revelator

one strange thing is that this limit was set by ms on all but there server versions who could access 128 gb ram via PAE (physical address extension), some linux variants also used PAE. some intel HD drivers were buggy with PAE which is kinda funny since the PAE extension was created by intel . so in essence it is limited by ntoskrnl you can patch it though to allow more than 4gb ram.

for most parts id recon 32 bit has better optimization because of restrictions in ram usage, with the comming of 64 bit it seems most attempts at making optimizations went out the window atleast in regards to memory since 64 bit can handle a huge ammount (not that the user might have a huge ammount of ram but thats secondary to the game devs i suspect). it does help with high detail textures thats why it might look better, 32 bit is kinda locked to 4gb ram or vram usage and some textures today might easily surpass that.

sadly a remaster will most likely newer happen as the source code and all assets have been lost when interplay went down it would have to be a total from the ground up game.

heh the master remastered would be some sight if you can hold it in this guy approves.

well what do you know nvidia actually used powervr's tiling engine in the maxwell and pascal lineup and many smartphones today use it as well.

100% the old dead space here 2 the new one while not bad at all (way better control) just feels a bit out of place. Id much rather play the scrapped dead space 4 if it ever comes out so we can get a non cliff hanger.

one thing i been wondering about is why noone started using the old guillemot / hercules rendering engine (3D prophet also known as the kyro series). It had the benefit of handling detail that you usually needed a far more beefy card for (driver issues not withstanding) by only rendering the portion of the scene in the viewport and not like any other gfx card in a 360" view, saving a lot of GPU gruntwork. this also ment the card could get away with a somewhat smaller cooler

Oh it could be much worse we could try to teach them assembler or machine code but even experts today would be most likely break there skull if they tried that hehe. your idea is good though :). Another good point would be to make them understand limitations in said tech, much of the muscle in todays computers is geared towards techniques to allow raytracing and why is that many wonder. Well the honest truth is that raytracing takes so much computing power that no hardware today would be able to run it if we did not use certain tricks like DLSS FSR etc. And this wont change tomorrow or in the next maybe 20 to 30 years because we are at a point in history where moores law is actually starting to show the limitations on our current technology. For one we are at such small processing nodes in chips that they are starting to show all kinds of weird behaviour (quantum tunneling effect, heat problems due to stacking nodes, oh my...). new technologies are in the works but they are still pretty far of in the future. So keeping your (Older heh) hardware alive is actually a good thing even if you loose on bragging rights, and tbh many older components are actually still able to run your games or what ever maybe not with a gazillion fps on a 100" 8k 256 hz monitor (yeah you could not afford it anyway). Still you can get pretty far with knowledge of the inner workings of tech, like the guy who mounted 16 gb vram on his 3070 ti and got some rather nice numbers out of it in 4k (i did have a hunch that it might). Or resusing some old cabby because it looked nice and was sturdy. the Latest and greatest are not allways best in the long haul older sturdier components are even if they cant put out the numbers you see from the modern ones what matters is can they run it without it becomming a nuisance ? if yes then i rest my case.

hehe maybe we should not torture them with basic atleast not the basic from back yonder , C is a good starting place C++ can do some awsome stuff but the syntax can be hard to comprehend and the learning curve is pretty steep. Python seems to be liked a lot though i would not exactly call it a programming language (though neither is using batch files with the command shell) it is more like a script language or at best a managed one. It is also pretty slow as a game engine though you can indeed write a game in it. sadly object pascal or delphi is not a widely used language anymore despite it actually being pretty nice (there was a quake engine built in delphi one time). C is used pretty much anywhere and runs on everything so no brainer ? hmm . It is also pretty easy to learn the basics in C but the hard stuff can be really HARD so its not that it is a simple language hehe. Basic still exists though is a far cry from the one we where used to (freebasic for example) and luckily a lot easier to debug these days. perl -> screams in horror nah not to bad though the syntax sometimes makes me want to rip my hair out. java newer touch the stuff myself im more of an arabica man lol. can write games and quite a lot of other stuff in it but like python its a bit slow for game engines. ruby well havent really tried a lot in ruby tbh. but i suspect it can do much of what python/java can. rust well this ones a bit strange, uses llvm/clang's backend but is its own language. Gained quite some traction these later years as many opensource libraries / tools changed to it. downside 32 bit only supports the dwarf exception model by default (problematic on windows that uses the SEH model), an extension was written later to also support sjlj (better compatibility with SEH) but you have to build and enable it yourself. despite this microsoft has started using the 64 bit rust compiler as it produces superior code. the 64 bit model also uses SEH exceptions by default so works flawlessly with windows. syntax takes some getting used to and it is very unforgiving on user error, so maybe not the best starting language.

heh yeah seems after the move to 64 bit the concensus has been to cram as many bytes of random gunk into that space and damn be optimization . sure i get that not everyone is a code genious but nowadays most of them dont even try sigh... well if the state of education follows the advancements made in my time the future looks bleak indeed. EDIT: With that i mean we are getting a bit to reliant on tech instead of using the old noggin sad in a way most youngsters today are better users of tech but they have no idea of the inner workings of the tech they use sigh... most dont even know what you can do in CMD because DOS was long dead when they started yet the shell still exist. one of my first games in dos was written with batch files later i learned basic but in the dos days it was a pita to track down a typo so it was usually easier to just rewrite it from scratch. its still possible to run a real dos shell even in win11 64 with the ntvdmx64 project, which gives access to the old qbasic compiler if someone wants to try old school programming.

real life example from tomazquake byte particle[32][32] = { { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 4, 5, 3, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 4, 7, 13, 16, 13, 8, 5, 3, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 7, 9, 12, 18, 26, 30, 27, 21, 15, 11, 8, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 9, 17, 22, 26, 31, 37, 42, 40, 36, 29, 25, 19, 11, 5, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 7, 17, 28, 34, 38, 43, 52, 59, 57, 52, 45, 39, 33, 26, 16, 7, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 6, 15, 26, 36, 45, 53, 62, 73, 80, 80, 73, 65, 56, 47, 38, 29, 17, 6, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 4, 13, 25, 34, 45, 59, 73, 86, 98,106,104, 96, 86, 74, 61, 51, 40, 29, 14, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 10, 22, 32, 43, 57, 76, 97,117,132,141,138,126,111, 93, 77, 63, 50, 38, 24, 10, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 6, 15, 28, 38, 52, 70, 94,123,155,179,191,188,170,143,117, 94, 75, 60, 46, 33, 18, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 2, 7, 21, 33, 45, 61, 82,112,152,196,226,237,234,217,184,146,114, 88, 68, 52, 39, 24, 8, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 4, 12, 26, 38, 52, 70, 96,134,183,228,250,255,253,246,220,175,131, 98, 76, 57, 43, 27, 10, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 5, 16, 29, 41, 57, 78,107,153,208,246,255,255,255,254,240,197,143,105, 80, 60, 44, 28, 10, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 6, 18, 32, 45, 63, 85,117,163,218,250,255,255,255,255,245,205,151,109, 82, 61, 44, 29, 11, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 2, 10, 25, 37, 51, 69, 89,118,158,208,244,255,255,255,253,238,196,147,109, 82, 61, 44, 29, 11, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 4, 14, 28, 37, 50, 64, 81,105,136,179,221,244,250,248,237,211,170,130,100, 77, 58, 43, 28, 10, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 3, 10, 21, 31, 40, 53, 67, 86,112,145,183,210,218,212,196,169,137,109, 86, 68, 52, 38, 23, 7, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 3, 10, 22, 34, 43, 54, 69, 90,116,142,158,161,157,145,128,110, 90, 73, 58, 44, 31, 16, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 14, 26, 35, 43, 55, 72, 92,109,115,115,113,107, 99, 88, 74, 60, 48, 36, 21, 8, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 7, 15, 24, 33, 43, 57, 72, 83, 86, 86, 85, 83, 78, 70, 60, 48, 37, 25, 10, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 6, 13, 24, 33, 43, 53, 60, 63, 63, 64, 62, 58, 51, 44, 35, 25, 13, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 6, 14, 24, 31, 39, 43, 43, 43, 44, 43, 40, 35, 30, 22, 12, 4, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 5, 11, 19, 27, 30, 29, 29, 30, 29, 25, 21, 15, 8, 4, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 3, 8, 14, 16, 16, 14, 15, 14, 11, 7, 4, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 3, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, }; the funny thing is if you open a texture in say notepad and copy all the comma seperated numbers in there into a construct like the above you get the same result as actually loading the real texture, cool eh

hehe reminds me of some of the tricks we used in quake with hard baked textures -> byte texture1[sizeof x coordinates][sizeof y coordinates] = { ungodly amount of numbers representing the texture data, comma seperated ofc. }; then simply load the byte representation into the texture loader and voila . most of the times these were used for particle effects, but you could do any number of things with them

ah no it was built using an inhouse compiler called werkzeug or simply tool. it used some rather impressive magic where instead of using textures on a per pixel basis it uses the creation history of the texture. many more things went into making it this small the actuall game would have filled about 300mb without the special methods used to store information.

i remember that one, was indeed impressive as all hell . it was built in assembler was it not ?.

oh as for the new 4070 super it only takes the cake in DLSS games, in raster performance AMD rules still . well it would have been somewhat akward if the reverse held as the 7900 XT has quite a lot more performance cores, the super is higher clocked but in this case even that cant beat the XT. the DLSS improvements while nice is not a valid performance criteria.

