Bit width

[GlassDeviant]

I'm interested in knowing whether the fanbase would be affected much if Rimworld were to be made into a 64-bit application. I have personally not used a 32-bit operating system outside of work for about 9 years, when I started using a pre-release version of Vista 64-bit.

It's been a rough journey, but the world is 64-bit now and it's difficult, if not impossible, to get a new copy of Windows in 32-bit form. Linux is a little easier but there has been less reason to stick with 32-bit so the migration actually went quicker with a large portion of the community. Even at work in my last job I went from runninmg a single 32-bit Linux server to several 64-bit and the old 32-bit server was to be phased out some time after I left.

64-bit would be beneficial for Rimworld. Though my current game is barely using 640MB, it is still an alpha and I can easily see this game going far beyond that for any number of reasons.

[Thasayad]

This story is about nothing.

[GlassDeviant]

This isn't a story.

[milon]

Option 3: Doesn't matter to me

[ITypedThis]

I don't even know what the difference between the two is. But why would should RimWorld be restricted to just one of the two, and not both?

[REMworlder]

Option 3: Doesn't matter to me

This is my view too, but it's still cool to think of. If/when RimWorld reaches Dwarf Fortress-level complexity a 64x version might be good to have.

[milon]

I don't even know what the difference between the two is. But why would should RimWorld be restricted to just one of the two, and not both?

The difference (simplified) is more bits = more processing power, but only if the CPU supports it.

Both is harder to maintain since there are different code optimizations, etc that go into it.  It's much more productive for Tynan to create/improve/fix than for him to spend time fiddling with compiler options.

Personally, I'd rather see support for multiple cores over 64-bit.  I think that would be a bigger benefit, would benefit more people, and wouldn't break compatibility with 32-bit platforms.  (Just my opinion.  I'm a nerd, but not necessarily the most informed one.  Correct me if I'm wrong.)

[ITypedThis]

I don't even know what the difference between the two is. But why would should RimWorld be restricted to just one of the two, and not both?

The difference (simplified) is more bits = more processing power, but only if the CPU supports it.

Both is harder to maintain since there are different code optimizations, etc that go into it.  It's much more productive for Tynan to create/improve/fix than for him to spend time fiddling with compiler options.

Personally, I'd rather see support for multiple cores over 64-bit.  I think that would be a bigger benefit, would benefit more people, and wouldn't break compatibility with 32-bit platforms.  (Just my opinion.  I'm a nerd, but not necessarily the most informed one.  Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Ah. Okay, thanks!

In that case, I don't really have an opinion either.

[Chibiabos]

One of the BIGGEST differences is actually memory addressing.  32-bit applications can only use 2 GB of memory.  Even 'shinier' game by bigger studios are stuck with this ... Ironclad Studios' Sins of a Solar Empire very much comes to mind.  It can and will keep gobbling memory as each civilization in the game builds more ships, more memory is consumed, and the vast majority of crashes experienced by players in SoaSE have been a result of hitting the 2 GB memory limit.

While Rimworld might not seem like a memory-intensive game, the memory limit inherently limits how many units can be on screen as well as keeping track of the gameworld.  If the game were 64-bit, the maps could be much larger and there could be much more units (though I'll grant Rimworld is the sort of game where you don't necessarily want thousands of units, I like how it tends to convey a sense of /these are your people, they are individuals with their own stories and not clones of a pre-fab military unit/.  Still, options for bigger maps are better.

The CPU is a consideration, but I consider it secondary.  As grinding and frustrating as it is for the game to slowdown, I think outright crashes are even worse -- and potentially hitting the 32-bit memory limit will cause it to crash.  I agree, I don't think there's much sense in making even simple games for 32 bits anymore.  I am, however, not a developer.

[Coenmcj]

One of the BIGGEST differences is actually memory addressing.  32-bit applications can only use 2 GB of memory.  Even 'shinier' game by bigger studios are stuck with this ... Ironclad Studios' Sins of a Solar Empire very much comes to mind.  It can and will keep gobbling memory as each civilization in the game builds more ships, more memory is consumed, and the vast majority of crashes experienced by players in SoaSE have been a result of hitting the 2 GB memory limit.

While Rimworld might not seem like a memory-intensive game, the memory limit inherently limits how many units can be on screen as well as keeping track of the gameworld.  If the game were 64-bit, the maps could be much larger and there could be much more units (though I'll grant Rimworld is the sort of game where you don't necessarily want thousands of units, I like how it tends to convey a sense of /these are your people, they are individuals with their own stories and not clones of a pre-fab military unit/.  Still, options for bigger maps are better.

The CPU is a consideration, but I consider it secondary.  As grinding and frustrating as it is for the game to slowdown, I think outright crashes are even worse -- and potentially hitting the 32-bit memory limit will cause it to crash.  I agree, I don't think there's much sense in making even simple games for 32 bits anymore.  I am, however, not a developer.

Aye, I'm running an x86 System, which is from what I gather a 32 bit system with some magic applied on top to do absolutely nothing, Programs like SOASE disagree with my system for sure. Anything over a large map and I'll start lagging considerably by midgame.

