[Official High Resolution Textures Post] Can we get a clarification on this?

[LaVolpex]

Then why not reach a middle ground?

 

release them in an addon , and the user takes full responsabilty for however ****** his machine runs, have them agree to a disclaimer and the eye candy people can have their high rez and we can go on trucking without major changes to the game or people rallying bioware with pitchforks

Edited January 11, 2012 by LaVolpex

[Solthar]

OR enable it just for your charactor and companions. I'd honestly be willing to settle for that much.

[Ozbaab]

Hey all, I am here to apologize again... the good news is we have a draft of our response (you might be able to guess it's not a sentence or two) but I am circulating it internally to ensure my technical details are correct.

 

To give you an insight into our process here... as the Community team does with most big replies, I tracked down a variety of people on our client and art teams to get the facts on how the game works before putting the post together. As I'm representing those teams publicly, I want to ensure they're happy with what I'm saying on their behalf before I post it. They're busy people, so I'm just waiting on their sign-off right now.

 

I appreciate your patience and assuming we have sign-off this evening, you'll get our response tomorrow. If not, I accept the incoming rotten eggs.

 

Thanks for your reply!

[mArchangel]

Pretty much. Cutscenes are predictable, because they have full control of what goes on in them and what shows up in them. This means they can estimate the resource usage quite accurately.

 

You wandering around in the world is NOT predictable, and the resource usage depends entirely on what's on your screen at the moment.

 

The way he phrased it and the fact he's circulating it both suggest that there are technical issues involved: the fact he's circulating it also suggests that they're going to be explained at least somewhat, and not just entirely glossed over. I'd like that a lot, but then I'm all but a computer tech.

 

As I've said a few times, I'm guessing it's probably going to be memory, because that's the main thing larger textures hit really hard, and there's few things that trash performance worse than running out of available memory. The question in that case would be is it that the 'high' level textures take an absurd amount of VRAM, or is it because the client is 32bit and windows won't let it address more than 4GB?

 

I haven't yet found a good writeup on how WOW64 handles VRAM. I know in 32bit win the VRAM shares memory addressing space with the System RAM(and a few other things). If this is the case in WOW64, the more VRAM it needs the fewer addresses are available for the client itself. If this is the case, however, unless there's some way for the client to specify how much VRAM it needs access to, thus freeing up the addresses the extra VRAM would normally use, there wouldn't be much point to disabling high res.

 

 

Firstly. Win32 allows the use of 3.36GB to be precise. Is not the issue. Textures won't eat stupid amounts of VRAM. VRAM address space is NOT shared. No idea where you get these ideas from tbh.

Also did you play early beta? I know of enough long term testers saying they had hirez until the last two beta weekends. AA was in on the first beta weekend as well. It was removed a week later for the second Beta weekend. Sorry no excuses-only fixes!

 

It was there-bring it back please.

[Calimwulf]

Hey all, I am here to apologize again... the good news is we have a draft of our response (you might be able to guess it's not a sentence or two) but I am circulating it internally to ensure my technical details are correct.

 

To give you an insight into our process here... as the Community team does with most big replies, I tracked down a variety of people on our client and art teams to get the facts on how the game works before putting the post together. As I'm representing those teams publicly, I want to ensure they're happy with what I'm saying on their behalf before I post it. They're busy people, so I'm just waiting on their sign-off right now.

 

I appreciate your patience and assuming we have sign-off this evening, you'll get our response tomorrow. If not, I accept the incoming rotten eggs.

While I am sure that the apology is sincere, I'm also sure that most individuals that have any experience in corporate America are aware that while your team may initiate the request for information, and may be responsible for delivering the information, and handling the fall out; that you have little control over what happens in-between, though you may occasionally be found pushing the bus uphill. Thanks much for the update.

 

To all those not so patient folks. Would you personally work harder knowing you were going to be kicked in the groin, regardless of the outcome, or if you knew you would be thanked for your efforts? Common courtesy and decency shouldn't be an exception. It should be the rule.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Calimwulf

[MaxWham]

Hey all, I am here to apologize again... the good news is we have a draft of our response (you might be able to guess it's not a sentence or two) but I am circulating it internally to ensure my technical details are correct.

 

To give you an insight into our process here... as the Community team does with most big replies, I tracked down a variety of people on our client and art teams to get the facts on how the game works before putting the post together. As I'm representing those teams publicly, I want to ensure they're happy with what I'm saying on their behalf before I post it. They're busy people, so I'm just waiting on their sign-off right now.

 

I appreciate your patience and assuming we have sign-off this evening, you'll get our response tomorrow. If not, I accept the incoming rotten eggs.

