JWolf1672

Cyberpunk is a bad choice for your argument here, do a slight bit of research and you will find that CP2077 was only flagged and checking for AVX, not really using it, and thats why it was easy to mod out. Starfield by comparison is actually using AVX instructions. To quote a modder already looking at a possible starfield patch: AVX is useful in cases where heavy use of vectors and floating point is required, some preliminary findings seem to indicate its being used in starfield for lighting and possibly physics, 2 areas that are heavy in FP use. As for why AVX is only just now starting to be used in video games, simple it takes time to build a user base that can use new technology. 64 bit took years to become a requirement for games or software in general, despite it being generally available since 2005, it took MS until 2020 to stop selling 32 bit copies of windows. Its the same reason we dont see alot of games using ray tracing yet, because they technology is still pretty new and most of the games that incorporate it are partnerships with nvidia to push new GPU sales.

Your right that the game requirements don't explicitly call it out, however it calls out 2 minimum processors, so the overlapping instruction set and extensions supported by both can be reasonably be inferred to be fair game. Both processors (and all built in the last decade) support avx so it can be reasonable for the game to make use of that hardware feature. Do you even know what avx does? You sit there saying it does nothing, but avx is used fairly extensively in plenty of other applications that are math heavy like physics or rendering (you know, two areas of the game that are known to be performance problems already). To say it does nothing is a load of crap. Yes they could remove avx but that will make the experience objectively worse for everyone else who has supported hardware. Could they add support for both avx fallback for non-avx, sure but that's non trivial work and why do it when literally the only use case is for hardware half a decade older than the minimum processors you support? I get that a few people are upset that there systems that otherwise still work for most cases can't play the game, but that's just how tech advances and eventually you need to upgrade, this is hardly the first game to require a new instruction set that older hardware doesn't support

I don't think you understand what upgrading an engine means. Your complaints and the way you phrase them tell me you know very little about how software in general works or is maintained. If you want to complain about the engine being decades old, why aren't you screaming about your OS being 30 years old and just being made to look like it's 64bit? Your here complaining about avx and then saying Bethesda needs to optimize the game, all while demanding they remove an optimization and make the game objectively worse in order to support hardware that is years older then the specified minimum hardware

That's not how that works. Just because the origins of the engine is 25 years or so ago doesn't mean it's the same engine as it was. It changes with each game, and is recompiled for each change, so it very well could (and likely does) have avx instructions in it for starfield. Saying the engine is decades old is like saying the current unreal engine is also decades old (it's only a year younger than Bethesda's engine). Could someone remove the avx instructions, sure it's possible but I'd question the worthwhileness of that task. Technology moves on and eventually has to abandon older hardware. It's like asking for a 32 bit version of the game or a dx11 version

Your anti virus is blocking or removing it

Kinda proving my point, many more authors would have stayed or kept updating their mods here if nexus had been willing to work with authors on this part of the system. After seeing how this has went, I imagine a fair number of authors would be hesitant to participate, nexus has made it pretty clear that they aren't willing to make compromises or changes to the core of the system and those are the ones that really matter. I'm well aware that you and me see this matter very differently, but I think even you can admit that if nexus had handled this better more authors would be staying and willing to Participate in the future

You mean like we had input on this part of the system? So we get voice our genuine concerns and then get completely ignored on them or dismissed. We are being asked to trust them, after they shattered our trust.

That's a poor example. If you want to use a better one, nexus is not the buyer or end user, who asking to destroy their copy would be silly. Nexus is the distribution platform and you can easily find examples of copyright owners asking or revoking distribution for a distributor (example, artists removing their works from Spotify)

Yes we have moved to roguewar.org due to some ongoing issues. We hope to get back to the old domain in the near future