Support NeoGAF

[nikatapi]

If there even really is an "OS" in any traditional sense. At this point, I don't think there is.

Long loading between apps->no real multitasking?
Maybe the console loads each application each time so that is why there are such long loading times?
It could be also to prevent piracy, if they loaded some stuff each time the console loads a new application.

If this happens, then it is kinda true that there is no OS in a traditional sense.

 

[AzaK]

So there's no milticore ARM in the retail version then? Is the OS running on "Espresso"?

Could explain why games judder when background downloading. Awesome Ninty. Given the machine doesn't run multiple tasks really, there isn't much need for a full on multi tasking OS if you want to save money.

 

[wsippel]

Long loading between apps->no real multitasking?
Maybe the console loads each application each time so that is why there are such long loading times?
It could be also to prevent piracy, if they loaded some stuff each time the console loads a new application.

If this happens, then it is kinda true that there is no OS in a traditional sense.

Yes, the fact that every individual app has to boot every time and even the home menu takes a second to come up after the game halts is exactly why I believe that there is no real OS running in the background. The "OS" is just a bunch of stand alone apps. That would also mean that games get full, 100% control over both the CPU and the GPU - which would be good, of course. I guess there are just a few daemons for notifications and background downloads running on the ARM core, and that's it. Even a tiny weaksauce ARM9 is sufficient for that stuff. That would also explain why games sometimes stutter when a download is active, as the ARM core is also responsible for IO.

 

[deviljho]

Yes, the fact that every individual app has to boot every time and even the home menu takes a second to come up after the game halts is exactly why I believe that there is no real OS running in the background. The "OS" is just a bunch of stand alone apps. That would also mean that games get full, 100% control over both the CPU and the GPU - which would be good, of course. I guess there are just a few daemons for notifications and background downloads running on the ARM core, and that's it. Even a tiny weaksauce ARM9 is sufficient for that stuff. That would also explain why games sometimes stutter when a download is active, as the ARM core is also responsible for IO.

when happens when you hit home and enter miiverse to post an in-game screenshot?

 

[AzaK]

Yes, the fact that every individual app has to boot every time and even the home menu takes a second to come up after the game halts is exactly why I believe that there is no real OS running in the background. The "OS" is just a bunch of stand alone apps. That would also mean that games get full, 100% control over both the CPU and the GPU - which would be good, of course. I guess there are just a few daemons for notifications and background downloads running on the ARM core, and that's it. Even a tiny weaksauce ARM9 is sufficient for that stuff. That would also explain why games sometimes stutter when a download is active, as the ARM core is also responsible for IO.

All OS' run stand alone apps. It still needs a loader to load apps and there is the home menu which IIRC is not linked in to each app like it was with Wii. It also has some multitasking. Basically I think it's a proper OS just extremely lightweight.

Anyone know what file system Wii U uses?

 

[Log4Girlz]

Considering that most of WiiU games are Xbox 360 ports at best (with little budget behind and time constraints), that final dev kits weren't ready until november 2012 (most if not all the games currently on-sale were finished at least a whole month before that) and that it's a completely different architecture we are speaking of, the fact that we already have games at 360 level or even a bit better in some cases is a proof of how capable this piece of hardware is.

If Wii U had some horsepower, those Xbox 360 ports would all be running at 1080p at least. I don't expect much. I see the Wii U as a refined Xbox 360 with 2 GB of RAM. We will see ports of Orbis/Durango games, but they will definitely be "Lite" versions. Basically, anything cross-gen will probably make its way to the Wii U and it will be seeing the Xbox 360 version of those engines. For a time, I think custom Wii U games will look nearly as nice as Orbis/Durango games until devs really start to learn the latter systems and make games well beyond what the 360 and PS3 were capable of.

 

[Branduil]

Yes, the fact that every individual app has to boot every time and even the home menu takes a second to come up after the game halts is exactly why I believe that there is no real OS running in the background. The "OS" is just a bunch of stand alone apps. That would also mean that games get full, 100% control over both the CPU and the GPU - which would be good, of course. I guess there are just a few daemons for notifications and background downloads running on the ARM core, and that's it. Even a tiny weaksauce ARM9 is sufficient for that stuff. That would also explain why games sometimes stutter when a download is active, as the ARM core is also responsible for IO.

If there's no real OS running in the background why is 1 GB of RAM off-limits?

 

[Osiris]

If there's no real OS running in the background why is 1 GB of RAM off-limits?

That is one big ass stub, so either they are slightly incompetent at making an OS, or they are really incompetent at making a stub/loader, you take your pick.

 

[JohnnySasaki86]

And neither PS3 nor 360 have 512MB RAM available for games, which people seem to always overlook (it's 465MB and 480MB respectively). PS3 at launch was just 392MB.

Wow, so when does having a OS footprint of 6-9% even come close to 50%? Even if Nintendio cut their OS footprint down by 50%(512mb), which is highly unlikely, they would still only have 1.5gb of RAM and be reserving 25%. It's not nearly the same situation.

Obviously Nintendio had a logical reason to reserve that much RAM. There focus is on that controller, not graphics. It's quite a stretch to think a large portion of that ram will be freed up.

 

[Gahiggidy]

Maybe Nintendo doesn't know how to divide ram modules up into partial amounts? So they just said, "Ok, those sticks go to the games. Those to the Wii U Home stuff."

*shrugs*

 

[freezamite]

If Wii U had some horsepower, those Xbox 360 ports would all be running at 1080p at least. I don't expect much. I see the Wii U as a refined Xbox 360 with 2 GB of RAM. We will see ports of Orbis/Durango games, but they will definitely be "Lite" versions. Basically, anything cross-gen will probably make its way to the Wii U and it will be seeing the Xbox 360 version of those engines. For a time, I think custom Wii U games will look nearly as nice as Orbis/Durango games until devs really start to learn the latter systems and make games well beyond what the 360 and PS3 were capable of.

Sorry but this is not how it works. Comparing the architectures, it's pretty obvious that at this moment the WiiU is held back by PS360 engines, and that the WiiU is much closer to the PS4/Durango duo when it comes to hardware design than to PS360.

This is how things will go. At this moment, even games on engines optimized for a completely different architecture and completed in unfinished dev-kits have the same quality as their current generation counterpart. In the future, with more optimized engines in more advanced dev-kits, games will look noticeably better.
Even then, you won't see 1080p games on the WiiU, it just doesn't have much sense considering the eDram size and the big-ram pool bandwidth. The WiiU is a console made around the 720p resolution and even when 1080p are possible in some games, it's not meant to be an standard for demanding games.

I think that both the new Mario and the new Zelda (this last one even more than the first one) will be showcases of games not possible on PS360. Oh, and I can't wait to see what are the Retro studio guys working on.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Sorry but this is not how it works. Comparing the architectures, it's pretty obvious that at this moment the WiiU is held back by PS360 engines, and that the WiiU is much closer to the PS4/Durango duo when it comes to hardware design than to PS360.

This is how things will go. At this moment, even games on engines optimized for a completely different architecture and completed in unfinished dev-kits have the same quality as their current generation counterpart. In the future, with more optimized engines in more advanced dev-kits, games will look noticeably better.
Even then, you won't see 1080p games on the WiiU, it just doesn't have much sense considering the eDram size and the big-ram pool bandwidth. The WiiU is a console made around the 720p resolution and even when 1080p are possible in some games, it's not meant to be an standard for demanding games.

I think that both the new Mario and the new Zelda (this last one even more than the first one) will be showcases of games not possible on PS360. Oh, and I can't wait to see what are the Retro studio guys working on.

If the Wii U had the horsepower, it would run current gen games with significant improvements like 1080p resolution without much trouble, regardless of architecture. The Wii U is not some crazy bananas console, optimization will only go so far. Absolutely nothing shown suggests it is dramatically more powerful than the previous gen.

The next 3D Mario and whatever Retro is working on will probably impress due to art design and not technology. The Wii U is a very nice, efficient system, but ultimately it is just a mere step above the Xbox 360 and much as how that system still got Witcher 2 looking alright and running, Wii U will be getting some big downports and they will look worse for wear.

 

[The_Lump]

Maybe Nintendo doesn't know how to divide ram modules up into partial amounts? So they just said, "Ok, those sticks go to the games. Those to the Wii U Home stuff."

*shrugs*

It's fairly unlikely that Nintendo 'don't know how' to do that. This isn't their first rodeo, no matter how much people like to make out it is.

Contrary to popular belief, they are actually quite good at designing hardware & software.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Sorry but this is not how it works. Comparing the architectures, it's pretty obvious that at this moment the WiiU is held back by PS360 engines, and that the WiiU is much closer to the PS4/Durango duo when it comes to hardware design than to PS360.

This is debatable. The CPU is quite different to a Jaguar and any significantly multi-threaded code designed to take advantage of 8 cores would have to be majorly rewritten to run on it. There is significantly less RAM and what there is is much slower than even Durango's DDR3 pool. The GPU is significantly weaker and based around a design that is much less efficient for general purpose computing, though this aspect of it may have been tweaked somewhat.

