MikeB said: @ NJ5 Copying data layer by layer will yield different results compared to how game data is being read from a dual layer disc during a game. (layer switching) This is because if you would treat both layers as two seperate discs, the data would not be well aligned and re-using data will constantly see lots of lens movement (wearing issues, extra seek time penalties). Hence the quoted specs from manuals. With copying you just replicate the information of 1s and 0s into data on the harddrive (like an image file). But if a game reads, files have to be actually used and executed. And it's not a start to finish thing like watching a movie, only switching layers once. Also it's more relevant to test the speed of the worst 360 drives than the better ones, as developers will need to take into account worst case scenarios (like having no harddrive).

Bah... now you're confusing seek time with read speed... as far as I know, seek time is better on 360's DVD drive than PS3's BD drive (even accounting for the layer switch time), so what's your point there?

 

Ausfalcon said:   Someone's assesment (not me) of MikeB in early 2004, the second paragraph, first sentence is interesting: http://moobunny.dreamhosters.com/cgi/mbmessage.pl/amiga/95679.shtml Sound familiar to how he acts today?

LMAO... how in the world did you find that?

 

@ Slimebeast

Where did you get this from?



Games would be more demanding if the 360 had more storage capacity, PS3 mulit-platform games included.

It's a bit like claiming it was an excellent choice the Dreamcast stuck to CD, as the bulk (if not all) of its games filled no more than a CD.

There are so many recent 360 games which are ~6.8 GB, it can be assumed that if there was more capacity they would be larger (maybe additional content, maybe more assets varierty, maybe higher quality assets). I think this is one of the reasons Microsoft so vividly pushes for exclusive DLC.

MikeB said: @ Slimebeast Blu-ray duble layer discs have 45GB effective storage availabe for games, right? Where did you get this from? mazing though that it hasnt paid off in this gen yet (not many games are that big that they dont fit on 2 DVDs). Games would be more demanding if the 360 had more storage capacity, PS3 mulit-platform games included. It's a bit like claiming it was an excellent choice the Dreamcast stuck to CD, as the bulk (if not all) of its games filled no more than a CD. There are so many recent 360 games which are ~6.8 GB, it can be assumed that if there was more capacity they would be larger (maybe additional content, maybe more assets varierty, maybe higher quality assets). I think this is one of the reasons Microsoft so vividly pushes for exclusive DLC.

That would be an incorrect assumption then.  Compression takes time and money so there is no point investing in extra compression that isn't required.  It costs no extra money to fill a disk with 6.8GB or 4.8GB so there is no point in not using the entire disk. 

What you meant to say was I assume and my opinion doesn't reflect fact.

 

MikeB said: @ Slimebeast Blu-ray duble layer discs have 45GB effective storage availabe for games, right? Where did you get this from?

 

 I dunno, I think I saw the number 45Gb and Bluray mentioned in the thread, perhaps it was NJ5, so  I assumed that was a reference to the effective storage space on double layer Blurays.

What's the right number then? The number we can compare to the 6.8GB for DVD9?

Slimebeast said: MikeB said: @ Slimebeast Blu-ray duble layer discs have 45GB effective storage availabe for games, right? Where did you get this from?    I dunno, I think I saw the number 45Gb and Bluray mentioned in the thread, perhaps it was NJ5, so  I assumed that was a reference to the effective storage space on double layer Blurays. What's the right number then? The number we can compare to the 6.8GB for DVD9?

No, it was not me. I don't have any idea what's the usable space in a dual-layer BD disc.

It doesn't seem dual-layer BD performance is too great though, as evidenced by the fact that MGS4 has HD installs.

 

NiKKoM said: Ausfalcon said:   Someone's assesment (not me) of MikeB in early 2004, the second paragraph, first sentence is interesting: http://moobunny.dreamhosters.com/cgi/mbmessage.pl/amiga/95679.shtml Sound familiar to how he acts today?   LMAO... how in the world did you find that?

I guess google. That's a hate filled board, they disliked me especially because I tried to be friends with various different managers from different companies (which they viewed as their arch enemies).

This board is used mostly by people who support an alternative operating system similar to AmigaOS4 called MorphOS (and an immature open source variant called AROS). I kept out of the Amiga vs Hyperion battles as I feared of what would happen and what now happens to be the current situation (legal disputes holding back the potential of the product).

