64-bit executable

[Leopardi 0]

I think there would be a large outcry from people being forced to buy new systems or a new OS. Maybe even larger than the outcry about Steam. I think BIS was smart to develop 32 if they had to pick one. 64 is a possibility at a later point, so everyone may win in the end. The main goal is to get everyone to run the game at a decent level, so if they can accomplish that with 32, I don't see anything worth complaining about.

And as far as I know, BF3 on pc is a 32 bit application.

That article was released after BF3, anything to come out after 2013, including BF4, will be 100% 64-bit, no 32-bit exes. And as you can see in the starting post, there can be huge gains from using 8GB RAM. In fact I would be more worried about the performance on AMD CPU's that rely on the amount of cores rather than performance like intel i5's, than any 32-bit cry, and 64-bit would help with that too. It's obvious that the majority already has a 64-bit OS.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Leopardi

[chortles 263]

That article was released after BF3, anything to come out after 2013, including BF4, will be 100% 64-bit, no 32-bit exes. And as you can see in the starting post, there can be huge gains from using 8GB RAM. In fact I would be more worried about the performance on AMD CPU's that rely on the amount of cores rather than performance like intel i5's, than any 32-bit cry, and 64-bit would help with that too. It's obvious that majority already has a 64-bit OS.

The assumption being that by now "enough" people would have moved over to 64-bit CPUs and OSes, and BF4 is better positioned to be "the game that you upgrade for" on a wider scale than Arma 3 would be (remember: BF3 hype two years ago was that big).

[vegeta897 13]

That article was released after BF3, anything to come out after 2013, including BF4, will be 100% 64-bit, no 32-bit exes. And as you can see in the starting post, there can be huge gains from using 8GB RAM. In fact I would be more worried about the performance on AMD CPU's that rely on the amount of cores rather than performance like intel i5's, than any 32-bit cry, and 64-bit would help with that too. It's obvious that the majority already has a 64-bit OS.

It's still a safer option to develop a game that everyone can run, rather than trying to get extra performance out of those who have the machine to do so.

The logic of what you're saying is totally fine. Arma 3 was sort of in a transition point. If BIS were to start making another game, of course they should choose 64 bit.

[sickboy 13]

The major benefit of 64-bit OS is that the combined memory foot print can grow beyond the 4GB of address-space (~3 GB depending on video memory size etc).

Secondly, a benefit to developers is that tools can benefit from more memory, e.g tools, creating environment etc could be limited by the usual 2 GB address space.

Also if a 32-bit program is compiled with LAA, it can use up to 3 GB or so, which should give it some more breathing space, and make it more stable - e.g you don't run into the memory limit so soon anymore.

Lastly I think the benefit of 64-bit for game client is only really useful if you actually need that kind of memory. Using more memory does not equal better performance.

I'm unsure if other benefits of 64-bit computing would directly relate to higher performance.

So for little benefit, either running two branches or shutting out all 32-bit users, seems pointless.

However, with DirectX 10 being a minimum requirement according to ARMA 3 specs, people need to be on Vista, 7 or 8 anyway, and I suppose chances are rather high these people are on 64-bit then.

In any case, you cannot solve performance issues etc by using more memory, if the bottleneck is elsewhere (IO, GPU, CPU, code etc).

Edited February 28, 2013 by Sickboy

[Droikka 1]

The idea behind 64-bit is to load every single asset into the memory. No more streaming from the slow HDD anymore. Though it would create a minimum requirement of 16GB RAM.

[sickboy 13]

The idea behind 64-bit is to load every single asset into the memory. No more streaming from the slow HDD anymore. Though it would create a minimum requirement of 16GB RAM.

But you already have that built into your OS, as form of System Cache. Perhaps just requires some extra tuning.

Additionally, you can achieve loading every asset into memory already memdisk, so still not hearing much why BI should invest greatly in such an endevour. (dont get me wrong, I think it would be a nice gimmick, and definitely food for thought for a new engine, but not much more).

[4 IN 1 0]

Well, given that most major CPU that are running is already 64/32bit, and you will need atless vista to play most DX10 games, money problem aside, who is still running 32bit based windows?

[Nicholas 5]

Take a look at the latest Steam Hardware/Software survey. It seems many people are switching to 64-bit and have been for quite some time.

[vegeta897 13]

According to those numbers, that's still less than 3/4 of Windows users on 64 bit. Safe to say BIS would be forcing a large number of users to upgrade if they chose 64 bit only. And like I said before, it's safer to include everyone rather than gain some performance boost.

[Nicholas 5]

If you tally up those numbers:

71.58% of Steam users are using a 64bit OS

27.66% of Steam users are using a 32bit OS

00.76% of Steam users are using an undefined OS.

I think they really need to focus on 64bit.

[sickboy 13]

I think they really need to focus on 64bit.

And cut off 1/4th of your users in the process, for what gain? You expect suddenly to run 60 FPS? :)

[Nicholas 5]

And cut off 1/4th of your users in the process, for what gain? You expect suddenly to run 60 FPS? :)

I didn't say that, did I? 64bit is the future.

