46 réponses à ce sujet

[Conduit0]

KnossosTNC wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Because some of us AREN'T ready.

Well, according to Steam statistics, nearly 70% of Steam users now run on a 64-bit version of Windows - including the 54% who run on Windows 7 64-bit. I think we're just about as ready as we'll ever be.

Make no mistake, the 64-bit transition will happen, sooner or later. It is inevitable, especially as both the PS4 and the next Xbox are both believed to have 8GB of RAM. This will eventually put a lot of pressure on developers to go 64-bit only for their PC versions, as that expanded memory begins to be utilized. If you're not ready, I think the time to make yourself ready is rapidly approaching.

I have to agree with this, 64bit operating systems have been around for nearly a decade, if you haven't upgraded to one by now, you really have no one to blame but your self when you get left behind.

[Enad]

Being 64bit isn't a graphical thing. It allows more system memory to be used.

I have 8GB of RAM right now, but if I play a 32bit game, it won't be using even half my RAM.

This is why I hope DA3 will be 64bit.

[Chaos Lord Malek]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I didn't realize that the new consoles would have 8 gigs.

It's not that I don't have a 64-bit OS--I do (or, I can. It's a tad complicated). I dislike the arbitrary requirement, when we're talking about an isometric tactical game, not some graphics powerhouse.

Its not isometric tactical game, its an isometric RPG and nothing prevents it from being graphics powerhouse - actually it would be for the best, as Bioware is basing their games strongly on cinematic experience - so graphics are very important.

EDIT: Acutally we don't know yet if its isometric, as they might change to full 3rd person view in style like Mass Effect. We will see eventually at E3 i think.

Modifié par Chaos Lord Malek, 21 mai 2013 - 12:55 .

[Enad]

Chaos Lord Malek wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

I didn't realize that the new consoles would have 8 gigs.

It's not that I don't have a 64-bit OS--I do (or, I can. It's a tad complicated). I dislike the arbitrary requirement, when we're talking about an isometric tactical game, not some graphics powerhouse.

Its not isometric tactical game, its an isometric RPG and nothing prevents it from being graphics powerhouse - actually it would be for the best, as Bioware is basing their games strongly on cinematic experience - so graphics are very important.

EDIT: Acutally we don't know yet if its isometric, as they might change to full 3rd person view in style like Mass Effect. We will see eventually at E3 i think.

Dragon Age has never been Isometric. DAO had that camera angle as an optional thing. 

They wouldn't be 'changeing' anything when the camera has always been a 3rd person perspective. 

[Uccio]

64 if they are not planning to sell the game in 90´s.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

KnossosTNC wrote...

I disagree. I think PC gaming is now ready for the 64-bit transition, so why wait?

Because some of us AREN'T ready.

Some of us aren't, that's true (my gaming PC is 32-bit - hell, it runs Vista), but catering to those of us who lag behind harms the game.

Think how much better these games would be if the UI didn't need to support SDTV displays.  PC games stopped supporting 640*480 around 2001, only to have that added back in when games went cross-platform.  But moving away from 640*480 was good for game design.

Ending support for 32-bit systems carries similar (though less visible) advantages.

[bEVEsthda]

What we, today, understands as "64-bit" computing (CPUs, OS, software) provides one simple and essential feature: An effectively unlimited, linear, virtual memory space for the application.
This means the software can be, in a straightforward manner, pretty much engineered in any way one want.

This is not the case with 32-bit software. If one uses a linear space (which is the case in Win32 OSes), the app will crash at somewhere like 1.7 GB memory use. And this is regardless of your hardware specs.

There is only one negative thing about 64-bit.  Memory leaks will not cause any crashes, before you run out of all available physical memory, RAM and swap areas included. This means they will likely not be fixed by the developers, quite as urgently as before.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 21 mai 2013 - 10:05 .

[Newschmoo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

KnossosTNC wrote...

I disagree. I think PC gaming is now ready for the 64-bit transition, so why wait?

Because some of us AREN'T ready.

Some of us aren't, that's true (my gaming PC is 32-bit - hell, it runs Vista), but catering to those of us who lag behind harms the game.

Think how much better these games would be if the UI didn't need to support SDTV displays.  PC games stopped supporting 640*480 around 2001, only to have that added back in when games went cross-platform.  But moving away from 640*480 was good for game design.

Ending support for 32-bit systems carries similar (though less visible) advantages.

I really wished more UIs supported HD TVs.  I currently have my pc attached to one and I have the resolution at 1152 x 648. I have to keep it low just to read the text etc (and that's with the UI mods).  Not good for the eyes!

[Volus Warlord]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

Chiramu wrote...

It should be high definition. Everything is going HD.

