Planeshift and 64 bit Processor

[Vengeance]

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.

[kbilik]

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   ? 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?

[Fish]

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.

[kbilik]

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  

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    

[Xandria]

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.

[kbilik]

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   .