[milon]

One of the BIGGEST differences is actually memory addressing.  --snip--

Oops!  Embarrassed nerd is embarrassed.  I totally blanked on that when replying.  That's actually a really good point.  But I still have no real opinion. 

[Chibiabos]

Oops!  Embarrassed nerd is embarrassed.  I totally blanked on that when replying.  That's actually a really good point.  But I still have no real opinion. 

Totally understandable.  I been there.  Personally I blame how hard companies have worked at making the Internet more accessible to less-nerdy types.  I think we nerds lost our exclusivity within the past decade or so as /everyone/ has gotten online, and so ... we give up having our own safe meeting place and the derpiness of the non-nerds just soaks into us after awhile and ... yeah ... even we nerds have moments of derp.   Happens to me, too -- more and more.  I hates it.

[GlassDeviant]

I don't even know what the difference between the two is. But why would should RimWorld be restricted to just one of the two, and not both?

The difference (simplified) is more bits = more processing power, but only if the CPU supports it.

Both is harder to maintain since there are different code optimizations, etc that go into it.  It's much more productive for Tynan to create/improve/fix than for him to spend time fiddling with compiler options.

Personally, I'd rather see support for multiple cores over 64-bit.  I think that would be a bigger benefit, would benefit more people, and wouldn't break compatibility with 32-bit platforms.  (Just my opinion.  I'm a nerd, but not necessarily the most informed one.  Correct me if I'm wrong.)

There hasn't been a CPU that doesn't support 64 bits in a long time, at least a decade. The sticking point for the longest time was getting people to upgrade their OS, but that's less of a problem now as most gamers have 64-bit OSes and some games (finally) are coming out as 64-bit simply because they are so huge that 32-bit could not possibly provide the memory space for them to run in. And there's the fact that most games are made for console and either ported or co-developed for PC (if they come out for PC at all), and the new consoles are 64-bit now. The reason I posted this as a poll is that being an indy game, the Rimworld fan base likely has a larger segment of people still using 32-bit OSes. If that number is large, it would be seen as a betrayal of that segment. And as you said, maintaining both 32-bit and 64-bit versions is a real pain in the behind.

I am already pushing 1.25GB of RAM when I make a 400x400 map and this is just in alpha.



The AI is going to require complicated code that uses large data matrixes to make it both good AI and fast. The graphics are relatively simplistic compared to fully rendered 3D environments, but the more you can keep in memory at once, the less you will have to load on an as-needed basis.

Multiple cores will be a necessity for Rimworld if the AI is to go much further, both because the AI code is already causing game pauses in alpha 8 and because better AI is going to be required. Not just what's coming in alpha 9, but all the way through to final release.

One of the BIGGEST differences is actually memory addressing.  32-bit applications can only use 2 GB of memory.  Even 'shinier' game by bigger studios are stuck with this ... Ironclad Studios' Sins of a Solar Empire very much comes to mind.  It can and will keep gobbling memory as each civilization in the game builds more ships, more memory is consumed, and the vast majority of crashes experienced by players in SoaSE have been a result of hitting the 2 GB memory limit.

While Rimworld might not seem like a memory-intensive game, the memory limit inherently limits how many units can be on screen as well as keeping track of the gameworld.  If the game were 64-bit, the maps could be much larger and there could be much more units (though I'll grant Rimworld is the sort of game where you don't necessarily want thousands of units, I like how it tends to convey a sense of /these are your people, they are individuals with their own stories and not clones of a pre-fab military unit/.  Still, options for bigger maps are better.

The CPU is a consideration, but I consider it secondary.  As grinding and frustrating as it is for the game to slowdown, I think outright crashes are even worse -- and potentially hitting the 32-bit memory limit will cause it to crash.  I agree, I don't think there's much sense in making even simple games for 32 bits anymore.  I am, however, not a developer.

You've almost got that right. 32-bit programs running on a 32-bit OS can address as much as 3GB of RAM if both they and the OS are configured correctly (depending on hardware mapping). Everything else is more or less accurate.

One big advantage with 64-bit OSes, even with 32-bit games, is that (with sufficient physical RAM) give the game an isolated 4GB block of RAM to run on while the OS code runs in its own memory.

On a side note, one big problem with asking a question like this is that there are a LOT of gamers that have no clue how to even determine whether they have a 64-bit CPU, a 64-bit OS, or even how much RAM they actually have. I may have to make another post to explain how to do that in nontechnical terms so that the less nerdy among us can check their machines.

[Chibiabos]

On a side note, one big problem with asking a question like this is that there are a LOT of gamers that have no clue how to even determine whether they have a 64-bit CPU, a 64-bit OS, or even how much RAM they actually have. I may have to make another post to explain how to do that in nontechnical terms so that the less nerdy among us can check their machines.

Six little letters:
DXDIAG



Take a screenshot, Paintbrush it up to highlight the relevant part to look for, whamo.  64-bit is generally explicit in the OS name given there.  Unfortunately a bit harder to decipher from the proc, so might have to dig through ... ugh ... Device Manager, such a useless hunk o'Windows in the post-XP era. :/

[attachment deleted due to age]

[milon]

^ If you've got a post-XP windows, you right click My Computer, go to Properties, and it'll tell you. No idea how this works on Win8, I avoid it like the plague.