Even if one still concludes that it is more similar to the upcoming systems than their predecessors, it is much closer in power to the PS3/360 than it is PS4/Durango. IMO, if the Wii-U was a 60w AMD APU with a touch more memory (even sticking with only a few CPU cores and an eDRAM focused GPU/memory system) your suggestion that architectural similarities could make up for power disparities would ring a little more true.

 

[ArchangelWest]

I think part of his point is that Joe Blow isn't even going to see the difference between PS3/360 and the PS4/720. The fact WiiU falls in the middle means they won't see the difference there either.

If you think otherwise, you're overestimating how much the average person knows and what they look for.

I agree completely. We're deep into the gravy stage imo, until there are some major breakthroughs in how we go about 'photorealism'.

PS4/Nextbox games will definitely look 'better' than Wii U games. But in a way that the average gamer either won't notice, or won't care about. The current built in development tools pretty much ensure that all consoles will be capable of putting forth the same exact games, with varying degrees of gravy to go on proverbial mashed potatoes that are already quite tasty on their own. How much will that gravy matter, and how much more will the average consumer be willing to pay for it? - will be the billion dollar question I think.

 

[AzaK]

I think part of his point is that Joe Blow isn't even going to see the difference between PS3/360 and the PS4/720. The fact WiiU falls in the middle means they won't see the difference there either.

If you think otherwise, you're overestimating how much the average person knows and what they look for.

I'm not so sure to be honest. Someone who doesn't really know games at all might struggle but if you've been playing HD games this gen, the increase lighting, particles, animation, facial tech etc will be noticeable.

Whether that's enough to upgrade I have no idea.

 

[ElectricKaibutsu]

I'm not so sure to be honest. Someone who doesn't really know games at all might struggle but if you've been playing HD games this gen, the increase lighting, particles, animation, facial tech etc will be noticeable.

Whether that's enough to upgrade I have no idea.

I don't know. Even some people here on GAF claim Killzone 5 isn't much of a leap. Sure, some may not be entirely truthful but I'm sure there are plenty of gamers who can't, or don't care enough to, tell the difference.

 

[freezamite]

If the Wii U had the horsepower, it would run current gen games with significant improvements like 1080p resolution without much trouble, regardless of architecture.

The WiiU is a 720p console. What this means is that the whole architecture has been designed with that resolution in mind, from buffers to fillrate to everything. Of course you can try to force 1080p and in some titles it will still run great, but 720p is the target resolution of the system.

The Wii U is not some crazy bananas console, optimization will only go so far. Absolutely nothing shown suggests it is dramatically more powerful than the previous gen.

The WiiU has some "crazy bananas" effects not avaliable on PS3/60, starting with an usable tessellation unit or much more RAM. Once games start using this from its roots (displacement mapping) instead of adding it afterwards a la PC, we will see huge graphical improvements.

The next 3D Mario and whatever Retro is working on will probably impress due to art design and not technology. The Wii U is a very nice, efficient system, but ultimately it is just a mere step above the Xbox 360 and much as how that system still got Witcher 2 looking alright and running, Wii U will be getting some big downports and they will look worse for wear.

Nobody is saying that the ports from PS4/Durango on WiiU wont' have to be cut in some ways. What I'm saying is that the difference between WiiU and Xbox360 is far more than the one between GC and the Wii.

This is debatable. The CPU is quite different to a Jaguar and any significantly multi-threaded code designed to take advantage of 8 cores would have to be majorly rewritten to run on it.
There is significantly less RAM and what there is is much slower than even Durango's DDR3 pool. The GPU is significantly weaker and based around a design that is much less efficient for general purpose computing, though this aspect of it may have been tweaked somewhat.

And even having less cores, they have a more similar design philosophy than the ones found on PS3/60.
Of course that there are differences between PS4/Durango and the WiiU, but there are even more differences between the WiiU and PS360. In fact, I think that WiiU is a "less powerful" PS4/Durango while WiiU compared to PS360 is a "completely different beast".

 

[Canon]

I have a question. Is it even possible, in its current state, the Wii U OS uses 1 GB of ram in the background when running games? Because that would be one unoptimized mess. Nevermind the loading times, all you can do is suspend the game and load up web-browser based functions; and Miiverse needs to be re-opened and closed every time. You can't tell me 1 GB of ram isn't enough to save the page I was on.

I like the Wii U but why are last gen systems faster with more functionality?

 

[freezamite]

I have a question. Is it even possible, in its current state, the Wii U OS uses 1 GB of ram in the background when running games? Because that would be one unoptimized mess. Nevermind the loading times, all you can do is suspend the game and load up web-browser based functions; and Miiverse needs to be re-opened and closed every time. You can't tell me 1 GB of ram isn't enough to save the page I was on.

I like the Wii U but why are last gen systems faster with more functionality?

I don't think a whole GB of RAM is being used at this moment, but they simply reserve that for them to do future updates. At this moment, with the majority of games being ports from PS3 and 360 with 1GB of RAM is more than enough to handle that.
In the future, I don't doubt they will release more and more memory to use with games.

 

[Log4Girlz]

The WiiU is a 720p console. What this means is that the whole architecture has been designed with that resolution in mind, from buffers to fillrate to everything. Of course you can try to force 1080p and in some titles it will still run great, but 720p is the target resolution of the system.

Citation needed. I was told to check the 1080 p box. Games generally aiming at 720 p when it can in fact output to 1080 p is worrisome. Though it would also be worrisome to me if PS4 games started coming out of the gate at 720 p as well.

The WiiU has some "crazy bananas" effects not avaliable on PS3/60, starting with an usable tessellation unit or much more RAM. Once games start using this from its roots (displacement mapping) instead of adding it afterwards a la PC, we will see huge graphical improvements.

There is only double the usable ram. I don't see that as a "huge" increase when it comes to consoles.

And where is this usesable tessellation you speak of? Nothing is impressing in the geometry department at the moment. I would imagine at least Nintendo would be utilizing it. If they are, boy is it having a subtle effect. Let's hope on Retro

Nobody is saying that the ports from PS4/Durango on WiiU wont' have to be cut in some ways. What I'm saying is that the difference between WiiU and Xbox360 is far more than the one between GC and the Wii.

I think the Wii U and Xbox 360 are about as close to one another as the Gamecube and Wii. So we'll have to agree to disagree. I mean, there is just nothing showed implying a greater difference.

And even having less cores, they have a more similar design philosophy than the ones found on PS3/60.
Of course that there are differences between PS4/Durango and the WiiU, but there are even more differences between the WiiU and PS360. In fact, I think that WiiU is a "less powerful" PS4/Durango while WiiU compared to PS360 is a "completely different beast".

For the sake of argument let us say that architecturally the Wii U is in fact more similar to say, the Durango. It appears to be so much less powerful on paper that it outputs graphics with minimal graphical increases to the Xbox 360. So the impression left that it is a 7th generation platform in terms of performance. Now the question is, with diminishing returns, will an Xbox 360 with extra RAM and some extra graphical features compare to its competitors despite the power difference? We shall see.

 

[USC-fan]

The WiiU has some "crazy bananas" effects not avaliable on PS3/60, starting with an usable tessellation unit or much more RAM. Once games start using this from its roots (displacement mapping) instead of adding it afterwards a la PC, we will see huge graphical improvements.


Nobody is saying that the ports from PS4/Durango on WiiU wont' have to be cut in some ways. What I'm saying is that the difference between WiiU and Xbox360 is far more than the one between GC and the Wii.


And even having less cores, they have a more similar design philosophy than the ones found on PS3/60.
Of course that there are differences between PS4/Durango and the WiiU, but there are even more differences between the WiiU and PS360. In fact, I think that WiiU is a "less powerful" PS4/Durango while WiiU compared to PS360 is a "completely different beast".

I do not agree with any of these points you are trying to make. Wiiu is an Xbox 360 + in design.

How is there far more difference between wiiu and ps360 than GC to wii.. this seems so very unlikely. Wii was better in every area. Wii had better CPU, gpu, and 4x the usable ram. The wiiu has better gpu, 2x usable ram, and CPU that not as good.

Seem very silly to say there will be more difference wiiu/ps360 than wiiu/ps4 720. Wiiu is a modern low power xbox360+.

 

[wsippel]

when happens when you hit home and enter miiverse to post an in-game screenshot?

Hitting the home button would freeze the system wholesale (including the frame buffer) and load the "OS" in the reserved memory address. The screenshot function would then only need read access to the frozen memory and pull the current frame buffer. The game doesn't need to be running at that time.

Essentially, the Wii U OS (as well as the 3DS OS) seems to use a TSR-like concept to "fake" multitasking: Only a single application is running at a time, and the system uses interrupts to switch between them.

 

[freezamite]

Citation needed. I was told to check the 1080 p box. Games generally aiming at 720 p when it can in fact output to 1080 p is worrisome. Though it would also be worrisome to me if PS4 games started coming out of the gate at 720 p as well.

There is no need for citation, look at the few data we have. The whole design is tailored towards 720p, from the size of the eDram pool to the main memory bandwidth or the fact that the GPU has a "slow" clock of only 550 Mhz but with a much modern feature set.

There is only double the usable ram. I don't see that as a "huge" increase when it comes to consoles.

More than double, both PS3 and 360 also had RAM reserved for their OS (480MB for Games on Xbox 360 and 452MB on PS3 if I remember it ok).
Then there is also another fact, and that is that not every algorithm scales linearly when it comes to memory usage.
Let's say that from the 480MB of RAM available on the Xbox, 100MB are used to store variables and code, and the other 380MB to store graphical data (buffers, models, textures etc.).
With the WiiU you could still have this 100MB of general code, but then you could use up to 924MB for graphical data.

And where is this usesable tessellation you speak of? Nothing is impressing in the geometry department at the moment. I would imagine at least Nintendo would be utilizing it. If they are, boy is it having a subtle effect. Let's hope on Retro

Nintendo themselves said that until November 2012 the development kits weren't finished and that some functions of the console weren't available.
You can't expect to get those effects that haven't appeared in a meaningful way even on PC when there exists GPUs capable of it for years to be at full use on launch ports of the WiiU from other systems.

I think the Wii U and Xbox 360 are about as close to one another as the Gamecube and Wii. So we'll have to agree to disagree. I mean, there is just nothing showed implying a greater difference.

Well, if seeing it in games is the only way for you to believe it, then you will have to wait at least until this E3.

For the sake of argument let us say that architecturally the Wii U is in fact more similar to say, the Durango. It appears to be so much less powerful on paper that it outputs graphics with minimal graphical increases to the Xbox 360. So the impression left that it is a 7th generation platform in terms of performance. Now the question is, with diminishing returns, will an Xbox 360 with extra RAM and some extra graphical features compare to its competitors despite the power difference? We shall see.

You can't judge a system capability with games designed with other architectures on mind.

I do not agree with any of these points you are trying to make. Wiiu is an Xbox 360 + in design.

How is there far more difference between wiiu and ps360 than GC to wii.. this seems so very unlikely. Wii was better in every area. Wii had better CPU, gpu, and 4x the usable ram. The wiiu has better gpu, 2x usable ram, and CPU that not as good.

Seem very silly to say there will be more difference wiiu/ps360 than wiiu/ps4 720. Wiiu is a modern low power xbox360+.

The Wii had nearly the same chips than the GC, a bit overclocked. The difference between WiiU and Xbox 360 is much greater than that.
And about the CPU, I'll explain it again, it's not worse, it's different. In terms of general purpose code, it's a lot better than the Xenon, and of course, a whole generation above Cell (which was only 1/3 of Xenon capability in that regard). Plus it has DSP and an ARM processor to handle things that on the Xbox or the PS3 had an impact on the CPU.

 

[Goodlife]

I like the Wii U but why are last gen systems faster with more functionality?

I'd guess that Nintendo have rushed to OS. They have said the summer patch will add more functionality and the spring patch will speed things up.

Although you could argue that Nintendo should have got it all ready and learnt from others mistakes, neither the 360 or the PS3 had all of it's OS functionality etc from day one, it's all been added over time

 

[M°°nblade]

Well, if seeing it in games is the only way for you to believe it, then you will have to wait at least until this E3.

And what do you suggest we'll see at E3 then?

Based on everything we've seen untill now, whether it's multiplatform or exclusive, released or yet in the pipeline, it sounds very unempirically to me to suddenly expect major improvements that will change how people think of the Wii U hardware capabilities.

 

[Log4Girlz]

There is no need for citation, look at the few data we have. The whole design is tailored towards 720p, from the size of the eDram pool to the main memory bandwidth or the fact that the GPU has a "slow" clock of only 550 Mhz but with a much modern feature set.

This is a nice way of saying "it is a weak GPU"

More than double, both PS3 and 360 also had RAM reserved for their OS (480MB for Games on Xbox 360 and 452MB on PS3 if I remember it ok).
Then there is also another fact, and that is that not every algorithm scales linearly when it comes to memory usage.
Let's say that from the 480MB of RAM available on the Xbox, 100MB are used to store variables and code, and the other 380MB to store graphical data (buffers, models, textures etc.).
With the WiiU you could still have this 100MB of general code, but then you could use up to 924MB for graphical data.

barely more than double usable for games. Anyway you slice it, its not much of an increase after all these years.

Well, if seeing it in games is the only way for you to believe it, then you will have to wait at least until this E3.

Wow, I can't wait. If that's the case, that's months and months of games barely technically more sophisticated than PS3/360

You can't judge a system capability with games designed with other architectures on mind.

The architecture doesn't seem very alien at all. We are seeing the results we are because it simply isn't very powerful and just a step above the Xbox 360. There will be more room to push sure, but not much. You can't expect miracles from 30 odd watts.

The Wii had nearly the same chips than the GC, a bit overclocked. The difference between WiiU and Xbox 360 is much greater than that.
And about the CPU, I'll explain it again, it's not worse, it's different. In terms of general purpose code, it's a lot better than the Xenon, and of course, a whole generation above Cell (which was only 1/3 of Xenon capability in that regard). Plus it has DSP and an ARM processor to handle things that on the Xbox or the PS3 had an impact on the CPU.

I'll leave the responses here. You are clearly set in your mind about the Wii U and I'm taking a more skeptical approach. This machine is a small step above the Xbox 360 anyway you slice it. I would love to be proven wrong but again, I don't expect much from a console with power efficiency as the primary consideration when designing its hardware. 45 watts was the average expected power draw according to Nintendo. You simply cannot squeeze much out of such a system.

 

[The_Lump]

Might have already been asked , but are we any closer to finding out if it will ever be possible to play Wii Games on the gamepad screen? Seeing as Nintendo has now mooted the idea of VC games having this capability, anyone care to hazard a hypothesis on whether it's technically possible?

I hope so, cos for example I'd really like to be re-playing SMG2 right now whilst the TV is in use

 

[Antagon]

Might have already been asked , but are we any closer to finding out if it will ever be possible to play Wii Games on the gamepad screen? Seeing as Nintendo has now mooted the idea of VC games having this capability, anyone care to hazard a hypothesis on whether it's technically possible?

I hope so, cos for example I'd really like to be re-playing SMG2 right now whilst the TV is in use

Probably not. The VC games are going to get a new emulator written specifically for the WiiU, which is why they will work on the gamepad screen. Wii games will always run native.

 

[Vagabundo]

Might have already been asked , but are we any closer to finding out if it will ever be possible to play Wii Games on the gamepad screen? Seeing as Nintendo has now mooted the idea of VC games having this capability, anyone care to hazard a hypothesis on whether it's technically possible?

I hope so, cos for example I'd really like to be re-playing SMG2 right now whilst the TV is in use

It is probably technically possible (might require jumping through a few hoops depending on how the Wii mode is implemented), but I doubt Nintendo will put in the effort.

 

[The_Lump]

Probably not. The VC games are going to get a new emulator written specifically for the WiiU, which is why they will work on the gamepad screen. Wii games will always run native.

It is probably technically possible (might require jumping through a few hoops depending on how the Wii mode is implemented), but I doubt Nintendo will put in the effort.

Anything from the die shots explain definitively why it's not possible though?

 

[Kurt]

Would it be possible to send signals to the wii u controller?
(I know if has his own firmware. ) For instance, streaming pc games to your controller.

The same question for 3DS, would it be possible to create a gateway which allow local multiplay games over the internet? (Where you uses your computer as accesspoint)?

Sorry to go offtopic.

 

[beje]

Would it be possible to send signals to the wii u controller?
(I know if has his own firmware. ) For instance, streaming pc games to your controller.

The same question for 3DS, would it be possible to create a gateway which allow local multiplay games over the internet? (Where you uses your computer as accesspoint)?

Sorry to go offtopic.

Still no idea about the Gamepad, but the 3DS (as well as the DS) uses some kind of proprietary encryption protocol for local multiplayer, which makes impossible to sniff that traffic with a PC, much less create a tunneling tool.

 

[ozfunghi]

The same question for 3DS, would it be possible to create a gateway which allow local multiplay games over the internet? (Where you uses your computer as accesspoint)?

Sorry to go offtopic.

You mean like Monster Hunter 3 for 3DS?

 

[wsippel]

The same question for 3DS, would it be possible to create a gateway which allow local multiplay games over the internet? (Where you uses your computer as accesspoint)?

Sorry to go offtopic.

Someone was working on this a while ago, but ultimately dropped the project because it was too much work and would always be quite limited due to the fact that it only worked on a single Atheros WLAN chipset.

 

[tipoo]

Might have already been asked , but are we any closer to finding out if it will ever be possible to play Wii Games on the gamepad screen? Seeing as Nintendo has now mooted the idea of VC games having this capability, anyone care to hazard a hypothesis on whether it's technically possible?

I hope so, cos for example I'd really like to be re-playing SMG2 right now whilst the TV is in use

In Wii emulation mode it literally becomes just like a Wii, it only recognizes wiimotes, not the gamepad. So no. Although it would likely be technically possible with an update in theory, but whether they will do that is doubtful, for the few games that won't need motion at all.

Anything from the die shots explain definitively why it's not possible though?

From hackers like Marcan we know that in Wii mode it becomes just like a Wii, that's why. It uses just one core with half the cache disabled, etc. And the Wii does not recognize the gamepad at all of course. Like I said in theory they could change it, but there's a reason they stuck to hardware that could easily and perfectly emulate the Wii, they aren't going to put effort into a software emulator.

 

[papercut]

The WiiU is a 720p console. What this means is that the whole architecture has been designed with that resolution in mind, from buffers to fillrate to everything. Of course you can try to force 1080p and in some titles it will still run great, but 720p is the target resolution of the system.

That gamepad screen has to account for something. At 854x480, added to 720p for the main screen, thats around 1.3 million pixels. Granted 1080p is around 2 million pixels, but it's still something. Having to render to that gamepad isn't helping the system any as far as outputtting 1080p to the TV.

 

[Donnie]

Wow, so when does having a OS footprint of 6-9% even come close to 50%? Even if Nintendio cut their OS footprint down by 50%(512mb), which is highly unlikely, they would still only have 1.5gb of RAM and be reserving 25%. It's not nearly the same situation.

Obviously Nintendio had a logical reason to reserve that much RAM. There focus is on that controller, not graphics. It's quite a stretch to think a large portion of that ram will be freed up.

Well no its not the same thing, partially because PS3/360 have had time for their OS to shrink. Still its a fair point he's making. If people want to say "WiiU doesn't have 2GB because 1GB is reserved for the OS" when comparing the system to PS3 or XBox 360 then they have to stop claiming those systems have 512MB of RAM, because they reserve some of that for OS as well.

Also there's connection between having a large percentage of RAM reserved for OS and not being able to free RAM up for games. If anything having such a large amount reserved to begin with gives you more scope to free up memory than if you start with a very small amount reserved. Example:

PS3 started with 23% of its memory reserved for the OS (120MB) and ended up with just 9% (47MB), so they cut the OS size by 61%. 360 started with around 9% (48MB) reserved and ended up with just 6% (32MB) cutting the OS by 32%.

 

[tipoo]

That gamepad screen has to account for something. At 854x480, added to 720p for the main screen, thats around 1.3 million pixels. Granted 1080p is around 2 million pixels, but it's still something. Having to render to that gamepad isn't helping the system any as far as outputtting 1080p to the TV.

There was a developer comment back a while (I think from Crytek? I can't remember) that said they would have been able to do a fair bit more if they could turn off the gamepad screen, but they weren't allowed to. I hope Nintendo does change that requirement, I'd be fine with it being off for games that would rather put that power on the main screen, and that would also extend the gamepad battery life.


Did Nintendo actually ever say they would shrink the OS RAM footprint? Someone here said they would a while ago but had no citation, did they actually say that? Unless they did I see little point in arguing over some hypothetical reduction in the footprint until it is announced and/or happens.

 

[Turrican3]

Might have already been asked , but are we any closer to finding out if it will ever be possible to play Wii Games on the gamepad screen?

I don't see the point in doing that though.

There are lots of games that use advanced wiimote features (motion sensing, IR pointer...) that would require standing relatively far from the display.

That gamepad screen has to account for something. At 854x480, added to 720p for the main screen, thats around 1.3 million pixels. Granted 1080p is around 2 million pixels, but it's still something. Having to render to that gamepad isn't helping the system any as far as outputtting 1080p to the TV.

Here's something I still don't understand about WiiU's inner workings.

I guess extra rendering is a given with games that have different viewports on TV and Gamepad.

But what about games that allow off-screen play like NSMBU, thus offering two apparently identical viewports... what does the HW do?
Is it rendering the same view twice (TV + Gamepad) or is it rendering just once and then simply (?) scaling it to the Gamepad resolution and streaming the signal?

 

[tkscz]

There was a developer comment back a while (I think from Crytek? I can't remember) that said they would have been able to do a fair bit more if they could turn off the gamepad screen, but they weren't allowed to. I hope Nintendo does change that requirement, I'd be fine with it being off for games that would rather put that power on the main screen, and that would also extend the gamepad battery life.

Didn't Nintendo at one point say that devs wouldn't need to use the gamepad's screen?

That gamepad screen has to account for something. At 854x480, added to 720p for the main screen, thats around 1.3 million pixels. Granted 1080p is around 2 million pixels, but it's still something. Having to render to that gamepad isn't helping the system any as far as outputtting 1080p to the TV.

I wouldn't say that with full certainty like you are. While most games will be made in 720p, the system has been shown that it can handle 1080p.

I also have this question, why is it that so many people keep bringing up the fact that no game has been shown with above this gen graphics, as if the WiiU has been out for 2 years? I hate going back to the beginning of the 360, but besides Rare (and even that's pushing it a little) not many games looked much better than what the original Xbox was pushing during it's final years.

Things like that take time. Time to figure out the hardware correctly and use it much better. Hell, devs only got the final kit in fall last year, but most ports were done by then, that would obviously cause problems. Not to mention that they ARE ports, they were made with certain systems in mind, said system's architecture differs to a point where unless a large amount of effort and money was put into said port, it WILL have issues.

 

[Donnie]

There was a developer comment back a while (I think from Crytek? I can't remember) that said they would have been able to do a fair bit more if they could turn off the gamepad screen, but they weren't allowed to. I hope Nintendo does change that requirement, I'd be fine with it being off for games that would rather put that power on the main screen, and that would also extend the gamepad battery life.


Did Nintendo actually ever say they would shrink the OS RAM footprint? Someone here said they would a while ago but had no citation, did they actually say that? Unless they did I see little point in arguing over some hypothetical reduction in the footprint until it is announced and/or happens.

If you can find that comment I'd be interested in reading it. Surely at the very least gamepad resolution and framerate is under their control. So they could simply output a half resolution 2D map at 15fps to the gamepad and processing power requirements would be extremely minimal.

 

[Blades64]

So in the end, even this thread came down to debating back on forth on whether Wii U is really "next gen" (not saying anybody is using this term in particular or that debating is bad in general)...I don't think this is the place for it, but that's just me...

Does anybody have any actual new information on the Die itself? Just checking.

 

[GribbleGrunger]

Man, I always feel so dumb coming into these threads. That's why I never post in them.
Don't know why I keep clicking 'em though. lol

Especially when someone says sorry I'm a newb but then goes on to use language I've never seen before. At that point you think: Well if you're a newb then what does that make me?

 

[holobyte]

Does anybody have any actual new information on the Die itself? Just checking.

I was wondering the same myself. It seems people got busy real fast. Hopefully we can get more info soon.

 

[joesiv]

I don't see the point in doing that though.

There are lots of games that use advanced wiimote features (motion sensing, IR pointer...) that would require standing relatively far from the display.

It's true there are. However, when in Wii Mode, you can also run all your Wii VC titles, and those (obviously) don't require the wii-mote, and would be perfect for remote play.

Having said that, I'm 99% sure that to maintain perfect backwards compatibility with the Wii games (unlike project dolphin), the Wii U hardware toggles to a Wii mode, which includes the CPU, GPU, and memory sub-system.

If you can accept that, then it's clear to see that this style of backwards compatibility would disable such features of the GPU/system to send a video stream to the gamepad. Maybe it's not, but I like to think about it like running your modern GPU on a non-multi monitor OS/Driver, makes no difference if you have the 2nd monitor out port, it won't be doing anything.

I would say Wii games will never be compatible on the WiiU. However, Nintendo "will" migrate VC titles to the WiiU via a gamepad compatible emulator. I'm not sure why they're not just letting you pull over those titles, they could easily do an "update" to their whole VC database to include newer OS art, and manuals, and such.

 

[tipoo]

If you can find that comment I'd be interested in reading it. Surely at the very least gamepad resolution and framerate is under their control. So they could simply output a half resolution 2D map at 15fps to the gamepad and processing power requirements would be extremely minimal.

http://mynintendonews.com/2012/05/12/crytek-had-crysis-3-running-on-wii-u/

That also goes with the news that Crysis 3 was almost ready to go on Wii U but developer relations just weren't there.

 

[phosphor112]

There is an examiner article talking about the Wii U (in response to Forbes' stupid Nintendo = Sega contributor piece) and this guy said this:

The Wii U is slightly underpowered, but not as much as people think. It's about 4 times more powerful than the Xbox 360 and PS3. Yes, the PS4 and Xbox 720 will be maybe 5 times more powerful than the Wii U.

The paragraph continued on, but that just seemed like some bad damage control to me.

Assuming the 360's lower end of FLOP output holds true, we are seeing AT LEAST 300 GFLOPS, and 4 time that is 1.2TFLOPS... which the Wii U is not...

times that by 5 (the multiplier he said the PS4/Durango are over Wii U) and you get a whopping 6 TFLOPS...

Sure... knock that down and account for "efficiencies" of newer hardware, etc, but that is still completely off.

Anyway, is he right to think Wii U is closer to PS4/Durango than Wii was to PS360?

I think he is technically right, but I was wondering, does it matter? The difference still seems very large.

 

[pestul]

WiiU is much closer to 720/PS4 than Wii was with 360/PS3.

 

[Van Owen]

Wii U is close to PS4 and Durango the same way PS3 and 360 are. In other words, not very.