Jump to content



Photo

The Crew Ported from PC to PS4 in 6 months with 3 people.

ps4 the crew ubisoft

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
61 replies to this topic

#31 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 20 July 2013 - 11:54

Not reactOS "level", but rather in spirit. If Sony were to invest in a PS4-side implementation of the DirectX API the process of porting could end up being trivial.

 

Then again, Valve have already proven with their "togl" translation layer that even with the (allegedly minor) cost of translation, the performance gains of OpenGL not only eliminate that cost - but manage to beat native DirectX.

This Myth/lie continues to persevere.

 

a few facts about it. When Valve announced this, they also at the end, in "small letters" said that it was due to new improvements in the engine, and that these same improvements on the DX version would give the same performance boost on windows/directX, effectively making DX still faster. and another fact, this supposed higher performance has NEVER been actually shown and proven, certainly not on real users computers. 

 

if you dual boot linux and windows and run one of their cross platforms games and measure performance, the windows version will still run faster and look better, despite this magical claim of higher OGL performance. 




#32 MFH

MFH

    RAII fanatic

  • Joined: 24-June 10

Posted 20 July 2013 - 12:07

Uh, what?

 

The compiler's job is to convert valid code into (in this case) valid x86(_64) machine code, it doesn't write additional code.

Have a look at C++-template-meta-programming or pragma-based-code-generation (OpenMP, etc.) and then tell me again, that compilers don't write additional code…



#33 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 20 July 2013 - 16:01

This Myth/lie continues to persevere.

 

a few facts about it. When Valve announced this, they also at the end, in "small letters" said that it was due to new improvements in the engine, and that these same improvements on the DX version would give the same performance boost on windows/directX, effectively making DX still faster. and another fact, this supposed higher performance has NEVER been actually shown and proven, certainly not on real users computers. 

 

if you dual boot linux and windows and run one of their cross platforms games and measure performance, the windows version will still run faster and look better, despite this magical claim of higher OGL performance. 

 

Hah, if this was OpenGL to DirectX and coming from Microsoft Studios you'd take it as gospel.

 

Not sure why you're talking about Windows and Linux builds either, the comparison was DirectX and OpenGL on Windows. To quote Valve's blogpost:

 

 

This experience lead to the question: why does an OpenGL version of our game run faster than Direct3D on Windows 7? It appears that it’s not related to multitasking overhead. We have been doing some fairly close analysis and it comes down to a few additional microseconds overhead per batch in Direct3D which does not affect OpenGL on Windows. Now that we know the hardware is capable of more performance, we will go back and figure out how to mitigate this effect under Direct3D.

 

Ergo, OpenGL is faster than DirectX. No myth here.

 

Have a look at C++-template-meta-programming or pragma-based-code-generation (OpenMP, etc.) and then tell me again, that compilers don't write additional code…

 

There is a stark contrast between templated code generation and actively being able to author new code between two disparate APIs. As I said before, if that sort of code generation was possible then why would anyone author translation layers in the first place?



#34 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 20 July 2013 - 17:58

Hah, if this was OpenGL to DirectX and coming from Microsoft Studios you'd take it as gospel.

 

Not sure why you're talking about Windows and Linux builds either, the comparison was DirectX and OpenGL on Windows. To quote Valve's blogpost:

 

 

No, I wait for the fact, not wild speculations. 


Ergo, OpenGL is faster than DirectX. No myth here.

 

Except, it's NOT. Valve has NOT been able to produce any conclusive evidence that it is faster. 

 

also if you know something about OS and how they work. you would know that NT actually has a faster and more efficient multi tasking system than Linux. So one owuld have to assume that with wild speculations like this, and NO actual proof that their games are faster on linux with OPenGL(in fact quite the opposite) it's just Gabe again sprouting pure nonsense on his idiotic anti windows agenda. 



#35 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 20 July 2013 - 18:15

No, I wait for the fact, not wild speculations. 


 

Except, it's NOT. Valve has NOT been able to produce any conclusive evidence that it is faster. 

 

also if you know something about OS and how they work. you would know that NT actually has a faster and more efficient multi tasking system than Linux. So one owuld have to assume that with wild speculations like this, and NO actual proof that their games are faster on linux with OPenGL(in fact quite the opposite) it's just Gabe again sprouting pure nonsense on his idiotic anti windows agenda. 

