What do u like to see in the PS3?

Originally posted by Falgarok
Fastson, you\'ve to admit that the PS2 has been hard to develop for until the beginning of this year.

For some developers its been very hard. The tools have been improving alot since launch so its getting better and better. My hopes for PA2 are very high.

It launched with far from complete tools and VERY incomplete documentation, and that caused lots of problems to the developers.

Yep, but Sony has always tried to help and support the developers.
Launching PS2 without complete tools and documentation was a big problem/error, thankfully that’s not the case anymore.

Yes, I know that but, can\'t they make something in between? [/B]

Yeah, a easy to develop for console that still lets you code on the metal when you need to start optimising your code for real.

PS2 is the only system right now that lets you "code on metal" on everything, you have complete control over everything.

We will see what the tech heads/ tech gods at Sony will do with PS3. Im very curious.

I also want less hype. I want more reality and less hype. Let\'s not show a duck and talk about \'toy story graphics\', let\'s show real time demo\'s and be honest on what we\'re delivering. Let\'s show launch games that will make it at launch and look next gen .

L-I-C - let\'s be honest here, Sony did show real-time demos, plus them being the only one until today that released full specs of the machine. Neither Microsoft or Nintendo ever went this far. The hype generated through uninformed media. If you had followed the respected sites and analyses, you wouldn\'t have been THAT hyped up. Lets not blame everything on Sony here, okay?

Yes, I know that but, can\'t they make something in between?

Falgarok, does that mean you\'d be happy with specs on par with Dreamcast?

Yeah, a easy to develop for console that still lets you code on the metal when you need to start optimising your code for real.

Fast, that would be mission impossible. Honestly, every bit of freedom comes at a cost of having more work to do. Why are there always more high-level programming languages? Because you can develop programs cheaper, faster - with the one disadvantage of it being inefficiant. That\'s our typical Java -> C comparasment here. Now think about what differences you\'ll have when comparing Assembler to C/C++ development. While Assembler gives you practically no limits, you have to do every single thing by yourself. More work, more expensive, but hey, it\'s efficiant and thanks to this formular, we\'re actually seeing games on PS2 with the potential of surpassing games on Xbox and PC (Silent Hill 3 will show if it\'s a success or not).

Originally posted by seven


Fast, that would be mission impossible. Honestly, every bit of freedom comes at a cost of having more work to do. Why are there always more high-level programming languages? Because you can develop programs cheaper, faster - with the one disadvantage of it being inefficiant. That\'s our typical Java -> C comparasment here. Now think about what differences you\'ll have when comparing Assembler to C/C++ development. While Assembler gives you practically no limits, you have to do every single thing by yourself. More work, more expensive, but hey, it\'s efficiant and thanks to this formular, we\'re actually seeing games on PS2 with the potential of surpassing games on Xbox and PC (Silent Hill 3 will show if it\'s a success or not).

Its like a double edged sword then.We shouldnt complain whatever path Sony chooses,Whether it\'s programming through software or programming through hardware.

With PSX developers complained they couldnt code directly on metal, while with PS2 they complain it is too hard to program.

Originally posted by seven
Falgarok, does that mean you\'d be happy with specs on par with Dreamcast?

I see your point.
But Sony has to realize that now that games are becoming more and more complex, developers need as much help as they can get. This time, if they\'re going for the parallel processing approach again (as it seems), they\'ve to make sure to make it as friendly to develop for as possible.


As for all the hype that surrounded the PS2\'s launch, I think that most of it came directly from the people due to the mass market success that was the PSX. Not like Sony is innocent here; like most companies, they like to hype their products a lot, and this case was no different.

It\'s happening again with the PS3 IMO.
There\'s no real info regarding the PS3, but people on the internet is already speculating about it like no tomorrow. It doesn\'t bother me or anything, but sometimes it gets just ridiculous with people saying things like "if it can\'t produce FF:TSWI quality graphics I\'ll be strongly disappointed" (a real case from another board).

[Bobs_Hardware]

Could you imagine how expensive a game would be to make if the made graphics on par with FF:TSW??

hmm, after giving this topic some thought, here is what I would like to see in PS3:

new technology. This is quite a safe one though, seeing that the Cell is heading to be the CPU powering it. I wouldn\'t mind them going the same root as with the PS2, because this would give them a high advantage in the future. As a developer myself, something like the PS2\'s architecture is a dream and I hope the PS3 will be similar. As it seems, I won\'t be disappointed...

get rid of textures. This may seem strange, but I remember a while back when I read a good article about games and how they\'re growing bigger and bigger. The problem is, the more polygons you have per object, the more textures you need to map them accoardingly. While the amount of textures is damned to get higher, so is the memory and bandwidth space required. As you see, the more polygons you want to use will need a very powerful machine as it also needs to deliever the necessary bandwidth and memory. One way to dodge this would be to dump textures. Instead of textures, why not use coloured polygons? If you have an object made out of millions of polygons, you\'d just colour them all and the result would look as if it is mapped with textures. Of course, I\'m not sure if this is possible within the next 3 years and if performance will be THAT high, but it\'s certainly something to think about and see how this idea may advance...

