Make a damn 64bit exe.

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:15 am

Skyrim suffers from a chronic case of consolitus.

No xboxitis...have you seen how many problems the PS3 version has?
User avatar
Brandon Wilson
 
Posts: 3487
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:31 am

Post » Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:37 pm

I thought you people said thet Windows 7 didnt have any problems with any games made?

Im running win 7 with only 4 gig of ram and Skyrim runs perfect.

But, Im playing Skyrim on Console, where it belongs.

Get one, they are cheap now.
And enjoy the way games should be played.

:rofl:
User avatar
Brian LeHury
 
Posts: 3416
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 6:54 am

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:28 am

It's not as simple as "building a 64bit exec". If the main executable file is 64bit then all the supporting files and libraries needs to be 64bit. This includes external stuff like DirectX libraries and sound libraries.

I also feel strongly that companies should make more 64 bit games but there's currently VERY few 64 bit PC games on the market! It's not just Bethesda making 32 bit games, they all do...


According to steam over 50% of the gamers are on vista 64-bit/w7 64-bit.

That there is lots of other companies that doesn't make 64-bit executables is no excuse, someone has to do it on a permanent basis for others to follow so that progress can be made. External libraries like DirectX and the .net runtimes are already released as 64-bit by Microsoft. Also, 64 bit executables can use 32-bit libraries but not the other way.
User avatar
Brittany Abner
 
Posts: 3401
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:48 pm

Post » Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:07 pm

There's a mod for that. :)
User avatar
Soph
 
Posts: 3499
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:24 am

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:48 am

A quick fact: 32 bit executables can run on 64-bit systems, but 64-bit executables cannot run on 32-bit systems etc.

I though that when the memory got full up the swap file takes the overload. In this event there would be a stutter but not a CTD? - you're right, but the operating system will desperately try to free some memory, and it might close applications on a whim. I know this is the case with Windows 7 (I've actually tested it). Anyways, the system will stutter so much that it'd feel like it's frozen for 10-15 seconds, and then work for a split second and then a new break again....

Clean, and instant CTD's is almost always (99.9% of the time) the result of memory errors, and they never crashes with error messages. Some developers have somehow managed to bypass the limits (Funcom's Age of Conan), with some fancy programming. The memory requirement for games they usually lists, is more a reference to the majority who don't know too much about the computer. It's basically how much memory they expect you to need when you sum up the game plus other programs/services.

Memory isn't the only factor when it comes to stability. It's easy enough to program for consoles because there is only one system. For PC you have so many different hardware combinations (!), and writing bug-free code that works on every combination of hardware, increases the chances for bugs. The real PC testing comes when the game is released, because that is, in reality, you'll probably find almost every bug with a testing team that big! Companies won't hire tens of thousands of testers, they do their best to find and fix the big bugs and let the masses find the rest and then they patch them up. Do you know of a game company who has released a product that's 100% stable on every PC at release without patches?



Thanks for that but what I really meant was this. What is it about Skyrim, which uses an ancient engine, CTD because of memory errors (Oblivion did this as well at first) when other much more modern resourse hungry games do not CTD such as TW2? The large address patch for 64 bit users is surely only papering over the cracks in a fundamentally flawed engine? There is no reason why any game should CTD if it is properly coded and the fact that it is 32 bit is not the issue. Overdo the resourse requirements and you will get lag and stutter but it should not CTD.

On my 32 bit Win 7 system The CTD's have disappeared since I enabled the 3GB switch (possibly placebo because i also installed the latest NVidia Drivers at the same time) but I should not have had to do this as it impacts on performance generally.

In other words I would rather Bathesda sorted out the real problem at source rather than investing unnecessary time on a 64 bit exe so that everyone, XP, Vista, Win 7 , 64 or 32 bit, can benefit.
User avatar
Charlie Sarson
 
Posts: 3445
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 12:38 pm

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:30 am

It's not as simple as "building a 64bit exec". If the main executable file is 64bit then all the supporting files and libraries needs to be 64bit. This includes external stuff like DirectX libraries and sound libraries.

I also feel strongly that companies should make more 64 bit games but there's currently VERY few 64 bit PC games on the market! It's not just Bethesda making 32 bit games, they all do...

This is so true.
For a game like Skyrim with thousands of mods every single library has to support 64bit to benefit from it and to prevent bugs.
Maybe even the Nif files have to be modified since they may also contain address information.
User avatar
Lily Evans
 
Posts: 3401
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:10 am

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:38 am

I have Windows 7 Ultimate x64 with 12Gb, and although I played for some days without any crashes, suddenly the game also started to crash from time to time. There are times where I can play for 2-3 hours without a crash, and some other times where I have a crash every 30 minutes, to give a random number. Also, they don't seem to behave the same way. Sometimes it just crashes while walking on a path while heading to town, other times in the moment I press the "E" key to enter a door.
User avatar
Yvonne Gruening
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:31 pm

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:15 am

Jarmstro I agree completely. Games of course shouldn't have CTD but we all know Bethesdas "knack" for CTD in games... Previous TES and Fallout games all have CTD sadly.

