Bungie explains Halo 3 HDD issue Comments by Robert Purchese

Both the reason behind the increased loading times and Bungie's reaction to it are understandable IMO. They optimized their game according to the governing-at-the-time specification. There really is no reason for them to go back to the drawing board and fix a non-issue, which can easily be avoided simply by not installing the game in the first place.

Sounds fair enough.

"Both the reason behind the increased loading times and Bungie's reaction to it are understandable IMO. They optimized their game according to the governing-at-the-time specification. There really is no reason for them to go back to the drawing board and fix a non-issue, which can easily be avoided simply by not installing the game in the first place."

While I completely agree, I also feel the need to point out that such a response is far too sensible for the comments section.

What Bungie said is very understandable. As JonFE said it was basically doing best they can with the resources they had at the time, it was a nifty trick to do caching and programmed around that. Ah well now i know doesnt need to install Halo 3 onto my 120gb hdd but is there any other games that would be worse off performance wise (even if marginal) installed as opposed to playing off the disk?

Nevermind optimising Halo 3 so it can run installed from the HDD faster... how about optimising it so the resolution and image quality are current generation standards, i.e. 720p with 2X AA miminum. :P

@Darren

You mean porting it to the PC?

@Evolution - Well that would work, yeah! :D

"And because Halo 3 launched after the HDD option was announced"

Before, surely?

"Less time, incidentally, than another device - the DVD drive - reading the files while the hard drive copies them."

More time, surely?

@Darren

720p with 2xAA, like all the other console FPS that are out there you mean?

720p is not this generations standard for resolution I'm afraid.

*Moral Outrage*

Ok, thread is back on track now.

@neilka: I was thinking those same thoughts.

@JonFE: I agree with IMO - your response is far too sensible for the comments section. Correct, though.

On the whole I'm very glad to have the install feature. Playing Fable 2 is a much nicer experience without the drive chuntering away all the time. Although ultimately it would have been better to have a quieter drive, perhaps...

Here's a really silly idea for a super-expensive version of the console: add another 9GB of memory and use it as a direct-mapped cache to the DVD content, so you only ever have to read each byte once. Problem solved!

I put up with the increased times for the bloomin' peace and quiet it gets me.

Surely a little bit of "yes" or "no" code would do the trick.

I suspect this is like Bungie's 4 player coop downer, when it might not work then bam, tadaa!

Hopefully Recon has the fix then since it is later and also has every multiplayer map which I think is a reason they might just skip it with Halo 3.

I was wondering what was going on here, I read through the first few comments and there was not even a hint of a misplaced "z" or mispelt word. I see that things didn't take long to return to normal.

@IMO & Mawich:

Thank you! Is being "far too sensible for the comments section" a good or a bad thing though?

:-)

I copied Halo 3 onto the HDD last night... and then I got the message when I booted it up.

I was so angry that I punched my dog in the face. IN THE FACE

See what Bungie make me do?

More on this here:

http://www.digitalfoundry.org/blog/?p=227

There must already be a bit of code that checks if a HDD is connected or not so it knows if it can cache the maps. It cant be hard to patch as its just replicating what happens on an arcade console surely?

Anyway if they cant be bothered then thats fine as well - the game still works. I think I would still go for the slower but quieter install.

Wonder if thats similar to the reason crackdown doesn't work (or so I hear)

"One of our programmers wrote some code to install a bit of the game on the HDD if it was available." Fucking hell, this is high tech stuff and their reasons are understandable. They used the HDD to install a bit of the game from the DVD, so naturally it's really fucking hard to just install the whole thing to the HDD because.....?

I thought that Microsoft originally said that you must not use the hard disk for caching data so that all games would play on the Core and Premium versions of the 360. Does this mean that Halo 3 won't play on the Core or Arcade version of the 360?

"I thought that Microsoft originally said that you must not use the hard disk for caching data so that all games would play on the Core and Premium versions of the 360"

No quite the opposite. MS encourages devs to use the HDD when it is there, but MS doesn't want to have games that require the HDD.

Halo 3 works on any 360. It will use the HDD for caching if it is present. MS never said games cannot use the HDD, it said they cannot RELY on the HDD being there.

The question is if games can easily detect if they're installed on the HD or not. Remember that "installing" here means storing a DVD image on the HD, so technically, the game won't know if it's launched from the real disc or from the image.

(feels like he needs to take this thread to the same "level" as others")

Bah.. You're all fanboyz.. micro$oft suxorz! This is shit! Another example of micro$oft just going after money!

Micro$oft $ux!

360Lol

That's the spirit Smelly! Do you see how fun it is?....
Naaaa, because it's only amusing when a diehard format defender goes freakin' mental over someone else's throwaway jokey comment.

So if Halo 3 doesn't cache to the HDD on an Xbox 360 without an HDD (for obvious reasons!), does that mean it initially loads the game much faster?

