Technical Limitations of Game

from Sins Forums

DISCLAIMER:  Everything I wrote below was based on the fact that I thought Sins was released in 2012, not 2008.  So everything below still applies as suggestions for the devs for Sins2.   My bad for not researching the original release of the game better.

 

 

First let me say that I love this game.  I have spent countless hours on it and it is very well done in many respects.

<3

However, and let me say this clearly - even though I love the game, there are some things that could make Sins2 even better.

First, my system: 

Intel i7-3770K @ 2.50 GHZ (4 cores, 8 simultaneous threads possible)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (With two GPUs on one card)
32 GB of high-speed RAM
256 GB SSD Drive Array
Win7 64 bit OS

With the exception of the SSDs and the video card itself, these components, or those similar to them, have been used by gamers to build their gaming rigs for years.

Regarding Sins, I like large fleet battles, multiple CPU players, large maps.   I started running into lag issues then did some research on my own machine and here on this forum.  I found out the following unavoidable, unresolveable limitations of the game:

1. It can only address 2GB of RAM.   Total.   Never more than that.  Ever.
2. It can only use ONE (read that again) ONE processor core and ONE thread.  While processing may rarely shift from from a  particular core to another, it never uses more than a single core/thread at the same time.  I've verified this on my machine - one core/thread is maxxed out at 95%, the other three cores (and seven threads) are sitting on their butts doing nothing.
3. I have two monitors on this machine - many people have more than that, especially gamers.  This game is not multi-monitor aware at all.  Gamers have been using multi-monitors for many years now.

The game suffers because of these very primitive limitations.  There are a few things that we, as gamers, need to start demanding of the game developers if positive changes are to happen.

1. Fully 64 bit game code.  (ALL of it)  64-bit Windows XP was released in 2002.  That was eleven years ago.  This 2GB RAM address limitation is very outdated and should never be a hindrance in a game released in mid-2012.  I know a lot of the commonly used graphic engines and base code need to be completely rewritten for 64-bit.
2. Multicore processors have also been out for many years.   Regardless of how many cores/threads my CPU has, the game should be utilizing ALL of those.   For a game to be stuck using only one thread is ridiculous at this point in time.  I would pay two, three or even four times as much for a game that could actually fully utilize my system processor.
3. I have two GPUs (on one card).  One GPU processor doesn't do much in high lag situations, the other really isn't doing a whole lot more.  I think this is most likely because it is limited by the SYSTEM CPU, which is stuck at using one thread and maxxed out at 95%.  The video card actually has to wait for the system processor.
4. I would say it is a rare gamer these days that does not have more than one monitor on their system.  While I have yet to see a major graphically intensive game (that I have purchased) be fully multi-monitor aware and usable, it is high time that game developers started to write games that allow us to use however many monitors we have attached to our systems.

For me to purchase a game that was released in mid-2012 and for it to be stuck on one core/thread, 2GB of RAM, one GPU and one monitor feels insulting.  Machines having 2 GB were common ten years ago.   Multi core processors were introduced around 2005 - eight years ago.  I've been using multiple monitors for about seven years and multi-GPUs for about three years.

Speaking strictly on a technological level, playing Sins is like putting a two-cylinder engine inside of a Ferrari.  Sure, it looks nice on the outside - but when you get it out on the Autobahn people are laughing and sticking their tongues out at you as they whiz by.  As a hard-core gamer, I'm tired of that. 

:annoyed:

SO thank you, developers.  Thank you for a good game.  Now it's time to do even better.

It is time that we, the gaming community, started to demand that our game developers come out of the year 2000 and join us here in 2013.  I would even support little stickers on game boxes or game art that say "64-Bit" or "Multi-GPU Aware" or "Multi-Monitor Aware". 

Yes, developers, I know it's painful.  I know it requires a lot of work.  I know, I know, I know.

Just do it.

