pouët.net

Maximum file size for demo (esp. @Assembly)

category: general [glöplog]
64kb is an artistic restriction.
64/128/256mb is a common-sense restriction.
added on the 2017-11-06 17:46:34 by Gargaj Gargaj
But let me rephrase - I'm not saying demos shouldn't be allowed to be 257MB in a compo, just that a lot of the time they could be half their size with a bit of care applied.
added on the 2017-11-06 17:50:17 by Gargaj Gargaj
Quote:
If a demo consumes 10x storage space I expect it to be at least 10x better as well...


You're not going to be able to judge that way, your brain doesn't work like that, most certainly not after a few beers at 1AM.

I find wat @Gargaj said about 64KB being an artistic restriction a very good point.

I stick to my idea that 256 megs might be lowballing it a little, but in the end the organizers get to decide their arbitrary number. And then you deal with it. Problem solved!
added on the 2017-11-06 17:51:28 by superplek superplek
..or organizers decide to simply not having a size restriction for demos
added on the 2017-11-06 17:57:37 by v3nom v3nom
"It's my party and I cry (about filesizes) if I like to.."
added on the 2017-11-06 17:58:29 by v3nom v3nom
It's "if I want to" ;)
added on the 2017-11-06 17:59:53 by superplek superplek
Quote:
But let me rephrase - I'm not saying demos shouldn't be allowed to be 257MB in a compo, just that a lot of the time they could be half their size with a bit of care applied.


But maybe it's the beauty of the demo category that that care does not have to go into size reduction and can be used on the demo itself? That that personally bugs you is another thing (which I do understand :)).

I don't think that even 256 MB is 'common sense' in 2017. If you *would* want to create something insane with materials that have a billion 4k textures, I think you should be able to (as long as the hardware can support it obviously)
added on the 2017-11-06 18:22:22 by okkie okkie
Quote:

I don't think that even 256 MB is 'common sense' in 2017. If you *would* want to create something insane with materials that have a billion 4k textures, I think you should be able to (as long as the hardware can support it obviously)


My 1GB would go out there door right there too. Things like 'generic USB flash drive size' went through my mind but what about just full media size as is available to current-gen console games?

That would however throw a wrench in party LAN upload capabilities, returning the good old charm of handing in your own disc!
added on the 2017-11-06 18:35:44 by superplek superplek
Yeah, delivery does indeed get hairy, although 32 GB USB sticks are not that expensive anymore :)
added on the 2017-11-06 18:51:19 by okkie okkie
I just got all warm and fuzzy inside at the very idea of burning a disc or copying files and going to a desk where you'd pair it with a paper form and hoped for the best.
added on the 2017-11-06 18:52:56 by superplek superplek
When entering my first music entry ever, I naively asked when I would get my floppy back :D
added on the 2017-11-06 19:06:30 by okkie okkie
There's already a category for unlimited shit. It's called "wild compo".
added on the 2017-11-06 19:10:16 by yzi yzi
Well that's not fully accurate. A wild compo is a catch-all for anything but mostly entries that are not in executable form (or delivered in another well-specified format).
added on the 2017-11-06 19:13:57 by superplek superplek
Small sidebar: I'm currently in the process of moving house and throwing out old junk. I was unable to part with my Ambience 1998 votingdisk.
added on the 2017-11-06 19:23:13 by sagacity sagacity
And browser demos slowly moved from wild, to their own compo to the regular demo compo. Times change man!
added on the 2017-11-06 19:39:02 by okkie okkie
I wouldn't want to be the kind of dipshit who makes a wild demo, though

*cough* ;)

Good point Okkie, let's keep it organic.
added on the 2017-11-06 19:50:42 by superplek superplek
Quote:
I don't think that even 256 MB is 'common sense' in 2017. If you *would* want to create something insane with materials that have a billion 4k textures, I think you should be able to (as long as the hardware can support it obviously)

A game like What Remains of Edith Finch (which looks better than 99% of the demos) is 3GB with content that's about 3 hours worth.

I get that we want to leave an option open for highend visuals, but are we there? Are we really arguing about this because we're chock full of 3D artists who are somehow squeezed in by the limitation, or are we just trying to find an excuse for laziness?
added on the 2017-11-06 20:18:50 by Gargaj Gargaj
In my case finding artists has been more of a struggle than using up data. Though my yesteryear demos were never really big, regardless of the animations I put in them.
added on the 2017-11-06 20:23:15 by superplek superplek
Quote:
then nobody knows anymore what the demoscene differentiates from other artsy fartsy stuff.
I'm really not sure anymore if I know that as is tho
added on the 2017-11-06 23:59:29 by msqrt msqrt
still if you need 30gb of 3D data to show 20 seconds of 2D data that is kind of asking for trouble :P
added on the 2017-11-07 01:22:13 by Maali Maali
Quote:
So why realtime then?

Because current h/w can work with that much data. /shrug
Yes, you can cut corners, interpolate and downsample, but sometimes it is a waste of good looking stuff. And it DOES work in realtime very well, it's just bigger than we're used to. Meanwhile, desktop games want 60 gigs on your hdd, and gpu driver size is 500mb.
added on the 2017-11-07 03:14:32 by ton ton
I´m pretty much with Gargaj here... in most cases an excessive disk footprint is hardly providing any benefit artistic wise but usually just caused by laziness (or lack of time, but then there is still the chance to provide a final...).

As a rule of thumb I´d say anything which is bigger than a decent quality video capture of similar length can be considered too large for a reasonably crafted demo.
If you´re providing an effect which is stunning enough to justify the size it will survive as a wild entry anyway, and if it is just another OSDM style spheres-with-scrollers reincarnation then you´re just doing it wrong.
added on the 2017-11-07 03:15:45 by T$ T$
I can hardly imagine how ending up with shitloads of data is caused by laziness tbh.

I have an experience of crunching 2 gigs of handcrafted 3d assets to assembly size limits, and all i had to do is downsample. It wasn't big deal, but picture suffered (a little bit though), and perf was the same.
It just felt like half-assing someone's good work, that's it.
added on the 2017-11-07 03:35:12 by ton ton
I wouldnt "downsample and interpolate" just to fit the 64mbytes when this would make it look bad ( and it would), and when there exist current parties with no limit.

It is not always laziness, I dont think you can make a big demo with hundreds of resources without knowing how to compress things and what balance works best (maybe excluding unity development).
Take for example a full CT scan. It could be 512^3 voxels x 16 bit, even with jpeg2000 (good luck waiting to decompress btw) it will be 100mbytes. You just cant "interpolate" or derive procedurally yet you can make some beautiful effects with it, as the hardware will fit and render no problem.
At 64 mbs you wouldnt even fit a quarter. And its a shame: how many times even in games would you see such exotic graphics?
added on the 2017-11-07 04:25:22 by Navis Navis
At this point I'm all for abolishing the limit just to see what ASD would do with this restriction removed. And if I can't see that next Assembly, I'm gonna be disappointed.

That said, why not remove the limit, BUT, then print out the size of the demo in the slides. Even in a 64k compo there's always some intros that don't quite fill the limit and then it's printed out that they're 8 or 32 kilobytes as opposed to 'full size'. We've entered even wild compos with 16k, 64k and 80k intros (on different platforms) ourselves, and that seemed to be fine.
added on the 2017-11-07 08:31:46 by Trilkk Trilkk

login