|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#22
01-22-2010, 11:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
 Sorry, not having a go at you, but I find that funny, as I think 'IL-2 Sturmovik', 'IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles', 'Pacific Fighters' and 'IL-2: 1946' fit your description quite well. We're just lucky there was more to it all than that.About the 64-bit/multicore thing. After watching and waiting for SOW this long, I'd be disappointed if it's performance isn't more responsive to hardware upgrades than the IL-2 series. In fact I just can't imagine how it couldn't be. The IL-2 series fell into the same unavoidable trap that the Microsoft Flight Sim series fell into (and is still in with FSX). And that is, when the sims were first built the only foreseeable (bankable) development path for CPU's was in terms of sheer single-core speed increases, and the software had to reflect that. But that path came to a shuddering, overheating, physically limited halt and we all went off down the multi-thread/multi-core path instead, leaving the single-core oriented software behind. Only, we didn't leave it behind, did we? It's still here. For the last few YEARS we've had the hardware and practically no software to make use of it. A whole generation of CPU's (dual core) has been superceded (by quad-cores), and now there are six-core chips about to come out and practically no game or sim has been coded to take full advantage of all those extra cores. Now, I can't say whether it's even possible, practically speaking, for SOW to make use of those cores or not, as I don't know enough about it. But I'm much more sure about the fact that if there are still scenes in 1946 that a Core i7 920 @ 3.8 GHz can't handle, then SOW is going to be dead in the water judging by what I've seen and heard about it so far. I honestly don't know how the thing's going to run, let alone expand, if it doesn't follow the hardware. Surely it would be madness to code for the past and not the future. The fact that they've switched over to DirectX gives me hope that they're willing to make major changes to the way they do things to ensure the future viability of the series. And I'm left thinking, if they can (if anyone can) make it a truly multi-core sim, they will. Again though, if it turns out to be code-limited like the IL-2 series is, which is to say, if parts of it remain unplayable even six or seven years after its release, I don't think I'll be the only one feeling a bit ripped off. Adding more (and faster) CPU cores and more powerful video-cards, (and therefore more RAM too I guess) must have a beneficial on-screen effect, for the duration of the whole SOW series (if extra features are added along the way, otherwise there must be a reachable point where the sim can be 'maxed out' while still getting a good frame-rate). Sorry for the rant/over-reaction, but I just realized there is a possibility SOW might not be the combat flight sim I've been waiting for afterall, if it's neutered from the start and left with nowhere to go in terms of being able to take advantage of current and future hardware. But who knows, maybe none of this multi-core/64-bit stuff is necessary anyway, it just seems illogical though that more in this case wouldn't be better... Les. 
|
|
#23
01-23-2010, 08:51 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 Still - after spending 15+ years of writing multi threaded c++ code, and at the same time writing some games I sometimes get tired when people that are not programmers "buy" the Intel/MS propaganda that you must have 64-bit OS with at least 4 cores for your entertainment PC - and then demand that the game developers must start using their hardware. We all know that Intel would love to increase the CPU speed instead of doing a more complex chip with many cores - but they have reached a technology barrier with the current production process - so they went for the multi core strategy instead. I first suspected you might be a guy that had ditched his old overclocked E6700 to a new i7 and had realized it was not faster in games - but obviously you do work with software development in some way? You arguments are interesting and I agree with most of them... In my opinion, the problem is that normal games /that does not have that many AI objects) manage to end up being GPU limited instead of CPU limited, even on the Core 2 family of CPU:s... Is that because the AI is to simplified then? Maybe, but fact is that as very few games are CPU limited - why do the extra work of trying to do an efficient multi threaded engine? Sure, as the market is now going to a 4+ cores per socket in every new computer, and the raw processing power of each core is not increasing that much - the multi threaded approach is the way to go for the future. But if your engine is not CPU limited today - why do the extra work if you have a tight budget (like most non blizzard projects)? Sure, some obvious candidates like threads for strategic AI and preloading textures to memory etc are candidates today to reduce "stuttering" in the game - but the main render loop is still responsible for a very large portion of the CPU cycles used... What is your proposal for the multi threaded strategy for games? Regards /Mazex
|
|
#24
01-24-2010, 12:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This might be an appropriate moment for a slight tactical withdrawal on my part. While I have extensive experience in databases, my applications experience is fairly limited. I do understand that whereas it's possible to produce a *proven* design using the old-fashioned functional approach (restricted to a single thread/core), it is not possible to do this with multi-threaded applications. Nonetheless, a commitment to quality engineering can produce tremendous benefits.
There are certainly plenty of calculation problems in flight sims. One I've given a fair degree of thought to is perception and a detailed model would probably break the field of vision down to at least three cones. Relevant factors include angle-off from center of vision, angular velocity of target vs field, surface area of target (a complex calculation that might need simplification), contrast vs background, line of sight etc. Some of these factors apply to sensor calculations also. This kind of calculation is amenable to parallel processing and isn't always time critical. Of course it should be possible to spread the calculation load of a/c physics over several threads as well. As it happens, I did by an i7 system recently though I did understand at the time that there weren't really any games to stretch even dual-core machines. After 7 years without buying a new PC, I found the job pretty frustrating. There's not much point on spending €850 on a good gaming PC that will choke on applications in 2 years and has limited upgrade potential. On the other hand, there's really no return for gamers in more expensive systems at the moment. My new PC cost €1800, excluding the screen; I got i7/920, 12GB RAM, HD5870 plus a couple of extras like a TV tuner and sound card. This machine won't get out of 2nd gear for years on any standard game. On the other hand, the €400 graphics card will probably be struggling already in 2 years time. According to NVIDIA fancy PCs are a waste, but they have it backwards. Fancy graphics cards are a waste when lashings of cheap RAM and CPU power that could vastly enrich the gaming experience are available but are ignored by developers. It looks like PC gaming is on the way out except for niches like flight sims. This is a pity because PC games allow much more interesting games than the clunky game-controllers permit. Regards, dduff
|
|
#25
01-24-2010, 12:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If I had to guess, I'd say what we're seeing is elements of il-2 and SoW spliced together for testing purposes. If that guess is right, it probably means SoW is further off than it might seem from vids of newly modeled a/c in flight. OTOH, it would show that the il2 codebase is still workable whereas most game developers would have had to start from scratch due to poor quality control. Regards, dduff
|
|
#26
01-24-2010, 01:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The bog-standard Laptop with the integrated graphics is dying, the netbook that replaced it is getting minimally game-capable graphics (nVidia Ion), and cheaper gaming capable laptops seem to be appearing. All in all, there was a decline in PC gaming for a while, due in part to the competitive graphics on the new consoles. As the consoles have aged and PC graphics have overtaken them, PC gaming is coming back, not strongly yet, but I suspect that before the next generation of consoles arrive it will have recovered more substantially. Then there will probably be another temporary decline, and if the new consoles come with upgradeable graphics, or PCs don't any more that might not be so temporary, but that's apparently two or three years off yet.
|
|
#27
01-24-2010, 03:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
you guys are scaring me
"It is better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." But here goes. Compared to most of you, I'm a babe in rough waters when it comes to any thing beyond just using a PC. I've been without a gaming PC for some time now (as well as without my beloved IL2). I understand, from what you've discussed, the limitations the coding has had on prior PC games, especially our flight sims. But hasn't it been already stated that SoW_BoB will support multi-core processors? I also wonder if the new generation of GPUs will be able to use their computing powers in SoW as well? Is that a coding issue too? Seems to me we are talking about how far ahead of the hardware curve Oleg's team is or is not. Meanwhile I'd be disappointed if my i7-920 processor is overkill when SoW is released (upon a trembling, unsuspecting world). Better for me to believe that in four years, when I'm more able to afford one, a six-core socket 1366 processor will finally tame SoW_BoB!!!
 Oh, let's not forget the video cards too (Crossfire, SLi, or Hydra configs may get some SoW love too).Flyby out PS I hope PC gaming is not in decline. Look at all the cash spent by AMD and Nvidia on product development. Look at all the hardware tech sites that still test CPUs and GPUs not only by running apps, but also PC games like Crysis to test the mettle of those components. Look at the companies that sell gaming PCs. Perhaps they know something we don't?
__________________
the warrior creed: crap happens to the other guy! Last edited by Flyby; 01-24-2010 at 03:41 PM.
|
|
#28
01-24-2010, 04:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#29
01-24-2010, 04:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Good old AGP! But I agree with you about leaving the GPU to do graphics. Flyby out
__________________
the warrior creed: crap happens to the other guy!
|
|
#30
01-24-2010, 10:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Oleg has stated we probably won't be able to switch views from plane to plane like we can in IL-2, so as to avoid having to render all planes in such detail, and therefore have more of them in the sky at the same time. I don't think a measure like that would be made if it were possible to keep that feature in by using some multi-threading technique. Or maybe that's more of a current graphics-power issue/limitation. Whatever the case, in relation to this coding for multi-core thing, it's interesting for me personally to realize I probably have been sucked in by the Intel marketing/hype/spin. I actually believed them when they said games could be coded to make use of multi-cores. When in reality, that's probably just not practical for the most part, if possible at all. It's interesting to note too that all the new SOW features we've seen on recent updates can be had as a result of the increases in graphics power and CPU core power (not the number of cores) that have taken place since the IL-2 days. And the old SOW features we saw and heard about ages ago, all the meaty nuts and bolts stuff, was never quaranteed to make it to the final version anyway. It was all, we can do this, we can do that, now we've just got to go find a way to put it all together and still have it run at more than 10fps. That's why no promises are made. It's all got to be made to fit, and no single feature can be allowed to drag the whole thing down. Not saying SOW is just going to be IL-2 all cleaned up graphically, with just enough new CPU-intensive features to make even the most powerful release-date system crawl, but...it's probably just going to be IL-2 all cleaned up, with just enough new CPU-intensive features to make even the most powerful release-date system crawl. With less planes. And if it is, well, okay, it's just a game, or a sim, or a way to learn about history and what some people have experienced for real in the past. So, it's no big deal. But if they can get that multi-core thing working...!  (That would make SOW as innovative as the original IL-2 was, and that, all these years later, would be amazing.) Les.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
