10/30/2005 9:28:38 PM

Can anyone tell us concisely what we can expect from Version 7 in terms of system requirements and compatability with the previous version of SSP?  Is there a "rule of thumb" that can be used is choosing video cards?  or is DirectX 9 the only consideration?

We're looking at upgrading our projection box this week,  I don't want to tell our leadership that the cards that we just bought are not going to work with the new version.

The more information shared, the better that we can make informed chioces.

Thanks.

10/31/2005 6:54:05 AM

It has been stated before that SSP7 will be compatible with any computer that is currently running previous versions of SSP. You may not have all the features, but it will run better. The best thing you can do is buy the best video card you can afford. Even if SSP7 doesn't currently make full use of that card, it will in the future.

I currently cannot upgrade to XPSP2 with my SSP5.5 box because I have an ATI card that has troubles with XPSP2, the preview pane, and directx. I know I can disable the preview pane to avoid the issue, but I rely too heavily on the preview pane to do without it. From what I have heard, SSP7 does not have this limitation, so you can use ATI cards with SSP7 without any concerns.

The bare minimum you need for a video card that supports all the features of SSP is  on that supports DirectX9 and has 128MB ram. I personally recommend at least 256MB of ram on the video card.

I would also recommend no less than 1GB of system memory to minimize disk caching. Of course, if you can afford a 3.0 processor, go for it. If not, I would not get anything less than 2.0.

gap

10/31/2005 6:56:18 AM

It is not a go-nogo situation, so expecting specific specifications is problematic. Just as one doesn't say a 2.4GHz machine will work but a 2.0 GHz machine won't, so one doesn't say a 400MHz GPU with 3 Gpix fillrate will work but a 350MHz one with 2.5Gpix won't. (Actually, ATI is now up to 1GHz GPU's!)

R-Technics has gone on record saying the new version is intended to work with the same hardware used by 5.5. They have also pointed out that the features requiring the most processing power, such as visualizations, require so-called high-end video cards to function fully, yet by brand/model examples they also point out that they don't mean that only the super highest end is required. But don't expect the motherboard GPU to be adequate.

By implication, though, faster GPU's, sufficient memory, and other video card architectural features, can work to better process video at a full 30fps while the computer is off doing other things.

This is my observation/opinion only, of course. Many of todays video cards include processing capabilities absolutely required by gamers.  Since SSP doesn't build video images on the fly or do shading in the way games do, it doesn't use all the capabilities available. Yet visualizations construct images in real time in a way that requires a good deal of video GPU power plus sufficient video memory. And they work with the latest DirectX/OpenGL software standards.
  
None of the current new features (it seems to me) require additional video GPU power than what is already used by SSP. So my guess is that if the cards you "just bought" work fine today, you should be OK tomorrow.

10/31/2005 8:15:58 AM

Have you tried lately? We haven't had troubles with the most current versions of 5.5. and we have a 256MB ATI Radeon card and WinXP SP2 on the machine.

I was told that they put in some software to detect the potential problem, and just disabled the animations in the preview. We haven't had a problem, nor have we missed having the animation in the preview panel.

10/31/2005 8:49:43 AM

With the hassles of upgrading to SP2, and then downgrading if it fails, I have decided I will no longer attempt SP2 until SSP7 is fully released.

I have much to busy of a life to try something to see if it will work, and then undo it if it doesn't. The last time I tried, it failed. If SP2 could be installed in 60 seconds, and then uninstall is 60 seconds or less, I would try it.

gap

10/31/2005 10:07:14 AM

This is a good thread and one I get a lot of questions about so I figured I'd go ahead and chime in.

The problems with XP SP2 and ATI seem to have been resolved by a combination of factors.  Most noteably, ATI released new drivers a while back that seemed to fix the problem.  I do understand the reluctance to make the switch though.  If you have a second partition on your system I would suggest using a program like Notron's Ghost.  That way you can create an image before upgrading and if it doesn't work you can always just go back.  It's not the 60 second install but it does ensure that you don't have any wierd issues steming from removing a service pack.

