Still no answers on 64-bit.

[Panzerlang]

Or I can't find them. Any news on this?

[wtornado]

Really?

[Kaenzdhi]

Really?

Yes, and ...?

 

It will be a beautifull, smooth engine with collidables trees

[BFsSmurfy]

Question has been answered by the devs...no 64bit support at the minute as they believe they have enough headroom with 32bit, should that change in the future they will consider the 64bit route.

[Panzerlang]

Jesus.

[Matt]

What's the big advantage of 64-bit in this case? What could the engine do better, if it would be 64-bit exclusive? What can it not do by being 32-bit?

 

Just curious, i'm 64-bit for quite a bit, but i fail to see the point of this discussion for BoS.

[FuriousMeow]

More memory head room for the game itself, and ability to process 64bits instead of 32bits instructions.

 

So it could allow for more textures and faster processing of everything (Physics, AI, graphics), or just more textures, or just faster processing. Maybe not help at all.

[VeryOldMan]

What's the big advantage of 64-bit in this case? What could the engine do better, if it would be 64-bit exclusive? What can it not do by being 32-bit?

 

Just curious, i'm 64-bit for quite a bit, but i fail to see the point of this discussion for BoS.

 

 

The  bits thing refers to the size of pointers that refer to  addresse sin memory. With a  32 bit number you can only  make a +2 GB or -2 GB jump  . Effectively limiting the ammount of memeory the process can have (2 GB of  Heap data).

 

 

With  64 bit  processors  the number is  several THOUSAND times larger. Therefore the game can keep more resources in memory.

That makes a HUGE difference in the size of textures, amount of details that can be rendered, and in loading times. I  do not  develop a single 32 bit software in what...  6 years...

Edited September 10, 2013 by VeryOldMan

[ATAG_Slipstream]

Is this why RoF falls over if there are too many objects?

[Matt]

I know the difference between 32 bit and 64 bit.

 

I'm wondering what people think a 64 bit version would help in this specific case (BoS).

 

No question that 64 bit is the future (or state-of-the-art), OK textures could probable be twice as high res as they will be. That can be a plus. On the other hand, maybe even that would still fit in the 4 GB limit.

[Pupo]

Is this why RoF falls over if there are too many objects?

 

unlikely. cliffs is also 32 bit, and does not have this issue. Very old man explanation is 100% correct, but 2 GB its still a lot of memory.

[theOden]

There was long and detailed discussions on ArmA2 regarding 64bit exe and the head developer told there would be no significant difference (if at all).

I think 64bit exe is a little hyped.

[Sethos]

A 32-Bit .exe that is LAA aware can utilize 4GB of RAM which is waaaaaaaay more than most games needs in this day and age, let alone a 'simple' flight sim. 

Edited September 10, 2013 by Sethos

[FuriousMeow]

unlikely. cliffs is also 32 bit, and does not have this issue. Very old man explanation is 100% correct, but 2 GB its still a lot of memory.

 

I wouldn't use one piece of software as a benchmark against the other. Two pieces of software do things completely different.

A 32-Bit .exe that is LAA aware can utilize 4GB of RAM which is waaaaaaaay more than most games needs in this day and age, let alone a 'simple' flight sim. 

 

Maybe, except have you seen how large the flight sim maps are in comparison to the teeny ones other games use? Even games with huge world maps, like Far Cry, Fallout, or the Morrowind type series have loading points to travel to other parts of the maps to load/create those other parts of the map because they aren't held in memory. The only thing comparable is the ArmAII maps in terms of staying resident in memory with no loading, and they are tiny in comparison. So 'simple' is really not true.

Edited September 10, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[Sethos]

Maybe, except have you seen how large the flight sim maps are in comparison to the teeny ones other games use? Even games with huge world maps, like Far Cry, Fallout, or the Morrowind type series have loading points to travel to other parts of the maps to load/create those other parts of the map because they aren't held in memory. The only thing comparable is the ArmAII maps in terms of staying resident in memory with no loading, and they are tiny in comparison. So 'simple' is really not true.

