Hello, I had read a post where someone mentioned a 64 bit patch was in the works by someone in the community. I was wondering if any patches like it exist or even just some engine optimizations?

There was a player who attempted this a while back, full of enthusiasm for the project and he was picking the brains of the mod developers both here and at NRaas for a while. I understand he had a false start with the 64-bit scaffolding method, restarted things another way and reported some initial successes, then dropped out of sight around a year and a half ago.

@igazor That's a shame. Are there other engine/gameplay optimizers out there?

Isn't it possible to use some program like the famous 4gb patcher for this purpose? Or are you talking of actually changing TS3 into a 64-bit application?

I'm sorry but unfortunatelly there's no "simple patch solution". There're several methods for workaround (without technical blah blah and other not revelant details there) but all of them are not trivial and also questionable in efficiency and effectivness. It's a goose, it won't be an eagle. Sorry.

There is no need for an LLA patch, because the later versions of TS3 already are large address aware. This thread is indeed about a true 64 bit wrapper that would allow the game to use more than 4GB of RAM.

If we play our cards right, @Nitromon will show up and tell us about parking cores and using a RAM Disk if you have the RAM to spare to help things along (or have a search for the relevant forum threads in the meantime). Many players find these techniques very helpful. But yeah, at the end of the day TS3 is still a 32-bit goose. All we can do is give it the best environment possible in which to run, just keep nursing things along, and not allow our desires to expand our ongoing games with heavier loads of content and sims than things can reasonably be expected to handle to get away from us.

And, in the spirit of nursing things along...
http://nraas.wikispaces.com/Tips+Fo...ame+Performance

Even if TS3 were made (or perhaps if EA themselves would remake TS3) in 64 bit platform so then TS3 will be able to utilize more than 4 GB RAM, it will still lagging at some point in the game progress if TS3 still using the same concept of open world simulation..


I agree with Igazor and ElainNualla, especially because of the efficiency and effectiveness in 64 bit platform for TS3 in particular, actually in terms of lagging.. it will not improve TS3 gameplay performance significantly, the benefit in 64 bit will only let TS3 utilize more than 3 or 4 GB RAM, and indeed with more RAMs it will improve the TS3 loading time.. but it won't eliminate the lags, the lags that happening in the game progress were not because of TS3 was designed in 32 bit platform, but because the concept of the open world simulation game, and the residents in the sims worlds were behaving not only randomly but independently as well just like in the real world, so increasing the RAM usage alone will not help..


In my opinion.. comparing TS3 to other simulation game like real time strategy simulation games, for example Company of Heroes 1 & 2 series, CoH also have a lot of characters in the game, but they were not behaving independently like the sim in TS3, they're both acts and behave randomly but the parameters that determine the gameplay for the characters are different, the characters in CoH doesn't behave independently like TS3, therefore there's no lag in CoH like in TS3, and this why I think why EA changed the concept of open world in TS4, they removed the open world, removed the cars.. etc, so the characters will still behave independently but without sacrificing the gameplay performance.., even the CoH game itself though it support 64 bit OS platform and can utilize more than 4 GB of RAM, the main program of the CoH series were also built in 32 bit platform.., I think the reason why CoH can utilize more than 4 GB ram was because of the demanding graphics and large data that needs to be run at the same time while the game in progress.., but TS3 wasn't designed like that but it's designed to run sim characters as much and as many as possible in the open world simulation..


Even if TS3 were designed in 64 bit platform and can utilize more than 4GB RAM, we'd still have loading time problem because of the corrupts, conflicts and duplicates generated by the game patch, because the game patch doesn't remove the contents inside the Fullbuild.package files that were being updated with the patch, so increasing the RAM would improve TS3 loading time in general but there's still some delay because of that.. so it took more time for the TS3 to load and process all its game data because of conflicts and/or duplicates and the corrupts ones, the corrupts one are the TXTCs in Deltabuild.package files from the patch. Lagging problem and loading time problem in TS3 are two separate problems but related and affecting one to another..