well seems latest supermium does indeed still work with XP going to try win2k next. Last updated a month ago. p.s antivirus might bicker because it lacks certificates groan....

hehe yeah i get you before it all went to hell there were numerous engines based on idtech 1 for all kinds of stuff, browser, sidescrollers, even some rather advanced ports like darkplaces and FTE (multi engine Q1 Q2 Q3 hexen etc.). quakespasm (a modern port but in line with the original and also crossplatform), vkquake (vulkan port), glquaked3d (directx port), hell even half-life (the original) was recreated in the idtech 1 engine (xash3d) and later multiplatformed in the xash3d-fwgs port. you can even play quake in xash3d with half-life style menues. some of them can even rival modern games in visuals.

i know for a mapper it might seem convinient to do your work in something you know but sometimes it seems detrimental to use a hyper advanced game engine to make something like that when there are better alternatives for this kind of stuff... godot would probably be a way better engine for a sidescroller or even HPL (amnesia engine). hell even the old idtech 1 would be better sigh.

8 gb for a sidescroller holy...

well it seems to be a problem for many amd users i see from skimming unity forums, everything from outright crashes to awfull framerates ouch . one user found that running unity in a window made it run flawlessly while fullscreen made it run like alan wake2 on a 1050 gtx

not sure why unity runs worse on your laptop than TDM tbh could be any number of things (engine optimization ?) idtech 4 originally was geared more towards a corridor shooter while unity seems to be optimized more towards big open vistas. a lot of work has gone into TDM over the years to make idtech 4 better suited to a thief styled game, while unity was built from the ground up to be more general purpose hmm ?. strangely both engines are from around the same time idtech 4 came out in 2004 unity in 2005 though i suspect the unity of today has had as many if not more changes to the codebase as TDM. could be simply that idtech 4 was the better engine .

You can get pretty far on less stellar components though in the case of laptops its pretty hard to change stuff. If you need advise on building a cheap desktop able to handle most things i could help though . My own gamer pc uses pretty old components but handles even the most recent games and the original parts cost me around the same as your laptop. X99 mainboard (used) came with a 6800k cpu and 16gb corsair ddr4, it cost me around 150 euro. The gfx card is an rtx 3070 which was another 150, i had the psu and some spare ssd's so i used around 70 euro on the cabinet (lian li full alu) older one but extremely light and 100% toolless. I upgraded a few things over time (more ram 64 gb) and i changed the 3070 with the older 2080 ti because it runs better in 4k. The cpu was also upgraded to the 6950x which is a 10 core 20 threads extreme model. So it started modest but even then it kicked butt

Of by a few years heh well i skipped the 5000 series and got a 6800 ultra instead. The geforce 4 was about the oldest card i tried doom 3 with. After the 6000 series i got the 8000 series which lasted me for quite some years. The gtx 560 ti was something i got together with the first core 2 at a time where i did not have the cash for a top shelf card, but it impressed me enough that i keept it well i actually got two sli was fun back then. edit: not the core 2 doh was together with the haswell 4770K, had so much gear over the years i tend to mix up when i got what . was bought around the same time i got the board for the haswell an MSI Z87-GD65 gaming. its paired with a core2 quad now in a retro build i did for fun out of old parts fits better with the old core2 than with the haswell since the 560 ti is pcie 2.0 only.

for a comparison with mine see here -> https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-A9-9425-APU-2016-MSR-vs-AMD-A8-6500-APU/m496441vsm5272 as you can see the old A8 absolutely demolishes the A9 in CPU power, when it comes to gfx id say the A9 wins but it might have some problems due to the cpu not being all that fast (lower resolutions usually needs more cpu power yeah sounds bonkers but true non the less). the vega gfx should be able to handle 1440 resolutions though where cpu power means less.

yeah the more modern apu's sometimes fall short of hitting the mark despite being able to sometimes run newer content without problems. strangely despite being subpar for most modern stuff old gfx cards run pretty well with game engines that came from around the same era, apu's from back then are cough! not worth mentioning as they usually sucked. I have one of the older amd A8 APU's (medion PC) and the built in gfx while not to shabby does tend to balk at some titles. strangely some of the A8 models were hugely faster than the corresponding A9 models cpu wise but the newer models had better gfx go figure , the A8 5600K was around 83% faster than the 9425 despite the latter being somewhat newer, the built in gfx was pretty ok though (based on vega) while the A8 was based on the hd8500 series. my A8 (6500) is also a quad core while the 9425 is a dual core, i guess they had to cut down on cores to make room for the vega hardware ?, mine got outfitted with a gtx 1060 external gfx card because the built in card while ok for some older games was simply to slow for more modern titles and the psu was only 350 watt .