HD is old man... all the rage now is 3D

No.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Newschmoo wrote...

I really wished more UIs supported HD TVs.  I currently have my pc attached to one and I have the resolution at 1152 x 648. I have to keep it low just to read the text etc (and that's with the UI mods).  Not good for the eyes!

There's no requirement that they not.  KotOR's UI scaled to match the resolution of your display, and that worked fine (I ran a 1600*1200 at the time).

I'm thinking more of things like the character limit on the dialogue wheel.  DA2's limit was 40 characters, because at 640*480 that filled all the available space.  But if the minimum supported resultion was 1280 pixels wide rather than 640 pixels wide, we could have much longer and more informative paraphrases.

[Conduit0]

bEVEsthda wrote...

What we, today, understands as "64-bit" computing (CPUs, OS, software) provides one simple and essential feature: An effectively unlimited, linear, virtual memory space for the application.
This means the software can be, in a straightforward manner, pretty much engineered in any way one want.

This is not the case with 32-bit software. If one uses a linear space (which is the case in Win32 OSes), the app will crash at somewhere like 1.7 GB memory use. And this is regardless of your hardware specs.

There is only one negative thing about 64-bit.  Memory leaks will not cause any crashes, before you run out of all available physical memory, RAM and swap areas included. This means they will likely not be fixed by the developers, quite as urgently as before.

Well, not quite unlimited, theres a theoretical limit of 2 terabytes of memory per application.

[Linkenski]

relhart wrote...

Frostbite 3 is 64bit only... I believe. I heard that somewhere at least, I will try to find the source.

Edit:  http://www.bit-tech....engine-64-bit/1

Huh? But isn't PS4 based on x86 architecture? Won't they need to reengineer the ending for that particular port then?

[PSUHammer]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

Chiramu wrote...

It should be high definition. Everything is going HD.

HD is old man... all the rage FAD now is 3D

Fixed that for you.

[PSUHammer]

KnossosTNC wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Because some of us AREN'T ready.

Well, according to Steam statistics, nearly 70% of Steam users now run on a 64-bit version of Windows - including the 54% who run on Windows 7 64-bit. I think we're just about as ready as we'll ever be.

Make no mistake, the 64-bit transition will happen, sooner or later. It is inevitable, especially as both the PS4 and the next Xbox are both believed to have 8GB of RAM. This will eventually put a lot of pressure on developers to go 64-bit only for their PC versions, as that expanded memory begins to be utilized. If you're not ready, I think the time to make yourself ready is rapidly approaching.

Not to mention almost every processor/PC sold, for the last ten years, has been 64bit AND you could have upgraded to Windows 8 64 bit for $20 a few months ago...no sympathy for those that can't get off the pot.

Modifié par PSUHammer, 22 mai 2013 - 11:55 .

[bEVEsthda]

EntropicAngel wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

What we, today, understands as "64-bit" computing (CPUs, OS, software) provides one simple and essential feature: An effectively unlimited, linear, virtual memory space for the application.
This means the software can be, in a straightforward manner, pretty much engineered in any way one want.

This is not the case with 32-bit software. If one uses a linear space (which is the case in Win32 OSes), the app will crash at somewhere like 1.7 GB memory use. And this is regardless of your hardware specs.

Unless you change it.

Because The Witcher (first one) DID start crashing, I upped the virtual memory to 3 GB. In my 32-bit system. The game now works fine (relatively, the optimization is poor).

Perhaps you're thinking about physical memory. I know I have 8 GB, but the system can only use half of it because it's 32-bit.

Yes, some software allow you to set the 3GB switch. Your app now crashes at approx 2.3-2.6 GB usage instead. It's not  a solution. You're just moving the problem slightly.

If I write virtual space, I mean virtual space.
As for physical memory, it's largely an unrelated issue. Your 32-bit system can only use *4GB* (actually ~3.4GB) ram, because it's a desktop/consumer version of 32-bit Windows. '32-bit' doesn't cause it in absolute sense. It's possible to adress 64GB (I think) with a 32-bit x86 CPU. And server versions of 32-bit Windows used to offer larger areas than 4GB.
This is all in how memory is paged to ram. The desktop OS only uses two levels of tables. The server OS three.
As for a single application, well, the restrictions we discussed above still holds, whatever, as long as we have a flat memory model for the software.  

[Harle Cerulean]

I fully expect it to be 64 bit, which makes me sad because I'm still on Windows XP and don't see myself upgrading in the near future unless a job falls in my lap. (Goodness knows I'm not having any luck getting one otherwise.)

[Ninja Stan]

New consoles may be discussed in the existing threads in the Off-Topic forum. Whether DA2 is 32-bit or 64-bit has nothing to do with the game's content.

End of line.