Dreadnought Demos Released

John Callaham writes to tell us that Gamecloud is heralding the latest release from Torc Interactive and AMD. The latest demos for the upcoming FPS, Dreadnought, have been released. The first is strictly a gameplay movie while the other gives a comparison between the game running on a 64 bit processor (which it was ultimately designed for) and a 32 bit processor.

Comments

AMD64

[mysqlrocks]

It's interesting that AMD is pushing their 64 bit technology with this game. If it weren't for video games then what other reason would we have to continue to build faster computers?

Re:AMD64

[tji]

HD video.

MPEG2 is tough on a CPU, but within the capabilities of current processors.

AVC / H.264 / MPEG4.10 is much harder. Doing 1080p AVC is beyond the capabilities of most current processors, and is certainly not do-able with other stuff going on (e.g. a MythTV PVR, recording a couple HD streams simultaneously, transcoding another, while viewing one.

AVC, or future codecs, will require either much faster CPUs, hardware acceleration, or both.

Re:AMD64

[parasonic]

what other reason would we have to continue to build faster computers?

Windows Vista

Re:AMD64

[edo-01]

It's interesting that AMD is pushing their 64 bit technology with this game. If it weren't for video games then what other reason would we have to continue to build faster computers?

I work for a VFX company. Two desks over from me is a top of the line two CPU dual-core AMD with 3 gigs of RAM which we have brought to it's knees, rendering 2k res film frames of a photoreal CGI character. Hair passes, sub-surface scattering, motion blur, skin shaders, glossy reflection raytracing, volumetric dust passes to tie the character into the background plate, the list goes on. Give us any machine, with any amount of RAM and we will bring it to it's knees.

So, yeah, for the average gamer, office worker etc you're right. Who needs the speed,, but there are plenty of people out there who can't get enough CPU power :)

Re:AMD64

[lidocaineus]

anyway, the PC is far superior to consoles in every way possible save installation and compatibility.

Really? When was the last time you played a silly game like Mario Kart DD on a 9' (yes, feet, not inches) diagonal HDTV projector with a bunch of your friends on the couch on your PC?

While you may PREFER PC style gameplay, and the games can be (emphasis on CAN be) technically superior, it doesn't mean one or the other is far superior in general terms. You may consider superior to be high framerates and resolutions. My friends may consider superior to be locally shared gameplay experiences (not over the internet) and ease of use.

Me? I can appreciate both sides of the coin. The platforms are so different that they can hardly be compared, aside from the crossover titles, which although growing, are not the norm.

pc games are also cheaper at launch (i just saw a new game, black and white 2 for sale at 37 bucks) whereas to this day halo 1 for the xbox is still 20 bucks. the halo pc version now costs like 10 dollars less than 2 years later whereas it debuted for 35

Wow, you pick the one of the few titles that Microsoft actually keeps at a high price to milk for all its worth. I rarely buy games that are over $20 for any of the consoles, and most of those are barely 6 months out. It's no different from the PC world. Just take a look at pricing for The Sims. Not the sequel. The original.

in the end, pc gaming is only a tiny bit more expensive or on par. and a computer is far FAR more useful and versatile. that and for the time being, it is free from Digital Handcuffs and you can truly access and own your property.

Please do the math for me for this one. Please compare the price of the console to the equivalent hardware you would buy for a PC at that time, because I have a hard time believing any of that. And digital handcuffs? You do realize that almost all PC games have copy protection on them, right? You can break it, but you can do the same thing with consoles too. And when do you not OWN the game? Microsoft can't revoke any license you have for a game. They can't send a signal down to your xbox saying, "HE CAN NO LONGER PLAY THIS GAME ANYMORE".

a computer is far FAR more useful and versatile.

Obviously. But as you said, the ones that can play games to the level you describe are far out of reach of most normal consumers, most of whom don't want to play on their computer anyway, and even if they did, they would balk at spending over $500 on a computer these days. A $500 computer isn't going to get you very far in high end gaming unless you start adding some heavy duty stuff to it.

true... but you don't see companies still making ps1 games or dreamcast games. those systems are still very capable.
no, to say that gfx aren't important would mean we would still be on a lot older hardware. current consoles can do absolutely everything next gen can do except for a few extra special effects.

What a joke. Do you know how many people still play dreamcast and ps1 games? Ironically your comment is much more akin to the PC world. Most games are coded for much lower standards than the cutting edge, and have options to turn on the eye candy at higher levels.

Here's a hint. It MOSTLY all about the gameplay. Take for example in the PC world. What's the most popular in terms of bestselling game ever? Everyone knows the answer, and it has nothing to with graphics. Or PC power. While there will always be graphic whores on the console and PC side, what makes the games worth playing is the gameplay. I have a feeling, however, that you only care about graphics. And just so you know where I am coming from: I have a VERY high end PC and a whole slew of mac, since I work in video. There aren't many games that I have to turn down to 1280x1024, and even then I can run most anything with 16x aniso and 8x aa at 30+FPS. What do I play the most? Pla

Simple

[detritus`]

If it weren't for video games then what other reason would we have to continue to build faster computers?

one word: porn

Re:Simple

[iibagod]

Thats just faster download speeds and bigger hard drives. My PIII plays all the porn I have.......uh, I mean... I IMAGINE my PIII would play any porn somebody MIGHT want to download.

64 bit _Really_ necessary?

[gl4ss]

******************
# uncompressed normal maps allowing for higher texture quality and greater detail
# significantly higher number of particle effects (e.g. more flames, more steam, more smoke, etc.)
# persistent decals (e.g. bullet holes stay on walls and don't fade away over time as in 32-bit)
# post-processing effects (e.g. screen glows)
# more pixel shader instructions (the adrenaline vision mode is built upon and replaces the base lighting shader to produce the effect)
*****************
there's the rundown on the 32bit vs 64 bit changes.

now, call me an idiot if you will, but none of those really smell like something they couldn't have done in 32 bit - which makes the 64bit vs. 32bit comparision TOTALLY FRIGGIN USELESS unless you're a phb or something. mostly it just seems like they assume 64 bit system to have more memory and a faster graphics card tied to it.

Re:64 bit _Really_ necessary?

[Suddenly_Dead]

Compare this: 32-bit image vs. 64-bit image.

Seriously, this looks like a pile of BS. Unless it was running on full CPU (which is stupid and not sensible for real-world situations), the differences between those screenshots should be handled almost entirely on the GPU. The difference between 32 and 64 bit shouldn't really affect a lighting effect like that. As for the texture resolution, that's pretty much memory bound...

(Not to mention that the graphics in these screenshots are not "advanced" by today's standards. It's pretty ugly.)

Re:64 bit _Really_ necessary?

[trawg]

And, it seems, a flashlight

oh slashdot, you card

[mkavanagh2]

This isn't an upcoming FPS. This is a tech demo for Torc's game engine and AMD's AWESOME64(TM) processors.

Realism.

[iamlucky13]

I'm a little curious to see what the inside of a Kirov class cruiser looks like. I doubt even the CIA or the navy knows exactly. Based on what I've been allowed to see of our own conventionally powered Aegis cruisers and destroyers in the tours I've been on, and the fact that the layout of nuclear-powered ships is even more protected in both the US navies, there has to be a huge amount of conjecture going on here.

Still, I've always been interested in playing a game that effectively encompasses all of a relatively small area, rather than meandering through small parts of a huge area. Quite a few pictures of the Kirovs are publicly available, and if they study other ships (retired destroyers, battleships, etc), they should be able to create a very believable environment, with all sorts of mundane curiousities to explore. If the entire game really takes place on this ship, notwithstanding the fact that it's dimensionally nearly as big as an Iowa class battleship, it should lend itself well to that sort of game design. Being on a ship also offers some fun. For example, they could change the weather and sea states throughout the game (how about throwing a grenade in a 40 knot wind?). I thought the varying weather was one of the nice subtleties of Enigma: Rising Tide (although that's not an FPS).

Of course, it could end up simply sucking like most other games out there.

64 bit... Uhuh...

[modecx]

All of what they say pretty much pertains only to the graphics card's capabilities.

No compression for textures? Cards with 512MB are the hot things now, and there's not really a good use for it. With 32 bit addressing, we can address 4GB of memory. That's what? 8 times what's currently available on anything less than a ginormous SGI simulation center? Yeah. 64 bit doesn't help us there, not even in the long term.

There's not a graphics card alive that's going to need 64 bit addressing to render literally billions of particles, and there won't be for at least 10 years, barring some extreme advances, or the use of alien technology (teehee). Same with decals, even if you "only" had memory to store the location of 512 million of 'em, there's no way the system will handle displaying even a few thousand all at once.

Glows? Unless they need 64 precision math done on the CPU (which they don't), yeah, non-issue. Consumer GPUs are limited to what? 24 bit plus alpha? Same for pixel shaders, this has nothing to do with the CPU in almost all instances.

So yeah, for games, as with most general purpose computing, this is pretty much useless. What's really sad is that they've rallied around arguments for their 64 bit push that are essentially limited by the decidedly non-64 bit GPU. Brilliant.