A Plea to CA for a new engine instead of a soon next Total War game. DX12 may deal the cards anew for Rome 2.

**Downtown1** · October 28, 2013, 10:52 PM

Memory limits are worse than that. Where are you getting 3,6GB from?

Most of the time the memory limit is 2GB, you can get up to 3GB by booting with the /3GB parameter (off by default, and if CA is so worried about incompetent users then you can expect that they wouldn't require this boot flag).

Source:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...=vs.85%29.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff556232.aspx

-----------

It's high time they upgrade to 64-bit, they can have slower fallback code for people who insist on using 32-bit and provide them with a subpar experience (for example, lower resolution, slower load times, whatever, it doesn't matter). Chances are it will be as simple as reinstalling a 64-bit OS (if they truly run on 32-bit CPU, I doubt it's fast enough to handle a modern TW title).

**alQamar** · October 29, 2013, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by Downtown1

Memory limits are worse than that. Where are you getting 3,6GB from?

Most of the time the memory limit is 2GB, you can get up to 3GB by booting with the /3GB parameter (off by default, and if CA is so worried about incompetent users then you can expect that they wouldn't require this boot flag).

Source:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...=vs.85%29.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff556232.aspx

-----------

It's high time they upgrade to 64-bit, they can have slower fallback code for people who insist on using 32-bit and provide them with a subpar experience (for example, lower resolution, slower load times, whatever, it doesn't matter). Chances are it will be as simple as reinstalling a 64-bit OS (if they truly run on 32-bit CPU, I doubt it's fast enough to handle a modern TW title).

The 3GB switch is enabled by default (invisibly) on all windows 32 bit OS that were introduced after Windows XP /Server 2003 afaik. It can be that the limit is worse than I stated as there is a difference between the max 3.6 GB it can handle at all and the x GB it can handle for a single process. Rome uses two processes (awesomiumprocess.exe for the ingame webbrowser based encyclopedia and rome 2.exe for the game itself) I will consult technet again and some MVPs for that as I am very sure the graphics RAM is taken into account for that border.

I will update my OP asap I have new facts.

**Downtown1** · October 29, 2013, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by alQamar

The 3GB switch is enabled by default (invisibly) on all windows 32 bit OS that were introduced after Windows XP /Server 2003 afaik. It can be that the limit is worse than I stated as there is a difference between the max 3.6 GB it can handle at all and the x GB it can handle for a single process. Rome uses two processes (awesomiumprocess.exe for the ingame webbrowser based encyclopedia and rome 2.exe for the game itself) I will consult technet again and some MVPs for that as I am very sure the graphics RAM is taken into account for that border.

I will update my OP asap I have new facts.

If you want to get specific, sure, Windows Vista and later doesn't use the /3GB boot.ini flag anymore. Instead it uses the increaseuserva bcedit option. However the default is still set to 2GB for 32-bit OS process virtual address space.

Source:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...=vs.85%29.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...=vs.85%29.aspx

Anyway, there's also more gory details here:

http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussi...1/3092070.aspx

-------------
So it's still 2GB not 3,6GB that a game might be able to use. If you split it up into multiple processes, sure, you can use as much memory as you want (and Windows itself can support more than 4GB of physical memory with PAE while still on 32-bit), but that's just adding significant amount of complexity when they should just migrate to 64-bit (as per your original suggestion).

By the way, this is making your original argument stronger, since these games end up using nearly 2x less memory than a system might actually have.

The 3,6GB number as far as I can tell comes from the fact that the upper 0,4GB are reserved by the system to do hardware-addressing. This varies from system to system, but basically your drivers reserve some amount of your physical memory (address space) in order to be able to talk to peripherals in your PC (your video card, sound card, etc).

Why it's reserving physical and not virtual space, I can't say, probably one of those legacies inherited from using x86. Nowadays almost all HW peripherals have IOMMU...

**Pyres Δt Varanasi** · October 29, 2013, 12:13 AM

They truly need a new engine. Rome II was a fail for me.

**AngryTitusPullo** · October 29, 2013, 12:55 AM

CA now have 8 games on Steam (including RTW/BI/Alex) now so they already have a a fairly large database of their customer's rig and I'm pretty sure that the next engine will be specifically build base on 64 bit. This will obviously be for new engine and not Rome II + expansions.

At earliest, expect 2018.

**daelin4** · October 29, 2013, 03:07 AM

I still remember the apologists insisting that the engine used is so modified it's basically a different engine.

Though to be fair, they only vaguely suggest that this makes the game great, or if you're lucky, they say it makes up for it's shortcomings. You know, the defense based on potential greatness down the road as opposed to whether it's garbage right now.

As for the need for a new engine, that's actually not a big help or a ray of hope for the fanbase. Remember Empire, even with SEGA and new themes out of the picture.

They'd have to spend like ten YEARS to get it right, like Starcraft.

Oh wait, it was like ten years between RTW and Rome2...so I guess the only thing to look at now is whether the devs themselves are bumbling about.

**trynoval** · October 29, 2013, 03:48 AM

You may not vote on this poll .. Hmm, whatever. I want this happen.

**omzdog** · October 29, 2013, 03:52 PM

This poll is what CA meant by the 2% experiencing problems.

**alQamar** · October 29, 2013, 03:58 PM

I understand your humour but have to defend them in this case

They apologised 2% _reported_ problems they couldn't _start the game at all_ on launch day

To be honest the figure and apology is meaningless as we never learned how many had this problem not reporting it and secondary those 2 % didn't miss much not being able to play Rome 2 at day one .

I am searching for a native speaker who could help me to erratic the OP. I think there are still enough spellings. Thanks. Please pm me.

**alQamar** · October 30, 2013, 02:19 AM

Hi Downtown I was quite busy these days so I hadn't the chance to look up more specific details yet. Thanks for confirming my thoughts, clarifying the 2GB boot flag and for your work to explain things.

Meanwhile on .com I got this answer but I am not sure how to answer it.

What do you think out of the information we have so far?

RAM constraints are 100% not the reason for the lack of seasons. Same goes for animations imho. These weird statements are one of the reasons I completely doubt the technical competence of Craig or Trish.And I just loaded a campaign and the Carthago battle, in both cases, Rome 2 used only _1.2GB RAM_. They could use _almost 2GB more_ if they wanted without the need for a 64 bit executable.* Just saying

I am unsure about the statement Trish and Craig talking rubbish.
I still think there is a relation between system and vram to limit them.

The keynote of 1.2GB btw is the same as Shogun 2 uses so basically the seem to limit their process to 1.2GB for any reason.

Personally I knew PAE is a solution, even some TW mods (along other game mods) need them already to not run out of memory.
I guess PAE is additionally a feature at cost of cpu performance, as he needs to emulate things, so I personally don't hope CA will go the lazy way.

**Downtown1** · October 30, 2013, 11:18 PM

If the game is only using 1.2GB then going to 64-bit wouldn't help (seeing as how you'd need to hit the 2GB barrier for it to make a difference). But is it 1.2GB on average or 2GB peak? If it spikes periodically to really high memory that may also be worthwhile looking into. Look at a memory graph with perfmon. Click on the + sign there to add new counters to the graph and see how much memory Rome 2 is really using over time.

Also about PAE, it only gives you more physical memory, each process is still restricted to 2GB usable virtual address space (by default). There's AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) which gets around that but it needs special code to be written by the developers, you don't get it for free.

**alQamar** · October 31, 2013, 12:52 AM

Originally Posted by Downtown1

If the game is only using 1.2GB then going to 64-bit wouldn't help (seeing as how you'd need to hit the 2GB barrier for it to make a difference). But is it 1.2GB on average or 2GB peak? If it spikes periodically to really high memory that may also be worthwhile looking into. Look at a memory graph with perfmon. Click on the + sign there to add new counters to the graph and see how much memory Rome 2 is really using over time.

Also about PAE, it only gives you more physical memory, each process is still restricted to 2GB usable virtual address space (by default). There's AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) which gets around that but it needs special code to be written by the developers, you don't get it for free.

I will do that thanks for your valuable additions and contribution.

**Legio** · October 31, 2013, 07:03 AM

Neither other members nor their posting style are the topic of this thread; please stay on topic.

**omzdog** · October 31, 2013, 07:46 AM

How awesome would it be if CA gave engine development to the community eh?
We'd make the game to defeat all games.
And we'd never stop improving it.

**Captain Arrrgh!** · October 31, 2013, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by omzdog

How awesome would it be if CA gave engine development to the community eh?
We'd make the game to defeat all games.
And we'd never stop improving it.

LoL, no you wouldn't. That's like a toddler telling NASA they'd make a better rocket ship to zoom to the moon. You wouldn't even be able to get it up as a greenlight on Steam.

**alQamar** · October 31, 2013, 07:48 AM

Somewhat unrealistic

in either ways. Perhaps CA accepts apprenticeships for AI development.

**Captain Arrrgh!** · October 31, 2013, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by alQamar

Somewhat unrealistic

in either ways. Perhaps CA accepts apprenticeships for AI development.

Lusted got hired when he made some good mods for RTW 1, and displayed an in depth understanding of the engine and the industry. Oh, but all this happened before July 2012.

**omzdog** · October 31, 2013, 07:58 AM

Alright, draw up the scenario.
The Community dedicates a section of modders to learn Aritifical Intelligence coding for the next 5 months.
Then they spend 2 months identifying whats wrong in the game's scripts,
then they begin fixing, tweaking, overhauling, sections of code for the next 6-10 months.

Within 2 years we have various forms of official community material scripts, and unofficial AI addons by individual codders.

Is it impossible?
Is it at least possible to do it better than the current studio?

**alQamar** · October 31, 2013, 08:00 AM

What I would prefer a crowd funding TW and getting them rid of Sega and unfulfillable deadlines.

It worked very well for path of exile. 7 year open beta and alpha but a great game at release and also already during the beta. I played it over a year before release.

**Neige** · October 31, 2013, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by alQamar

What I would prefer a crowd funding TW and getting them rid of Sega and unfulfillable deadlines.

CA like the deadlines.

And we do work to a date, and we absolutely want to work to a date. We almost have to be constrained; if we weren't constrained, we'd never finish a game. We like the constraints, and we like making money, and we know we need to be ready for certain dates and events; we know how marketing works.

http://gamasutra.com/view/feature/16...ss_.php?page=3