PlaneShift
Gameplay => General Discussion => Topic started by: kbilik on October 19, 2003, 07:21:04 am
-
Are there any plans to make planeshift take advantage of the increased capability that 64 bit processors offer?
Seeing that Planeshift is a pre-alpha demo right now, it might be easier to implement at this stage. What do you guys/gals think?
-
64-bit processing is something that I doubt the Planeshift devs will worry about. The code they have to write most likely won\'t be helped by 64-bit processing.
However, the folks over at the CrystalSpace project are probably taking a look at it. You could try asking them :)
-
I don\'t know.. Some ppl say 64-bits processing is the future of gaming while some says it will still be just 3d-rendering and stuff.
-
It would be really nice, as I\'m getting one. :D
-
then thay should create a 32 and a 64 bit game but 32 runs on 64 if i\'m right so what\'s the use by creating 2 versions of the same game....
-
They won\'t have to make 2 games... just make it a feature. Like you know when you can turn on shading and anti-aliasing or leave it off if your system can\'t handle it. Same thing here. It will have to be compatible with 32 bit, but offer the option to switch to 64 bit mode if you have the right chip.
Although I have a feeling that it\'s not as easy to do as that. Any experts ?(
-
Originally posted by Niber
I don\'t know.. Some ppl say 64-bits processing is the future of gaming while some says it will still be just 3d-rendering and stuff.
It\'s hard to tell. Basically, from what I understand, the only way 64-bit processing helps is when it comes to crunching big numbers. If it is going to revolutionize gaming, it will probably only be in the field of 3D engines (like CrystalSpace). My guess would be that you could download either a 32-bit or 64-bit version of CrystalSpace, and either one would be compatible with Planeshift.
But even still, don\'t everyone go out and spend a ton of money on a 64-bit processor on the false assumption that it\'s twice as fast as 32-bit processors. This is DEAD WRONG! I just don\'t want people to start complaining about how it\'s barely faster than 32-bit.
For those of you that need a new processor (like me) anyway, you might want to wait for 64-bit so that you can take advantage of whatever new features they offer. But keep in mind, it will take awhile for companies to start utilizing it. And again, it will mostly have to do with graphic imaging and 3d rendering. Unless you do a lot with these these kind of programs, you won\'t even notice a difference with 64-bit.
Disclaimer: This is only what I understand of 64-bit processing, and I could be way off the mark. If you want to get specifics, look for a credible website.
-
Some people think that 64 bit is not even going to come around... just all hyper-threading capabilities.
-
Well considering Intel and AMD are both already working on 64-bits, it seems highly likely that the\'ll be around sooner or later.
And if I recall, I think some computers manufactured by Silicon Graphics have 128-bit processors. 8o
-
64 bit will help but howmany will need it? I wont. My souped up Athlon works fine for me. Just go on adding cooling devices and overclock (My computer doesn\'t even look like a computer any more:D.). Most of the times a RAM addition does more wonders than a processor change. And it is wiser to wait a year after a processor is released before buying one. That way you\'ll get a tested and cheap processor. I have observed that it is always better to buy penultimate technology. Sure your computer illiterate friend might have a faster \'puter than ya but it isn\'t the speed that matters, its how you use it;). Besides you\'ll be laughing when you by his same system a year later at half the price :).
-
I just read something online about 64 bit and hyper threading together are going to become commonplace.
-
A good way to think about how many \"bits\" your processor is is like the cylinders in your car engine. A 12 cylinder engine is huge and probably fast, but Formula 1 cars are 4 cylinders and faster than 12 cylinder jaguars.
While I\'m at it, I\'ll extend the analogy:
RPM in a car engine is kind of like how many GHz your processor is. A car might redline at 8000 RPM and another car at 9000 RPM, but that doesn\'t mean the 9000 RPM car is faster. They are somewhat correlated, but not exactly.
Thus systems can be judged in general by how many RPM they run at, and how many cylinders their engines have, but that is not the final determinant of which is faster or better.
- Venge
-
That\'s a great way of putting it, thanks for helping out Venge :D
-
Originally posted by Vengeance
A good way to think about how many \"bits\" your processor is is like the cylinders in your car engine. A 12 cylinder engine is huge and probably fast, but Formula 1 cars are 4 cylinders and faster than 12 cylinder jaguars.
- Venge
Well, not exactly. If you want your game to lack substance and simply be designed for raw speed, 32 bit high end is the way to go (like that 4 cylinder).
If you chose the Jaguar with it\'s extra room, luxury, substance, space, and all that, you have to look toward a robust engine with 64 bit support (like the 12 cylinder). The trend of 64 bit processing is going to pick up dramatically in about 5 years as many experts have said. So if Planeshift might go commercial by then, why not make it take advantage of the 64 bit platforms? What harm can it do?
Remember, you want quality and sheer open scope over being very good at just one area (i.e. speed).
-
This extension of the metaphor makes no sense. Lamborghini\'s are built for raw speed and have no comforts and they have V-12 engines.
Your point about 64-bit engines being dominant in 5 years is excellent though. Let\'s revisit this topic then.
- Venge
-
Anyway, 64-bit is too much for any power user (let alone an average user). 64-bit processors will only be useful for people doing complex calculations. I would imagine a 64-bit computer would have more address space, but that\'s not immediatly useful, yet (I\'m not going to pull a Gates, though.) Of course, people will end up buying 64-bit processors anyway, thinking its more powerful. Its really equivlent to the x87 Math Coprocessors in the pre-Pentium days, although with less impact on the average user.
64-bits is probably the future, but they\'re more difficult to produce, and, correct me if I\'m wrong, more expensive at the moment. Although, they also say encrypted instruction sets are the future; and I doubt that will happen any time soon.
And to kbilik: It couldn\'t be an option, it would have to be rebuilt.
-
Hmm... what about bandwidth problems with 32 bit processors? As processors get faster and faster at sending information, the 32 bit will eventually hit a bottleneck.
If you want to send a stable stream of high quality data from processor through RAM and so on, 64 bit will be better in the long run. I heard that 64 bit also supports FAR more RAM than 32 bit.
Look at this 25 gigaflop chip for example:
Here (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994274)
In theory, its fast... but that can change if it is hooked up to a 32 bit processor and then it slows down.
-
I am not getting whole metaphor with the car engine however in the past 20 years I?ve seen a lot of these arguments before.
The first computer ever used was a PDP8. A core memory computer from the Digital Corp. Then a Atari 400, Atari 800, IBM PC, 286, 386, 486, Pentium, Pentium 2, K6, and on, and on...
Grakim
Anyway, 64-bit is too much for any power user (let alone an average user).
If I had a nickel for every time I?ve read this one somewhere I would have a $1.50
The point is faster smaller cheaper is always better. This is especially true in video games. As an example if you can put 1000 Pentiums in one chip and stick on a wristwatch, maybe 100 years from now, there would be a lot of useful applications for it.
I think the other misconceptions is how base technology like microprocessor upgrades are integrated into finished product. First of all if you?re not working in assembly language it has little or no impact. This reminds me of the math coprocessor debate. It ends up being the math coprocessor was simulated, at greatly reduce speed, in the C language thus allowing software to run in the two environments. The same thing will probably happen in 64-bit processors.
So until the developers have a 64-bit processor and compilers to use it I seriously doubt they will dive into assembly language to make it happen.
-
Originally posted by kbilik
Hmm... what about bandwidth problems with 32 bit processors? As processors get faster and faster at sending information, the 32 bit will eventually hit a bottleneck.
Eventually is the keyword. Effective processor speed is restricted by bandwidth; but it mainly has to with the size of data the processor can natively deal with. So it takes more processing for a 32-bit processor to deal with 64-bit numbers. Processor speed hasn\'t really hit a point where 64-bit bandwidth is nesscary, and the days of Moore\'s law are over, so we\'ll have to see how long it will take. 64-bit is faster when 64-bit or higher values are dealt with, but that\'s a rare occurance, outside of engineering and mathematics.
If you want to send a stable stream of high quality data from processor through RAM and so on, 64 bit will be better in the long run. I heard that 64 bit also supports FAR more RAM than 32 bit.
Hence I said more addressing space ;)
-
Originally posted by Fish
If I had a nickel for every time I?ve read this one somewhere I would have a $1.50
The point is faster smaller cheaper is always better. This is especially true in video games. As an example if you can put 1000 Pentiums in one chip and stick on a wristwatch, maybe 100 years from now, there would be a lot of useful applications for it.
Yeah, why do you think the Z80 is still so popular?
I think the other misconceptions is how base technology like microprocessor upgrades are integrated into finished product. First of all if you?re not working in assembly language it has little or no impact. This reminds me of the math coprocessor debate. It ends up being the math coprocessor was simulated, at greatly reduce speed, in the C language thus allowing software to run in the two environments. The same thing will probably happen in 64-bit processors.
So until the developers have a 64-bit processor and compilers to use it I seriously doubt they will dive into assembly language to make it happen.
Well, that\'s rather flawed. Compilers have evolved alot since the \'80s. Compilers now produce almost as fast code as hand-written assembly, making assembly unnessicary for coding on established platforms (that is, anything that\'s ever been used by mankind, the x86 family espeically) Although, new compilers will have to be written to take advantage of the 64-bit processors, but that\'s a given.
Also, just before Math Coprocessors were built-in (with the 486DX and Pentiums), wasn\'t the final solution to detect wheter the 87 was there, and emulate if not? Of course, in the 386 and before, it was more natural to assume its not there.
One question though, what\'s the designation for the Intel\'s new IA-64? Are they going to continue with the x86 tradition, or are they starting anew?
-
?Yeah, why do you think the Z80 is still so popular?? I hate to break this to you it?s not. It?s a dead architecture. It died 10 years ago and for good reason, there are way better alternatives.
?Compilers now produce almost as fast code as hand-written assembly? that really depends on a lot of things. First of all who is writing the assembly code. Second of all what algorithm you?re shooting for. However it kinda proves my point. If you have a new processor class it takes awhile for people to write the compilers that fully utilized that class. Very few people will go to assembly to make it happen. So that means no compiler libraries that utilize 64-bit = no benefit until there is one. Then you would think you just use the 64-bit library and it works. That almost never happens.