 

Oh, that's no good......

[mArchangel]

While I am sure that the apology is sincere, I'm also sure that most individuals that have any experience in corporate America are aware that while your team may initiate the request for information, and may be responsible for delivering the information, and handling the fall out; that you have little control over what happens in-between, though you may occasionally be found pushing the bus uphill. Thanks much for the update.

 

To all those not so patient folks. Would you personally work harder knowing you were going to be kicked in the groin, regardless of the outcome, or if you knew you would be thanked for your efforts? Common courtesy and decency shouldn't be an exception. It should be the rule.

 

Probably the best post I read so far. 100% agreed.

[Jedlosson]

Take all the time you need. I would rather have to play on medium textures a month longer than have the high-resolutions textures together with some new bugs or game instability.

[lowflyingmeat]

I freaking knew it! I knew it from the start! I told everyone in beta and at launch the textures just looked bland even on high...fanboys just riducled me...

 

Thank god I wasn't going crazy.

[megalomaniacalia]

Lol, I like how Reid told everyone he's waiting for confirmation so he doesn't sound like an idiot explaining things, and you people are still not okay with this.

 

Seriously, this will be my last post on the forums.

 

No, really.

[Gaff]

I sense impending doom.. going over a rough draft implies a lengthy speech. A lengthy speech is not needed to say this is getting fixed any time soon, if at all.

 

Doooooom!

[Blue]

the 1.1 notes are abysmal! lets get these bugs fixed NOW

[Eldon]

The delay is simply to spin a PR ploy about the issue. They are stalling for time & it's clear. Probably waiting to get approval from EA on how they should word it.

 

If a fix to the issue is not clearly indicated & the ETA of the fix, BioWare is going to have a HUGE PR nightmare on their hands.

 

I knew that anything tied with EA would spell bad business in the end. EA has destroyed more games & has the WORST customer service of any developer.

[Tiron_Raptor]

Firstly. Win32 allows the use of 3.36GB to be precise. Is not the issue. Textures won't eat stupid amounts of VRAM. VRAM address space is NOT shared. No idea where you get these ideas from tbh.

Also did you play early beta? I know of enough long term testers saying they had hirez until the last two beta weekends. AA was in on the first beta weekend as well. It was removed a week later for the second Beta weekend. Sorry no excuses-only fixes!

 

It was there-bring it back please.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_GB_barrier

 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605

 

That last is written for vista, but the point is the same:

 

Various devices in a typical computer require memory-mapped access. This is known as memory-mapped I/O (MMIO). For the MMIO space to be available to 32-bit operating systems, the MMIO space must reside within the first 4 GB of address space.

 

For example, if you have a video card that has 256 MB of onboard memory, that memory must be mapped within the first 4 GB of address space. If 4 GB of system memory is already installed, part of that address space must be reserved by the graphics memory mapping. Graphics memory mapping overwrites a part of the system memory. These conditions reduce the total amount of system memory that is available to the operating system.

 

On vista the amount available is a maximum of 3.12gb, says that article.

 

On XP it can go at least to 3.25GB from personal experience, depending on what else is installed.

 

But anyway, yes, the Vidcard's memory and System memory do in fact share the same address space on 32 bit. Note that they don't HAVE to: the hardware AND software are both perfectly capable of addressing more than 4GB, Microsoft just doesn't allow you to to do so on their consumer OSes. 32 Bit windows server 2008 Enterprise and Datacenter for example, support up to 64GB.

 

This is because of a feature known as Physical Address Extension, which allowed the system to increase the memory address length to 36 bits, and was first developed for the Pentium pro in 1995. XP, Vista, and 7 all support PAE, and will use it by default if your CPU has NX Bit support. They will not, however, use any memory address above 4GB. Microsoft implemented this as part of XP's Service Pack 2, allegedly because of 'driver compatibility problems: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137

 

This is why you might sometimes on the net run into an old thread with someone talking about PAE or memory remapping: These are features that, prior to SP2, allowed Windows XP to use 4GB or more of RAM. Both are still supported even by modern versions of 32 bit windows, Microsoft literally just won't allow you to use them to increase your memory.

 

I've seen a few things expressing doubt as to if there really were driver problems with PAE, since the enterprise versions use it just fine. The popular opinion in some circles is that it's just a marketing ploy to try to get/force people to switch to 64 bit operating systems.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Tiron_Raptor

[Glzmo]

Hey all, I am here to apologize again... the good news is we have a draft of our response (you might be able to guess it's not a sentence or two) but I am circulating it internally to ensure my technical details are correct.