I want gold tipped S video outs or multicomponent outs on the back of it.  No  more of whatever that is that sends the video out.

Some sort of HDD.  But also it must be removeable if you want to buy another HDD seperate if you run out of room.

Originally posted by seven
hmm, after giving this topic some thought, here is what I would like to see in PS3:

new technology. This is quite a safe one though, seeing that the Cell is heading to be the CPU powering it. I wouldn\'t mind them going the same root as with the PS2, because this would give them a high advantage in the future. As a developer myself, something like the PS2\'s architecture is a dream and I hope the PS3 will be similar. As it seems, I won\'t be disappointed...

get rid of textures. This may seem strange, but I remember a while back when I read a good article about games and how they\'re growing bigger and bigger. The problem is, the more polygons you have per object, the more textures you need to map them accoardingly. While the amount of textures is damned to get higher, so is the memory and bandwidth space required. As you see, the more polygons you want to use will need a very powerful machine as it also needs to deliever the necessary bandwidth and memory. One way to dodge this would be to dump textures. Instead of textures, why not use coloured polygons? If you have an object made out of millions of polygons, you\'d just colour them all and the result would look as if it is mapped with textures. Of course, I\'m not sure if this is possible within the next 3 years and if performance will be THAT high, but it\'s certainly something to think about and see how this idea may advance...

You mean each single pixel will be replaced by a colored polygon?That would mean billions of polygons.

Btw:Or the developer would have to do the greatest puzzle in the whole world with the colored polygons to assemble a detailed realistic texture looking surface or the hardware should know to replace each pixel with a polygon.

[Bobs_Hardware]

No...

replace each polygon with a colored polygon..

Single colored polygon?

Originally posted by seven


Fast, that would be mission impossible. Honestly, every bit of freedom comes at a cost of having more work to do. Why are there always more high-level programming languages? Because you can develop programs cheaper, faster - with the one disadvantage of it being inefficiant. That\'s our typical Java -> C comparasment here. Now think about what differences you\'ll have when comparing Assembler to C/C++ development. While Assembler gives you practically no limits, you have to do every single thing by yourself. More work, more expensive, but hey, it\'s efficiant and thanks to this formular, we\'re actually seeing games on PS2 with the potential of surpassing games on Xbox and PC (Silent Hill 3 will show if it\'s a success or not).

:sconf:

OIC, thanks for clearing that up

If thats the case they should make it like the PS2. It will give the developers alot more to work with when the system becomes maxed out.

*cant wait to see specs of PS3*

Single colored polygon?

Yeah, that\'s what I ment... imagine a character as a possible object. Nowdays, you have characters with up to 20\'000 polygons - what if it was 2 million? You\'d have 100 times more polygons and therefore 100 times more to texture. If you don\'t want repeative textures on a conventional system, you\'d have roughly 100 times more textures to map and therefore 100 times more bandwidth needed. Now, think of the possibility of only assigning one single colour to each polygon. You\'d have 2 million colour polygons and if you colour her well, she will look like textured (if not better). The main goal is to free up bandwidth and texture memory. Every colour (let\'s say 32 bit RGBA) will in the end take up less space and bandwidth then textures.

Of course, it would be impossible to colour each and every polygon. I was thinking of using textures to create your objects and then have the system find out how each polygon needs to be coloured.

Perhaps this idea is a bit far fetched and not ready by 3 years - but I was only digging up on the problem what happens when the polygons get more and more and what concequences it has on bandwidth and texture memory (not to mention texture mapping etc). Think of how much performance could be safed with equal results....

I have to admit.Thats a marvelous idea.:eek:

But lets say a developer creates a 2 million polygon tree and small part of that tree like a small tiny branchlet for an example is made out of 1000 polygons.What if the texture requires less or more polygons to be implemented on that part of the tree?Or need the polygons differently placed in order for the texture to be manipulated correctly into polygons?
Will the hardware have to change the original polygon design until its manipulated correctly?Or the developer have to cut or add polygons accordingly?

I would like to have a remote control for DVD in the package and a infrared sensor built into the console not an ugly dongle you have to stick into the memcard port. Hopefully there will be no memcards next time coz they\'re shite basically.
Some sort of HDD would be nice.