will PS2 be "large address aware" - Page 2

Markn · 2012-03-13, 07:37 PM

Yah you wont see people upgrading to windows 8 its more for phones,tablets.

Ragefighter · 2012-03-13, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by NewSith

I say the game should be primarily designed for 32-bit systems. Because 1/3 of the world's pop is still using 32-bit windows. Don't want PS2 to turn into APB Reloaded.

But something tells me it's too late to do anything about it.

I don't want it to be just 64-bit... but make it so 64-bit PC can be utilized better.

Yea it is defiantly too late lol but I just wanted to know if anyone heard about this yet?

Shanesan · 2012-03-13, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Bonius

64-bit compatible is one thing
64-bit exclusive is another

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there still OS limitations as in how much resources a single application can use before the system becomes unstable, even on 64-bit?

My opinion on that matter is that PlanetSide 2 should be 64-bit exclusive, though I know it won't be because of Higby's promise that it will run on 3 year old machines that I've heard through the grapevine.

Instead, 32-bit users will have severely reduced graphics capabilities (blocky/blurred textures) just like APB was and 64-bit users will have the full graphics potential because of the nigh-unlimited amount of RAM 64-bit can use (most computers pre-built today can support at least 8GB of RAM on their motherboards). If the graphics aren't severely reduced on 32-bit, they will most likely crash under high memory load with many users unless they're using some very fancy algorithm to utilize the same memory maps for similar users.

So that's how it is. I would like to hear how Higby's magical team did it. Perhaps CyclesMcHurtz could share some insight.

MonsterBone · 2012-03-13, 08:48 PM

Hate to break it to you but that 32 bit OS can only address 3.2 GB of ram and that includes the video ram.

However for PS that total is enough that you wont be page loading.

So who cares (despite the fact that 64 bit is the future for good reason).

**CyclesMcHurtz** · 2012-03-13, 11:58 PM

I can say that we are probably using less RAM than you think right now, and the fidelity is pretty spectacular. As I have mentioned before, my personal development machine is NOT top of the line because I expect (and part of my job is to INSURE) to get a great experience on a mediocre machine. I'll have to check if there are more specific things I can say.

As an interesting side note - you can do the research, but most disk drives can only sustain around 100MB/second. When you factor in head-seek times, other processing, and other overhead you're usually lucky to get about 1 Gig per MINUTE off the disk. I think a few of the SSD drives can get over 250MB/second but I've not seen much faster ones. (These are all READ numbers, by the way - writes are TERRIBLE).

Can game developers cram more data on the disk? Sure - but I'm sure some of you are already seeing crazy amounts of stutter and hitching on modern games directly related to this transfer rate problem. Heck, some of the games I've played lately even have trouble loading AUDIO fast enough.

Kran De Loy · 2012-03-14, 12:24 AM

As someone told me once about something partially related, that there are already two decades worth of software technology and improvements working around such hardware problems.

There is tech out there that is in development, but it's going to be long time before the switch happens and when it does happen it's going to be at least a decade past that before we start seeing the tech wide spread in the market and thus see any real improvements. Take Broadband for example. It's been around for more than a decade, iirc.

As long as it's smooth, beautiful and for a lot of people then it's all good. For now I'd much rather see the game succeed so much that someone decides to make a PS3 10 years from now.

(Referencing Point Cloud video graphics and later SSDs)

Bonius · 2012-03-14, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by CyclesMcHurtz

I can say that we are probably using less RAM than you think right now, and the fidelity is pretty spectacular. As I have mentioned before, my personal development machine is NOT top of the line because I expect (and part of my job is to INSURE) to get a great experience on a mediocre machine. I'll have to check if there are more specific things I can say.

As an interesting side note - you can do the research, but most disk drives can only sustain around 100MB/second. When you factor in head-seek times, other processing, and other overhead you're usually lucky to get about 1 Gig per MINUTE off the disk. I think a few of the SSD drives can get over 250MB/second but I've not seen much faster ones. (These are all READ numbers, by the way - writes are TERRIBLE).

Can game developers cram more data on the disk? Sure - but I'm sure some of you are already seeing crazy amounts of stutter and hitching on modern games directly related to this transfer rate problem. Heck, some of the games I've played lately even have trouble loading AUDIO fast enough.

This is one interesting aspect that I've also noticed over the past few years when games started to get rapidly more advanced.

The CryTek engine is a perfect example of this, the games made with it looks absolutely *insert censored word here* insanely amazing. However you need to have a monster of a HDD to be able to run it - not a monster of a GPU/CPU. As an example I noticed a 30% increase in FPS stability when I went into a raid setup instead of single-drive.

Can you tell us anything about how PS2 will handle the huge battles, on a techincal level, that we've seen in PS1, seeing as the textures in PS2 are obviously alot more detailed and upscaled. Will we see any form of dynamic "texture-changer" (no idea what the correct term is) whenever the RAM and HDD is taking a beating, or is it going to be more of a "flush-and-reload" and pray that the system can keep up?

