Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Steph246

Game fatness

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[OLEUM]
Players
254 posts
16,621 battles

This game is too fat : 75Go

 

Isn't there a way to optimize everything in it ?

 

I don't see why your game still weights 75Go seeing with what there is : a few maps, ship models, textures and looting boxes ? Even all the extension of World of Warcraft is lighter than your casino game.

 

Your other gambling game with tanks is even lighter.

 

What are you waiting to optimize your game ? Intel inside graphic cards ?

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-HUN-]
[-HUN-]
Players
1,827 posts
12,408 battles
45 minutes ago, Steph246 said:

This game is too fat : 75Go

 

Isn't there a way to optimize everything in it ?

 

I don't see why your game still weights 75Go seeing with what there is : a few maps, ship models, textures and looting boxes ? Even all the extension of World of Warcraft is lighter than your casino game.

 

Your other gambling game with tanks is even lighter.

 

What are you waiting to optimize your game ? Intel inside graphic cards ?

Old engine.

Huge vehicles with A LOT OF small details.

Huge maps with a LOT of small details.

An incredible amount of leftback stuff. (Just think about all the different modes they have added, ships, the changing UI and stuff... You cannot remove all of that from the code. There is always leftover. So it is growing and growing and growing until they realise they need to build the game up from 0 again which won't happen as they admitted.)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
4,491 posts
11,570 battles
54 minutes ago, Steph246 said:

Even all the extension of World of Warcraft is lighter than your casino game.

I mean....yes? Obviously? Do you expect that a game with its origins in 2003 (I believe) would be bigger without being remade in a completely next gen engine? It's like saying, even oldschool runescape is smaller, and that games has been updated extensively.

 

But yes, optimization has never been WG's strength. Especially with the horrible engine this game is made in.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
8,614 posts

At some time they will probs run a repack as it was done few years ago, it will still be sizeable but at least some gain will be done, also its likely that at some point clone ships such as WH40k, ARP and similar are likely to be unified with the normal ones to use the same ingame models and just be special camos on top of it changing soft stats of the ships that way still the bunch of models takes its toll...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CAIN]
Players
4,985 posts
21,590 battles
1 hour ago, Humorpalanta said:

Old engine.

Huge vehicles with A LOT OF small details.

Huge maps with a LOT of small details.

An incredible amount of leftback stuff. (Just think about all the different modes they have added, ships, the changing UI and stuff... You cannot remove all of that from the code. There is always leftover. So it is growing and growing and growing until they realise they need to build the game up from 0 again which won't happen as they admitted.)

Models aren't usually that large in termsn of disc space taken.

 

WGs 3D models are typical game models, and decently optimized for the game engine.

What usually eats crap tons of disc space, are ship textures (and WG is sharing textures across several models!), damage textures/decals, port textures, sound files (captains, ambient, guns, engines, aso...), music and effects. The latter is a real disc space hog, as for an effect (that is texture based) to look good, it needs to be fairly high-res and needs a lot of frames. And considering we have a boat load of effects (water splashes, gun fire, fire and flooding effects, flak, aso), it tends to eat a lot of disc space.

 

Also, WG seems to leave a lot of stuff in the client, which is partially related to the fact that certain events run longer then WGs patch cycle, but also there's a lot of test stuff we don't have access to, yet have to be able to see it if we encounter it in battle.

 

Still, 70GB is a bit on the large side.

Without digging deep into the client files, it is nearly impossible to tell where the excess disc space eating files came from, but i assume it's scripts (which can be really big) and dead files.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[R3B3L]
Players
1,505 posts
8 minutes ago, Jethro_Grey said:

and effects. The latter is a real disc space hog, as for an effect (that is texture based) to look good, it needs to be fairly high-res and needs a lot of frames. And considering we have a boat load of effects (water splashes, gun fire, fire and flooding effects, flak, aso), it tends to eat a lot of disc space.

