Question to the fans of 32-bit and directX 9. Why are there no ultra graphics options in the settings menu? Some benefits of dx10 and dx11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Direct3D#Direct3D_10 New state object to enable (mostly) the CPU to change states efficiently. Texture arrays enable swapping of textures in GPU without CPU intervention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Direct3D#Direct3D_11 Multithreaded rendering — to render to the same Direct3D device object from different threads for multi core CPUs
100% unreliable. We don't know the sample space, the % of who replied, and the least reliable survey of any kind are online, optional surveys.
First of all there is no such thing as a mandatory survey - and secondly your flawed argument can be applied to every last survey on the earth. Surveys are by definition never accurate - they are a REPRESENTATION. And a very accurate one at that in the case of the hardware and operating system ones judging by comparing it with other sources. So please go ramble somewhere else. Personal troll : Win 7 HP is not an operating system.
What makes everyone think that a 64-bit client is going to increase performance? A 32-bit game can still access more than 2GB of memory with a few tricks. An unoptimized code will still run like crap in 64-bit application.
Thank you sir. You've nailed the point right there. None of the issues people are ******** about stem from PS2 being coded in 32 bit. They stem from lack of proper multithreading support and optimisation. This is a new engine! They're going to have problems with it. Ruxxis, no one is postulating that DX9 is just as good as DX10/11 . Of course it isn't. DX11 has proper tesselation and a whole host of other nifty graphics options. Sure, DX11 can also run multithreading on GPUs that support it, but none of the major problems people are having with performance are GPU related, they're CPU related. Adding DX11 support to PS2 will do nothing to help with those issues, therefore I don't imagine it's a priority for SOE.
You misunderstand DX11. A gpu contains hundreds of "cores" which process in parallel for dx9,dx10,or dx11. dx11 multithreading refers to the cpu, not to the gpu. It means, the cpu can use more than one core, when the cpu instructs the gpu to render something, dx11 would allow more cpu usage (less cpu bottlenecking) Currently, to get higher frame rate, I set shadowquality to low-medium and floraquality to low-medium. With dx11, maybe we could have ultra shadows and ultra flora without fps loss. If you think 32-bit is so good, then why not install 32-bit windows? Play all your games on 32-bit windows as these people do. http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/...nt-crashing-after-5-30-minutes-of-play.52443/ I played games on 32-bit windows for many years (until a few months ago when I installed a new SSD) and most games run fine but not all games. For example, Empire:Total War with mods and Gothic 3 would start to crash frequently when the save game file became very large. Even bcdedit did not prevent all crashes. Some games have memory leaks and the game eventually uses all the ram, and then crashes. Ever wonder why your old computer with only 1-2GB of ram would slow down or crash after several hours of gaming? One possible reason is because of memory leaks in the game engine. By the way, don't know how true this is, but I read that, unlike dx10/dx11, dx9 makes a duplicate copy of graphics data in both vram and system ram. If this is true, then it means, when 1GB of graphics data is loaded into vram, then there is also 1GB less system ram available. Maybe this is the reason why there are no ultra graphic options in the settings menu.
I don't think anyone is saying 32-bit is better than 64-bit. They're more like saying a 64-bit client is not going to make this game perform better. What does a 32-bit Windows OS have to do with the PS2 client? Yes, you will have memory limitations as well with a 32-bit OS, but they are easy to get around. It's really simple. If you have more than 4 GB, 32-bit Windows will not access more than 4 GB. It's a theoretical limit, so to speak. Instead, it'll access the swap file on your hard drive, which is incredibly slow. But what if you made a Ramdisk with all that unallocated RAM beyond 4 GB, and then put that swap file on your Ramdisk instead of the HDD? Ta da!
The main reason to compile PS2 as 32-bit is because some people have a 32-bit OS. But ..... as we both already know, PS2 crashes in 32-bit windows. This is a fact. You may be unaware of this because perhaps you do not use a 32-bit OS? A 32-bit game (such as PS2), by default, can only access up to 2GB ram in 32-bit windows. With bcdedit, 32-bit games can access a little more or less than 3GB ram in 32-bit windows which is still not enough to ensure the game won't crash. I have personally used bcdedit in other games in 32-bit windows and it's not an experience I would like to repeat because it seems some crashes still occur. If PS2 can barely run (without crashing) on a 32-bit OS, then why support 32-bit operating systems? Sony should act more responsibly and simply say, sorry, this game uses a lot of ram. 32-bit OS is not supported.
If the game is crashing because of 2 GB memory limitations, then it's going to crash on 32-bit or 64-bit Windows regardless. I don't see how it matters whether its on a 32 bit or 64 bit OS. It should run just as fine on a 32-bit OS. Anyways, 32-bit clients can use more than 2 GB if the coders just use some tricks, like techniques such as Non-Addressable Memory Store. It's what the Arma developers use, and they have a 32-bit client.
Win 7 Home Premium is not an operating system? Was the troll supposed to be that it is, and you're just making things up, oorrr...?
Hold on.. Minimum requirement: 4GB RAM.. Yet it's a 32-bit application... ? Anybody else smell something funny?
I love the statements people make on these forums, "nobody uses x32 anymore" Laughable, just because you prefer something to other things, do not for a second think the world follows your example.. its a fact that the majority of computers available in peoples homes are Older units running older systems, the minority of us who spend 1000's upon 1000's of our hard earned wages on keeping a gaming rig up to date for all those sexy games out there, are/should not be the target as at the end of the day this is a business, you are a customer, and the be all and end all is, in business you DON'T turn away customers right off the bat.. you need a very very very good reason to decline custom from someone. in this case, those users with x32 computers only make up WAY over half of the computers in the world. Yes i do agree the architecture is an antiquated platform but until the majority of players are on x64 then this will be an industry standard approach. with all that being said, i think i smell a troll anyway, just trying to feed a little bit more to see what response i get (if any) ^_^
OS VersionWindows 7 64 bit58.58%-0.74% Windows 713.98%-0.11% Windows XP 32 bit10.36%-0.84% Windows Vista 64 bit4.77%+0.03% Windows 8 64 bit4.25%+2.40% Windows Vista 32 bit3.30%-0.40% MacOS 10.8.2 64 bit1.49%-0.11% MacOS 10.6.8 64 bit0.78%-0.20% MacOS 10.7.5 64 bit0.72%+0.03% Windows XP 64 bit0.47%-0.02% Windows 80.44%+0.22% MacOS 10.7.4 64 bit0.27%-0.27% Other0.57%+0.11%---------------------------------Safe to say that x64 is getting stronger across the board.
It has been specifically mentioned that Planetside 2 is 32-bit purely for the purpose of compatibility, SPECIFICALLY to be played on 32-bit systems. If 4GB RAM are required to even open the game, then it is not able to be played on 32-bit systems. And you don't notice this disconnect? In order to have 4GB RAM you must have an x64 OS.. Yet SOE allegedly made PS2 32-bit to be played on 32-bit operating systems.
