intheinbetween
Member
it's been up for a long time, not now
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Phil Spencer Next Cloud Demo being planned will show BW/ CPU/ Latency Info
- Thread starter Kayant
- Start date
it's been up for a long time, not now
The Faceless Master
Member
do cloud physics require a Gold account?
yes, your thorough explanation of the difference between "on" and "off" was adequate. my point was the massive differences in scale.
take the PC I'm using now as an example. the GPU has a bandwidth of 31.51GB/s (aka 32,266.24MB/s) both ways (up and down.) a relatively good internet connection (to the cloud) has about 20MB/s down, and usually much slower up. even if you doubled or tripled that, it's like comparing a new Corvette to a new tricycle. thus the massive differences between "local" and "remote." local is ALWAYS better.
Raitosaito
Member
3 billion transistors worth of cloud
Michael Armbrust
Member
They've needed to do this for a while.
There has been so much BS said about the cloud that now even the real parts of it are met with extreme skepticism. Hopefully a very straightforward demo with all the little details explained will convince most non-believers.
There has been so much BS said about the cloud that now even the real parts of it are met with extreme skepticism. Hopefully a very straightforward demo with all the little details explained will convince most non-believers.
OttoSporteman
Member
I see what you did there...
void_if_removed
Neo Member
When someone says "the cloud opens up new possibilities", what they really mean is "something you could already do is now cheaper".
Garrett 2U
Member
Which is like "something you could already do is actually viable to do because it is now cheaper."
Isn't it slated for 2016. The cloud stuff is probably all they have to show of it yet.
They'd have to put a pretty beast GPU in the thing of they wanted to do what they've been demoing locally...
Exploratory
Banned
You know not everyone has to get every game. If this game requires an internet connection its not the end of the world there's hundreds of games that don't.
thunder_snail
Member
Network based demo in a controlled environment means NOTHING.
What they need to do is release a small free program that utilizes Azure for graphics to gold members.
This way, they get free beta testers and will be better able to predict what will happen when they do release a full game utilizing Azure for graphics. Not to mention optimize their games around the gathered data.
What they need to do is release a small free program that utilizes Azure for graphics to gold members.
This way, they get free beta testers and will be better able to predict what will happen when they do release a full game utilizing Azure for graphics. Not to mention optimize their games around the gathered data.
justsomeguy
Member
Actually in this case - calculating physics - it is EXACTLY the scenario that's been demoed to date, so nothing specious about it.
that happen because MS promoting "Cloud" as if it powerful enough to compensate their GPU/weaker choice.
Cloud isn't some new tech. it main function currently is to store file/save data. computational function only useful in "latency-proof" game like Clash of Clans.
even if they managed to achieve MAJOR PERFORMANCE GAIN, Sony/Nintendo could easily create their own "Cloud".
justsomeguy
Member
I'm just staggered by the tone of some of the replies I'm this thread. It's as if, for some people, they are simply unable or unwilling to concede even a 1% chance that cloud computing might actually be a real thing.
Games/tech go from idea to proof of concept then the usual alpha/beta cycle, etc. What was shown at //Build was clearly a proof of concept demo. I'm sure at some point there will be a large scale test to gain telemetry/real world feedback but doesn't look as if they're anywhere near that stage yet.
Suggesting a demo while being clear about latency /bandwidth/etc. is a great next step; it doesn't have to be wrapped up as a fully functional vertical slice, or rolled out to everyone with an xbox for it to be valid, it just seems to be too early for that.
Games/tech go from idea to proof of concept then the usual alpha/beta cycle, etc. What was shown at //Build was clearly a proof of concept demo. I'm sure at some point there will be a large scale test to gain telemetry/real world feedback but doesn't look as if they're anywhere near that stage yet.
Suggesting a demo while being clear about latency /bandwidth/etc. is a great next step; it doesn't have to be wrapped up as a fully functional vertical slice, or rolled out to everyone with an xbox for it to be valid, it just seems to be too early for that.
SodiumChloride
Banned
Why can't they release the numbers now?
Tell us what calculations are being done, what data is being transmitted. That is all.
Tell us what calculations are being done, what data is being transmitted. That is all.
What does that have to do with anything? The comment wasn't "online is better than offline", it was (and I quote):
SatansReverence:
"They may be able to have an online/offline mode. Just very basic destruction while offline."