As for the new 64-bit chip being in the x86 family. I personally think they?ve beat the x86 horse into the ground. If it weren?t for %$^&$$#^ legacy issues it would have been dead long ago. However I?ll make a $10 bet with you that it will be. That?s because their capitalists. That?s one bet I?d Like to lose.
-
Originally posted by Fish
?Yeah, why do you think the Z80 is still so popular?? I hate to break this to you it?s not. It?s a dead architecture. It died 10 years ago and for good reason, there are way better alternatives.
Actually, the Z80 is still in use. It was used up to 2-3 years ago in the Game Boy/Game Boy Color (and there\'s even a Z80 in the GBA, in addition to the ARM7TDMI that makes up its core), and it is TI\'s processor of choice for graphing calculators. Z80s are still good, cheap, low power-consumption processors when you can get by on 2MHz.
?Compilers now produce almost as fast code as hand-written assembly? that really depends on a lot of things. First of all who is writing the assembly code. Second of all what algorithm you?re shooting for. However it kinda proves my point. If you have a new processor class it takes awhile for people to write the compilers that fully utilized that class. Very few people will go to assembly to make it happen. So that means no compiler libraries that utilize 64-bit = no benefit until there is one. Then you would think you just use the 64-bit library and it works. That almost never happens.
Actually, if the compiler is coded correctly, any C library will intristically support 64 bit. This is because the actual size of C variables (other than chars and the floating point ones) are undefined. Which, naturally, is a headache to portable programmers... But assemblers and compilers are always the first applications written for a new processor, and usually by the company that designs the chip (for instance, those Intel compilers, I wouldn\'t touch them, but I\'ve heard they\'re hella fast).
-
The Game Boy was introduced in 1989. That is significantly longer than 10 years before now in 2003. From then on you chalk it up to legacy. Legacy means they were stuck with the thing even though there was something better out there.
As far as the compilers being able to automatically detect new processor abilities(especially ones never anticipated) and then use them, this is simply not true. For instance in linux C the 64-bit word is a special case that is rarely used. It wasn?t true for the math coprocessor either, somebody actually had to write it. This is one reason software always lags hardware by six months to a year. Somehow graphics accelerators seem to dodge this bullet(due to a decent industry-standard) however in the case of the 64-bit microprocessor, I think not.
The point is don?t expect plane shift to be going 64 bit until the hardware and tools(that?s software tools) are in place. However when it does it will be getting that advantage by recompiling it. However history dictates just recompiling it doesn?t usually turn the trick. It usually takes a fair bit of tweaking.
-
Originally posted by Fish
As far as the compilers being able to automatically detect new processor abilities(especially ones never anticipated) and then use them, this is simply not true. For instance in linux C the 64-bit word is a special case that is rarely used. It wasn?t true for the math coprocessor either, somebody actually had to write it. This is one reason software always lags hardware by six months to a year. Somehow graphics accelerators seem to dodge this bullet(due to a decent industry-standard) however in the case of the 64-bit microprocessor, I think not.
I never said they automatically detect it, I just said that, by standard, the number of bits is undefined, or rather, implementation defined. So, on a 64-bit processor, you\'d imagine a 64-bit integer would be made availble to the developer; but its not automatic, that\'s why I said if the compiler was properly coded. To restate, the compiler implementor determines the built-in type size, and its usually (and should be) implemented to take the most advantage of the hardware at hand.
The point is don?t expect plane shift to be going 64 bit until the hardware and tools(that?s software tools) are in place. However when it does it will be getting that advantage by recompiling it. However history dictates just recompiling it doesn?t usually turn the trick. It usually takes a fair bit of tweaking.
Naturally.
-
Changing the size based on processor type and size is something C specifically does not do. Why?
Supposing you write a program based on a integer being 16-bit word. All of a sudden in compiler version its 32-bit. This would wreak all kinds of havoc. Word size is a tightly controlled parameter. So by running the 64-bit processor you don?t automatically get more precision. It might be faster for other reasons, say it takes two 32-bit words rather than one, but then the program itself would have to be optimized along with the compiler to take advantage of this. This a reason why going to a 64-bit processor is a big deal. It?s not cut and dry there is no? if the compiler was properly coded? they?re not.
-
Originally posted by Fish
It?s not cut and dry there is no? if the compiler was properly coded? they?re not.
I think you misunderstand me... I mean, if the compiler is properly coded for that particular processor. Its not the sort of adjustment that\'s made at runtime, its made at designtime. I\'d imagine the Intel compilers for the IA-64 are properly coded.
-
I personally don\'t think they should change a thing about it. Look at the game we\'re talking about here:
1. It has ASTOUNDING graphics, especially for an mmorpg.
2. For a game like this that is in prealpha, its certainly fast enough. Lag here and there is only inexorable.
I think it\'s fine.
-
Just to make a few corrections and confirm a few things:
IBM and Apple co-released the first 64-bit computer several weeks ago. You can see it here: http://www.apple.com/powermac/
It supports up to 8 gigs of main RAM and, believe it or not with 1 GB of RAM (no display or speakers) you can get 1.6 gHz model for $2,820 (US dollars). The specs:
? 1.6GHz PowerPC G5
? 1GB DDR333 SDRAM (PC2700) - 2x512
? 160GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
? ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
? SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
? Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English
? Mac OS X - U.S. English
This is ultimate graphics without all the RAM (that gets expensive... up to an additional $2,100 to get 4 GB; I don\'t want to get into the dual 2 gHz processor machine...memory for that...ouch).
