I like the "we need to solve x" type managers so that if there is blowback they can blame you and you have no recourse since they can claim they didn't tell you how to do it so it must be your fault.

 

My PC Hardware/Operating Systems Prof told us about one I really liked. Higher up tried to order him to install single license software on multiple systems. Prof responded by pointing out that it was illegal, and that if anyone in the company reported it to the BSA, they'd be shut down for days and eat huge fines.

 

The higher-up's response was: 'Are you threatening me?'

 

In the end, prof asked to get the order in writing and the guy backed off.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Tiron_Raptor

You mean like OSX 10.7, in that it only supports x86-64?

 

I'd call that 64 bit only.

 

Eh, Windows 7 x64 is also x86-64. While the core of the OS may be 64-bit compliant, not all it's constituent parts have to be. That instruction set still supports 32-bit commands so is not retricted to executing 64-bit only commands.

That is something completely different.

 

"existing 32-bit x86 executables run with no compatibility or performance penalties"

 

in the link you just posted

 

Maybe you should READ, the link I posted, it will explain why you are very, very wrong.

 

The fact that ANYONE here is using Wikipedia as ANY type of correct information source REALLY needs to do a reality check themselves. Wikipedia is one of the MOST UNRELIABLE pieces of pseudo-information on the web. Anybody in the world of academia will tell you this.

My PC Hardware/Operating Systems Prof told us about one I really liked. Higher up tried to order him to install single license software on multiple systems. Prof responded by pointing out that it was illegal, and that if anyone in the company reported it to the BSA, they'd be shut down for days and eat huge fines.

 

The higher-up's response was: 'Are you threatening me?'

 

In the end, prof asked to get the order in writing and the guy backed off.

 

I like it.

I'm a computer tech to begin with, and I'm sleepy.

 

To be honest though, far as I'm concerned if all this speculation DID turn out right, it wouldn't be the fault of BW's techs.

 

It'd be someone who wears a suit and tie, probably drives an audi, and hasn't been directly involved with a development project in years, if ever, because he probably has an MBA and doesn't know much about coding.

 

Slipping something like that in there is a business decision, not a technical decision. It happens because someone says 'we must find a way to stop <thing>', or worse yet 'I want you to put <thing> in'. If it is in there, there's a fair chance that the devs themselves think it's a terrible idea, but don't dare go against the wishes of upper management.

 

All you can do in a situation like that is try to make sure that it isn't your butt in the sling when it predictably comes crashing down.

 

Just wondering from a tech perspective, BW bought the engine 7 years ago, it was a prototype at the time that had optimization issues and almost no documentation to go with it, when they bought the engine they gave it to the engineers and said make it work, we begin production within the year.

Would that not create a huge problem that could last this entire time?

Edited January 11, 2012 by shananigan

Eh, Windows 7 x64 is also x86-64. While the core of the OS may be 64-bit compliant, not all it's constituent parts have to be. That instruction set still supports 32-bit commands so is not retricted to executing 64-bit only commands.

 

My point was that there was a Win7 x86-64, as well as a Win7 IA-32.

 

10.7 doesn't have a 32 bit flavor at all.

 

Sure it still supports legacy software, but there's no 32-bit only flavor.

So we'll never see a sole 64 bit eh ... i guess the guy back then in 1990 said the same thing that it was madness to use 64bit .... Who knows maybe microsoft will announce a 128bit OS in 2020....Don't forget the first computer started up with a 256k hard disk and that was a BOMB !

 

Don't think that THAT hasn't already been discussed...

I think I lost a few.. ok, many brain cells reading this. A lot of it boils down to people think they know more than they actually do, and can often miss the obvious.

 

1. It doesn't matter how much RAM you have, any application written for 32bit windows has a 2GB address space limit. This is different from the hardware addressable space the OS uses. SWTOR appears to get around this limitation by running two processes each with their own 2GB memory max pool.

 

2. As said, the game does not do remote rendering, if anything the engine gets caught up on the animation system. If the game did remote rendering there would be no difference on performance between my laptop and gaming PC.

 

3. Per "I can play X game on high, but this game is slow": To me Deus Ex is a much better looking game that Civ V, yet my machine laughs at Deus Ex, yet chokes on Civ V. The difference is what, and how the two games. Its a lot harder to render many small objects than it is a few large ones. I can't find the blurb from Tomshardware.com that goes into how the different engines work and how drivers and card type affect performance. I dare say that http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Performance/FishBowl/ is more system intensive when cranked up then crysis 2... yet all its doing is making fish swim...

 

The game has a lot of teething issues with a new engine that still needs tweaking.

The fact that ANYONE here is using Wikipedia as ANY type of correct information source REALLY needs to do a reality check themselves. Wikipedia is one of the MOST UNRELIABLE pieces of pseudo-information on the web. Anybody in the world of academia will tell you this.

 

"MOST UNRELIABLE pieces of pseudo-information on the web" [citation needed]

"MOST UNRELIABLE pieces of pseudo-information on the web" [citation needed]

 

LOL +5 points

I guess "because I said so" is more reliable lol

Edited January 11, 2012 by shananigan

The fact that ANYONE here is using Wikipedia as ANY type of correct information source REALLY needs to do a reality check themselves. Wikipedia is one of the MOST UNRELIABLE pieces of pseudo-information on the web. Anybody in the world of academia will tell you this.

 

Its funny how a politician hiring people to edit his Wikipedia article has somehow invalidated an entire repository of human knowledge.

 

Obviously you're not going to use Wikipedia for an academic paper, but the basics are still there.

"most unreliable pieces of pseudo-information on the web" [citation needed]

 

rofl

Edited January 11, 2012 by DarthSublimitas

The fact that ANYONE here is using Wikipedia as ANY type of correct information source REALLY needs to do a reality check themselves. Wikipedia is one of the MOST UNRELIABLE pieces of pseudo-information on the web. Anybody in the world of academia will tell you this.

 

For something that HAS to be accurate, it's not good enough. But neither is Britannica. by their nature Encyclopedias are more useful for general knowledge purposes than in-depth research.

 

Wikipedia just has the additional complication that anyone can edit it, so incorrect info of various sorts can easily creep into their articles. Usually it gets fixed pretty quick... on the other hand, I once reverted an edit where someone had added 'Ord Mantell' to an image caption on the Easter Egg article. Unlinked. Nobody touched it until I reverted it, 364 days and 15 minutes after the change was made.

 

There is one good way to use it though: hit the article just to help get a vague idea of what the subject is: they're mostly pretty accurate, unless it's stubtacular. Then scroll down to their references. Note any that might be useable sources. Go find the original, and see if it's got anything useful.

Wikipedia is an introduction to primary sources, not a primary source itself. You don't use it for academic papers because, hey, if you're an academic, you're supposed to have specialized knowledge on this subject--Wikipedia is not specialized knowledge, since anyone can load up a page on X and find out the extent of what you know, if what you know is all that's on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is an introduction to primary sources, not a primary source itself. You don't use it for academic papers because, hey, if you're an academic, you're supposed to have specialized knowledge on this subject--Wikipedia is not specialized knowledge, since anyone can load up a page on X and find out the extent of what you know, if what you know is all that's on Wikipedia.

 

Like I said. Britannica has the same problem.

 

Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't have a page on 'remote rendering'...grr...

Wikipedia is an introduction to primary sources, not a primary source itself. You don't use it for academic papers because, hey, if you're an academic, you're supposed to have specialized knowledge on this subject--Wikipedia is not specialized knowledge, since anyone can load up a page on X and find out the extent of what you know, if what you know is all that's on Wikipedia.

 

Replace the DNA article with "I LIEK CHEEZBERGERZ!!!1." /win

Like I said. Britannica has the same problem.

 

Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't have a page on 'remote rendering'...grr...

 

 

 

Go Write one Tiron! ofcourse....Swtor fans will edit the Shi#t out of it! lol

Like I said. Britannica has the same problem.

 

Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't have a page on 'remote rendering'...grr...

 

Where did this ridiculous (false) rumor of swtor using remote rendering come from anyways?

Where did this ridiculous (false) rumor of swtor using remote rendering come from anyways?

 

 

Go read the other 66 pages They:cool:

Where did this ridiculous (false) rumor of swtor using remote rendering come from anyways?

 

It's mostly laid out in the OP. In the 'retailclient' folder, there's a trio of files: Remoterenderer.dll, Remoterendererclient.dll, and Remoterenderserver.icb. One of them Remoterenderer.dll, I believe, was found to contain script/code/whatever that it appeared was designed to half the size of character textures, and then someone posted about it being copy protection, and it just kinda fell off the cliff from there.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Tiron_Raptor

Go read the other 66 pages They:cool:

 

I mean, I've read most of it, but I'm trying to figure out where it actually started, originally. All I can figure is it was "someone said, he said, she said, they think" sorta deal.

 

-shrug-

I mean, I've read most of it, but I'm trying to figure out where it actually started, originally. All I can figure is it was "someone said, he said, she said, they think" sorta deal.

 

-shrug-

 

First page explains it all.

If anything, people should read at least the first page of a thread.

Edited January 11, 2012 by shananigan

I mean, I've read most of it, but I'm trying to figure out where it actually started, originally. All I can figure is it was "someone said, he said, she said, they think" sorta deal.

 

-shrug-

 

 

Speculation My Dear Watson.....Main Idea Generated from the existence of a second swtor.exe process running when game client is up...(if i read right myself)

No one said for sure that it is Remote Rendering thats going on...it was merely an idea dished out in hopes to generate some response or Action from Bioware in regards to many people that are experiencing performance issues with the game. We all have our ideas as to what it could be....

The thread title and first post raise the question, "Is this thing causing performance drops?"

 

No one knows, but these forums will (and have already, apparently) assume "yes".

 

When did the SWTOR forums become FOX News?

First page explains it all.

If anything, people should read at least the first page of a thread.

 

 

well im not sure anymore lol....been following this post all day lol...i bearly remember what the first page says lol