Technical Issue: I want multicore!

[Baneslave]

And why do you think average RAM is still 3GB? Because Windows defaults to 32bit, so 4GB won't help. I see all these consumer-priced PCs and run-of-the-mill PCs all with 3GB and Win 32bit, and I know exactly why there isn't any more RAM on those...

Because there is no practical reason to have more.

 

[dertechie]

Because there is no practical reason to have more.

Yet. However, a a killer app for needing 4GB isn't going to show up for a while. With the inception of the cloud and other things taking stress off the client side, it may take even longer for John Q. Public's computer to need 4 GB. We're going to see 4GB as baseline because 4GB is cheap before we see it because we need 4GB.

On the other hand, there's few reasons for new consumer machines to not run 64-bit. Most of the issues really only affect corporate software (where it's much more common to be running something 16-bit or that demands kernel access for management of PCs).

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Average RAM is still under 3Gb, so there is no need to push 64bit OS for everybody.

At some point average RAM was below 64 KB, which certain people saw as a justification to program an OS that could not handle more than 64KB RAM.

And there would be reasons to eventually go 64bit beyond the need for more RAM (such as most new CPUs being optimized for 64bit).

 

[Baneslave]

dertechie, Tambourmajor: Yeah, but the 64bit OS is already there. It isn't Microsoft's fault that producers don't install 64bit Windows 7 instead of 32bit.

 

[Arilou]

Although multithreading is of course preferable I'm not sure if it's really needed for CK2. HoI3 had 10000 provinces and a huge amount of armies. Vicky 2 millions of POPs. What will CK2 have? I don't know since I haven't played CK, but as I understand it the map is even only of Europe and its surroundings so I doubt its need for processing power comes even close to that Vicky 2 or HoI3.

A gazillion of characters. CK was, relatively speaking, probably the most processor-intensive of theold P'dox games, I don't think it'll be any different now.

EDIT: More generally, I could probably not evne GET HOLD OF a computer that could play the latest Paradox games nowadays. They require obsolete stuff to run, on the day they are released.

The Clausewitz engine CAN run reasonably on my computer (EU3 does) but the latter games are pretty much unplayable, especially in the latter stages. There's probably stil stuff that can be done though (Vicky 2 isn't half as sluggih as HOI3) but itremains to be seen how they manage it. (If experience is any guide? Badly)

 

[Lord_D]

A gazillion of characters. CK was, relatively speaking, probably the most processor-intensive of theold P'dox games, I don't think it'll be any different now.

Ahh. As I said, I haven't ever played CK so that sort of slipped away o

 

[unmerged(64390)]

I don't understand why people are defending the decision to stick to the outdated Clauswitz engine. You guys get greedy and want a new game every year and I think that is silly and we have passed the point where they should be spending their efforts on either a new engine or a major rewrite.

The Clauswitz is straight up terrible. It runs so poorly on modern machines that I think it hurts Paradox's reputation. I love their games, but HOI III started to run slow and now Victoria II is basically a dead pig by mid game. That is okay for people who like to play the game at a snails pace to sit there and rename your armies to some historical one, but I think most people would like a game that runs at a decent speed.

Like I said, I love Paradox games, but Vic 2 lag is ridiculous and there isn't a chance in hell I will purchase CK II or any further Clauswitz games until they can fix the recent problems with lag without just removing entire parts of the game to make it easier on the processing requirements. As it stands now, I have a game that is extremely fun, but is almost unplayable due to lag. I don't know if CK II is a lot less intensive due to the smaller scope, but I am tired of being burned with a terrible base engine and I am letting them know with my wallet.

 

[dertechie]

dertechie, Tambourmajor: Yeah, but the 64bit OS is already there. It isn't Microsoft's fault that producers don't install 64bit Windows 7 instead of 32bit.

We're seeing more OEMs put 64-bit even on systems that don't technically need it. From a quick scan of their web site Dell seems to be shipping 64-bit standard top to bottom now, even on 2GB systems. It simplifies things for them, they get to cut down on the number of configurations (easier support) and they lose very little as I mentioned earlier. Next year should be the tipping point, with new systems being 64-bit by default.

There's also a push coming from Microsoft here. Vista retail versions shipped with the 32 bit DVD by default. 7 doesn't default to 32 bit (I believe they ship both, except OEM versions).

That or maybe Intel and AMD started breathing down OEMs collective neck to actually use the 7 year old (yeah, Athlon 64 was September 2003) instruction set they spent so much money implementing.:rofl:

So, by 2014 (when I'm presuming we'll see Clausewitz 2), the majority of computers younger than 4 years (read as: computers capable of running Clausewitz 2) will be 64-bit. Paradox might actually be able to find a use for that much RAM in later games. Effectively all of them will be running at least two cores (many of those will be capable of 4 threads), with substantial numbers running 4 cores or more.

I'm not sure if we'll see quads move to displace dualies the way dualies have completely displaced the single core. My money is on dual-core sticking around for a while especially in mobile (lower power), and in the low-end. It took until 2008 for Celerons to become dual core, despite the performance benefits being obvious by then. However, there will be enough quads and up out there to justify scaling to at least 4 cores, preferably more.

I suspect that they'll design Clausewitz 2's requirements around 2011/2012 mainstream hardware, but try to make it scale to 2014 high end hardware. After getting burned once by ignoring trends in the high end, I don't think they'll be quick to do it again.

EDIT: More generally, I could probably not even GET HOLD OF a computer that could play the latest Paradox games nowadays. They require obsolete stuff to run, on the day they are released.

Explain.

 

[BurningEGO]

That's a bit over the edge, ain't it not?
I'm not a short-sighted child, that's blind to economic reasoning. In fact, I'm creating a economic reason for Paradox to improve on their multi-core capabilities by stating: I won't buy your product, if you don't support latest hardware. I might even articulate a mindset that is not unique to myself. There might be 10 others or 100 or just me who refrain from buying an out-dated game before being published.
Conclusion for you to note next to your screen: MY wants are THEIR needs, as are yours. They are developing games to sell. Not to please their prefetched plans that might have gone obsolete. And as I have bought every P'dox-own title since HoI2 full-prize and most of the older ones as budget I feel obliged to tell them that I'm fed up.
Why?!
Because I can not publish hypercomplex warfare and/or economic sims/strategy titles without considering a proper hardware usage. I can not publish any piece of software wasting money by not taking full use of available ressources (yeah, electricity does cost money!!!). I can not publish a product ignoring the market at which it is aimed. So why should P'dox dare? If a P'dox game has hourlong times with next to nothing to do, but to watch your country develop according to your evil masterplan you, or at least I, want to see a progress. I'm not in school anymore. I have two hours a day at max, often null. I want to/I have to see more going on to surpass my boredom by pleasure. And if I see in ResMon that the lag is caused by nowadays poor craftsmanship my boredom turns to anger. Back in 2007 it was fun and good work. I had a 2ghz P4. If P'dox wishes to publish games with high-end demands such as Vicky2 in lategame they should not forget to enable high-end hardware. Where's the point in restricting Deep Blue to run on a Pentium 100Mhz?

And to close this thread for me:
I don't care about technical feasability of multi-threading. I am king customer. And as the king of my monetary realm I wield the weapon most devastating available to me: the moneyclub.

The economic soundness of any businessplan is P'dox responsibility to consider. All I can do is to put my points clear, so they know what the part of their customers representing me expects from them. Done.

Grüße

+1

Amén to that.

 

[unmerged(144119)]

The Clauswitz is straight up terrible. It runs so poorly on modern machines that I think it hurts Paradox's reputation.
[...]
I don't know if CK II is a lot less intensive due to the smaller scope, but I am tired of being burned with a terrible base engine ...

Clausewitz ain't bad.
It was perfectly suited for EUIII and its add-ons. Magna Mundi will most probable prove the power of Clausewitz once again. But most unfortunately it is not very well suited for HoI3, VIcky2 and even Rome:VV (which in terms of comparability would be closest to CK2, due to all the characters.)
Compared to the last 2 clausewitz-based games EU3 was pretty simple.
Concerning the x64 topic: I don't see a necessity for 64bit gaming any time soon. Even with all the numbers loaded to RAM p-x games won't need more than 2gb any time soon; x64 would only increase ram-usage without any measurable gain (doubling of word length). The bottleneck is the loading to and fro the cpu. That's why we need multi-core and multi-channel ram supported and the data stored effectively.

Clausewitz has its merits in p-x history, and we shouldn't forget that even though we like ranting...

Grüße