A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.
HELLDIVERS 2 Tech Blog #2 - Opt-in install size reduction beta (from 154Gb to 23Gb)
-
Never forget: In the case of Mario it's a smart way of handling the limited data available, its not a duplicate texture like Helldivers, its the same cloud copy pasted just with a different color. From what I understand Helldivers had the same files duplicated multiple times so that HDD could find them easily (somehow)
-
In the case of Mario it's a smart way of handling the limited data available, its not a duplicate texture like Helldivers, its the same cloud copy pasted just with a different color. From what I understand Helldivers had the same files duplicated multiple times so that HDD could find them easily (somehow)
-
The problem I see with it is that we've gone the full circle. First games loaded slow on HDDs, but SSDs solved it. Then, seeing how SSDs are faster, game developers decided they could fit more read/write operations. Now games load slow on SSDs.Nah, in this case the circle is the devs wanting to optimize for HDDs. Which made the game bigger with duplicated files. Which forced players to install the game in HDDs since they lacked space on SSD. Having the choice for both will offer the best for each case.
-
Nah, in this case the circle is the devs wanting to optimize for HDDs. Which made the game bigger with duplicated files. Which forced players to install the game in HDDs since they lacked space on SSD. Having the choice for both will offer the best for each case.
-
Now replace a badly modified version of FSR 1 with support for FSR 3.x, 4.x and DLSS, as we are in 2025 please.
-
Don't need to be a racist piece of shit and attack people mate. Even if we throw back and look to older tech that would be available in a poor African country you can find 5+ terabytes of storage for less than 50 bucks USD with shipping to Africa. Your looking at 7200 rpm drives but storage space is *not* expensive even in the poorest country as long as you don't demand the cutting edge. Load times will be a problem but if your poor you can still easily find second hand storage in large quantities for cheap. Iv been poor as fucking dirt. It sucks but as the saying goes, you can be poor or stupid. You shouldn't be both. And as long as you're smart about it, you can have pretty decently nice things for really really cheap. It's just not going to be new and it's going to be real hard to find but it's doable. So again, that take isn't remotely privileged. It's poorly stated sure, but the point being made is accurate. Your take on the other hand is fucking disgusting and you should sit down and shut up.I’m also white and have also technically benefited from colonialism, lol. The problem with yours and [@fishos@lemmy.world](https://lemmy.world/u/fishos) line of thinking is that you are looking at that 90USD / 30USD through the lens of your own earning and buying power. For someone in your hypothetical “poor African country”, that may well be days or weeks of income. Both of you seem to be having a strong reaction to that statement, I get the impression I’ve struck a nerve and that you might be facing (and rejecting) an inconvenient truth. Ultimately, that doesn’t matter - y’all in here simping for corps by excusing 100GB of inefficiency and it’s not a pretty look.
-
*We have followed through on our plans and made small reductions in the PC installation size over the last few patches while still adding new content. While this was a good start, our short term fixes have not been enough to keep up with all of the new content in the latest patch. The longer term goal has always been to bring the PC installation size much closer in line with the console versions. We are happy to report that, thanks to our partners at Nixxes, we have reached that goal much sooner than expected._ _By completely de-duplicating our data, we were able to reduce the PC installation size from ~154GB to ~23GB, for a total saving of ~131GB (~85%). We have completed several rounds of internal QA and are ready to roll this out to early adopters as a public technical beta. Our testing shows that for the small percentage of players still using mechanical hard disk drives, mission loading times have only increased by a few seconds in the worst cases. This is live NOW!*_
-
*We have followed through on our plans and made small reductions in the PC installation size over the last few patches while still adding new content. While this was a good start, our short term fixes have not been enough to keep up with all of the new content in the latest patch. The longer term goal has always been to bring the PC installation size much closer in line with the console versions. We are happy to report that, thanks to our partners at Nixxes, we have reached that goal much sooner than expected._ _By completely de-duplicating our data, we were able to reduce the PC installation size from ~154GB to ~23GB, for a total saving of ~131GB (~85%). We have completed several rounds of internal QA and are ready to roll this out to early adopters as a public technical beta. Our testing shows that for the small percentage of players still using mechanical hard disk drives, mission loading times have only increased by a few seconds in the worst cases. This is live NOW!*_
-
It's 2025. If all you have is a 400GB hd, that's a you problem. Sure, that was a big number over a decade ago, but that number is nothing now. Same energy as complaining that it takes too many floppy drives to store your files. Like you think it makes it sound like a huge number when you phrase it as 30% and all it shows is you have an outdated rig and are mad that progress moved on without you.Funny how you say that when the extra space was used specifically to improve the experience for people still using HDDs. It's 2025, no one using an HDD should be complaining about load times.
-
You're way too rude for somebody this unaware of the topic at hand. FSR and DLSS are at their core temporal upscalers. They take motion vectors, subpixel samples from jittering objects, and a low resolution scene, and using shaders for FSR or AI models for DLSS, interpolate the existing pixels to fill the entire target resolution. That's it. This is **not** frame generation, and they don't *use* anything, whatever you meant by that. You can then, on *top of* the regular upscaling, enable frame generation to enable an entirely different path that holds frames in the buffer and creates intermediary frames. Those are the fake frames you complained about. One can use both FSR and DLSS without no frame generation whatsoever, and both were originally created without any type of frame generation to begin with. At the present, Helldivers **already uses FSR** without frame generation - just for upscaling - but it's FSR, a matrix based spatial scalar that only looks at one central pixel and tries to apply weights to determine how to fill in the neighbors. This looks horrendous. FSR 2.x and onwards, and DLSS, use the full temporal mechanism I described. That's "what the heck" I think DLSS does.
-
And it turned out that the slower load on HDD wasn't nearly as bad as they thought it would be.I'm not very impressed that they used an optimization that blew up the game size 5x that they knew would only benefit a subset of users without even doing any profiling on it until 2 years after release. Good that they eventually revisited it, but someone fucked up making that decision in the first place.
-
You're way too rude for somebody this unaware of the topic at hand. FSR and DLSS are at their core temporal upscalers. They take motion vectors, subpixel samples from jittering objects, and a low resolution scene, and using shaders for FSR or AI models for DLSS, interpolate the existing pixels to fill the entire target resolution. That's it. This is **not** frame generation, and they don't *use* anything, whatever you meant by that. You can then, on *top of* the regular upscaling, enable frame generation to enable an entirely different path that holds frames in the buffer and creates intermediary frames. Those are the fake frames you complained about. One can use both FSR and DLSS without no frame generation whatsoever, and both were originally created without any type of frame generation to begin with. At the present, Helldivers **already uses FSR** without frame generation - just for upscaling - but it's FSR, a matrix based spatial scalar that only looks at one central pixel and tries to apply weights to determine how to fill in the neighbors. This looks horrendous. FSR 2.x and onwards, and DLSS, use the full temporal mechanism I described. That's "what the heck" I think DLSS does.
-
-
frankly it seems a bit late in the game to start worrying about low level simple optimization like this. Perhaps they are upset that they had to endure bloated installs for so long? which seems reasonable considering the enormously ridiculous 145gb....
-
Ahh yes, the same approach I have to script development: multiple files, in different places, for different platforms, all with the same code!resource hell. which version of ChromeShaderFinalV7 was it, the one that says FINALFINALChromeShaderFinalv7 or the one that says "IGNORE FINAL FINAL USE THIS ONE INSTEAD V7"?
-
I know they are. For something like database work, they're amazing. Now go an look at some game load time benchmarks. Because I can guarantee you they're *nowhere near* that much faster for 99% of games. Once you get off spinning rust, CPU speed remains the number one factor in load times. Because nearly everything is compressed and has to be unpacked and processed into the right formats by the system before it can be used. Picking whatever comes up at the top from googling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeS88O4rWB8 Just scanning though that video I can see the biggest difference is like a second. DirectStorage was supposed to be able to make game loading faster on faster SSDs, but as far as I can see that hasn't really happened. The PS5 does actually get noticeably slower if you cobble a slower drive into it, although not really enough to break anything. The decompression units in that hardware are actually pretty good, and can keep up with the faster SSDs.I've looked, what you say is mostly accurate but getting a bit dated - the NVME performance gap with SATA SSDs keeps widening especially with DirectStorage games (eg Spider Man 2 - triple the load speed vs SATA). This gap will continue to widen as devs focus performance improvements on the tech available to them, and as the price difference between SATA SSDs and NVME is diminishing rapidly (only a 5% difference in common mid tier models now) there is very little reason to recommend SATA over NVMe for cost reasons - which was kinda the focus of this thread. I'd not advise anyone today to buy a SATA SSD over NVMe for gaming unless the cost saving was large. First article I could find from a website I recognised (there are so many SEO-stuffing AI-generated trash sites today to wade through its truly frustrating) - https://www.techspot.com/article/3023-ssd-gaming-comparison-load-times/ The performance improvements outside of load times, eg *during gaming* are significant but harder to benchmark, because pop-in of assets during gameplay is not something we can currently easily measure, it's something you need to compare side by side videos of and there are many that show significant stuttering and pop-in for DirectStorage games like Ratchet and Clank. Another analysis with some videos double, triple or longer wait times in-games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl8wXT8F3W4
