64-Bit and DirectX 11

[Shioban]

LOL. Hopefully that means increasing the resolution. Probably does, maybe wasn't translated well.

"Uncompressed" means the original resolution of the texture before they compressed it.

Most content is produced in 4096x4096, 2048x2048, 1024x1024 before it's compressed down to suit.

FFXIV splits armourer pieces into "fragments" for certain gear with individual textures for various elements of the gear.



So uncompressed would mean NO loss of fidelity in the texture at the expense of a higher memory cost per texture map. (Diffuse, Normal and Specular Maps) so this can easily eat up a lot of memory, it'll take A LOT of balancing.

If I recall correctly he mentioned something that the client for ps4 is essentially the pc client ported and edited. Which would mean you could do the same thing, but backwards for a 64-bit pc client >_>; (To save time)

It sadly doesn't work like that.

personally I would rather they complete a 64 bit client than a dx11 client. some of you might not realize this but a 64 bit client would handle memory better than the 32 bit client does and likely run smoother.
a dx11 client will do very little except add some textures and eye candy many people wont be able to see.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. A 64 bit client handles memory virtually no differently than a 32 bit programme.

A 64 bit based programme simply handles more bits at once allowing for a slightly faster and less time consuming computation, but at best this is minimal.
FFXIV currently isn't struggling to process information, therefore a 64 bit client is simply unnecessary for the most part.

It could be done, but it isn't needed and the difference wouldn't be noticed by the vast majority (contrary to what you seem to think)

A 64-bit client would mean virutally nothing for FFXIV:ARR, please do your research on this before making baseless assumptions.




A DX11 Client is an excuse for the team to revisit and also expand their Shader library, particle emissions, lighting and shadow casting and rendering. Along side an array of new features, tweaks and overall performance adjustments that they couldn't do under DX9.

To wave it off as "DX11 will do nothing" is simply not true and frankly ridiculous.

Although some of the features they intend on using were very possible in the DX9 client, the DX11 client is a great place for them to dump the 'High-End PC' content some of the development team themselves have wanted for some time now.

Some of the new features not possible under DX9 are;

Improved asset rendering pipeline
Improved Ambient Occlusion
Improved Transparency Anti-Aliasing (And Alpha Sorting)
Hardware Based Anti-Aliasing
Displacement Shaders
Hardware Based Tesselation
Improved Real Time Space-Based Reflections
Improved Deferred Rendering Support
Direct Compute
Post Processing Effects
Surface Scattering
Hardware Based DoF

And more!

a dx11 client will do very little except add some textures and eye candy many people wont be able to see.
what will likely happen is most people who download the new client wont even be able to properly run it without disabling more than half of the dx11 goodies at which point it might as well be a dx9c or e(dx9e intigrates with windows Aero allowing for the game to run smoother when its windowed or virtual full screen) client.....oh wait

That yet again is a ridiculous assumption that everyone playing FFXIV is running it off a potato.

Considering how frugal the development team are when it comes to balancing quality versus performance as well as attention to detail on top of making sure everything meets a certain standard of quality.

It's very safe to assume that everyone currently running your average DX11 PC will be able to run this client and all it's bells and whistles.

[Wildsprite]

clearly have no idea what you're talking about. A 64 bit client handles memory virtually no differently than a 32 bit programme.

A 64 bit based programme simply handles more bits at once allowing for a slightly faster and less time consuming computation, but at best this is minimal.
FFXIV currently isn't struggling to process information, therefore a 64 bit client is simply unnecessary for the most part.

It could be done, but it isn't needed and the difference wouldn't be noticed by the vast majority (contrary to what you seem to think)

A 64-bit client would mean virutally nothing for FFXIV:ARR, please do your research on this before making baseless assumptions.

its safe to assume you dont really know the technical aspects of computing if you believe a 64 bit client wouldnt handle memory different
64 bit computing handles memory in 64 bit MEMORY chunks, it takes twice as many passes for a 32 bit program to do the same. you are right that some wont notice a difference but those people are on very high end PCs to begin with.
why don't you do your research before trying to take apart my argument.
there are more 64 bit computers out there than there are DX11 computers.
and even then most of the DX11 computers that would benefit from a DX11 client are high end PCs. there are low end DX11 PCs you know and DX9 is faster on PCs period even if you dont realize it, DX11 like DX10 only adds eye candy very little processing power. if you want a framework that adds both you need to go with OpenGL
DX11 is not all that despite what you want to argue and DX9c is not that far behind it because MS kept updating it due to how many people outright refused to upgrade from windows XP

[Shioban]

its safe to assume you dont really know the technical aspects of computing if you believe a 64 bit client wouldnt handle memory different

It's safe to assume you haven't read a single thing of what I typed or what any simple documentation will tell you.



The difference in how memory is handled is fundamentally the same, albeit it faster and more efficient through larger chunks.
Both 32 bit and 64 bit applications use memory linearly, which is the only point I've made.

As a 64 bit programme can bundle data more efficient through the CPU cache the less waiting time there is between CPU > Memory, therefore almost doubling the output.
For some applications this is fantastic, and a great use! However for ARR it's simply not necessary.

It simply allows for a larger chunk of bits to be processed at once.

32 bit has a limitation of 2,147,483,647 bits overall, which in terms of system memory is approximately 4GB of RAM.

64 bit has a limitation of 9,223,372,036,854,775,807 bits overall.

As ARR is not an application that requires more than 4GB of memory a 64 bit application is not necessary, as the client currently barely uses more than 1-2GB of memory overall.


Should the developers feel the application requires more than the 32-bit limitation of 4GB of memory, then they'll adjust and allocate the client to do so by producing a new 64-bit build of the engine and the final client build.




Overall the main point is;

A 64 bit client would have a semi-decent impact on performance.
A 64 bit client would require a complete rewrite of the various components required to run the overall game build.
The current 32 bit client is currently fast and stable enough to provide a fast, efficient client for all to use without issue, therefore there's simply no need to change it.

DX11 is not all that despite what you want to argue and DX9c is not that far behind it because MS kept updating it due to how many people outright refused to upgrade from windows XP

I never argued that "DX11 is all that", however it's what the development team are using and what they've always used.

Why use DX9c when they can use DX11 there's simply no reason to do so now considering as you yourself said it, the vast majority of machines are running 64-bit processors along side a DX11 reliant GPU completely rendering your point as moot.

If the development team wanted to use OpenGL they could have done so when rebuilding the game from scratch, but they didn't, they stuck with DirectX and that's the only reason I provided the reasons as to why they're using DX11 over OpenGL.




A lot of people play ARR because it's aesthetically pleasing, the development team feel they could add more to this as per a large community request for "More graphical features and expansion, as well as Higher Resolution Textures".

You can moan all you want about an unnecessary 64 bit client, but they're not going to add it unless its nessecary which currently it is not.

[Laraul]

I suppose there are advantages to 64bit versus 32bit... and it would be nice to have a 64bit version, I can't say I've noticed a substantial difference in regards to other 3D apps that have both 32bit and 64bit binaries. Most notably the 3DMark benchmark application, which consists of both. There isn't all that much a substantial difference for me. Never the less I do would probably use a 64bit version of this game if both existed.

As for a DX11, it's difficult for me to speculate at all on this. I've noticed that I've seen a lot of requests for improvements that make use of higher end hardware. The issue I see is how much would be necessary and at what cost? I could see a higher end client with modest visual improvements running considerably slower. I could also see it running about the same (or maybe better) but this is usually not the case when a DX11 version versus a DX9 version both exist. But since it's impossible for me to say so in regards to this game, I can't say how an update to the DX version would impact performance and/or visuals. I do fear what people are asking for is a bit too much though.

There is a fine line at which point performance moves from acceptable to "awful" at which point such a client is regarded largely in disdain. Should such a client cross this line, it will go ignored and unused, with the only request to "fix" it so it can be run on maximum settings and still deliver acceptable performance. I can use the original version (aka 1.0) of this game as evidence of said behavior. Through out it's lifetime, there we're questions about why it originally possible to run it on maximum settings, and towards the end of it's life why running it on maximum settings performed so badly compared to other games.

[Edli]

I can't say I've noticed a substantial difference in regards to other 3D apps that have both 32bit and 64bit binaries.

