PC version, Higher res textures or bad optimization?

#1 Posted by SmasheControllers (2551 posts) -

After listening to this week bombcast, Vinny say he suspects that the PC version of the game is 35 GB because of bad optimization. Rockstar's track record on PC ports is not exactly good, San Andreas, GTA IV and Bully, all of which where horribly optimized. What do you think?

Personally I agree, 16 GB of Ram?

#2 Posted by AlisterCat (5630 posts) -

I swear when I installed the Diablo beta it recommended 35GB of space, even though the game itself is much less. I think they are just putting out a bigger size than you need. There's no way it'll be that big. It's a RAGE game, so it's not like the engine hasn't been on PC before.

#3 Edited by whyareyoucrouchingspock (975 posts) -

A game demo or a benchmark would alleviate any concerns.

#4 Posted by SmasheControllers (2551 posts) -

@AlisterCat: GTA IV still runs like crap. RAGE definitely wasn't designed for PCs.

#5 Posted by AlexW00d (6302 posts) -

@SmasheControllers said:

After listening to this week bombcast, Vinny say he suspects that the PC version of the game is 35 GB because of bad optimization. Rockstar's track record on PC ports is not exactly good, San Andreas, GTA IV and Bully, all of which where horribly optimized. What do you think?

Personally I agree, 16 GB of Ram?

It'll probably be horrible optimised, but I still doubt it needs 16gb of ram or a gtx680.

#6 Posted by SmasheControllers (2551 posts) -

@AlexW00d said:

@SmasheControllers said:

After listening to this week bombcast, Vinny say he suspects that the PC version of the game is 35 GB because of bad optimization. Rockstar's track record on PC ports is not exactly good, San Andreas, GTA IV and Bully, all of which where horribly optimized. What do you think?

Personally I agree, 16 GB of Ram?

It'll probably be horrible optimised, but I still doubt it needs 16gb of ram or a gtx680.

Yeah I feel like they just pulled the spec out of their ass. Hopefully I'll be able to run the game.

#7 Posted by AlexW00d (6302 posts) -

@SmasheControllers: I don't think they pulled it out their arse necessarily, I think they just posted the best machine available just in case.

#8 Posted by RandomInternetUser (6789 posts) -

If this game is a piece of trash broken port on PC I will be so so so fucking bummed.

#9 Posted by Arouga (69 posts) -

Rockstar are not great at getting people to understand what they mean. What they mean is more of a"between these 2 and you can run it" and not a min max thing. You dont have to have 16gb ram and what not to play the game at the highest settings. So im sure what they mean with the 35 gig is "you need atleast a min of 35 gig to be sure". If any of this makes sense

#10 Posted by AlisterCat (5630 posts) -

@SmasheControllers said:

@AlisterCat: GTA IV still runs like crap. RAGE definitely wasn't designed for PCs.

RAGE wasn't, but they patched GTA IV to make it run so much better than when it launched. I went from 1 - 10FPS to 30 - 45FPS on 2007 hardware. LA Noire runs OK too. Not well optimized but fair for a console port.

#11 Posted by nintendoeats (5975 posts) -

@AlisterCat said:

@SmasheControllers said:

@AlisterCat: GTA IV still runs like crap. RAGE definitely wasn't designed for PCs.

RAGE wasn't, but they patched GTA IV to make it run so much better than when it launched. I went from 1 - 10FPS to 30 - 45FPS on 2007 hardware. LA Noire runs OK too. Not well optimized but fair for a console port.

I beg to differ. It runs fine on my new i5, but my old Q6600 that will run 99% of games just fine was completely flummoxed by it.

#12 Posted by Akrid (1356 posts) -

I don't know if it'll be a good port, but the 35GBs can only be positive in my mind. Definitely high-res textures.

#13 Posted by SmasheControllers (2551 posts) -

@nintendoeats: Now it probably runs fine, haven't re-installed it to try.

#14 Posted by AlisterCat (5630 posts) -

@nintendoeats: Yeah I had a Q6600 and GTA IV wouldn't run above 10fps until after Liberty City Stories was released on PC. It ran OK then.

#15 Posted by valrog (3671 posts) -

@SmasheControllers said:

Personally I agree, 16 GB of Ram?

I thought that was clarified that what they meant was "it supports up to 16 GB of RAM" and not "16 GB of RAM is recommended".

#16 Posted by SmasheControllers (2551 posts) -

@valrog: Well that's completely different. Even some, So's long as the game runs at smooth 30 or 60 and look comparable to the console version, I'm fine.

#17 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -

That is a mystery we're 10 days away from solving.

#18 Posted by easthill (351 posts) -

You're supposed to have a bit of free space left on your HDD at all times, just so Windows will run properly. That's why the requirements is 35 Gb, not because the game is 35 Gb.

For that matter, the requirements Rockstar published is range of hardware supported - not required.

#19 Edited by Pr1mus (3951 posts) -

The 35GB requirements could be something along the same line as Space Marine for example. Space Marine asks for "Hard Drive: 20 GB space free (10 GB free after install)". Essentially it downloads or copy the files to the hard drive first and then intalls the game and delete the install files afterwards.

#20 Posted by nintendoeats (5975 posts) -

@SmasheControllers said:

@nintendoeats: Now it probably runs fine, haven't re-installed it to try.

I tried it around christmas and it hadn't changed.

#21 Posted by SASnake (349 posts) -

@AlisterCat said:

@SmasheControllers said:

@AlisterCat: GTA IV still runs like crap. RAGE definitely wasn't designed for PCs.

RAGE wasn't, but they patched GTA IV to make it run so much better than when it launched. I went from 1 - 10FPS to 30 - 45FPS on 2007 hardware. LA Noire runs OK too. Not well optimized but fair for a console port.

LA Noire dosent run on the RAGE engine, a common mistake this is.

#22 Posted by SASnake (349 posts) -

@SmasheControllers said:

After listening to this week bombcast, Vinny say he suspects that the PC version of the game is 35 GB because of bad optimization. Rockstar's track record on PC ports is not exactly good, San Andreas, GTA IV and Bully, all of which where horribly optimized. What do you think?

Personally I agree, 16 GB of Ram?

Max Payne 3 on PC is not a port, its being developed along side the console version. (was)

#23 Posted by SmasheControllers (2551 posts) -

@SASnake: Hearing that gives me high hopes. I've see.

#24 Posted by Raven10 (1846 posts) -

Bad optimization isn't going to increase file size. A texture is a certain size. You can compress it to make it smaller, or increase it's resolution and make it bigger. I would assume if the game install size is 35 GB that they simply included very high resolution textures. Poorly written code isn't going to make a difference. Code is just text. Even millions of lines of code aren't going to take up much space. Your space comes from other assets. Another one people often overlook is audio. A very high quality uncompressed 7.1 mix can take up a lot of space, and finally they could have put higher res cutscenes in the game. I know there are a lot of cutscenes. Not sure how many are prerendered but 2 hours of 1080p video can take up a decent amount of space especially if they are using an older codec like Bink. More complex and higher quality models could also be a cause. There are a lot of things that take up a lot of space. Code isn't one of them.

#25 Posted by AlisterCat (5630 posts) -

@SASnake said:

LA Noire dosent run on the RAGE engine, a common mistake this is.

You are totally right, and I knew that. I've corrected people for that before, so I don't know why I said it. I'll sit down and rethink my life.

#26 Posted by clstirens (847 posts) -

@Raven10 said:

Bad optimization isn't going to increase file size. A texture is a certain size. You can compress it to make it smaller, or increase it's resolution and make it bigger. I would assume if the game install size is 35 GB that they simply included very high resolution textures. Poorly written code isn't going to make a difference. Code is just text. Even millions of lines of code aren't going to take up much space. Your space comes from other assets. Another one people often overlook is audio. A very high quality uncompressed 7.1 mix can take up a lot of space, and finally they could have put higher res cutscenes in the game. I know there are a lot of cutscenes. Not sure how many are prerendered but 2 hours of 1080p video can take up a decent amount of space especially if they are using an older codec like Bink. More complex and higher quality models could also be a cause. There are a lot of things that take up a lot of space. Code isn't one of them.

Actually, Vinny's assumption is from the idea that the method for storing textures for each individual level, the package files (if you will), are poorly packaged for the pc release. Especially since the pc version has Level of Detail settings that, depending on the engine, may require multiple levels of assets.

The issue of multiple sets of assets may be occuring because the engine isn't optimized/built to handle scaling textures down. Hence, "poor optimization" requiring more hard disk space.

#27 Posted by mak_wikus (537 posts) -

The "specs" that you've all been talking about is the range of hardware that R* has tested the game on.

As for the 35 gigs, maybe it's just for the installation process? It has to be. I've never seen a game this big. LA Noire, Rage, Dragon Age: Origins(with all additional content) are no more than 25GB.

Let's wait for whatever shows up on the Steam store page.

#28 Posted by mosdl (3229 posts) -

@AlisterCat said:

I swear when I installed the Diablo beta it recommended 35GB of space, even though the game itself is much less. I think they are just putting out a bigger size than you need. There's no way it'll be that big. It's a RAGE game, so it's not like the engine hasn't been on PC before.

This right here. The harddisk size is the max needed, usually during installation when files are being copied and expanded and moved around. Also probably includes directx install.

But then again it could be a mess.

#29 Posted by valrog (3671 posts) -

@mak_wikus said:

The "specs" that you've all been talking about is the range of hardware that R* has tested the game on.

As for the 35 gigs, maybe it's just for the installation process? It has to be. I've never seen a game this big. LA Noire, Rage, Dragon Age: Origins(with all additional content) are no more than 25GB.

Let's wait for whatever shows up on the Steam store page.

X-Plane can take up to 75 GB. Maybe even more.

As the technology progresses, and HDDs expand, so does the information being held. It's a natural and logical process. 10 GB (In rough approximation) is pretty much standard now, but you would have a stroke if you heard something like that 7 years ago.

#30 Posted by Subjugation (4725 posts) -

If the PC version is marred with problems I will be so, so sad. I can only speculate as to the reason for delayed release on PC, but a few things come to mind: Trying to get more people to purchase on console before being exposed to PC piracy, incomplete assets that weren't needed in the console versions (high res), or just trolling the PC crowd to test the patience of people like myself. Hey, it could happen.

#31 Posted by Raven10 (1846 posts) -

@clstirens said:

@Raven10 said:

Bad optimization isn't going to increase file size. A texture is a certain size. You can compress it to make it smaller, or increase it's resolution and make it bigger. I would assume if the game install size is 35 GB that they simply included very high resolution textures. Poorly written code isn't going to make a difference. Code is just text. Even millions of lines of code aren't going to take up much space. Your space comes from other assets. Another one people often overlook is audio. A very high quality uncompressed 7.1 mix can take up a lot of space, and finally they could have put higher res cutscenes in the game. I know there are a lot of cutscenes. Not sure how many are prerendered but 2 hours of 1080p video can take up a decent amount of space especially if they are using an older codec like Bink. More complex and higher quality models could also be a cause. There are a lot of things that take up a lot of space. Code isn't one of them.

Actually, Vinny's assumption is from the idea that the method for storing textures for each individual level, the package files (if you will), are poorly packaged for the pc release. Especially since the pc version has Level of Detail settings that, depending on the engine, may require multiple levels of assets.

The issue of multiple sets of assets may be occuring because the engine isn't optimized/built to handle scaling textures down. Hence, "poor optimization" requiring more hard disk space.

Hmm. I didn't think of that. Most of the engines I'm familiar with will scale down textures for console or mobile versions without the need for multiple files. I wasn't thinking that their engine could require multiple versions of each texture. It seems like a rather bad way to build an engine, but Rockstar games have never had the best tech so I could see them doing something silly like that. Still, depending on the number of assets, it seems to me that you would still need some pretty hi-res textures among your LOD levels to reach 35 GB's if that was the case. The level of detail on console textures is really quite low in most cases. So you'd need hi-res stuff to reach that amount of space. So regardless I would say that higher res textures are almost a certainty with that amount of space used.

