. . . Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 Just now, Jessie223 said: other than certain items like grass suits, most items look fine, and that tree is zoomed all the way in again, you have to get your eyes checked if you think this looks anywhere near blurry enough to sacrifice memory space for Why don’t you open the atlas for yourself then and zoom all the way in, it’s not clear, clear means an image looking like the spear images. Crisp, clean, and nice. You can zoom in further on trees depending on how far you are from them and how close they are to your screen. That tree is not zoomed in all the way. Also, you completely dismissed/ignored my suggestion of it being an option like small textures for people who’s PCs can’t spare memory ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie_ Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 if you insist, then why don't you produce your own screenshots of these supposedly horrendously upscaled and blurry textures that are so blindingly offensive to your poor eyes and you ignored the part where i explained a step up in resolution means the game needs 4x as much storage for those textures that's not even anywhere close to being worth it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
. . . Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 Just now, Jessie223 said: step up in resolution means the game needs 4x as much storage for those textures hardly worth it Yes, but you see that is a personal opinion and I have to say your opinion would be the small minority. The general common person (like me) wouldn’t care how much bigger DST would be, they just want higher quality textures. Every single game I have downloaded from Steam is over 10+ GB and lots of people who play DST also own such games too. Gaming is becoming more advanced by the year and with it more demanding, that’s just how things work. You seem to be very code savvy which is interesting for someone who joined so recently and have OCD about how fast/slow DST would run or take to load if higher quality textures were implemented. On the other hand I have OCD based on how ugly things can look in DST currently. Our opinions are prioritizing the complete opposites of eachother and so we are at an impasse because no matter what I do I can’t convince you it’s good and no matter what you do you can’t convince me it’s fine for it to be like this. If it’s so bad that even having the textures on their hard drive would make a small minority of people playing on toasters in 2019 is PCs want to explode or fail to start then it can be like a free DLC similar to Skyrim’s High Resolution texture pack DLC which I think everyone will win then . Also, I will upload comparisons when I have time to show just how ugly things can be in DST currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie_ Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 Just now, Warbucks said: Yes, but you see that is a personal opinion and I have to say your opinion would be the small minority. The general common person (like me) wouldn’t care how much bigger DST would be, they just want higher quality textures. well you seem to be projecting your own opinion for everyone else here, i don't think you speak for everyone Just now, Warbucks said: Gaming is becoming more advanced by the year and with it more demanding, that’s just how things work. so you want a game to be more demanding just for the sake of it, it seems a game can be improved in a myriad of other ways other than bumping up their memory usage for silly reasons, and the way i prefer is gameplay being improved and polished Just now, Warbucks said: You seem to be very code savvy which is interesting for someone who joined so recently and have OCD about how fast/slow DST would run or take to load if higher quality textures were implemented. On the other hand I have OCD based on how ugly things can look in DST currently. Our opinions are prioritizing the complete opposites of eachother and so we are at an impasse because no matter what I do I can’t convince you it’s good and no matter what you do you can’t convince me it’s fine for it to be like this. this isn't how OCD works and my main concern isn't how fast the game runs, it's the practical benefits vs downsides of what you're proposing and the way i see it, the game would be trading off tons of storage and memory just for the measly benefit of slightly sharper textures that you won't notice 99% of the time Just now, Warbucks said: it can be like a free DLC similar to Skyrim’s High Resolution texture pack DLC which I think everyone will win then . i think it should be the standard for games to have ultra-high textures to be optional, especially since only a minority of players will get to use them the trend of people using 4k textures for their 1080p monitors is such a good example of how ridiculous this obsession with high-quality textures has become; it doesn't even seem like it's about graphical quality anymore, it's seems to be just about the satisfaction of using needlessly huge textures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
. . . Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 51 minutes ago, Jessie223 said: well you seem to be projecting your own opinion for everyone else here, i don't think you speak for everyone I’ll say them same unto you. We both are, this is a battle of opinions after all, BUT I’m pretty sure if there was a poll like- Would you like Klei in the future to release a DLC for DST which would add an option of playing Don’t Starve Together with high quality textures? • Yes • No -I’m pretty sure my opinion would be the generally more popular if the poll wouldn’t be rigged with biased friends! If a poll like that was taken on Steam by a landslide my opinion would be more popular for sure . 51 minutes ago, Jessie223 said: this isn't how OCD works Definition by Google: a personality disorder characterized by excessive orderliness, perfectionism, attention to details, and a need for control in relating to others. So, yes it is and we both have it just the fact you keep saying how it would be a bad trade off proves it, the same way I’m nitpicking about the textures being blurry, upscaled, and ugly. 51 minutes ago, Jessie223 said: it's the practical benefits vs downsides of what you're proposing Okay, let’s see. Upsides • The textures will look cleaner, crisper, and how they were meant to look originally! • Lots of people would like higher quality textures because an average person would be like “Oh! Higher quality textures? Nice!” and their overall experience playing DST will be improved! • People would respect Klei for them giving the choice to bring the game up to date with current times! Downsides • People playing on toasters in 2019 can’t use it or else their memory would get too stressed out even though they are not being forced to download and use it? • Klei would have to make some more anim textures containing higher quality clear textures with their high quality vector image files they have stored away... bankrupting them because they’d have less manpower to produce new skins anymore! /s The downsides are negligible. Also, like I said i wouldn’t mind paying to buy a remastered DST with 64-bit compatibility and high quality textures if they’re too stingy (ah man I love when game features which are supposed to be taken for granted are behind a pricetag!) to update the game for free or they would actually go bankrupt doing such a thing ! Though, ideally it would be a free DLC then they don’t split the community! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie_ Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 35 minutes ago, Warbucks said: Would you like Klei in the future to release a DLC for DST which would add an option of playing Don’t Starve Together with high quality textures? • Yes • No -I’m pretty sure my opinion would be the generally more popular if the poll wouldn’t be rigged with biased friends! If a poll like that was taken on Steam by a landslide my opinion would be more popular for sure . it was never my opinion to be against an optional high-quality textures DLC, but i still find it hilarious how some people would unironically spend money on something so barely observable honestly if it's 100% optional, klei should go for it, let them earn some cash in exchange for practically nothing 35 minutes ago, Warbucks said: Definition by Google: a personality disorder characterized by excessive orderliness, perfectionism, attention to details, and a need for control in relating to others. So, yes it is and we both have it just the fact you keep saying how it would be a bad trade off proves it, the same way I’m nitpicking about the textures being blurry, upscaled, and ugly. it's actually so strange how you can talk so much about something without a single idea of what you're spouting about 35 minutes ago, Warbucks said: • The textures will look cleaner, crisper, and how they were meant to look originally! the textures already look fine; they'll only look blurry if you pretend they are 35 minutes ago, Warbucks said: • Lots of people would like higher quality textures because an average person would be like “Oh! Higher quality textures? Nice!” and their overall experience playing DST will be improved! i'm not exactly sure how that'd improve their experience, but that is true, an average player would care little about the benefits vs drawbacks if the drawbacks aren't immediately obvious to them 35 minutes ago, Warbucks said: The downsides are negligible. so you conveniently just ignore everything i have said about compatibility, support, storage, memory, etc those aren't negligible drawbacks, and klei knows it, that's why most textures aren't high-quality when they can very easily make it so if the drawbacks i have mentioned are actually negligible, then nothing's stopping klei and they would've done it way before you've even thought of it, high-quality textures didn't just go over their heads if your weird pipe dream happens where klei actually releases a high-quality textures DLC, and you spend money on it, then good for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
. . . Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 33 minutes ago, Jessie223 said: it was never my opinion to be against an optional high-quality textures DLC Hmm, that's strange. I wonder why all your posts here seem to suggest the opposite then? Though, it's okay let bygones be bygones 33 minutes ago, Jessie223 said: but i still find it hilarious how some people would unironically spend money on something so barely observable I could say the same about skins or any form of DLC, I find it funny too, but that's just how companies work. They're in it for the money, no money, no incentive. 