So I think.. hardware-wise.. to improve TS3 gameplay can not be solely by increasing the RAM, but more power resources to run the sim characters independently, displaying the sim world, the buildings, the roads, rerouting the sims.. etc.., the more cores of the processor the better the game will perform, but even then at some point it will still lag when it reach the hardware limits, but then there's a question.. so how much is the limit?? Well since TS3 is open world simulation then the sky is the limit because the sim world populates just like the real world.., but we don't have the processor technology with unlimited cores to run all the characters in the game perfectly


So in my opinion.. 32 bit vs 64 bit platform when the game was being built were not the ones to blame, because the TS3 open world concept alone has already indicate the game will lag at some point, and then there are some routing problems, bad buildings, bad road designs and etc in EA's worlds, but I don't blame EA for that, because if they made it different to fit perfectly for TS3.., it won't be realistic with open world simulation concept.., just look at TS4..

Because we missed you and wanted to see your shining face on this thread. Is that some sort of crime now?

you know, now I started to doubt if it is still a PG13 friendly topic

Ack! I've been too distracted lately to respond to this, so prepare for a wall.

@babahara I'm unfamiliar with this tool, could you elaborate? And it's a little of both really. The purpose of asking about this was even on a fresh save on a gaming computer I am experiencing some hanging and it was frustrating, and I felt this could be a limit of the coding in TS3, and was looking for away to give it more power.

@ElaineNualla Fair enough, and a clever analogy.

@Igazor I have a lot of untapped RAM left for the taking when playing TS3.

@PapaEmy Well that shoots my theory dead in the water. So, essentially, is the game choking up on scripts for all of the other sims then?

When you mention duplicates, what exactly is being duplicated? Like the zombie sim clones? I do have issues with loading time but it is self inflicted so i cannot complain about it :P. Also, thank you for such an in depth post, it must have taken awhile to write and I really appreciate it.

And thank you everyone for your responses!

http://www.ntcore.com/4gb_patch.php
The author specified what it does in the description, but as people above said, this patch isn't required for TS3, as latest expansions already do what it's meant to do. However, it's a handy tool to have for many games.

There are also tools that limit FPS if your game is too laggy. I used an FPS limiter 5 years ago with my old PC to run TS3. It was impossible to play it otherwise, the sims couldn't even walk without stuttering, but once I limited frames to 10 I could play
Maybe it could help you, as well? I don't know the default TS3 FPS, but it's probably the same as your monitor's refreshment rates, so it could be very high, like 120. Try to put it lower, anything beyond 30 is already undetectable by the human eye. A lot of games ported from consoles are capped at 30, for example.
This is the FPS Limiter I used for TS3 (two first posts have downloads):
http://www.moreawesomethanyou.com/s...ic,15585.0.html

Which tool to try using first to cap frame rates is generally going to depend on the graphics card the player has. The limit should always be at or under the refresh rate of their monitor, which is usually 60 Hz but could be higher on special model monitors. TS3 has no built-in fps limiter, which is why this is necessary for the newer, more powerful cards.

TS3 has been Large Address Aware (LAA) on Windows since Patch 1.17, so this isn't really a new development but there are still posts on message boards all over the place touting the benefits of forcing it to use more RAM. They are not necessary since that patch, the game will reach for ~3.7 GB if it's needed although many of us find the danger zone for Error 12s is somewhere just above 3.5 GB. Sometimes very brief spikes above that are impossible to detect just by staring at a Task Manager or the equivalent when they happen and it only takes one before the game can lose its mind. Players on the Mac version of the game are still limited to 2 GB of RAM usage with unfortunately no way to improve upon that.

I see that even with the silly exchange between a couple of us, we have all still failed to provide the links I mentioned earlier. In case you haven't already found them...
RAM Disk: http://modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=548125
Core Parking Control: http://modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=571180

I think I have to separate this one to another so it won't confused anyone..


About the lags

No.. not dead theory or chocking up on scripts either, but it's about how effectively the 64 bit would make a different compares to 32 bit with the nature of TS3 open world simulation, that's why I brought the CoH as comparison to the TS3 open world simulation, both are in the same genre, but the variation of characters in CoH don't behave independently as the sims in TS3, while in TS3.. all characters behave independently, in CoH all variation of characters can be categorize as A vs B because the goal of the game, but in TS3 all characters can be categorize independently as A vs B vs C vs D vs E and so on with no end.. and this is what I meant TS3 characters behave independently, because it don't have a goal or quest, and TS3 has no end how the game would end, it just play as its grows and populated until the user gets bored and start a new game.., this is where I think it won't be effective or make a different because all of those independent sims 3 variation characters were run and process through the cpu processor, so if the processor have to run all of those unlimited independent characters indefinitely, how does it won't reach the maximum processor workload limit? When at some points the limit is reached, then there will be millisecond or nanosecond delays going in the next process, which would create (all those little delays combined) the game is starting to lags..

Now even in CoH the game can utilize RAM more than 4 GB that needs 64 bit OS to run even the CoH itself it's a 32 bit game platform, but even in 64 bit OS platform the population of CoH world is still capped to certain max number population, while in TS3 there's no such population cap and there's no end game, therefore I think even if TS3 can utilize more than 4 GB ram.. it won't eliminate the lags.. because the nature of TS3 is simulating the real world while CoH only simulating some of the WWII wars and it has end to the game when the mission is accomplished.

So I think the one that preventing about the 64 bit patch that were abandoned was not because it's technically impossible to make TS3 in 64 bit platform, but how that would logically help the game to improve or particularly eliminating the lags because of the concept of TS3 open world simulation, because there's no cap population.. there's no end game.. it just keep growing and more populated.. which in the end could bottlenecking the cpu processor workload.. and as a result the game starts to lag..


About TS3 slow loading time

As for duplicates (conflicts and corrupts ones), this is actually a different subject from lags but related, I was talking about the TS3 loading time in general, not particularly about what causing the lags in the game (though it also contributing lags), these are from the Fullbuild.package TS3 installation files vs the Deltabuild.package game patch files, loading time (slow loading time) problem are separated from lags though both are related and affecting one to another.

I've personally tested this so many times since early 2015 how to improve the game in general with test run to know how the game would load and how it's affecting the lags, actually I want to share this long time ago.. but I don't know and I wasn't sure if this would break the terms and condition (or not) with EA or MTS here because it's indeed breaking the TS3 installation files.., and because I'm also worried.. that if this could lead into pirating the game with the custom installation if I upload and share my custom Fullbuilds.package files here on MTS. But I think it would be ok just to share the concept.. just like the modders made their mods for the community..

Now if you want to try it yourself, here's how I did the test to improve the TS3 loading time, if you have the TS3 BG installation disc and you have the Superpatch 1.67 patch (note: for TS3 1.67 only), you can try and see the different, first.. install TS3 BG, when it's done.. copy and backup all the Fullbuild0 Fullbuild1 Fullbuild2 package files from TS3 BG installation folder, run the game and start a new game, make a note how long it will take time to get the game fully running, and then just exit the game once you got the time..

Next.. then don't add any EPs or SPs, don't add any CCs and/or mods, but patch it with Superpatch 1.67, and then run the game like the 1st run and write down the time and compare it with TS3 with no patch time. You'll see that after it's patched, the game take more time to load.

Now go to back to the Package directory and you'll see there Deltabuild0 Deltabuild1 Deltabuild2 from 1.67 patch integrated to TS3 installation files, copy and backup these 3 files to the Fullbuilds you have backed up earlier, place them in one same folder, run Sims3Dashboard to that backup folder, and you'll see the Deltabuild0.package is corrupted, and you'll see the Deltabuild0 vs the Fullbuild0 conflicting as a result of duplicates in both files. The rest of the package files are fine with no problem but just these 2. And no you cannot fix it with Sims3Dashboard.

Now open Deltabuild0.package with S3PE and look for the TXTC files that are empty files (in size), remove those empty TXTCs and save it. You'll see the Deltabuild0 has no longer corrupted in Sims3Dashboard but still conflicting.

Now to remove the conflicting ones between the two, use the method how to remove mod file from the mod that has already merged. Open the Deltabuild0 in S3PE, and then open the Fullbuild0 in S3PE in separate window, so you'll have two S3PEs windows opens with both opened in S3PE, the Deltabuild0 is the newer and more updated one from the Fullbuild0.

Next is select all files from Deltabuild0, copy them to the clipboard, and paste them into the Fullbuild0, select replace duplicates, but this "once and for all" step will take hours to be done (even if you put them in RAMDisk to process this step). I suggest to select one section per section eg just select all TXTCs copy and paste them to replace the TXTCs in the Fullbuild0, this will save you time to get done, the big ones are the IMAGs ones. And when each section done, delete the unsaved ones (0x0000000 or 0xFFFFFFFFF, I forget which one, but you'll see something like that in S3PE after you replace them) before saving. This will remove all the duplicates in Fullbuild0, and therefore removed the conflicting ones between Deltabuild0 vs Fullbuild0.

Now make another back up of the original unedited Deltabuild0 and Fullbuild0 from TS3 BG installation folder to another separated folder from the 1st backup. And then copy the ones you just edited with S3PE to TS3 BG installation folder. Then run the game, and write down the time it took to get the game from zero to full running, and you'll see your TS3 BG 1.67 will load close to the time with the original TS3 BG with no patch.

With this, you'll make TS3 load faster because it don't have any corrupts conflicts and duplicates anymore, and it helps reducing some parts of the lags that caused by the delays because of corrupts, conflicts and duplicates, but it won't reduce the lags that caused because the game being populated, so if you do this step to the EPs and SPs as well, your game will load faster and reduced lags that came from corrupts, conflicts and duplicates. So in my understanding of TS3, there are two different factors that makes the game lags, first because of these corrupts, conflicts and duplicates, and the other part because the concept of open world with no population cap no end game.. indefinitely..


So with all those comparisons.., it's not that I disagree that 64 bit TS3 with 16 or 32 or 64 gb rams would eliminate the lags, but how? Because the way or the nature of TS3 open world simulation.. in the end.. is causing the cpu processor to bottleneck no mater how fast and powerful the processor is.. and that's why I think EA ditch the TS3 concept when moving to TS4..

Great post PapaEmy. I have been thinking about cleaning up EA's packages in this way since forever. Nice to hear that it actually works. Sadly, distributing the result would indeed be illegal. The most the community could do in this regard would be a tool to reduce the work involved into just a few clicks and a simple GUI.

Yes that what I thought so too, but what also concerns me.. will sharing the idea how to do it may breach the legal terms and condition? I was told that it should be ok if I just use it for my own personal use..

Indeed it's working precisely as intended, just like when merging mods package files, or removing the unwanted mods file from the one that already merged earlier. That was just a simple experimental example with TS3 BG and Superpatch 1.67 so anyone here can have the same perception with me in what I'm trying to pin point what is exactly the patch do to the game, where's the lags coming from and why the game load relatively slower when all EPs, SPs installed, patched them to 1.67 and then CCs + Mods added..

In the above example, the loading time of TS3 patched to 1.67 and with modified custom Deltabuild0 and Fullbuild0 can only came close to the original TS3 BG (with no patch) time, it's never/unable to matched or even quicker than the loading time of the original one, that's because the Superpatch 1.67 is actually adding some new stuff or some updates ones so the total of both Deltabuild0 and Fullbuild0 combined is larger for the game to load and therefore took longer time to load, but with cleaning up of the conflicts and etc, it came close to the original TS3 BG (with no patch) time, so the problem generated by patching the game is, the patch didn't actually removed the ones in Fullbuild0 that were being updated with Deltabuild0 integrating to the game, this caused both files to conflicts.

