By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Skyrim Dawnguard PS3: Punished for choosing wrong console

sergiodaly said:
walsufnir said:
sergiodaly said:
many people are forgetting that PS3 can use the HDD to cache data the RAM claims are not possible to prove right unless bethesda "himself" say so... also, if the devs didn't think the PS3 was able to manage the game, or if they think they aren't talent enough to master the platform, they should not release it. the PS3 is the way it is long before the start of this game development, so is their fault to launch a broken piece of SW.


caching to hdd? swapping is magnitudes slower than ram... so where is the benefit? especially with slow 2.5"-hdds attached to a sata 1.5g-interface.

 

and why shouldn't they release it? it sold very well and shoveled a lot of money, even on ps3. games with issues have always been released.

you can try to make it as insignificant as you want... the fact is that the feat. is there and some developers use it, so some kind of benefit must come from it.

 

if you buy broken stuff, the seller will obviously make money from you... that does not make it right. i will not support any dev team or publisher that make this kind of business cause my money is not to waste.

Bull shit.

You don't know what you're talking about, caching to HDD is whe whole reason for the stuttering like that on the PC.

Caching to HDD when memory is exhausted is a last ditch attempt to stop a game CRASHING.

It results in server stuttering.

Seriously. Research before making comments that are based in fantasy land.



Around the Network
fillet said:
sergiodaly said:
walsufnir said:
sergiodaly said:
many people are forgetting that PS3 can use the HDD to cache data the RAM claims are not possible to prove right unless bethesda "himself" say so... also, if the devs didn't think the PS3 was able to manage the game, or if they think they aren't talent enough to master the platform, they should not release it. the PS3 is the way it is long before the start of this game development, so is their fault to launch a broken piece of SW.


caching to hdd? swapping is magnitudes slower than ram... so where is the benefit? especially with slow 2.5"-hdds attached to a sata 1.5g-interface.

 

and why shouldn't they release it? it sold very well and shoveled a lot of money, even on ps3. games with issues have always been released.

you can try to make it as insignificant as you want... the fact is that the feat. is there and some developers use it, so some kind of benefit must come from it.

 

if you buy broken stuff, the seller will obviously make money from you... that does not make it right. i will not support any dev team or publisher that make this kind of business cause my money is not to waste.

Bull shit.

You don't know what you're talking about, caching to HDD is whe whole reason for the stuttering like that on the PC.

Caching to HDD when memory is exhausted is a last ditch attempt to stop a game CRASHING.

It results in server stuttering.

Seriously. Research before making comments that are based in fantasy land


Caching is also used to stream data from optical drives and does produce performance benefits. 



sergiodaly said:
Adinnieken said:
sergiodaly said:
Adinnieken said:
sergiodaly said:
many people are forgetting that PS3 can use the HDD to cache data the RAM claims are not possible to prove right unless bethesda "himself" say so... also, if the devs didn't think the PS3 was able to manage the game, or if they think they aren't talent enough to master the platform, they should not release it. the PS3 is the way it is long before the start of this game development, so is their fault to launch a broken piece of SW.

Seriously?  You want to equate a cache with RAM?

A cache is a temporary repository of information, both the Xbox 360 and PS3 use the HDD to cache data, but it isn't an efficient process.  If it was, then people would have been using HDDs as RAM long ago.  Cached RAM is grossly inefficient compared to actual physical RAM.  If you ever want to test this out, open up as many programs as you possibly can on your computer and consume all of the available physical RAM, then keep opening very active programs.  The issue, as I understand it with Skyrim occurs with the length of play.  The more you play, the more you acquire, and the more data that is required to be saved.  You can't cache data that you need active in RAM to "use" it. 

Where a cache is frequently used is when you actively switch between data.  For instance, you have two documents open and only enough RAM to have one open at any given time.  While you may have both open, only one is active in memory (RAM) while the other one is cached.  This may seem like an unrealistic example, but trust me, there was a time when that was a perfect example of how it worked. 

