Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Change Physics Engine to 64-bit system, because 32-bit doesn't cut it

Discussion in 'Suggestions and Feedback' started by seeker0003, May 18, 2015.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. mdenz3 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    125
    I run 32bit. [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  2. Braxbro Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    637
    Now that is rude. What if I told you I have a 32-bit computer?
    (Not that I do, but...)
     
  3. Jzuken Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    127
    What if someone runs Windows 95?
    32-bit computers are obsolete, even the lowest Intel Atom processors are 64-bit.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. druppi Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    178
    get a new one! its outdated technology ... you are also not use petroleum lamps or steam locomotives any more right?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. EternityTide Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,950
    It's a good thing there are no Amish on this forum, otherwise you will have offended an entire religion.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  6. druppi Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    178
    I don't care in religion / interested for me its a outdated concept too.
     
  7. Harrekin Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,077
    Just out of interest, how do you even run the game?

    How old is your computer?!
     
  8. EternityTide Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,950
    it was a joke, mate, don't take it seriously.

    On a side note, who was the bastard who dug this thread out of it's well deserved grave?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. druppi Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    178
    well if something deserves a grave it is 32 bit technology i mean I'm looking already forward for 128 bit ;)
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  10. Neeneko Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    63
    Ahm.

    Has anyone considered the idea that moving to 64 bit for the physics engine would make things worse? If precision was the issue, there are all sorts of ways to get it with 32 bit, and GPUs have specialized hardware for doing matrix manipulations that render the bit limit of the CPU kinda irrelevant. The limiting factor is not the precision, but of the number of discrete calculations that need to be done per update and how short those updates can be made.

    And here is where 64 bit and lots of RAM can actually hurt you. Without knowing their specific implementation, the more 'stuff' you have, the larger the index tables you have to build to go through, the larger and more time consuming those tables become to traverse. This can esp become a problem with large amounts of RAM, the amount of memory needed to keep track of pages within that memory can really ballon and that table has to compete for space in the cache, so it can really push out the data you actually want to work with.

    Years ago I worked on a physics simulation where there was significant pressure to get things as low as possible, figuring out what data could be safely moved into 16, 8, or even 4 bit containers. In several sims I have worked on we ended up moving back to 32 bit on 64 bit hardware due to the 64 bit implementation being less efficient and thus hurting that all important tick time.

    On the other hand, 64 bit general purpose has been an amazing marketing success for hardware manufacturers ^_^ often things run slower on it, so you need to upgrade to faster hardware
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. mdenz3 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    125
    It runs pretty well actually.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. zDeveloper10 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    742
    64 bit doesn't necessarily mean faster, unless it's doing expensive optimizations to avoid running out of memory with the 32 bits that it has.
     
  13. Braxbro Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    637
    I do use 64 bit I have a 2 yr old Alienware PC
     
  14. max1998t1 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    70
    How the hell did you get SE to eat only 2.5 gb of ram??? Its eating at least 3 or more for me(and thats with low graphics and render distance settings!)
     
  15. MajorTom Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    299
    Look at this amateur who doesn't have it eating 7-8 of 16GB of ram to run a colossal (and only mildly chuggy) battleship on Medium settings.
     
  16. Grimly Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    74
    Instead of going for a game where the universe we see is within an aether where light speed is 110m/s, the game should run the physics on a per-grid basis and then run more simple physics for each grid (below 104m/s collision, go for actual physics, above = make a big explosion somewhere).

    Kerbal Space Program does that well enough and it runs on 32bits (in facts, their engine forced them an overhaul to upgrade to 64bits).
    What I would LOVE to see is the creative playstyle of SpaceEngineers and the physics realism of KSP.
     
  17. blizzerd Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    478
    with the new directX requirements there could literally be like 20 people left that have the directx requirements but not the 64bit capabilities...
     
  18. Kamikazi2142 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    7
    THIS Software could be incorporated into the game, and according to their "Claims" its both speedy and accurate, i've done some research and i do believe it is a x64 bit Physics. Not sure about hardware support, whether or not it can use GPU's to its advantage is still outside my knowledge, but there is a speedy and accurate physics engine out there. Glad to offer anything to help ease the process of updating.

    Additionally:
    I've seen my Space Engineers eat up over 6 GB of RAM while on a planet, i have 16GB to play with, and just sitting idle there's a 6GB usage, Memory usage with Windows is per user honestly, you could have two identical computers and one uses all memory, and the other uses 1%. I call it Microsoft Diversity.
     
