Disregard.
This thread is a rehash of old ideas by new people.
0_______________0
uh sorry double reply
Meh, give up already mate...
I talked to a friend recently and told him that i see weird engines in videogames etc... he said that it's way too difficult for developpers to develop on multi-core, it's some new programming skills they dont have, usually cost a lot of money only the big boys can properly do. so yea when u go buy shoes go for Nike. Can not fail.
I have no doubts that programmers enjoy themselves here though. Pisses me off that its all about money again but im not surprised.
By the way...
Have you tried Endless Space ?.
Same problem, Single core, when the game reachs a fair ammount of ships, it Laaaaaaags hard and this time i had 2 crashs with message : Too many heap sections (wtf is that lol)
But the main and only question remains... Why do they keep making games that can not run 100% on our PC, for the same reason they put plastic in our food, but its a different topic we wont debate in there
i find endless space to be quite boring, but as a former IT Admin with many years experience working on computers, and some programming...i just don't buy the excuse about not being able to do multi core programming easily. Any developer MUST be able to do multi-core as part of there job, its just not a option.
Multi-core computers have been out for quite a wile now in computer years, and they are here to stay, If your program is not multi-core capable and your program needs it to run properly, then you are selling a deficient product.
Sins obviously suffers from this, and it has severely hurt its sales/popularity from poor performance. Designing a game where half the features are completely unplayable because of poor foresight is inexcusable...
Multi-star maps; late game lag, 100+ planets; late game lag, 10+hour game; late game lag, multiple ai; late game lag,large fleets; late game lag.
It really does make what would be a AAA title that would be incredibly fun... to a game that we love, but suffer with/through. And my play style really suffers from the worst combination. I take my sweet time (long many hour games) and play with 5+ ai on the hardest difficulty, and even with only 60 planets late game lag makes it all but unplayable.
Long story short, this has hurt the game and hurt there sales, word of mouth is a powerful tool.
Sins was designed back when dual cores were only becoming standard, and quad cores just coming out. It isn't a matter of ease; it's a matter of time and money. As a former IT admin you should know that such a process would take up a decent chunk of resources for a company as small as Stardock, let alone Ironclad, which is even smaller. I'd suggest not beating this dead horse some more.
Now seriously mail this to Bioware or some fat companies, they will make us a Sins multi core capable with CryEngine3... God knows how theyd be rich in no time, oh wait they are busy making dumb games with repeatitive quests for brainless people. Wish they had more time for us.
Endless Space is quite boring yea, was at least.. the first 10 games ive had. but after that i got ***** several times by the CPU i started to win but then my fleet became too big the game got laaaaaggy as well, i was like wtf, unplayable, FIVE minute per turn sometimes, unusual insane lag then the game crashed (2times) but hey no worries i managed to load it back and WIN the game. More you kill, less you lag, i'm getting used to it
But after i noticed my computer was idling at 5%GPU 14%CPU 40%Memory when the game was laaaaaagging hard goodbye Endless space was nice to meet you.
At first, please let me say that I understand your frustration.
But as it is appearantly so easy to do.... I suggest that YOU make the necessary modifications. As in your opinion,it is not difficult or work intensive.... you of course will do for free in your free time.
I expect the full rewritten .exe within 2 weeks.... after all it not much work and not difficult... right?
People once and for all have to realize that Sins game engine dates back to at least 2007, possible even 2006. Back, at this time, multi core processors where still quite new and it might not have been clear at this time that they are the future for the coming years.
Far worse, there is another issue entirely.
Very few people believed that the clock limit has been hit already..... A single core running at 5 Ghz in the near future was not out of the question back then. And on that processor the game would run better than on your all new 8-core monster..
However, the clock limit has been hit.... and as such the easy solution for developers.... (it will run fine in 2 years because of increased hardware power) didnt happen. A game requiring a 4 Ghz single core will not run good on a 3 Ghz dual core.... because it basically runs mostly on a single core with 3 Ghz.
14 days.... and not a single day more... or that Vulkoras Desolator in orbit is getting trigger happy..
As for selling a deficient product, seriously you seem to have no idea what uttermost garbage has been released by multi billion dollar heavy gaming companies.... and those actually could have easily afforded any development delay, but no... why bother... lets release an early alpha and make people pay full price for it....and then cease support after the first patch.
Compared to what for example EA did sometimes release in the last 5 years, Sins is a quality title of the highest possible grade..
First i understand that this is quite a dead horse, i was lurking long before i created a account; and have played sins since launch.
as far as me rewriting the .exe I'm not that type of programmer man not by along shot, now i know enough to know whats possible within reason, but that's it.
