Any advice of how to avoid the 2Gb limit?

[Frank Markussen]

Hi.

I try to create a interactive cartoon, but I get the 2Gb limit.

My test is a application of 1280x1024 with 3 Active objects (no other graphics is used). Each object is 640x480 pixels and is a 8 direction object. They contains of a Waiting animations of 21 frames and a walking animations of 30 frames. One walking animation is 119 frames.

I use Event editor to change direction of all animations using nummeric keys. All 3 animation is changed at the same. I also use W for walk and P for Wait.

When I run the application I use Event Monitor to check memory use. When I press a key, the application start to use memory and at approx 2Gb I start to loose frames in the animations. In example I start with sycle trough Waiting in all 8 direction, then I start the Walking animation. When I get to 3 or 4 direction; 1, 2 or all 3 active objects disaperes.

Are there anyone who can give me a solution of how to avoid this issue?

[kisguri]

There is no memory limit in Fusion itself, prehaps on the PC itself you are testing on you have run out of RAM on your gfx card?

[CT_Yves]

For info a 640x480 frame will be stored in the graphic card in a 1024x512 texture which will take 2 Mb of memory. Can you reduce the size of the frames to 512xsomething? If so you'll save half the memory.

PS: the build 284.1 has a better VRAM handling and could help too, but if you can follow the advice above that would be better.

[Frank Markussen]

Hi. Thanks for the reply. I had a hard disk crash and I lost a lot of projects. I started to check this project last week, but I soon got the 2Gb limit.

I tried to create a fast test and I still get the 2Gb memory limit.

I use Clickteam Fusion 2.5 (build R283.5)
Computer spec: Desktop with iCore7 950, 12 Gb RAM, Windows 7 64-bit, nVidia Geforce GTX 560 Ti (1 Gb). Work harddrive is a 2Tb, NTFS filesystem, 302 Gb free

I made a application, 520x390 pixel and all animations are same size. The application contain only 1 Active Object.

The Idle animation is 48 frames, Walk and Run animation is 30 frame and Jump animation is 35 frames, all in 8 direction. I have a ruleset for change direction of animation (numeric key 1,4,7,8,9,6,3,2) and key pressed (S,W,J,R) for change animation sequence.

I have compiled it to a .exe file.The .exe file is 35 152 kB. When it start it use (approx) 1 198 000 kB RAM. After I have cycle trough all 8 diections of Idle, Walk and Run; The memory use is (approx) 1 854 500 kB. When I start on Jump animation I reach limit, 1 858 480 kB and Jump animation is not visible. Memory use never excide 1 858 480 kB.

I have tried to import more animations in the same Active Object and I get issue saving the project. A temp file that Fusion2.5 is not able to save (I didn't write down that information).

Because I will use a lot of animations (I am working on a animation of 2000 frames at the moment) I need to know if Fusion is able to handle large animations and if there are a way to work around my problem.

If someone would like to try the files I have uploaded these at:

The .exe file is aviable at http://dfiles.eu/files/kbzpbupoe
The .mfa file is aviable at http://dfiles.eu/files/oitshallh

Note: The animation is made very fast and are preview (not renders), some holders are visible at several animations.

[Frank Markussen]

I got the answer for the 2Gb limit at another forum. A 32-bit software can not use more than 2Gb memory.

Quote:
"If the application is large address space aware (linked with /LARGEADDRESSAWARE), it gets 4 GB (see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx)

They're still limited to 2 GB since many application depends on the top bit of pointers to be zero."

[kisguri]

Very interesting. I will forward this to Yves. Any luck with optimizing.

[Frank Markussen]

Hi.

I think so. All animations are limitied to 454x396 pixels. At the moment I am looking what happen if I limit what animations are aviable in each Frame/Scene. At the moment my first Frame use 700 Mb (13 active objects), including 2 huge (4350x2570) pictures (background and front). All are limitited to 1 direction. 3 have 1 animation, 1 have 4 animation, 1 have 5 animations and the rest are 1 picture in different sizes floating around or appare/disappare.

Instead of trying to tell as mutch as possible in a single Frame, I try to split the story into smaller aera and create a new Frame.

This weekend I will test difference between use same active object or create new active object for each Frame. This because some animations will be triggered in different Frames/aera and the Active Object don't need to contain these until they are triggered. At the same time regular animations (wait, walk, run and more) are not needed.

I have one animation of 2000 pictures that I would like to get into the story, but it is not important and nobody will notice if it isn't aviable.

[BlazerLaser]

Originally posted by Noipe:

Originally posted by kisguri:

There is no memory limit in Fusion itself, prehaps on the PC itself you are testing on you have run out of RAM on your gfx card?

Your product actually does have a Memory Limit.