[vegeta897 13]

If you tally up those numbers:

71.58% of Steam users are using a 64bit OS

27.66% of Steam users are using a 32bit OS

00.76% of Steam users are using an undefined OS.

I think they really need to focus on 64bit.

Sorry but did you just ignore everything in my reply? :)

64 bit is the future, but we are in the present. Or rather, a significant portion of us are. When enough users are running 64 bit platforms to make it not hurt to cut them out, then it will be the right choice.

[sickboy 13]

I didn't say that, did I? 64bit is the future.

So let's keep it for the future once it really makes sense to use it, and just stick with what works for everyone today? :P

Just for the record, even Crysis 3 only has a 32-bit app. And they actually had a 32-bit and 64-bit version back in the day ;)

[Droikka 1]

Wrong thread

[Nicholas 5]

Not sure what you're trying to prove to me when you don't even know which side of the fence I'm on. Infact, my conversation in this entire thread has no mention of ArmA III + 64bit anywhere.

I never said they should magically convert ArmA III to 64bit, did I? 64bit is the future, so I believe it is something they should focus on.

[vegeta897 13]

Not sure what you're trying to prove to me when you don't even know which side of the fence I'm on. Infact, my conversation in this entire thread has no mention of ArmA III + 64bit anywhere.

I never said they should magically convert ArmA III to 64bit, did I? 64bit is the future, so I believe it is something they should focus on.

So then what are you trying to prove, and what part of what we're saying do you disagree with? It must be something, because you keep repeating yourself. Nobody is arguing that 64 bit is not the future. Nobody is arguing that BIS should ignore it as a future prospect. I think we're arguing over nothing, in light of this last post of yours.

[Nicholas 5]

So then what are you trying to prove, and what part of what we're saying do you disagree with? It must be something, because you keep repeating yourself. Nobody is arguing that 64 bit is not the future. Nobody is arguing that BIS should ignore it as a future prospect. I think we're arguing over nothing, in light of this last post of yours.

All I did was post some figures and stated that I believe they need to focus on 64bit because it is the future and you guys jump on me. I'm only proving that a majority of users with a computer are now using a 64bit OS.

[vegeta897 13]

I replied to your statistics saying that 1/4 of the PC population is not a portion of your market that you want to exclude.

You replied to me, I'm guessing (since I was the only post in between) by repeating back exactly what I said, and then saying 64 bit is the future. That's kind of an ambiguous statement that could easily be interpreted as you saying that 70 percent is enough to abandon the minority.

Why did you interpret our posts as "jumping" on you, if you didn't disagree with what we were saying?

[gossamersolid 155]

Can ArmA 3 even run on XP? I've heard otherwise. It also doesn't run on MAC or Linux.

Chances are that ~15% of people running 32bit 7/8 wouldn't be BIS' target market anyways.

[Nicholas 5]

I replied to your statistics saying that 1/4 of the PC population is not a portion of your market that you want to exclude.

You replied to me, I'm guessing (since I was the only post in between) by repeating back exactly what I said, and then saying 64 bit is the future. That's kind of an ambiguous statement that could easily be interpreted as you saying that 70 percent is enough to abandon the minority.

Why did you interpret our posts as "jumping" on you, if you didn't disagree with what we were saying?

You're right. :)

[vegeta897 13]

Can ArmA 3 even run on XP? I've heard otherwise. It also doesn't run on MAC or Linux.

Chances are that ~15% of people running 32bit 7/8 wouldn't be BIS' target market anyways.

That's a good point. According to those stats though, that's still 20% of users with Windows Vista or greater that are on 32 bit. 1/5 is pretty significant. And I've always had the impression that hardcore arma fans tended to be more conservative with upgrading their computers. That's all speculation though, so we only have these hard numbers to go on.

[Leopardi 0]

Take a look at the latest Steam Hardware/Software survey. It seems many people are switching to 64-bit and have been for quite some time.

http://oi49.tinypic.com/15cf443.jpg

Steam users include those CS 1.6 players etc... EA DICE must have even more favouring numbers for 64-bit from BF3, since they are now going 100% 64-bit.

[Metal69 1]

I only post in this thread because i dont understand how a game like arma 3 can run in 32bit with 4gb than ram like maximun. In the minimum specs well but in the maximun specs i think that would need more ram but the developer know what they do. I only say that I found it strange. On the other hand i think that in the future would have to develop it to 64bit like other games already did.

regards and sorry for my english

[chomiq 10]

If you tally up those numbers:

71.58% of Steam users are using a 64bit OS

27.66% of Steam users are using a 32bit OS

00.76% of Steam users are using an undefined OS.

I think they really need to focus on 64bit.

They won't as it would mean cutting off the 27%. If you're about to do such decisions you have to consider the feedback from customers. Sure, 72% might say "nothing against it" but 27% will say "no way!". Back in the days of DX8 and DX9 some people didn't want DX9 as minimal requirement because they just bought a brand new DX8 card. One would either decide to ditch DX8 and force their users to switch to DX9 or go with older tech/compromise between DX8 and DX9 mode.

If you want another example lets take methods of distribution - look at Steam issue on this forum. BIS decided to go for option A - you deal with it or you don't buy it. It's a hard decision to make and a lot of thought goes into such decisions.