Coreldan · 2012-03-14, 09:36 AM

The client doesnt have to be 64 bit to utilize more RAM than a 32 bit OS can handle. APB is a good example of this

But yes, I do hope that the game could actually use more RAM if I have some spare, but I'm not certain what all would this improve? Texture popping came into my mind first, but I suppose thats largely a GPU thing too?

Fenrys · 2012-03-14, 10:16 AM

Reminds me of the problems Skyrim had at release.

Ragefighter · 2012-03-14, 01:18 PM

I guess for those of us with 16gb ram we could try creating a RAM Disk (maybe 4gb) for the page file or other temp stuff. than at least it could be utilized in some way. (generally speaking not just for PS2).

I am not familure with this yet but might give it a try to test it out.
here is a free ware RAM disk program if anyone knows how to do it right!
http://memory.dataram.com/products-a...ftware/ramdisk

Shanesan · 2012-03-14, 05:05 PM

To make your IOPS more manageable, try this trick with a bit of money.

- Buy a SSD (64 or 128GB is plenty).
- Install Windows 7 64-bit on it, or image it over if it is smaller than the SSD.
- After Windows 7 is installed, go to Start -> [Username], right click on all options from Contacts to Searches and change the following:

Right Click and click on Properties
Go to the "Location" tab.
Click Move and give each folder a location off the SSD.

This will keep the SSD from filling up and also boost your IOPS performance significantly, putting the operating system's IOPS onto a fast drive and keeping your games off the primary.

Install all programs OFF the SSD on the other drive and you will have a very happy, very fast computer.

Fenrys · 2012-03-14, 06:14 PM

I wonder how large the PS2 install will be?

I've got 8GB of RAM, but only rarely use more than 4GB (and even then it's only because I'm being lazy and not closing programs). If PS2 is smaller than 4GB, I might try to figure out how to install it on a RAM drive. Maybe install it once in RAM, make a copy of the install folder on a SSD, and write a batch file that runs at startup to copy it back into RAM.

Originally Posted by Shanesan

To make your IOPS more manageable, try this trick with a bit of money.

- Buy a SSD (64 or 128GB is plenty).
- Install Windows 7 64-bit on it, or image it over if it is smaller than the SSD.
- After Windows 7 is installed, go to Start -> [Username], right click on all options from Contacts to Searches and change the following:

Right Click and click on Properties
Go to the "Location" tab.
Click Move and give each folder a location off the SSD.

This will keep the SSD from filling up and also boost your IOPS performance significantly, putting the operating system's IOPS onto a fast drive and keeping your games off the primary.

Install all programs OFF the SSD on the other drive and you will have a very happy, very fast computer.

+1

Good advice.

Princess Frosty · 2012-03-15, 04:36 AM

I really hope so, many gamers are building rigs with 8Gb or more RAM these days, because it's so cheap I put 16Gb in to mine.

It would be nice if the game realised there was that much RAM and instead of dumping assets out of memory just kept them in there, so if I want to hop continents then loading times are next to instant rather than having to stream it all back off disk.

The 32bit limitations are a bit lame, it limits to 4Gb of total addressable memory but the application only get 2Gb of that, we need a large address aware executable and preferably a full blown x64 client which can make use of the entire x64 architecture as well as the additional memory.

Skitrel · 2012-03-15, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by Shanesan

Computer Scientist here.

Any new gaming engine, if they want to use it for the next X number of years, MUST be 64-bit compatible, especially on this scale of game. People who code engines aren't stupid, and this was probably not even written on the whiteboard while they were planning - it's a standard now in the 2010s.

All Points Bulletin is a 64-bit client. You are severely reduced if you are running 32-bit. 64-bit is not even the future - it's the now.

Too right. The future is qubits and quantum computing, wherever the hell that's going to take us. The entire infrastructure of computing is about to change and leap forwards.

Bonius · 2012-03-15, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Princess Frosty

I really hope so, many gamers are building rigs with 8Gb or more RAM these days, because it's so cheap I put 16Gb in to mine.

It would be nice if the game realised there was that much RAM and instead of dumping assets out of memory just kept them in there, so if I want to hop continents then loading times are next to instant rather than having to stream it all back off disk.

The 32bit limitations are a bit lame, it limits to 4Gb of total addressable memory but the application only get 2Gb of that, we need a large address aware executable and preferably a full blown x64 client which can make use of the entire x64 architecture as well as the additional memory.

As stated earlier, the limitations of the game engines today is not within the RAM, but in the ports that all the data has to be transfered through.

Even if you could shuffle everything from your HDD into your RAM, you would still have to sit there and wait for 5-10 minutes on each loadup simply because your HDD's cannot transfer all the data into the RAM fast enough.