SoW:BoB 64-bit/Multicore optimised?

[mazex]

Originally Posted by dduff442

Well I'm sorry I upset you but your remark about guessing I'm not a programmer got me going. I think enough reasons other than technical grounds were given for the near total lack of either memory- or processor-intensive games was given in any rate. Other fields in computing use these features routinely.

Fair enough, being insinuated as a non-programmer is serious stuff

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

[dduff442]

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

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by dduff442

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.

I think some on the hardware side wanted this, but it isn't working out that way.

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.

[Flyby]

"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?

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Flyby

I've been without a gaming PC for some time now (as well as without my beloved IL2).

IL*2 should run on pretty much anything PC. I noted elsewhere that FB ran on an Athlon (32 bit) 1GHz from 2000ad, and on a Geforce 2 GTS with 64M of ram on it. That was a top end GF2 at the time, but it's nothing now, a PCIe card to beat it would cost less than a month's internet connection.

I also wonder if the new generation of GPUs will be able to use their computing powers in SoW as well?

I wouldn't want that. If the GPU is doing calculations, or physics, it's not doing graphics, and I like graphics, it's what I buy GPUs for. If people are prepared to fund my graphics habit by buying GPUs to make supercomputers from them, that's fine, but it's not what I want from GPUs.

[Flyby]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

IL*2 should run on pretty much anything PC. I noted elsewhere that FB ran on an Athlon (32 bit) 1GHz from 2000ad, and on a Geforce 2 GTS with 64M of ram on it. That was a top end GF2 at the time, but it's nothing now, a PCIe card to beat it would cost less than a month's internet connection.


I wouldn't want that. If the GPU is doing calculations, or physics, it's not doing graphics, and I like graphics, it's what I buy GPUs for. If people are prepared to fund my graphics habit by buying GPUs to make supercomputers from them, that's fine, but it's not what I want from GPUs.

My last system ran IL2 pretty well (p4-2.8, 1.5gig of HyperX DDR 3500, and Nvidia 6800 Ultra), but too much flak from ships, for example really slowed it up big time, and the Kamikaze trk hit a low of 7fps. I recall a COOP mission I made where the Allied objective was to shoot down 8 Ju-52 before they could reach their drop point for their paratroops. Well, what a slide show that was when those guys all jumped! LOL!! All this at 12x9 rez.
Good old AGP! But I agree with you about leaving the GPU to do graphics.
Flyby out