Dev explains why Skyrim lag wont get fixed.

Richardplex

New member
Jun 22, 2011
1,731
0
0
Prof.Beany said:
F4LL3N said:
and I simply restarted my console and no lag since. I always assumed the PS3 had superior hardware to the 360. Guess I was wrong.
Hardwares on par with 360, they just have a REALLY weird architecture (the whole split RAM thing, and the whole no voice chat because of OS taking up RAM thing a while back too).

In my opinion Beth should offer everyone with the PS3 version a digital download for the PC version, seeing as it actually works (I use the term works rather loosely, dam constant random crashes) and they probably paid more for the PS3 version then the steam price.
Although, proving who actually owns a copy of a PS3 game would be a logistics nightmare...

Tharwen said:
But... the point of using a save file is that those changes aren't in the memory all the time.
Well the save file itself is actually there so you can.. well, save your game and store it somewhere so it can be reloaded into the memory at a later point, rather then to just be accessed instead of the memory.

Why it doesnt just read certain parts of the save memory related to the zone your in and load JUST that still baffles me though.
But hey, Im no engine coder, Im just talking out my ass.
Ps3 has some level of steamworks no? I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to sort something out with that.

OT: Well, I learned why FO:NV fails after playing it a while. And I'm glad I switched to PC gaming.
 

TheCruxis

New member
Jan 19, 2011
68
0
0
Great...so now I know why my game is unplayable, and it can't be fixed. Brilliant, just fucking brilliant Bethesda.
 

Furioso

New member
Jun 16, 2009
7,981
0
0
Well thanks Bethesda, you have officially bricked my gigantic save file, so many hours went into it, and it's way to daunting to make a new character at the moment, guess I won't be finishing this game for a while *goes off to sulk in profound disappointment*
 

MCGT

New member
Sep 27, 2008
207
0
0
TheKasp said:
I know I'm not making any friends with this statement but:

And this is why the PC is the superiour platform. Because it can have the power I want it to have, I am not limited to 6y old hardware, I am not depending on the big brands to release a console when 1/3 of the playerbase has already surpassed them by far in terms of hardware.

My personal rant aside:

I don't understand why they released it on the PS3. This problem must've been obvious and since they didn't bother to fix it they just thrown out a broken version... Yay for that Bethesda. Keep making games for PC where we are able to fix your problems or make the ports actually playable. (Yes, I know that the PC version is a 360 port)
Yeah but how well would a 6 year old computer handle Skyrim? So unless you have the money to upgrade/update your computer every year that argument doesn't really hold much water.

Although don't know why I'm getting involved in this, console wars are so last year.
 

Levethian

New member
Nov 22, 2009
509
0
0
Could they make some inhabited interior cells reset their basic common items to save on memory?

It always bugs me that no NPC ever tidies up. I mistakenly FUS-RO-DAH'd myself in Dragonsreach, and now the tables are bare, kitchenware spread across the hall. And still there weeks later. Do they no longer need to eat?
 

TheGuy(wantstobe)

New member
Dec 8, 2009
430
0
0
ElektroNeko said:
So basically, it's really, really, really bad memory management.

But yeah, it's either this or loading screens. I don't think developers these days have the time and resources to make a efficient file scream mechanism, especially for such a big game.
Yes and no. It's more the devs not being given ample time to come up with an engine solution for the PS3's memory constraints relative to the 360/PC due to the split memory pool architecture inside it. Can be explained but only through random numbers as I don't have exact figures on me

Let's say a game loads 128MB of texture and other graphical data and 128MB of general purpose data at any one time before savestate of objects is taken into account.
On the 360 you'll have 256MB of RAM free for your save to play around in due to it's single memory pool (512MB unified)
On the PS3 you'll have 128MB of RAM free to use for your save data. This is due to the way in which the RAM is set up with 2 separate and discrete 256MB pools with one for textural and graphical data and one for general purpose use. You can't use the remainder of the first RAM pool to complement the second one and so you have 128MB of wasted RAM that isn't being used and a smaller amount for the save data.

This does mean that in theory you could replicate it on the 360 but the effort required would likely be enormous ie in a 3 ingame day timeframe manipulate every single object in the world and change the contents of most if not all containers and NPCs and the positions of each companion and ai routine (set them all running for home from halfway acros the map at the same time etc)
 

The Pinray

New member
Jul 21, 2011
775
0
0
I've put in a bit over 150 hours into the game and I've gotten only very little lag during a fight with a dragon and a Dragon Priest (at the same time) with the help of
The three people you choose to recruit into the Blades. Kharjo, Lydia, and Marcurio for me. A really good team, by the way

So a bit too much going on at once so the game dipped a teeny bit for maybe a second or two. Nothing game-breaking.

This is on the 360, mind. I'll keep praying to the Eight Nine that it stays this way...
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jun 24, 2011
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
TheGuy(wantstobe) said:
ElektroNeko said:
So basically, it's really, really, really bad memory management.

But yeah, it's either this or loading screens. I don't think developers these days have the time and resources to make a efficient file scream mechanism, especially for such a big game.
Yes and no. It's more the devs not being given ample time to come up with an engine solution for the PS3's memory constraints relative to the 360/PC due to the split memory pool architecture inside it. Can be explained but only through random numbers as I don't have exact figures on me

Let's say a game loads 128MB of texture and other graphical data and 128MB of general purpose data at any one time before savestate of objects is taken into account.
On the 360 you'll have 256MB of RAM free for your save to play around in due to it's single memory pool (512MB unified)
On the PS3 you'll have 128MB of RAM free to use for your save data. This is due to the way in which the RAM is set up with 2 separate and discrete 256MB pools with one for textural and graphical data and one for general purpose use. You can't use the remainder of the first RAM pool to complement the second one and so you have 128MB of wasted RAM that isn't being used and a smaller amount for the save data.

This does mean that in theory you could replicate it on the 360 but the effort required would likely be enormous ie in a 3 ingame day timeframe manipulate every single object in the world and change the contents of most if not all containers and NPCs and the positions of each companion and ai routine (set them all running for home from halfway acros the map at the same time etc)
SO it's really bad memory management and yes, they had time. They set their own release date and apparently hitting the cool 11-11-11 date was the priority. Let's not fool ourselves though, this problem has been around for 3 games, I think it's safe to say that given more time they still wouldn't be able to fix it.

If you can't program the PS3 properly Bethesda, don't release games on the PS3.
 

TheGuy(wantstobe)

New member
Dec 8, 2009
430
0
0
Crono1973 said:
TheGuy(wantstobe) said:
ElektroNeko said:
So basically, it's really, really, really bad memory management.

But yeah, it's either this or loading screens. I don't think developers these days have the time and resources to make a efficient file scream mechanism, especially for such a big game.
Yes and no. It's more the devs not being given ample time to come up with an engine solution for the PS3's memory constraints relative to the 360/PC due to the split memory pool architecture inside it. Can be explained but only through random numbers as I don't have exact figures on me

Let's say a game loads 128MB of texture and other graphical data and 128MB of general purpose data at any one time before savestate of objects is taken into account.
On the 360 you'll have 256MB of RAM free for your save to play around in due to it's single memory pool (512MB unified)
On the PS3 you'll have 128MB of RAM free to use for your save data. This is due to the way in which the RAM is set up with 2 separate and discrete 256MB pools with one for textural and graphical data and one for general purpose use. You can't use the remainder of the first RAM pool to complement the second one and so you have 128MB of wasted RAM that isn't being used and a smaller amount for the save data.

This does mean that in theory you could replicate it on the 360 but the effort required would likely be enormous ie in a 3 ingame day timeframe manipulate every single object in the world and change the contents of most if not all containers and NPCs and the positions of each companion and ai routine (set them all running for home from halfway acros the map at the same time etc)
SO it's really bad memory management and yes, they had time. They set their own release date and apparently hitting the cool 11-11-11 date was the priority. Let's not fool ourselves though, this problem has been around for 3 games, I think it's safe to say that given more time they still wouldn't be able to fix it.

If you can't program the PS3 properly Bethesda, don't release games on the PS3.
A fix for it would have required an entirely new engine as it can make itself appear on any version. That the PS3's memory architecture makes it appear both more frequently and easily does not imply that the can't code for it just that the architecture is extraordinarily unsuited for that engine and type of game.
 

masticina

New member
Jan 19, 2011
763
0
0
So the fix is to play two hours or so.. then get out of the game. Take a break and go in again.
 

surg3n

New member
May 16, 2011
709
0
0
I'm thinking that the developers would prefer to fix the problem properly, however the time it would take to do that might be the issue.

For instance, instead of having everything in 1 big save file, they could compartmentalize a bit - say have a save file for the details in a given area, like one big save file for Skyrim, then additional save files with item information for the towns. That way, it need only load the relevant save files, keeping memory requirements down. This would require a more dynamic save file format, but really it's an organisational problem, not a bug. I mean - is it a bug if I fill my memory til breaking point.

I remember on the console versions of Oblivion we had to purge every now and then, like let it clear out the memory and refresh it, otherwise the game got laggier and laggier. I imagine it's quite the same issue. If you leave an item lying around though, it won't stay forever, it gets cleaned up eventually - so I'm not sure why it's even a problem - unless that cleanup isn't doing it's job, like not de-allocating the memory when an item is destroyed. I'm inclined to think that this will be fixed by a patch, Bethesda is a big company, and if its such a big problem they will look into it... maybe after they get the first portion of DLC released first though.
 

Bara_no_Hime

New member
Sep 15, 2010
3,646
0
0
Wait... Fallout 3 for the PS3 lagged if you played it too long?

I played FO3 on the PS3 for hundreds of hours. I reached 20th level and wandered the wastes attempting to find every map location. My save file got embarrassingly huge (now I know why). But the game never lagged on me.

Does it matter that I have one of the older, release PS3s?
 

mGoLos

New member
Nov 7, 2007
214
0
0
Never ever pre-order a Bethesda game ... Same goes for Treyarch and their Dead Island fiasco.

It's time to talk with our money people, do NOT pre-order games from these publishers.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jun 24, 2011
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
TheGuy(wantstobe) said:
Crono1973 said:
TheGuy(wantstobe) said:
ElektroNeko said:
So basically, it's really, really, really bad memory management.

But yeah, it's either this or loading screens. I don't think developers these days have the time and resources to make a efficient file scream mechanism, especially for such a big game.
Yes and no. It's more the devs not being given ample time to come up with an engine solution for the PS3's memory constraints relative to the 360/PC due to the split memory pool architecture inside it. Can be explained but only through random numbers as I don't have exact figures on me

Let's say a game loads 128MB of texture and other graphical data and 128MB of general purpose data at any one time before savestate of objects is taken into account.
On the 360 you'll have 256MB of RAM free for your save to play around in due to it's single memory pool (512MB unified)
On the PS3 you'll have 128MB of RAM free to use for your save data. This is due to the way in which the RAM is set up with 2 separate and discrete 256MB pools with one for textural and graphical data and one for general purpose use. You can't use the remainder of the first RAM pool to complement the second one and so you have 128MB of wasted RAM that isn't being used and a smaller amount for the save data.

This does mean that in theory you could replicate it on the 360 but the effort required would likely be enormous ie in a 3 ingame day timeframe manipulate every single object in the world and change the contents of most if not all containers and NPCs and the positions of each companion and ai routine (set them all running for home from halfway acros the map at the same time etc)
SO it's really bad memory management and yes, they had time. They set their own release date and apparently hitting the cool 11-11-11 date was the priority. Let's not fool ourselves though, this problem has been around for 3 games, I think it's safe to say that given more time they still wouldn't be able to fix it.

If you can't program the PS3 properly Bethesda, don't release games on the PS3.
A fix for it would have required an entirely new engine as it can make itself appear on any version. That the PS3's memory architecture makes it appear both more frequently and easily does not imply that the can't code for it just that the architecture is extraordinarily unsuited for that engine and type of game.
So the engine isn't compatible with the PS3. So why release a game for a platform that your engine isn't compatible with?
 

platinawolf

New member
Oct 27, 2009
84
0
0
Well,,, As you arn't supposed to sit longer than an hour at a time without taking a stretcher,,, Whats the harm? Inconvenient, yes. Good for your health? Maybe. But no matter the solution, the data has to be saved somehow. And Afaik the ps3 doesn't have any virtual memory together with a page-file to lean on. But cleaning up nhouses might help,,, But I do think npc's and quests take more memory than a spoon moved out of place...

Perhaps instead of saving the save-file as just the changes to the esm and esp they include everything? Or generate a file at start that it works of instead of having to check all of them?

Thus we'd end up with the esm + esp merged to a new esm. Thus you wouldnt have as many objects laying about. Does make it troublesome to save though as you'd have to check the merge-file against the esm's. Then again, discard any field that's identical to the esm then write whats left down into a small esp... Saving and loading would take longer but atleast it wouldnt have to keep the modifications in memory... But then we have the problem of new objects being created and old one's getting destroyed... Destroy an object and you still have to mark it out. Unless you want it to respawn.

Who knows, that might be what they are doing atm. Windows would deal with it by Virtual memory. Such a solution might work for the ps3 but question is if the hardware supports it, not to mention the OS.
 

DSK-

New member
May 13, 2010
2,431
0
0
I have no lag on my PC, but the bastard crashes at times, and from what I've read in a another threads it's because of a memory leak inherent in the game due to the things you mentioned.