 

To give you an insight into our process here... as the Community team does with most big replies, I tracked down a variety of people on our client and art teams to get the facts on how the game works before putting the post together. As I'm representing those teams publicly, I want to ensure they're happy with what I'm saying on their behalf before I post it. They're busy people, so I'm just waiting on their sign-off right now.

 

I appreciate your patience and assuming we have sign-off this evening, you'll get our response tomorrow. If not, I accept the incoming rotten eggs.

The rotten eggs will fly only if it's some lame excuse that the same high quality shaders and textures that are currently being used in dialogues won't be used while playing the game.

 

Oh, and of course, rotten eggs will keep flying if there won't be an official update on the state of the highly anticipated option to turn on chat bubbles that was tauted to be a "high priority feature for launch or shortly thereafter" by Mr. Ohlen and Mr. Zoeller either.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Glzmo

[Mormack]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_GB_barrier

 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605

 

That last is written for vista, but the point is the same:

 

 

 

On vista the amount available is a maximum of 3.12gb, says that article.

 

On XP it can go at least to 3.25GB from personal experience, depending on what else is installed.

 

But anyway, yes, the Vidcard's memory and System memory do in fact share the same address space on 32 bit. Note that they don't HAVE to: the hardware AND software are both perfectly capable of addressing more than 4GB, Microsoft just doesn't allow you to to do so on their consumer OSes. 32 Bit windows server 2008 Enterprise and Datacenter for example, support up to 64GB.

 

This is because of a feature known as Physical Address Extension, which allowed the system to increase the memory address length to 36 bits, and was first developed for the Pentium pro in 1995. XP, Vista, and 7 all support PAE, and will use it by default if your CPU has NX Bit support. They will not, however, use any memory address above 4GB. Microsoft implemented this as part of XP's Service Pack 2, allegedly because of 'driver compatibility problems: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137

 

This is why you might sometimes on the net run into an old thread with someone talking about PAE or memory remapping: These are features that, prior to SP2, allowed Windows XP to use 4GB or more of RAM. Both are still supported even by modern versions of 32 bit windows, Microsoft literally just won't allow you to use them to increase your memory.

 

I've seen a few things expressing doubt as to if there really were driver problems with PAE, since the enterprise versions use it just fine. The popular opinion in some circles is that it's just a marketing ploy to try to get/force people to switch to 64 bit operating systems.

 

 

It seems to me that its just about time that other developers besides Blizzard start getting 64bit Clients out. We're just about to that threshold...if not already past it.

[thamightyboro]

All told, SWTOR has had perhaps the best launch of any MMO to date.

 

 

Nope that would belong to Aion, better queue management, less bugs, had the graphics and features it advertised enabled from the off and optimised really well and don't give me that crappy asian grinder line it still sold 1m + had as many players as swtor within its 1st week and managed its launch a lot lot better.

[Tiron_Raptor]

It seems to me that its just about time that other developers besides Blizzard start getting 64bit Clients out. We're just about to that threshold...if not already past it.

 

That's why I'm wondering if the problem with the high res textures might be related to the fact it's a 32 bit client.

 

Even if it's not, a 64 bit client would benefit in other ways: on 64Bit OS, you basically run 32Bit programs on an emulator, a pretty good one, but it still has overhead of its own.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Tiron_Raptor

[Deamor]

Nope that would belong to Aion, better queue management, less bugs, had the graphics and features it advertised enabled from the off and optimised really well and don't give me that crappy asian grinder line it still sold 1m + had as many players as swtor within its 1st week and managed its launch a lot lot better.

 

Keep in mind that the launch of Aion in America or in Europe wasn't actually a release at all. The game had been out in Korea for a good while before that so they had a lot of time to fix more major issues before the game even reached the shelves here.

[Mormack]

Keep in mind that the launch of Aion in America or in Europe wasn't actually a release at all. The game had been out in Korea for a good while before that so they had a lot of time to fix more major issues before the game even reached the shelves here.

 

 

This and I'm willing to bet that in Korea it wasn't smooth sailing right at launch. MMO launches are rough right at first. Like I said in another post, the name of the game is release first, add/fix later. The more you sit and "polish," the farther behind you become.

[Zorvan]

That's why I'm wondering if the problem with the high res textures might be related to the fact it's a 32 bit client.

 

Even if it's not, a 64 bit client would benefit in other ways: on 64Bit OS, you basically run 32Bit programs on an emulator, a pretty good one, but it still has overhead of its own.

 

It'd be easier if the majority of people weren't refusing to come into the 21st century without being dragged kicking and screaming.

 

I'd love to see 32 bit, dx9, OS' below Windows 7, etc., all thrown into a huge pit and buried.

[Bolthus]

I understand this is hard to fix, seriously, I DO.

 

What I can't understand is WHY they are starting the "fixing process" NOW instad of several weeks ago, when betatesters told them about it.

 

 

Now, lets talk straight for a moment.

 

The game is GREAT, even with the leviathan-size pile of bugs, and I love the storyline and voice-acting.

 

BUT

 

G. Engine sucks.

 

Low framerate issues on average machines

 

High Quality textures missing

 

No native AA

[Tiron_Raptor]

It'd be easier if the majority of people weren't refusing to come into the 21st century without being dragged kicking and screaming.

 

I'd love to see 32 bit, dx9, OS' below Windows 7, etc., all thrown into a huge pit and buried.

 

Vista deserves it, but when you get right down to it most people aren't going to upgrade their systems if they think the one they have is good enough. Why spend the money if what you have works?

 

An interesting side note though:

 

The built-in emulator that allows 64bit windows to run 32 bit programs gives each such program its own, independent, set of memory addresses. 2GB by default, or 4GB if the right flag is set.

 

I found that when I hit an explosive memory leak in SWTOR(Station Comms array or once on Taris before they were fixed), the Memory usage for one of the SWTOR Processes would shoot up to about 3.7-3.8GB before it crashed, so it definitely has the flag set This also seems to suggest it's not using terribly much that isn't just the main system memory for it to get that close to 4GB...with the medium textures anyway. That would in fact be pretty consistent with 256mb of VRAM and not much else. I have 1gb of VRAM, so if it was hard-assigning addresses to all my VRAM it should've stopped around 3GB, not just at nearly 4GB.

 

So like I said, it could also be something as dumb as the game needing more than their stated minimum of 256MB of VRAM with the high-res textures enabled, and they don't trust us not to set it to high if we don't have enough. Or something.

 

In which case the solution that works best for everyone is to have the client detect how much VRAM you have and only let you use the appropriate texture options.

[thamightyboro]

Pretty much. Cutscenes are predictable, because they have full control of what goes on in them and what shows up in them. This means they can estimate the resource usage quite accurately.

 

You wandering around in the world is NOT predictable, and the resource usage depends entirely on what's on your screen at the moment.

 

The way he phrased it and the fact he's circulating it both suggest that there are technical issues involved: the fact he's circulating it also suggests that they're going to be explained at least somewhat, and not just entirely glossed over. I'd like that a lot, but then I'm all but a computer tech.

 

As I've said a few times, I'm guessing it's probably going to be memory, because that's the main thing larger textures hit really hard, and there's few things that trash performance worse than running out of available memory. The question in that case would be is it that the 'high' level textures take an absurd amount of VRAM, or is it because the client is 32bit and windows won't let it address more than 4GB?

 

I haven't yet found a good writeup on how WOW64 handles VRAM. I know in 32bit win the VRAM shares memory addressing space with the System RAM(and a few other things). If this is the case in WOW64, the more VRAM it needs the fewer addresses are available for the client itself. If this is the case, however, unless there's some way for the client to specify how much VRAM it needs access to, thus freeing up the addresses the extra VRAM would normally use, there wouldn't be much point to disabling high res.

 

 

 

The thing is though in beta we had them they pesonally caused absolutely no problem for me on any of my 3 systems I ran it on.

 

Laptop I7 740 8GB GTX460M

 

Desktop I5 2500k 8GB GTX480SOC

 

Work Some Xeon 3ghz thing 4gb ram GTX450

 

There where 1000s of others in beta 2 who ran on them also without issue so why remove them, who cares if Jonny Dell cant run them he should get a better system simple fact of the matter is they are there we have seen them work they were advertised and I want the frickin game I paid for.

 

Stating something is high textures when it for fact isn't is a terrible practice and so is this attempted bait and switch and I doubt we are going to get any kind of answer from BW in respect of it.

 

I am in absolutely no doubt now they arent going to bother fixing the issue for months as they want everyone saying "my machine runs it on high go buy it your crappy dell will also" when they are in fact running it on medium.

 

A year down the line those with machines that can run the high textures may get a patch that states "Ultra textures have been enabled in the graphics options" creating the perception that they have been kind to those with better machines whilst still alowing everyone else to run it on high.

 

GRRRRR the more I talk about this the more I get annoyed, no I'll not unsub over it tis just really annoying and totally underhand of them, BW's great name tarnished in less than a month of this being out.

Edited January 11, 2012 by thamightyboro

[KerinKor]

on 64Bit OS, you basically run 32Bit programs on an emulator, a pretty good one, but it still has overhead of its own.

Er, what is this emulation you're mistakenly under the impression exists?

Edited January 11, 2012 by KerinKor