The 2gb RAM requirement
- Thread starter ghcannon
- Start date
That's a good sign:
- you are flying along in your spaceship - looking at anaconda's and cobras zooming past and the milky way in the background.
- you dock with a station, and leave the ship - seeing all the diferent players & NPCs, with the fancy lighting etc.
Either you get a loading screen [or] the game has to be able to hold both sets of assets in memory at the same time.
Keeping ED memory usage to a reasonable level should help if/when they add the avatar extensions.
Exactly. There is no evidence that this is happening.
‘Porting’ to Android would require a complete rewrite of the game from (I assume, based on the Launcher's installation) C++ to Java. Also, PCs are much, much more powerful computers than tablets. Ignore comparative core counts and clock speeds, they're meaningless when you cross architecture boundaries. Remember people thinking the Spectrum was faster than the Beeb based on their clock speeds?
Disclaimer: I have no real idea about such things, but I get the impression that frontier is very savvy with the technology and cross platform integration and the way they code. This detail on cobra is quite interesting:
https://www.frontier.co.uk/our_technology/
Frontier said : "Minimum hardware specifications for the final game may be lower as further code optimisations are completed." ---- Thus 2 GB of RAM for the operating system and the game will be enough. And a graphics card with 2 GB also, and all goes well to play correctly
I do not think that you use a word processor, a spreadsheet, a relational database, photoshop, while you play in ED ?
2gB is not enough unless you limit your design or extention to this limit.
Example we have now a few ships with limited texture set.
But ED will be expanded for the next decade. So you can start on a old rig.
But further into the future. You got very high detailed ships. But also a lot of them. 1000+ choice and custom texturing.
So gamers meet in session with uniek textures and ships types. If that 64 player in one session al with different ships so no instansation but uniek meshes. And also each there custom texture set. And that for HQ texturing.
And 2Gb is pretty low.
But if they stick with aiming for the more mainstream limited 2 GB will be fine.
But it will show. As much more object instancing and texture reuse
Example we have now a few ships with limited texture set.
But ED will be expanded for the next decade. So you can start on a old rig.
But further into the future. You got very high detailed ships. But also a lot of them. 1000+ choice and custom texturing.
So gamers meet in session with uniek textures and ships types. If that 64 player in one session al with different ships so no instansation but uniek meshes. And also each there custom texture set. And that for HQ texturing.
And 2Gb is pretty low.
But if they stick with aiming for the more mainstream limited 2 GB will be fine.
But it will show. As much more object instancing and texture reuse
Why would FD even need to store anything? Some PG code coupled with a decent set of shader routines will do the trick.
Why would you want to store a whole load of meshes in main memory anyway? Getting stuff into strips and storing all those textures is probably a right pain in the old pipeline. Let the GPU take on that stuff, while the CPU ensures that the docking computer doesn't steer you into a wall.
Look at some of the scene demos from the last few years. Skilled coders, together with artists that are aware of the limitations, creating some pretty sophisticated results from code alone. Not a stored texture or mesh to be seen, just algorithms applied in an appropriate order. Stuff that can all be done on the fly, mainly in the GPU.
Why would you want to store a whole load of meshes in main memory anyway? Getting stuff into strips and storing all those textures is probably a right pain in the old pipeline. Let the GPU take on that stuff, while the CPU ensures that the docking computer doesn't steer you into a wall.
Look at some of the scene demos from the last few years. Skilled coders, together with artists that are aware of the limitations, creating some pretty sophisticated results from code alone. Not a stored texture or mesh to be seen, just algorithms applied in an appropriate order. Stuff that can all be done on the fly, mainly in the GPU.
I don't see what the issue is. Surely having a computer matching the minimum requirements means it can run the game on the lowest settings so computers above those requirements can play it as it is meant to be.
It doesn't mean the minimum specs will get the game running on high settings and any better computers would be a waste.
It doesn't mean the minimum specs will get the game running on high settings and any better computers would be a waste.
I don't think you understand how rendering works.
what is PCG, it is just a alternative where the assets come from.
The line where it is the same is where the resource cache or resource manager are. On the input side in case of PCG the manager generates from a seed on disk the assets in to the resource Cache. While conventional the resource manager loads the complete asset from disk into the Resource cache.
the difference is this the runtime as if you would show a 100 different complex spaceships in one frame. every thing must be aviable in the local memory. So for the GFX every model must depending on distance specific LOD level buffered into the vidmemory.
There is no difference to PCG or conventional. the second buffer is system mem where borderline assets are stored depend where the player goes to. These are full game data.
But the difference is where it come from.
100 different ships is huge work. 1000 ships 10 times more.
PCG to make a good deep PCG ship models is also a huge task. but when done the variation comes at low cost. Lot of ships.
the limit is what can be rendered in one frame.
Of course there are tricks to make low cost variation and that the testallator. But actually not. The limit is the GPU power and it computing resources and local mem. It still blows up a model which resides into GPU resources. From disk its a simple model but in vidmem depending on LOD level it get much complex.
If your concern is if Frontier is sacrificing visual quality in order to fit the game into a certian spec machine I would direct you the news letter #33
http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=dcbf6b86b4b0c7d1c21b73b1e&id=c5e7202cb7
The graphics will scall to what the systsm can handle.
http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=dcbf6b86b4b0c7d1c21b73b1e&id=c5e7202cb7
The graphics will scall to what the systsm can handle.
It can be somewhat more than that - essentially it can be a trade-off between memory use and CPU use.
Consider a small planet, only 1000km in radius. It has a surface area of 12.5 million square kilometres (plus a little bit more since it's not a perfect sphere, but close enough). To require a pixel per square kilometre to avoid a blurry texture, you only need to be within 2000km or so of the surface.
So, that's - rounding up to the nearest power of 2 - a 4096x4096 texture, or 67Mb of texture. From "low earth orbit" - 100km above the surface - you'd need 20 times as many pixels in each direction. With a bit of work, you could probably get away with a 65536x65536 texture (or 16Gb of texture file) which of course you'd split into multiple textures so you didn't load into memory the bits for the side of the planet the player couldn't see or couldn't see at that level of detail.
Now, you need one of those for every planet or moon in the system, and there's currently 55 systems, and some of the planets are gas giants. So, that's getting on for 100 terabytes of download just for Beta 1, and that's not even got the animated atmospheres, or city lights at night, or volcanoes erupting, etc. that the full game is supposed to have: that's just for a static colour map for each planet. (And it'd look terrible when it's time to actually land on the planet later - the pixels are still bigger than your ship)
... or, you can use some clever shaders and (possibly) some small textures as source data, and get an entire galaxy's worth of unique planets. It requires more processing speed than a basic UV-mapped sphere, but the recommendations for CPU and GPU processing power are - compared with the memory requirement - quite substantial.
...and that means that the contents of the main-memory resource cache can be far smaller than originally seems possible, because that's not the final representation of the texture. That never even exists all in one place - bits of it are calculated and discarded on the GPU every frame as necessary.
As far as I can tell as Frontier are actually developing for the PC as the lead format (currently the only format we know they are working on) then you can go a long way with proper optimisation work and programming best practice.
Of course this means that almost any PC capable of running win 7 will run Elite which will maximise sales as not everybody has the cash to upgrade their PC every six months.
Dead Rising 3 on the PC is looking like a right dogs dinner with insanely high minimum specs and I would expect it to get a right roasting when it is released.
I geuss that Capcom has decided that not a great deal of money or resources are to be spent on it which will close the potential market to a huge amount of players.
Of course this means that almost any PC capable of running win 7 will run Elite which will maximise sales as not everybody has the cash to upgrade their PC every six months.
Dead Rising 3 on the PC is looking like a right dogs dinner with insanely high minimum specs and I would expect it to get a right roasting when it is released.
I geuss that Capcom has decided that not a great deal of money or resources are to be spent on it which will close the potential market to a huge amount of players.
I know that the GPU will feel the strain if you try to force the hard work into it - but given what some people have been saying on this forum about their GPUs running hotter on this game than anything else they've tried, it might not be that inaccurate a guess!
Last edited:
a little advice pleeease.
i have been running ED with a oculus rift dk2
on this
amd fx 4100 quad core
8.00gb ram
amd radeon hd 6700 series
4862 mb of dedicated gaming graphics it says
there is no way my dk2 will work unless my settings are at minimum and then the picture is awful. it improves if i bump up the supersampling to 2.0 from 1.0 but the stuttering starts.
question is can i get away with just upgrading the gpu to something beasty (plus a bigger power supply if needed) or should i really be looking at starting to build a new system altogether.
any advice is much appreciated.
i have been running ED with a oculus rift dk2
on this
amd fx 4100 quad core
8.00gb ram
amd radeon hd 6700 series
4862 mb of dedicated gaming graphics it says
there is no way my dk2 will work unless my settings are at minimum and then the picture is awful. it improves if i bump up the supersampling to 2.0 from 1.0 but the stuttering starts.
question is can i get away with just upgrading the gpu to something beasty (plus a bigger power supply if needed) or should i really be looking at starting to build a new system altogether.
any advice is much appreciated.
Your windows system information is horribly inaccurate and in no way properly reflects how much RAM you are actually using.
Hi Alex,
This is the wrong place to get advice for this problem, someone may have answers for you already; please read the posts here:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=50
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=69
My overclocked PNY XL8R Geforce 780 sits at 45 degrees after playing this game for 7 hours.
I do believe it once rose to 52 Degrees once. I was in so much shock I needed a day off work and a cup of coffee just to recover.
Last edited: