It tells me that you know nothing about proper coding techniques and that your reasoning is why so much bloatware and crapware has been written. Who cares about optimization and resource allocation, I've got plently of RAM and CPU cycles. What, my app. didn't release a memory pool? Let the garbage routine clean it up. The poor coder's answer for everything.
So it's the kids fault, the one who gets a hand me down XP PC because the family can't aford a shiny new Win 7/8 64 Bit gaming computer with all the bells and whistles. He's holding back the industry. Perhaps developers need to stick their head out of their hole once in awhile and see what everyone else is using instead of coding on super computers.
I understand your argument and I agree that inefficiency and bad programming are issues that can't just be ignored. However, in just a few months consoles will be arriving that come with 8 GB of RAM, of which at least 6 GB will be usable for games.
RAM is cheap, 64-bit is reliable. Until the overwhelming majority upgrade, PC developers won't be able to stop limiting themselves to 2 GB while console developers can safely use 6-7 GB. One more time: Consoles are now 64-bit and have 3-4 times as much accessible RAM. Consoles.
Little Timmy's hand-me-down that apparently doesn't have 64-bit support (Pentium 3?) isn't relevant, and a Pentium 4 is not a "super computer".
All I'm saying is, if you've got a 10 year old PC that's worth more as a historical artifact than as a gaming rig and you eventually decide to upgrade, please pick the 64-bit option.
Games have been crashing because of 32-bit RAM limitations since at least 2007; my earliest recollection of out-of-memory crashes is Stalker:SHOC and possibly Crysis... why anyone would still be trying to play a game like NS2 in a 32-bit system baffles me.
It's impossible for you to lack hardware support because 64-bit CPUs became standard on Intel CPUs 9 years ago with Pentium 4 and on AMD CPUs 10 years ago with Athlon 64.
Vista 64-bit came out 6 years ago but driver support was still shaky so I can understand if someone went with 32-bit until Windows 7, but at this point there's just no reason. 7's been out for just shy of 4 years now and right from the beginning it's had very solid and reliable 64-bit drivers.
You're holding back the entire industry, people! ***CONSOLES*** are on the brink of leapfrogging PC game RAM limitations, what's that tell you?
It tells me that you know nothing about proper coding techniques and that your reasoning is why so much bloatware and crapware has been written. Who cares about optimization and resource allocation, I've got plently of RAM and CPU cycles. What, my app. didn't release a memory pool? Let the garbage routine clean it up. The poor coder's answer for everything.
So it's the kids fault, the one who gets a hand me down XP PC because the family can't aford a shiny new Win 7/8 64 Bit gaming computer with all the bells and whistles. He's holding back the industry. Perhaps developers need to stick their head out of their hole once in awhile and see what everyone else is using instead of coding on super computers.
Eyeballing the Steam HW Survey, it appears that only 10% of people are still using a 32-bit OS. At this point, its really just goodwill for game companies to still support 32-bit compatibility.
It tells me that you know nothing about proper coding techniques and that your reasoning is why so much bloatware and crapware has been written. Who cares about optimization and resource allocation, I've got plently of RAM and CPU cycles. What, my app. didn't release a memory pool? Let the garbage routine clean it up. The poor coder's answer for everything.
So it's the kids fault, the one who gets a hand me down XP PC because the family can't aford a shiny new Win 7/8 64 Bit gaming computer with all the bells and whistles. He's holding back the industry. Perhaps developers need to stick their head out of their hole once in awhile and see what everyone else is using instead of coding on super computers.
If you are using a hand-me-down XP PC that is older than the hills you shouldn't be playing PC titles. If you can't afford a PC which isn't a semi-competent machine for playing current AAA titles then you should just buy a console as it is the cheaper man's option. Unfortunately you will miss out on titles like NS2 but that can't be helped. And not to sound harsh, but... I would frankly not want to have a kid who has an old PC that probably can't even do anything above 20 FPS in a multiplayer experience. It is frustrating to watch someone run around with their camera pointing down at the floor to save those few extra frames only for them to run into enemies and get mowed down because during a fight they are capping at 6 FPS.
The PC gaming platform has never been cheap because it is a platform which is constantly being improved. If we are forced to not have the best experience because a handful of people are still running old tech and software then there really is no reason for new tech and software to come out because we will always be restrained by those individuals.
I recently continued to work on a new and an old map. Everything I did before 250 is working well. But I have a strange bug in both maps from time to time now. Everything looks fine in the editor, but if I load the maps, there is a risk that some strange new geometry appears. It looks like as if a hurricane took random textures, created faces and devastated rooms that should be ok. Once it appeared as I added an IP to the map. I deleted it and the "ghost geometry" was gone. Did nothing else o.O Another time I followed the strange chaos to a face with a standard grating texture. I changed that texture to a custom texture and everything was fixed as I loaded it again... It also appears that the anomaly prefers to start in door arches. Never saw that before and I am mapping for a while now
I validated the ns2 files. Everything ok there. Are there known editor/mapping issues in b256/257? Btw, the geometry is stationary and solid, I can walk on top of it, so it doesn't seem to be a graphical glitch or something like that. Any ideas? You noticed the same?
The PC gaming platform has never been cheap because it is a platform which is constantly being improved.
The costs of a gaming pc are on par with a console, though what could make a gaming pc expensive are the constant hardware upgrades to keep the pc up to date. But if you keep a certain pc game playing no further updates are needed. You have the flexibility and freedom not to upgrade.
If we are forced to not have the best experience because a handful of people are still running old tech and software then there really is no reason for new tech and software to come out because we will always be restrained by those individuals.
Congratulations, you just described a console with a fixed hardware setup which you cannot change. It is good for developers because they don't have the problems of the individualism of pc hardware, but future games just get uglier, if they can't handle a more resource demanding game in full graphic fidelity. That is exactly what I faced watching a let's play for "Colonial marines" on XBox 360. the Textures weren't as near as the pcs version, my eyes tried constatly to focus on that blurry textures to set them sharp. Or when I played on a friends console (XBox 360) Halo 3 there were definitely parts where the frame rate was way below 30 frames more like 20 frames. Well, I guess that is what @MB42 meant with "proper coding techniques". Even console developers had to make sacrifices after years programming for the same hardware. And one day there isn't just a way to make sacrifices like we see the shift from 32bit systems to 64bit systems and more resource use by video games due to better graphical representation. And, oh big surprise, even consoles have to be upgraded one day like we see nowadays to cope with future games.
Now that a few of you responded I'll throw this out. I have no problem with developers dropping old OS support and 32 bit. Let's increase our tech., fine I'm all for it. That's the way of progress. But, then don't go doing this:
Minimum:
OS:Windows 7 32/64-bit / Vista 32/64 / XP
Processor:Core 2 Duo 2.6 ghz
Memory:2 GB RAM
Graphics:DirectX 9 compatible video card with 1GB, ATI X800, NVidia 8600 or better
DirectX®:9.0
Hard Drive:5 GB HD space
And then having a "handful" of forum members copping an elitist attitude shouting "screw you" to the XP 32 bit users.
@MB42
I didn't say "screew you", all I said is that it is not that easy as you might think ("proper coding techniques").
EDIT:
Also NS2 worked before the new content went in. Maybe UWE has to go the way of optional disabling of the new models. Or maybe they find their way around with "proper coding techniques" which takes time and doesn't happen in a flip. And it seems a more serious problem to solve due to the time period the 32bit problem is not solved yet.
@MB42
I didn't say "screew you", all I said is that it is not that easy as you might think ("proper coding techniques").
Husar, I didn't say, or even mean to imply, that "you" did.
I don't mind if it takes the Devs a long time to either fix or optimize for 32 bit. In fact, if ppl read what I wrote carefully enough, I'm not even arguing that they do.
Comments
I understand your argument and I agree that inefficiency and bad programming are issues that can't just be ignored. However, in just a few months consoles will be arriving that come with 8 GB of RAM, of which at least 6 GB will be usable for games.
RAM is cheap, 64-bit is reliable. Until the overwhelming majority upgrade, PC developers won't be able to stop limiting themselves to 2 GB while console developers can safely use 6-7 GB. One more time: Consoles are now 64-bit and have 3-4 times as much accessible RAM. Consoles.
Little Timmy's hand-me-down that apparently doesn't have 64-bit support (Pentium 3?) isn't relevant, and a Pentium 4 is not a "super computer".
All I'm saying is, if you've got a 10 year old PC that's worth more as a historical artifact than as a gaming rig and you eventually decide to upgrade, please pick the 64-bit option.
Well for that it would need more whitelisted servers, since most are taken out when they run Shine or DAK.
Servers running just Shine or DAK should be whitelisted, even if their not you can still use the skill rankings for seeding but not update them.
The PC gaming platform has never been cheap because it is a platform which is constantly being improved. If we are forced to not have the best experience because a handful of people are still running old tech and software then there really is no reason for new tech and software to come out because we will always be restrained by those individuals.
I validated the ns2 files. Everything ok there. Are there known editor/mapping issues in b256/257? Btw, the geometry is stationary and solid, I can walk on top of it, so it doesn't seem to be a graphical glitch or something like that. Any ideas? You noticed the same?
Minimum:
OS:Windows 7 32/64-bit / Vista 32/64 / XP
Processor:Core 2 Duo 2.6 ghz
Memory:2 GB RAM
Graphics:DirectX 9 compatible video card with 1GB, ATI X800, NVidia 8600 or better
DirectX®:9.0
Hard Drive:5 GB HD space
And then having a "handful" of forum members copping an elitist attitude shouting "screw you" to the XP 32 bit users.
I didn't say "screew you", all I said is that it is not that easy as you might think ("proper coding techniques").
EDIT:
Also NS2 worked before the new content went in. Maybe UWE has to go the way of optional disabling of the new models. Or maybe they find their way around with "proper coding techniques" which takes time and doesn't happen in a flip. And it seems a more serious problem to solve due to the time period the 32bit problem is not solved yet.
Husar, I didn't say, or even mean to imply, that "you" did.
I don't mind if it takes the Devs a long time to either fix or optimize for 32 bit. In fact, if ppl read what I wrote carefully enough, I'm not even arguing that they do.