 

No, you support anything pro-microsoft as the ultimate truth and dismiss anything to the contrary.

 

You prove as much by ranting on about Linux again despite the fact I already stated (as does the quote, if you had bothered to read it) it has nothing to do with Linux at all, it's purely a matter of DirectX and OpenGL.

 

But please, do go on ranting about Gabe and the NT kernel, despite neither of them having anything to do with the point.



#36 vcfan

vcfan

    Straight Ballin'

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 12-June 11

Posted 22 July 2013 - 01:28

 it takes the source and creates a binary. That's it.

 

 


There is a stark contrast between templated code generation and actively being able to author new code between two disparate APIs.

 

nice back peddling.



#37 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 22 July 2013 - 01:59

nice back peddling.

 

No, it's not back pedalling at all. If you knew what you were talking about you would understand that.

 

You're still writing code with templates, you're just abstracting even further than normal. High and low level languages are a scale of how explicit you're being.

 

That is not however throwing a compiler a bunch of API calls and expecting it to magically figure how to translate into another.



#38 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 22 July 2013 - 06:21

No, you support anything pro-microsoft as the ultimate truth and dismiss anything to the contrary.

 

You prove as much by ranting on about Linux again despite the fact I already stated (as does the quote, if you had bothered to read it) it has nothing to do with Linux at all, it's purely a matter of DirectX and OpenGL.

 

But please, do go on ranting about Gabe and the NT kernel, despite neither of them having anything to do with the point.

 

 

Well nothign really uses OGL on windows, because DX is faster. and even if you where talking Windows vs Windows, there's still NOTHING actually showing that OGL is faster(and you did actually mention linux as you talked about supposedly and falsely so faster multitasking in your quote).

 

So again, untill there's actual proof that OGL is in any way faster than DX... no it's not. in the meantime, I have plenty of proof it's not. like any game that still uses both, (probably need to go back to some older games for that now) and 3D modeling suites that let you choose DX/OGL/Software. Which in the past mean you chose between Fast/Stable/Really Stablet. Though with the newer versions of DX, it's not only faster than OGL it's also faster. (FYI the stability didn't affect gaming, it was merely a result f DX not being able to handle "corrupt" meshes so well when you where doing certain operations that could causes weird crap to the mesh) 



#39 BajiRav

BajiRav

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 15-July 04
  • Location: Xbox, where am I?
  • OS: Windows 8.1, Windows 8
  • Phone: Lumia 920

Posted 22 July 2013 - 14:45

Read the freaking article, it says multiple times there is untapped potential in the PS4 and that there is stuff they can do with the PS4 GPU that they can't really use because the game is multiplatform, I'm pretty sure PC graphics cards are more than capable than PS4 GPU so that leaves one option, Xbox One.


Great! Now we have to wait for this untapped potential in the PS4 too? I am still waiting for someone tapping PS3's potential after all these years.

#40 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 22 July 2013 - 15:29

Well nothign really uses OGL on windows, because DX is faster. and even if you where talking Windows vs Windows, there's still NOTHING actually showing that OGL is faster(and you did actually mention linux as you talked about supposedly and falsely so faster multitasking in your quote).

 

So again, untill there's actual proof that OGL is in any way faster than DX... no it's not. in the meantime, I have plenty of proof it's not. like any game that still uses both, (probably need to go back to some older games for that now) and 3D modeling suites that let you choose DX/OGL/Software. Which in the past mean you chose between Fast/Stable/Really Stablet. Though with the newer versions of DX, it's not only faster than OGL it's also faster. (FYI the stability didn't affect gaming, it was merely a result f DX not being able to handle "corrupt" meshes so well when you where doing certain operations that could causes weird crap to the mesh) 

 

Give it up HawkMan, you're just embarrasing yourself. To go on and say something as ignorant as "nothing really uses OpenGL on Windows" just makes you into a complete joke.

 

Now, actually read the quote I added, or if you're really so desperate to fight against reality, read it at the source under the heading "OpenGL versus Direct3D on Windows 7"

: http://blogs.valveso...faster-zombies/

 

It has nothing to do with Linux, NT, Multitasking or any of the other rubbish you rant on about, it states in quite simple terms:

We have been doing some fairly close analysis and it comes down to a few additional microseconds overhead per batch in Direct3D which does not affect OpenGL on Windows.

