Honestly im surprised low doesn't look worse. It seems like its the VERY little details that make each level differ.
Key thing to remember when dealing with Blizz betas is the fact that not all artwork is present within this build of the beta, which is already limited to a fairly small portion of the game. I would expect the game to be much more detailed and support many more IQ features upon release, as Bashiok mentioned about FSAA.
One thing to also note: Anisotropic filtering will dramatically increase the level of details to things that are seemingly "further away" from the camera view. This would help dramatically sharpen textures that seem "smudged" from further away. Hopefully this will also ship, along with DX11 features.
"I would expect the game to be much more detailed and support many more IQ features upon release, as Bashiok mentioned about FSAA."
Why would they take ppl with all kind of computers to beta then? what would they achieve if something is still missing? i though beta is for testing
It is, but they're pushing for a 2011 release. I don't need to tell you why.
Who cares about graphics? Everything is okay as long as it runs fluently.
Some people pay for enthusiast-level systems with the intention to be dazzled by the latest and greatest in eye candy. Yes, there are more important things about games, but it's still very cool when a game developer goes over-and-above to provide some amazing visuals.
Honestly im surprised low doesn't look worse. It seems like its the VERY little details that make each level differ.
Key thing to remember when dealing with Blizz betas is the fact that not all artwork is present within this build of the beta, which is already limited to a fairly small portion of the game. I would expect the game to be much more detailed and support many more IQ features upon release, as Bashiok mentioned about FSAA.
One thing to also note: Anisotropic filtering will dramatically increase the level of details to things that are seemingly "further away" from the camera view. This would help dramatically sharpen textures that seem "smudged" from further away. Hopefully this will also ship, along with DX11 features.
Adding some PVP content would be good for everyone.
Loot whores: Meh. *Goes back to inferno*
PVP bitches: Yay. *Gets raped with shit armor* *Goes back to inferno*
Loot whore and PVP bitch kills Diablo on inferno over 9000 times.
The End
I think people need to realize that we do not have access to the content yet. Once you realize this, you'll see how easy it is to "wait and see" without expressing any emotions either way. The fact that there aren't "raids" like in WoW doesn't mean that there is no "end-game content" for D3.
When you think about the information that has been released, one of the few things that has been reiterated time and time again is the idea that each play-through (or even each time you connect) will feel like a new experience due to the level of randomization that they've placed into the game. Therefore, we should expect that from normal to hell, it will feel much less like completing the same content that we just ran through. It goes without saying that Inferno should be just-as, if not more, different and difficult than each act/difficulty combined.
We can go many ways with this, but I'd rather keep this shorter (too late, right?) so that people will actually read my half-wall of text.
I would agree with Kevin if Blizzard hadn't been hitting upon the same point(s) for the past 2 years: Each play-through feels like a new experience due to the randomization, and inferno will be REALLY hard. It might even be something you can't do on your own (synergies in skills might make it easier). If inferno is easy enough just to "beat" it like all of the others, then Blizzard will have failed to create a 4th difficulty that challenges everyone at level cap.
What i'm trying to say is that the title was incredibly misleading. Much simpler to just say "Install Size" or "How big will install be?"
Anyways, I'm leaning towards 15GB. 5GB of it movies.
Incredibly misleading? That seems a tad harsh considering I cleared up the reasoning for it, and nobody else has had an issue with it.
Anywho, I bet we'll see 20 or more gigabytes in the actual release version... probably a similar type of launcher that allows you to play the game before it's all downloaded (a la cata WoW launcher)
D3 Storage Requirements No, not hardware requirements
Do you store your data on magic ? Because I store mine on a hard drive. Which is a physical object. A piece of hardware.
Hardware requirements encompass more than just storage capability. Stating storage requirement specifically identifies the topic to be about the size of the game, rather than other requirements. I appreciate your reply though, as you are correct: Hard disk drives/solid state drives are hardware components.
Still I guess its nice to have some sort of non auction house related topic.
This isn't about storage. This is about speculating what the requirements will be, or rather guessing the size of the installation folder. Either way you'd have it.
I'd like for us to set aside our PvP and AH quarrels, and instead speculate on the storage requirements of the newest installment in the Diablo series.
I am 100% certain that Blizzard will not incorporate physx into their diablo 3 engine.