Great, so a lot of space is taken by the kiddo shiny blingbling that I deactivated :Smile_sceptic:

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,057 posts
245 battles
Just now, VIadoCro said:

Great, so a lot of space is taken by the kiddo shiny blingbling that I deactivated :Smile_sceptic:

Mainly particle effects actually, things like emission or simple camos that you see on ships wont take up much space alone if they are jpegs, im guessing weegee is using png's which while have better quality drastically increase the image file size and this is all the camos btw. Skins, won't add much since it's geometry and models tend to be quite cheap in terms of file sizes. I mean my three ships i have uploaded to sketchfab come to at least 300+MB's thats without textures mind you.

 

But particle effects like water, flak bursts, gun fire, sea waves animations, sea wakes from boats and whatever else will take up quite a lot of space, along with all the textures each ship has, base or not. And since weegee has around 50+ textures per model that ups quickly. Things like the docks as well also take up a lot of space too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALYEN]
Players
3,084 posts
4,508 battles
30 minutes ago, Jethro_Grey said:

Models aren't usually that large in termsn of disc space taken.

 

WGs 3D models are typical game models, and decently optimized for the game engine.

What usually eats crap tons of disc space, are ship textures (and WG is sharing textures across several models!), damage textures/decals, port textures, sound files (captains, ambient, guns, engines, aso...), music and effects. The latter is a real disc space hog, as for an effect (that is texture based) to look good, it needs to be fairly high-res and needs a lot of frames. And considering we have a boat load of effects (water splashes, gun fire, fire and flooding effects, flak, aso), it tends to eat a lot of disc space.

 

Also, WG seems to leave a lot of stuff in the client, which is partially related to the fact that certain events run longer then WGs patch cycle, but also there's a lot of test stuff we don't have access to, yet have to be able to see it if we encounter it in battle.

 

Still, 70GB is a bit on the large side.

Without digging deep into the client files, it is nearly impossible to tell where the excess disc space eating files came from, but i assume it's scripts (which can be really big) and dead files.

Who does volumetric effects like splashes and other stuff like that these days ? Those are all shader programs that should be fairly small and parametric so you can adapt to different uses (fe. muzzle flash size/smoke size etc are just parameters).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CAIN]
Players
4,985 posts
21,590 battles
1 minute ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

Who does volumetric effects like splashes and other stuff like that these days ? Those are all shader programs that should be fairly small and parametric so you can adapt to different uses (fe. muzzle flash size/smoke size etc are just parameters).

Not every PC/ gfx card can run particle/ shader based effects without bogging the game down or looking fugly. 

 

Remember that the main market is russia.

And WoWS is a niche game, not a triple A main stream title, that causes its players to buy a new 6k $ PC as soon a new installment is announced.

 

And due to this, effects are mostly done as texture based framed animations, which look always the same, regardless of hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
6,268 posts
23,393 battles
35 minutes ago, Jethro_Grey said:

Without digging deep into the client files, it is nearly impossible to tell where the excess disc space eating files came from, but i assume it's scripts (which can be really big) and dead files.

just check the res_packages directory and You'll find .pkg files accounting for ~62 gigs, categorized in stuff like Sound, Spaces, Vehicles etc etc which - for me - indicates that the model data and textures for all the stuff in the game are packaged there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALYEN]
Players
3,084 posts
4,508 battles
54 minutes ago, Jethro_Grey said:

Not every PC/ gfx card can run particle/ shader based effects without bogging the game down or looking fugly. 

 

Remember that the main market is russia.

And WoWS is a niche game, not a triple A main stream title, that causes its players to buy a new 6k $ PC as soon a new installment is announced.

 

And due to this, effects are mostly done as texture based framed animations, which look always the same, regardless of hardware.

Oh please, any iGPU these days manages at least a DX 11 feature set. I mean these shaders were around since OpenGL 3.0 days and DX 10 ... that's like since forever. My age old core i5 4300 on this laptop can run the game in playable framerates (yes not on highest settings but still).

 

Correct me if I am wrong but the game does not longer support DX 9 ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TMCB]
[TMCB]
Players
77 posts
14,840 battles

Go, gigaoctet, or the same as Gibibyte

 

In other words it avoids the confusion of just using GB, as you need the context to see if thats referring to decimal or binary, eg a 1000GB hard drive that Windows reports as only 930GB as Windows uses the binary value, the seller decimal.

