Support NeoGAF

[Pathfinder]

Reality, that's what happened.

I got your reality right here.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1090704

 

[Frog-fu]

This bump turned out a disappointment because of disingenuous posters who simply can't accept reality and would rather be force fed crow than to just admit that were wrong.

I find it kind of funny how people can barely see a difference between RFG and C3 destruction, but 1080p v. 900p is immediately apparent.

Most underappreciated point in this thread.

 

[gamechanger87]

I find it kind of funny how people can barely see a difference between RFG and C3 destruction, but 1080p v. 900p is immediately apparent.

The cloud destruction looks good, they have a year to make it even better.

 

[Shia_Labeouf]

I know, I know.

But for most people it doesn't matter if it's real time or baked in, they look and say "ooh pretty".

Now if there were a lot of in-game examples of the cloud doing shit we wouldn't have to have this discussion, but fact is, two years in, it's all been PR talk and smoke and mirrors.

If you "know" then why are you posting shit that's completely irrelevant to this topic?

 

[Camp Freddie]

That demo looks amazing. I'm not entirely convinced they can do it in the average home, or that they can provide vast amount of compute power to everyone for free, but if they can do it (and repeat it in other games) then I'll get an XBone.

 

[nib95]

I find it kind of funny how people can barely see a difference between RFG and C3 destruction, but 1080p v. 900p is immediately apparent.

The cloud destruction looks good, they have a year to make it even better.

Can you name a single person, or post a single example from GAF, of a person who can barely tell the difference between RFG and C3?

 

[Pathfinder]

Can you name a single person, or post a single example from GAF, of a person who can barely tell the difference between RFG and C3?

Anyone in this thread who posted GIF's of RFG as evidence that it's been done before.

There's plenty.

 

[llAuburnll]

Can you name a single person, or post a single example from GAF, of a person who can barely tell the difference between RFG and C3?

You want like 15? There are multiple in every Crackdown thread.

 

[moered6]

Can you name a single person, or post a single example from GAF, of a person who can barely tell the difference between RFG and C3?

if you go to the 10 minute demo thread, you will see quite a few

 

[SPDIF]

Can you name a single person, or post a single example from GAF, of a person who can barely tell the difference between RFG and C3?

Does this count?

Dont see much that couldnt be done without "cloud". See red faction guerilla

 

[nib95]

Anyone in this thread who posted GIF's of RFG as evidence that it's been done before.

There's plenty.

You want like 15? There are multiple in every Crackdown thread.

if you go to the 10 minute demo thread, you will see quite a few

Does this count?

If you want to be intellectually dishonest, sure. The point those people were making is not that the games look comparable, rather to show what was possible on much weaker hardware, years ago, and why the kind of advancement we're seeing is to them, within expectations.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Can you name a single person, or post a single example from GAF, of a person who can barely tell the difference between RFG and C3?

I think they are missing the point.

Anyone in this thread who posted GIF's of RFG as evidence that it's been done before.

There's plenty.

You want like 15? There are multiple in every Crackdown thread.

if you go to the 10 minute demo thread, you will see quite a few

Does this count?

So did that same person(s) also say they can see the difference between 900p vs. 1080p?

Because that was the narrative of this post:

I find it kind of funny how people can barely see a difference between RFG and C3 destruction, but 1080p v. 900p is immediately apparent.

Or are we ignoring the premise of nib's post, and generalizing the team war into a GAF hive mind again?

Cause I can easily say, "Remember last gen when people could supposedly tell the difference between 640p vs. 720p on a 1080p set? Funny how they can't see the 900p vs. 1080p on a native set now!"

Funny how that works.

 

[llAuburnll]

If you want to be intellectually dishonest, sure. The point those people were making is not that the games look comparable, rather to show what was possible on much weaker hardware, years ago, and why the kind of advancement we're seeing is to them, within expectations.

So using people saying RFG did it too and this is hardly impressive is being intellectually dishonest? Get out of here. Eat up your crow, it isn't that bad.