But if the cleaning up steps are to be implemented with all of EPs SPs installed, there are 3-4 different steps to do and it's a bit more complicated and more confusing in filtering which ones to keep and which ones needs to go, because EA made 3 different installation format, the 1st part is TS3 BG + WA, then the 2nd part is HE+AM+FL+LN+OL, which the 2nd part is the one is more likely confusing to filter because of how they're installed, and then the 3rd part is from GN onward to IF, and then the last one would be patching all of them to 1.67.

I also been thinking (since forever) in making the thread to share this as an experimental tips to improve the game if maybe anyone here is interested to try but I always worried about the outcome.. will this be ok or not, because of the EA terms and condition as well as MTS policy here, because it's not like modding when we add mod to the game.. we're adding something to the game, we didn't break the game, but this is actually breaking the game into pieces and altered how it loads, so I don't know if that would be considered as modding or hacking the game, because there's another benefits that I also found when I did my experiment, like moving/adding the CC and mods file to the Fullbuild installation files, all CCs and mods loads faster in CASt and in CAS mode..

Well I understand that for some other.. maybe loading time is not a problem, but when EPs SPs CC and mods were installed, it does hurt the loading time in general in every mode part of the game, and this is not even about how to handle the lags yet, because that will be another step to improve the game and how to utilize the customization EA's files and TS3 documents folder with RAMDisk if we have more than 4GB RAM (like 16GB or more) and 64 bit OS, but for personal use, I put my experimental package files to my daughter's PC, well I also put them in my PC and laptop but the one that more frequently playing the game is my daughter because I have other things to do, I can only run them in my spare time, so far I didn't see her complaining in gameplay performance, or does it lags, freeze or even crashing..

Anyway.. if this would be considered ok/acceptable especially by MTS admins.. (I hope in EA's perspective too, because I don't want to mess with breaching legal stuff), I definitely want to share my own personal experience in customizing the EA's files and other related stuff too, and with Nitromon's RAMDisk thread, and put every important pieces to RAMDisk, the result is definitely worth it tough it took a lot of time to work and sort them out, and I'd like to see what everybody else is experiencing with customizing, maybe we can even have a better solution to make the game even more improved, because together is always better than doing it alone, some better idea might come up, and it may break the barrier that holding the game to perform well, and I personally think that if sharing this idea is allowed, it may encourage the advance users here like the modders with advance programming skills to invent mod that would enabled TS3 being play online by LAN, because I also think that maybe the lagging problem that caused by the nature of TS3 open world simulation that eventually causing the cpu to bottleneck can be altered if we have two or more players playing in the same world and each player just play one household..

But all in all.. all of the above I wrote.. it's just a thought.., an opinion of mine, I might be wrong.. but so far I didn't have negative impact since doing my experimental with EA's files, it just because of the 64 bit subject which I saw it in different perspective because the nature of TS3 open world simulation, so definitely yes it will improve a lot if TS3 can be convert to 64 bit platform and use more ram than 4 GB, but the way I see it, and the most common problem we're having is lag/freeze so the game became unplayable, and in my understanding.. I see the root of the cause lies with the open world simulation concept which eventually bottlenecking the cpu procssor.. not because lack of rams TS3 can utilize..


PS: @minutegold, if you want to try it, even just for TS3 and Supertach 1.67, don't do it in laptop unless your laptop has good cooling system, because in the process, the cpu works in full load mode and the temperature went up, even if you test it in PC, it's better to open the case for better cooling overall, and use RAMDisk where you put both of Deltabuild0 and Fullbuild0 and open them in separate S3PE windows, this will save time and won't hams your SSD/HDD because the constant workload and cpu processor in full throttle mode.., and extra patience needed, cause even with RAMDisk it still take hours to complete..

60HZ monitors used to be a thing of the nineties. If yours really runs at 60HZ (which I honestly doubt!), then please raise the frequency immediately, as 60HZ is notably bad for you eyesight. 75HZ is a minumum you want to be safe. I can visually see a difference between 60HZ and 75HZ, at 60HZ the monitor is rapidly flickering all the time! You cannot see it unless you have something to compare it to, though, in old times when I used a 60HZ monitor I thought it was fine.

