Would it be a good/useful idea to make WC3 use more RAM to reduce crashes? (Also introduction)

[Iliya]

Hello All

My name is Iliya and I'm new here. Not sure if this post is meant to be in this section.

My question is Should I attempt to some Allow Warcraft to use more RAM. I'm not sure if it is even entirely possible but I heard it might be possible by editing .exe Headers to allow for use of higher memory. Also apparently I can set Priority higher than Normal to Real Time to Windows gives me a warning about System instability before doing that.

Reason I ask this is because I personally enjoy play really large maps Like Lordaeron the Aftermath however I found those maps crash quite often. Not mass crash but rather Crashing each player differently. It's not a desync so I don't think GetLocalPlayer() has anything to do with.

I have 16G ram and WC3 usually only uses like around 1G. My question is will increased allocated RAM and high priority gonna help me not crash cause of leaks or will it not matter much?

thanks

 

[pyf]

I would say no and no.
If there are memory leaks, then they should be fixed as much as possible.
Is Lordaeron the Aftermath stable / bug-free? Are you playing a hacked version of the game?


According to @YourArthas, the many third-party 4GB patches he has tried work on the editor, but ingame none of them worked. A list of these patches could be useful maybe?

Setting a higher priority should be useless imho. Plus, setting any process to real-time is not recommended at all. If you want something to safely fiddle with your process priorities, then please have a look at the Bitsum web site.


If you want to put your RAM to good use, then maybe you will be interested in this experimental tool by @Dr Super Good?
Experimental WC3 loading performance booster

It will not prevent your crashes, though.

 

[Dr Super Good]

My question is Should I attempt to some Allow Warcraft to use more RAM.

No. Especially judging by your computer science knowledge level it will likely be an impossible task for you, or required years of research.

I'm not sure if it is even entirely possible but I heard it might be possible by editing .exe Headers to allow for use of higher memory.

Such hackery might work to potentially allow at most 4GB virtual memory size, but the results might be considerably less. Currently Warcraft III has a maximum of 2GB virtual memory space to play with, with the other 2GB being reserved for OS usage from which some of that could be redeemed via some hackery.

Also apparently I can set Priority higher than Normal to Real Time to Windows gives me a warning about System instability before doing that.

Under no circumstances should you do this. Real time scheduling is intended for use by real time applications as it can fulfil real time requirements unlike normal scheduling. To do this there might be substantial performance penalties in order to increase reliability. Although Warcraft III shares much in common with a real time application when performing well, it is not built as a real time application. Making Warcraft III run in real time mode might decrease performance or make it unstable and certainly is not supported.

Reason I ask this is because I personally enjoy play really large maps Like Lordaeron the Aftermath however I found those maps crash quite often. Not mass crash but rather Crashing each player differently. It's not a desync so I don't think GetLocalPlayer() has anything to do with.

If the crash is related to memory then the crash error message will be an out of memory error. Seeing how Warcraft III usually crashes in such ways well below 2GB, it usually is due to other reasons, eg malformed custom models or finite resource depletion, rather than a lack of virtual memory address space.

I have 16G ram and WC3 usually only uses like around 1G. My question is will increased allocated RAM and high priority gonna help me not crash cause of leaks or will it not matter much?

Warcraft III cannot use more than 2GB of memory currently. Hackery might raise that to up to 4GB. It is impossible to raise it above 4GB as that requires rebuilding for x86-64 and using 64bit pointers as opposed to the current 32bit ones.

From my experience Warcraft III will usually crash in unpredictable ways long before reaching 2GB of memory. Leaks will cause Warcraft III to crash due to other internal finite resource depletion rather than running out of virtual memory address space.

If virtual memory address space is a problem, then the map maker should improve his map development skills and make a map that leaks less. Even a 480x480 map should still be around 1GB after several hours of play and using practically every asset in Warcraft III.

If you want to put your RAM to good use, then maybe you will be interested in this experimental tool by @Dr Super Good?

It is worth noting that was made for a very old version of Warcraft III. It might not work on current versions of Warcraft III. If you want to recreate it, all it does is force the main data MPQ files and DLL files into the OS file cache. This speeds up initial loading times for Warcraft III on mechanical drives by forcing the data files be bulk read sequentially which takes advantage of mechanical drives having good sequential read speed but poor random access read speed. SSDs will get practically no boost (if file cache is even still used for them).

 

[pyf]

It is worth noting that was made for a very old version of Warcraft III. It might not work on current versions of Warcraft III. [...]

WC3BOOST
Requires: Windows XP or better running Java 7

Now, who would have guessed?


Hope it will be updated / enhanced someday. A full-fledged preloader for Blizzard games could be nice imho.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Hope it will be updated / enhanced someday. A full-fledged preloader for Blizzard games could be nice imho.

Unless your computer has something like 24GB or more of memory you can forget preloading any modern Blizzard games, and even then the preload process might take a few minutes due to the volume of data involved, which is kind of counter productive.

 

[pyf]

Only a subset of the Warcraft 3 files may have to be read / cached, for the boost to be effective. The same certainly applies for other Blizzard games as well.

Quoting:
"[...] Also not all data needs to be loaded. The same performance boost you experience using this tool could probably be achieved by loading only 33% of the data if you filter out all the data that is never used (such as the low quality models, obsolete files that were replaced by patches and things like that). This was done as a proof of concept to show that one can get performance better than a SSD with a mechanical hard drive by using the insane quantities of memory modern systems have."

Source:
Experimental WC3 loading performance booster


Also, the preloader could be made configurable.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Only a subset of the Warcraft 3 files may have to be read / cached, for the boost to be effective. The same certainly applies for other Blizzard games as well.

Yes however then you spend around 2-3 minutes waiting for it to all preload, defeating the point of it. What made it so effective with Warcraft III was that it could serially read the MPQ data files into file cache very efficiently, as opposed to letting Warcraft III load only the pages of those files it needs in a random access fashion.

One can expect 100-200 MB/sec or more from modern mechanical drives when reading files in series. This means all Warcraft III data can be loaded into memory in less than 10 seconds. On the other hand such drives might only make 5-10MB/sec when randomly accessing file pages. This means one looks at well over a minute to load most assets from the MPQ files at a logical level, and hence why Warcraft III has slowish initial load times.

 

[pyf]

Yes however then you spend around 2-3 minutes waiting for it to all preload, defeating the point of it. [...]

One can expect 100-200 MB/sec or more from modern mechanical drives when reading files in series. This means all Warcraft III data can be loaded into memory in less than 10 seconds. On the other hand such drives might only make 5-10MB/sec when randomly accessing file pages. This means one looks at well over a minute to load most assets from the MPQ files at a logical level, and hence why Warcraft III has slowish initial load times.

This is imho absolutely not an issue irl.

A preloader ideally runs of OS startup at user level, and starts doing its job preferably after a small delay for other startup programs to complete their (more time-critical) tasks. Now, because human beings are not robots, they will most probably do other things before playing games, like for example watching lolcat videos. Which leaves *plenty* of time for the preloader to cache all the critical files which will later allow a program to load faster when it is launched for the first time. In fact, regarding Blizzard games, this preloader could eventually be a part of the Blizzard app itself (preferably as a small standalone executable).


The main idea and goal would be to create a preloader like the Adobe (ex-Acrobat) Reader Speed Launcher ('reader_sl.exe' or 'acrobat_sl.exe'), but with some of the features and versatility of a dedicated caching program found in software like CD-Quick Cache for Windows 9x/ME.

As an example, it was possible for CD-Quick Cache for Windows 9x/ME to select its caching behavior for some multimedia files, based on their extension (AVI/MOV/MPG) and their file size, in order to preserve the other kind of data already cached. Naturally, the cache size was also configurable.

Note: I am pointing out that this program is not designed for NT-based OSes, which use a different strategy for caching data. Too bad.

Unless your computer has something like 24GB or more of memory you can forget preloading any modern Blizzard games [...]

Isn't memory supposed to be cheap nowadays?

 

[Dr Super Good]

A preloader ideally runs of OS startup at user level, and starts doing its job preferably after a small delay for other startup programs to complete their (more time-critical) tasks.

Except computers are not psychic so do not know what game the user wants to run after startup…

Which leaves *plenty* of time for the preloader to cache all the critical files which will later allow a program to load faster when it is launched for the first time.

Except the OS file cache might be needed for other purposes, forcing out the preloaded pages.

In fact, regarding Blizzard games, this preloader could eventually be a part of the Blizzard app itself (preferably as a small standalone executable).

Except it can only preload 1 game at a time because of the volume of data needed... Heroes of the Storm and StarCraft II are well over 10GB, and that is not including Diablo III, Hearth Stones, Overwatch and World of Warcraft.

It only works so well for Warcraft III because Warcraft III is so small, occupying a tiny footprint of memory to load all game data files. It also works for Diablo II, but loading in Diablo II was less of a problem.

The main idea and goal would be to create a preloader like the Adobe (ex-Acrobat) Reader Speed Launcher ('reader_sl.exe' or 'acrobat_sl.exe'), but with some of the features and versatility of a dedicated caching program found in software like CD-Quick Cache for Windows 9x/ME.

Modern Windows OSes do this already... If you look at your file cache you will find Warcraft III executable in there even if you have not run it since startup. The entire file cache itself serves to improve IO performance by preventing duplicate reads of the same file pages in quick succession.

As an example, it was possible for CD-Quick Cache for Windows 9x/ME to select its caching behavior for some multimedia files, based on their extension (AVI/MOV/MPG) and their file size, in order to preserve the other kind of data already cached. Naturally, the cache size was also configurable.

The OS file cache, used by my tool, is based on last access time. It also uses all available free memory. This is why more memory can improve performance and why games that still use 4GB or so of memory benefit from raising the computer from 8GB to 16GB.

This does not preload stuff, but rather caches it as the name implies. This turns hard page faults when reading from files into soft page faults if the page was recently read. For mechanical drives this is a massive speed boost because soft page faults read at >1GB/sec where as random access is only 15MB/sec or less. The file cache is often turned off or turned down for SSDs because its benefits are less meaningful. SSDs have random access speeds in the 200-300 MB/sec range already so the speed difference between them is considerably less noticeable. Let us not forget the main problem of mechanical drives, seek time, which SSDs do not even bother mentioning in specs because it is like 3-4 orders of magnitude faster.

Isn't memory supposed to be cheap nowadays?

So are SSDs, which again make it largely pointless as the potential speed difference is minimal. The preload mechanic I used for Warcraft III is great for old games like Warcraft III which are tiny compared with modern memory amounts but still might have to be loaded for mechanical drives. If you want fast load performance on modern games like Heroes of the Storm you will want to consider a SSD.

That said SSDs are not a miracle cure to load times. Fallout 4 will still take minutes to transition between some areas even with a SSD due to horrible game engine optimization.

 

[pyf]

Except computers are not psychic so do not know what game the user wants to run after startup…

*cough!* *cough!*

Prefetching - Wikipedia

Except the OS file cache might be needed for other purposes, forcing out the preloaded pages.

This is true for *any* application.

A preloader could periodically rescan the critical files needed for improving the first launch of an application, in order to hopefully improve the possibility of a cache hit. Needless to say, the more RAM the better; that way, none of the critical files leave the cache.

Except it can only preload 1 game at a time because of the volume of data needed... Heroes of the Storm and StarCraft II are well over 10GB, and that is not including Diablo III, Hearth Stones, Overwatch and World of Warcraft.

