Why DCS needs full 64 bit support so badly?

[Distiler]

From an old interview:

 

http://simmoders.com/index.php?topic=234.0

 

Any multi-core and DX10 plan along the way?

 

Multi-core support will likely be available in DCS at a later point, but right now our bigger focus is on providing full 64-bit support. 32-bit is currently limiting some of our options. As for DX10, we see no persuasive reason to add it at this time.

 

So why do you think ED needs full 64-bit suport for DCS so badly? even on top of real multithread executable! Considering Blackshark eats just half a GB of ram (like 1-1.5 if you count OS, etc) and 64 bit is mostly noticed when a program eats a shitload of ram (like +4GB considering also OS, etc etc)...what will be the benefit of this if it is not to make...

 

...really huge battles...like in a real time full scale dynamic battles/campaign (a la Falcon or future Oleg's SoW)?

 

Ok tin foil hat time! discuss XD

Edited March 12, 2009 by Distiler

[jctrnacty]

1.st 64bit is the future - windows in a few years will be only 64 bit

 

2.nd 64bit means more memory usage - means better textures, more units, etc.

 

3.rd 64bit - speed improvement, shorter loading times

[Distiler]

1.st 64bit is the future - windows in a few years will be only 64 bit

 

2.nd 64bit means more memory usage - means better textures, more units, etc.

 

3.rd 64bit - speed improvement, shorter loading times

 

1st is yeah you said "years", but why is ED in such a hurry to put it on top of multithread executable that potentially could insta-benefit every actual user?

 

2nd is yeah, just like I said, huge battles, i mean really huge to go from 0.5-1Gb to like 3Gb or more.

 

3rd is yeah and nai, not everything is faster nor shorter loading times in 64 bits. Let's consider a bit of improvement at least.

 

 

 

The question remains. Wich feature for DCS do you think is so pressing for ED right now that it needs 64 bits? I really can't think in anything but some kind of dinamic battle/campaign that take in account and in real time hundreds of units, each with it's own ai. I can't think of any other thing needed in DCS that may need so huge ammounts of data stored and calculated.

Edited March 12, 2009 by Distiler

[GGTharos]

Try +2GB...which it might start approaching. You need 64 bits to get over the 2Gb process limit.

[Distiler]

Really, doesen't 32 bit execute a 2Gb+ executable? I didn't know thanks for the info. But that doesen't change too much.

 

I mean, even in server mode and a "populated" mission it barely reaches 0.5 Gb. I still can't understand why is so pressing, you must have somehing big in mind to really need that so soon and before of multithreading. And I can't think in anything but a real time dynamic "battles" with lots of missions at the same time in the same map, with a shitload of units fighting in real time.

Tin foil!!!

 

PD: btw games like RTS Supreme commander, very huge real time strategy game with hundredes of units, can reach that 2Gb limit (in fact is a known issue with that game). But you really need to put like a shitload of units and huge maps to end there. Not even tracks like stresstrack provided in DCS uses more than 500Mb of ram and there is a good ammount of units.

Edited March 12, 2009 by Distiler

[ALDEGA]

GG, there is a way for applications in a 32-bit version of Windows to use more than 2GB of virtual address space. This requires that the /3GB parameter be set in boot.ini, as well as a change to the application itself. However, this reduces virtual address space for the Windows Kernel, which can cause instability. It can also cause problems with drivers. (similar issues as with the /PAE switch)

 

Quote from Microsoft:

On Windows XP, some drivers, especially video adapter drivers with onboard RAM, cannot run with the /3GB parameter because they require more address space than the 1 GB kernel address space permits.

 

Conclusion: it's better to switch to a 64-bit version of Windows (and recompile the application to x64) to increase performance on systems with larger amounts of system memory.

[AlphaInfinity]

Try +2GB...which it might start approaching. You need 64 bits to get over the 2Gb process limit.

 

 

Looking forward to it. By the time this becomes available prices on GDDR3 should come down quite a bit and I will be able to afford lots of ram.

[GGTharos]

The memory bit is only a guess. Maybe it will also help with a new terrain engine? The current engine is limited to some 300k vertices, IIRC.

[Distiler]

The memory bit is only a guess. Maybe it will also help with a new terrain engine? The current engine is limited to some 300k vertices, IIRC.

 

Huge terrains also explain more memory needing. But, one of the key features of DCS is having twice the terrain resolution of Lomac, how are you upgrading it so soon? or maybe it's not related to texture resolution but "meshes" (elevation matrix?) and such things?

 

C'mon please throw us a bone!! XD

Edited March 12, 2009 by Distiler

[GGTharos]

I never said anything about textures.

[AndyHill]

It could also be that adding 64-bit support is just easier and thus more cost effective, even if a fully-threaded paraller processing optimized engine might provide greater benefits.

[Distiler]

I never said anything about textures.

 

So you were talking perhaps about the terrain elevation matrix? holy cryptic batman!! ^^

[EtherealN]

He's not cryptic. He explicitly stated "The current engine is limited to some 300k vertices, IIRC.". :P

[ZaltysZ]

Huge terrains also explain more memory needing. But, one of the key features of DCS is having twice the terrain resolution of Lomac, how are you upgrading it so soon? or maybe it's not related to texture resolution but "meshes" (elevation matrix?) and such things?

 

Maybe they are not going to rise resolution of terrain any time soon, however they may have plans to increase area of map. Remember that in DCS we got more detailed, but smaller map (Crimea was erased).

[EtherealN]

No, it's not smaller. We have a larger area in Georgia as well as new areas north of the caucasus mountains.

[Distiler]

Yes, but the area populated with objects and detail is little (I think). ED might need larger populated and detailed areas for A-10 and next fixed wing aircraft. This might be an explanation too.

[amalahama]

The memory bit is only a guess. Maybe it will also help with a new terrain engine? The current engine is limited to some 300k vertices, IIRC.

 

What?? Only 300K?? How many vertices has FS98 terrain?? I bet more than 300k...

 

Does ED team think to implement ROAM paging terrain one day?

 

Regards!!

[Slayer]

64 bit allows you to move larger chunks of data more efficiently, thats why so many database solutions moved to 64 bit years ago. It's not just a memory limitation that x64 will address. Another thing that many people forget is that out current processors (C2D etc) native mode is 64 bit. If I remember right they are running in some kind of compatibility mode when operating in 32 bit, so I'm betting that we should see some performance gains on a 64 bit executable. Being as this sim seems so CPU bound it will probably deliver more bang for the buck than a DX10 implementation. Not only that DX11 is coming with Windows 7, so why waste time on DX10?

[EtherealN]

Well amalahama, the problem really is that it doesn't only need to load terrain for where you are, it needs to load terrain around every unit on the map.

 

MSF, X-Plane and all those other civ sims can get away with more since you only have to load the terrain the player is going to see at any given time.

[Doggy]

C'moooon. The answer is easy... upcoming AH-64 can't run on 32bits :D

[pbsmgm]

I wish (no names for diplomacy) people would simply move forward in technology like clearly DCS is doing with 64bit technology. I applaud and praise DCS for not being so diplomatic and moving forward with 64bit in a timely manner. Let the weak wallow in old technology. So if you don't have the funds to move forward with current technology, then get out of the boat or get another job and let the rest of us move forward! Home Built: i7-920 OC@3.2Ghz, 6GB DDR3, ATI 4970 X2 2GB, Vista64...soon to be upgraded..:)

Edited March 13, 2009 by pbsmgm

[AlphaInfinity]

I wish (no names for diplomacy) people would simply move forward in technology like clearly DCS is doing with 64bit technology. I applaud and praise DCS for not being so diplomatic and moving forward with 64bit in a timely manner. Let the weak wallow in old technology. So if you don't have the funds to move forward with current technology, then get out of the boat or get another job and let the rest of us move forward! Home Built: i7-920 OC@3.2Ghz, 6GB DDR3, ATI 4970 X2 2GB, Vista64...soon to be upgraded..:)

 

 

Hey, great idea. As a result, their sales would be drop by 80% because not everybody can afford a new system .......the economy is a little bad at the moment. :)

[pbsmgm]

Last I checked sales right NOW/current economic conditions is not the same as sales for future developement/future economic conditions, which is what we are discussing here. We are not going to stay in economic doldrums forever. And for any buiness to STOP all development of future products because of an economic downturn would kill the business in the long run.

[AlphaInfinity]

Last I checked sales right NOW/current economic conditions is not the same as sales for future developement/future economic conditions, which is what we are discussing here. We are not going to stay in economic doldrums forever. And for any buiness to STOP all development of future products because of an economic downturn would kill the business in the long run.

 

I don't think I said to stop innovating or halt developement. :)

[Distiler]

That video had slipped me. The Nevada terrain for DCS:A-10 might well be related to the 64 bit hurry needing:

 

 

http://s124.photobucket.com/albums/p2/Highwayman-Ed/?action=view&current=SceneryDemo.flv

Edited March 13, 2009 by Distiler