UPDATED: Bernd *was* spreading false/misleading info; Latest post much better!

vargata · Post by **vargata** » Thu, 21. Nov 13, 01:13

onedreamer wrote:In short you know better than the programmers of this software, just because you say so, but your system doesn't run well with your perfect setup while my system with a 670 and 16GB RAM has no problem. But sure, you are right and the benefit of the doubt shouldn't even be a consideration.

my system has 16 gig and the game was just terrible... so?

your one is the mentality what let them lie whatever they want. the noob who think they know everything because they are the experts. well. if they would be, then they wouldnt release this broken crap and thousands of us wouldnt be complaining... pls rethink your life as a washing machine, we the professionals will happily control your worthless life

Lord Crc · Post by **Lord Crc** » Thu, 21. Nov 13, 01:14

The thing is, the game on my PC runs silky smooth and then suddenly crap, or the other way around.

The way it runs "crap" is eerily similar to the way Battlefield 4 Beta ran crap, where the issue was explicitly stated as a thread contention issue by the main engine developer (repi).

Given that I have 16G RAM, a i7 2900k and AMD7950 it is not at all a swapping issue in my case. And I have no CPU intensive background processes running.

dragonemp · Post by **dragonemp** » Thu, 21. Nov 13, 01:15

I'm speechless that a developer from a gaming company calling tri-channel ram "oddly balanced"......

Post by **BlackRain** » Thu, 21. Nov 13, 01:17

CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3930K CPU @ 3.20GHz (12 CPUs), ~3.2GHz
Memory: 16384MB RAM
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 - 4GB

My set up. Not one single slow down. Curious if it is because my GPU has 4GB of ram? Does your 670 have 4 or 2 GB? I do have much more ram but others with 16gb are reporting ram problems?

Post by **BlackRain** » Thu, 21. Nov 13, 01:19

dragonemp wrote:I'm speechless that a developer from a gaming company calling tri-channel ram "oddly balanced"......

That isn't what was said. I read the first post again and the quote taken from Bernd doesn't say that. Did you actually read the OP? Unless you are talking about another quote that isn't in the thread that is.

Hornet108 · Post by **Hornet108** » Thu, 21. Nov 13, 01:26

I'm at work so I can't check, but I have a 770 and 8 gb of RAM

is that unbalanced? I didn't expect rebirth to take more then 8 gb, thats a lot. I do get poor performance tho.

leecarter · Post by **leecarter** » Thu, 21. Nov 13, 01:30

I had other technical problems with this game before I gave up and uninstalled it in a fit of nerd rage, but performance wasn't one of them. I always had smooth frame rates everywhere I went, never saw it choke once.

I've got a ridiculous system though, 2 overclocked GTX 780s (SLI) and 16 GB overclocked RAM, and a 2600k OC'd to 4.8 Ghz. Not the highest processor, but considering my overclock it's still not worth the time/hassle to upgrade.

I'm a PC performance uber geek and spend entirely too much tweaking my system to get the last bit of performance out of it, so that my skew things a bit.

Anyway, the game always ran fine for me frame-rate wise. I didn't keep it installed long enough to actually pull up an FPS overlay for an actual number though - got so frustrated with the game play I didn't give a damn.

perry_106 · Post by **perry_106** » Thu, 21. Nov 13, 01:31

Sounds like your a bit butt hurt your machine is out of whack. Im sure he knows the intricacies of memory being a programmer for so long.

leecarter · Post by **leecarter** » Thu, 21. Nov 13, 01:37

Also, as a side note, if you're going to drop the cash on a 690 why just have 6 Gigs of RAM? Not exclusively for this game, just in general. Compared to a 690 RAM is dirt cheap, why not just load up on it?

I don't get why you'd put a high end card in a system without even 8 GB of RAM. I mean I guess it works, but it just seems odd to me.

Poet1960 · Post by **Poet1960** » Thu, 21. Nov 13, 01:39

Here's Astyrrean, doing his best to solve one of the major problems with this game, FOR FREE, and Onedreamer is giving him shi^ for it?

You know, everywhere I go, on this forum, game sites etc, I see a tiny little army of damage control zombies, pretty much saying the same thing.

It's NOT X4. You're just mad because you didn't get what you wanted. You're just mad because it doesn't work on your system.

Blah blah blah.

It seriously reminds me of the trolls on yahoo who post drivel on the political posts trying to get the sheep to believe that slavery is the way to go and it's really the cat's meow.

Basically, snakeoil salesmen. Selling you a lie.

There is even one guy on youtube who's account is from on or around Nov 15 posting on all the vids that show how botched this release is. Funny thing about that account, it doesn't have even ONE video of it's own.

Astyrrean · Post by **Astyrrean** » Thu, 21. Nov 13, 02:06

onedreamer wrote:
Astyrrean wrote:I am stating facts. Not opinions.

Fact: A LAA-aware 32-bit x86 application can only address 4GiB of RAM
Fact: All high-end systems for which I've seen data are neither CPU nor GPU nor Memory bound (check the other thread)
Fact: A 690 and 6GB of RAM is not "oddly balanced" and does not "not work well"

What are your facts?

"My system with a 670 and 16GB RAM has no problem."

What does that mean? You can sustain >60FPS at 3840x2160 throughout the game? If yes, let's keep talking because I definitely want to know how your system differs from mine.
Facts are that you are complaining of the game not running as you expect on your setup.
Then there are opinions and it is your OPINION that RAM is unrelated.

Astyrrean wrote: Try reading my post again. No-one knows all. But spreading incorrect information does not help I believe. Do you believe it helps?
Nope, definitely I don't. That's why I suggested you don't spread your opinions disguising them as facts. But I see you're not willing to accept my suggestion and prefer to continue with your role play of the heroic super expert that will nail down the game issues while disproving even the game programmers themselves. Please go on.

If you look at my other post you'll see physical RAM usage below 70%. Again another fact. I sincerely don't understand how you can rationally say "spread your opinions disguising them as facts". There are no opinions there. Just facts. Facts don't prove hypothesis - they merely generate them. Yet I've asked you to offer facts of your own, and you declined.

Swallen · Post by **Swallen** » Thu, 21. Nov 13, 02:26

I have 4 GB of RAM and a slightly ****** HD 6670 1 GB (****** specially considering the game's requirements).

I never get less than about 20 fps except when I'm at Lonely Giant. I have all settings at minimum and had to slightly overclock my card, but if I can do that and play, the beasts people are reporting should run this game no problem.

The engine has obvious problems that should be fixed before running around saying it's the players' fault for not having 8+ GB of RAM...

wwdragon · Post by **wwdragon** » Thu, 21. Nov 13, 02:44

Lord Crc wrote:The thing is, the game on my PC runs silky smooth and then suddenly crap, or the other way around.

Mine does this too. Suddenly I'm staring at something and fps goes through the floor.

Zothen · Post by **Zothen** » Thu, 21. Nov 13, 02:45

onedreamer wrote:In short you know better than the programmers of this software, just because you say so, but your system doesn't run well with your perfect setup while my system with a 670 and 16GB RAM has no problem. But sure, you are right and the benefit of the doubt shouldn't even be a consideration.

And because your system runs well (???) it makes you righter than right, right? Gosh, get a peach..

outlawgb · Post by **outlawgb** » Thu, 21. Nov 13, 02:47

i have phenom II quad 3.2 4gb ram had i did have untill to day 9800gt

was playing at 1280 X 720 low settings ran fine 2 crahes in 25 hrs of play
no low fps

got a cheap rad 6870 running 1600 X 900 max setting no v sync runs as smooth as silk no fps loss and the diferance is staggering

Monkeyfister · Post by **Monkeyfister** » Thu, 21. Nov 13, 02:48

Well, Bernd, perhaps you all need to re-think, and re-state your REQUIREMENTS for playing your shipwreck, then. In your DEV videos pre-release, you totally refused to even discuss that part. And now this????

Nonsense.