I'm sure the PS3 caches, but caching doesn't resolve this problem.  It would only compound the problem.

believe me... i know the differences between HDD and RAM... that does not make it useless. in this thread people also say Xbox can use 480Mb for game data and you also know that is impossible to use 480MB for game data, and i didn't see you running here and  use all your technical knowledge to say they are wrong. my point was not to say that HDD cache could solve this, if people was talking about PS3 RAM they should that this into consideration in their 4th grade math...

also, HDD cache is not used in Xbox because there are units without HDD so devs can't rely on that.

If a HDD is present, the Xbox 360 caches.  Trust me.  I've gone through clearing the cache enough times with Oblivion to know that is in fact the case.  I've also gone through enough DVD drive failures to test it.  See, one of the steps to test a bad DVD is to remove the HDD and ensure the console isn't reading off the HDD in case it's a bad HDD. 

Yes, the Xbox 360 does cache.  Shame on you for saying that it doesn't.

Why would I disprove myself?  I'm the one saying it can use up to 480MB for the game.  And how is it impossible?  The amount of memory necessary at any given point fluctuates.  I'm not saying a game can use 480MB all the time.  I'm saying the game can have up to 480MB of memory, which is absolutely true.

Fair enough.  Do you know how big the PS3's cache is?  Let's say it's 128MB.  So in addition to the 218MB of RAM, developers have a 128MB disk cache to temporarily place data on.  They can still only hold up to 218MB into memory.  The Xbox 360 still has more RAM for it to actively work with data.

A developer could throw some data up to the PS3's GPU and utilize the GPU's memory as well, but again, this would be incredibly inefficient.  Which is why developers don't tend to use these types of features.  It's also one of the reasons why with the development of the Xbox 360 Epic encouraged Microsoft to include 512MB of RAM instead of 256MB, and it's the reason why they purportedly encouraged Microsoft double the RAM on the next Xbox.  It's also the reason why one of the most inexpensive, but beneficial upgrades you can do to a computer is the addition of memory and consistently has been since 1981.

probably we are talking apples and oranges here...
480 are used for game data (what i mention in my post) and graphics data (textures and so on) if its filled up with 480 of game data nothing appears at the screen. no one play a black screen.
if people separate the data between game data and graphics for PS3, its the same with xbox 360... i know that the merged ram of xbox gives devs more flexibility but is slower moving graphics data around... if the game loads up all necessary graphics data to RAM not a lot more than 200 MB will be available to game data... you r wrong if you think other wise.

the OS can cache for sure... for what i know devs shouldn't trust on HDD to cache since not all units have HDDs.
funny that now it is not a useless feat. :)
BTW 128mb a bit over kill, devs could only need around 30 to 50 mb of cache in the HDD witch is loaded to RAM in about a second... not that great but better than nothing.

my view still stands... bethesda are to blame... and in my opinion, are a sub par development team. might be a creative one but not very good in implementing their creativity.

Give up, you're just making yourself look silly spouting nonsense here.

Caching assets to HDD is very different to running out of ram and using the HDD as "virtual memory".

TOTALLY different things.

For example, assets are cached to decrease load times on subsqequent reloads of a game level. Using the HDD as virtual memory is a FAIL-SAFE so that the game doesn't crash.

To my knowledge I would expect there are ZERO (except Bethesda) PS3 games that do that, it's a PC thing where the target machine is a moving target and the game is designed to cater for varying specs and system requirments. The developers know what the target RAM is on a PS3 so that doesn't happen.

Now, this game is one of the few that is likely doing EXACTLY what you are talking about as being a positive. It isn't, it's desperate, pathetic and useless and results in extreme slow down, RAM in the PS3 is at least FIFTY TIMES FASTER than a hard drive in terms of bandwidth. (A lot more, but that's a minimum I'm certain on).

You're arguing with people who know what they are talking about unfortunately.

Your view on Bethesday is as valid as anyone else's, but the other stuff which makes up the majority of your post is just pure fabricated plucked out of thin air untruths, as has already been explained to you.



slowmo said:
fillet said:
sergiodaly said:
walsufnir said:
sergiodaly said:
many people are forgetting that PS3 can use the HDD to cache data the RAM claims are not possible to prove right unless bethesda "himself" say so... also, if the devs didn't think the PS3 was able to manage the game, or if they think they aren't talent enough to master the platform, they should not release it. the PS3 is the way it is long before the start of this game development, so is their fault to launch a broken piece of SW.


caching to hdd? swapping is magnitudes slower than ram... so where is the benefit? especially with slow 2.5"-hdds attached to a sata 1.5g-interface.