 

[Pathfinder]

If you want to be intellectually dishonest, sure. The point those people were making is not that the games look comparable, rather to show what was possible on much weaker hardware, years ago, and why the kind of advancement we're seeing is to them, within expectations.

But what they were pointing out were examples of static destruction: Destruction that happens the same way every time, never changes, and doesn't affect the environment or anything else around it.

Crackdown 3 is on a whole other level. Destruction in that game affects EVERYTHING around it.

 

[DeepEnigma]

dp

 

[nib95]

So using people saying RFG did it and this is hardly impressive is being intellectually dishonest? Get out of here. Eat up your crow, it isn't that bad.

Lol. No.

People obfuscating things to try and make it seem as if there are GAFers that think RFG and C3 look graphically comparable, are being intellectually dishonest.

But what they were pointing out were examples of static destruction: Destruction that happens the same way every time, never changes, and doesn't affect the environment or anything else around it.

Crackdown 3 is on a whole other level. Destruction in that game affects EVERYTHING around it.

I agree. But that doesn't change the point I was making.

 

[Pathfinder]

I agree. But that doesn't change the point I was making.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point then.

Back in the 360/PS3 days, yeah we could have buildings and bridges crumble, and the effect would look cool. But the console didn't have to keep track of each individual piece. It was, in effect, an animation.

Now in games like Crackdown 3, every single piece of every single structure is a building block. And those individual blocks affect other blocks that they touch. The amount of physics calculation to keep track of all that is what is amazing here. And that it can be done in real time.

 

[Rembrandt]

If you want to be intellectually dishonest, sure. The point those people were making is not that the games look comparable, rather to show what was possible on much weaker hardware, years ago, and why the kind of advancement we're seeing is to them, within expectations.

stop doing this. you were also saying earlier that people didn't have to specifically mention 20x the power in their "it's completely a gimmick post." nobody is being intellectually dishonest for quoting people that are saying exactly what you're asking for. stop speaking up for people and even worse, saying shit they're not even saying.

 

[RadioactiveLobster]

I'm curious as to how much bandwidth this type of tech takes.

It's useless (to a lot of people) if you need a 50Mbit connection with sub 10ms pings to make it viable to transfer data from (I believe they said up to 13) Azure servers to keep the calculations going and without latency.

 

[iMax]

Can you name a single person, or post a single example from GAF, of a person who can barely tell the difference between RFG and C3?

Sure.

It's about feelings read the rest of my post you may get a better idea of what I mean I mean yeah it's destruction but in what is it much better that you need up to 4 or 5 xbox ones (the equivalent in cloud ones) to achieve that is it that better than just cause or red faction?

I feel like if you put 4 or 5 PS3's or 360's together this result is obtainable in the regard of red faction for example.

so what is that impressive tell me.

If this is even half as good as Red Faction Guerrilla it should be great.

It's about damn time someone topped the destruction from that game!

I really don't get the hype around those destructions.

I don't find it that much better than red faction and even less considering than we are a generation after.

If the insides of buidings were more detailled maybe it would change my perception of it but from a console with rougghly 8 times the memory od the 360 I have to admit it doesn't look 8 times better than red faction.

Maybe 2 times but it doesn't seems as detailled as BeamNG demo I had on my computer larger buildings just have big chunks.

Maybe it's not the sense of destruction, it may have more to the emptiness of the buildings maybe that's turning me off.

I don't find it better than destruction in battefield for example and I'm very interested in what do you think is so unbelievable because I just don't understand.

Dont see much that couldnt be done without "cloud". See red faction guerilla

Whilst impressive did everyone forget about Red Faction: Guerrilla which did really good destruction years ago?

I read It only add 20% power so basically a Ps4 can run that natively, plus red faction looks still very good even from the beginning of the previous gen so not that impressive I think.

For those wondering why not full destruction on solo just picture a flat world.

It's what you'll end up with. It is a lot smarter for multiplayer where you just play the same map in the span of 30 min max.It's much more intelligent that way destroy it gets rebuilt.

