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

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

sub-zero-TM on 17 October 2012

Dishonored looks better on PS3 and has nothing to do with Skyrim



Around the Network
lilbroex on 17 October 2012
sub-zero-TM said:
Dishonored looks better on PS3 and has nothing to do with Skyrim


Dishonered really isn't doing much technically or graphically. I played it on my PC at max setting. It uses old PS2 level 2 tone shadows and the environment geometry is almost nonexistent. The textures aren't high res either exept for on the characters modals. I've also yet to enter and area that had more than 5 people in one spot.

Its fun, but its far from a technical marvel by any stretch.



selnor on 17 October 2012
sub-zero-TM said:
Dishonored looks better on PS3 and has nothing to do with Skyrim

Dishonored is not doing what Skyrim is doing. PS3's ram limitation is workable with  smallr world and less going on.

And Digital oundry say 360 and PS3 Dishonored are identical.

“However, image quality and assets are largely similar, if not precisely identical, between the two console releases,”



fillet on 17 October 2012
binary solo said:
PS3 just required a different technical solution, which is to only render items in the immediate environment of the player. That way there's a lot less demand on the RAM, despite there being hundreds or even thousands of item movements and placements across the entire game world. The only thing is that would require Bethesda to make major changes to the game engine, which would increase the cost of making the PS3 version immensely, and thereby make the game much less profitable.

Of course they could have started out by looking at the architecture of all the machines they'd be putting the game onto and design the software accordingly, rather than design the software to work well on 2 out of 3 of rhe machines and be sub-standard on the 3rd.

That is exactly what Bethesday - and ALL other developers do and have done since 3D gaming first came about on the PC in 1995.

All 3D graphics cards only render the image that is actually visible using memory on the graphics card. Other assets that could be needed before a load point are stored in RAM.

There is no solution.



slowmo on 17 October 2012
mantlepiecek said:
Adinnieken said:
mantlepiecek said:
Haha, so now a lack of 5% RAM is very limiting to a release of a DLC?

Kind of hilarious actually. In fact skyrim had a problem at the release itself on PS3, and it was memory leak I believe. Something that didn't exist on 360, and it had nothing to do with RAM and how much of it you have.

You failed maths, didn't you?

218 / 480 = .45416666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666

That's 45% not 5%.

The PS3 has up to 218MB available for the game.  The Xbox 360 has up to 480MB for the game.

Nope.

If PS3 has only 218 MB RAM for games none of the multiplats would have even worked properly on it. GT 5 1280x1080 wouldn't even be possible on it.

PS3 can use both memories for the games, it has been stated by devs themselves.

Did you fail in language btw?

edit : I just noticed. You said PS3 has 218 MB RAM for games and then go on to say that it is 45%. Nope, according to you it is 55% less RAM than the 360, further proving you are both sh!t at maths and language. It is 45% of the total 360 RAM, but 55% less

Further showing how absurd your point is.


Im afraid you're wrong, the devs stated you could use the system RAM to boost the Video RAM but you cannot use it in reverse unless you start putting the memory intensive tasks through the GPU which then severely hurts framerate and graphical quality.  You need to conceed this point or you'll make yourself look a bit of a fool if you carry on.  Fair point on the maths though



Around the Network
mantlepiecek on 17 October 2012
slowmo said:
mantlepiecek said:

Nope.

If PS3 has only 218 MB RAM for games none of the multiplats would have even worked properly on it. GT 5 1280x1080 wouldn't even be possible on it.

PS3 can use both memories for the games, it has been stated by devs themselves.

Did you fail in language btw?

edit : I just noticed. You said PS3 has 218 MB RAM for games and then go on to say that it is 45%. Nope, according to you it is 55% less RAM than the 360, further proving you are both sh!t at maths and language. It is 45% of the total 360 RAM, but 55% less

Further showing how absurd your point is.


Im afraid you're wrong, the devs stated you could use the system RAM to boost the Video RAM but you cannot use it in reverse unless you start putting the memory intensive tasks through the GPU which then severely hurts framerate and graphical quality.  You need to conceed this point or you'll make yourself look a bit of a fool if you carry on.  Fair point on the maths though

Skyrim is most definitely lacking in video memory, not system memory.



walsufnir on 17 October 2012
mantlepiecek said:
slowmo said:
mantlepiecek said:

Nope.

If PS3 has only 218 MB RAM for games none of the multiplats would have even worked properly on it. GT 5 1280x1080 wouldn't even be possible on it.

PS3 can use both memories for the games, it has been stated by devs themselves.

Did you fail in language btw?

edit : I just noticed. You said PS3 has 218 MB RAM for games and then go on to say that it is 45%. Nope, according to you it is 55% less RAM than the 360, further proving you are both sh!t at maths and language. It is 45% of the total 360 RAM, but 55% less

Further showing how absurd your point is.


Im afraid you're wrong, the devs stated you could use the system RAM to boost the Video RAM but you cannot use it in reverse unless you start putting the memory intensive tasks through the GPU which then severely hurts framerate and graphical quality.  You need to conceed this point or you'll make yourself look a bit of a fool if you carry on.  Fair point on the maths though

Skyrim is most definitely lacking in video memory, not system memory.


What is your opinion based off? To me it's absolutely clear that Skyrim has strong demand of *main memory* because of the complexity this game has - the growing save-file has already been mentioned by another poster.



sergiodaly on 17 October 2012
fillet said:
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 :)

you are twisting my words... some guys were using a bogus comparison for RAM between PS3 and Xbox with 4th grade maths (the term they use)
in that maths they were not taking a lot of things into account. like the fact that PS3 can cache info in HDD or that GDDR 3 on PS3 is a lot faster than xbox RAM. edit: my point is that not only the size of ram matters... didn't want to sound like HDD could replace RAM... but none understand that!

i use the term cache instead of virtual RAM and that was on purpose. cache is data the RAM need and is often loaded in the second best place besides RAM... and HDD is that place... Uncharted and killzone (like others) uses HDD to cache... didn't never say that makes it for the fact that PS3 has only 256mb of RAM... it makes it for a faster way to access data (like your point 1 mentioned in your post) against the DVD drive on Xbox and the bluray on the PS3... and in a big open game, the stream data must flow fast. besides the HDD game install,cache is often used.

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

sergiodaly on 17 October 2012
Adinnieken said:
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.

like i said... it makes it more flexible... for devs to load up a bunch of game data on low graphics demanding scene but 480mb on full game ruining is impossible and makes the comparison bogus and false...

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

mantlepiecek on 17 October 2012
walsufnir said:
mantlepiecek said:

Skyrim is most definitely lacking in video memory, not system memory.


What is your opinion based off? To me it's absolutely clear that Skyrim has strong demand of *main memory* because of the complexity this game has - the growing save-file has already been mentioned by another poster.

Skyrim isn't really doing anything other than rendering huge open world environments - something which requires a lot of GPU memory.

CPU memory is still a requirement of course. But I can't see why specifically skyrim will need more system memory compared to other games that perform loads better than it.