rec.autos.simulators

XBOX Vs. PC (realism)

Damien Smit

XBOX Vs. PC (realism)

by Damien Smit » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 17:28:31

The "Concept 4" wheel isn't too bad...

F355 is pretty decent, but the lack of bumps is very noticeable.  It's
interesting to compare the handling with the F360 in the FIA GT Mod - they
share similar characteristics...

Damien Smit

XBOX Vs. PC (realism)

by Damien Smit » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 17:31:33

LOL.  It's not that simple I'm afraid.  The Xbox's memory bandwidth would
need to increase from 6.4GB/s to 25.6GB/s to maintain the same frame rates.
1600x1200 = 4X as many pixels to push around as 800x600.

Steve Smit

XBOX Vs. PC (realism)

by Steve Smit » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 19:58:55

Don't let Doug Arnao know that....


Gunnar Horrigm

XBOX Vs. PC (realism)

by Gunnar Horrigm » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 20:06:34


> > bull.  going from 800x600 to 1600x1200 increases memory usage by 11MB
> > for dual-buffered applications.

> LOL.  It's not that simple I'm afraid.  The Xbox's memory bandwidth would
> need to increase from 6.4GB/s to 25.6GB/s to maintain the same frame rates.
> 1600x1200 = 4X as many pixels to push around as 800x600.

uhm, ok, you're right.  but so am I.  so I guess we're both right.
what an ideal situation. :)

--
Gunnar
    #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo: 2
                          DE RECTIS NON TOLERANDUM EST

Haqsa

XBOX Vs. PC (realism)

by Haqsa » Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:16:19

Dave,

Would an Xbox game programmed to send vibrations even put out data that
could usefully be reinterpreted as vector forces, damping, etc?  Seems
to me that if a car game only needs to send out a vibration command to
represent tire squeal or hitting a wall, the best FF wheel in the world
isn't going to do any good because the program just isn't generating the
data that the wheel needs to see.


Dave Pollatse

XBOX Vs. PC (realism)

by Dave Pollatse » Fri, 27 Sep 2002 10:12:04

Not really; you could probably fake something up but it wouldn't be much
better than just rumble.  If they come out with a FF device on the xbox, it
will require games to explicitly support it, like on PS2 and GC.

I really have no idea why Microsoft has not come up with a FF mechanism/API
yet, as it should be trivial as a technical issue and they have acres of
cash--I'm guessing it must be business/internal politics of some sort, or
perhaps that they still instinctively avoid anything that resembles a PC...
it could also have something to do with Immersion (this is pure
speculation!!!)--I have the idea that there are some weird entanglements
with the wheel mfgrs.
The gamecube FF scheme is pretty good in that it plugs in to a regular
controller socket and has most of the gamecube controls, so you don't have
the insanity of trying to sort out multitaps and USB hubs; the only problem
is that it won't even work as a passive wheel without custom application
support... MS should really make a wheel that will be backwards compatible
as well as allowing FF to new games, since they've already missed it with
their big driving sellers like PGR.  Since they are practically a niche
market at this point, IMHO they should do everything possible to establish
themselves as the "premium" console (HDTV support, 5.1 encoding, etc.), and
having a high quality driving controller is one part of this.
-dave


> Dave,

> Would an Xbox game programmed to send vibrations even put out data that
> could usefully be reinterpreted as vector forces, damping, etc?  Seems
> to me that if a car game only needs to send out a vibration command to
> represent tire squeal or hitting a wall, the best FF wheel in the world
> isn't going to do any good because the program just isn't generating the
> data that the wheel needs to see.



> > The xbox controller API is nothing like DirectInput--it's more of a
> > normal console gamepad API like the "other platforms", but I think
> what's
> > preventing a FF device for Xbox is not the API, but probably the usual
> issue
> > of finding a partner to license wheels, getting developers to support
> it,
> > finding a "killer app", etc, etc.  I would guess they could make a new
> plug
> > for a USB sidewinder in about ten seconds and get it running, but they
> may
> > be hoping to make a device that can work with legacy games as well
> (which is
> > one of the failings of the logitech wheels for PS2/GameCube)

Phoenix Knig

XBOX Vs. PC (realism)

by Phoenix Knig » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 01:58:49


> Consoles *can* match the realism and complexity, it's all about cost &
> demand.

I doubt that. Could the X-Box run Flight Simulator (Pro) 2002? I think not!
Gunnar Horrigm

XBOX Vs. PC (realism)

by Gunnar Horrigm » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 04:27:35



> > Consoles *can* match the realism and complexity, it's all about cost &
> > demand.

> I doubt that. Could the X-Box run Flight Simulator (Pro) 2002? I think not!

why not?  a simlilarly-specced PC will run it fine(-ish).

--
Gunnar
    #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo: 2
                                silence is FOO!

Joe M

XBOX Vs. PC (realism)

by Joe M » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 06:55:30

You think wrong! ;0)  The Xbox runs Morrowind just fine.  A game that barely
gets over 30 fps on state-of-the-art PC's.  MW is a bigger system hog than
FS2002 from my own experience (FS 2002 runs in the 40's while MW can barely
crack 25 fps).  You underestimate the power of a dedicated *** machine
running at only 640x480 resolution.  The Xbox is very impressive take a look
at Enclave, Halo, NFL 2K3, etc.

BTW, simulation *performance* is not the issue, it's market demand for such
games and appropriate steering wheel/flight stick/kb-mouse availability.

--
Joe M.



not!

Phoenix Knig

XBOX Vs. PC (realism)

by Phoenix Knig » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 23:03:56




> > > Consoles *can* match the realism and complexity, it's all about cost &
> > > demand.

> > I doubt that. Could the X-Box run Flight Simulator (Pro) 2002? I think not!

> why not?  a simlilarly-specced PC will run it fine(-ish).

Because there's just so much depth to the Flight Simulator series.
Especially the latest ones. So many options to tweek and fiddle with.
You can download planes and landscapes. You can even install a few
dozen add-on packs, which totally change the game from how Microsoft
wanted it to look at first to how you want it to look.

I don't imagine consoles becoming quite so advanced for a long while.

Positive

XBOX Vs. PC (realism)

by Positive » Sun, 29 Sep 2002 05:57:54

Ahemmmm.  Two examples, DOA3 and Moto GP.

In the case of MotoGP it's patchable to online play for the Xbox.
So yes, you can tweak and add features to released games on the Xbox.
MS is setting up Xbox Live for just this purpose (downloadable $$$ content).

Pretty advanced what?

--

====================================================







: > > > Consoles *can* match the realism and complexity, it's all about cost
&
: > > > demand.
: > >
: > > I doubt that. Could the X-Box run Flight Simulator (Pro) 2002? I think
not!
: >
: > why not?  a simlilarly-specced PC will run it fine(-ish).
:
: Because there's just so much depth to the Flight Simulator series.
: Especially the latest ones. So many options to tweek and fiddle with.
: You can download planes and landscapes. You can even install a few
: dozen add-on packs, which totally change the game from how Microsoft
: wanted it to look at first to how you want it to look.
:
: I don't imagine consoles becoming quite so advanced for a long while.


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.