pouët.net

Would be a nice thing if the coder writes down:
- Minimum CPU/RAM/DX/OS
- Optimum CPU/RAM/DX/OS

Doc

1. too lazy
2. hurry for deadline
3. don't know about requirements
4. They are lamers.

When you see how Windows demogroups in 2018 only accept video captures of their demos without any frame drops, they don't care much about the realtime rendering experience for the average user at home anymore, who doesnt have a $3000 system running, when developing their demos.

How is a coder supposed to know all that before the prod has been released? :) Myself, it's like, I code on some low-to-mediocre Intel + Nvidia box that runs Windows something, and then the compo machine has something hopefully better than that, and I upload a kkaptured version to Youtube, which is what everyone actually watches. In the nfo file, I write "use nvidia". If someone actually runs it and it doesn't work, they might write a comment on the prod page, saying that it didn't work on such-and-such configuration.

@Salinga: well if its not realtime anymore(bc video capture) it may aswell be ideal scenario, nobody wants to see how some low/mid tier system chugs along on demo/intro X.

....and this is why PC stuff becomes more and more non interesting =P

a lot of (newer) released prods don't even have a nfo at all no matter the platform.

Some coders always write these things. However, there is zero peer pressure for this to happen and most people don't seem to care anyway. In other words, if people cared about this, asked and commented about it, things would have changed fast.

used to be a thing
readme.txt
<prodtitle>.nfo
file_id.diz
and after y2k: scene.org

I'm not gonna let this one slide because this is either insulting or a result of a warped reality, or both.

First off, if you can't produce a video without framedrops, don't do it at all. When rendering in realtime the PC is a huge factor as to how the frames appear, when replaying a video we're talking about discreet images that are stored in sequence - if you create a capture with frame drops, that creates an experience that is damaged for _everyone_ because that dropped frame cannot be recreated, and demogroups who want to provide a 60+ fps experience are rightfully infuriated. When you run realtime, you do it with the understanding that you want the framerate be part of your judgement; when you run a video, anything other than perfectly smooth framerate will be deemed unacceptable.

Second, we spend a considerable amount of time on our captures (e.g. in CNS we do 4k60fps with tool-cooked frames and source audio, which I think is common for others as well), so when someone creates a bad capture, it not only becomes error prone in terms of the audience finding that first instead of our better one, it's also utterly pointless. Time after time we run into captures that are blurry, low res, crap framerate, have mono audio, or someone forgot the compressor on in their sound card settings and everything is squashed. It's sad because there's nothing we can do about it.

Third, aside from the recent path tracing stuff, most of the things I run on my system do at least 30 frames on a GPU that was $300 (not $3000) and a CPU that's by my count 7 years old. Your $3000 figure is out of thin air with a faint smell of bullshit - anyone who goes to /r/pcmasterrace or LogicalIncrements can put together a PC for ~$1000 that can run most stuff 60fps and most of the highest end stuff at 30.

Just to make the point of how much effort goes into a proper dump a bit clearer: the proper 4k@60FPS dump of When Silence Dims The Stars Above took around 16 hours to render.

Speaking for myself:
I have a mediocre PC for 2018 and develop on it, i try to make it realtime in a way that it runs minimum 30fps on my rig, trying to keep it 45-50+ though. ;) Running this on a way better Compo-PC (comparable to a recent 2018-Gamer-PC normally) yields 60fps then in most cases.

So, if you watch a new PC-Demo, simply assume it will run well on recent hardware at that point of time! There are some Demos that won´t, though! ;) *Fairlight*

NVidia-only is another problem, but normally every coder nowadays knows what to do to make it run on AMD...just that forgetting about it anywhere in your code and not being able to test it (developed at home/deadline kicked in/etc) yields non-working prods again and again! Well, most of the times there will be a fixed final at some point of time, though.

Missing NFOs are most likely thanx to Deadlines in most cases!
(I even often choose a name like 2 minutes before deadline, haha! There´s just not enuff time to Demo since we are no kids anymore!)

And yes, most of that time was taken up by the png compression since Zoom doesn't have enough room on his HDD to have the full raw dump there all at the same time.

A lot of newer prods have an nfo file bigger than the production itself. 😉

haha, true for <=4k :D

on the other hand, it's a bit hard to estimate system requirements for your prod, in particular if you're doing you prod with <10fps in small window :)

that's a little unfair I think.. the top pc demos are becoming more and more about the concept / design, which (to me at least) is way more interesting than purely technical achievements.

I mean... Coronoid.. Intrinsic Gravity.. all of the top 64k's in recent years

Hardy: you're flat out wrong, because a lot of effort and engineering goes into making productions such as wander run at a solid smooth framerate on a high end pc card (1080ti) at target resolution. and it does.
as im sure you know, it's pretty easy to make something basic run on low end hardware. but when you try and do something that's actually technically cool it's a different ball game.



Salinga: you're either flat out wrong, or have a very short memory.
Surely you remember all the dos demos in the mid-90s that required the most bleeding edge CPU and loads of memory? it has always been this way. if anything it's now a lot better - because you only need to upgrade your GPU every 1-2 years to keep on the leading edge and run everything perfectly, not your whole system.

it's the definition of the "average user" that has stretched over the last 20 years. back in 1996 you would never dare to be so stupid as to assume that your 3 year old PC with mid-range components could run the latest and greatest PC demos (and everyone owned a desktop). nowadays people seem to expect to run the latest pc demo on a bootcamped macbook pro running on battery at retina resolution and wonder why it isn't smooth. the problem is with the viewers, not the makers of the demos.



for me, a big part of the whole enjoyment of making demos is to try and do something technically new & interesting, to try and stretch what has been done in real-time, but do something creative with it. to give you something you haven't seen before. this has always been the goal of the demoscene at the top end on the leading hardware of the time (be it on amiga, dos, or today's GPUs). when this stops being the case - when people are happy with comfortable mediocrity, even if it runs on a mid-range PC - that is the day things stop being interesting.

at least when we are doing this we do it on a (high end) consumer pc, unlike those in the commercial space using $60,000 hardware you can't even buy yet.

I see Gloom's demoscene pyramid hovering about this thread the whole time. Those evil demomakers not caring about the lowly demo consumers!

What smash said.

what fizzer said that smash said!

I agree with alkama.

I think xTr1m is quite right, but I tend more to alkamas thoughts here ;)

I only have couple of kinda-modern computers. How am I supposed to know the specifications based on two sample sizes. With pressing deadlines I often have chance to run the demo only on one of them at 5-10 fps on 3 years old hardware, then I just pray and hope that the compo machine runs it at +23fps.

I've pretty much never written the specs anywhere simply because I have no idea what the minimum specs are. I could write what I've run it on, but most likely most of my stuff runs on much slower hardware too..