Even if you don't, I can guarantee that your competitors will.

technical
7,710 views 10 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top

1. Fully 64 bit game code. (ALL of it) 64-bit Windows XP was released in 2002. That was eleven years ago. This 2GB RAM address limitation is very outdated and should never be a hindrance in a game released in mid-2012. I know a lot of the commonly used graphic engines and base code need to be completely rewritten for 64-bit.
2. Multicore processors have also been out for many years. Regardless of how many cores/threads my CPU has, the game should be utilizing ALL of those. For a game to be stuck using only one thread is ridiculous at this point in time. I would pay two, three or even four times as much for a game that could actually fully utilize my system processor.
3. I have two GPUs (on one card). One GPU processor doesn't do much in high lag situations, the other really isn't doing a whole lot more. I think this is most likely because it is limited by the SYSTEM CPU, which is stuck at using one thread and maxxed out at 95%. The video card actually has to wait for the system processor.
4. I would say it is a rare gamer these days that does not have more than one monitor on their system. While I have yet to see a major graphically intensive game (that I have purchased) be fully multi-monitor aware and usable, it is high time that game developers started to write games that allow us to use however many monitors we have attached to our systems.
End of quote

While I do agree with you please understand that Sins of a Solar Empire came out in 2008, was started by an indie company back in 2005. Hence the above just wasn't going to happen. Hopefully with the release of Rebellion the devs at Ironclad and Stardock can make Sins 2 within those parameters.

Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top

Oh thanks Ryat.  That's a big oversight on my part, thanks for the correction.  For some reason I thought Sins was released in 2012.   But you are also right in that my suggestions were mainly for the next version of Sins.  But it does make the current limitations in Sins a bit more understandable.

Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting cs17519, reply 2
For some reason I thought Sins was released in 2012.
End of cs17519's quote

Is easy to understand that as Sins of a Solar Empire:Rebellion was release in 2012.

Quoting cs17519, reply 2
But still, most of my suggestions were for Sins2, not the current game.
End of cs17519's quote

Agreed. And has been posted and signed many a time. One more voice to the chorus cannot hurt.

Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top

Yup...

Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Ryat, reply 3

Quoting cs17519, reply 2For some reason I thought Sins was released in 2012.

Is easy to understand that as Sins of a Solar Empire:Rebellion was release in 2012.


Quoting cs17519, reply 2But still, most of my suggestions were for Sins2, not the current game.

Agreed. And has been posted and signed many a time. One more voice to the chorus cannot hurt.
End of Ryat's quote

 

What he said.

 

 

I have two monitors on this machine - many people have more than that, especially gamers. This game is not multi-monitor aware at all. Gamers have been using multi-monitors for many years now.
End of quote

I have a lot of gaming friend in real life and on the internet. The percentage of them having more than one monitor is very low.... contrary to what some graphic card companies and review magazines may write.

 

It is time that we, the gaming community, started to demand that our game developers come out of the year 2000 and join us here in 2013. I would even support little stickers on game boxes or game art that say "64-Bit" or "Multi-GPU Aware" or "Multi-Monitor Aware".

Yes, developers, I know it's painful. I know it requires a lot of work. I know, I know, I know.

Just do it.

Even if you don't, I can guarantee that your competitors will.
End of quote

 

Generally I agree with your point... the next installment of Sins needs multi core and 64 bit support, there is no argument about that. 

 

 

But I also want to point out that people owning high end systems with the latest state of the art hardware are a comparable small minority on the entire computer games market. No doubt, they are a vocal minority and of course the average gamer system is well above the average other home computer system. Still, for a game to be commercially successful.... and that is all that counts from the developers point of view.... it needs to run on as many machines are possible. Since a large majority of potential customer cannot afford or is willing to sink 1000+ € a year into getting the latest of hardware you have to make sure the game runs reasonably on somewhat older and less stellar hardware. If it doesnt.... your game may be praised highly by the press, but may not sell very well. See the first Crysis.... highly praised.... but very demanding on hardware... it didnt sell very well.... until after well over 1 years - affordable - hardware finally become powerful enough to run it on descent settings.