PhysX is like a dedicated Physics engine, such as Havoks physics engine, but they used to use Havoks' then they dropped it for an internal Blizzard Physics engine. So yes you are correct D3 will not use the Nvidia PhysX engine. This does not mean however that The physics processing can not be done by a dedicated PhysX card.
... No. With games that use Nvidia's proprietary software, you can do this. Otherwise, the other card will not "just know" to process physics calculations.
Multi-core optimization should not be aimed at a fixed number of cores. If you have 2 cores, you should use it, if you have 8, you should use it as well...
I think that those games optimzed to 2 cores are a little poorly programmed, because the developers doesn't aim in the full paralelization, only on dividing some tasks in half.
It really isn't that easy. With codes you have multiples upon multiples of variables. Core optimization means that it will recognize that you have four cores, then distribute the workload evenly, while using it to the max potential, and making sure every variable in line with how many cores you use works Well.
Ex: I have a Single core Processor, So variable X in the games code now has "Single core" locked in it So it can now use Variables A,B,C, &, D dependent on something else in the system. Another person has a Dual Core computer, so in variable X it now has "Dual-Core" locked in it and now displays A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H, &I. This goes on until all core configurations have been filled out. Now when you go through the secondary variables you can Have for JUST A i,ii,iii, and iv. then for B, v, vi, vii ,viii ix, and x. etc... but now these ALL have to be optimized other wise it can actually cause the game to have a poorer performance which is exactly what they don't want.
The time it would take would be enormous to go through variables for all 12 core configurations. Then when patches and Exp's hit you have to make sure even that data is optimized otherwise you are in even more of a mess.
Thread libraries take care of that, and threads are scheduled and processed without affinity for any cpu core. This is all handled by the native OS, and requires only an understanding of how this system works in order to optimize for it.
Not as much. They gave us only a bit of act one to complete, while they state that the main purpose is so test server and client stability. Clearly, we'll be able to get a glimpse of some of the gameplay systems, but other than that, we're not testing the game's systems nearly as much as if they were to give us a beta which included all four acts.
Diablo 3 is designed for the average computer. Although I have a quad core, too, I doubt D3 (just like SC2) will utilize much more than two cores.
But that's the point of IQ settings. Hopefully D3 will accommodate those who have average rigs, as well as those of us who can take advantage of the eye candy.
It would be based on pure speculation if anyone were to claim it either way. We won't know anything until the beta is released, and even then, we might not see everything in terms of IQ until the game is shipped.
I would agree with Kevin if Blizzard hadn't been hitting upon the same point(s) for the past 2 years: Each play-through feels like a new experience due to the randomization, and inferno will be REALLY hard. It might even be something you can't do on your own (synergies in skills might make it easier). If inferno is easy enough just to "beat" it like all of the others, then Blizzard will have failed to create a 4th difficulty that challenges everyone at level cap.
0
0
0
One thing to also note: Anisotropic filtering will dramatically increase the level of details to things that are seemingly "further away" from the camera view. This would help dramatically sharpen textures that seem "smudged" from further away. Hopefully this will also ship, along with DX11 features.
0
0
When you think about the information that has been released, one of the few things that has been reiterated time and time again is the idea that each play-through (or even each time you connect) will feel like a new experience due to the level of randomization that they've placed into the game. Therefore, we should expect that from normal to hell, it will feel much less like completing the same content that we just ran through. It goes without saying that Inferno should be just-as, if not more, different and difficult than each act/difficulty combined.
We can go many ways with this, but I'd rather keep this shorter (too late, right?) so that people will actually read my half-wall of text.
0
0
Anywho, I bet we'll see 20 or more gigabytes in the actual release version... probably a similar type of launcher that allows you to play the game before it's all downloaded (a la cata WoW launcher)
0
This isn't about storage. This is about speculating what the requirements will be, or rather guessing the size of the installation folder. Either way you'd have it.
0
Rumors are welcome.
0
... No. With games that use Nvidia's proprietary software, you can do this. Otherwise, the other card will not "just know" to process physics calculations.
Thread libraries take care of that, and threads are scheduled and processed without affinity for any cpu core. This is all handled by the native OS, and requires only an understanding of how this system works in order to optimize for it.
0
0
0
0
0