Will RO be updated to Vista and DX10 ?

[SgtH3nry3]

Just imagine a RO game running on 64-bit format, DX10, UE3, Shader Model 4.0, Vista OS, Multi-Threaded Dual-Core PC's, AGEIA's PPU cards - the possibilities would be endless

Like you already mentioned, Unreal Engine 3.0.

Except for Shader Model 4.0 of course, which hasn't even been finished...

Btw, does Tripwire have access to the 64-bits patch for Unreal Engine 2.5?
And shouldn't it be possible to make a DirectX 10 renderer for Unreal Engine 2.5 without touching the engine itself?

 

[The_Countess]

The final version might take up less space on the hdd but the virtual filesystem is as broken as the cell processor. What I mean by that is we're looking at one order of magnitude more memory usage by the OS (100s of megs vs 10s of megs, my XP x64 runs at 70MB idle whereas vista regularlly uses 1GB even at idle).

well the cell processors isnt broken, and your XP installation dusnt use 70mb idle.
a standard clean XP installation uses atleast 250MB's or ram and 100 mb's for page file (if you have 1 GB of ram, if less it means bigger swap usage and smaller mem usage).
try not looking at the FP usage graph next time but at the physical memory overview.

We're also looking at a severe hit in loading times due to the compatibility layers for both 32-bit applications and dx9 and older programs provided they actually run. The XP x64 compatibility layer is actually quite smooth and runs a lot of 32-bit programs wihout a large performance hit, as in I can still run DOOM3 at almost full settings. In vista they managed to unoptimize it and slow page swapping for 32-bit machines to a standstill. This means extended load times, and longer level load times as the machine tries to figure out which part of which page goes to which register. This problem seems to be more pronounced on machines that have more ram and more virtual memory set.

as i have allready mentioned current vista builds are debug builds, that means they can use to twice as much space and memory as the normal build will in order for it to be eazyer to bedug.
thats whats causing increased loading times and increased swapfile usage.

i havent used the 32bit version so i wont comment on that but your claimes seem unlikey and exagerated.

 

[MoFo]

The cell processor is several orders of magnitude slower than it was projected to be, and several magnitudes slower than the xbox proc. The memory management system is not working efficiently and that's slowing the whole system down. I work in a lab that does research on the cell so I think I would know what's broken and what's not. Those of you thinking about buying a ps3 might want to sit on your money and wait and see if they can get it fixed.

Yea my xp does use around 70mb when i first start it up, when I start loading programs and such it goes up towards 200-300. But I'm running a bunch of programs so that's what I would expect... I get this from msinfo, not the pf usage.

Point still remains, vista needs a lot of work, or it should be scrapped. It uses far too much memory, loads way too inefficiently, and it's 32-bit compatibility layer is crap compared to the xp 64-bit one.

 

[SgtH3nry3]

The cell processor is several orders of magnitude slower than it was projected to be, and several magnitudes slower than the xbox proc. The memory management system is not working efficiently and that's slowing the whole system down. I work in a lab that does research on the cell so I think I would know what's broken and what's not. Those of you thinking about buying a ps3 might want to sit on your money and wait and see if they can get it fixed.

Ok, but the CPU bus isn't as fast as Microsoft promised us aswell.
Not to mention the R500 chip hasn't even got a reasonable link to the main memory, it only has that 10MiB EDRAM, which is fast, but in 1 year totally outdone.

 

[The_Countess]

Yea my xp does use around 70mb when i first start it up, when I start loading programs and such it goes up towards 200-300. But I'm running a bunch of programs so that's what I would expect... I get this from msinfo, not the pf usage.

then i sugest you open the task manager and look at the PF
oops probably around 200 mb's or extra memory usage

besides that your still full of bull, you cant get mem use down to 70 mb's without reducing windows down to near uselessness
windows needs memory to opperate effectivly, just loading everything out of memory dusnt make your windows faster, quite the opposite.

and i also dont think you fully realise what a "debug build" actualy means.
besides the extra mem usage and load times it also means any loading optimalizations are still useless as they will be tuned too file sizes and memory usages half the side they currently are.

for someone working in a lab you seem to lack a lot of basic knowlage.

 

[Tak]

Actually, mine is running around 100-ish if I were to close FireFox...


I keep AVG and ATItool running. I've turned off gaggles of the windows 'services' that I don't and will not ever use on this machine, and that freed up tons of memory...


There is nothing 'reducing to near uselessness' about disabling things that have no use in the first place.
​

 

[The_Countess]

thats just normal tweaking,
and your 100-ish is either the PF usage or dusnt include FP usage.

if your system really only used 100 (or 70 for that matter) mb's of ram + PF TOTAL, then it will be reduced to near uselessness.
it cant have cached anything, it cant have memory read made to act as file system cache, it cant have ANY drivers loaded and opening the start menu would take a couple of seconds as it gets loaded off of the HDD and
sound would only start playing after a big delay as the sound sub-system gets loaded into memory.
as you can see, pretty sub optimal.