Have we seen anyone try high destructibility environments after Volition's third attempt to do so with the Red Faction series tanked just like the previous two?

I think this level of destruction with that graphical fidelity would be possible on the PS4, Xbox One, and any decent gaming rig if a developer wanted to make it happen. It's fucking lego block construction. There isn't any material deformation (other than basic shearing), phase changes, etc. evident in any of these gifs. This is an iterative step up over what Volition was knocking out of the park early last gen, Inflating the scope doesn't impress me.

Show me a game where the rockets being shot into the building actually chips away at the concrete, creating cracks, and the building then falls based on those damage patterns. Or one where the glass actually melts when explosions go off near it. Or liquids vaporizing into steam.

Also, maybe they should have actually seen how buildings go down or even how they're built. Buildings don't fall like that when explosives go off or when they're struck with a wrecking ball. They crumple and cave in, not topple over like a Jenga tower. Also, large concrete structures have rebar all through them, netting the concrete together, resulting in entirely different breakage patterns from what Crackdown exhibits.

I mean, if you're going to trumpet early 2000's tech as cutting edge proof of DA CLOUD POWA at least get a few structural engineers to make it look right.

 

[llAuburnll]

Sure.

But all those are intellectually dishonest because nobody verbatim said "I cannot tell a difference graphically between RFG and c3".

/s

 

[SPDIF]

So did that same person(s) also say they can see the difference between 900p vs. 1080p?

Well not to go too far off-topic, but in a roundabout way I guess he kind of did:

“Quite a lot of multi-platform titles run at 900p on Xbox One and 1080p on PS4 - the difference is notable, but not massively important in general living room conditions, where you’re seated two or three metres from the screen.”

Lol

Spoiler

Lucky for you I have far more free time than I know what to do with at the moment

 

[iMax]

But all those are intellectually dishonest because nobody verbatim said "I cannot tell a difference graphically between RFG and c3".

/s

You're quite right, my bad. sigh.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Well not to go too far off-topic, but in a roundabout way I guess he kind of did:

Spoiler

Lucky for you I have far more free time than I know what to do with at the moment

Nice, lol.

Spoiler

Yes, more effort than I would have spent.

 

[BattleMonkey]

I mean, Titanfall netcode is on point.

No cloud for the PC version and it runs just as good

 

[SMOK3Y]

Edited

 

[Trup1aya]

Can you name a single person, or post a single example from GAF, of a person who can barely tell the difference between RFG and C3?

Lol go to the other threads... It's The RFG comparisons are rampant..

 

[USC-fan]

I'm curious as to how much bandwidth this type of tech takes.

It's useless (to a lot of people) if you need a 50Mbit connection with sub 10ms pings to make it viable to transfer data from (I believe they said up to 13) Azure servers to keep the calculations going and without latency.

it shouldnt take that much more bandwidth. We really have limited detail about player count. What they shown in the demo the guns are buff up so it wouldnt even that crazy on live servers.

It transfer data between each server in the cloud and then feed it down to you. It not like as more thing happens your system connect to more servers. you connect to a single server[VM] and then that servers "connects" out to other servers[vm]. The game client is run in the cloud. The game is render on you screen using your console power that position data from server. It how most online games work in next gen already.

 

[c0de]

I'm curious as to how much bandwidth this type of tech takes.

It's useless (to a lot of people) if you need a 50Mbit connection with sub 10ms pings to make it viable to transfer data from (I believe they said up to 13) Azure servers to keep the calculations going and without latency.

They only have a very tight time frame to get the data to the server and it takes some time for tcp to transmit a lot of data so we can be quite sure it won't be very demanding on bandwidth. Expect higher demands on good latency.

 

[Trup1aya]

I'm curious as to how much bandwidth this type of tech takes.

It's useless (to a lot of people) if you need a 50Mbit connection with sub 10ms pings to make it viable to transfer data from (I believe they said up to 13) Azure servers to keep the calculations going and without latency.