Zothen · Post by **Zothen** » Thu, 21. Nov 13, 02:55

Astyrrean wrote:...because you should know well that your LAA x32 executable can only address 4GiB of RAM no matter what you throw at it, which by the way it doesn't even fully utilize)....

I am stating facts. Not opinions.

Fact: A LAA-aware 32-bit x86 application can only address 4GiB of RAM

You know that youre a fool, right?

If you need facts, let me tell you some:

32-bit programs receive only 2GB of address space unless they indicate their willingness to cope with addresses above 2GB by passing the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag.

This flag means the same thing on 64-bit Windows. But since 64-bit Windows has a much larger address space available to it, it can afford to give the 32-bit Windows program the entire 4GB of address space to use. This is mentioned almost incidentally in Knowledge Base article Q889654 in the table "Comparison of memory and CPU limits in the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows".

In other words, certain categories of 32-bit programs (namely, those tight on address space) benefit from running on 64-bit Windows machine, even though they aren't explicitly taking advantage of any 64-bit features.

GOT IT, LLA-pro?

So where did Bernd lie to you? And btw, its Mr. Lehahn for you!

Sandalpocalypse · Post by **Sandalpocalypse** » Thu, 21. Nov 13, 03:03

if you were stating 'facts and not opinions', or 'doing your best to help', you would not make a thread titled 'BERND IS LYING"

because the BERND IS LYING thread is about you and howabout you are not being respected. not about fixing problems.

Astyrrean · Post by **Astyrrean** » Thu, 21. Nov 13, 03:04

Zothen wrote:
Astyrrean wrote:...because you should know well that your LAA x32 executable can only address 4GiB of RAM no matter what you throw at it, which by the way it doesn't even fully utilize)....

I am stating facts. Not opinions.

Fact: A LAA-aware 32-bit x86 application can only address 4GiB of RAM
You know that youre a fool, right?

If you need facts, let me tell you some:

32-bit programs receive only 2GB of address space unless they indicate their willingness to cope with addresses above 2GB by passing the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag.

This flag means the same thing on 64-bit Windows. But since 64-bit Windows has a much larger address space available to it, it can afford to give the 32-bit Windows program the entire 4GB of address space to use. This is mentioned almost incidentally in Knowledge Base article Q889654 in the table "Comparison of memory and CPU limits in the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows".

In other words, certain categories of 32-bit programs (namely, those tight on address space) benefit from running on 64-bit Windows machine, even though they aren't explicitly taking advantage of any 64-bit features.

GOT IT, LLA-pro?

So where did Bernd lie to you? And btw, its Mr. Lehahn for you!

Try re-reading that statement. And if unclear, re-read it again. Eventually you'll figure out I am stating exactly what you mentioned in your post.

Then, please, explain to me how on this earth 6GB can be a limitation when:
A) a (LAA-flagged) 32bit application running within a x64 OS can only address 4GiB
B) said application does not even use those full 4GiB
C) Windows itself uses no more than 1.5-2GiB
D) Actual runtime data shows physical RAM utilization below 70%

Maybe I am a fool. But if I am a fool, I am such a fool that I don't even understand why I should be a fool.

Astyrrean · Post by **Astyrrean** » Thu, 21. Nov 13, 03:09

Sandalpocalypse wrote:if you were stating 'facts and not opinions', or 'doing your best to help', you would not make a thread titled 'BERND IS LYING"

because the BERND IS LYING thread is about you and howabout you are not being respected. not about fixing problems.

Saying that statements are false and misleading is different that accusing someone of knowingly lying. I have done the former and not the latter.

I stand by the comment that Bernd's comments are false and misleading. I support that statement with facts. You are welcome to counter my observations with facts of your own. If I am proved wrong, I will welcome it and apologize accordingly.

But if I am proved right, then that post should be taken down. And that would help, I believe, as developers focus on what I argue (again, based on all the facts collected on that separate thread).

It is not about "who is right". I don't care about being right. I care about the devs fixing this game. Great if they fixed it and I was wrong.

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

UPDATED: Bernd was spreading false/misleading info; Latest post much better!