Is x rebirth really a 64 bit game?

[hawat]

On the forum and on the requirement the game was announced as a 64 bit game.
But when I look in the task manager it shows as a 32 bit application.
Another weird thing is when the game reach around 3GB memory usage after a few hours of gameplay and some reloading (this seems to cause memory leak btw, raising the memory usage each time if enough time has passed between each reload) in the task manager the game starts to slowdown heavily (my system has 32 GB running on w7 64 bit, so it should still have plenty of memory free).
So is the game really 64 bit or did egosoft forget to make the 64 bit .exe available to us?

[CBJ]

No, it's a 32-bit game, but it uses more than the 2GB normally allocated to a single application by 32-bit versions of Windows. As a result you need a 64-bit version of Windows, which allocates up to 4GB to a 32-bit application, to run it.

[hawat]

Hmm the limit I seem to hit is around 3GB after that the game is in super slow mode and I have to restart it.
Anyway why recommend an 8gb system then if it is only 32bit?
(I think the thread got bugged somehow to I couldnt reply to my own thread without quoting you first. Then remove the quote)

[Fascism is Magic]

No, it's a 32-bit game, but it uses more than the 2GB normally allocated to a single application by 32-bit versions of Windows. As a result you need a 64-bit version of Windows, which allocates up to 4GB to a 32-bit application, to run it.

Did anyone point out that this is wrong yet? Because LAA doesn't need a 64-bit OS to work.

[Inverness]

No, it's a 32-bit game, but it uses more than the 2GB normally allocated to a single application by 32-bit versions of Windows. As a result you need a 64-bit version of Windows, which allocates up to 4GB to a 32-bit application, to run it.

Why not just give us a 64-bit executable then? Seems like that would work better and allow everyone to utilize more than 4GB if they have it.

[Fascism is Magic]

No, it's a 32-bit game, but it uses more than the 2GB normally allocated to a single application by 32-bit versions of Windows. As a result you need a 64-bit version of Windows, which allocates up to 4GB to a 32-bit application, to run it.

Why not just give us a 64-bit executable then? Seems like that would work better and allow everyone to utilize more than 4GB if they have it.

It's a stab in the dark, but chances are they're reusing parts of X3 and those parts don't play well with 64-bit systems.

I'd love to hear their excuses on this one, honestly.

[Halconnen]

No, it's a 32-bit game, but it uses more than the 2GB normally allocated to a single application by 32-bit versions of Windows. As a result you need a 64-bit version of Windows, which allocates up to 4GB to a 32-bit application, to run it.

Did anyone point out that this is wrong yet? Because LAA doesn't need a 64-bit OS to work.

False. Even with the LAA flag set, you won't get more than 3GB (I think) allocated to a single application on 32-Bit windows. It's the full 4GB on 64-Bit windows.

If the game needs all of that, it makes sense to recommend 8GB, as if the game needs 4GB, there needs to be plenty of space for Windows and background programs left. (6GB likely works, but honestly, uneven amounts of sticks are pretty oddball on most mainboards.)

Of course doing it that way is still ridiculous and they should just make it a 64-Bit executable instead. I have 32GB of RAM, I can stomach the little pointer overhead.

[Shootist]

No, it's a 32-bit game, but it uses more than the 2GB normally allocated to a single application by 32-bit versions of Windows. As a result you need a 64-bit version of Windows, which allocates up to 4GB to a 32-bit application, to run it.

Did anyone point out that this is wrong yet? Because LAA doesn't need a 64-bit OS to work.

The 64bit OS is needed to to give your 2GB+ video cards address space to map their memory.

[Inverness]

The 64bit OS is needed to to give your 2GB+ video cards address space to map their memory.

What? VRAM is totally separate and not mapped to RAM at all. You use video drivers to send textures from RAM to VRAM.

[pjknibbs]

What? VRAM is totally separate and not mapped to RAM at all. You use video drivers to send textures from RAM to VRAM.