Clickteam Fusion 2.5 is a 32-bit application, and from what i've been told, 32-bit applications only have 2gbs of Memory (Correct me if i'm wrong)

didn't expect you here

[JAGIELSKI]

Originally posted by kisguri:

Very interesting. I will forward this to Yves. Any luck with optimizing.

Couldn't CF be compiled as a 64bit application, both player and editor? I mean sure it would mean extensions would need to be recompiled as well, but aside of that it shouldn't be too much of an issue and all the basic extensions used by most people are either supported or part of CF anyway.

[Ghoulsly]

Originally posted by Oracle1990:

I got the answer for the 2Gb limit at another forum. A 32-bit software can not use more than 2Gb memory.

Quote:
"If the application is large address space aware (linked with /LARGEADDRESSAWARE), it gets 4 GB (see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx)

They're still limited to 2 GB since many application depends on the top bit of pointers to be zero."

Not really, the program doesn't "get" any RAM, the program is able to access a slightly larger amount of RAM, 3.5 gb in most cases, when running on a 64-bit OS.

Also, can you tell me what display mode you are using for your application?

Originally posted by Darkhog:

Originally posted by kisguri:

Very interesting. I will forward this to Yves. Any luck with optimizing.

Couldn't CF be compiled as a 64bit application, both player and editor? I mean sure it would mean extensions would need to be recompiled as well, but aside of that it shouldn't be too much of an issue and all the basic extensions used by most people are either supported or part of CF anyway.

This has been discussed multiple times elsewhere, and I believe the simple answer is that it would require an entire rewrite.

[JAGIELSKI]

Rewrite? If it was written in x86 assembly then maybe. But it isn't. All it takes to change the architecture is to change build type in your compiler. It would be still a Windows app even, so no api changes necessary.

As I've said, the worst that would happen is that extensions needs to be recompiled as well as Windows has this stupid limitation of 32bit dlls not being accessible from 64bit exe.

[DannyUK2k14]

It's not possible without a full rewrite. If it was, it would've been done. I don't understand why all your posts are negative against Clickteam on this forum Darkhog.

Why on earth would we not make Fusion 2.5 64 bit if it was as simple as changing the build type?

Finally, there is a workaround available actually. It's not fool-proof nor guaranteed but it's worked for some. Link is in here: http://www.onlinecourses/blog/clickteam-fusion-2-5-memory-management/

[JAGIELSKI]

Few years ago Yves believed that 3D can't be done in Fusion without full rewrite. Then the Firefly happened (and before that few shaders that created 3d-like effects). So I don't even believe in Clickteam's ability to even judge whether full rewrite is needed or not.

I bet, had I have access to sources of CF 2.5, I could make it 64bit in a week.

[DannyUK2k14]

Your understanding of the product proves to be minimal with that statement. Firefly is a set of extensions (an addon), not the base product. It took years for Firefly to be developed and it runs off the IRR engine, not the base product. It only uses F2.5 for connectivity with Events, that is literally it.

"I bet, had I have access to sources of CF 2.5, I could make it 64bit in a week."

It would be in Clickteam's interest to make the base product 64-bit and if it was a "one week job", as you describe, it would have been done. Maybe it's best you stick to getting something of your own developed as opposed to throwing unwarranted statements around on old threads.

[CT_Yves]

>> Rewrite? If it was written in x86 assembly then maybe. But it isn't. All it takes to change the architecture is to change build type in your compiler. It would be still a Windows app even, so no api changes necessary.

You are wrong. First, a part of Fusion 2.5 is in assembly (collision detection routines and some non HWA graphic routines). Secondly obviously the size of some data types change in a 64-bit program, lot of work and tests would be required to fix this. Not even counting the extensions, SDKs, etc. So a rewrite is not required BUT it's certainly not a simple change to do.

>> Few years ago Yves believed that 3D can't be done in Fusion without full rewrite. Then the Firefly happened (and before that few shaders that created 3d-like effects). So I don't even believe in Clickteam's ability to even judge whether full rewrite is needed or not.

Please don't judge our ability to judge whether full rewrite is needed or not, and avoid quoting me incorrectly if possible. ;) Making Fusion a real 3D product with 3D editors, 3D movements, 3D collision detection obivously requires a full rewrite and I'm sure you know that's what I meant. 3D objects (3D Mesh etc) exist for Fusion for 10+ years, this is not at all the same story and this is what Firefly is (well, actually Firefly is a whole 3D system ABOVE Fusion 2.5, so it's much more advanced than 3D Mesh, but you see the point).

Thanks.

[JAGIELSKI]

I see. Thank you for such insightful post. I hope you realize I wouldn't be critical of CF if I wouldn't care about its success. Because really, I want this product to become a thing used by indie developers that want to make a nice 2d game, because frankly Game Maker sucks and it's a shame that many newbie indiedevs are suckered into using it when there are much better products like this one.