Anyway, 64 bit processing is here and whether or not the PlaneShift devs choose to use it now, if PS hangs around for more than five years they will probably be forced to, as new software creates new demands for processors and eventually PlaneShift will become obsolete without more advanced software and graphics. It\'s the trend of computers and technology.
Example: I have some old Mac G3s in my basement. I can\'t play Warcraft 3 on them and they\'re barely five years old. I can play Warcraft 1 and 2, yea sure... But do I want to? No way, WC3 is a better game. If PlaneShift lives for an extended time and gets to the level of the Blizzard games (WC3 sold 1 million copies it\'s first weekend) then it will need to switch to 64 bit processing. Not now necessarily, maybe not in five years, but eventually.
-
Cha0s, did you read the rest of this thread? 64-bit processing gives your processor an internal register size of 64 bits, rather than the 32 bits most today have. All this means is that 1) you computer can do faster calculations on very long numbers, and 2) you have a larger maximum limit on RAM.
What does this mean for Planeshift? NOTHING!!
I\'ve said this in every post, and I\'ll say it again here: stop bugging the PS devs about 64-bit and go bug the CrystalSpace devs about 64-bit, because if you want PS to run fastser on the new processors, CS is where it\'s going to happen.
OKAY?!?!
-
As I said in my post, PS will not need 64-bit support for quite a while, and I\'m not necessarily saying the PS devs should implement it themselves (I stated that badly, i was thinking that they should bug the CrystalSpace people to :P ). As for what advantages a 64-bit processor has, I\'d like to draw attention to your second point. As games become more and more complex, there may end up being a lot to process and 64-bit power (and more RAM) would be useful then. Anyway, no need for now, but no one knows what the future holds. In five years virtual reality with smell, ambient sounds, touch, and 3d-surround vision may be commonplace creating a need for a better processor. No one knows for sure, but it could happen... ;)
-
That debate reminds me something....
\"640 Ko should be enough for everyone\" -
Bill Gates, 1981
I know... it\'s pervert to quote a so old topic...
But while we need to operate on big ints or to have a better precision in our calculations I think 256bits processors can be not enough in a couple of years for scientists... and for purposes like life simulation and society generation and simulation from multiples individuals (politic, life organisation...) 128bits processor farms will be a great step forward.
So expansion of registries size and of co-processing are essential... and even more essential... evolution. Actual architectures are too rigid, not dynamical enough. It will have to disappear, or to be simulated on new architectures for backward compatibility.
-
Being able to calculate with more bytes of data gives you more precision not speed. Right now 32 bit processors are more than adequate for games. The only time I?ve heard of a 64-bit number used in gaming is calculating the distance between planets in the solar system.
More precision does not generate more detail or more polygons. And being able to calculate polygon position to more precision is not relevant. If someone could explain to me the benefits of using a 64-bit float over a 32-bit float I?d like to hear it.
What games need is speed. More calculations per second. My guess is running two 32-bit high-speed processors in parallel would be better than one 64-bit processor. At this time that?s pretty much how it?s done. The second processor is in the video card.
The statement was made this topic is better off discussed with the Crystal space team. I agree.
-
So running two or three 16-bit processors at the same time will be better than having one 32 bit processor?
Like you said, right now 32 bit is the way to go. But that doesn\'t matter as it is inevitable (rather soon even) that 32 bit chips will be phased out. Sure, there will be support for 32 bit programs - but as this is a secondary function of such a chip, calculations per second will slow down.
I also see 64 bit precision being useful soon. Let\'s face it: our present games have graphics that still look cartoonish. The more photorealistic a game becomes, the more precision you need to use. Ditto for the physics engine and lights/shadow.
So today\'s \"wow\" factor games like Half-life 2 or Doom 3 will look like crap when compared to games that will be released 5 years from now. If Planeshift wants to compete, the developers of the engine must consider 64 bit computing and beyond.
-
Originally posted by kbilik
So running two or three 16-bit processors at the same time will be better than having one 32 bit processor?
It depends on what you mean by better...
Sure, there will be support for 32 bit programs - but as this is a secondary function of such a chip, calculations per second will slow down.
No such thing as a secondary function for backwards compatibility on processors; the only thing that changes is the register size!!!! It doesn\'t \"slow down\" a 64-bit processor to run a 32-bit app, it\'s exactly the opposite.
If Planeshift wants to compete, the developers of the engine must consider 64 bit computing and beyond.
Guess what? The Planeshift Devs have NOTHING to do with \"the engine\" - go bug the CS people PLEASE!!!
If you all do that, then you\'ll all do me a favor by preventing my blood pressure from rising when I see this thread at the top of the forum again X(
-
Originally posted by Xandria If you all do that, then you\'ll all do me a favor by preventing my blood pressure from rising when I see this thread at the top of the forum again X(
Calm down, this is only a discussion. No one is forcing you or the devs to do this or that. If it does not apply to the Planeshift Devs, then this is handy to have on the forums to address similar concerns of other people.
If you want stressful... try waking up 5:30 AM and coming home 7:00 PM from taking pharmacology/pharmacy biochem courses in college and working.... now thats stressful :D .
