Tracking Down the Plugin Limit

[Voyde]

Yeah, that's typically me. Diggin' up dead stuff.. No wonder the first weapon I picked up in New Vegas was a shovel..

 

Anyway..

 

I've been reading this thread and I keep seeing one thing repeated about the instability of New Vegas ; the amount of cores used by the engine and the tweaks used to change this (and the acclaimed limit of plugins you'd be able to use.)

 

I've used several tweaks myself, mostly via Mods or 3th program utilities, to see the changes in stability/speed/fps in New Vegas. The problem was that every time that I would check up on the usage of cores in my PC, F:NV would be using every core, nontheless.

 

Until I made a custom batch file by myself, which reads :

 

start /affinity 1 /high FNV4GBEnabler.exe

 

Which tells (I'm pretty sure you already know this...) Windows to only use one single core for the program and set the program as a high priority, to push all other applications currently running to the background. Checking on the program via Task Manager showed that only 1 single core was being used.

 

Now comes the problem.

 

I've set this. It still works. Yet, I do not have the chance to test an increased stability and/or increased stable plugin quota, due to having to lend my video card to a friend of mine.

 

So, it is possible that you guys (especially zippy57) are thinking : " Does this joker think that we haven't tried this yet ? " Since you are far ahead of me in terms of computer-knowledge, but I posted this because there might be a small chance nobody has experimented with it, yet. In that case ; please continue to look for possible solutions, since I'm a long-term Fallout Fan and am amazed at what crap-formed engine was delivered with the game.

 

The stuff I will be trying when I get my videocard back in a couple of days is :

 

Throw A Tale of Two Wastelands against FNV, as some users say it actually increases overall stability of FNV.

Gradually experiment with the amount of plugins activated in the game, to see where my limit lies.

And, call me crazy, see how far a bashed patch can go in terms of merging all sorts of stuff together.

 

Oh and.. Specs :

 

Intel Core i7 920 @ 3,6 Ghz (Stock 2,67 Ghz)

NVIDIA Geforce GTX 670 FTW Edition (2GB)

16.0 GB RAM

64-bit Windows 7 Ultimate Edition

 

Thank you and sorry for resurrecting a sleeping (dare I scream "dead"?) thread,

 

Voyde

[DeadSomething]

well, my fallout3 had the same "crash to desktop before mainmenu" and i havent come to tracking it down yet, but atm i got it back running....

 

i dont know if you're modding the game yourself, but if so, you might have exported the BSAs and if they're inside the data folder, they can slow down the game or even create crashes.

i have extracted them to one folder upwards and it works fine, but i still have a lot of meshes and textures from no longer used mods in the data folder...

 

 

somewhere on the net, there's a tool which patches any exe to accept 64 bit support and use of more than 4 GB RAM. (it was linked ina thread on LL.)

as i dont have even 4GB RAM, i didnt use it yet, but many people claimed that FO3 and Oblivion went faster after patching with this tool.

so if you have 32GB RAM (jealousy raising ) it is possible, that your game can actually only use 4GB.

[prideslayer]

somewhere on the net, there's a tool which patches any exe to accept 64 bit support and use of more than 4 GB RAM. (it was linked ina thread on LL.)

The first bit is possible, the second is not. FNV4GB does this dynamically, rather than modify the actual EXE. What it does is simply copy the executable, set the LAA (Large Address Aware) bit on the copy, and run it. The LAA bit on a 32bit EXE tells windows that the EXE is capable of addressing up to 4GB of memory, rather than 2GB.

 

Editbin (included with visual studio, even the free one) can edit any EXE to turn the LAA flag off or on.

 

There is nothing you can do to an existing executable to make it use more than 4GB. Any program claiming to do this is actually trying to infect you with some kind of malware, because it's simply impossible.

 

as i dont have even 4GB RAM, i didnt use it yet, but many people claimed that FO3 and Oblivion went faster after patching with this tool.

so if you have 32GB RAM (jealousy raising ) it is possible, that your game can actually only use 4GB.

I have 16G and I've been using FNV4GB for forever. I don't have enough active mods for it to actually matter though, and so I can't tell if it's actually doing anything or not. All I know for certain is the 4GB launcher does not exit after launching the game, so I have to go into task manager and kill it, or I end up with dozens of them running -- one for each time I've launched FONV.

[Guest endgameaddiction]

I use that FO3 Ram Boost for both games. However, that does alter the .exe flagging on LAA. You have to manually alter the .exe flagging on LAA to exceed more than 2GBs of ram. It's been reliable for me for a long time so I never did use that FNV4GB for New Vegas.

[DeadSomething]

then i might have remembered wrong, so it must have patched it to 64bit compatibility, so it can use 4GB RAM.

[prideslayer]

then i might have remembered wrong, so it must have patched it to 64bit compatibility, so it can use 4GB RAM.

A 32bit program has a maximum variable size that's 32 bits -- which can hold about 4 billion (2^32) values. These variables can be signed or unsigned. Only signed variables can hold negative values. Historically, signed values were used for everything, so your 32bit variable can hold values ranging from -2billion to +2billion. This is where the 2GB limit comes from. By contrast, an unsigned value can hold a number in the range of 0 to +4billion.

 

The number of values you can represent is unchanged, but the range changes, the maximum value being 2billion or 4billion (2GB or 4GB).

 

LAA basically tells windows that the program can make use of unsigned values.

 

All of this only applies to 32bit programs, and it doesn't matter if the OS or computer are 32bit or 64bit.

