1  |   Order by index

May 20, 2005, 9:12pm

Do you reckon AW might actually do something useful and create a 64 bit
compile of AW? Or is such an idea above them?

May 23, 2005, 2:51pm

[View Quote] I think the 32bit one would perform just as fine in a 64 bit operating
system as it does in 32bit. There would probably be almost no noteable
difference.

I'd rather a *nix version. ;)

May 23, 2005, 2:54pm

ya but, a 64bit version would probably perform better then a 32bit version,
when running on a 64bit system.

-SWE

[View Quote]

May 23, 2005, 3:45pm

[View Quote] I'd agree with you if it were a mission critical application like a
server. Something like AW would probably have little to no difference.
But the only way to tell is to have a 64 bit version.

All you need is the graphics driver now for the 64 bit system now. :)

May 23, 2005, 3:55pm

lol, ya, it's probably not very important, AW would be better off adding new
features, and improving the graphics (especially the water, terrain, and
object materials)

-SWE

[View Quote]

May 23, 2005, 4:14pm

[View Quote] They need to probably start all those systems from scratch (basically
the whole browser) with those things in mind. Or at least a module
system that they can build into. Each time they add something they have
to work around something they've done previously.

Maybe allow each seperate world to load modules they want to use.
Terrain, Water, whatever. Basically the server scripting they were
going to add a while back, but with more pizaz.

May 24, 2005, 11:39am

Well put it this way I've seen reviews and tests and tried it my self, games
that have been recompiled for 64 bit have a huge perfomance boost in frame
rate or visibility and Farcry is an example you can download a patch to add
the 64 bit binary and compare the difference your self.

Nvidia already do the 64 bit graphics drivers so do ATi I think. So the
drivers are out there already, the operating system is out there all is
needed is 64 bit renderware which I think will be quite likely to be out
there soon and then for AW to do a 64 bit binary.

64 Bit is not just for servers and mission critical processing its also
geared to home entertainment for high quality video and audio such as
cinematography and 3d rendering.

It also would be easier to do a 64 bit binary then to rewrite the whole of
the client to have linux support for which I tell people over and over runs
fine using WINE anyway, stop bitching about a linux specific client if you
ever want to see a new version in the next 5 years cause AW would have to
start over and rewrite half the client.

Thing is you could do much more advanced terrain details you could actually
make each cell curve to the next rather than having terrain such large
squares because the processing power to calculate these things would be
there.


[View Quote]

May 24, 2005, 11:44am

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/DevelopWithAMD/0,,30_2252_869_875%5E10543,00.html

[View Quote]

May 24, 2005, 5:46pm

[View Quote] Not so likely here, AWI uses an older version of renderware. Meaning,
not the current version, and hasn't been for a while.

> 64 Bit is not just for servers and mission critical processing its also
> geared to home entertainment for high quality video and audio such as
> cinematography and 3d rendering.

3D rendering is not really what we see when you think and generally want
to talk about 3D rendering. Building meshes with 3DS max and animations
is more along the lines of what you're infering here. Simply drawing
polygons on a screen is not really 3D rendering.

I won't deny that it will give boosts in performance, but nothing much
more than what you could do using 32bit legacy applications running
under the 64 bit processor. In AW's case, anyways.

> It also would be easier to do a 64 bit binary then to rewrite the whole of
> the client to have linux support for which I tell people over and over runs
> fine using WINE anyway, stop bitching about a linux specific client if you
> ever want to see a new version in the next 5 years cause AW would have to
> start over and rewrite half the client.

I never denied that it couldn't. The client needs to be rewritten. The
features have become convoluted because of previous features. Terrain
and water working together, for instance. (Not being able to have
different heights for water, water under terrain, et. al.)

> Thing is you could do much more advanced terrain details you could actually
> make each cell curve to the next rather than having terrain such large
> squares because the processing power to calculate these things would be
> there.

Or just precompile some sort of terrain information if the terrain is
now static. The power is there in non 64bit processors as well. The
problem is people usually run quite a bit more software when running AW
than they would, with say, Half-life 2. It's a different type of
software, it's not really a game, that's why users treat it differently.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it tends to slice down the
CPU time AW uses and can use.

May 24, 2005, 5:52pm

"3D rendering is not really what we see when you think and generally want
to talk about 3D rendering. Building meshes with 3DS max and animations
is more along the lines of what you're infering here. Simply drawing
polygons on a screen is not really 3D rendering."

Emm, drawing polygons on a screen is exactly what 3d rendering is. The only
diffrence between how 3ds max renders, and AW, is that in 3ds max, it uses
much more advanced calculations, and thats why it takes longer.

-SWE

May 24, 2005, 5:57pm

[View Quote] Well, if you understand what I'm saying, it's that the 64bit processor
is developed for applications like that. Not to say it won't give
benefits to AW, but AW most likely uses direct calls to the graphic card
and it's interface (DX/OGL), as opposed to mathematical formulae to
actually build the model's binary form, and so on.

From what I understand the 64bit processors have their memory
controller directly in them, which is probably where the real boost
comes in.

The only real problem I see with a 64bit version is that it needs more
time that they don't have. Building on top of a 32 bit piece of software.

May 24, 2005, 8:13pm

Socket 754 single memory controller and Socket 939/940 Dual Memory
controllers with a bandwidth of 6.4gb/sec.

AMD also have Hyper transport runs at 1ghz and really speeds things up and
lowers bottle necks.

Not to mention the 64 Bit O/S can now use terrabytes of memory 32 bit runs
out at about 4GB, when your using alot of detailed textures & models its
easy to run out of memory. But this isn't going to affect AW much since its
mainly lowres.

The AMD64/EMT64 architectures are designed to run x86 software just as well
as an x86 chip if not better, thing is the chips how so much more power to
offer.

May 25, 2005, 12:32am

[View Quote] Please tell me you aren't using a "I can only go up to 4 GB of memory
with 32bit" as the argument as why it should be upgraded. ;) I can see
the rest, but that was just a stupid useless fact. Home users will be
fine with 4 gigs for probably 5-10 years now. Hell, 512 is more than
enough for normal users and most gamers.

May 25, 2005, 3:11am

"Hell, 512 is more than enough for normal users and most gamers."
Well, dunno about that, i'm on 1gb and thinking of upgrading, but maybe
that's just because i always want to have the best everything?
anyway, ya, 4GBs and wayyy more then enough for now, and definatly for
atleast another 5 years for home users. But for work stations, like, proper
3d work stations, guessing in 2-3 years, 4gbs might not be enough, seeing
how quickly 3d art is evolving.

Fact is, when there's more available, more will be done.

-SWE

[View Quote]

May 25, 2005, 11:42am

Windows Longhorn uses 512MB before you've even opened an application, things
change, heck at one time you could of said we were fine with 16MB but you
can't survive on that now can you? Even 256MB is starting to struggle, and
gamers well no my brother had problems with 512MB gave him 768MB and all was
good but thigns move on.

When technology is available things will use it, you seem to be against 64
bit for some reason? Don't you want technology to move on, to give you a
higher quality experience?

[View Quote]

May 25, 2005, 2:14pm

[View Quote] There is absolutely no reason for an operating system to use so much
memory. At all, there is no excuse for it. The operating system gives
the interface to devices. And yes, 16 MB is enough for certain things.
Hell my friend is running a webserver on that much.

I really see no ungodly reason for the gigantic memory limit. It may be
needed in certain instances, but last I recall windows wasn't the only
operating system. I think Redhat used to support well beyond 4 gigs on
a 32bit system.

Things will use it in the future, yes, but distant future and for things
home users have no use for. The arguement is flawed that that much ram
would be necessary for a home user at this point in time, or even in the
near future.

The reason Longhorn uses so much memory is probably for the reason most
of the software is server-ed (so I hear), so it needs to download it and
load it into memory. Bad design, but I suppose good against piracy.

1  |   Order by index