In Cold Blood
Banned
It's a bit hard to judge Direct Storage on the XSX, as it's a part of the greater XVA architecture, but how has it worked on PC?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Has Direct Storage on PC actually been a winner?
- Thread starter In Cold Blood
- Start date
Tarin02543
Member
Diablo 4 will be getting support for this.
mansoor1980
Gold Member
Direct Storage
CuteFaceJay
Member
I'm not a platform that supports it so wouldn't know.
Mr Wonderstuff
Member
Forespoken uses it but it loads areas super fast anyway (well the demo did) so wasn't something I noticed. I'd like to see it used in Starfield (cos we know how much Bethesda loves their loading screens). Ratchet and Clank would be an obvious use case but I think they are just upping the memory requirements instead. I hear Diablo 4 will use it.
ReBurn
Gold Member
Is it supposed to fix what developers can't be bothered to?
winjer
Gold Member
It was never a solution for that.
Wildebeest
Member
You expect AAA PC ports to be well optimised in 2023? Is this some chemical induced fever dream?
It's a 'cutoff point' from a tech perspective, just like shader where in the 2000's. There are still a lot of games that need to support standard IO read speeds.
For Direct Storage to really take off, one game needs to bite the bullet and make it mandatory in it's design. That'll probably not happen for a while (again, just like shaders took awhile to force people to upgrade).
Remember: to this day, even SSD's aren't mandatory still, just worded as 'advised' in some minimum specs. Modern games still load with HDD, just way more cumbersome.
For Direct Storage to really take off, one game needs to bite the bullet and make it mandatory in it's design. That'll probably not happen for a while (again, just like shaders took awhile to force people to upgrade).
Remember: to this day, even SSD's aren't mandatory still, just worded as 'advised' in some minimum specs. Modern games still load with HDD, just way more cumbersome.
Last edited:
Wasn't built for that. Direct Storage is for offload workloads from the CPU and directly loads data on the GPU. Preventing the CPU from stalling.
And giving devs room to make more use of CPU cycles for other, more interesting game-logic/simulation calculations, instead of using it on assets loads.
winjer
Gold Member
Yes, Forspoken is the only game that uses it. And it's only the 1.0 version.
And since this game wasn't a major success, it wasn't a push for the tech awareness.
But the weirdest part, is that not even Microsoft has made a new game, or updated any of their games to use Direct Storage.
For example, a game like Forza 5 on PC, that has huge loading times, would benefit greatly from this tech.
Epic has announced that UE5 will eventually support Direct Storage. But when, is a whole different matter.
Direct Storage could be very important to reduce stutters from asset streaming.
And since this game wasn't a major success, it wasn't a push for the tech awareness.
But the weirdest part, is that not even Microsoft has made a new game, or updated any of their games to use Direct Storage.
For example, a game like Forza 5 on PC, that has huge loading times, would benefit greatly from this tech.
Epic has announced that UE5 will eventually support Direct Storage. But when, is a whole different matter.
Direct Storage could be very important to reduce stutters from asset streaming.
The initial load is long but once ingame teleporting from 1 end of the map like the desert to forest at the other end is almost instant. I wonder how much of that initial loading time is being slowed down by online initialisation. Other games with similar online systems (gta5 for instance) take forever to load aswell but it's not really because of storage.
winjer
Gold Member
On-line services can have something to do with it. But connecting to a server should be fast.
If it was a matter of downloading files, then we would see faster loadings on people with faster connections.
At the end of last year, I upgraded from 200mbit/s to 500mbit/s, but loading times are identical.
Elysium44
Banned
Maybe, although that game has something seriously wrong with it which could be fixed if the devs were bothered, which evidently they aren't.
It takes a couple of minutes to load on my system from an NVMe drive, the vast majority of which is sitting looking at a small splash screen before loading even begins, or unskippable splash screens which aren't present on the Xbox version. The Forza devs are notoriously lazy and seem to have some sort of interns or skeleton crew maintaining the PC version. Even the introductory credits screen on PC is only 720p and stretches to fill the screen which looks shite, while the Xbox version is 1080p or higher.
Forza Horizon 4 which itself is a slow loader compared to most PC games, still loads a minute quicker than FH5 does.
Last edited:
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
I dont think it has rolled out properly yet.
Hopefully once more games launch with it, we will see.
Hopefully once more games launch with it, we will see.
Elysium44
Banned
Wouldn't it be great if the devs investigated and fixed it. But all that's happened is the loading times have got progressively longer since release. Conclusion: they don't give a shit.
winjer
Gold Member
My guess is that this game uses a lot of compressed and encrypted data. And with the old Windows file system, it just becomes a slog at loading.
UWP is also notorious for being a pile of excrement that makes games slower.
Elysium44
Banned
That doesn't explain it though.
FH4 today, and FH5 on release: small splash screen appears for maybe 5 seconds before you get the full screen splash screens.
FH4 today is the same. FH5 on the other hand, now takes a whole minute looking at that small splash screen.
Open task manager and see for yourself what the CPU, SSD and network are doing during this time.
