fruitofvictory Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Or it could mean that the issue is completely un-related to the game itself. It isnt even two months since I ran accross a soundcard driver that reserved 300...400 MB of RAM under certain conditions and eventually caused BSoD that pointed completely somewhere else. Combine all possible platform independent issues with rabid gamers who have picked some random term (like memory leak) and start throwing it around without having any idea what it means. I would be hard pressed as a software developper to give any announcements about issues like that. The issue is definitely related to the game itself. I've seen posts by, and know, many different people with many different setups who all have problems like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aemony Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 What you describe sounds a lot more like caching than memory leak... are you sure you know what you are talking about? Mind you, having memory leak and not having enough memory are two different things... If there was a memory leak present, the guys running 16G RAM or more would also be complaining about running out of memory. You are wrong unless the game are using a 64 bit executable, which to my knowledge it isn't. The 32 bit nature of the executable limits the available addressable space to 4 GB. That is a hard limit that not even a memory leak would be able to circumvent. At least we can conclude that the game has the /LAA parameter flag applied, as it clearly is using above 2 GB of addressable space, a matter which any Skyrim PC owner would surely know about. So I ask you, are you sure you know what you are talking about? That said, if the 32 bit executable that the game seems to be using has a memory leak, players would see memory usages hitting the 4 GB hard limit. Looking at the posts of other users, this seems to be the case. Only a memory leak residing within a native 64 bit executable would be able to go beyond the 4 GB hard limit of 32 bit executables, and as such only a 64 bit executable would have people with 16 GB of RAM gasping for air. Since the game isn't using a 64 bit executable, practically everyone with an average system consumption and available RAM >6 GB won't ever notice the leak is present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Combine all possible platform independent issues with rabid gamers who have picked some random term (like memory leak) and start throwing it around without having any idea what it means. I would be hard pressed as a software developper to give any announcements about issues like that. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTijger Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 The issue is definitely related to the game itself. I've seen posts by, and know, many different people with many different setups who all have problems like this. So, what are the numbers? How much RAM is in use by swtor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truedark Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 You are wrong unless the game are using a 64 bit executable, which to my knowledge it isn't. The 32 bit nature of the executable limits the available addressable space to 4 GB. That is a hard limit that not even a memory leak would be able to circumvent. At least we can conclude that the game has the /LAA parameter flag applied, as it clearly is using above 2 GB of addressable space, a matter which any Skyrim PC owner would surely know about. So I ask you, are you sure you know what you are talking about? That said, if the 32 bit executable that the game seems to be using has a memory leak, players would see memory usages hitting the 4 GB hard limit. Looking at the posts of other users, this seems to be the case. Only a memory leak residing within a native 64 bit executable would be able to go beyond the 4 GB hard limit of 32 bit executables, and as such only a 64 bit executable would have people with 16 GB of RAM gasping for air. Since the game isn't using a 64 bit executable, practically everyone with an average system consumption and available RAM >6 GB won't ever notice the leak is present. Actually it doesn't have the LAA flag on. it uses two executables and trades data between them to get around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-Bee Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) You are wrong unless the game are using a 64 bit executable, which to my knowledge it isn't. The 32 bit nature of the executable limits the available addressable space to 4 GB. That is a hard limit that not even a memory leak would be able to circumvent. At least we can conclude that the game has the /LAA parameter flag applied, as it clearly is using above 2 GB of addressable space, a matter which any Skyrim PC owner would surely know about. So I ask you, are you sure you know what you are talking about? That said, if the 32 bit executable that the game seems to be using has a memory leak, players would see memory usages hitting the 4 GB hard limit. Looking at the posts of other users, this seems to be the case. Only a memory leak residing within a native 64 bit executable would be able to go beyond the 4 GB hard limit of 32 bit executables, and as such only a 64 bit executable would have people with 16 GB of RAM gasping for air. Since the game isn't using a 64 bit executable, practically everyone with an average system consumption and available RAM >6 GB won't ever notice the leak is present. Yep, I know what Im talking about. And no, Im not going to start arguing your facts because they are mostly correct, unless condition X or Y or Z (etc...) occurs in system and that discussion could go on for days. Lets just say that malfunctioning 32 bit application can consume more than maximum addressable amount of memory (4G) even though it's not using it. Edited January 21, 2012 by C-Bee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryzaerian Posted January 21, 2012 Author Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) Here's the bottom line: I can't play for an extended period of time without having to shut down, use a memory clear, and play again. Furthermore, the game experience degrades (quickly) when I do play, so it's hard for me to enjoy it as I watch things start to stutter and get frustrated. We can argue about the technical aspects and semantic b.s. all day long, but if the issue (whatever you want to call it) isn't fixed, then I won't pay a dime toward a second month. And to the "lolz get better pc" folks - I have the recommended specs. Not the minimum specs - the recommended. That's all I have to the dot, but if that's not enough to enjoy the game (and just for reference, I'm playing with shadows off and on the lowest settings for everything else, vertical sync off, etc), then the information released by BioWare was intentionally misleading. I'm not going to shell out another couple of hundred bucks so I can play one poorly-made (in terms of performance) game. Sorry. And I'm willing to bet a lot of people feel the same way. If BioWare wants this game to succeed, serious fixes are needed. I started late. They have about 3 weeks from me. But I wonder how many people are nearing (or have hit) the end of their first month and decided the aggravation wasn't worth it. I enjoy the game during the first hour or so, before things start to get bad. I enjoy the design, the storylines, so forth. But if I can't play it...well...then I can't play it. Edited January 21, 2012 by Ryzaerian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lantador Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 /signed. Fix this memleak stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts