Del Sol Valley world size is disappointing

"MidnightAura;c-16795570" wrote:
The game isn’t 64 bit though. As someone else pointed out (a fact I had forgotten) you can still run the game in 32 bit. You change it via Origin.

Of course those who have 64 bit I imagine use it bit those that don’t (and I imagine they are many) still use 32 and they may be the ones EA have to think about.

Not saying I excuse this, I don’t.

Every EP/GP following Cats and Dogs has required a 64 bit operating system to play. You can run the game in 32 bit, but those packs that require 64 bit won’t work on a 32 bit system.

I assume this new EP will also require a 64 bit OS like the last 3 releases have.

I just wanna point out that 64 bit is not the save all in terms of game performance. 64 bit is only related to ram, that’s it. A games performance is not just about how much ram it can use. Cpu and gpu play a massive part in it.

Let me put it to you this way: if someone’s game is laggy and their frame rate is pretty low, that’s probably because their graphics card or processor can’t handle it, not their ram. Can have 32 gb but if you’re playing on integrated graphics on a low end cpu, you won’t be having a good time.

I don’t even understand this miss conception. If the game runs out of ram because of a 32 bit system it’s just gonna crash to desktop. But the overall performance is not only about wether or not it’s crashing...

I will not mind this way of playing if we get more career packs, say Farming, Zoos or Education/Universities with a few enormous 64x64 lots and a few worker lots surrounding them. Most of my time would be on the Farm, in the Zoo or at the school/university anyway.

True, but a 32bit game can never even use 3.5 of RAM, (of 4GB) it is limited to 2.5 of RAM. And if you can't utililize the RAM you can wind up getting error messages for Access Violation trying to use more (of virtual) than it is allowed to use. RAM is usually the reason Sims stand doing nothing, if it's not some glitch in them looking for somewhere to do something, or an interaction that can't be performed for whatever reason. Processor, and Card also are extremely important, but most folks never even think about speed of HD and they should. That matters just as much. True a slow processor isn't going to be made better by 32GB of RAM. But laptop users never even think about what type of RAM and the actual speed of RAM. But everything about TS4 isn't a player's fault, no matter if they don't have a gaming machine. TS4 isn't going to look any better on a gaming PC. It can't. Where as older games can. That bowl still isn't going to be round. That squirrel is still going to be flat.

"karlakou;c-16794893" wrote:
I think a lot of people are always like "be happy with what we have" and I think we should BUT I tend to agree with the comments here! I kind of feel like this might be more game pack level rather than expansion pack level. I'm still not sure if I want to buy it??

I dont think we have to just be happy what we got becouse we pay for it. We dont just get that stuff. Even free updates, we have bought base game and some of us buy all packs too. In total this game is like 500e. So nope. We dont have to be happy what we got :)

I also don't see why we should be happy with getting a fabulous GP at the price of an EP.

I've been absolutely happy with Seasons and still am (despite the bugs), but now I can also very well be unhappy with Get Famous. I would like to have that pack, but at a sensible price.

That being said, for me it is not the size of the world that has me disappointed but the lack of gameplay. I also would have been more happy with another theme, but let's leave that aside. My two daughters are super-hyped about the pack (they don't think about the bargain).

"83bienchen;c-16796107" wrote:
I also don't see why we should be happy with getting a fabulous GP at the price of an EP.

I've been absolutely happy with Seasons and still am (despite the bugs), but now I can also very well be unhappy with Get Famous. I would like to have that pack, but at a sensible price.

That being said, for me it is not the size of the world that has me disappointed but the lack of gameplay. I also would have been more happy with another theme, but let's leave that aside. My two daughters are super-hyped about the pack (they don't think about the bargain).

I notice that too - that several of the younger players in my family are totally hyped by the game and the Baby Ariel addition - they seem to care less about the world as long as they can have a house full of 8 roommates - they seem thrilled. It's all us parents and older players mad enough to not no longer want it as we like creating places for our sims to live and also engage in the Career. We are the ones most likely to want several homes and specific Venues not in the game and to rotate between them all. The kids - their one house is fine. The provided Venues seem fine.

I am really curious now just how many of the 32 (with just 8 under 25) of us that buy the Sims will still be buying this pack - right now it doesn't sound like many - yet a few days ago we were all ready to buy it. Less lots for players - bad choice Maxis.

"Amiutza;c-16795840" wrote:
I just wanna point out that 64 bit is not the save all in terms of game performance. 64 bit is only related to ram, that’s it. A games performance is not just about how much ram it can use. Cpu and gpu play a massive part in it.

Let me put it to you this way: if someone’s game is laggy and their frame rate is pretty low, that’s probably because their graphics card or processor can’t handle it, not their ram. Can have 32 gb but if you’re playing on integrated graphics on a low end cpu, you won’t be having a good time.

I don’t even understand this miss conception. If the game runs out of ram because of a 32 bit system it’s just gonna crash to desktop. But the overall performance is not only about wether or not it’s crashing...

yep, different games have different bottlenecks, but speed of ram is more likely to be a bottleneck than the amount of overhead as you're right, running out of memory = crashing to desktop.

If I had to guess, the Sims bottleneck is the CPU. Even though there are only 20 sims active at one time (without mods), it seems to stress out the system, leading to simulation lag. Since modern CPUs should be able to handle this type of thing, it may be inefficient programming.

"Felicity;c-16796664" wrote:

"Amiutza;c-16795840" wrote:
I just wanna point out that 64 bit is not the save all in terms of game performance. 64 bit is only related to ram, that’s it. A games performance is not just about how much ram it can use. Cpu and gpu play a massive part in it.

Let me put it to you this way: if someone’s game is laggy and their frame rate is pretty low, that’s probably because their graphics card or processor can’t handle it, not their ram. Can have 32 gb but if you’re playing on integrated graphics on a low end cpu, you won’t be having a good time.

I don’t even understand this miss conception. If the game runs out of ram because of a 32 bit system it’s just gonna crash to desktop. But the overall performance is not only about wether or not it’s crashing...

yep, different games have different bottlenecks, but speed of ram is more likely to be a bottleneck than the amount of overhead as you're right, running out of memory = crashing to desktop.

If I had to guess, the Sims bottleneck is the CPU. Even though there are only 20 sims active at one time (without mods), it seems to stress out the system, leading to simulation lag. Since modern CPUs should be able to handle this type of thing, it may be inefficient programming.

A fair number of us do not get any simulation lag. I had to watch a video of it to see what a simmer was talking about - as he had it bad - and I get none at all. So I am still puzzled if it is truly a game issue shouldn't we all have it. I really do not have many issues I see people call bugs in this game and I know a fair number of players that also have my own experience and do not have these issues. It does make a difference on a gaming desktop from my own experience.

"Writin_Reg;c-16796690" wrote:

"Felicity;c-16796664" wrote:

"Amiutza;c-16795840" wrote:
I just wanna point out that 64 bit is not the save all in terms of game performance. 64 bit is only related to ram, that’s it. A games performance is not just about how much ram it can use. Cpu and gpu play a massive part in it.

Let me put it to you this way: if someone’s game is laggy and their frame rate is pretty low, that’s probably because their graphics card or processor can’t handle it, not their ram. Can have 32 gb but if you’re playing on integrated graphics on a low end cpu, you won’t be having a good time.

I don’t even understand this miss conception. If the game runs out of ram because of a 32 bit system it’s just gonna crash to desktop. But the overall performance is not only about wether or not it’s crashing...

yep, different games have different bottlenecks, but speed of ram is more likely to be a bottleneck than the amount of overhead as you're right, running out of memory = crashing to desktop.

If I had to guess, the Sims bottleneck is the CPU. Even though there are only 20 sims active at one time (without mods), it seems to stress out the system, leading to simulation lag. Since modern CPUs should be able to handle this type of thing, it may be inefficient programming.

A fair number of us do not get any simulation lag. I had to watch a video of it to see what a simmer was talking about - as he had it bad - and I get none at all. So I am still puzzled if it is truly a game issue shouldn't we all have it. I really do not have many issues I see people call bugs in this game and I know a fair number of players that also have my own experience and do not have these issues. It does make a difference on a gaming desktop from my own experience.

I don't get it either, but I have a good CPU. However, it's common enough that there are mods out there to fix it, and they're wildly popular. But that's why I think there's bottleneck there. Now, there are definitely other bugs that are separate and apart from performance. Thinking about it, I wonder if that's why the multitasking really isn't multitasking -- it's possible that the game itself couldn't handle 2-3x the computations that would be happening with true multitasking.