#32 Posted by Th3_James (2579 posts) -

Even if it's poorly optimized, I plan to brute force it with power. i7 @4.25ghzx8threads with 7970 overclocked should do the trick @2560x1600. If not I will be quite disappointed.

#33 Posted by ch3burashka (5112 posts) -

I remember The Force Unleashed had a similar issue, requiring 30GB to install. Anyone remember why that was - poor optimization or mind-blowing textures?

#34 Posted by soapcell (24 posts) -

@CH3BURASHKA: uncompressed 1080p videos.

#35 Posted by rolanthas (247 posts) -

well, I just hope steam gives a 2-3 day ahead pre load. No use worrying about the optimization after I paid for the damn game. And already got it on PS3 anyway just in case.

@CH3BURASHKA: It was mostly for videos, although I guess its jury rigged "euphoria / havok / digital molecular" combo may have had something to do with it.

#36 Posted by bybeach (4894 posts) -

@SASnake said:

@SmasheControllers said:

After listening to this week bombcast, Vinny say he suspects that the PC version of the game is 35 GB because of bad optimization. Rockstar's track record on PC ports is not exactly good, San Andreas, GTA IV and Bully, all of which where horribly optimized. What do you think?

Personally I agree, 16 GB of Ram?

Max Payne 3 on PC is not a port, its being developed along side the console version. (was)

This gives me hope, and That Rockstar who I hold subject to remembering Max Payne was a PC game keeps this face up on the table. I'm still prone to agree with Vinny because initially that is often the case. We will see. I do not know anything about developing, but could it be buco information might be insuring more 1:1 transfer of info instead of compressing/leaving out bits. So to speak.

#37 Posted by eezo (285 posts) -

@SmasheControllers: actually GTA4 runs just fine now

#38 Posted by 2HeadedNinja (1671 posts) -

as someone said: The specs they released were meant to show what the game would support if you have it ... those were not the specs you NEED to play the game.

#39 Posted by pornstorestiffi (4936 posts) -

So the game is out, can someone shed some lige on performance and disk space once and for all.

#40 Posted by Karolis (281 posts) -

@pornstorestiffi: The game is out on PC on the 29th.

#41 Posted by pornstorestiffi (4936 posts) -

@Lone_f said:

@pornstorestiffi: The game is out on PC on the 29th.

Well that explains all the speculation still.

#42 Posted by Metal_Mills (3010 posts) -

Good news everybody!
 

#43 Posted by SmasheControllers (2551 posts) -

@Metal_Mills said:

Good news everybody!

Great! What's the nvidia equivalent for the AMD HD 6850?

#44 Posted by AlisterCat (5630 posts) -

Damn. I have GTX460 1GB in SLI. What would that be equivalent to? I assume it'll have SLI profiles.

#45 Posted by Metal_Mills (3010 posts) -
@SmasheControllers said:

@Metal_Mills said:

Good news everybody!

Great! What's the nvidia equivalent for the AMD HD 6850?

Below the 560 I think. So 30fps or so.
 
 @AlisterCat said:

Damn. I have GTX460 1GB in SLI. What would that be equivalent to? I assume it'll have SLI profiles.

Above the 550 Ti. So again, above 30fps.
#46 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@SmasheControllers: That would be a GTX 460, not on that chart though. Should be somewhere between a GTX 560 and 550 Ti, closer to the 560's performance though.

@Metal_Mills: Do we know what kind of CPU they're using in these benches?

#47 Posted by Jazzycola (662 posts) -

@AlisterCat: GTX 460s in SLI is equivalent to one GTX 570.(if SLI scaling is good)

#48 Posted by SmasheControllers (2551 posts) -

@SlasherMan: @Metal_Mills: Okay cool, I don't have a 1080p monitor so the game should run fine on my PC.

#49 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
@SlasherMan said:

@Metal_Mills: Do we know what kind of CPU they're using in these benches?

Yeah, when it comes to Rockstar, that is the real question. I bet they're rocking an i11
#50 Posted by mosdl (3229 posts) -

@Metal_Mills: Source? I bet a driver update will be out to help with performance

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.