I mean the current process with an HDD is to copy the data from the DVD to the HDD then load the data from the HDD? If there is no HDD then the game presumably just loads from the disc and therefore start quicker. You catch my drift? ;)

COD: World at War REQUIRES a hard drive for 360.. Wonder is M$ is pissed at them lol.

^^^

I won't even bother to look it up, I'm going to take a chance and say you are completely, utterly wrong about that.

Someone please let me know if I'm wrong...

@Darren: Nope.

If you dont have a Hdisk.. then halo 3 will just run straight from cd.. which will be slooooow.

if you have a hdisk, halo 3 will copy various bits of itself to the harddisk (in effect installing itself), which will be slow.. but subsequent file accesses will be fast. (i.e. in effect it installs itself!)

If you install to the harddisk, then halo3 will STILL copy bits of itself to the harddisk (the slow bit).. However copying files from one part of the same storage device to another part of the same storage device is slower than a straight copy from one medium to another. Think about it.. if i'm copying from one disc to another, then i can pretty much do it sequentially.. if i'm doing it on the same medium - it'd mean reading a part, going to where it should end up - copying it over, going back to read another part, etc etc

I am curious though. I assuming the game works with no HDD connected, they could surely make a patch to 'trick' the game into thinking no HDD is connected, thus avoid the cashing? I'm sure it's more complicated than that, and if it's merely increased loading time it's probably not worth it, just something that came to mind.

I am curious though. I assuming the game works with no HDD connected, they could surely make a patch to 'trick' the game into thinking no HDD is connected, thus avoid the cashing? I'm sure it's more complicated than that, and if it's merely increased loading time it's probably not worth it, just something that came to mind.

That's exactly what I was thinking. If it runs without the HDD then all they have to do is bypass the code that checks for the HDD then it could safely be copied onto the HDD and run from there. It would then think it was running on a Core or Arcade but with HDD access speed.

Ok Oblivion and Fallout 3 also use the HDD cache and they run better after being installed.

They probably could do a patch to do that yes.

HOWEVER.. it wont come "free" someone would have to code it, they'd have to detect if you're somehow running from harddisk (may not be possible), someone would have to test it, the patch will have to be put up online. All that costs wonga.

And bungie arent even part of msoft any more .. so may not even be possible there either..

They could simplify it i s'pose - and make it turn off hd-caching all the time.. But then you'd have to explain to "numptys" not to download it unless they've installed it...

"Ok Oblivion and Fallout 3 also use the HDD cache and they run better after being installed. "

I'm sure you know all about it.. why dont you get on the phone - offer to code it for them?

Every game uses HDD cache. H3 just does it a bit different.

No, I'm sorry but I think that's lame and a poor excuse. What it basically boils down to "can't be arsed".

So... Microsoft spoil Bungie's party at E3. Halo series is causing some awkwardness on teh internets for Microsoft (storm in a teacup really). Bungie thinks about a patch.........

......still thinking.....


.....maybe we'll think some more.....

schadenfreude?

@Kittinger: PRogrammer are we? Understand the problems involved do you?

Too costly? Yeah, I'm sure Bungie are short of a few quid after the Halo games sold so few copies.

Er...

To be honest, I think this is a bit of a cop-out on Bungies part.

At present, their code (basically) goes:

IF hardDrivePresent=true THEN cacheDataToDrive

How hard would it be for them to adjust this to be:

IF hardDrivePresent=true AND installedToHardDrive=false THEN cacheDataToDrive

Answer? Not particularly hard at all. It's just a lazy excuse on their behalf.

And before anyone says its, yes, I am a programmer. Not a games programmer I admit, but there's nothing too advanced about what I've just written that any programmer wouldn't be able to understand it.

If it was that easy, I'm sure they would knock out a 1mb patch.

Coding wise it is that easy. The trouble, cost and effort comes from testing the patch, approving it, ceritifying it, publishing it, etc. It's a whole lot of work, time and trouble for something that won't earn Bungie any more money. Easy to do technically? Yes. Pain in the arse due to all the red-tape? Also yes.

"There must already be a bit of code that checks if a HDD is connected or not so it knows if it can cache the maps. It cant be hard to patch as its just replicating what happens on an arcade console surely? "

Unfortunately it's not as easy as that - the HDD is a requirement for Live & system link co-op so if they did this then co-op would no longer work, and neither would downloadable maps or patches!!

@Troopa3k

Wow, I didn't know Halo was written in Basic. :-)

Dear Bungie

Troopa3k has fixed your code for you. I'm sure you can copy and paste it in, being the copy and paste masters that you are.

@BobsUncle

And I didn't realise my pseudo-code would confuse you enough that you would think it was real code.... ;)

EDIT: And your copy-and-paste comment is just a flame-war waiting to happen! :P

1, 2, 3, 4... I declare a FLAME WAR!