I also believe that if you made a 64 bit version of a game you'd have twice as much QA. Bugs in Bethesda might make you think they don't do QA but trust me they do. QA is a terribly lenghty and time-consuming process.
If you have a 32 bit and 64 bit version you basically have to run QA twice.
User avatar
Sasha Brown
 
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:46 pm

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:06 pm

According to steam over 50% of the gamers are on vista 64-bit/w7 64-bit.

That there is lots of other companies that doesn't make 64-bit executables is no excuse, someone has to do it on a permanent basis for others to follow so that progress can be made. External libraries like DirectX and the .net runtimes are already released as 64-bit by Microsoft. Also, 64 bit executables can use 32-bit libraries but not the other way.

Modifying a game to support 64bit is a difficult thing, that's why it's quite unlikely that Beth will release a 64bit support, unless the Creation Engine already supports it and Beth just hasn't unlocked it yet due to some problems.
They should have planned to support 64bit right from the beginning..

To the statistics: if 50% of the people use 32 bit systems then it's pretty logical that Beth doesn't 'waste' money on a 64bit version.
When more people (above 90%) use 64bit PCs, then 64bit games will finally come :).
User avatar
Susan Elizabeth
 
Posts: 3420
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:35 pm

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:49 am

Modifying a game to support 64bit is a difficult thing, that's why it's quite unlikely that Beth will release a 64bit support, unless the Creation Engine already supports it and Beth just hasn't unlocked it yet due to some problems.
They should have planned to support 64bit right from the beginning..

To the statistics: if 50% of the people use 32 bit systems then it's pretty logical that Beth doesn't 'waste' money on a 64bit version.
When more people (above 90%) use 64bit PCs, then 64bit games will finally come :).


If I could upgrade my Win7 32bit OS to Win7 64bit and keep all my programs and other stuff I would do it today. But I cant!!!! Why, I know not.
User avatar
April
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:33 am

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:49 am

/signed. Yes, it may be a lot of work, but remember that Skyrim will be played for many years to come. In 2015 a 32-bit application will be pathetically laughable, and hundreds of thousands of people will still play a (heavily modded) Skyrim then.
User avatar
Dan Scott
 
Posts: 3373
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:45 am

Post » Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:55 pm

If I could upgrade my Win7 32bit OS to Win7 64bit and keep all my programs and other stuff I would do it today. But I cant!!!! Why, I know not.


I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that you can't upgrade it that way, from home basic to premium? Yes. Changing architecture and basically replacing the whole system? I doubt it, and I would've gone for a reinstall anyways.
User avatar
Rach B
 
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:30 am

Post » Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:13 pm

ITs not needed games runs fine. Thread should be deleted or something and OP should be shot etc.
User avatar
Anthony Diaz
 
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:24 pm

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:04 am

ITs not needed games runs fine. Thread should be deleted or something and OP should be shot etc.


Everyone of my friends who are on 64 bit operating systems have the same issues. I can see where you get that it runs fine from, but you probably have a lucky hardware/software/driver combination. And no matter what you say, 64 bit systems have a better memory management (it sounds weird, but it's the truth, and what makes it true is the 64-bit memory addressing).
User avatar
Darlene DIllow
 
Posts: 3403
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:34 am

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:40 pm

The thing is that if you got a 32-bit system and it allocates memory "out of bounds" (which happens fairly often actually), something crashes. I never said that Skyrim NEED to use more memory, it just have to handle that the system itself can have more than 4gb ram. That is why we need a 64-bit executable. Plus, it usually runs better on 64-bit operating systems when they run native and not in an emulated mode.
I don't think so.
I have had not many crashes of Skyrim yet (using Win7 64bit), and I also use loads and loads of other games and programs in 32bit. They run just as good as 64bit programs here.

The memory problems you and other people have could come from anywhere in the game-code. LAA or a 64bit-exe might fix it somehow (or at least make it less likely to happen), but this doesn't mean, that this is really the source of the problem.
User avatar
oliver klosoff
 
Posts: 3436
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:02 am

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:46 am

If I could upgrade my Win7 32bit OS to Win7 64bit and keep all my programs and other stuff I would do it today. But I cant!!!! Why, I know not.

You have to save all your programs and other stuff on an external hdd or so and then install Win7 64bit.
Do it as soon as possible (if you want to do it), because your programs and data get more every day I guess.

/signed. Yes, it may be a lot of work, but remember that Skyrim will be played for many years to come. In 2015 a 32-bit application will be pathetically laughable, and hundreds of thousands of people will still play a (heavily modded) Skyrim then.

That's true.
I can't believe that they didn't include 64bit support: I guess the next Fallout will use the creation engine too, and this will be in one or two years.
So I hope that the engine already supports 64bit and it'll be added with a future addon or patch. Of course, hope springs eternal :)
User avatar
Anthony Rand
 
Posts: 3439
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 5:02 am

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:51 am

I don't think so.
I have had not many crashes of Skyrim yet (using Win7 64bit), and I also use loads and loads of other games and programs in 32bit. They run just as good as 64bit programs here.

The memory problems you and other people have can come from anywhere in the game-data. LAA or a 64bit-exe might fix it somehow (or at least make it less likely to happen), but this doesn't mean, that this is really the source of the problem.


If it haven't been clear what I've said, you are right, but 64-bit executables will increase performance on 64-bit systems and the game will be able to use all the available memory if necessary, and it can move outside the first 4gb available ram.
User avatar
Nathan Hunter
 
Posts: 3464
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:58 am

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:44 am

But, Im playing Skyrim on Console, where it belongs.

Get one, they are cheap now.
And enjoy the way games should be played.

Not sure if serious...
User avatar
Jessica White
 
Posts: 3419
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 5:03 am

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:52 am

No, he's obviously just trolling.



@HighDarkTemplar

Let's say it like that:
It would have been definetly the more elegant way to just provide the game with proper 64bit support (and make it profit from a lot of RAM).
Same goes for DX11.

Not sure about the performance increase with 64bit exe though ...
I have read a lot about that stuff coming from audio software. And there it usually makes no difference in performance, if you run a certain plugin in 32bit or 64bit on a 64bit OS.
User avatar
lydia nekongo
 
Posts: 3403
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:04 pm

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:30 am

Not sure if serious...

The game should be played on whatever platform the developer (Bethesda) choses to release it on. If it should be played on consoles only, like you're suggesting, then they should never have released it for PC. A better menu system would be great, it's a pain the way it is atm. Try drinking potions and chage spells. You have to close the inventory menu and open the spells menu. Since Bethesda has released skyrim for xbox360, ps3 and PC it should be played on all three platforms.
User avatar
Iain Lamb
 
Posts: 3453
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 4:47 am

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:56 am

If it haven't been clear what I've said, you are right, but 64-bit executables will increase performance on 64-bit systems and the game will be able to use all the available memory if necessary, and it can move outside the first 4gb available ram.

I think I know now what you mean. You don't want a 64bit exe so that Skyrim can use more memory for mods or stuff, because for this many libraries have to be rewritten too.
You just want the main exe to be compiled for 64bit architecture so that the operating system handles the game program differently (in a better way).
Interesting thought, that could really work.
I don't know exactly if or how Windows optimizes the management of 64bit programs, but this could increase performance.
User avatar
Lucky Boy
 
Posts: 3378
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:26 pm

Post » Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:05 pm

I'm not sure why people complaint about this. I play on ultra, use texture mods but the game never use more than 1gb even after several hours of playing. I did install the 4gb patch just in case but it does not seem to be required.
User avatar
Robert DeLarosa
 
Posts: 3415
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:43 pm

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:14 am

For what it's worth, I'm running x64 and haven't had a single CTD in my roughly 40 hours of play. I have had the purple texture problem a few times and usually after I've been playing for an extended time. This leads me to believe that the purple tex issue is due to a memory leak, albeit a small one, in the graphics engine. The CTD may be something similar. I doubt that this is an issue with addressing memory space in a x64 system. It's much more likely that Skyrim isn't cleaning up something properly and certain driver/hardware combinations handle it better than others.

System Specs:

Windows 7 x64
AMD Phenom x4 @ 3ghz w/ 4 GB RAM
AMD/ATI Radeon HD 5770
User avatar
celebrity
 
Posts: 3522
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:53 pm

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:33 am

I think I know now what you mean. You don't want a 64bit exe so that Skyrim can use more memory for mods or stuff, because for this many libraries have to be rewritten too.
You just want the main exe to be compiled for 64bit architecture so that the operating system handles the game program differently (in a better way).
Interesting thought, that could really work.
I don't know exactly if or how Windows optimizes the management of 64bit programs, but this could increase performance.


More or less, yes. Allowing Skyrim to use more than 2gb ram would be a big bonus. The standards for ram these days (here in Norway) is 6gb+....
User avatar
Jessica Lloyd
 
Posts: 3481
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:11 pm

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:16 am

I support this 100%. As is, I will use the 4GB Mod workaround.
User avatar
Mashystar
 
Posts: 3460
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to V - Skyrim