| zorg1000 said: I've been in 30ft+ feet deep trenches where cave ins are a huge risk. |
Just a few days ago had a rescue and had to sail down the side of a 100ft cliff to someone who fell off. (We knew they were there because of an EPIRB activation.) - Sadly couldn't get them back up again due to their extensive injuries, so had to wait 4 hours for a chopper, but they passed away. The remoteness here is real.
There are lots of aquifers here that are insanely deep, haven't been to a rescue where I needed to go in one yet though thankfully... But we almost lost a truck down one once as it was in the middle of scrub and not on any of the maps.
But did have a wind turbine catch on fire once and had to climb the interior of that wearing my gear which is stupidly heavy and bulky, which was interesting.
| zorg1000 said: Worked inside of methane filled confined spaces where combustion and/or asphyxiation is a risk. Constantly working around housting/rigging carrying thousands of pounds of material (2 years ago a guy on another crew for the company is was working for got killed during a rigging failure). |
I am part of a B.A and Hazmat brigade, so those are common risks that we go out and deal with fairly frequently.
Few months back there was a truck spill that dumped thousands of litres/gallons of Sulfuric Acid. - The way we clean that up is we dump a chemical on top of it that turns into a sort of semi-solid jelly and shovel it up... But that acid can kill you... And that is a relative benign risk compared to some other substances that are transported here. (Thanks to the mines.)
But confined spaces and toxins is something we are trained in and deal with on a daily basis... But we also get our fair-share of bullshit callouts... Like prisoners sending love letters to each other... And one prisoner put Talcum powder in a letter which was flagged as potentially being Anthrax by the prison staff, whole place got evacuated.
| zorg1000 said: Worked on many heavy highway projects (guy on my crew got hit by a car on a job last year). Digging alongside water/electric/gas utilities everyday (its common for the locating company to miss a locate and we end up finding/hitting a utility that's not marked, operator once hit an unmarked water and electric line at the same time, if I was in the ditch at that moment I would have been electrocuted). |
I'm in a Road Crash unit, so gas and electricity hazards are actually a common issue, especially as much of the power lines aren't underground here like in city areas.
Often we have to tie a rope to a live downed power line (Difficult without touching it!) and shift it as the power company can potentially take hours to shut the power off... Time you don't have when you need to grab the jaws and spreaders to break up a car to get someone out.
The last rural house fire we were battling, we were standing next to the shed... Little did we know there was about 40 Gas Bottles/Jerry Cans that could have gone up. Lucky it didn't.
| zorg1000 said: Been on a job where I directly handled dynamite. Work alongside heavy equipment every day and had many close calls with mechanical malfunctions (hydraulics line blew and almost got crushed by excavator) and human error (operator not following hand signals almost cut my feet off a few months ago). |
Unlike the American hot shots, we don't dig fire breaks by hand, we get big machinery in. We are Australian... We work smart, not hard. Haha
But we are heavily reliant on farmers here due to remoteness... So often we are coordinating with them to build fire breaks to direct bushfires.
But big rescue vehicles are the bread and butter of the agencies I am in, trucks, boats, bulk water carriers, bobcats, choppers, water bombers, you name it.
| zorg1000 said: Sure, you might be at a higher risk but I go through my fair share of risks on a day to basis....well not at the moment because I'm off with a work related injury |
Risk is a risk, it's actually interesting to see what others deal with on the daily.
Probably should stick on topic though... Haha
thismeintiel said: If the games were made using only Pro HW, you can bet they would look better. There will be little interest in the lower powered XB2 because the early adopters will be looking for a real jump in performance, not another half step. |
It's the same issue the PC has though... In short though the next gen base console is not going to be a big step up over the Xbox One X and in a couple areas will potentially fall short.
| Biggerboat1 said: 3) PS4 : 1.84 TFLOPS / Pro : 4.2 TFLOPS - so 2.3 x more powerful, just for clarity, but then the Pro isn't doing real 4K, to do that would need to be a bit more powerful, bringing us closer to the rumoured Xbox Skus.