There are a lot people posting there with hurt egos, for example Amiga/Hyperion have gone through difficult financial times being unable to pay employees at times. These people at the time were well paid by another company (forerunner of Genesi) and they made fun of AmigaOS4 developers and involved companies all of the time and of course claiming AmigaOS4.0 would never be released (of course Amiga OS4.1 has recently been released).

This until their employing company bankrupted and just before that moved all assets to a new company and they weren't paid for big amounts of overdue payments as well (they were repeatably told everything will be fine, next week and such, continue your work). MorphOS then turned in a (more underground) community project, AmigaOS4 continues to move forward as a commercial project, with the aim to mature the system enough to make it eventually commercially viable (but they are still in the R&D investment phase).

slowmo said: MikeB said: @ Slimebeast Blu-ray duble layer discs have 45GB effective storage availabe for games, right? Where did you get this from? mazing though that it hasnt paid off in this gen yet (not many games are that big that they dont fit on 2 DVDs). Games would be more demanding if the 360 had more storage capacity, PS3 mulit-platform games included. It's a bit like claiming it was an excellent choice the Dreamcast stuck to CD, as the bulk (if not all) of its games filled no more than a CD. There are so many recent 360 games which are ~6.8 GB, it can be assumed that if there was more capacity they would be larger (maybe additional content, maybe more assets varierty, maybe higher quality assets). I think this is one of the reasons Microsoft so vividly pushes for exclusive DLC. That would be an incorrect assumption then.  Compression takes time and money so there is no point investing in extra compression that isn't required.  It costs no extra money to fill a disk with 6.8GB or 4.8GB so there is no point in not using the entire disk.  What you meant to say was I assume and my opinion doesn't reflect fact.

What do you mean with extra compression? You can compress certain data about 2:1 without having data loss, usually not more than that. Both 360 and PS3 games make heavy use of this, it's not hard or expensive, it just makes sense on the PS3 as well as the Cell can decompress faster than Blu-Ray can load the extra data involved with the uncompressed file.

MikeB said: slowmo said: MikeB said: @ Slimebeast Blu-ray duble layer discs have 45GB effective storage availabe for games, right? Where did you get this from? mazing though that it hasnt paid off in this gen yet (not many games are that big that they dont fit on 2 DVDs). Games would be more demanding if the 360 had more storage capacity, PS3 mulit-platform games included. It's a bit like claiming it was an excellent choice the Dreamcast stuck to CD, as the bulk (if not all) of its games filled no more than a CD. There are so many recent 360 games which are ~6.8 GB, it can be assumed that if there was more capacity they would be larger (maybe additional content, maybe more assets varierty, maybe higher quality assets). I think this is one of the reasons Microsoft so vividly pushes for exclusive DLC. That would be an incorrect assumption then.  Compression takes time and money so there is no point investing in extra compression that isn't required.  It costs no extra money to fill a disk with 6.8GB or 4.8GB so there is no point in not using the entire disk.  What you meant to say was I assume and my opinion doesn't reflect fact.   What do you mean with extra compression? You can compress certain data about 2:1 without having data loss, usually not more than that. Both 360 and PS3 games make heavy use of this, it's not hard or expensive, it just makes sense on the PS3 as well as the Cell can decompress faster than Blu-Ray can load the extra data involved with the uncompressed file.

Extra compression is I mean you compress more items than you need to.  Why spend time compressing every resource on your game if you don't need to.  Compressing resources would cost time in both people and computer resources.  Also why spend hour after hour cleaning up a disk image of redundant data if it works fine and fits.  My point was assuming because games are generally 6.8GB doesn't mean the capacity is always at its peak on these releases, but you believe what you like.

NJ5 said: I just found some install times: http://www.gamespot.com/hardware/blogs/hardware-insider/909185655/26656232/xbox-360-hard-drive-game-installation-testing.html NBA Live 09: 6.3 GB in 9m7s (or 11.8 MB/s) The Force Unleashed: 6.6 GB in 9m47s (or 11.51 MB/s)

Just noticed this post.

What I don't understand Mike is how we are seeing >11.5MB/s read times when you keep quoting DL read speeds that max out at 8x (10.57MB/s) as the absolute maximum? This is an average too!

Something's not right...