  19. Jappards200 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    194
    Specs:
    OS: Windows 8.1 x64
    Graphics: AMD Radeon HD 8610G and Radeon R7 M260
    Processor: AMD A4/A6/A8/A10
    Ram: 12GB
    DirectX: 11

    I have quite a low fps on planets(10ish), but I never did a benchmark on gpu, cpu and ram etc. usage. I will do it once I know how. With Most PCs getting more cores, I think Multi-threading would be a large benefit to the community, which might even be larger than the 64-bit increase.

    I heard oly 2.5GB to 3 is used on earlier posts, did anyone of you tried to change the starting options(like -heapsize?)?
     
  20. Kamikazi2142 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    7
    I have the space engineers on my computer with 8 cores, and the Dedicated server on a machine i built with 24 cores, i have brought this up in a tech support issue and i was replied with:
    Never the less, i was forced to let the discussion end there, disgruntled and unsatisfied with the complete lack of CPU usage by the Dedicated server, i looked elsewhere for performance enhancments, even tried hosting it on a Hyper-V with a super charged emulated CPU, didn't work, the game itself and everything about it just refuses to use a CPU over 3% Refuses to utilize more RAM than exactly a 3rd of what you have, thus making it look like the devs accidentally capped the resource usage at 3 percent...
    But there's nothing to be done in performance increases according to the Support Reply.

    Additionally:
    I would LOVE to see a config file allowing us users to tell the game exactly what WE want it to do, how much CPU usage to use, how much RAM to use, how many threads there are to use, etc etc.
    From what i can honestly see, even the most powerful gaming rig, means diddly to this game as it won't even care and just use a fraction of what there is to use. My only question is this...
    "How the heck, can you honestly claim, that because the game isn't "optimized" is why it won't use all the resources?"

    That's gotta be the biggest load of horse scatt i've ever heard, if anything it should be opposite! IE: The processing power required is higher than normal because the software is so mangled and disorganized, it costs more on the resources to sort out, therefore requiring more... NOT LESS.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2016
  21. gothosan Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    723
    As someone who is into programming (despite never making such huge project like a computer game) I can say this:
    - I do not host a server so I'm not sure exactly how much resources the game take on DS but any server for most part probably does not need graphic card, so all processing is on the CPU.
    - An unoptimized software (any software for that matter) won't always eat up all the resources on a given machine, and as far as it goes to how many CPU cores it will use that depend on the compiler itself, if it does allow to write programs that use more than 1 core, as well as on the code of the program itself.
    My only guess here is that because SE is still in Alpha then the devs probably limit how many threads as well as cores the game is going to use.
    Bare in mind that nowdays all computer programs except few select few (which often also include viruses) have to communicate with the machine OS, who dictate resource disterbution.
    It is probably unwise to make a program (other than the OS itself) to attempt to eat all resources/threads/cores on a machine as that would damage it (and the OS itself is more than likely to deny access to such program).
     
  22. Kamikazi2142 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    7
    Uh, what?
    I was just asking if it used PhysX and that if i used an nVidia GPU if it would increase its performance, or do you not know about that? PhysX processing is like, a billion times better off a GeForce card bro.
    About that other part... *sigh* really?
    Yup, he just went there...
    And here i thought you people were literate. I said "usually" a spaghetti coded program would cause a heavier load, NOT a lighter one, jesus read it or leave it, try not to imagine it! No where did i say that i had expected the game devs to make it try to break my computer like some kind of XP era Crysis game! I can't bring this any lower without making a song out of PBS Kids material.
     
  23. mze9412 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    791
    This is, from a software developer's point of view, bullshit (or as you would say: biggest load of horse scatt I've ever heard of).
    The CPU usage is limited in almost all games because of multi-cores. Most games can only use 1-2 cores properly because they need to keep threads synchronized. If not, you're fucked.
    Yes, the game requires more resources because it is not optimized. No, it will not eat all resources. To properly use ALL resources you need to heavily optimize the game (multi-threading for example). Also there are limits on how much RAM a game can use. And not using all RAM might just mean one thing: It does not need more, the bottleneck is somewhere else. With 24 cores, the usage of SE will usually not go over 8% under full game load (just saw your server in your sig).

    About PhysX: The game uses Havok, Havok is CPU based, so yeah, no PhysX. Havok FX was cancelled years ago. Not hard to find out ;)
     
  24. Burillo Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    648
    why is everyone talking about 32-bit vs 64-bit game? whether the game is compiled as 32-bit or 64-bit executable bears no effect on whether physics computations are 32 or 64 bit. it's a difference between using float and double, not between x86 and x86_64 compiled code.

    mind you, double-precision floating point calculations are almost twice as slow as single-recision, so this would indeed impact performance. however it would have nothing to do with the game itself being 32-bit or 64-bit (i.e. using 32-bit address space).
     