 

A vast map, fairly barren map does not need hundreds of gigabytes in RAM. You may think other maps look small but they have AIs, save states, tons of objects and details, script packages and whatnot that needs to be loaded into the RAM. You simply can't compare it and BoS simply does not need a 64-Bit .exe - I think people are just enamoured with the sound of 64 Bit but don't realize what it actually does, what the benefits are, where the cut-off point for an LAA 32 Bit .exe is. 

[FuriousMeow]

All of those objects have check states, they are not barren maps. They may not be hugely populated in immediate view like FPS games, but they all have to be accounted for and stored in memory. Scripts, saves states, details(?), those don't even take up half the processing power it requires for the physics side of a flight simulator such as RoF.

 

I'm not getting into, it NEEDS access to more memory - if it did though it can allow for more textures and larger ones, which at the same time are a cost for longer development, but it does have benefits.

 

However the biggest benefit is the ability to process 64bit of data in one pass rather than 32bit which would help with the physics side of the processing. The stuff you actually don't see but is running up CPU usage higher with just one plane in the game than 40 AI units in the <generic> FPS. It's not being enamored with the 64bit oo, ahh, like some people are with DX11 - even developers are out saying that 64bit makes things easier. There isn't the need to juggle what to build and what not in order to make the title fit in the memory.

[Sethos]

even developers are out saying that 64bit makes things easier. 

 

Yet they all stick to an LAA 32Bit, hmmm. 

[FuriousMeow]

Not all of them, and they are trying to get away.

 

Most are sticking to it because still 50% of the people there are on 32bit OSes (aka $$$$ for them) even though the hardware underneath is 64bit.

 

It's not hmmmm, it's that they don't want to cut out their clientelle.

Edited September 10, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[Sethos]

Not all of them, and they are trying to get away.

 

Most are sticking to it because still 50% of the people there are on 32bit OSes (aka $$$$ for them) even though the hardware underneath is 64bit.

 

It's not hmmmm, it's that they don't want to cut out their clientelle.

 

64Bit OS percentage has been up for years now. Developers don't use 64Bit .exes because it requires more work and there's zero benefit for over 95% of games out there. People just like to scream "64 Bit, 64 Bit!"

[FuriousMeow]

Not according to Steam.

 

It has huge benefits, I even posted an article highlighting that in which a developer discussed the magnitude of benefits 64bit delivers and their desire to use it. I'll go dig it up.

[Sethos]

Not according to Steam.

 

It has huge benefits, I even posted an article highlighting that in which a developer discussed the magnitude of benefits 64bit delivers and their desire to use it. I'll go dig it up.

 

Not according to steam? Exactly according to steam. OVER 50% are running 64 Bit WINDOWS 7 alone. 14% are running 64 Bit W8, 5% 64 Bit Vista, 2% + 1-2% Ubuntu / MacOS 64Bit. That's almost 75% of the tested steam userbase that is running 64 Bit OS, in an echosystem used by 'casual' players that might not even care what OS they are running. 

 

If the developers feel they need a 64 Bit .exe, they will create one. 

Edited September 10, 2013 by Sethos

[Matt]

unlikely. cliffs is also 32 bit, and does not have this issue. Very old man explanation is 100% correct, but 2 GB its still a lot of memory.

2GB would actually be quite limited and before RoF was set LAA, that caused quite a few out-of-memory issues.

 

But now with 4GB (if used with 64 bit OS), this is not a problem anymore and it should stay that way, unless texture sizes are seriously cranked up.

[FuriousMeow]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/64-bit-vista-gaming,2250-4.html

 

The last I study I saw from three months ago had roughly 36% on 32bit OS

Windows 7

12.70%

+0.02%

Windows XP 32 bit

6.83%

-0.31%

Windows Vista 32 bit

2.32%

-0.12%

 

 

So 20% now. It's gone down. That's still a fair share.

[AndyJWest]

I think the key point here is that RoF is 32-bit, and updating the software to the extent of actually getting any significant benefit from 64-bit may well have been seen as not worth the effort in the time available. Sure, the existing software could have been recompiled as 64-bit, but that on its own might not have achieved a great deal - and would have inevitably hurt sales.

