Please increase available memory for addons on console

bobdrad · May 25

I think I speak for most console users if I express frustration with the (100mb?) total memory limitation for addons.
We are constantly having to disable some addons in order to enable others.

In this modern age, when consoles have 8-16 GB of total memory and typically 12+ GB available to a game, 100mb is super small.

Is there any chance we can bump up that memory limit? Would 200mb be too much to ask?
I know it's a constant battle and people will always want more, but I don't think we've hit the right balance with the current limit.

If it's simply impossible to increase the limitation, I think a feature where we could define addon "profiles" to enable/disable groups of addons would be very helpful.
For example, when I'm in trials I want several combat alerts. When out of trials I might like a different set that help enhance my overland maps, or help with crafting.

Can we get feedback like this to the devs please @ZOS_GinaBruno ?

DenverRalphy · May 26

bobdrad wrote: »

If it's simply impossible to increase the limitation, I think a feature where we could define addon "profiles" to enable/disable groups of addons would be very helpful.
For example, when I'm in trials I want several combat alerts. When out of trials I might like a different set that help enhance my overland maps, or help with crafting.

There's an addon for that courtesty of @Dack_Janiels

https://mods.bethesda.net/en/elderscrollsonline/details/1ff1b2cd-ba65-4264-a11d-2c55b57eb158/Addon_Loadouts

msgeek · May 26

200MB doesn't seem unreasonable, but at the very least it would be good to see PS5 Pro users - given it has (slightly) more memory than standard PS5 say 150MB.

Mine is hovering around 70MB constantly, so repeated warnings, but never actually going into an error state. Wasn;t so much of an issue when first released as there weren't may addons worth having but now there's a fair few (and likely to continue to increase) it would be good to see this addressed.

DenverRalphy · May 26

msgeek wrote: »

200MB doesn't seem unreasonable, but at the very least it would be good to see PS5 Pro users - given it has (slightly) more memory than standard PS5 say 150MB.

Mine is hovering around 70MB constantly, so repeated warnings, but never actually going into an error state. Wasn;t so much of an issue when first released as there weren't may addons worth having but now there's a fair few (and likely to continue to increase) it would be good to see this addressed.

I'd rather they just changed the threshold to 90% instead of 70%. In my opinion, a 30% buffer is a bit much. It's nearly 1/3rd of the allocation.

That and improve the system's garbage collection. Even with the more competently designed addons, you can sit and watch the memory usage tick up rather steadily. Even while standing still, doing absolutely nothing, no controller inputs.

SkaiFaith · May 26

I Remember reading on the forums, from devs, at least a couple of times, that the console memory limit for add-ons has already been increased to 200MB.

Sorry, I'm not researching where I read it XD but I don't pretend you blindly trust me.

DenverRalphy · May 26

SkaiFaith wrote: »

I Remember reading on the forums, from devs, at least a couple of times, that the console memory limit for add-ons has already been increased to 200MB.

Sorry, I'm not researching where I read it XD but I don't pretend you blindly trust me.

The drive/installation storage was increased from 100 to 200. OP is inquiring about memory usage.

SkaiFaith · May 26

DenverRalphy wrote: »

SkaiFaith wrote: »

I Remember reading on the forums, from devs, at least a couple of times, that the console memory limit for add-ons has already been increased to 200MB.

Sorry, I'm not researching where I read it XD but I don't pretend you blindly trust me.

The drive/installation storage was increased from 100 to 200. OP is inquiring about memory usage.

Oh, thanks for pointing this out! Had no idea.

Dolgubon · May 29

DenverRalphy wrote: »

I'd rather they just changed the threshold to 90% instead of 70%. In my opinion, a 30% buffer is a bit much. It's nearly 1/3rd of the allocation.

That and improve the system's garbage collection. Even with the more competently designed addons, you can sit and watch the memory usage tick up rather steadily. Even while standing still, doing absolutely nothing, no controller inputs.

Uh.

