Messages

1

General Gaming / Disc sizes

« on: July 07, 2003, 07:05:39 PM »

Forget it. You don't even know enough about the subject to carry on any kind of debate. Insults and sarcastic comments are the best you can come up with so there's no need carrying this on any longer.  

[enigma487]

2

General Gaming / Disc sizes

« on: July 04, 2003, 02:38:22 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: enigma487
Well Yenko.  None of this really matters anyway.  but let me just add to the fact that smaller discs are better.

First of all:  CAV drives (just to restate: CONSTANT ANGULAR VELOCITY)  this means that the discs are spinning at the same rate no matter where on the disc data is being read.  this actually doesn't lead to faster transfer rates.  this causes data to be slightly more spread out the further to the outer edge of the disc you get.  which kinda smashes your piont.  sorry.  but no matter.  this is not my main point.

The big thing that is going to get you faster read/seek times is getting the disc up to speed.  the bigger the disc, the more torgue required.  so, by using a smaller disc, they can get it up to read speed faster than a traditional 12cm disc.  ADVANTAGE NINTENDO

but basically, what my whole point boils down to:  I'm a Computer Science major, my brother is a Physics major, and i'm smarter than you.

Edit:  and i love my mini cd cases to toss my games around in!

And i also believe they are given not hardly enough credit !

Well, first let's get some of the technical issues out of the way.

Data on a CD or DVD is not spread out more towards the outer part of the disc. It's spaced evenly across the entire disc. Both types of media use a single spiral used to record data that starts from the inner part of the disc and continues to the outer part of the disk. The length of spiral it takes to complete one revolution on the inner part of the disc is shorter than on the outer part of the disc so more data can be stored on the outer part of the disc.

CD and DVD ROM drives are given an X speed rating based on how much data can be transfered in one second. For CD 1X is 150Kb and DVD 1X is 1353Kb. A 4X CD ROM drive would provide 600Kb/sec transfer rates even though it may not spin four times faster than a 1X drive. The same holds true for DVD ROM drives.

The earliest CD ROM drives accounted for the differences in the amount of data passing by the reader in one revolution by changing the rotational speed of the disc. It speeds up while reading the inner part of the disc, then slows down while reading the outer part of the disc (which has more data passing by the reader per revolution). These drives are know as CLV drives. Their X speed ratings are consistent throughout the entire disc because the transfer rate remains constant by speeding up and slowing down the disc depending on where the reader is on the disc.

The next incartion of CD and DVD ROM drives spin the disc at a constant rate regardless of where the reader is at on the disc. This means less data is transfered when reading the inner tracks and more data transfered when reading the outer tracks. These drives are called CAV drives. Their given X speed ratings are the maximum transfer rates which can only be obtained when reading the outer most part of the disc. If the disc is only half filled with data it's impossible for the drive to reach it's maximum X speed rating.

Now, take all this and apply it to the GC. By simply implementing a 12cm disc, Nintendo could have increased the maximum transfer rates the GC is capable of. Of course, if there's no data on the outer most tracks there would be no increase in performance, but that also holds true for the smaller discs as well. It's a relatively simple concept. I'm surprised someone as smart as yourself can't grasp it.

As for your theory about torque and the smaller discs; if you and your brother come up with the mathematical equation that shows the smaller, lighter discs contribute to lower load times and get it published, I'll consider giving it some consideration. As it stands now though, it's just a theory by someone that thinks he's smart but has yet to do or say anything to substantiate it.

At any rate, I'm done with this whole subject and I apologize for saying anything negative about the almighty Nintendo.

[AngusPodgorny]

3

General Gaming / Disc sizes

« on: July 02, 2003, 10:55:33 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: AngusPodgorny

Quote
Originally posted by: Yenko
Berny,

A stardard size DVD has more data on the outer most tracks than a mini DVD. With a CAV drive that extra data means higher maximum transfer rates. That's why using the smaller discs with a CAV drive is a disadvantage.

As YoungerPlumber pointed out, what you say is true only if you assume the angular velocity to be the same on both systems.  Since the GCN has smaller, lighter discs, it's not unreasonable to surmise that it spins them faster.

-Angus

You can spin the smaller disc as fast as you want but it won't change the fact that a larger disc will provide a higher maximum transfer rate at the same speed.

Again, like I said at the end of my second post, the discs work fine so none of this really matters. I'm simply trying to make the point that the smaller discs are given way too much credit.

4

General Gaming / Disc sizes

« on: July 02, 2003, 02:33:57 PM »

Berny,

I'm not bashing either the GC or the discs. I'm simply pointing out what most people claim as advantages of the smaller discs really aren't advantages. My whole point is the discs are just part of Nintendo's marketing of the GC as a game only system and don't provide any clear advantage over a standard size DVD.

BigJim,

A stardard size DVD has more data on the outer most tracks than a mini DVD. With a CAV drive that extra data means higher maximum transfer rates. That's why using the smaller discs with a CAV drive is a disadvantage.

5

General Gaming / Disc sizes

« on: July 02, 2003, 02:06:25 AM »

That's the thing, the drive and the overall design of the hardware is what provides the great load times, not the discs. The only advantage I've ever heard attributed to the smaller discs is seek times. With the smaller surface area that makes sense, but I can't see how the smaller discs help access times or transfer rates - both of which contribute more to faster load times than seek times. I'm just tired of everyone attributing the GC's load times to the discs rather than Nintendo producing a well thought out and designed piece of hardware.  

The CAV drive comes into play when you take into account the size of the discs. A smaller disc (8cm) will have a lower maximum transfer rate than a regular size disc (12cm) when used with a drive rated at the same speed. Using a CAV drive with the smaller discs isn't a advantage considering both the PS2 and the Xbox use CAV drives. That's why I say Nintendo shot themselves in the foot.

You can argue the advantages of the smaller discs all you want but it won't change the fact that it's nothing more than Nintendo's attempt to seperate itself from the other consoles. In the end though, the discs work so who really cares?

6

General Gaming / Disc sizes

« on: July 01, 2003, 11:32:13 PM »

"Nintendo chose the mini discs for several reasons.
1) Faster loading times
2) Difficulty in piracy
3) Easier portability"


Please...Nintendo went with the mini DVDs just to be different.

If the mini DVDs alone provided faster load times then you wouldn't have games that where both on the Xbox and the GC have faster load times on the Xbox. Not to mention Nintendo shot themselves in the foot using a CAV drive with the smaller discs.

There are 8cm DVD-Rs on the market. The only reason the GC hasn't been pirated yet is the encryption used on the game discs, which could have very well been carried over to standard sized DVDs.

Portability? I don't know anyone stupid enough to carry a GC disc in their pocket without some kind of cover.

There you go, the only reason Nintendo went with the mini DVDs is to be different. You can argue all you want about the advantages of the discs but in the end it's just a marketing gimmick - a "game only system". Why do you think Nintendo avoids labeling their game discs as DVD so hard?

The only people who believe there's something special about the GC discs are the same people who think the "Quality Over Quantity" slogan meant something more than Nintendo didn't have any games ready for the N64 launch.

[Darc Requiem]

7

Nintendo Gaming / Why Does the Gamecube Disc Keep Spinning?

« on: April 03, 2003, 10:32:00 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Darc Requiem

Quote
Originally posted by: theaveng

Quote
Originally posted by: BlkPaladin
The disc doesn't stop spinning because they use a CAV drive that continously spins...

How does using a Constant Angular Velocity drive require the disc keep spinning?

The disc spins at one constant speed hence the name. The allows for the quick load times on GC games in comparison to PS2 and allows it to have load times similar to X-box without using the harddrive as a buffer. It allows for data to be constantly streamed of the disc at a consistent speed. As state earlier, if the disc stopped spinning, when you started the game back up there would be a huge pause before you could start playing again.

Darc Requiem

The PS2 and Xbox both use CAV drives so it's not something exclusive to the GC. In fact, using the smaller discs with a CAV drive hurts the maximum transfer rate the GC is capable of. Although it doesn't matter much since you can't tell.

CAV drives don't stream data from the disc at a constant rate. The tranfer rate will increase towards the outer part of the disc and decrease towards the inner part of the disc because CAV drives use a constant rotationaly speed and variable transfer rate while CLV drives use a variable rotation speed and constant tranfer rate. I think this is where most people get confused; it's constant rotationaly speed, not constantly spinning that seperates it from a CLV drive.

The "start and stop" term used with CLV drives refers to the drive speeding up and slowing down depending on which part of the disc it's reading. The disc never actually stops spinning though.

8

General Gaming / Pro Logic II on Gamecube FAQ

« on: March 03, 2003, 08:08:59 PM »

I just noticed something you might want to change. Where you say, "Note that Pro Logic games will work on a Pro Logic II receiver. However, you will have only one surround channel, due to the Pro Logic encoding."

The Pro Logic decoder is what is responsible for the bandwidth limited, mono surround channels, not the encoding process. The Pro Logic II decoder creates full-range, stereo surround channels when feed a stereo or Dolby Surround signal. So if you use a game with Dolby Surround (Pro Logic) encoding with a Pro Logic II decoder, it will produce full-range, stereo surround channels.

The encoding process for Pro Logic II is really just an extension of Dolby Surround. It adds a fifth channel, instead of four, into the Lt and Rt stereo channels. The decoder is really what does the work, not the encoding process.

9

General Gaming / Pro Logic II on Gamecube FAQ

« on: February 24, 2003, 09:43:32 AM »

Rick,

I don't know where you came up with the idea that Pro Logic II doesn't support a sub, it does. If you look at a schematic for the Pro Logic II decoder you'll see a bass managment circuit that creates a channel for a sub. There's no hack needed nor does the receiver have to do anything because the feature is built into the decoder. Also, since the circuit is part of the decoder, there's no degradation of sound quality using a sub.

Do you really think Jim Fosgate would design a new matrix surround format to allow older stereo and Dolby Surround material to take advantage of new 5.1 surround systems and leave out the sub?