Jump to content

Bioware: A question for the devs


karnyboy

Recommended Posts

Is there any plan to implement a 64-bit client for SWTOR?

 

additionally is there any plan to implement a client that takes advantage of 4-8 core cpu's?

 

 

Any info would be nice, I'm not looking for promises, a simple it's something we may look into for the future is better than no answer at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any plan to implement a 64-bit client for SWTOR?

 

additionally is there any plan to implement a client that takes advantage of 4-8 core cpu's?

 

 

Any info would be nice, I'm not looking for promises, a simple it's something we may look into for the future is better than no answer at all.

The game client already takes advantage of any cores you throw at it.

 

We currently don't have plans for a 64 bit client. There are few advantages to that and a lot of disadvantages (like having to test the entire game with multiple client builds and having to chase down 64 bit versions for any middleware used in the game). Very few games offer native 64 bit clients for that reason.

Edited by CommunitySupportEN
fixed a tiny error
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game already client takes advantage of any cores you throw at it.

 

What about on the planet loading screens? SWTOR only uses one core (SWTOR is pegged out at 25% during load screen which is only 1 of the 4 cores in my machine) when its stuck at 30%ish on the loading screen. I'm assuming that its extracting out the resources for that zone. Is there anyway to have SWTOR extract all that out ahead of time (I don't mind the extra used disk space) Or make it multi-threaded? I always dread going to another planet because of the load time.

 

Not a huge deal but it makes it where you almost have to be on Fleet if you want to PvP because the fleet loads MUCH quicker than any other planet.

Edited by microbolt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We currently don't have plans for a 64 bit client. There are few advantages to that and a lot of disadvantages (like having to test the entire game with multiple client builds and having to chase down 64 bit versions for any middleware used in the game).

Do you have any statistics regarding how large a percentage of the player population are using machines incapable of running 64-bit software?

 

It'd be interesting to know, since I consider the lack of a 64-bit client a serious drawback in this time and age.

 

I absolutely understand the reasoning for not putting out such a client though, and I put the blame squarely on Microsoft for allowing 32-bit software to remain unchanged within the modern ecosystem.

 

On another note, have you you made any performance projections for what moving to a 64-bit architecture would do?

 

At the least it'd mean moving from 3GB to 4GB of addressable memory, though 8GB or more is certainly the norm for fairly new rigs. More importantly, it'd double both the width and number of general registers available to the compiler.

 

I could see potentially massive performance gains there, especially where there are current bottlenecks, but it'd be nice to know if you have any real numbers to cite?

 

On a similar note, any plans regarding DX 11?

 

My understanding is that native DX 11 client would allow for better performance using the same hardware, assuming the latter is compatible of course.

 

I do believe a lesser number of players have computers that are DX 11-enabled than they have ones which support 64-bit software at this point though. It's just a fairly obvious migration path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game already client takes advantage of any cores you throw at it.

 

We currently don't have plans for a 64 bit client. There are few advantages to that and a lot of disadvantages (like having to test the entire game with multiple client builds and having to chase down 64 bit versions for any middleware used in the game). Very few games offer native 64 bit clients for that reason.

 

"We can't get it right with 32-bit, so we can't justify a 64-bit version"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game already client takes advantage of any cores you throw at it.

 

No,

 

I spent since launch running the game on an 8 core 2.8 xeon (heaps of ram, ssd, 560ti, win 7 x64, aero off, xp3 compatibility checked, etc, etc, etc). Always with cpu and gpu usage meters up on an extra screen. The game never utilized all 8 cores.

 

Typically in large illum fights my fps would be 4-8 fps with the utilization meters sitting <25% for both cpu and gpu. Never in those instances would one individual core be maxed.

 

I just put together an i5 with the 560ti and with barely a bump in clock speed and 4 less cores it runs the game much better.

 

The game mutithreads sure, but it certainly wasn't effectively utilizing more than a couple cores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No,

 

I spent since launch running the game on an 8 core 2.8 xeon (heaps of ram, ssd, 560ti, win 7 x64, aero off, xp3 compatibility checked, etc, etc, etc). Always with cpu and gpu usage meters up on an extra screen. The game never utilized all 8 cores.

 

 

The same thing happens on the 1st gen i7's. I'm running a 960 @ 4.2GHz and the game regularly runs at most 25% cpu usage even when in heavy pvp situations. my gtx 580 will hit 65-80% gpu but rarely gets any higer than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same thing happens on the 1st gen i7's. I'm running a 960 @ 4.2GHz and the game regularly runs at most 25% cpu usage even when in heavy pvp situations. my gtx 580 will hit 65-80% gpu but rarely gets any higer than that.

 

 

Try setting the affinity in task manager to one individual core for each of the two game processes.

 

I saw no noticeable loss in performance when doing so. >2 thread lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game already client takes advantage of any cores you throw at it.

I'm sorry, but no. Balancing the load across all of the cores is not the same thing as multi-threading. As far as I can tell, the game can only take advantage of the capacity of 2 cores. This means there would be little or no performance difference between running 2 cores @ 3.8ghz, and 8 cores @ 3.8ghz.

 

I believe your statement to be either misleading, or misinformed. If it is the case that the game is supposed to take better advantage of cpu cores, then you guys have a serious performance bug to look in to, and the fact it hasn't been patched by now is unsettling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No,

 

I spent since launch running the game on an 8 core 2.8 xeon (heaps of ram, ssd, 560ti, win 7 x64, aero off, xp3 compatibility checked, etc, etc, etc). Always with cpu and gpu usage meters up on an extra screen. The game never utilized all 8 cores.

 

Typically in large illum fights my fps would be 4-8 fps with the utilization meters sitting <25% for both cpu and gpu. Never in those instances would one individual core be maxed.

 

I just put together an i5 with the 560ti and with barely a bump in clock speed and 4 less cores it runs the game much better.

 

The game mutithreads sure, but it certainly wasn't effectively utilizing more than a couple cores.

 

 

The game is 'threading', but at load it doesn't utilize additional cores very well.

 

Additionally, it seems the internal threading model of the engine is hitting a lot of queue/funnel locks, which some are necessary to be handled in game for synchronization.

 

However, it seems the engine is also trying to manage threads itself that it should be handing off to Windows to manage. By handling the ones the OS should be managing, it creates a couple of problems.

 

1) It can't be optimized for XP's scheduling and Windows 7's scheduling unless they are managing two code bases, which they are not. Windows 7 has smarter scheduling and more granularity than XP.

 

2) The second problem is the engine seems to handling thread scheduling like the game is running on Linux (or similar kernel model), which leads me to believe the engine designers spent a bit too much time in the *nix world, and don't fully understand NT and why it is significantly different, as it seems like they are recreating things as they would need to do on Linux, which are redundant on NT.

 

______________

This reminds me a lot of OS X, where the duck tape Apple put on the XNU/Darwin kernel to improve single processor multi-tasking in 1999, later became a problem when handling SMP and reduces performance when juggling a lot of thread on multiple cores. (To this day 'even with the Snow Leopard threading APIs', OS X running on more than two CPUs/Cores is wasting performance, as the OS is hitting hard funnel locks and has to stop to resolve the queue which it can only perform on one and sometimes two CPUs/Cores, and while this is happening, all threading is 'funneled' through the 1st and 2nd CPU/Core, leaving an 8 CPU/Core Mac Pro with 6 CPUs/Cores sitting idle a majority of the time. Users don't see this happening, so they don't realize that OS X is robbing them of the raw performance of the extra computing power they paid good money to have.

 

_____________

 

It does seem that with SWTOR being a large release, it is pushing both Bioware and HeroEngine to work on the core performance of the engine technology. If they would ask for assistance from Microsoft, they would make even better inroads by not reproducing functionality that Windows inherently offers that a lot of old school low level developers do not realize is available.

 

So there is a bit of silver lining, as this will push the game to get better, while still being able to offer more functionality and extensibility in the future.

 

The base concept of the HeroEngine is brilliant, but it specializes in combining a lot of technologies to make developing complex MMO systems/worlds 'easy', and hasn't been pushed hard to focus on low level optimizations.

 

SWTOR is forcing this to happen.

 

The HeroEngine is extremely extensible, which is good for SWTOR players, as it should easily scale up to new technologies as hardware advances, and someday we should see DX10 and DX11 features that are not only 'pretty' but faster than DX9 ways of handling everything from textures to shaders.

 

....So as critical as I and my tech team can be at times on Bioware and the HeroEngine, we have respect for the technologies and what they both accomplished, and have an optimistic view of this game living on in ways no other MMO has been able to thus far.

Edited by MartinSPT
Issues, but hope...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We can't get it right with 32-bit, so we can't justify a 64-bit version"

 

No. The reason is that a game that appeals to a broad range of players has to run on a very wide range of systems, which means developing towards the lowest common denominator (Windows XP).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game already client takes advantage of any cores you throw at it.

 

We currently don't have plans for a 64 bit client. There are few advantages to that and a lot of disadvantages (like having to test the entire game with multiple client builds and having to chase down 64 bit versions for any middleware used in the game). Very few games offer native 64 bit clients for that reason.

 

I realize that there would be a ton of work involved to make a 64bit client, however in its current state the game client uses just a sliver less than 3 GB of memory... now i have never made a game that uses more than 2 GB of memory however i have made PCs that had more than 4 GB of memory. if the OS is not 64bit, you are not using more than 4 GB of memory, so i believe it would be reasonable to assume that a 32bit client would not be able to run well, if at all if it were to grow another gig is memory requirements.

 

though like i said i am only drawing this conclusion based on my computer building experience.

 

With that said perhaps making a 64 bit client would make the game not only run better on much higher end machines, it would also create a incentive for users to invest in better PCs, and give you the developers a little more freedom to make more complex and enjoyable content.

 

just a thought?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have any statistics regarding how large a percentage of the player population are using machines incapable of running 64-bit software?

 

It'd be interesting to know, since I consider the lack of a 64-bit client a serious drawback in this time and age.

 

I'm sure they do, but I'm not sure they will reveal them. If you look at general statistics, we have:

 

Windows XP 41.88%

Windows 7 35.47%

Windows Vista 7.30%

 

The numbers vary from source to source, but as a rough order of magnitude, the share of Windows XP installations is roughly the same as that of Windows 7 installations (not all of which are 64 bit either). Presumably, in the population of computers used for gaming, the statistics are more skewed towards Windows 7, but I'm certain that there is still a large share of Windows XP computers in the player base.

 

Given that game development draws upon a limited set of resources, it is easy to see why developers still focus on 32-bit systems. If anyone is to blame, it is Microsoft with its poor implementation of Windows Vista, which has extended the life of Windows XP.

Edited by Kthx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure they do, but I'm not sure they will reveal them. If you look at general statistics, we have:

<SNIP>

I see your point, I'm just not quite as willing to make that correlation between general PC users and TOR players.

 

Anecdotal evidence is obviously pointless but the low-end requirements of TOR, for a moderately enjoyable experience, are far higher than those of WoW back in the day and with that in mind I'm inclined to believe more people have more modern rigs now.

 

Of course I only know about ~20 TOR players personally, but since all of them run 64-bit versions of Windows 7 with a minimum of 4GB of memory and I can't think of anyone not using DX11 hardware offhand, I'm curious about the real statistics.

 

Besides, there's no question that there's going to have to be a 64-bit client eventually - assuming the game intends to be around a few years.

 

Like earlier posters noted, we're at the top end of memory usage already and on top of that there are potentially massive performance benefits afforded by utilizing the full power of the hardware.

 

Obviously, the game still needs more TLC as far as polish and the general experience goes as of yet but these concerns are valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game client already takes advantage of any cores you throw at it.

 

We currently don't have plans for a 64 bit client. There are few advantages to that and a lot of disadvantages (like having to test the entire game with multiple client builds and having to chase down 64 bit versions for any middleware used in the game). Very few games offer native 64 bit clients for that reason.

 

Obviously meaning that flash sucks even more on 64bit (the whole ui is flash based). You guys should get rid of scaleform gfx as soon as possible, seriously..

Edited by Netzgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. The reason is that a game that appeals to a broad range of players has to run on a very wide range of systems, which means developing towards the lowest common denominator (Windows XP).

 

Yea but the thing is, no serious MMO gamer is running XP anymore. Its as if BioWare's target audience are preteens with hand-me-down dinosaur rigs or unemployed people living at home with mom.

 

A decent rig to run SWTOR costs less than $600 USD. That is hardly a lot of cash for a computer investment. People tend to forget 6 years ago the low end spec was maybe 2 cores, 2GB DDR2 RAM and Windows XP. Today's more realistic low-end spec features 4 cores, 4GB DDR3 RAM and Windows Vista-64. There is no reason why Bioware cannot build upon a 64-bit OS and still cater to a huge consumer base.

Edited by Damon_Mott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
The same thing happens on the 1st gen i7's. I'm running a 960 @ 4.2GHz and the game regularly runs at most 25% cpu usage even when in heavy pvp situations. my gtx 580 will hit 65-80% gpu but rarely gets any higer than that.

 

umm that's cause the i7 kick *** I have never seen ANY program task my sandybridge over 25% not even 64 bit adobe Premire when i'm rendering a video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea but the thing is, no serious MMO gamer is running XP anymore. Its as if BioWare's target audience are preteens with hand-me-down dinosaur rigs or unemployed people living at home with mom.

 

A decent rig to run SWTOR costs less than $600 USD. That is hardly a lot of cash for a computer investment. People tend to forget 6 years ago the low end spec was maybe 2 cores, 2GB DDR2 RAM and Windows XP. Today's more realistic low-end spec features 4 cores, 4GB DDR3 RAM and Windows Vista-64. There is no reason why Bioware cannot build upon a 64-bit OS and still cater to a huge consumer base.

 

you can't make an MMO anymore based on what hardware people should have. Vanguard and AoC learned this lesson the hard way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...