It all comes down to amount of RAM an application can use. When I use photoshop for work sometimes it will eat up 4 to 5 GB of RAM because I work with huge files and multiple layers. The 32 bit version allows only 3.3 GB of RAM or something like that. The 64 bit version has no such limitation and for that reason the 32bit one is completely useless for me.

FFXIV in its current form wouldn't gain much from it because the game is designed around the lowest common denominator which is 512 MB RAM of PS3. Even a city is separated in two parts with loading screens so the game doesn't throw a lot of resources on RAM in big chunks.

[silentwindfr]

@shioban if a game running in 32bits was asking more of 4gb of rams, i think we agree for say it's stupid, since the game run in 32 bits it's only natural that the game will not use more of 4gb of rams.
passing in 64 bits will give them more room for the DX11 client actually.

[Eekiki]

The longer it takes for them to finish this up, the cheaper current gen graphics cards will be.

Take your time, SE. ^_^

[Shioban]

@shioban if a game running in 32bits was asking more of 4gb of rams, i think we agree for say it's stupid, since the game run in 32 bits it's only natural that the game will not use more of 4gb of rams.
passing in 64 bits will give them more room for the DX11 client actually.

You're confusing System Memory with GPU Memory, which are two completely different independent hardware components with almost no relation to each other.

A 64-bit client would make no virtually no difference in creating a smooth and efficient DX11 client.


Your average user has around 2-4GB of System Memory [RAM DDR3], and a GPU* with at least [1GB-3/4GB (usually GDDR5 now)].
Currently the FFXIV client is only using on average 1GB of SYSTEM memory, therefore it's simply unnecessary for the time being to invest the time or money into a 64-bit client.

Currently the client won't be adjusted in it's functionality, as the client must work on three different platforms identical in functionality; PS3, PS4, and a metric ton of Windows Based PCs.

Theres a ton of things the game could potentially add that would require more memory, I have a list as long as my arm I could write here, but the simple fact remains as long as the PS3 client hangs around this simply isn't a possibility as additional functionality to in-game content would cause huge development problems in having to adjust all new content for the PS3 client, or leading them to simply bar PS3 users all together from new content/features taking advantage of this. This will not happen.


In the future however, if the developers decide to drop support for the PS3, this may well lead the developers down the garden path of changing a multitude of things they couldn't before with a much wider pool of SYSTEM memory to use, and even after that if they somehow managed to eat up another few gigabytes of memory to the point where a 64-bit client would be almost a necessity (which is extremely unlikely) it'll be so far into the future that it's simply not worth arguing about at the current time.


-----------------------------------


TL;DR

You're confusing system memory with GPU* memory.

The client currently uses around 1GB of memory which suits all three platforms.

ARR's development team will not add content/features that won't work across all of these platforms.

As for GPU memory this allows scalability to visual fidelity in the game without affecting the PS3 version whilst giving the PC/PS4 users a more aesthetically pleasing game at a performance cost.



*GPU = Graphics Processing Unit

[Laraul]

The advantage of a 64bit version would probably be no longer running the game via Windows On Windows (WOW64), which all 32bit processes run under when used on a 64bit version of Windows. Technically WOW64 has some overhead versus a process running naively. Realistically the overhead is so small it's not a concern and run as well as if being run on a 32bit version of Windows.

The "PS3 version's is to blame" excuse is a complete red herring. It's a completely different platform, running a completely different build. It would be like for me to say your old Android phone is holding back my new iPhone. It's silly and completely untrue, and should be regarded for what it is. Utter nonsense.

[Nutz]

The "PS3 version's is to blame" excuse is a complete red herring. It's a completely different platform, running a completely different build. It would be like for me to say your old Android phone is holding back my new iPhone. It's silly and completely untrue, and should be regarded for what it is. Utter nonsense.

As much as I'd like to agree with you, the devs have actually already said as much. It's true that the PS3 version can't affect the other versions of the game in and of itself, but the developers [currently] refuse to add any important functionality to the PC or PS4 version that can't be implemented on the PS3 version. This mostly comes down to additional simultaneous UI elements at this point, but the PS3 is more or less at the capacity of it's memory so it's difficult to add certain things that wouldn't cause any problems at all on PC/PS4.