[APIKalimba]

I think the key point here is that RoF is 32-bit, and updating the software to the extent of actually getting any significant benefit from 64-bit may well have been seen as not worth the effort in the time available. Sure, the existing software could have been recompiled as 64-bit, but that on its own might not have achieved a great deal - and would have inevitably hurt sales.

 

I would say you are spot on. This is almost obvious considering 777's goal to make the best WWII sim ever in less than 2 years...

 

Salute !

[Sethos]

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/64-bit-vista-gaming,2250-4.html

 

The last I study I saw from three months ago had roughly 36% on 32bit OS

Windows 7

12.70%

+0.02%

Windows XP 32 bit

6.83%

-0.31%

Windows Vista 32 bit

2.32%

-0.12%

 

 

So 20% now. It's gone down. That's still a fair share.

 

 

And STEAM, the number 1 game software source's own survey says 75% own a 64 Bit OS. And oddly enough, a staggering number of people also fall below the minimum hardware requirement for the game - What about them? Do we have to make the game look like a 8 Bit pixel game so we get to them as well? If people want a game, they'll upgrade. The latest barrage of DX10+ exclusive games have proved that and with 75% of people owning a 64Bit OS that is simply not a problem. 

 

The game doesn't need 64Bit, the game won't benefit and it'll be a waste of time. It's not a market share problem, it's a technical decision of pros vs time. 

Edited September 10, 2013 by Sethos

[BFsSmurfy]

For crying out loud, Jason said the BoS would function perfectly well with 32bit and DX9 and in the future if that changed they would deal with it......where`s the problem???????????????? Get on the TS on Thursday and ask him, it`s almost as if people don`t want to accept what`s said even if it`s from the man himself!!!!. I`ve got a 64bit OS and if there was any benefit in BoS I`d have liked a 64bit exe in the game, but the man says they don`t need it at this point in time which is good enough for me.

[FuriousMeow]

Following that same argument, that 32bit is good enough, is the same reasoning many have for not upgrading. Windows XP 32bit is good enough to run all of my old games, why should I upgrade?

 

And that's Steam, there are still lots of people out there that stay away from Steam because it's DRM and DRM is scary.

 

I'm not saying BoS needs to go 64bit, I'm stating there are benefits - the most important is processing 64bit vs 32bit per clock which means more can be done in the same processing which leads to better graphics and more going on while retaining the same performance.

 

But because it doesn't need it, we should just stick with 32bit because it's good enough right now is an asinine retort to eventually going to 64bit.

Edited September 10, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[BFsSmurfy]

He clearly stated if BoS needed to go 64bit they`d look into it, ask him, perhaps when they have time they`ll re-write whatever needs re-writing to 64bit, but time isn`t on their side. They never said they wouldn`t do it in the future, but time doesn`t permit that as it stands.

[Sethos]

Following that same argument, that 32bit is good enough, is the same reasoning many have for not upgrading. Windows XP 32bit is good enough to run all of my old games, why should I upgrade?

 

And that's Steam, there are still lots of people out there that stay away from Steam because it's DRM and DRM is scary.

 

I'm not saying BoS needs to go 64bit, I'm stating there are benefits - the most important is processing 64bit vs 32bit per clock which means more can be done in the same processing which leads to better graphics and more going on while retaining the same performance.

 

But because it doesn't need it, we should just stick with 32bit because it's good enough right now is an asinine retort to eventually going to 64bit.

 

Seriously, stop being so obtuse about 64-Bit. It won't happen "Just because". You use a 64-Bit executable when you have a GENUINE need to address a larger portion of the RAM, something extremely few games do these days. It's not a matter of opening up the .exe in Notepad++ and finding the field that says "64-Bit: 0" and changing that to a one. It actually requires extensive coding and an overhaul of some core engine features which can take quite a bit of time. Why the hell would that allocate that amount of time when the game HAS NO NEED for it and they are trying to build a solid core flyer with an engine they already have in place? There's is zero parallels to be drawn here with refusal to upgrade an OS, because that is your prerogative and developers won't actually give a toss. Creating a 64-Bit .exe for a game that isn't even coded in the first place to take advantage of a larger pool is a colossal waste of time.  