The full screen splash screens btw are not on the Xbox version, not even the Xbox One X version IIRC so it isn't a direct storage issue. Microsoft could remove them on PC too and take 20+ seconds off the loading time.
Last edited:
Doctor Hades
Member
Doesn't it already have it? Loading times when teleporting to and from a nearby town are typically 2-3 seconds for me from a 2 TB Samsung 980 Pro NVMe M.2 SSD.
As far as I am aware, only Diablo 4 and Forspoken have used Direct Storage on PC so far, which is disappointing considering how long it has been out (around 2 years, I believe). It would have been great to have seen this used in the recent PS5 ports of Returnal, The Last of Us Part 1, etc. I know developers would still have to code for older systems that don't support it but it would be a nice bonus to have for those of us on modern hardware that does support Direct Storage.
Last edited:
ToTTenTranz
Banned
All the late UE4 games with very high data streaming traffic that should have used it (Hogwarts Legacy, Jedi Survivor, Callisto Protocol, etc.) ended up releasing without it, so the result is lots of framerate spikes, very large VRAM usage, textures not loading when they don't fit the VRAM and crashes.
The real purpose of DirectStorage was never just to reduce loading times from 15 to 6 seconds. It's a method to sidestep Windows' antiquated loops and hoops for secure data transfer, and its main purpose in games is to allow storage-> RAM/VRAM data streaming (texture, shadowmaps, geometry) fast enough to allow for much higher detail on-screen, or reduced VRAM demands for the same amount of detail.
The consoles not only have much faster storage->RAM data streaming on the software but also get to use >12GB for the GPU. It's no wonder all these new-gen 8GB GPUs are getting significantly behind and the lack of DirectStorage is part of that problem.
Whether or not Direct Storage is a "winner" isn't the right question. The right question is when is it being deployed widely in all new AAA games because it's sorely needed. I guess these games should have never used UE4 from the start.
The real purpose of DirectStorage was never just to reduce loading times from 15 to 6 seconds. It's a method to sidestep Windows' antiquated loops and hoops for secure data transfer, and its main purpose in games is to allow storage-> RAM/VRAM data streaming (texture, shadowmaps, geometry) fast enough to allow for much higher detail on-screen, or reduced VRAM demands for the same amount of detail.
The consoles not only have much faster storage->RAM data streaming on the software but also get to use >12GB for the GPU. It's no wonder all these new-gen 8GB GPUs are getting significantly behind and the lack of DirectStorage is part of that problem.
Whether or not Direct Storage is a "winner" isn't the right question. The right question is when is it being deployed widely in all new AAA games because it's sorely needed. I guess these games should have never used UE4 from the start.
Mister Wolf
Member
Direct Storage in Forspoken PC is faster than the PS5 version and that's not even the future GPU decompression version of it. I expect to see Starfield using it. If they do not then Microsoft are idiots.
Last edited:
I was mainly commenting to say I didn't think direct storage would have much effect on the initial load in that game, they could probably make it faster but the majority seems to be waiting for online stuff to happen.
Don't think it's this, just loaded it up with hwinfo on the side with the game set to windowed so I could see the drive data and it will burst with ~450MB/s a couple of times for a few seconds and cpu will spike but then it sits with idle disc and cpu load for the majority of the time, network activity aint high either but it's probably all network initialization/handshake with not alot of data being sent/received.
nightmare-slain
Member
I don't even know if any games use it. Games load up quick for me, I have a 7.6GB/s nvme 4.0, and have no issues so I'm not desperate for it. Looking at PS5, I can't see what is so special about the SSD in it. A lot of PS5 games are coming to PC so it's not like PC can't run them. Maybe on PC you need more RAM/VRAM but it's PC... we have more powerful specs than a console so it's not really an issue.
Would this cut down on the amount of VRAM the game uses? I'm playing at 1440p 144hz and the game is using as much as 14GB (out of 16GB). It's not an issue because the game runs flawlessly but I don't see why it needs so much VRAM. If someone is playing this at 4K you basically need a 4090 with 24GB. My 16GB is completely maxed out if I select the max textures and that's not even rendering the game at 4K. That said, I didn't notice any performance issues but I didn't like to see my VRAM maxed out. Doesn't help the game seems to have a memory leak because I can start off with 8-9GB VRAM but it will creep up to 13-14GB.
Last edited:
Pagusas
Elden Member
Maybe it’s compiling shaders?
Elysium44
Banned
It isn't because that part comes later on after you get to the screen where you tell it to continue.
DaGwaphics
Member
From everything we've seen it is the real deal. Unfortunately, games take a long time to make and the tech hasn't made its way into any commercial release outside of Forspoken.
systemr123
Member
Yes it was, and is, and if you e.g. feel the cartridge/ps5 speed of loading games you know why it’s a truly big deal. I even go as far as saying I think the loading times are more important than a little bit more or less frames a second.
Games are transformative when you walk into a building and it’s just there, instead of watching a loading screen for even only 3 seconds e.g. It gives the games a completely difference experience that can not be imagined if you don’t feel it yourself.