Also i know the engine was created when dual cores were new, and understand that the engine is actually quite good for what it does. I also understand that its not going to happen.
What i don't accept though is that rebellion was made without rewriting code to have multi-core support. Just how small and broke is the dev team?
Nn the other-hand...From my standpoint....If they are good enough to create sins, Which obviously they are, and are talented people...then Multicore is well within their abilities. Now if they only had a very tiny budget to make rebellion then a rewrite not happening is understandable.
One thing for is for certain though, if/when sins 2 comes along....it better have friggin multicore.
Why the hell there are no true emulating software to merge all 8 cores into one
All those Intel Rapid Technology **** useless softwares which do nothing but leeching some of your memory.
Why nobody ever made such softwares, is it too complicated?, VMWare can do it but u have to use VGA Standard Card driver so no directx have failed testing it but it can emulate 4 cores into 1.
Homeworld 2 and every old games would receive quiet a nice boost. Homeworld 2 lags hard too when u have max fleet in 4v4 battle (on high end 2012 computer (Core i7 875K OC@3.8Ghz(no CSTATE) 8Gb RAM CL7 1600Mhz and now have a 660Ti)
Yes with this computer i get 5 FPS @ Homeworld 2 which is a 2003 game so i dont think Sins will be smooth on any computer for the next 10 years. I heard silicium is now capped so yea 5Ghz per core is kinda max and yet it is not enough for these old games. if they use some new supermaterials for CPUs and go back to Single core processors running at sick frequencies like 10Ghz would be the only way to make all these games smooth, FINALLY. 20 years later i will be able to play Homeworld 2 @ 60 FPS constant. ABOUT TIME LOL. That applies for Sins too
That or an epic software that would successfully merge all 8 cores into one which could be, TOMMOROW.
Just think about all the sick money you could bring in if you created that program!
I know I'd flat out pay $50 USD for that myself.
Endless space: 1v1v1v1 150 Fleets of 5 Titans/1Battleship per fleet = crash to desktopHomeworld 2: 3v3 Hyperproduction map Expert AI = can crash to desktopShogun 2: 2400 Samourais on Survival Campaign = can crash to desktopSins: 3v3 AI Cruel max fleets on small fleet size = can crash to desktop.........etc
These numbers are of course not official but trust me they are quiet accurate considering the experience and time spent playing em.
It does not concern Sins only, as i test old games (and new...) push em to max, the list is growing, all these games are using 1 core @ 100% all others are idling ot almost and they seem to be reaching a cap easily. i am no programmer but not dumb i know it is CPU bound mostly and the programming language used that was created when my grandma could have infiltrated the P.Riots. Programmers should just give up using horses when cars are now affordable.
Python for the win ?
this is a good read up for most here, as so many of you don't fully understand multi-threading pass the basic understanding of the word that is.
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/multithreaded-game-programming-and-hyper-threading-technology/
also as i said quite sometime ago now, Paradox in house studio is very small, yet they are employing multi-threading techniques in there code, only small stuff like AI calculations, and other small minor modules, but it's a start, and really does help the main CPU's thread, they still have a way to go yet, but Victoria 2, CK2, and even HOI3 (one of the first expansions) has benefited from these enhancements.
It would of been nice to see Ironclad/Sins developers at least offload some things to a separate thread for rebellion, even if it was just some minor basic modules shifted over, but from what i have seen there has been no attempt, and that i DO think is a wasteful opportunity, and it seems to me that we will never know why, because this topic has come up now so many times over the years, and yet to my knowledge we have NEVER had a statement from "Stardock"(preferably from the development team) on this topic going into details what, why, when, if, and how sort of thing, paradox developers are very open regarding this issue with there users, it would be nice to once and for all get some feedback from the powers that be behind the making of this game (and make it a sticky) regarding the ins and outs why multi-threading never seems to be on the table from Stardock & Ironclad alike.... this issue of multi-threading will continue to keep coming up on this forum as it has been doing for several years now.... but why does the developers (head developer would be nice) not respond to this subject once and for all?
and of course it would deserve making it a sticky if they ever did!
There's something none of you are taking into account about the development of SoaSE is in Visual Studio 2005. (Evident by the distributed C++ runtime library version.) Standardized C++ threads (C++11 std::thread class) just came out in Visual Studio 2012. Boost::thread is too big to bundle into a game engine, and requires more testing to make sure it works in all used edge cases, time Ironclad and Stardock didn't have back in the development of the original SoaSE. The Win32 threading primitives aren't exactly the easiest to use and don't give easy cross-thread messaging, which is extremely important. And adding multi-core support in later versions is just asking for maintainability disaster during the transition period.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