And the video driver does that by sending the data to a reserved set of addresses mapped into the 32-bit address space of the processor. There's no other way it *can* do it--the processor doesn't have a mechanism for sending large amounts of data over anything other than the normal memory bus!

[Mauzi!]

What? VRAM is totally separate and not mapped to RAM at all. You use video drivers to send textures from RAM to VRAM.

And the video driver does that by sending the data to a reserved set of addresses mapped into the 32-bit address space of the processor. There's no other way it *can* do it--the processor doesn't have a mechanism for sending large amounts of data over anything other than the normal memory bus!

...which means that the VRAM and any other IO areas for SATA, etc. overlap actual RAM, leading to ultimatively not being able to use 4GB of RAM even if you put that in. And especially with today's graphics cards this easily means that you'll not be able to have even 2GB of free RAM for both your 32-bit Windows and programs.

This alone should be reason enough to have a game developer "demand" a 64-bit system even if the game itself isn't 64-bit. Now... having more than 2GB RAM usable for the actual game of course helps too.

[Kolreth]

So basically the engine scalability stuff they were talking up pre release is all hot air then. I knew I should have waited to buy it.

[Ishanda]

I am not that knowledgeable about the technical bits of it, but the guy that created the ENBseries driver package for Skyrim later also developed a memory intercept (or hack, for lack of better words) that enables the Skyrim executable to run with a MUCH lower RAM footprint but still allows Skyrim, which is also a 32-bit application, to use OVER 4GB of memory.

I wonder if that sort of thing could work here too. Off to test his system on XR.

[B_O_L_T]

I am not that knowledgeable about the technical bits of it, but the guy that created the ENBseries driver package for Skyrim later also developed a memory intercept (or hack, for lack of better words) that enables the Skyrim executable to run with a MUCH lower RAM footprint but still allows Skyrim, which is also a 32-bit application, to use OVER 4GB of memory.

I wonder if that sort of thing could work here too. Off to test his system on XR.

A simple compile of a 64 bit exe would suffice, you can simply change a compiler option to do that, and while that wouldn't take full advantage of all of the features of the 64 bit instruction set and architecture it would be a damn sight better than releasing a 32 bit exe with a 64 bit OS min requirement.

I still do not understand the decision to only release a 32 bit exe given the OS reqs, unless they are using a ****** open license compiler with incomplete support, it really does not make sense. The benefits of the 64 bit instruction set alone make it worth compiling a 64 bit exe when your target machines run a 64 bit OS. From a performance perspective, having access to more memory is one of the minor advantages of the 64 bit architecture.

[Inverness]

What? VRAM is totally separate and not mapped to RAM at all. You use video drivers to send textures from RAM to VRAM.

And the video driver does that by sending the data to a reserved set of addresses mapped into the 32-bit address space of the processor. There's no other way it *can* do it--the processor doesn't have a mechanism for sending large amounts of data over anything other than the normal memory bus!

The memory that is actually mapped for the graphics card is vastly smaller than its total capacity. I shouldn't have said that it is "totally" separate". In the case of my 2GB graphics card, only 235MB is reserved for it.

Basically, the idea that having a graphics card with 2GB of VRAM meaning that 2GB of your RAM will be reserved for its use is not accurate.

[Halconnen]

A simple compile of a 64 bit exe would suffice, you can simply change a compiler option to do that, and while that wouldn't take full advantage of all of the features of the 64 bit instruction set and architecture it would be a damn sight better than releasing a 32 bit exe with a 64 bit OS min requirement.

This is absolutely not the case if your code makes assumptions about how big pointers are. (E.g. mapping them to ints or similar shenanigans.)

It'll gloriously explode into your face if you just try to recompile it in those instances.

That said, there are programs available that find the most common 64-Bit unsafe code segments.

[RegisterMe]

Wait, what, it's not a 64bit game?