It only works so well for Warcraft III because Warcraft III is so small, occupying a tiny footprint of memory to load all game data files. It also works for Diablo II, but loading in Diablo II was less of a problem.

A configurable preloader can be designed to preload / cache any data (be it partial or full) of any application / game.

Modern Windows OSes do this already... If you look at your file cache you will find Warcraft III executable in there even if you have not run it since startup. The entire file cache itself serves to improve IO performance by preventing duplicate reads of the same file pages in quick succession.

I doubt that the built-in caching in Windows is as versatile and configurable as the one in CDQuick Cache for Windows 9x/ME is.

Modern versions of Windows may do additional reading / caching of data, just in case it might be needed. Also, resident anti-virus software allows for files to be scanned / checked periodically; especially executable files.

A preloader would tell it precisely which data is critical to be preloaded, so that the resources are used the most efficiently.

The OS file cache, used by my tool, is based on last access time. It also uses all available free memory. This is why more memory can improve performance and why games that still use 4GB or so of memory benefit from raising the computer from 8GB to 16GB.

This does not preload stuff, but rather caches it as the name implies. This turns hard page faults when reading from files into soft page faults if the page was recently read. For mechanical drives this is a massive speed boost because soft page faults read at >1GB/sec where as random access is only 15MB/sec or less. The file cache is often turned off or turned down for SSDs because its benefits are less meaningful. SSDs have random access speeds in the 200-300 MB/sec range already so the speed difference between them is considerably less noticeable. Let us not forget the main problem of mechanical drives, seek time, which SSDs do not even bother mentioning in specs because it is like 3-4 orders of magnitude faster.

...which means?

WC3Boost could be improved imho.

So are SSDs, which again make it largely pointless as the potential speed difference is minimal. The preload mechanic I used for Warcraft III is great for old games like Warcraft III which are tiny compared with modern memory amounts but still might have to be loaded for mechanical drives. If you want fast load performance on modern games like Heroes of the Storm you will want to consider a SSD.

That said SSDs are not a miracle cure to load times. Fallout 4 will still take minutes to transition between some areas even with a SSD due to horrible game engine optimization.

Is Fallout 4 using Ijl15.dll?

 

[Iliya]

Thanks for the responds guys, gave me a lot better insight. Good thing I did not set Warcraft 3 to real time as that would break my system haha. I also increased page file sizing memory from 4G to 25G but still made no difference for Warcraft 3. surprised why it was was 4G since it is meant to be at least 1.5x my RAM.


As for the loading faster tool by Dr Super Good, is that only related to Warcraft 3 Loading screen or does it help with other things as well?

I think it's as you mentioned Warcraft 3 capped at 2G. If max is 4G, I think trying some hacks to increase it will be pointless assuming it's a really complicated thing to do. Warcraft 3 uses around 1.3G of memory when Lordaeron the aftermath is active and slightly increases over time.

Lordaeron the Aftermath editor @SvnmS confirmed with me most likely crashes are Leak related. Chances of references to non-existent memory or loop in the dependency equivalence is there too but unlikely for Lordaeron the aftermath. Specially since the error we get for crashing from MakeMeHost is not "Desync" but rather Connection related: Player 1 has lost the connection (connection error - ECCONRESET).

@Dr Super Good Lordaeron aftermath has leak related crashes. My Real problem tho is why I crash first or usually earlier than others when Memory Leaks happen? I'm 100% sure My system and RAM is far better than anyone I am playing with. So I should crash last or close to last or just with everyone else. The editor is 100% sure The disconnect is not related to GetLocalPlayer so that's out of there, specialy since that type crash would say "Desync" not the connection error.

All want to ensure is that If I'm to crash, I ll crash last or same time as others when the error is memory leak related. That used to be the case before the New Warcraft 3 patch as when I would crash it would be quite rare someone else hasn't. Note I don't any other applications when playing Warcraft 3. (Chrome, discord etc) .