 

Eg 1GB could be 10^9 bytes (1,000,000,000 bytes) 1000MB or 2^30 (1,073,741,824 bytes) 1024MB

 

A drive sold as 1000Go or 1000 GiB, should show in windows, as 1000GB

 

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
604 posts
2,545 battles
2 ore fa, Sintares ha scritto:

Go, gigaoctet, or the same as Gibibyte

 

In other words it avoids the confusion of just using GB, as you need the context to see if thats referring to decimal or binary, eg a 1000GB hard drive that Windows reports as only 930GB as Windows uses the binary value, the seller decimal.

 

Eg 1GB could be 10^9 bytes (1,000,000,000 bytes) 1000MB or 2^30 (1,073,741,824 bytes) 1024MB

 

A drive sold as 1000Go or 1000 GiB, should show in windows, as 1000GB

 

 

 

 

 

I'm too stupid to understand what I've just read 

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
6,268 posts
23,393 battles
19 minutes ago, KommodorevonKlein said:

I'm too stupid to understand what I've just read 

Be assured, most of the world is on your side here, as it seems to be some french defination for something, that 90% of the world define by a english name.

So business as usual for the french...

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder, Alpha Tester
1,818 posts
1,068 battles
6 hours ago, CptBarney said:

Mainly particle effects actually, things like emission or simple camos that you see on ships wont take up much space alone if they are jpegs, im guessing weegee is using png's which while have better quality drastically increase the image file size and this is all the camos btw.

Wargaming are using .dds, which is generally much more suitable for game engine use as it's more easily managed by the GPU and has a number of different compression algorithms for various uses depending on whether things like alpha channels are needed i.e. dxt5 with interpolated alphas is used for particle sprites as it covers a range of values in the alpha between 0 and 1. Because of the additional data included with dtx5 it does drive up the texture size somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,057 posts
245 battles
2 minutes ago, zFireWyvern said:

Wargaming are using .dds, which is generally much more suitable for game engine use as it's more easily managed by the GPU and has a number of different compression algorithms for various uses depending on whether things like alpha channels are needed i.e. dxt5 with interpolated alphas is used for particle sprites as it covers a range of values in the alpha between 0 and 1. Because of the additional data included with dtx5 it does drive up the texture size somewhat.

I don't know what file types they are using too be fair, i just assumed the combination of an old arse engine, along with lots of textures per vehicles and most vehicles being around 200-320k tris, plus effects would make up for most of the extra data.

Were you able to get into the files at all and find their individual file sizes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,255 posts
2 hours ago, Sintares said:

Go, gigaoctet, or the same as Gibibyte

 

In other words it avoids the confusion of just using GB, as you need the context to see if thats referring to decimal or binary, eg a 1000GB hard drive that Windows reports as only 930GB as Windows uses the binary value, the seller decimal.

 

Eg 1GB could be 10^9 bytes (1,000,000,000 bytes) 1000MB or 2^30 (1,073,741,824 bytes) 1024MB

 

A drive sold as 1000Go or 1000 GiB, should show in windows, as 1000GB

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok ... interesting. I know the math behind it (8 bits == Byte or why the 1024 and not 1000), but I never seen it being used (Go over GB). Octet makes sense... but most confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder, Alpha Tester
1,818 posts
1,068 battles
1 minute ago, CptBarney said:

I don't know what file types they are using too be fair, i just assumed the combination of an old arse engine, along with lots of textures per vehicles and most vehicles being around 200-320k tris, plus effects would make up for most of the extra data.

 Were you able to get into the files at all and find their individual file sizes?

If you want to look through the game files you need to download the unpacker from the modding section of the forums. It's not just textures and models that are taking up a lot of space but numerous sound banks, flash files for the various ui components and scripts. It all adds up and with bigworld being as it is it's not surprising that the client is quite sizeable and there's not a whole lot that can be done about it easily.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SOTE]
Beta Tester
217 posts
2,717 battles
14 hours ago, KommodorevonKlein said:

I'm too stupid to understand what I've just read 

yes ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×