 

A different restriction comes from 32bit versions of windows (XP and server2003), which limits programs to only being able to address 2GB unless you change a boot.ini setting.

 

With a 64bit computer and OS, you can (obviously) physically have more than 4GB of memory. It also means that 32bit programs, with LAA set, will be able to address up to 4GB of that memory -- rather than 2GB or 3GB.

[RitualClarity]

Yea it is a bit off topic and I am sure some of you super-brains may think this is an elementary question.. 

 

If you changed the LAA to being able to make use of the unsigned variables (positive values) and the program needs, looks or produces a negative value ( part of the signed variables)  couldn't that cause a crash? Or is it capable of running both the signed variables and the unsigned variables (-2billion through +4billion) at the same time? Even if the total use of positive and negative values cannot exceed 4billion.

 

 I was basically wondering if following this some programs would crash and if so is it a common thing. So if I started to change the LAA (Large Address Aware) switch and started getting crashes on a program that otherwise works well I would know why...

 

Curious Aliens want to know..

[DeadSomething]

yes, that was almost exactly the explanation that was where i downloaded that patcher... i'm not very good at remembering those technical terms... sorry if i bothered you...

[prideslayer]

Yea it is a bit off topic and I am sure some of you super-brains may think this is an elementary question..

 

If you changed the LAA to being able to make use of the unsigned variables (positive values) and the program needs, looks or produces a negative value ( part of the signed variables) couldn't that cause a crash? Or is it capable of running both the signed variables and the unsigned variables (-2billion through +4billion) at the same time? Even if the total use of positive and negative values cannot exceed 4billion.

 

I was basically wondering if following this some programs would crash and if so is it a common thing. So if I started to change the LAA (Large Address Aware) switch and started getting crashes on a program that otherwise works well I would know why...

Yes, turning LAA on this way is, honestly, extremely ill advised. Some applications won't notice or care. To be blunt, if they don't care and it does enable them to access more memory -- that's a sign of a badly written program. To be clear, yes, I mean that if you take FONV and set the LAA bit in the exe, and it then happily uses more than 2GB, it means FONV is written badly.

 

The problem is that in the original code, it's doing something like "howMuchIHave = howMuchIHave + GetSomeMemory(howMuchMoreIWant);" Now, "howMuchIHave" is an unsigned integer. It has that -2bil..+2bil range. The LAA bit cannot and does not change this -- it just tells windows that it can return values > 2bil to the program safely.

 

So the fact that it works means that the original signed 32bit code is not checking the return values. It is getting, and using, a 32bit signed value the whole time -- even with LAA hacked into it. It just doesn't care that the value eventually gets negative, because it's not checking for it, which is a terrible way to write code.

 

 

yes, that was almost exactly the explanation that was where i downloaded that patcher... i'm not very good at remembering those technical terms... sorry if i bothered you...

Not a bother, I just don't want anyone to be confused about it -- and more importantly, I don't want anyone downloading programs that do actually say they can give a 32bit program access to more than 4GB. I've seen them out there in the past, and they are nothing more than rootkits/viruses, and the claim is actually impossible to fulfill.

[RickyYeh2013]

I have question....How to test pluging limit?

 

And at this time , set iNumHWThreads=1 better than iNumHWThreads=2?

 

Thanks for the answer!

[astymma]

The answer to both of your questions is the same. Test it yourself.

 

Keep adding mods until you have problems. If you then remove a mod and it fixes it, you know where your plugin limit is.

 

Try both iNumHWThreads settings and see which works best for you.

[RitualClarity]

I have question....How to test pluging limit?

 

And at this time , set iNumHWThreads=1 better than iNumHWThreads=2?

 

Thanks for the answer!

 

 

The answer to both of your questions is the same. Test it yourself.

 

Keep adding mods until you have problems. If you then remove a mod and it fixes it, you know where your plugin limit is.

 

Try both iNumHWThreads settings and see which works best for you.

astymma is correct.

 

Each machine and even selection of mods can effect the outcome of the actual plugin limit that you will experience. Only testing the various solutions (some mentioned here) and selection of mods will determine the plugin limit you have. Keep in mind that sometimes as you approach the plugin limit your game might seem to be stable or function correctly but some quest and scripts will start to fail. Minor failures but failures none the less. This might give you some hint that your approaching the limit.

 

Script heavy mods will effect the plugin limit more than some simple replacement mods and such. As a result your plugin limit might change in the future as you change your load order and mods installed as well. I have experienced unexplainable failures in mods that will work later when I lighten the load order and type of mods. I have had to change the limit many times.

[RickyYeh2013]

The answer to both of your questions is the same. Test it yourself.

 

Keep adding mods until you have problems. If you then remove a mod and it fixes it, you know where your plugin limit is.

 

Try both iNumHWThreads settings and see which works best for you.

 

 

astymma is correct.

 

Each machine and even selection of mods can effect the outcome of the actual plugin limit that you will experience. Only testing the various solutions (some mentioned here) and selection of mods will determine the plugin limit you have. Keep in mind that sometimes as you approach the plugin limit your game might seem to be stable or function correctly but some quest and scripts will start to fail. Minor failures but failures none the less. This might give you some hint that your approaching the limit.

 

Script heavy mods will effect the plugin limit more than some simple replacement mods and such. As a result your plugin limit might change in the future as you change your load order and mods installed as well. I have experienced unexplainable failures in mods that will work later when I lighten the load order and type of mods. I have had to change the limit many times.

 

 

Thanks both!

I will try .