It will definitely be less bandwidth intensive than watching Netflix, or YouTube in HD or PS Now.

Latency would be the kicker, but hey, we already have distructable environments in MP games... If latency isn't an issue for you in Battlefield, it shouldn't be an issue here. Yes, this will be sending larger packets of data (due to it tracking way more particles), but the data should be arriving in the same amount of time, if not faster (thanks to dedicated servers) as opposed to P2P.

I guess you could argue that experiencing a little lag on 100 peices of falling debri is less jarring that seeing a little lag on 10000 peices of debri... But I think it's the same across the board... A stutter is a stutter...

 

[Pathfinder]

No cloud for the PC version and it runs just as good

Uhh, what was that you said?

http://www.respawn.com/news/lets-talk-about-the-xbox-live-cloud/

So they built this powerful system to let us create all sorts of tasks that they will run for us, and it can scale up and down automatically as players come and go. We can upload new programs for them to run and they handle the deployment for us. And they’ll host our game servers for other platforms, too! Titanfall uses the Xbox Live Cloud to run dedicated servers for PC, Xbox One, and Xbox 360.

 

[leeh]

I'm curious as to how much bandwidth this type of tech takes.

It's useless (to a lot of people) if you need a 50Mbit connection with sub 10ms pings to make it viable to transfer data from (I believe they said up to 13) Azure servers to keep the calculations going and without latency.

I did some very guestimate maths a while back which I posted on reddit and it was around 400kbps when stuff was heavy, like buildings falling down, and around 80kbps at low points.

Very rough though. So can be achieved easily on a 4Mbit line. I feel like it'll be along the lines of, if you can buffer a YT video at 720p, you'll be fine.

 

[Hockeymac18]

Much longer version. Everyone saying this can't be done should take a look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFWIpAPvF-Q&feature=youtu.be

This demonstration is very impressive and convincing, and goes a long way to quelling some of the concern about this tech. This kind of stuff is very next-gen, in my mind (they're dong something different other than just making graphics better - stuff that's never really been tried).

Call MS marketing PR BS, if you want, but a lot of what they've said about the cloud clearly has some proof and teeth now.

They have to of course release a product that uses this tech, but I think it's safe to say this stuff works, and works well. I can't wait to try it personally.

 

[etta]

I did some very guestimate maths a while back which I posted on reddit and it was around 400kbps when stuff was heavy, like buildings falling down, and around 80kbps at low points.

Very rough though. So can be achieved easily on a 4Mbit line. I feel like it'll be along the lines of, if you can buffer a YT video at 720p, you'll be fine.

Yea, multiplayer gaming in general doesn't necessitate much download speed.

 

[Memorabilia]

It was total marketing bullshit. A 100% lie insofar as any actual, tangible effect on increasing the Xbones processing power. MS finally realized they weren't fooling most people once the truth got out there, so they've given up for now.

 

[Frog-fu]

It was total marketing bullshit. A 100% lie insofar as any actual, tangible effect on increasing the Xbones processing power. MS finally realized they weren't fooling most people once the truth got out there, so they've given up for now.

lol

 

[Jigorath]

Everyone just needs to calm down and eat some feathers.

 

[Pathfinder]

It was total marketing bullshit. A 100% lie insofar as any actual, tangible effect on increasing the Xbones processing power. MS finally realized they weren't fooling most people once the truth got out there, so they've given up for now.

 

[xblarcade]

It was total marketing bullshit. A 100% lie insofar as any actual, tangible effect on increasing the Xbones processing power. MS finally realized they weren't fooling most people once the truth got out there, so they've given up for now.

Technically, I guess your right, cloud processing doesn't change the amount of processing power contained within an "xbone".

The amount of processing power available to games running on an X1 however...

 

[Chromium.Wings]

This is some crow I'll gladly eat. I was sure it was possible, just not any time soon, but I guess it's showing up far sooner than I expected. Neat.