 

The developers realized their error..... Cryis 2 runs better than Crysis 1... on the same old machine.

 

Now, if you are Electronic Arts and can sink a few million € into advertising this is a more or less annoying drawback....

 

Smaller companies cannot afford such advertisement. So they better make sure it runs out of the box reasonably on halfway current hardware... if it doesnt.... the game has a good change of becoming a financial fiasco..... that may even lead to the developer going bankrupt.

 

 

 

Whenever Sins 2 will be released, multi core and 64 Bit are standard... and probably a few other things... perhaps 3D monitors? So I am pretty certain that they will develop it to that standards. Just dont expect it will be designed for your 8 Terrahertz 200 CPU Cores 500 3D spheremonitor room that rivals a spaceship command center... both in size, complexity and in price. ;P

 

 

Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top

Aresiv is correct in his assessment of how develpers target the market.  LOL - His last comment is hilarious!  As for Sins hiiting the 32 bit wall, I only recently became aware of this. I too have a high-end rig with a heavily overclocked i7-3770K (single 1200p monitor only) and run into major lag in large late game scenarios against multiple A.I.  I used to play Supreme Commander back on Windows XP with 4 GB RAM (3.25 usable) and there was a utility released by a modder which would add the LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE header to the exe which would allow the game to use more than 2 GB RAM.  I think it was called 3GB_enabler2 and was a zip file. You simply unzipped into its own folder, copied the SupCom exe to the folder and ran the batch file within to enable the fix, then copied the fixed exe back to the game directory [keep a backup of the original for patching purposes].  I successfully added this fix to another game by simply renaming it SupremeCommander.exe and then changing it back and it ran fine.  Don't know if it will work for Sins but I'm willing to try it now.  I'm sure I still have it archived somewhere and will look for it after posting.  Multiple threads would be nice, but I'm sure large battles could benefit from more RAM while we wait for Sins 2 ;)

 

edit:  I ran the fix and the games runs fine BUT I'm not sure how useful it will be.  Loaded a savegame vs 2 A.I on a med-large random map at the 6 hour mark and Sins is only using 1 GB RAM at this point. Maybe more players / larger maps will push it harder, we'll have to see ...   

Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting ARESIV, reply 6
Whenever Sins 2 will be released, multi core and 64 Bit are standard
End of ARESIV's quote

Multi-core CPUs are the norm now, but unfortunately there is still an enormous installed base (and ongoing sales) of Win x86. Which means that even if a new game is compiled for x64, it still needs to work well on x86 (which does impact features). The hardware has been there for years, so you can thank Microsoft and the OEMs for that one.

Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Toconator, reply 7
Don't know if it will work for Sins but I'm willing to try it now.
End of Toconator's quote

The devs have looked into it but have stated that it can cause issues on some systems. But I've also heard one guy say it helped. If you're comfortable doing that, try it at your own risk, and don't get your hopes up too much. ;)

Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top

RAM doesn't prevent or solve lag problems (unless your RAM speed is god awfully slow, maybe faster stuff would help then)...what you need is the best single core processing you can get....

Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top

Problem is that this i7 only runs with 2.5 GHz. Maybe some overclocking will help (but will not solve the problem, it will only soften it)

Have the same problems with the X-Series. Try to clean Xenon-Sektors in X3 TC with many ships fighting each other -> lagshow. Same Problem as SoaSE: Old Engine -> primarily using one core.

 

And for x86 vs. 64 Bit: Show me the games released nowadays which have a 64 bit .exe. They are rare and still less will benefit from it because the games are designed with 32 bit in mind.

 

I hope Chris Roberts Star Citizen will show new ways here. There will be an exe for 32 Bit but like in his old games: If you have not enough RAM you have to give up some shiny gimmicks because this game will be designed with 64 Bit and 3+ GB of free RAM in mind. I am very excited about it and hope this will be the way to go (for SoaSE 2). :D