-
Kbilik sense you seem to be the one to pick up the 64-bit torch of knowledge let?s go over your response to my post.
I didn?t even mention the 16-bit processor, I said a 32-bit processor has adequate resolution to get the job done. Then you go on to say? I also see 64-bit precision being useful soon? with absolutely no explanation of why. Without the why your point is completely hollow. So let me post the question again. Explained to me the benefits of using a 64-bit float over a 32-bit float.
In the scientific realm the 64-bit processor is a great thing. It allows far more precise calculations at a greater speed at the machine level. However in the game realm all you?re trying to do is to fool the eye into thinking a scene is more realistic. Color, polygon position, sound reproduction, and polygon size are all easily expressed in 32-bit floating-point and integer arithmetic at adequate resolution to fool anybody. Therefore faster 32-bit equals more polygons which equals better resolution. So get to the point and explain why.
-
Originally posted by kbilik
I also see 64 bit precision being useful soon. Let\'s face it: our present games have graphics that still look cartoonish. The more photorealistic a game becomes, the more precision you need to use. Ditto for the physics engine and lights/shadow.
You do of course realize, that the smallest number that can be represented by a 32-bit floating point number is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000014012984643248170709237295832899?
Oh, I\'m sorry, I guess that\'s not \"precise\" enough for you :(
-
Originally posted by Fish
Kbilik sense you seem to be the one to pick up the 64-bit torch of knowledge let?s go over your response to my post.
I didn?t even mention the 16-bit processor, I said a 32-bit processor has adequate resolution to get the job done. Then you go on to say? I also see 64-bit precision being useful soon? with absolutely no explanation of why. Without the why your point is completely hollow. So let me post the question again. Explained to me the benefits of using a 64-bit float over a 32-bit float.
This is why; just follow the next sentences and you\'ll know:
\"I also see 64 bit precision being useful soon. Let\'s face it: our present games have graphics that still look cartoonish. The more photorealistic a game becomes, the more precision you need to use. Ditto for the physics engine and lights/shadow. \"
Oh, and photo-realism doesn\'t just include more polygons. You can make an image have a few billion polygons and it still will look highly synthetic. When we talk about photo-realism, we also talk about a high quality physics engine (hint: this is where the precision kicks in). Sure, you can try to certain tricks to fool the eye... but I doubt it will work pretty well when other competing games don\'t resort to the tricks.
And we know that simply improving resolution doesn\'t cut it. What happens if you take a 32 x 32 picture and zoom in to 1600 x 1200 resolution ;) ? Yes, details will have to be added.
Kinda old, but look here:
\"We\'re extremely excited about the upcoming AMD Athlon 64 processor. It\'s designed to run today\'s 32-bit games and applications and will actually, clock-for-clock, boost their performance relative to 32-bit AMD Athlon processors. But when you add 64-bits to the picture you can get additional capabilities and other performance boosts\"
here (http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/articles.pl?show=498 )
But by far the most important feature right now (might change in a few years) would be more addressable RAM. How much would it speed up network intensive games like Planeshift? Sure, the connection speeds matter more, but RAM helps a lot too.
So if you want to plan ahead, just think about these options.
Xandria... nothing is precise enough for me ;) . Especially when you hit that bandwidth bottleneck with the 32 bit trying to use too much data.
-
Thank you. :D
By the way Lord of the rings is produced on a Linux cluster but their graphics is bad because it is done on 32 bit not 64 bit. Oh, and the Terminator, Star Wars, Hollow Man, and on and on... Don\'t believe it. It\'s the X86 and the only way they can sell it is to hype it. You was taken in by the hype.
Look at the DSP chips and you will see the light. They kill the poor old X86 line in all ways. And will wipe the floor with the whole X86 line in 64 bit. WHY? They\'re not compatible with the 8086!
More bits <> more speed in a chip.
More bits = more speed in a buss (32 bit X 2) or (64 bit).
So \"Explain to me the benefits of using a 64-bit float over a 32-bit float.\" Not the hype. Get technical about it.
Once again take it up with the crystal space team. They can do something about it. 8)
-
Originally posted by Fish
More bits <> more speed in a chip.
Finally, someone who understands (and even used programming lingo, even though it\'s VB ;) )
-
Layman\'s terms, please 8) . I\'m no programmer. We need the mainstream to understand your point as well as mine.
Now explain to me :
-Why and how do DSP chips kill the X86 line? Any proof; links; etc.
-Why bus speed will not improve graphics much. Why 32 bit bus speed will not soon become insufficient or slow down the servers.
-The difference between specialized software for static(planned and extensively modeled) movie special effects, and an ever expanding game that is very flexible (like Planeshift that needs to predict what happens when you swing that sword to monster A or jump on grass, etc.).
-Why not? Whats the problem with using the advantage that 64 bit processors might provide if they will be common pretty soon?
You are not thinking ahead, just dodging.
So you missed my point. Also, don\'t compare movies and their pre-rendered effects (which can take hours with the systems you described) with things that are interactive... that just doesn\'t work.
-
*sigh*
A good friend and I were discussing the exact topic of the mainstream and 64-bit processing the other day. Here\'s the problem: it doesn\'t work.
Guru: \"So what do you think of the new 64-bit processors coming out?\"
Newbie: \"64-bit? What are we using now?\"
Guru: \"32-bit processors, and we\'ve been using them for over ten years.\"
Newbie: \"Oh, so these new computers will be twice as fast as the ones we now, right? That\'ll be cool.\"
Guru: \"*sigh* No, 64-bit only describes the size of the internal registers of the CPU. Basically, how big of a number it can work on at once.\"
Newbie: \"So then they can use twice as big numbers? That\'ll still speed things up a bit, right?\"
Guru: \"Only if you\'re using applications that work with really big numbers.\"
Newbie: \"Do I?\"
Guru: \"No.\"
The concept of how 64-bit processing is better than 32-bit processing is something that the layman (I\'m not accusing anybody here, I\'m just saying) cannot understand. It takes a knowledge of how microprocessors function, how they store information internally, how they perform calculations, how they communicate with the rest of the system, and so on. The majority of the population does not understand these things, and therefore, does not understand how 64-bit processing is better. All they can do is \"assume\" it\'s twice as fast because 64 is twice the size of 32.
Now, I\'ll try to answer your questions:
-DSP: Never heard of it, can\'t help you here
-Bus speed: all the components in your computer are connected via a \"bus,\" basically an information highway. Any data travelling from one place to another, be it processor -> graphics card, hard drive -> processor, processor -> memory, will all use the same bus. Because we have 32-bit processors, that means that our bus size is 32-bits (note: I\'m still confused how 64-bit PCI slots can communicate with 32-bit processors, perhaps someone can explain this). With 64-bit processors, we will likely see 64-bit busses, which means that we can push data all around our computer in chunks that are twice as big (communication via bus is parallel, that is, 32/64 lanes each carrying one bit). What this will improve: loading times, because loading is the process of moving a chunk of information from one place to another, which could be the hydlaa plaza textures from your hard drive to memory, and from memory to your video card. What this will not improve: your fps, because this is something that is calculated internally by your graphics processor on your video card, and server performance, the same deal because most of what the servers are doing is computing and shoving data across the Internet, and server performance will only increase with 1) faster processors (I said faster, not wider) and 2) more servers (better client connections, lower ping)
-\"static vs. dynamic\":
Movie Special Effects:
1. Create 3D models
2. Create a specific animation sequence for each model
3. Put all the models together for a single purpose (\"static\")
4. Render the scene (using your system CPU), frame by frame, and save it as a movie that you can use later
3D Games (Planeshift):
1. Create 3D models
2. Create a set of animation sequences for each model, for every action they can perform
3. Utilize game code to make the models animate in real-time, based on user commands (\"dynamic\")
4. Render the scene (using your graphic processor), frame by frame, and display the results in real time
-Why not?
I have already explained the main \"advantages\" of 64-bit: you can perform calculations on 64-bit numbers natively (as opposed to 32-bit processors which have to do something special to work with 64-bit numbers) which is something that is almost exclusively the realm of modeling (whether it be a graphical render of virtual 3D objects, of a scientific model of some real-world phenomenon) AND you will get a larger bus (push data around your computer faster).
So to your question \"Whats the problem...\" I answer: there is no problem with using the advantage; your problem (and everyone else\'s) is that they don\'t understand WHAT the advantages are. If your code uses 64-bit numbers then your code will run a bit faster on 64-bit processors. If your computer pushes a lot of data around, it will do that a bit faster.
And that is it, don\'t tell me I\'m dodging, because I\'m telling you that there is no reason to go out and buy a 64-bit processor the day they come out because you\'re throwing your money away! In the future, 90% of people will use 64-bit processors, but this isn\'t the future, it\'s the present. 90% of the population uses 32-bit processors, and there\'s not a thing wrong with them.
Another thing: awhile back, Intel created the 8086 processor, their first 16-bit. Everyone was all well and happy, but the thing was, no on had 16-bit devices, all people had was 8-bit. They actually made another chip, the 8088, which was identical to the 8086, only it had an 8-bit external bus. There wasn\'t a lot of demand for the 8086 because people didn\'t want to have to go out and pay to buy a bunch of new devices just so they could be cool and have full 16-bit power. In all practicality, the 8088 was a success because it had all the features of 16-bit processing, but was cheaper because you could 8-bit components were a heck of a lot cheaper.
Note to kbilik: I spent a VERY long time typing up this post in response to yours. Make it worth my while.
-
It\'s the chip that makes you\'re video card faster on you\'re computer. It\'s the other processors. If you have a new computer system with a new video card you\'re video card is 2X to 4X and even faster then you\'re main processor due to the DSP in the video card. The point is the video card you select for you\'re system rather then then the main processor has more impact on game performance. It\'s all about the DSP you have.
The movies use the same basic method as games to render a seen. They just have a way higher polygon count.
More polygons = better seen.
-
Xandria, good stuff here. Just a few points of clarification.
Newbie: \"So then they can use twice as big numbers? That\'ll still speed things up a bit, right?\"
Guru: \"Only if you\'re using applications that work with really big numbers.\"
Newbie: \"Do I?\"
Guru: \"No.\"
That is what we want to find out... if Planeshift is better if it uses 64 bit extensions. Which brings us to your next point.
With 64-bit processors, we will likely see 64-bit busses, which means that we can push data all around our computer in chunks that are twice as big (communication via bus is parallel, that is, 32/64 lanes each carrying one bit). What this will improve: loading times, because loading is the process of moving a chunk of information from one place to another, which could be the hydlaa plaza textures from your hard drive to memory, and from memory to your video card.
Exactly what is needed by games that demand more and more RAM or data usage with every passing year.
And that is it, don\'t tell me I\'m dodging, because I\'m telling you that there is no reason to go out and buy a 64-bit processor the day they come out because you\'re throwing your money away! In the future, 90% of people will use 64-bit processors, but this isn\'t the future, it\'s the present. 90% of the population uses 32-bit processors, and there\'s not a thing wrong with them.
But we are talking about the near future, not the present. If Planeshift is ever evolving, then we will definitely need to think what it needs to do or change to suit the player in 3, 5, or even 10 years.
And let\'s not forget that a truly interactive game will need a good physics engine. These things are currently common in top notch first person shooters, but I see no reason why it can\'t be done in such a diverse and (soon to be) complex mmorph like Planeshift. We want to create the best game possible, right?
And no, I will not buy a 64 bit right when it comes out :D . I tend to wait till prices become low and when reviews come in.
Note to kbilik: I spent a VERY long time typing up this post in response to yours. Make it worth my while.
Very good stuff. Maybe if the devs or engine devs decide to stick with our current 32 bit or switch the Planeshift engine to 64 bit compatibility, this might be used in the FAQs to explain some of the reasons why (with some clarifications, of course).
Also Fish:
The movies use the same basic method as games to render a seen. They just have a way higher polygon count.
More polygons = better seen.
Movies are not interactive as explained before. This is why accuracy is not needed as the movie does not need to predict what happens if event A triggers event B.
Our game needs good shadow/lighting, particle dynamics (for spells, projectiles, whatever), sound dynamics, physics for object to object interaction (you push a box, how far or fast or high will it be moved; will you slow down/stop?). And much much more... That is, if you want the game to be top notch when it comes to graphics and interactive environments (But remember this doesn\'t always = fun factor, but it sure makes the game look and feel better
-
Ok, I guess I still didn\'t make it simple enough for you to understand:
How 64-bit processing will make PS faster:
1) Faster loading of the program
2) Faster loading of the world files into memory, and textures into video card memory
3) Slightly faster program speed due to the enlarged bus between processor and memory
4) Marginally faster code execution if, and only if the code uses 64-bit numbers
5) The ability to access more than 4GB of RAM
Beyond that, there is nothing else about 64-bit processors that will make PS run faster, or increase your fps, or decrease your lag (to the best of my knowledge).
I would be interested to hear from the devs, if they even use 64-bit (double for us C/C++ people) floating point numbers.
-
Planeshift uses 4 byte (32 bit) floating point numbers and will NEVER use more than 4 GB of RAM on one machine, I assure you. :-)
You folks listen to Xandria. He is right.
Arguing about 64 bit processors is like saying the volume knobs on stereos of the future will go up to 20 instead of 10.
-
Ok, I guess I still didn\'t make it simple enough for you to understand
I wasn\'t arguing about these points in the previous post. I was talking about accuracy and the physics engine mostly.
Nor did I say: we need to increase fps or decrease lag.
I said: We need a more robust game, a physics engine, and in order to do that PERHAPS 64 bit accuracy will be more helpful. Why add more features? To make the game better and/or more appealing.
Planeshift uses 4 byte (32 bit) floating point numbers and will NEVER use more than 4 GB of RAM on one machine, I assure you. :-)
I\'ll take your word for it. But my motto, never say never.
Arguing about 64 bit processors is like saying the volume knobs on stereos of the future will go up to 20 instead of 10.
In a way it is...
-Except add that your hearing slowly degrades or is insuffecient over time (how will our sound/game stay above the crowd of other future competing games?).
Sooner or later, those amazing features will be copied over and over... deafening you. Everytime a game comes out with \"revolutionary graphics or gameplay\", something better follows it. And Planeshift must be able to compete... that is why you want to leave the question of 64 bit computing (no matter how limited its use might be right now ) open.
-Therefore you DO need to make the stereo louder (better graphics, more features, more gameplay, etc.) to stand out.
Seriously, I wonder how we came to adopt 32 bit in the first place if all the people kept on claiming how it was unnecessary and 8 bit or 16 bit was the way to go. Am I the only one who embraces progess :D ? I mean, sooner or later you\'re going to hit certain limits with existing technology. And Planeshift is advertised as a project that will never be complete - but always revised and improved. That make any sense?
-
This is absolutely the last posts on this topic that I\'m going to do, this topic is getting really boring.
kbilik
I wasn\'t arguing about these points in the previous post. I was talking about accuracy and the physics engine mostly.
I think you?re confusing a real physics, the stuff that really does require a 64-bit processor, with game physics. Everything I ever read about game physics tells me it isn?t even a cheap knock off, it?s an illusion.
Planeshift uses 4 byte (32 bit) floating point numbers and will NEVER use more than 4 GB of RAM on one machine, I assure you. :-)
I\'ll take your word for it. But my motto, never say never.
So why would vengeance say this?
The holy Bible takes up 7MB of RAM, Encyclopaedia Britannica took up 170MB of RAM when it was first converted to a CD, and you?re really thinking the development team has gotta come up with 4GB of anything. Can you imagine downloading 4GB of data even over a cable modem? Beyond that you\'re talking multiple DVD\'s.
And that is just to fill up the RAM on your computer. ;)
Let me break it down for you, let?s say you have an almighty 4GHz processor. Let?s say you have a screaming fast 500MHz speed to your RAM. This would mean to look at every piece of RAM would take at least one seconds. Notice you go by RAM access speed not processor speed, sucks don?t it. That?s one second ,dead minimum, jest to get through the RAM, no game is executed. Yet another reason why your video card has a screaming fast DSP( Data Signal Processor) in it and a lot of RAM.
Seriously, I wonder how we came to adopt 32 bit in the first place if all the people kept on claiming how it was unnecessary and 8 bit or 16 bit was the way to go. Am I the only one who embraces progess ? I mean, sooner or later you\'re going to hit certain limits with existing technology. And Planeshift is advertised as a project that will never be complete - but always revised and improved. That make any sense?
The 32-bit processor was greatly anticipated. Nobody was arguing 16 bit was fast enough at the time... Well there were a few people there always is. When the 32-bit processor came out it proved to be a major milestone in processor technology. The same is not true for the 64-bit processor. That?s why these days there is a major discussion on changing the entire architecture of a computer.
64bit != speed necessarily. (C or VB notation what ever) :)
The only 4GB barrier in a 32-bit processor is in the x86 line. Once again legacy issues dictate that not 32-bit processors. If you?re building a chip from scratch you can do anything you like. You can have separate RAM for instruction sets and data. That will speed things up substantially faster than going from a 32-bit to a 64-bit. A 32-bit microprocessor can have 64-bit data lines. Or two banks of RAM and run them both separately.
You folks listen to Xandria. He is right.
There you go enough said.
-
I think you?re confusing a real physics, the stuff that really does require a 64-bit processor, with game physics. Everything I ever read about game physics tells me it isn?t even a cheap knock off, it?s an illusion.
Ok, I already addressed this:
\"how will our sound/game stay above the crowd of other future competing games?).
Sooner or later, those amazing features will be copied over and over... deafening you. Why are you obviously getting bored to tears over this? Because we are discussing the same thing over and over again. Everytime a game comes out with \"revolutionary graphics or gameplay\", something better follows it.
Which means using real physics instead of illusions... or more accurate illusions; same thing.
Can you imagine downloading 4GB of data even over a cable modem? Beyond that you\'re talking multiple DVD\'s.
Hell yes! Internet2 might just do it.
\"We have now reached the point where servers side by side
have the same TCP performance as servers separated by 10,000 km. We also
localized the current bottleneck to the I/O capability of the end-systems,
and we expect that systems matching the full speed of a 10 Gbps link will be
commonplace in the relatively near future. \"
link (http://archives.internet2.edu/guest/archives/I2-NEWS/log200310/msg00008.html )
But I admit, you\'re right on DSP and graphics cards. Also, changing the architecture of a computer might take a while. So even if 64 bit will give minor boosts, its a good intermediate before switching to even better things.
You folks listen to Xandria. He is right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There you go enough said.
Hell no :D 8)
-
Well then kbilik, if you\'re not going to listen to me, then this will probably be my last post here as well (BTW thanks for the support Venge :) ).
You brought up a point about the need for a more realistic physics engine. Now the once thing Venge has repeated many times is that, \"It\'s supposed to be a game, not real life.\" Some of the problems with realism is that it can really detract from a game. With graphics, it\'s a bit different, because a lot of people would like to see graphics that have amazing graphics and believable characters.
But physics, is something you probably don\'t want to be real. I have a racing game, and it even includes multiple physics levels. Initially I tried playing it with the default (easy) physics level, and the game was quite fun. I then tried playing it again with the \"realistic\" physics level, and the game was so tempermental, it was impossible to have an ounce of fun, because it was more than fun trying to stay on the track.
All I\'m saying is: we\'re not trying to simulate real life here, we\'re trying to make a game that people will enjoy. And people don\'t enjoy a game that is so realistic, it\'s frustrating.
-
All I\'m saying is: we\'re not trying to simulate real life here, we\'re trying to make a game that people will enjoy. And people don\'t enjoy a game that is so realistic, it\'s frustrating.
Good point.
Let\'s not make this some kind of flight simulator game.
But my point is:
Let\'s make the environment respond to your actions very realistically or make the illusions accurate (since the game is based on fantasy not realism).
Wouldn\'t it be cool if the water or fire looked almost real like when you swim in the water or use fire magic. Or when the rain drops fall, how it interacts with the environment - like you leaving muddy foot prints after walking in the rain and coming in the library. Or accurate portrayal of how the trees and leaves will move in the wind or the piece of cloth on your character... even weather patterns. You could take the easy and cheap/boring illusion route, or the unique physics engine route.
Just really nice features, as long as it doesn\'t interfere with the fun factor. So lets make sure we don\'t limit ourselves here.
Anyway, thanks for sharing Xandria and Fish. Hope other people will see your points and mine and make this a better game :) .