Now I know this new Warcraft 3 patch has made a mess for custom maps So I am ignoring crash errors related to Blizzard patch. For example this one: https://us.battle.net/forums/en/bnet/topic/20763846387

However I still get normal memory crashes sooner than others. Which should not really be the case? If a memory leaks happens I should crash same time as others unless there are memory problems with my Warcraft 3 and PC?

thanks for the help by the way.

Edit: I got 2-3 crash texts if you want to have a look at them I can upload however generally when Crashing I don't get an error or text document but sometimes i do.

 

[Dr Super Good]

...which means?

It is extremely fast to load all Warcraft III data files in their entirety. It is extremely slow to selectively load parts of the files.

Is Fallout 4 using Ijl15.dll?

Why should it be? It likely uses compressed textures which are real time compatible which require no decompression. Like all modern Blizzard games.

Warcraft III using JPEG for texture compression is a joke. Especially seeing how it is being used incorrectly.

As for the loading faster tool by Dr Super Good, is that only related to Warcraft 3 Loading screen or does it help with other things as well?

If using a mechanical drive to load Warcraft III from it will load all Warcraft III files into the file cache and does so extremely efficiently. This greatly improves Warcraft III's initial loading performance. It does not improve long term play performance because Warcraft III populates the file cache itself.

I think it's as you mentioned Warcraft 3 capped at 2G. If max is 4G, I think trying some hacks to increase it will be pointless assuming it's a really complicated thing to do. Warcraft 3 uses around 1.3G of memory when Lordaeron the aftermath is active and slightly increases over time.

Increasing over time points towards memory leaks. The reason it uses 1.3GB points towards pretty much all models and textures being used. Usual Warcraft III maps are 500-700MB odd.

@Dr Super Good Lordaeron aftermath has leak related crashes. My Real problem tho is why I crash first or usually earlier than others when Memory Leaks happen? I'm 100% sure My system and RAM is far better than anyone I am playing with. So I should crash last or close to last or just with everyone else. The editor is 100% sure The disconnect is not related to GetLocalPlayer so that's out of there, specialy since that type crash would say "Desync" not the connection error.

If it is related to running out of virtual memory it is it will because you have larger/more/different drivers and libraries than other people.

Even localization might play a part. Some locales of Warcraft III will inherently use more memory than others due to different game code and text strings.

I would recommend complaining to the map maker to optimize/fix their map. Specifically reducing leaks and memory usage.

 

[pyf]

[...] I also increased page file sizing memory from 4G to 25G but still made no difference for Warcraft 3. surprised why it was was 4G since it is meant to be at least 1.5x my RAM.

In case you are referring to the swap file, then maybe it is better to stick to its recommended values. I am not sure that excessively big swap files are a good thing overall.

Regarding your crashes, do you tweak / optimize your OS settings?

I think it's as you mentioned Warcraft 3 capped at 2G. If max is 4G, I think trying some hacks to increase it will be pointless assuming it's a really complicated thing to do. [...]

Maybe someone will want to create one?

It is extremely fast to load all Warcraft III data files in their entirety. It is extremely slow to selectively load parts of the files.

Because people waste a lot of time when their computer is running, it would not matter that much imho (if at all).

Why should it be? It likely uses compressed textures which are real time compatible which require no decompression. Like all modern Blizzard games.

Warcraft III using JPEG for texture compression is a joke. Especially seeing how it is being used incorrectly.

Then maybe they should drop Ijl15 for Intel IPP?

Even localization might play a part. Some locales of Warcraft III will inherently use more memory than others due to different game code and text strings.

Do you have any examples please? I am curious about that one.

I am already aware that the file size of the official standalone offline patches can greatly vary from locale to locale, but that's all.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Because people waste a lot of time when their computer is running, it would not matter that much imho (if at all).

People are also spontaneous and might randomly decide to play Warcraft III. They do not want to wait 2-3 minutes to preload stuff. This is why Warcraft III boost was kind of effective as it only took 5-10 seconds and usually saved similar amounts.