I'm hoping to see more adoption of it over time since it seems like promising technology.
It feels like they've been talking about it for a few years which makes me start to ask "where is it?" while looking at recent releases but I'm thinking the talk about it was while they were developing it or it was in a beta form. If I'm getting the correct then it might be slow adoption for a while and perhaps we'll see it start to take off after Microsoft (presumably) uses it with their new wave of games (whenever those start to release
) since they have probably be developed around the tech as it was being finalized. Something like that could help increase the adoption of it along with Microsoft perhaps offering the use of it to studios and assisting if needed to set it up which could increase utilization.
Some of the hurdle to me feels like the current SSDs that we have in PCs are fairly quick already so it may not appear to be needed but granted from my experience I have only seen older games and haven't played anything from the current gen on the PC too where I could make a comparison.
It feels like they've been talking about it for a few years which makes me start to ask "where is it?" while looking at recent releases but I'm thinking the talk about it was while they were developing it or it was in a beta form. If I'm getting the correct then it might be slow adoption for a while and perhaps we'll see it start to take off after Microsoft (presumably) uses it with their new wave of games (whenever those start to release
) since they have probably be developed around the tech as it was being finalized. Something like that could help increase the adoption of it along with Microsoft perhaps offering the use of it to studios and assisting if needed to set it up which could increase utilization.Some of the hurdle to me feels like the current SSDs that we have in PCs are fairly quick already so it may not appear to be needed but granted from my experience I have only seen older games and haven't played anything from the current gen on the PC too where I could make a comparison.
Kenpachii
Member
Walking in a building or not is game design, pc has countless of games where walking into buildings is seamingless without effort. Hell even in the zero hardware times, wow had seamingless walking into building solutions. AC unity another good example.
PC SSD loading was already fast as hell under the PS4 area, its still is to this day. Sure u can diminish even more which is good, but from 50 seconds to 6 seconds is a dimension of a difference, from 6 to 2 seconds, not so much. Specially if games are designed well and don't drop u in a loading screen every 2 minutes of gameplay.
I feel direct storage is a good enhancement, but SSD was the real jump forwards for PC and after that we are more waiting on "connect to server' "check useraccount", login stuff that boggles stuff down more then the actual loading.
systemr123
Member
Just take warhammer games e.g. even with SSD the loading times are far longer than convenient. Going from that to near instant is transformative.
Decided to setup hwinfo for rtss so i could show drive usage. Then went and capped FH5 loading, you can clearly see after the main menu it's waiting forever for online initialisation as the drive and cpu usage are idle, then right at the end for 5 seconds the drive bursts and the game loads. Cpu is up a tad when idle because obs is recording in the background, was like 4% without recording. It's cropped to shit to hide account names but you still see the details.
Direct Storage is not going to have a major impact on any games like this (gta5 and ubisoft games come to mind), We are probably only really going to see the full benefit in singleplayer games without any gaas shit rammed up it's rear.
Direct Storage is not going to have a major impact on any games like this (gta5 and ubisoft games come to mind), We are probably only really going to see the full benefit in singleplayer games without any gaas shit rammed up it's rear.
Kataploom
Gold Member
And this is exactly what happens.
The reason why we have taken so long to start seeing games using current gen tech is because it's too disruptive in many ways. All engines are currently adapted to the old ways of doing things in such an essential way that it's probably more expensive to change things, specially with games already in development.
Just think of it this way: Devs are already having issues delivering a more or less solid experience without moving their tech stacks and they already come out rushed and take forever, imagine if they are asked to change their I/O system in the middle of development.
I have the impression devs are switching little by little, so they avoid implementation and delay risks.
The one thing I don't get on PC is: Why not ditch old HDD already? People that play AAA games on PC know they have to upgrade, people playing mainly old competitive games like LoL or CSGO won't care and won't probably buy the game on PC anyway, the most people with outdated hardware are already being left out due to lack of optimizations so I don't think it's worth it to not use DirectStorage for currently in development games, specially if they're late PC ports like the ones from Sony.
Last edited:
Guilty_AI
Member
I think its just unnecessary, as you said most engines are adapted to the old ways and dont really need to make us of fast storage. So the ultimate use for ssds ends up really being about shorter load times, and decreasing that time from 4 seconds to 1.5 isnt worth the trouble.
ZoukGalaxy
Member
Let's go back to floppy disk, HDD over floppy disk wasn't necessary also.
SSD is SO much more than "loading time"', instant access time is a game changer in everything PC related.
Last edited:
Guilty_AI
Member
And how many games need that "game changer"? The number of games that require SSD to run properly isn't big in the first place, games that need even more than that are basically non-existent.
Let's go back to floppy disk, HDD over floppy disk wasn't necessary also.
SSD is SO much more than "loading time"', instant access time is a game changer in everything PC related.
SF Kosmo
Al Jazeera Special Reporter
Less a matter of need than benefit. Everyone likes a game that can load in 2 seconds.