reducing the draw calls like TWI did with the bricks ground clutter.Console devs don't have to use workarounds as much they have a abundance amount of draw calls to work with ....unlike PCs and their poorly designed gaming OS's.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/16/farewell-to-directx/2

Just Google "PC draw call problems" you will see like 40 pages of pc developers complaining and explaining this problem....all much better at explaining it than me lol

PC hardware is not in question at all.Its how the OS communicates with its hardware is the problem "direct x overhead". Many devs struggle even now with this and was the number one reason for this games early performances problems.

Like I said there are nifty workarounds for it but these will be near impossible with current OS's when the next generation consoles are released.It has NOTHING to do with hardware its all about how a system handles software.
I never claim to be some computer guru but have been following this problem for a while now.Also trying to explain it so everyone can understand is somewhat hard.So feel free to correct anything I say wrong im just explaining it the way I understand it.

In short PC's need direct access to their GPU skipping the OS altogether.No matter how fast a PC's video card is its always bottlenecked by the OS and the CPU due to direct x overhead. Which is really a shame PC will ALWAYS have superior hardware.Consoles have outdated hardware wise at launch.Its the way the consoles handle their data streams is the advantage....PC gaming could be soooo much better if they could simulate a console type architecture in a OS.

All of this is why I said it would be a great time for another company to give Microsoft a run for its money.If Microsoft is not going to make a good OS for games .....someone should.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#95
Draw calls are more than just geometry, which makes the "geometric units" label you used kind of misleading, if that's what you meant.

I don't doubt that PCs have a higher overhead per draw call. That's pretty much inevitable. The modular nature of PCs makes programing directly for the hardware impossible, which is the advantage consoles have; they don't need an OS to delegate the program's requests, because the hardware is always the same, there is no translation needed. Even despite this difference, and the apparent higher draw calls (Which I only found one, un-cited source for), console graphics still fall short of PC levels. Every game that has existed on both consoles and PCs (And which allowed you any meaningful degree of control over the graphics settings on the PC version, and wasn't horribly optimized) has run better graphics on the PC, often significantly better. This not only goes for games ported from the console to PC (Oblivion, for example), but also for games ported from the PC to consoles (Doom 3, now 8 years old, which despite predating the X-Box 360 by a year still had to have its graphics reduced to run on it). Crysis, despite being 5 years old now, would have to be severely stripped down to run on a console, if it could even be done (To be fair, it was pretty punishing on PCs at the time, too). There's a lot more to graphic performance than raw draw calls.

And this is still just focusing on graphic throughput. It doesn't include other aspects, such as memory size, storage, etc. Good luck getting something like Planetside 2 running on a console.

I expect the next generation of consoles will fare much like the last; more or less (Likely on the "less" side) comparable to PCs when they release, and rapidly outpaced again afterward.
 
Upvote 0
#96
PhoenixDragon said:
words
Click to expand...

Like I said I never claim to be a PC guru heck the SDK gives me a headache :D

You are right though the draw call is about the only advantage the consoles will have.I highly doubt they will have say 8 gigs of ram and 2g of Vram plus will still read much of its data off its discs etc.The PC will always have better texture ,shader,ram support pretty much all the "eye candy" is done better on pc.

Still I stand by that say xbox720 will be able to do things PC will not be able too as far as game scope and complexion(for a while).Many devs will not want to reprogram games for pc making up for the draw calls.Red Dead Redemption was not ported to the PC in many ways because of this problem.It could have been done on PC great! but it would have took time.The problem is not that big of deal atm engines made for aging consoles.

Intel,AMD,Nvidia,ATI an OS's all combine to make PC developers loose their hair faster:eek:.Having to make games stable on many different builds is not easy and takes alot of time.The draw calls is a serious problem atm for PC's and will only get worse in the near future.Something better surely can be made to make PC's have NO disadvantages when it comes to game development.

Current OS's still fail IMO in taking advantage of PC hardware.They are the Weakest Link!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#97
TheRealGunther said:
Still I stand by that say xbox720 will be able to do things PC will not be able too as far as game scope and complexion(for a while).
Click to expand...

I see no more reason to expect this to be true than it was when people made the same claim for the current generation of consoles. "Scope" and "complexion" (Do you mean complexity, or are you really using that as an unusual term for appearance?) are certainly not going to be better, particularly when, as you note, they will have less RAM and hard-disk use.

Many devs will not want to reprogram games for pc making up for the draw calls.Red Dead Redemption was not ported to the PC in many ways because of this problem.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, that's going to need a cite. As far as I can find, Rockstar never gave an explicit reason for why they didn't port RDR.

Every game they have ported required time to redesign and adapt to the PC, that's a simple fact of designing for different hardware. Considering that they have ported other games, including ones with much more simultaneous elements (And therefor, more draw calls), I would suspect that the reason was that they decided porting over a PC version wasn't worth the development time, as they would get more money for devoting it to a new game than they would porting that existing one.

The draw calls is a serious problem atm for PC's and will only get worse in the near future.
Click to expand...

Rather the opposite, actually. DX11 has draw call batching, which handles the issue quite well. What a current console does in 10-20k draw calls can conceivably be done on a DX11 card with just one.
 
Upvote 0
#98
I've the state of PC gaming to be pretty interesting the last few years. Every mainstream title since around 2008 has needed very modest requirements by PC standards, because most of them have originated or been designed for Consoles. It must be driving the hardware manufacturers nuts. I think it's only the niche stuff that is really pushing hardware, like simulation (which is a way smaller market than it used to be.)
 
Upvote 0
#99
Sulman said:
Every mainstream title since around 2008 has needed very modest requirements by PC standards, because most of them have originated or been designed for Consoles.
Click to expand...

There have been a few, but yeah, most games on the PC are console ports, and with console hardware so far behind, you don't need much to blow them away. My video card is 5 years old, but there are few games that push it. Unsurprisingly, the ones that do are the ones designed exclusively for the PC, such as Shogun 2 or Planetside 2 (I wouldn't be surprised if the next gen of consoles couldn't even run the later without cutting it down).

The only thing I hope the next console generation does is give consoles enough memory that we severely reduce the number of loading zones in the games that will inevitably be designed for the limitations of console hardware first, and ported to PCs second.
 
Upvote 0
#100
PhoenixDragon said:
Uh, no, that's going to need a cite. As far as I can find, Rockstar never gave an explicit reason for why they didn't port RDR.
Click to expand...
It was one of the problems with im sure considering the open maps and clutter.Converting to DRX 11 would have took even more time. Like you said not worth the effort....which is a problem for PC fewer games and exclusives.
PhoenixDragon said:
Rather the opposite, actually. DX11 has draw call batching, which handles the issue quite well. What a current console does in 10-20k draw calls can conceivably be done on a DX11 card with just one.
Click to expand...

Games are run on engines anymore and for now they are made for consoles.Few engines have really took advantage of Drx10 or 11 Crysis and Witcher 2 to name a few.

Witcher 2 has high specs for PC but was converted to console missing some lighting.Still looking good on old hardware only outdated shaders prevented the lighting.With 500 mb System ram and running on basically a x1900 256 mb card (360) 7900 for ps3.The same set up on pc wouldn't even run windows:D I'm sorry but OS's are not very efficient at running hardware resources for games.

Time will tell when the next generation of games comes out and drx 11 can be tested.They will need these Conceivable tricks so far Drx11 slows me down instead of speeding me up on.They could do so much more with less skipping the OS.

Something better is needed to finally kill out the consoles which I think will happen one day!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu