Our own console
by The Trusted One · in General Discussion · 08/09/2006 (8:39 pm) · 36 replies
Anyone else think that GG and the community should build its own console??
#23
Assuming a Torque console were to experience something similar, how many of us are really interested in developing our games so that only other developers could play them?
08/13/2006 (10:35 am)
Yes, but the GP2X has a very different market... the Korean market. Outside of Korea, the only folks that bought the original GamePark machine were hobbyists who wanted to develop for it. I haven't seen the exact figures for the GP2X recently, but the last time I checked the non-Korean market was very similar to what it was for the original.Assuming a Torque console were to experience something similar, how many of us are really interested in developing our games so that only other developers could play them?
#24
08/15/2006 (2:31 pm)
WE need to lobby TV manufactures to create a TV with nVidia graphic chips in them etc 
#25
No, actually. We don't. A TV is a display device, that's it. There's already enough problems with color balance across TVs as it stands. A graphics chip would imply that further funtionality should be exposed. This would mean that a further consideration would need to be made when making console games...what kind of video chip it had in it. What version, etc.
What a thread.
08/15/2006 (11:42 pm)
???No, actually. We don't. A TV is a display device, that's it. There's already enough problems with color balance across TVs as it stands. A graphics chip would imply that further funtionality should be exposed. This would mean that a further consideration would need to be made when making console games...what kind of video chip it had in it. What version, etc.
What a thread.
#26
What I was getting at is part of a console device contained in a TV as a standard. There are many similarities between whats needed to make a picture in a TV and your standard graphics chips. A TV just uses 720 by 576 pixels, HDTV is bigger. A graphics chip manufacturer could easely produce a single standard chip to cover both markets at a cost saving to the consumer and console manufacturers.
08/16/2006 (1:25 am)
Actually Pat, as a former electronics engineer in the broadcast industry, I know what a TV is and how it works. What I was getting at is part of a console device contained in a TV as a standard. There are many similarities between whats needed to make a picture in a TV and your standard graphics chips. A TV just uses 720 by 576 pixels, HDTV is bigger. A graphics chip manufacturer could easely produce a single standard chip to cover both markets at a cost saving to the consumer and console manufacturers.
#27
What you're basically saying is that everytime a new console comes out, you need to replace your TV as well. I can't see the point. It also means that those people not interested in running consoles are having to fork out for extra electronics in their TVs that they don't need and will never make use of.
08/16/2006 (2:23 am)
But would it make any difference really? Would my 5 year old TV (with let's say the equivalent of a GF3 graphics card built in) be enough to run an XBOX-360 that shipped without a graphics chipset?What you're basically saying is that everytime a new console comes out, you need to replace your TV as well. I can't see the point. It also means that those people not interested in running consoles are having to fork out for extra electronics in their TVs that they don't need and will never make use of.
#28
That's not quite true. Although you may have been implying and are already aware of the following I thought I'd post it for the benifit of other readers.
The signal required to generate a picture on a TV via for example composite, is a whole lot different to that used to generate a VGA signal such as on a monitor. Even if you ignore the additional complexity of modulating the colour burst ontop of the horizontal carrier wave.
A PAL TV has a vertical resolution of 575 scanlines (visible) displayed 287.5 on one interlaced field and then 287.5 on the second. Really its 312.5 lines including active, overscan and vsync.
However, the TV does not really have a Horizontal resolution. Instead this is determined by the bandwidth available which gives a range of 320-720 depending upon the TV.
Given a bandwidth of 5.5MHz on a PAL TV means you can change the colour every 181ns.
Since the time available during which you can transmit data to the TV for each horizontal line is 53.1us that gives just enough time to be able to support approximatly 290 pixels. Of course this assumes you change the colour on every pixel, if you don't do that you can support a higher apparent pixel count.
Anyhow, if there was a Graphics Chip inside the TV, what would it be responsible for? It couldn't be things like hardware rendering because then you limit every console to the same graphics chip, people with older TV's would be stuck with their 16meg cards, those with newer TV's might have better. But that kind of defeats the purpose if you have to "upgrade" your display device in order to play recent console. Plus this would increase the cost of a TV especially with a high end card, which isn't going to go down well with people who don't really use consoles
Then you turn what is a stable hardware target of a given console for developers into the situation we have with PC's where you've no idea if the graphics card the user has is going to support the feature set you're after. This would turn the, "buy any XBox360 game for your 360 and know it will work" practice into, "Buy this XBox360 title, but you TV must support XYZ with a XYZ amount of memory..." which imo would be a step backwards.
However, something tells me that isn't what you meant, so before everyone leaps to their own interpretation of your post, could you clarify what purpose you would intend the graphics chip inside a TV have?
08/16/2006 (5:09 am)
Quote:A TV just uses 720 by 576 pixels
That's not quite true. Although you may have been implying and are already aware of the following I thought I'd post it for the benifit of other readers.
The signal required to generate a picture on a TV via for example composite, is a whole lot different to that used to generate a VGA signal such as on a monitor. Even if you ignore the additional complexity of modulating the colour burst ontop of the horizontal carrier wave.
A PAL TV has a vertical resolution of 575 scanlines (visible) displayed 287.5 on one interlaced field and then 287.5 on the second. Really its 312.5 lines including active, overscan and vsync.
However, the TV does not really have a Horizontal resolution. Instead this is determined by the bandwidth available which gives a range of 320-720 depending upon the TV.
Given a bandwidth of 5.5MHz on a PAL TV means you can change the colour every 181ns.
1 / 5.5MHz = 1.81x10-7
Since the time available during which you can transmit data to the TV for each horizontal line is 53.1us that gives just enough time to be able to support approximatly 290 pixels. Of course this assumes you change the colour on every pixel, if you don't do that you can support a higher apparent pixel count.
Anyhow, if there was a Graphics Chip inside the TV, what would it be responsible for? It couldn't be things like hardware rendering because then you limit every console to the same graphics chip, people with older TV's would be stuck with their 16meg cards, those with newer TV's might have better. But that kind of defeats the purpose if you have to "upgrade" your display device in order to play recent console. Plus this would increase the cost of a TV especially with a high end card, which isn't going to go down well with people who don't really use consoles
Then you turn what is a stable hardware target of a given console for developers into the situation we have with PC's where you've no idea if the graphics card the user has is going to support the feature set you're after. This would turn the, "buy any XBox360 game for your 360 and know it will work" practice into, "Buy this XBox360 title, but you TV must support XYZ with a XYZ amount of memory..." which imo would be a step backwards.
However, something tells me that isn't what you meant, so before everyone leaps to their own interpretation of your post, could you clarify what purpose you would intend the graphics chip inside a TV have?
#29
Digital TV is here and is getting feature rich fast. You can already freeze frame a picture and do other fancy things never thought possible on old tech TV's. If features are combined on a single chip then you are not adding electronics, you are saving manufacturing costs. Why assume you have to throw out a TV when you can replace a chip or a card, just like you do in your PC.
Sure it's not going to happen today or tomorrrow, but ten-twenty years from now your next gen digital TV might be picking up mega bandwith wireless internet in place of a TV signal and TV would be a thing of the past, having been replaced by real-time online media and game content. You still see no place for a graphics chip in there?
08/16/2006 (5:55 am)
Geez, why is it just the nay-sayers who do all the talking here. You should put in as much effort into seeing how it COULD be done rather than stick with a "cant do" approach. It's no supprise there's so few games completed by this community. (let the flames begin)Digital TV is here and is getting feature rich fast. You can already freeze frame a picture and do other fancy things never thought possible on old tech TV's. If features are combined on a single chip then you are not adding electronics, you are saving manufacturing costs. Why assume you have to throw out a TV when you can replace a chip or a card, just like you do in your PC.
Sure it's not going to happen today or tomorrrow, but ten-twenty years from now your next gen digital TV might be picking up mega bandwith wireless internet in place of a TV signal and TV would be a thing of the past, having been replaced by real-time online media and game content. You still see no place for a graphics chip in there?
#30
Not a flame, just a FYI: theres plenty of games being made with torque tech. GG just dont publish them.
08/16/2006 (6:08 am)
Quote:It's no supprise there's so few games completed by this community. (let the flames begin)
Not a flame, just a FYI: theres plenty of games being made with torque tech. GG just dont publish them.
#31
Then the TV is just left to display the pretty pictures and the add-in card/set top box/games console is actually doing the work of rendering the image.
Next thing you know, the TV has a GPU. Then it needs some storage. Maybe an input device more capable than a remote. Why not just save the grief and hook up a PC to your large display? Look at that - graphics, storage, input, network connectivity - all taken care of.
And the cost is transferred to you, because you want to do that, and not to me because I don't.
I'm all for convergence, but only when it makes sense.
08/16/2006 (6:08 am)
Even in 10 or 20 years time, I still can't it happening. If your TV were picking up wireless Internet (and presumably wireless IPTV) you still need content providers. The content providers will encrpyt their signals just like they do now. You'll need to have a set top box or a card that plugs into your TV in order to decrypt the signals. If you're going to have a fancy pants graphics chip, put it there, and not in the TV itself.Then the TV is just left to display the pretty pictures and the add-in card/set top box/games console is actually doing the work of rendering the image.
Next thing you know, the TV has a GPU. Then it needs some storage. Maybe an input device more capable than a remote. Why not just save the grief and hook up a PC to your large display? Look at that - graphics, storage, input, network connectivity - all taken care of.
And the cost is transferred to you, because you want to do that, and not to me because I don't.
I'm all for convergence, but only when it makes sense.
#32
I agree 100%. You never know what could come of suchy a system, if properly done.
On a side note, didn't someone come up with a Torque arcade system?
08/16/2006 (7:35 am)
Quote:Geez, why is it just the nay-sayers who do all the talking here.
I agree 100%. You never know what could come of suchy a system, if properly done.
On a side note, didn't someone come up with a Torque arcade system?
#33
However, saying that if you do not have the modey to develop a console system properly you will suffer more than likely the same fate as say 3do.
But i would be all for it if say a serious group could get togethor and develop the idea.
08/16/2006 (8:19 am)
I will try and not be too negative here, because to tell you the truth i love the idea of making our own 'Torque' base Console Platform. The idea of banging heads with MS, Sony, and Nintendo is an exciting thought. However, saying that if you do not have the modey to develop a console system properly you will suffer more than likely the same fate as say 3do.
But i would be all for it if say a serious group could get togethor and develop the idea.
#34
Too, it didn't help that the 3DO system cost $699.99. Hey, does that remind you of a up and coming next-gen system? Hmm...
08/16/2006 (8:52 am)
"will suffer more than likely the same fate as say 3do. "Too, it didn't help that the 3DO system cost $699.99. Hey, does that remind you of a up and coming next-gen system? Hmm...
#35
Stuff you plug in:
The speed of AGP 8x is ~2GB/sec
PCIe is ~4GB/sec combined
Stuff with cables:
SATA is ~300MB/sec
Firewire 786.432 Mbits/sec
USB 2.0 480 Mbits/sec
We've got a long way to go
08/16/2006 (9:37 am)
I can already see Monster Cable charging $500 for the cable that would be needed to connect stuff to the video card in the TV of the future.Stuff you plug in:
The speed of AGP 8x is ~2GB/sec
PCIe is ~4GB/sec combined
Stuff with cables:
SATA is ~300MB/sec
Firewire 786.432 Mbits/sec
USB 2.0 480 Mbits/sec
We've got a long way to go
#36
Now days, you can set up a deciently powered "game rig" for under $500, hell, you can even buy new laptops at that price.
08/16/2006 (10:51 am)
To be on topic, i think we already have our own console, it's the PC.Now days, you can set up a deciently powered "game rig" for under $500, hell, you can even buy new laptops at that price.
Torque 3D Owner Eric Forhan