33 minutes ago, Jessie223 said: honestly if it's 100% optional, klei should go for it, let them earn some cash in exchange for practically nothing I'm glad I was able to convince you HD textures would benefit DST and can even benefit Klei 33 minutes ago, Jessie223 said: it's actually so strange how you can talk so much about something without a single idea of what you're spouting about Oh really? I guess I'd make a great politician then 33 minutes ago, Jessie223 said: the textures already look fine; they'll only look blurry if you pretend they are I will post comparisons soon 33 minutes ago, Jessie223 said: i'm not exactly sure how that'd improve their experience Tell me would you prefer to play a game looking like this or this and yes I know it's extreme comparisons, but that's the basic concept of how better textures improve the experience for people who can appreciate them 33 minutes ago, Jessie223 said: so you conveniently just ignore everything i have said about compatibility, support, storage, memory, etc They can go about the same way every other single game developer does it, it's not a big deal. It's not like they're doing something revolutionary like being the first company to ever do it . Not trying to make them look they are greedy, but to be honest they'd probably only do it if money is on the line like any normal company would because companies exist 95% to make money. Which's why they immediately made 64-bit Mac versions or else Mac players can't give them their money Which is why I keep suggesting that it can be a remastered version of the game like they did with their Mark of the Ninja game, so people would have to pay for it and it that would give Klei an incentive to make it https://store.steampowered.com/app/860950/Mark_of_the_Ninja_Remastered/ Now that I take a closer look at it it's only 5 usd if you own the original version which I can respect a lot . In fact if Klei where to make the remastered version of DST like that it would be an instant buy from me, I'd be glad to support them making their game look better and getting a better product it seems they are very fair when it comes to getting upgrades of their games . 33 minutes ago, Jessie223 said: if your weird pipe dream happens where klei actually releases a high-quality textures DLC, and you spend money on it, then good for you Yup, I can't wait for "Don't Starve Together: Remastered" after RoT is concluded Also, just wanted to say thanks for debating this with me. It was really fun. Haven't had a nice debate like this for a long time after Warbucks was removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie_ Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 17 minutes ago, Warbucks said: Hmm, that's strange. I wonder why all your posts here seem to suggest the opposite then? which ones? i can't seem to remember any, maybe you can help me fetch them up 17 minutes ago, Warbucks said: I could say the same about skins or any form of DLC, I find it funny too, but that's just how companies work. They're in it for the money, no money, no incentive. Not trying to make them look they are greedy, but to be honest they'd probably only do it if money is on the line like any normal company would because companies exist 95% to make money. Which's why they immediately made 64-bit Mac versions or else Mac players can't give them their money well companies exist to profit, it's just hilarious how people would spend money on something that you'll only barely notice when you rub your eyes against the screen skins or dlcs at least change things up, so they can be worth the price, while high-quality textures won't demonstrably change aesthetics anywhere close to as much as skins would, and it'd take way less effort, pretty much close to a scam 17 minutes ago, Warbucks said: Tell me would you prefer to play a game looking like this... ...and yes I know it's extreme comparisons... you said it, that comparison's overly extreme and exaggerated; that comparison would work if we were arguing between small textures enabled vs disabled the difference between current DST vs high-quality textures DST would be marginal, if not unnoticeable for most players (most players aren't even aware which DST textures have higher quality) again, take a look at this tree (try wearing corrective lenses this time if you can): anyway, i guess have fun with your strange delusions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
. . . Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 40 minutes ago, Jessie223 said: again, take a look at this tree (try wearing corrective lenses this time if you can): You keep saying how my vision is poor or my eyes need to get checked, it's not fair if only you're allowed to say this to me so maybe you need to get your eyes checked. Could you see the comparisons between these things or you still can't? I can see the difference even in game when everything's zoomed out so you telling me I need to get my eyes checked gave me a good laugh because if I can see the difference when it's "unnoticeable" to you that means my eyesight's much stronger than yours, so thank you for all the complements about my eyesight even though you were obviously trying your best to belittle me ! Imagine if very noticeably blurry textures such as the turf when zoomed in was high quality it would make huge differences. Well I made by solid points on why DST would benefit from HD textures, Klei give me HD textures soon, thanks ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie_ Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 1 minute ago, Warbucks said: oh my god i can see it, they're so blurry, i can't play the game anymore truly, the game experience is hindered at this accursed state, such an offence to my eyes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
. . . Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 5 minutes ago, Jessie223 said: oh my god i can see it, they're so blurry, i can't play the game anymore Just doing my duty, m'lady. G'day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saiph Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 14 hours ago, Jessie223 said: and again: mods needing over 4 GiB of memory are super rare cases, stop acting like this is a huge problem that everyone has Nobody said that. However you are starting to act the other extreme way, like "it's not a problem at all because I don't have it personnally". I get that you don't play with big mods and don't see any value with a 64 bit release, that's fine. On the contrary, there are probably other topics that interest you but don't interest me. But I am not derailing topics that interest you pretending developers should not waste time on them. Making a 64-bit release is a valid request, even if it would only be beneficial for a minority. And I am not even sure it's a minority: Last time I tried "Island Adventures" alone it was always crashing just by setting the map to "Large". This mod has 70k subscribers. "Tropical Experience" alone with default settings starts at 2.8 GB usage. The game crashes at aroud 3.5 GB, which doesn't leave you a lot of margin. And in fact above 2.8 GB you already encounter big problems like occasional OOM crashes when going to caves. 60k subscribers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hornete Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 On 11/7/2019 at 7:06 PM, Saiph said: Last time I tried "Island Adventures" alone it was always crashing just by setting the map to "Large". This mod has 70k subscribers. "Tropical Experience" alone with default settings starts at 2.8 GB usage. The game crashes at aroud 3.5 GB, which doesn't leave you a lot of margin. And in fact above 2.8 GB you already encounter big problems like occasional OOM crashes when going to caves. 60k subscribers. I like 64-bit, But the idea of upgrading to a 64-bit for mods is kinda stupid. The Island Adventures crashing "running out of memory" is a crash I had for a verrry long time, Magically fixed it by deleting the files and letting it redownload, Tropical Experience is.... well it's tropical experience, It's got all these assets from Hamlet and Shipwrecked, and its code is horribly optimised. 64-bit is cool, but if your reasoning is so mods can "run better", go slap the mod creator and tell them to optimise it, or share your crash log.seriously, please no one tells me about problems in Hamlet characters and I never have time to test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saiph Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 Stop with that "let the modders optimize their mod memory usage" thing. Apart from major algorithmic flaws, most codes have close to optimal memory usage already, even when the programmer is incompetent. Mods don't perform any allocation themselves, they just change game parameters, and memory management is done and already optimized by Klei's engine. That's the point of choosing a high-level language for modding, and telling your modders to perform memory optimization in Lua is already a sign of something wrong. Data actually allocated by mods for performing their own logic (variables/tables) might look like they are not optimized, but they are in fact of completely negligible size. There is no way a mod could use HUNDREDS OF MEGABYTES of memory because of "poor optimization". I don't know what you've seen in TE code that lets you think it's not optimized, because it almost certainly is. There is a big difference between having a code that is hard to read, and a code that is not optimized. The reason why TE and IA use so much memory is because they add a lot of graphical assets to the game, and these are loaded in CPU memory even though they are only used on the GPU. That alone wastes about 1-2 GB. It was confirmed by a developer and the fact that enabling "Small textures" almost halves CPU memory usage. I can't think of a single reason to upgrade this game to 64 bit outside of mods (and macOS Catalina). I'd be curious to hear yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
. . . Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 2 hours ago, Saiph said: I can't think of a single reason to upgrade this game to 64 bit outside of mods High quality textures could be another reason since one of the reasons for most textures being at hilariously low resolution is because the game's 32-bit .. 64-bit DST will only increase the game's lifespan and add give greater potential for greater things to be done with the game both by the developers and modders alike. If it can be done for Mac it can be done for others too so hopefully Klei looks into it in the near future ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie_ Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 3 hours ago, Saiph said: Mods don't perform any allocation themselves, etc i don't think anybody is asking modders to perform low-level optimisations memory issues caused by mods come from entities, assets, and such: do you really need all these entities loaded all at once? do you really need these assets loaded? do these textures really need to be this huge? etc 3 hours ago, Saiph said: these are loaded in CPU memory just a correction, the game loads assets into the main memory, not the cpu memory 3 hours ago, Saiph said: That alone wastes about 1-2 GB i'm not exactly sure how that's wasteful, the point of that is to eagerly cache assets that the game expects to use ahead of time if you don't prefer that, then i think a way to implement lazy loading of assets is possible, which would save memory and initial load time edit: i've found that @Zarklord has already implemented a lazy loader for dst: https://gitlab.com/DSTAPIS/GemCore/blob/master/gemscripts/memspikefix.lua Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saiph Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 15 hours ago, Jessie223 said: memory issues caused by mods come from entities, assets, and such: do you really need all these entities loaded all at once? do you really need these assets loaded? do these textures really need to be this huge? etc Your point about reducing textures is interesting, because just in this discussion are a dozen of posts saying textures are too low resolution already. You can call reducing texture size "optimizing your mod", I'm calling that "limiting your mod". Mod entities probably barely even account for memory size, but even if they would that's not something you can reduce in general. Modders don't spawn useless entities, when they do it's usually to trade something off (better mod performance, less developing time...). 15 hours ago, Jessie223 said: just a correction, the game loads assets into the main memory, not the cpu memory i'm not exactly sure how that's wasteful, the point of that is to eagerly cache assets that the game expects to use ahead of time if you don't prefer that, then i think a way to implement lazy loading of assets is possible, which would save memory and initial load time edit: i've found that @Zarklord has already implemented a lazy loader for dst: https://gitlab.com/DSTAPIS/GemCore/blob/master/gemscripts/memspikefix.lua There's a big confusion here, I was talking about textures. As surprising as it sounds, they account for Gigabytes of memory, you can check that by setting "Small Textures" option and watch memory consumption drop. A lazy loader could reduce texture overall size, but the one you linked is for prefabs, and unfortunately only devs can do one for textures. The other optimization I talked about would be to store textures only in GPU memory, to save CPU memory space. But both of these optimizations have drawbacks and would take more time to develop than just releasing a 64-bit version. My point is not to talk about textures, but just to show that memory in this game is not something you can ask modders to optimize realistically, as there is already very few memory left for mods to "optimize" once their textures and the base game are loaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie_ Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 5 hours ago, Saiph said: Your point about reducing textures is interesting, because just in this discussion are a dozen of posts saying textures are too low resolution already. You can call reducing texture size "optimizing your mod", I'm calling that "limiting your mod". the "dozens of posts" are from the same person and the textures are demonstrably not too low resolution: anybody that claims this is too low resolution should move to a different game if they want to play a screenshot-taking simulator instead 5 hours ago, Saiph said: Mod entities probably barely even account for memory size, but even if they would that's not something you can reduce in general. Modders don't spawn useless entities, when they do it's usually to trade something off (better mod performance, less developing time...). it heavily depends on the entity, and you'll be surprised what kind of things are considered as entities 5 hours ago, Saiph said: There's a big confusion here, I was talking about textures. As surprising as it sounds, they account for Gigabytes of memory, you can check that by setting "Small Textures" option and watch memory consumption drop. yes, i have already explained why this is the case in the first page of this thread 5 hours ago, Saiph said: A lazy loader could reduce texture overall size, but the one you linked is for prefabs, and unfortunately only devs can do one for textures. also, a correction: loading prefabs also loads their assets a lazy loader will stop out of memory issues for very large mods, because it prevents unneeded assets to be loaded all at once instead, prefabs and their assets are loaded only when they're needed to fabricate an entity 5 hours ago, Saiph said: The other optimization I talked about would be to store textures only in GPU memory, to save CPU memory space. a correction again: the game does not store textures in the cpu memory, textures are loaded into the main memory 5 hours ago, Saiph said: But both of these optimizations have drawbacks and would take more time to develop than just releasing a 64-bit version. sure, but i think it's still more likely for klei to perform optimisations over making a 64-bit version, for reasons they've already explained a number of times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saiph Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 Sorry but none of your technical explanations on textures make sense. Prefabs are needed on the CPU (game simulation). Textures are needed on the GPU (rendering). So it does NOT make sense that "Small textures" reduces memory space on the CPU, yet they do. If you're not differentiating CPU and GPU memory you're missing the point. This means, most of the game memory is used by textures, and not optimizable by mods, outside of reducing resolution. 16 hours ago, Jessie223 said: anybody that claims this is too low resolution should move to a different game if they want to play a screenshot-taking simulator instead I admit the current resolution is acceptable for me, but I would not take the risk of making this claim, that's the sort of things you think it does not really make a difference at first, and then can never come back to the original once you're used to HD... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie_ Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 7 hours ago, Saiph said: Sorry but none of your technical explanations on textures make sense. Prefabs are needed on the CPU (game simulation). Textures are needed on the GPU (rendering). So it does NOT make sense that "Small textures" reduces memory space on the CPU, yet they do. If you're not differentiating CPU and GPU memory you're missing the point. This means, most of the game memory is used by textures, and not optimizable by mods, outside of reducing resolution. it takes seconds to google this, you have very little actual knowledge about what you're talking about, yet you're so confident talking about it (this appears to be such a common theme to the people i'm talking to in this thread) i thought you would understand it on the second time i've told you, so let me explain a third time in a way that i hope you can't misinterpret my CPU memory: L1 = 128 KiB, L2 = 1 MiB, L3 = 6 MiB my main memory: 8 GB 7 hours ago, Saiph said: So it does NOT make sense that "Small textures" reduces memory space on the CPU, yet they do. i'm gonna assume that "memory space on the CPU" means the main memory, not the CPU memory from my tests, using htop and nvidia-smi: small textures off RAM, game menu: ~280 MiB RAM, in-game: ~688 MiB GPU, game menu: ~400 MiB GPU, in-game: ~1084 MiB small textures on RAM, game menu: ~291 MiB RAM, in-game: ~687 MiB GPU, game menu: ~178 MiB GPU, in-game,: ~513 MiB conclusion: it's safe to say that your statement is incorrect ----- it's blindingly obvious to me now that i seem to be the only one in this thread doing any sort of research and testing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saiph Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 On my computer it DOES. And it seems to do with everyone I've talked on Steam, as people as joining my server, as they all crash for OOM at the same time. Small textures: Normal textures: My guess is that you're on Linux and the graphics part is handled vastly differently from Windows. Even if what you've explained now makes sense considering how the game behaves on your computer, I hope you realize 90% players are on Windows, and your claim that I didn't make any sort of research would probably be better addressed to you, as you're the one with an unconventional hardware. Your explanation on "main memory" vs "cpu memory" is nitpicking. There is CPU memory address space, and GPU address space, and the game runs out of CPU space, even though 50% of it are used for textures, which are needed on the GPU space. Though to be honest, I've done some tests this afternoon, and I'm starting to think that the game is actually rendered on the CPU on Windows. I've got the same results as above on 2 different PCs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie_ Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, Saiph said: e right, i did fail to consider that the linux version of the game can behave differently from the version for windows, which is what most people will be using try using tools other than the windows task manager, tools which will show gpu memory usage separate from main memory usage i don't have windows installed on any device right now so i can't test it for myself opengl, which is what DST uses, will load textures into the gpu memory, but the game on windows uses ANGLE to translate opengl calls to directx as for cpu memory vs main memory, i wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing, because main memory is not referred to as "cpu memory" elsewhere as far as i know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Developer zarklord_klei Posted November 17, 2019 Developer Share Posted November 17, 2019 7 minutes ago, Jessie223 said: right, i did fail to consider that the linux version of the game can behave differently from the version for windows, which is what most people will be using try using tools other than the windows task manager, tools which will show gpu memory usage separate from main memory usage i don't have windows installed on any device right now so i can't test it for myself opengl, which is what DST uses, will load textures into the gpu memory, but the game on windows uses ANGLE to translate opengl calls to directx as for cpu memory vs main memory, i wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing, because main memory is not referred to as "cpu memory" elsewhere as far as i know vram is not included in the ram usage statistics Saiph showed, also vram can't out of memory the same way that Saiph was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie_ Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, Zarklord said: vram is not included in the ram usage statistics Saiph showed, also vram can't out of memory the same way that Saiph was talking about. so this means that on the windows version of the game, textures are all loaded into the main memory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saiph Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 12 minutes ago, Jessie223 said: right, i did fail to consider that the linux version of the game can behave differently from the version for windows, which is what most people will be using I understand your point, usage on Windows does not make any sense and I would also have found the things I've explained very surprising if I had got the same results as you... Just now, Jessie223 said: so this means that on the windows version of the game, textures are all loaded into the main memory? Texture usage on Windows does not seem to make any sense. - GPU memory usage is very low (300-400 MB), and very little affected by texture size. - main memory usage varies drastically when changing texture size (1400 -> 1000). This is especially obvious with mods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solid.thumb.png.f44becbf33343f6ba102a4c95df0c599.png)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.
Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.