Then maybe they should drop Ijl15 for Intel IPP?

They should drop BLP and replace it with DDS, like their modern games use. The way they used JPEG is inefficient since JPEG was not designed to be used in that way.

Do you have any examples please? I am curious about that one.

I do not have examples, however it is pretty obvious about the different sizes. I would imagine the variance to be a few megabytes at most.

 

[Iliya]

If it is related to running out of virtual memory it is it will because you have larger/more/different drivers and libraries than other people.

Even localization might play a part. Some locales of Warcraft III will inherently use more memory than others due to different game code and text strings.

I would recommend complaining to the map maker to optimize/fix their map. Specifically reducing leaks and memory usage.

hmm this clears it up now. Any clues by the way on how can I improve drivers, libraries pathing and also localization to lessen Warcraft 3 crash chance? I did reinstall Warcraft 3 on F: drive from C: Drive but that did not make any difference. Also for some reason my maps, replays etc from moved to documents in C:drive long long time ago. Does that have any effects?

I already notified the map makers and they are working on it. However it's just still quite irritating being one of the first to crash in game while others are fine.

Also just a question? About the Jenkins Error I linked. Do you reckon you know what is it about? It's been happening since new patch and it doesn't matter which custom maps, it still causes you to crash. Even some of most optimized ones like Azeroth Wars which i never crashed in. I don't have Jenkins installed on my PC. I can send you 4-5 error text files to have a look at, it's same error but different maps.

In case you are referring to the swap file, then maybe it is better to stick to its recommended values. I am not sure that excessively big swap files are a good thing overall.

Regarding your crashes, do you tweak / optimize your OS settings?

How do I do that? please help.



edit: (Also I run Warcraft 3 on High quality, should I reduce to low? would that stop crashing? Kinda it fun it tho since I can run like Battlefront 2 and Wow on max without problems yet I have to put WC3 on low.)

 

[Dr Super Good]

hmm this clears it up now. Any clues by the way on how can I improve drivers, libraries pathing and also localization to lessen Warcraft 3 crash chance? I did reinstall Warcraft 3 on F: drive from C: Drive but that did not make any difference. Also for some reason my maps, replays etc from moved to documents in C:drive long long time ago. Does that have any effects?

If a map crashes it is either a major internal Warcraft III bug, or it is the fault of the map maker so there is nothing you have to do.

Replays were moved to their proper place in documents folder to comply with modern OS requirements.

I already notified the map makers and they are working on it. However it's just still quite irritating being one of the first to crash in game while others are fine.

Do you crash with games like StarCraft II or other modern games? Crashes can also be a sign of failing hardware.

Also just a question? About the Jenkins Error I linked. Do you reckon you know what is it about? It's been happening since new patch and it doesn't matter which custom maps, it still causes you to crash. Even some of most optimized ones like Azeroth Wars which i never crashed in. I don't have Jenkins installed on my PC. I can send you 4-5 error text files to have a look at, it's same error but different maps.

That error is saying that the crash is caused by code located in that file. This only makes sense to Blizzard developers as they have the source code for Warcraft III. It is kind of sloppy programming because a user should never see such an error. However forward it to them and hopefully it will be fixed next patch.

edit: (Also I run Warcraft 3 on High quality, should I reduce to low? would that stop crashing? Kinda it fun it tho since I can run like Battlefront 2 and Wow on max without problems yet I have to put WC3 on low.)

Does it crash with all custom maps? Or just some potentially badly made ones?

 

[pyf]

People are also spontaneous and might randomly decide to play Warcraft III. They do not want to wait 2-3 minutes to preload stuff. [...]

Generally, people play the game(s) they have been playing the day(s) before.

They imho would not have to wait 2-3 minutes for anything. Maybe you will want to please install Adobe (ex-Acrobat) Reader, and see how its resident Speed Launcher executable works. It is loaded on OS startup.