  25. Mix-martes86 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,110
    Well, first of all, nice 6-month necro. I'll never understand why people don't just create their own brand new thread. I tend to ignore resurrected threads because of how often the new posts are just crap, please take that into account.

    Second, the game DOES use multi-threading. I'm sure somewhere someone specified how many, probably can be found using the forum search. But like @mze9412 said, too many threads can really crap your process because stuff needs to be synchronized, so stop using that as the ultimate solution for everything, because it really isn't once you get to a certain point. The game needs to be (generally) optimized, period. It's a general programming issue, not necessarily tied (for bad or good) to multi-threading.

    Laptop? Don't expect miracles for quite a while. Nice RAM, but the rest of the laptop sucks (including Windows 8.1), specially for a yet to be optimized Early Access game, sorry.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. Hakon102 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    300
    FPS - Frames per Second - depends on your Grafic Card
    UPS - Updates per Second/Sim Speed - depends on your CPU

    The Problem is your Grafic Card, not your CPU. However, SE on Planets eat's a lot VRAM. Especially, on higher Settings of field of view, Anti-Ailaising, Anastropic Filtering, Shadow.

    By the way, Keen already try to use more Multi-threading. But, in some cases it is'nt possible.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Kamikazi2142 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    7
    You mean the thing Rainbow Six: Siege uses? DETAILS
    You're right, wasn't that hard to find...

    Because if you create a new thread you just get harassed for making a duplicate of what was already made before... and its part of the guidelines to search for prior existing threads before creating one.
     
  28. mze9412 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    791
    The old HavokFX was a full blown physics engine which supported AMD and Nvidia GPU based calculations. The "new" HavokFX is an effects part and can be integrated with Havok Physics (which as far as I know KSH uses) and is meant for effects. For baseline physics simulation you need to use Havok Physics. FX does not offer that in it's current iteration (funny enough, FX is not even offered as a product directly on the Havok website, you have to search for it) :D

    Havok shows a demo in 2013 on the PS4 with GPU calculated stuff but that topic seems to be very quiet again. No idea why, tbh.
     
  29. Kamikazi2142 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    7
    "I'll never understand why people don't just create their own brand new thread."
    So you're saying with this statement that you have never been a part of any other thread, ever, especially since nearly all other threads ask for you to search the forums before posting a new thread. It is mainly to maintain a more unified and streamlined environment for the Moderators to simply keep track of, otherwise there would be "over 9000!!" (LOL) threads on the same exact topic. If everyone was so phobic to necro's there would be an ocean of identical threads, because people like you cannot keep things contained and must spread the mess around. Re-upping a thread is NOT a bad thing, not one bit what-so-ever, it helps keep the previous statements alive and allows people not to make the foolish mistake of repeating already said opinions, statements, and facts, and to force someone into making a new contribution to the thread. Rather than allowing people to repeat the same drivel over and over, to force new idea's and opinions to surface and finally, maybe, come to a solution that would benefit the devs in remedying the situation sooner?

    "The game needs to be (generally) optimized, period."
    Please explain to me how my friends who host on Intel based systems get far over 120FPS (Highest detail settings) with no slow downs what-so-ever and anyone with an AMD based systems suffer a hardcore 24/7 lag spike? Now before you reply, know that the 64 bit architecture is the same across both since AMD leases the patented architecture to Intel, AMD also being the ones who pioneered multicore CPU's so please, do tell your logic on this one. I do agree with you wholeheartedly about the game needing to be optimized, no one suffers more than an AMD user on this game. The situation on the Multithreading though, you couldn't be further from the truth, but i guess if you prefer single thread/core applications then more power to you, i'll still try to get at least four from this if i can! As it sits, the dedicated server is only using a single core, even when the affinity is spread to all, it only uses one. Same on my PC, with 8 potential cores, it only uses one, as stated before Keen has tried opening up the threads but failed epically. So please understand, in this situation, there needs to be multithreading before anymore "optimizations" that just make the game more and more unbearable to play... as it stands, Keen may as well refund all AMD users and update the system requirements to "Intel Only" seeing as how it is only being optimised on Intel systems.

    "the rest of the laptop sucks (including Windows 8.1)"
    Actually, 8.1 is pretty good, a lot better than 8 or Vista ever were. And with the fixes on core parking you won't ever lose your idle cores like in 7.

     
  30. sioxernic Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,535
    My biggest thought on this if you change the physics engine to 64 bits then you also increase the processing power required for the game to function in the first place. There is this weird thing where both CPUs and GPUs tend to expend more processing power whenever they deal with larger numbers (I wonder where that comes in).

    There is no one catch all solution to fixing SEs problems because if there were then it would 100% be fixed by now. 64 bit = more precisions ... Yes... 64 bit = more processing power required to make it more precise... Yes...
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.