Question for developers? Why isnt ARMA 3 64 bit so it can use more or our system ram?

[MoreAgm 12]

Question for developers? Why isnt ARMA 3 64 bit so it can use more or our system ram?

Arma 3 at 32 bit only uses half of system resources

A 64 bit client is needed for a game of this scale

[PuFu 4600]

it would be needed if RV engine would buffer data into RAM. As it doesn't (the engine continuously streams data directly from HDD - when the engine was designed, ram was scarce, HDD capacity wasn't really an issue), there is not really a point to it.

[Punisher5555 0]

Look on the forums here on how to create a RAMDISK and dump all the .pbo's from the Addons directory into it. This is the best you can do if you are running x64 with tons of RAM.

[sniper pilot 36]

Even better than an SSD? (Serious Question)

[windies 11]

it would be needed if RV engine would buffer data into RAM. As it doesn't (the engine continuously streams data directly from HDD - when the engine was designed, ram was scarce, HDD capacity wasn't really an issue), there is not really a point to it.

There's a point to it, it's just generally glossed over as being too much work. The way the engine does it's mapping now is inefficient compared to what it could do it with 64 bit mapping. I guess it's debatable as to how much of a performance improvement it would be, I consider hitches and stuttering from data streaming to be a factor of performance, but I think it's short sighted to say there's no point to it. Unless you truly think that 32 bit addressing will never be exhausted given the growth of data size.

Seems like it comes down to a "make do with what we have until it breaks" mentality more than it being optimal or pointless.

---------- Post added at 22:23 ---------- Previous post was at 22:22 ----------

Even better than an SSD? (Serious Question)

Ram response time is in nanoseconds, SSD response time generally like 1ms or less.