I'm sorry, but this is not correct. The vast majority of monitors sold today, and especially those not intended for intense gamers and video editors, run native refresh rates of 60 Hz. The discomfort and flickering warnings you are remembering from the 1990s would pertain to very large CRT monitors, not the LCD ones we would commonly see in usage now.

I have a dirt cheap LCD monitor, and it easily runs at 75HZ. It was the cheapest in the shop, others were better and could use values like 120HZ, but I was broke when I was shopping. I doubt a single monitor exists that runs at 60HZ today. Or are you saying we have much better monitors sold in Russia than in the rest of the world? That would be amusing

No, but now I think we must be talking about two different things. I am about to purchase 12 widescreen monitors for my office, they will be around $260 each (US Dollars), and they are all 60 Hz. I would have to work pretty hard to find models with higher refresh rates and for routine office use there wouldn't be any point. None of my users have more than integrated graphics, they don't care how pretty their Word documents and spreadsheets might look in higher definition. Laptops' monitors are always 60 Hz, at least as far as I know. So are the ones built into iMacs, including the one I am typing to you on right now as well as the very expensive upper end Retina display models currently for sale by Apple.

These are insane prices for wide-screen monitors, unless they're huge in size? And they are still 60Hz?! I don't really understand. My current 75Hz monitor isn't even wide-screen, it's older, I bought it years ago when wide-screen monitors were just appearing on sale and I thought they looked too weird to buy one. It costed around 57 in dollars, but then again, prices have risen since that time, and now this monitor would cost about twice more (if it was new).

What do you think I'm talking about, if it's something else and different?

Are you from the US? I think that maybe our people just don't bother to sell monitors with lower characteristics: everybody would start buying them, and the profit would be too small. I didn't expect such price differences, however. Maybe it's like regional pricing in Steam: they sell a few times cheaper in Russia than in their own home country, because otherwise nobody here can buy. All of these are just wild guesses...

Mostly, Bahabara, because with exception of some particular uses any higher than 60Hz rr does not gives any significant difference (especially with LCD monitors) which gladly Igazor illustrated. Most refreshing-rate opinions has rise in the CRT low resolutions era, they're not relevant for LCD. The true and real (and also from Hell) danger for LCD users is not any too low rr but mirroring screen layer which may in certain lightning circumstances confuse eyes resulting - in the long term - necessity of eyeglasses. But you definitelly start to throw up first if you're very sensible unfortunate one

I'm sorry to take this thread so far off-topic but I have to say I'm still curious where this disconnect is coming from. I've never heard of any of this before regarding flat screen LCD monitors. I've been managing this (admittedly small, less than 50 users) network for over twenty years now and in all that time I've only ever had one user claim sensitivity to refresh rates and lighting conditions for medical reasons. As soon as she made me aware of this, we immediately got her a more suitable monitor for her situation but that was back in the CRT days, at least fifteen years ago now, and that monitor has long since been sent out for recycling.

It's not entirely off-topic though, as the overwhelming vast majority of TS3 players are on 60 Hz flatscreen LCD monitors and, with the newer more powerful graphics cards out, need to know what fps rate to cap things at. And again, there are some exceptions but usually it's going to be 60 fps.

Higher refresh rates on today's monitors are not a requirement for high quality experiences and the price I mentioned for 24" (although we are considering some 27" as well) widescreens is actually quite low for those products. We are a charitable nonprofit, it is not part of our routine to waste money on unnecessary expenses but the users getting these have been struggling with 17-19" not widescreen monitors for far too many years now. Besides the fact that some of them are finally beginning to fail from old age (the monitors, not the users themselves), the smaller standard size screens are hurting these users' productivity.

Yes, I am in the US. Do you have access to the Apple Store online and can you see the displays that Apple is now selling? They discontinued their own brand a short while ago, but in this country they are now featuring an "LG Ultra Fine 5K Display" for $975 (US Dollars) to be available beginning next month. I wouldn't really know what to do with such a monster of a monitor if you gave me one, it's really meant for high definition photo and video editing which neither I nor my users ever do, but I can see that its refresh rate will also be 60 Hz.