 

If you want to critique OpenGL, target Khronos's over-attatchment to legacy cruft, the slower rate of version progress or the complete mess that is the extension system. But when it comes down to speed, OpenGL wins.



#41 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 22 July 2013 - 20:08

If there's someone embarassing themselves I'd say it's the guy who keeps saying OpenGL is faster, despite the lack of ANY actual proof of it, and numerous proof that indeed it is. 

 

You just keep quoting Gabes vomit that he never bothered to back up with anything real except his claims. 



#42 +Audioboxer

Audioboxer

    Hermit Arcana

  • Joined: 01-December 03
  • Location: UK, Scotland

Posted 22 July 2013 - 21:54

Great! Now we have to wait for this untapped potential in the PS4 too? I am still waiting for someone tapping PS3's potential after all these years.

 

Still waiting? Naughty Dog.



#43 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 22 July 2013 - 21:59

If there's someone embarassing themselves I'd say it's the guy who keeps saying OpenGL is faster, despite the lack of ANY actual proof of it, and numerous proof that indeed it is. 

 

You just keep quoting Gabes vomit that he never bothered to back up with anything real except his claims. 

 

I provided proof, you just don't want to acknowlege it because it challenges your biased worldview.

 

Your "defense" (if you could even call it that) thus far, has been to firstly rant on about Linux when it wasn't relevant, rant on about Gabe despite him not being involved, and then try to weakly save face by bringing up Linux AGAIN, making a statement that illustrated you didn't fully read, understand or comprehend the source quote I've provided to you multiple times now.

 

If this was a matter of a Microsoft employee making a claim in Microsoft's technalogical favour, you would jump on it instantly as a factual source. However, because Gabe didn't buy into your Windows 8 hivemind, apparantly everyone at Valve is now a part of a mass Gabe-orchestrated conspiracy to perpetrate "hatred" against Microsoft, and is inadmissable. Seriously, get a grip.

 

If all that wasn't hilarity enough, you yourself have yet to post a single shred of proof to the contrary. The best argument you have is in the large share DirectX has, which is even more hilarious when you consider the history Microsoft have in regards to planning to gimp OpenGL and then backpedaling.



#44 ShiZZa

ShiZZa

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 14-August 02
  • OS: Windows Server 2012
  • Phone: HTC Titian WP7.5

Posted 31 July 2013 - 06:34

Give it up HawkMan, you're just embarrasing yourself. To go on and say something as ignorant as "nothing really uses OpenGL on Windows" just makes you into a complete joke.

 

Now, actually read the quote I added, or if you're really so desperate to fight against reality, read it at the source under the heading "OpenGL versus Direct3D on Windows 7"

: http://blogs.valveso...faster-zombies/

 

It has nothing to do with Linux, NT, Multitasking or any of the other rubbish you rant on about, it states in quite simple terms:

 

If you want to critique OpenGL, target Khronos's over-attatchment to legacy cruft, the slower rate of version progress or the complete mess that is the extension system. But when it comes down to speed, OpenGL wins.

 

 

I still want to know where all these programs on Windows are that run OpenGL by default/at all? 

 

Game engines take care of most the translation.  Most people do not reinvent this anymore.  This is why there's only a few it would take forever for anyone to catch up now days.  Small indie games don't really count because of the scale of what they do / support.  Unless that indie game uses an entry level engine/wrapper. (ex: Unity) 

 

I also recommend most people in this thread should maybe go read some programming books about game engine design and not game design.  If anything a few chapters about porting might help everyone.



#45 JonnyLH

JonnyLH

    I say things.

  • Joined: 15-February 13
  • Location: UK
  • OS: W8, W7, WP8, iOS, Ubuntu
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 31 July 2013 - 06:55

Ergo, OpenGL is faster than DirectX. No myth here.

Stop posting false information. The only people who have actually been developing OpenGL to a standard which is like current DirectX is AMD. Those OpenGL libraries aren't even built into OpenGL as default and are considered 3rd party plugins, without those OpenGL is like jumping back in time. Also, the PS4 doesn't even use OpenGL!

 

Also, everyone should stop mentioning PS4 and DirectX. They have no relation, the only thing Sony have said is that the CPU is based around the schematics of DirectX instruction sets. Far from means it'll work with DirectX, they've basically copied it. LOL DirectX on a FreeBSD based platform. That'd be hilarious.