As far as the hardware requirements of SSP7, it's been pretty well covered by other posters here that SSP7 will run on the same hardware as SSP5.  Some of the newer graphics features like Sharpen and Colorization do put additional burdens on the video cards.

To give you an idea, in testing I have been using an nVidia 6600GT 128MB card and it works very well with all of the Effects features turnned on.  As SSP moves forward and we add more special effectsthat could very well change.  However, an nVidia 6600GT card is only around $150 at www.newegg.com 

We have always suggested buying the best card that you can afford.  This still applies simply because the better card you have, the longer that card will continue to work with SSP7. 

Basically it all comes down to this: if you have a card that currently runs SSP 5.5, it will work with SSP7. All of the features that you currently have will continue to work, but new features may or may not. 

10/31/2005 10:48:14 AM

This is an interesting comment I would like to address.

Despite how things look in SSP, the underlying code is very much like a video game:  SSP does build images on the fly, shades geometry, and uses many of the available capabilities.

For version 7, we have optimized much of the underlying code to perform better - even on the same hardware.  Just like games though, fast hardware generally has more impact on performance than software optimizations do.  The better your hardware, the smoother you should expect things to run, and the more likely that you can turn the settings all the way up!

SSP currently uses DirectX for its graphics.

10/31/2005 2:44:11 PM

Please read my just published SSPlog on this issue for further clarification: Read Here.

11/1/2005 7:41:55 AM

Sorry, Steve, I hope I didn't imply that your skills were any less than those of a gamer who may have to deal with limb articulations and facial contortions or lip syncing to audio, or viewing frustums and camera angles and scene scrolling and all that stuf. The intended point is that the product being developed, it seems to me, has slightly different requirements such that churches don't need the absolute highest peformance gaming system to run ssp, but they do need sufficient capabilities.

I have a full appreciation for your skills as a graphics developer. Most of my experience has been c++/unix but I did work a year and a half with .NET. While we didn't get to do this kind of graphics (it was R&D to control/monitor UAV's over insecure networks), I did realize that 1 1/2 years is not enough to fully master such a large dev env, and also, by rubbing shoulders with those who do know graphics and attending their design reviews, I came to understand that graphics development with its unique language/vocabularly and all of its nuances is a specialty all its own that I fully respect.

So your skills (and any others on the team) as evidenced by what has already been developed are greatly appreciated, and we look forward to your future contributions!

And thanks for supplying those additional insights ...

11/1/2005 10:26:09 AM

No offense was taken.  Though SSP can look good without the best hardware, it is simply useful to think of SSP like a game.  The closer your system resembles a good gaming system, the better SSP should look and perform.

11/10/2005 10:38:56 AM

ok, I have a question .... When you say to think of SSP like a game, you're pretty much referring to video cards point of view (and ram etc) right? ... because it is known that games run better on AMD systems than Intel (not talking about the new X2 and P4D) so I always thought of SSP as an office application that performs as a game

I know there is an on going w ar between amd and intel users and I haven't seen a topic on amd vs intel when it comes to SSP, but I guess this is less important, 'cause in the end, people will build their systems the way they like/prefer ... bottom line is that it works on both platforms

11/10/2005 11:11:13 AM

I don't want to start any AMD vs Intel wars here so I'm not going to say one is better than the other.  One has shorter pipelines, the other has higher core speeds so there are trade-offs that very few consumers will ever know about. 

However, when we say "Think of SSP as a game" we're really discussing the system as a whole.  You can have the world's most killer video card but if you don't have enough RAM or a fast enough processor SSP won't run well.  Then again you could have a TON of ram and a super fast processor but without a video card you're still stuck. 

Basically, if you have a system that is capable of playing the newest video games it should also be capable of running SSP.  That includes RAM, Video and Processor.  You don't strictly need the best in any catagory, but you do need adequate accross the board.