They should drop BLP and replace it with DDS, like their modern games use. [...]

Why not.

Modders might complain that Blizzard broke their favorite tools, though...

I do not have examples, however it is pretty obvious about the different sizes. I would imagine the variance to be a few megabytes at most.

This is not significant to me.

As a side note, even though the War3Patch.mpq of the French version of v1.27b is a 119 MB file, it will not consume more memory than the War3Patch.mpq of the French version of v1.27a, which is a 39.9MB file.

hmm this clears it up now. Any clues by the way on how can I improve drivers, [...]

@Iliya: maybe you will want to use DUMo, to check that your hardware drivers are up to date?

KC Softwares - DUMo - Drivers Update Monitor

Also just a question? About the Jenkins Error I linked. Do you reckon you know what is it about? It's been happening since new patch and it doesn't matter which custom maps, it still causes you to crash. Even some of most optimized ones like Azeroth Wars which i never crashed in. I don't have Jenkins installed on my PC.

Blizzard uses it as a part of their development tools. I remember they mentioned Jenkins in one of their recent job offers.

Jenkins (software) - Wikipedia

How do I do that? please help.

Optimizing your OS settings will imho *not* make your third-party maps crash less often.

... but if you want to take that route, then please download Wise Registry Cleaner
Wise Registry Cleaner - Best Free Registry Cleaner - speedup slow PC in one minute

Please do *not* try to clean your Registry, this is useless (and sometimes dangerous). Instead, you may apply any tweaks from the System Tuneup tab you want. Beware, some optimizations might have adverse effects, especially if your OS / hardware is not working properly / decently, or if you are already using settings from another optimization tool. You have been warned.

edit: (Also I run Warcraft 3 on High quality, should I reduce to low? would that stop crashing?

idk. Why don't you just try it and find out?

 

[Dr Super Good]

They imho would not have to wait 2-3 minutes for anything. Maybe you will want to please install Adobe (ex-Acrobat) Reader, and see how its resident Speed Launcher executable works. It is loaded on OS startup.

Does Adobe Reader have to read in >500MB of files from a slow file system like MPQ? No? Thought as much...

As a side note, even though the War3Patch.mpq of the French version of v1.27b is a 119 MB file, it will not consume more memory than the War3Patch.mpq of the French version of v1.27a, which is a 39.9MB file.

However Warcraft III running the same map loaded in the same state in the English US will use a different amount of memory from being loaded in French. This is due to programming and localization differences. For example the length of a tooltip string will be different between locales.

 

[pyf]

Does Adobe Reader have to read in >500MB of files from a slow file system like MPQ? No? Thought as much...

Maybe this is exactly why a way of caching a subset of the whole data for later, fast initial loading times, could be worth implementing imho?

However Warcraft III running the same map loaded in the same state in the English US will use a different amount of memory from being loaded in French. This is due to programming and localization differences. For example the length of a tooltip string will be different between locales.

Again, I doubt that the difference would be significant.

Can anybody please provide hard facts on this?

Except computers are not psychic so do not know what game the user wants to run after startup…

People are also spontaneous and might randomly decide to play Warcraft III.

Generally, people play the game(s) they have been playing the day(s) before.

- LastActivityView - View the latest computer activity in Windows operating system
- ExecutedProgramsList - Shows programs previously executed on your system

Maybe you will want to add these programs to your own toolbox?

 

[Dr Super Good]

Maybe this is exactly why a way of caching a subset of the whole data for later, fast initial loading times, could be worth implementing imho?

The subset of data that would need to be cached is ~500MB... However the difference is that data gets cached at a tiny fraction of the speed caching the entire files is done at on mechanical drives due to random access overhead.

 

[Deleted member 247165]

You can have even the greatest PC in the world. If the map you're playing has major memory leaks, it will lead to the crash of the game. Simple You can, instead, ask the author of the map to fix the memory leaks and optimize the map a bit.