I'm not an expert on this stuff (maybe Pemalite or one of the more technically minded guys can help us here), but my understanding is that GPU power requirements scales with resolution. So to increase the resolution from Full HD to 4K, you're gonna need 4x the power. If I'm correct then the that means there won't be any extra 'bells & whistles' between the 2 skus but just resolution bump. In fact Anaconda might struggle to hit full 4K at only 3x...
|
GPU power does scale with resolution, but it's actually not always a linear relationship... There is actually a ton of work that happens before the rendering stage to remove unnecessary rendering, perform compression and so on... So that a doubling in resolution doesn't require a doubling in horsepower.
And on the flipside... Sometimes increasing resolution means the GPU will be bottlenecked elsewhere like bandwidth or geometry or rops... And then it doesn't matter how many FLOPS you have, you aren't going to get anywhere.
AMD's GCN GPU's at the moment tend to be Geometry and ROP limited for instance... Doesn't help they are pretty inefficient as well compared to nVidia's efforts... Even Intels Graphics solutions (Plus Iris 940) are beating AMD's integrated Vega 11... Up to a point. - Once you start throwing a ton of Geometry at the Intel chip, it's performance tanks harder than even AMD's.
| Biggerboat1 said: I think you guys should compare scars ;) |
This forum has left me with significant emotional ones though... :P
| Intrinsic said:
|
I don't actually agree with this entirely. I think there is to much emphasis placed on flops to make it truly accurate anyway.
In short though, we just need to look towards nVidia and the fact they are able to hit higher framerates and resolutions irrespective of the number of flops... Partly that is because they have implemented things like tiled-based rendering so that the caches and memory bandwidth are always utilized to their fullest potential and tend to be less likely to introduce a bottleneck... It's also historically why it is the preferred technology for mobile as it allows for more efficient use of limited resources.
| HoloDust said: @bold If you look up benchmarks, it's actually mostly 2-3x for 1080p to 4K UHD, depending on engine, API and GPU architecture. Here's some of the latest for 1660Ti (link is for Metro Exodus, there are others games in review as well): https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_rog_strix_geforce_gtx_1660_ti_review,14.html |
It's never going to be a black and white answer sadly.
Some GPU architectures will have perfect scaling with increases in resolution.
Some GPU architectures will have it's performance tank once you hit a certain resolution as bottlenecks in the design come into play.
| Biggerboat1 said: Ok, thanks to you both for the clarification. So I guess the conclusion is that Lockhart at 1/3 the TFLOPS would be in a decent position to run games at 1080 to Anaconda's 4K and that it wouldn't need to lose lots of 'bells and whistles' as thismeintiel suggests? |
End of the day provided it is fed with enough bandwidth and has enough CPU grunt backing it and an appropriate amount of Ram, it will be a decent 1080P box... Even if it was 3 Teraflops.
1080P isn't a difficult proposition even for mid-end GPU's these days... And the base Xbox One and Playstation 4 GPU's are old and inefficient, despite AMD being pretty stagnant in terms of efficiency as of late... There is still a significant jump between GCN 1.0 that those consoles use and newer GCN 5.0/6.0 parts.
My only hope for next gen is that they are not using something that is Graphics Core Next/Navi/Vega based and implements some of AMD's next-gen efforts/ideas at a minimum.
| Nate4Drake said: Understood; anyway, specs aside, what I really want is a very solid Launch Line-up for both, and more emphasis on the game-play dynamics, animations, physics, much more interactive environment/system collision and AI. With a massive jump in CPU performance, this could be achieved. These are mostly the improvements I would like for next Gen, I don't care about native 4K/60fps, it's a waste. |
I am okay with 4k... And will get the best 4k console irrespective of brand/console manufacture... Because even on a 1080P or my 1440P displays there is some big improvements thanks to downsampling.
I am a massive whore for Framerates though, 60fps across every title would be amazing.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