 

[Shia_Labeouf]

This is some crow I'll gladly eat. I was sure it was possible, just not any time soon, but I guess it's showing up far sooner than I expected. Neat.

This is too rational. Get the fuck out of here unless you're coming back to hate.

 

[Hockeymac18]

It was total marketing bullshit. A 100% lie insofar as any actual, tangible effect on increasing the Xbones processing power. MS finally realized they weren't fooling most people once the truth got out there, so they've given up for now.

Amazing. 10/10.

 

[LukasTaves]

I don't see a whole lot of clipping there. I see pieces interacting with each other and with what's underneath them as they fall, at least on that gif. Never played the game.

They do however, disappear when they hit the water, so there's that.

I didn't waited for the gif to load up XD and was basing on what I remembered from the demo, but yeah, there's more interaction then what I remembered. Some pieces do interact with each other and may even cause other collapses.

But other than disappearing when they hit water some also disappear before that, so they probably set a budget for the simulation and remove some pieces from that once it start cracking up.

But yeah, crackdown simulation per se is not that far ahead of scream ride, but mainly on the scale, I stand corrected.

 

[llAuburnll]

It was total marketing bullshit. A 100% lie insofar as any actual, tangible effect on increasing the Xbones processing power. MS finally realized they weren't fooling most people once the truth got out there, so they've given up for now.

Just when I think the thread has given us its all, someone comes in and drops pure gold on us.

 

[Pathfinder]

Just when I think the thread has given us its all, someone comes in and drops pure gold on us.

I think it was a joke.

 

[Overside]

I'm afraid I don't understand your point then.

Back in the 360/PS3 days, yeah we could have buildings and bridges crumble, and the effect would look cool. But the console didn't have to keep track of each individual piece. It was, in effect, an animation.

Now in games like Crackdown 3, every single piece of every single structure is a building block. And those individual blocks affect other blocks that they touch. The amount of physics calculation to keep track of all that is what is amazing here. And that it can be done in real time.

Youre actually underselling the destruction here.

Not just in c3, but some (only some) older consoles as well, dating back 2 rf on ps2.

Whats going on here isnt just tracking building blocks. Its creating new assets on the fly, based on input.... AND THEN, tracking the newly created assets as they fall.

Similar/related technologies on a lesser scale include titles like Red factions, wii sports, Skyward sword, Excite truck and anything that used dmm, or proprietary solution that tackles the subject matter or related subject matter (real time creation/modification of assets) in some way.

 

[llAuburnll]

I think it was a joke.

I hope so. But after the last 24 hours, nothing is safe. No comment too sarcastic to not be real around these parts.

 

[Shia_Labeouf]

I think it was a joke.

Sadly, I don't think it was.

 

[JaggedSac]

I wrote "server time", not "servers", to reflect exactly that.



Again, I was arguing for the general case. I already bolded the relevant parts. I don't know what more I can do for people to get what I am saying.



It's not "way less". Look for comparisons about the economics of cloud-based infrastructures compared to traditional data centers. You gain flexibility, and don't need to shoulder up-front costs, but once the load is somewhat predictable, running costs are actually the same. Microsoft subsidizes resources for selected developers, just like they subsidize important games in general. But generally speaking, the costs are not becoming non-trivial at all, which is what I was arguing would be necessary for such use cases to become a standard thing.

Cloud resources generally cost less since personnel costs decrease. Especially for an external company. Support, deployment, rent, electricity, maintenance, etc costs are all subsidized over many more servers than one would normal have at a company. Which is why companies are moving to IaaS, PaaS, SaaS.

And in reality, the move to cloud computing has a high up front cost. Mainly due to the need to convert the current process into the new. This is coming from the point of view of a company that already has it's own data center(s) and resources(the bigger the data center, the higher the savings per year). This cost is made up in lower year to year expenditures.

 

[Journey]

But all those are intellectually dishonest because nobody verbatim said "I cannot tell a difference graphically between RFG and c3".

/s