Would you like BOS to be 64bit only or 32bit??

[Kling]

well I vote for 64bit!

Edited February 2, 2013 by Kling

[LG1.Klein]

It really make no sense to still use 32 bit. You are limiting yourself with useable RAM and it seems as if most everybody is over 4GB and runnign 64 bit. If you are not time to upgrade.

[kendo]

YES!!! to 64-bit.

 

All the initial problems with drivers and incompatibilites are now history. It works smoothly and opens up significant performance advantages.

 

Also, the decreased development workload from not having to double up with 32-bit support should be very advantageous to the overall stability and performance of the sim.

[DD_fruitbat]

voted 64 bit only.

[rolikiraly]

It really make no sense to still use 32 bit. You are limiting yourself with useable RAM and it seems as if most everybody is over 4GB and runnign 64 bit. If you are not time to upgrade.

Yes.  And of course those who haven't upgraded yet are not knowing it's 'time to'. You opened their eyes... 

[JG4_Continuo]

Guys, this poll is quite biased.... XD

[AndyJWest]

Another pointless poll, complete with loaded question. The developers know the issues. We don't. 

[Heywooood]

32 bit =floppy / cd rom

[Kling]

Another pointless poll, complete with loaded question. The developers know the issues. We don't. 

Completely useless answer... 

[Caudron431]

I voted 64bits, but i must say that i'd love to see some options made for those with very low spec computers. Times are hard, i guess many young people (but not only) cannot afford a completely new system. Let's chose 64bits but make the game smooth for all those with outdated graphic cards and components, so that online wars can be populated. IMHO Their playing will be a great part in the success of the game, maybe we should not forget this.

 

That said, 32 bits is clearly "history" by now, just let it go .

Edited February 2, 2013 by RegRag1977

[rolikiraly]

Is there a way to ignore a topic (in a similar way as with member's posts)?

[Kling]

Is there a way to ignore a topic (in a similar way as with member's posts)?

No idea! Dont think so. Been looking for that myself.

[wiseblood]

Again probably the best determination of what's in gaming PCs (other than perhaps supplementing it with info from ROF users in this case) is the steam hardware survey. Of people with steam installed:

 

Edited February 2, 2013 by wiseblood

[gavagai]

Again probably the best determination of what's in gaming PCs (other than perhaps supplementing it with info from ROF users in this case) is the steam hardware survey. Of people with steam installed:

 

 

So, something like 1/3 of people are still using a 32bit OS on steam.  Do they have statistics for other hardware features?

[wiseblood]

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

[AndyJWest]

The most significant question is how many people who will have 32-bit systems that are capable of running BoS and are likely to want to purchase it will there be when BoS is released. And the answer has to be that nobody knows...

[Bearcat]

Another pointless poll, complete with loaded question. The developers know the issues. We don't. 

 

 

I don't think this poll is useless at all.. in fact I think, your response is more useless than this poll .. considering

 

8) If possible, please describe what progress has been made in the optimization of the engine DN, in which direction, whereby, etc.? In general terms, please.

 

This is the big question. Quite a lot of parts affected. Physics, graphics and system of interfaces. Wherever we can, we use our experience to improve. Speaking of technology, it's very difficult to be specific. We need some completely new technology and parachutes and damage in the cockpit. For the map, we would like to apply some new techniques to make the landscape more plausible. Give specific examples too early, because they need to illustrate. There are global issues that we are discussing, such as moving to 64-bit systems and not support 32-bit systems.

 

Even if you don't like the poll.. why shoot it down? Why even interject that negativity?

[gavagai]

I don't think this p[oll is useless at all.. in fact I think, your response is more useless than this poll .. considering

 

 

 

Even if you don't like the poll.. why shoot it down? Why even interject that negativity?

You don't read the poll as a loaded question?

[Bearcat]

No because I understand the question.. granted he worded it "Would you like BOS to be 64bit only or 32bit??" but ti =o me it was obvious based on the DDVI that what he meant was Would you like BOS to be 64bit only or 32bit as well? .. and frankly I think that is a legitimate discussion for us to have... the devs are going to do what is best folr them and frankly I think that continuing 32bit support .. even though there are folks out there who still use it .. is a bad move. IMO like many have said.. it is a more future proof move to make it 64 bit.. That is like building desktop PCs with floppys..  and parallel ports ...  Yeah some folks may have them.. but come on ... you can get a 5 year old 64 bit dual core rig on W7 64.. or XP 64.. Anyone who bought W7 32 bit was a boob anyway.. at least in my opinion..

[gavagai]

Sure, but his wording also threw in a phrase about supporting 32 bit making the BoS release time take longer, i.e. "if you don't agree with me, then you want to make everyone else wait."  That is the loaded question part.  It is better to let community members make that conclusion (or not) for themselves.

 

I'm a 64bit user, but I know there are a lot of people playing Rise of Flight on 32 bit systems, mostly XP and 32bit Win7.

[AX2]

I prefer 64 bit... But 32 bit is past ?

ROF works perfectly on 32 bit, 64 bit means higher costs, more people hired, more delays.

Someone told me, Oleg spend 8 million of dollars, and not finish Clod, I do not know if it's true.

But we do not want any delay, we want to play BOS soon. 

32bit and an effective development, nothing more

Edited February 3, 2013 by Mustang

[gavagai]

Again, we really don't know which kind of support means higher costs or more delays.  However, it looks like this question is being considered:

 

Loft:

 

There are global issues that we are discussing, such as moving to 64-bit systems and not support 32-bit systems.

 

[Kling]

Sure, but his wording also threw in a phrase about supporting 32 bit making the BoS release time take longer, i.e. "if you don't agree with me, then you want to make everyone else wait." That is the loaded question part. It is better to let community members make that conclusion (or not) for themselves.

 

I'm a 64bit user, but I know there are a lot of people playing Rise of Flight on 32 bit systems, mostly XP and 32bit Win7.

Yes and I also added that it might attract more players. Completely fair wording. Clod is a perfect example of that things taking alot longer due to trying to develop things for ancient systems.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Kling

[Bearcat]

Sure, but his wording also threw in a phrase about supporting 32 bit making the BoS release time take longer, i.e. "if you don't agree with me, then you want to make everyone else wait."  That is the loaded question part.  It is better to let community members make that conclusion (or not) for themselves.

 

I'm a 64bit user, but I know there are a lot of people playing Rise of Flight on 32 bit systems, mostly XP and 32bit Win7.

 

Yes but RoF was released four years ago ...

 

I prefer 64 bit... But 32 bit is past ?

ROF works perfectly on 32 bit, 64 bit means higher costs, more people hired, more delays.

Someone told me, Oleg spend 8 million of dollars, and not finish Clod, I do not know if it's true.

But we do not want any delay, we want to play BOS soon. 

32bit and an effective development, nothing more

 

We don't know that .. but what we do know is that making it so that it is supportable by 32 & 64 bit systems will extend the creation life.. and making it 32 bit alone will render it almost obsolete at the start..

 

Yes and I also added that it might attract more players. Completely fair wording. Clod is a perfect example of that things taking alot longer due to trying to develop things for ancient systems.

That's a whole other debate as far as CoD goes..  one that we will not be having here ... again.. but it seems to me that the process would take longer if it had to built to support a 32 & 64 bit OS.

[gavagai]

what we do know is that making it so that it is supportable by 32 & 64 bit systems will extend the creation life.. and making it 32 bit alone will render it almost obsolete at the start..

 

Compared to which other 64bit-only flight sim?  Sincere question.  I'm not just trying to be difficult.

Edited February 4, 2013 by gavagai

[wiseblood]

A few things:

* Literally almost everyone has 64bit hardware already. The only thing is whether they have an OS support for it and whether they have enough memory to actually make it worthwhile.

* Perversely, deciding on dx9 only means the game actually takes up more memory than it would if it were dx10+ native, dwarfing anything you would run into from 64bit code size increase.