 

and why shouldn't they release it? it sold very well and shoveled a lot of money, even on ps3. games with issues have always been released.

you can try to make it as insignificant as you want... the fact is that the feat. is there and some developers use it, so some kind of benefit must come from it.

 

if you buy broken stuff, the seller will obviously make money from you... that does not make it right. i will not support any dev team or publisher that make this kind of business cause my money is not to waste.

Bull shit.

You don't know what you're talking about, caching to HDD is whe whole reason for the stuttering like that on the PC.

Caching to HDD when memory is exhausted is a last ditch attempt to stop a game CRASHING.

It results in server stuttering.

Seriously. Research before making comments that are based in fantasy land


Caching is also used to stream data from optical drives and does produce performance benefits. 

1. Caching to disk from media that has slow transfer rate or access times - Good.

Obviously this kind of system is used in a beneficial way for retrying a level more quickly, caching audio for example so it doesn't have to be streamed, caching executable code and so on.

2. Caching to disk because main system RAM is insufficient - Disasterous.

This is an emergency measure to stop a game or application crashing and results in complete bottle necking, games and applications hanging for seconds at a time on occassions, very noticeable and ugly.

 

Totally different scenarios, as I'm sure you're aware. Just clarifying I'm not a fool :)



Hahaha, no problem I just wanted to cover why he had heard about it in a positive manner in the current generation. I agree he doesn't understand about caching in the context he is arguing though



Around the Network

Unfortunately Ps3 has a bad situation with its memory. And any open game like this will be affected. As the Cell can only draw from 215 mb ram. In contrast the 360 has significantly more headroom as the developer can choose how much of its 512 mb to use for GPU or CPU at any given time during the game.

Up till now Sony have done well pushing visuals in a confined level ( Uncharted, Killzone and GOW3 ). While Microsoft has let third party developers push the 360 with universal engines. Its only now in 2012 that Microsoft is pushing the 360 with titles like Halo 4. Well previously we have had Forza 4 and the soon but gorgeous Horizon.

The fact is Sony have designed levels and games around the memory issue. Which is why when I fire up GOW 3 or Unccharted 2 for example it looks its best when I don't have control of the game. Or its levels are very confined.

Both larger level games like Crysis 2 and Rag also suffered in PS3 in comparison.

ts unfortunately a fact. It doesnt even matter how powerful a CPU might be, if the memory isn't there.



sergiodaly said:

probably we are talking apples and oranges here...
480 are used for game data (what i mention in my post) and graphics data (textures and so on) if its filled up with 480 of game data nothing appears at the screen. no one play a black screen.
if people separate the data between game data and graphics for PS3, its the same with xbox 360... i know that the merged ram of xbox gives devs more flexibility but is slower moving graphics data around... if the game loads up all necessary graphics data to RAM not a lot more than 200 MB will be available to game data... you r wrong if you think other wise.

the OS can cache for sure... for what i know devs shouldn't trust on HDD to cache since not all units have HDDs.
funny that now it is not a useless feat. :)
BTW 128mb a bit over kill, devs could only need around 30 to 50 mb of cache in the HDD witch is loaded to RAM in about a second... not that great but better than nothing.

my view still stands... bethesda are to blame... and in my opinion, are a sub par development team. might be a creative one but not very good in implementing their creativity.

I think you over estimate exactly how much memory it costs to display an image on the screen.  Consider for a second, when you go to the load screen what exactly you're looking at.  A black screen, with a character/creature, text, and a loading bar.  You're looking at less than 500K.  So, yeah.  Pretty much 480MB.



NobleTeam360 said:
Go buy a xbox 360 if you want to play it that badly.




Attoyou said:

PS3 owners = Dark cat

Bethesda = Orange cat 

Thank you for this :)



I got well over 100 hours and a platinum out of Skyrim. No one is being punished. There is plenty of game there without DLC.