Hawks269:
"It could be like that. On my gaming PC and I know this is different, but using Nvidia PhysX you can turn it on and off and the difference is pretty substantial. A good example was Mafia 2 with and without PhysX. Perhaps, off-line, there will still be some destruction, but no where to the degree when connected to the servers for the cloud compute."
You're over here talking about whether bicycles or corvettes are better, meanwhile the conversation is about what might happen to the physics in a game if they were intended for remote computation but that's not available.
Also, bandwidth is not the limiting factor in either case, not sure what that has to do with anything. PhysX is available now and not everybody uses it, because the cost in many cases is greater than the benefit. If you had the choice (say on some existing PC game) between using PhysX at 30fps or a "cloud" solution and keeping 60fps, which would you take?
SodiumChloride
Banned
Oh "cloud computing" is real alright**, what we aren't convinced of is it's application to games - which are effectively real-time applications with time constraints.
** "Cloud Computing" is just a buzz word. We have had cloud computing since the 80s back when computers worth a damn cost an arm, a leg and your first born. People rented "computer time" back then. You connect via a "dumb terminal" (basically just a monitor with basic communications circuitry) to the mainframe else where. That went the way of the dodo when personal computers (aka PCs) became affordable and people could have their own computer!
justsomeguy
Member
Cloud computing isn't a buzzword though (it's two, hah!)... But seriously, the key point with cloud computing is the "elastic capacity" side of it. That's what differentiates it from simply a giant pool of dedicated servers.
The elastic scale side of it is what makes it easier for companies to adopt (no need to build out/rent a fixed number of servers which either sit there idle or lead to launch day people unable to connect).
Then factor in the sdk support for making use of the capacity and you have the things which differentiate it from the more traditional approach.
Source: Do this for a living
Alx
Member
If it's a demo built "for the internet", I don't expect to get that many details... it would be different if it were a paper for something like GDC or SIGGRAPH, of course (but those will probably come soon).
ZehDon
Member
Well, cloud computing is 100% a real thing, however it creates problems for people. The destructibility demo was a nice piece of tech - but it'll add an internet requirement to any game that uses it. This was a major issue when the Xbone was annouced, as you might recall.
That demo was also devoid of anything resembling gameplay. Tracking physically accurate particles using cloud computing is one thing. Interacting with a realtime game on the otherside of the world using full destructibility is something else. More than likely, given the speed of light issue, cloud computing will track the generated destruction particles, but they won't have an impact on the gameplay. In that demo, the processing issue was tracking the physically accurate movement of the generated particles - not the actual destruction itself, which the offline Xbone could handle with relative ease.
So, it shouldn't be too hard to concede that the majority of gamers don't want to add an internet requirement for better particles. It's cool, but it's ultimately not going to change anything that actually matters.
Alx
Member
Maybe we should wait for more information on what use "the cloud" will be for the games, before reaching those conclusions. Of course if it is only for cosmetic effects, it may not be worth adding an online requirement (although it would be easier then to offer an offline alternative, with the equivalent of "low settings").
But if it is used for complex environment destruction that couldn't be handled by an offline console, like the demo and trailers suggest, then it could "change things that actually matter".
I don't think people at MS or Cloudgine are stupid, they know that if the first examples of their tech aren't relevant, soon enough another developer will show a similar demo running offline on a regular console and say "look Ma, no cloud !".
Why does he look away from the falling structure each time he initiates the destrcution in that cloud demo? It seems like there are some dips starting to occure in the frames and then he just moves on to the next thing.
Well anyway, I really wanna see what they can do with this but I'll only believe it when I see it real time being used in a game .
Well anyway, I really wanna see what they can do with this but I'll only believe it when I see it real time being used in a game .
justsomeguy
Member
Because he wanted to blow other stuff up. They posted another demo later where they didn't look away, to avoid any conspiracy theories.
BananaSprinkles
Banned
I would, but this is an announcement of an announcement.
Alx
Member
Most probably, yes.
As some one who lives in Nebraska... you really don't know how normal this state really is... and we do have decent internet everywhere now too.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Should have just licensed Geo Mod 2.0 for destruction or come up with their own offline engine.
A 20 megabyte per second internet connection is far beyond relatively good. You sure you don't mean 20 megabit per second?
Young man yells at cloud.
Droopaloop
Banned
Go Wildcats.