* code-for-code, and assuming nothing horrible happens along the way, going to 64bit (assuming nothing horrible happens and you actually use a 64bit-worthy set of data) means a minor to quite major speed up depending on the function - something on the order of about 15%+ raw speed increase on in-executable stuff free of charge, adding things together and finding precise answers is just a faster. Nor does it need to constantly switch between 32/64 on a native 64bit system. The other thing is that dropping "32bit" as a requirement means you can use the SIMD optimisations for the lowliest 64bit CPU as your minimum spec and build them in, there is no need to compile or support workarounds for anything below that.

* SHS is good but you need to read into it a bit. As well as anonymising certain types of machine (eg. the cheap laptops with 32bit os, <4gb-4gb, very low end CPU, intel graphics that supports "dx10" which will struggle on most games), the other thing you don't quite get month-to-month from the steam hardware survey is the rate of change. Put it this way - at the end of 2009, Windows XP 32 had over 50% of the install base to itself. 64-bit OS's (all together) were <10% of the share. Here it was at the end of 2011:

 

 

 

* As to how 64bit games sell to combat sim fans, there was this game called Battlefield 3 which went 64bit only, it did pretty well . From what I understand the DCS chaps are now at a point where 32bit is very uncomfortable as well, though it will sort of work.

* Really, the question is not only what do people have, but what will people have over the lifetime of the product? AAA shooters are even doing 64bit only now. Add one year from now, then another 3 years or so for what I imagine is around the tail on the product and DLC they'd like to get. Is 32bit going to look funny in 2017? Might well do.

* As to the bit that got people bothered about taking more time. It depends. The issue will probably be more about much of the existing tools and how much of the integrated 3rd party stuff in their code base is 64bit. That's the bit that tends to take time to convert over. But then you need to think of how much time that costs vs how much time optimising and keeping minimum total memory usage including vram down to under ~3.5gb (and really, less than that).

Edited February 4, 2013 by wiseblood

[Kling]

A few things:

 

* Literally almost everyone has 64bit hardware already. The only thing is whether they have an OS support for it and whether they have enough memory to actually make it worthwhile.

 

* Perversely, deciding on dx9 only means the game actually takes up more memory than it would if it were dx10+ native, dwarfing anything you would run into from 64bit code size increase.

 

* code-for-code, and assuming nothing horrible happens along the way, going to 64bit (assuming nothing horrible happens and you actually use a 64bit-worthy set of data) means a minor to quite major speed up depending on the function - something on the order of about 15%+ raw speed increase on in-executable stuff free of charge, adding things together and finding precise answers is just a faster. Nor does it need to constantly switch between 32/64 on a native 64bit system. The other thing is that dropping "32bit" as a requirement means you can use the SIMD optimisations for the lowliest 64bit CPU as your minimum spec and build them in, there is no need to compile or support workarounds for anything below that.

 

* SHS is good but you need to read into it a bit. As well as anonymising certain types of machine (eg. the cheap laptops with 32bit os, <4gb-4gb, very low end CPU, intel graphics that supports "dx10" which will struggle on most games), the other thing you don't quite get month-to-month from the steam hardware survey is the rate of change. Put it this way - at the end of 2009, Windows XP 32 had over 50% of the install base to itself. 64-bit OS's (all together) were <10% of the share. Here it was at the end of 2011:

 

 

 

 

* As to how 64bit games sell to combat sim fans, there was this game called Battlefield 3 which went 64bit only, it did pretty well . From what I understand the DCS chaps are now at a point where 32bit is very uncomfortable as well, though it will sort of work.

 

* Really, the question is not only what do people have, but what will people have over the lifetime of the product? AAA shooters are even doing 64bit only now. Add one year from now, then another 3 years or so for what I imagine is around the tail on the product and DLC they'd like to get. Is 32bit going to look funny in 2017? Might well do.

 

* As to the bit that got people bothered about taking more time. It depends. The issue will probably be more about much of the existing tools and how much of the integrated 3rd party stuff in their code base is 64bit. That's the bit that tends to take time to convert over. But then you need to think of how much time that costs vs how much time optimising and keeping minimum total memory usage including vram down to under ~3.5gb (and really, less than that).

Good post! Very informative!

 

Btw Bearcat where is the poll?!! Did you delete it?

[VeryOldMan]

64 bit.  No CPU able  to run a modern game  is not 64 bit capable.  

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

Where it go?

[VeryOldMan]

I prefer 64 bit... But 32 bit is past ?

ROF works perfectly on 32 bit, 64 bit means higher costs, more people hired, more delays.

Someone told me, Oleg spend 8 million of dollars, and not finish Clod, I do not know if it's true.

But we do not want any delay, we want to play BOS soon. 

32bit and an effective development, nothing more

 

 

There are no 32 bit processors designed for like 8 years already.  All 32 bit OS are there for backward compatibility with ancient hardware.  32 bits limits the memory allocation massively and it is something that  MUST  be left behind.

 

Its the same as if horses were still allowed to  travel   in high speed roads, jsut because some backwards people still keep them as transportation. The world must move on.... its not as there is ANY   advantage on a 32 bit system (there is NONE at all!) and 8 years is more than enough time for people to wake up.

 

Anyway when you buy windows 7 64 bit you get a 32 bit  as well for free ( I have the box right here at my sehlf) so why in hell woudl someoen buy the 32  bit version?

[gavagai]

A lot of PCs and laptops that could run win7 64bit seem to have been sold with the 32bit OS.  I have no idea why.

[VeryOldMan]

Yes but most of those are  not realistic platforms for a flgiht sim. They are ok for an MMO,  but  I think  there is a very tiny percentage of people that would play a hardcore flightsim in a  notebook on a 14 inch screen, with  very limtid processing capabilities (even the  most  powerful notebooks  have pathetic BUSes when compared to desktop PC).

 

And If the developers  officialize the decision early, and announce it, they give the fans enough time to  schedule an OS reinstall (at least the licenses sold here are  same for 32 bit or 64 so you are allowed to exchange).

[Cavemanhead]

Where did the results go?  Last time I looked it was 94% yes for 64bit only...

[Kling]

Its the second poll i make where the results mysteriously disappear or are deleted

 

The other one was the poll about if anyone here will get ROF as a direct result of these forums...

[AndyJWest]

Its the second poll i make where the results mysteriously disappear or are deleted

 

The other one was the poll about if anyone here will get ROF as a direct result of these forums...

 

I don't think there is much mystery about it - such polls are of little use to developers, and often cause arguments.

 

If you want to discuss something, start a discussion. That way, others can offer opinions on the subject without being limited by the preconceptions of a single individual. 

[Sim]

DCS World (Eagle Dynamics) is moving to 64-bit only:

 

Moving to 64-bit Operating Systems Only
As we move forward improving the DCS World environment, we are more and more often running into roadblocks that prevent us from doing so due to supporting 32 bit operating systems. This includes larger and more populated worlds with greater terrain mesh details and textures. By moving to 64 bit support only, we will be able solve this and allow larger missions with more units, and it will allow us to improve visual effects.

This change will be coming in the next few months.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Sim

[hiro]

64 bit . . . 

 

computer technology, going backwards is dancing with futility.

 

Nintendo found out the hard way if you went backwards during the 32 bit era . . . PS1 (playstation 1), using cartridges in a CD world . . .  They dominated 8 and 16 bit eras, but in the 32 bit must have been super excruciating to watch Sony take 80% percentage of their game sales and watching Final Fantasy 7 seal the deal for Sony. No game developer wanted to play memory tetris futzing around on 64 mb cartridges when Sony had 640 mb on a CD to play with. 

[VBF-12_Gosling-71]

64bit without a doubt.  No point in back peddliing when we are years from a product and 64bit population density will increase exponetially. 

[senseispcc]

I am 64bit user but I know from experience that the fast majorities of PC's are still 32bit so is there really a choice?

[Fearmeister]

I'm still using a 32-bit computer though that's because my university was giving upgrade copies of Windows 7 Ultimate for $10 and I had a 32-bit XP at the time.