 

This entire thing is just based in ignorance and because 64-Bit sounds nice. 

[BFsSmurfy]

 ^^^^

There speaketh common sense...hallelujah.

[FuriousMeow]

64bit is more than memory access, which I've stated in each post. Even if they don't need more memory access, there are other benefits. Constantly going back to the memory shows your lack of understanding of what 64bit entails.

 

Here's an article about DICE going 64bit, they don't need all that memory for BF.

 

www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2012/05/23/frostbite-engine-64-bit/1

Edited September 10, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[Sethos]

64bit is more than memory access, which I've stated in each post. Even if they don't need more memory access, there are other benefits. Constantly going back to the memory shows your lack of understanding of what 64bit entails.

 

Here's an article about DICE going 64bit, they don't need all that memory for BF.

 

www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2012/05/23/frostbite-engine-64-bit/1

 

Did you even read that article?

 

[We] don't have any perf[ormance] data to share at this time, but the main drivers [for a move to 64-bit] are larger VA-space [Virtual Address space] and access to RAM.'

 

That is exactly what RAM is, a virtual page file / address space and the RAM itself. 

[FuriousMeow]

Yes, I did. BF3 didn't use more than 2GB. Eventually they want more access.

 

But again, 64bit computing is more than memory. I don't know how many times it has to be stated.

[Sethos]

Yes, I did. BF3 didn't use more than 2GB. Eventually they want more access.

 

But again, 64bit computing is more than memory. I don't know how many times it has to be stated.

 

Yeah because Frostbite is an engine used by almost every EA studio. It's an Engine DICE is constantly improving and building with massive funds from the top of EA. So an obvious step when you have huge support, money and people employed is to make an engine 64-Bit. That doesn't mean Battlefield 4 will use 10GB of RAM, that means they future proof the engine. That does not translate into small studios building small games with limited funds and manpower. These studios build engines down to their own specifications and requirements and 64Bit has never really been a requirement or desire. 

 

And again, that is exactly the benefit for GAMING.

[FuriousMeow]

You're so smert, you finally got what I have been saying. i was always talking about 64bit gaming, and not BoS. It could have some benefits for BoS, but in my very first post I said "maybe none at all."

Edited September 10, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[Sethos]

You're so smert, you finally got what I have been saying. i was always talking about 64bit gaming, and not BoS. It could have some benefits for BoS, but in my very first post I said "maybe none at all."

 

No, you were talking about BoS, "The game itself" - Not in plural.

 

Just bow out gracefully instead of this charade. 

[FuriousMeow]

Not even mentioned once in any of my posts. Swing and a miss.

 

Okay, once: I'm not saying BoS needs to go 64bit, I'm stating there are benefits

Edited September 10, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[Zmaj76]

If memory serves me right, there was an update for ROF which introduced utilization of more than 2GBs of RAM.....even though its an 32bit sim...ofcourse, a client should have 64bit OS and enough RAM for both ROF and Win7 64bit....lets say 6GB is safe, which most modern PCs have....

[Capt_Stubing]

I know the difference between 32 bit and 64 bit.

 

I'm wondering what people think a 64 bit version would help in this specific case (BoS).

 

No question that 64 bit is the future (or state-of-the-art), OK textures could probable be twice as high res as they will be. That can be a plus. On the other hand, maybe even that would still fit in the 4 GB limit.

 

64 Bit will only allow for more objects and preloading of terrain etc...  Currently DCS has 64 bit capability.  Textures are a function of the Video card not the OS until something revolutionary comes out like the new Maxwell Architecture from Nvidia.  64 Bit also makes software more complex.  They chose 32 bit for now because they have to get a product out in short order and they already had a very capable engine.  To create a new 64 bit engine or to upgrade to DX11 adds a lot of time to development.  Hence CLOD and DX10.  I'm sure none of these technologies are off the table for future releases but for now we are where we are.  Most Combat Flight Sims we have now are still DX9 and OpenGL for old IL2.   They need to be successful for us to see new tech any time soon.