Tbh what value would there in 'cooking' the numbers they need this to be above board so people can see it's viable.
Dredd97
Member
Then make games that suit your GPU budget, not one that will fall over the second you lose your net connection
I'm hardly young
but thanks I'm not complaining about the tech, I'm complaining the fact MS are creating a game that requires additional computation from a remote server because they got caught with their pants down and are desperately trying to catch up with Sony...how long before people start expecting 1080p with cloud 900p without cloud...
it's just bloody ridiculous...
Conflict NZ
Member
One thing the could could be used for is item locations in open world games. For example, Elder Scrolls games are notorious for poorly managing memory when it comes to item locations, leading to the eventual slowdown in Skyrim on PS3s when too many items were adjusted from their original locations. Those item locations and information could be stored in the cloud, you could disconnect and just not see them or have less junk items in the world.
Alx
Member
Not everything is about the console wars, you know... At the moment, most of the MS strategy is based on "the cloud", one way or another. Azure is an expanding and lucrative activity, they put Office and Visual Studio "in the cloud", music and video services, file storage,... That's even the main focus of Satya Nadella, their new CEO (probably one of the reasons he got the job).
From the beginning the Xbox One was a "cloud console", for game saves, recorded videos, and even retail game licenses (with the old DRM). Cloud computing is just another aspect of that logic, and certainly not something you improvise at the last minute because you need more performance.
SodiumChloride
Banned
How is that different from time slicing of mainframe time in the bad old days before personal computers? You pay more, they give you more CPU cycles and memory.
2ndly, the "cloud" is fine for non-realtime applications. But games have 33ms to complete all their relevant computations per frame and have to at a minimum do it 30 times a sec.
Lastly, there is no reason other companies can't do it themselves. This is especially true for AAA development. You have the $$$ to fund a AAA game (100s of millions), you have the $$$ to develop your own cloud server farm that will elastically scale for each of your games. It would be greatly beneficial to DIY too as this way you aren't tied to MS - bad idea; MS is a company with a history of showing no hesitation when it comes to screw over others for their own benefit, be it competitors, partners or even customers. No one with their head screwed on right would want to be under MS's thumb.
PS: I just noticed something. No one is talking about the "cloud" but MS and developers who are firmly in their pocket. Not a pip from EA, Ubisoft, Activision, Crytek, Epic, Take 2 ... etc.
Chances are it's online only. I don't really see why this is a problem. If the game is online why shouldn't they take advantage if extra power?
Why do you want them to shackle their games to weaker hardware when they can take advantage of the cloud to make their games better??
From reddit, you can read it here http://www.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/27yczf/i_just_calculated_an_estimate_of_the_internet/
Other guys posted some corrections and things like that in the comments but the numbers stay mostly the same.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
Then make games that suit your GPU budget, not one that will fall over the second you lose your net connection
I'm hardly young
how long before people start expecting 1080p with cloud 900p without cloud...
it's just bloody ridiculous...
But did you think that Microsoft might have still pushed the Azure stuff even if the One was as powerful or more powerful than the PS4?
Could it be, just possibly, that they want to integrate as many of their services/platforms into all their products to further enhance their ecosystem?
Just a thought.
SodiumChloride
Banned
Maybe there is something I'm missing here ... What does the format of the data being floats/ints have to do with compression? White noise can be encoded as floats/ints ... it's will still be practically impossible to compress.
Compression relies on redundancy in the data. Music data is stored as 16 bits ints (assuming from a CD), lossless compression exploiting redundancy in stereo can at best bring it to ~50%. Not sure the position of 1000s-millions of particles have any redundancy at all. Much less 80%.
show me the money. show me an example of a 30 FPS PhysX demo vs. a 60 FPS equivalent running on a remote cloud. we have this MS demo showing a remarkable difference; you may call me paranoid but I don't have any trust when it comes to MS. oh and I am aware that a number of factors are at play: bandwidth caps, latency on the remote side (internet) as well as local latency, and of course the fact that no one but MS has access to the demo. I wonder why they don't just release it like Nvidia does for their demos?
Server in the room next door
Will that really matter though? People said the same about PSNOW but it works exactly as advertised for me in California. As long as this works for a significant number of people won't it still be a very big benefit? The hypothetical person living in Nebraska will still be able to play the game, but maybe he just won't get the extra effects and whatnot. That's not a huge deal.