If the memory usage is ticking up while you are standing still, that means you are using an add-on that is not competently designed. There are very few valid reasons for an add-on to increase memory usage in that situation. (And I don't think they're even on console) Ideally, you could identify that add-on and report the memory increase to the author, but that might be difficult.

The memory cleaning for addons is actually pretty good, it's just that most addons are never going to release much memory, so there's really not much to clean. Like, if an add-on makes a button, it's probably not going to want to remove that button, just hide it when it's not visible, because control creation is expensive and sometimes complicated.

I do recommend not using any memory cleaning addons; they are completely unnecessary and are just extra overhead. There's nothing they do that the game doesn't already do.

code65536 · May 29

DenverRalphy wrote: »

Even with the more competently designed addons, you can sit and watch the memory usage tick up rather steadily. Even while standing still, doing absolutely nothing, no controller inputs.

I'll echo what Dolgubon just said: that should NOT ever happen.

There are subtle traps that addons can easily fall into that create memory leaks. And it's important that such leaks are found, reported, and fixed.

You should be able to run something like vDSR HM with all the relevant raid addons and have your addon memory usage remain stable from the start to the end of the trial.

And as I replied to the OP when they complained about this on Discord, you can do A LOT with 100MB, if that memory were to be used wisely. A lot of addon authors--esp. the ones who use AI--don't really think about performance and footprint, and that's the problem. I'd rather that people give a damn about the quality of their code than raising limits to sweep problems under the rug.

DenverRalphy · May 30

code65536 wrote: »

DenverRalphy wrote: »

Even with the more competently designed addons, you can sit and watch the memory usage tick up rather steadily. Even while standing still, doing absolutely nothing, no controller inputs.

And as I replied to the OP when they complained about this on Discord, you can do A LOT with 100MB, if that memory were to be used wisely. A lot of addon authors--esp. the ones who use AI--don't really think about performance and footprint, and that's the problem. I'd rather that people give a damn about the quality of their code than raising limits to sweep problems under the rug.

I agree that 100MB is plenty. I just find it odd that we get the UI warning at 70% usage when 85%-90% would suffice. And it can trigger even while in combat, with the /reloadui option being tied to a commonly used button while in combat. Suddenly triggering /reloadui mid combat while in a Dungeon/Trial is not pleasant.

I suppose I'm gonna make a few more passes through my installed addons and see which have growing footprints while stationary or very little inputs. I'm beginning to realize it's probably not one or two causing a noticeable increase, but rather multiple that are stacking minor increased usage.

SkaiFaith · May 30

DenverRalphy wrote: »

code65536 wrote: »

DenverRalphy wrote: »

Even with the more competently designed addons, you can sit and watch the memory usage tick up rather steadily. Even while standing still, doing absolutely nothing, no controller inputs.

And as I replied to the OP when they complained about this on Discord, you can do A LOT with 100MB, if that memory were to be used wisely. A lot of addon authors--esp. the ones who use AI--don't really think about performance and footprint, and that's the problem. I'd rather that people give a damn about the quality of their code than raising limits to sweep problems under the rug.

I agree that 100MB is plenty. I just find it odd that we get the UI warning at 70% usage when 85%-90% would suffice. And it can trigger even while in combat, with the /reloadui option being tied to a commonly used button while in combat. Suddenly triggering /reloadui mid combat while in a Dungeon/Trial is not pleasant.

I suppose I'm gonna make a few more passes through my installed addons and see which have growing footprints while stationary or very little inputs. I'm beginning to realize it's probably not one or two causing a noticeable increase, but rather multiple that are stacking minor increased usage.

I have the same problem, and I think I identified two add-ons that likely cause this: one is Permanent Memento and the other Cinematic Dialog. I love both! But when I have those, memory usage increases fast and constantly.
I have installed a memory cleaner addon because previously I'd crash. Should I still uninstall it and leave the game to manage memory?
I have since uninstalled Permanent Memento, sadly, but I "can't live" without Cinematic Dialog... And the issue can still happen where I get a page full of errors and I'm forced to reload UI.
Btw, I have just around 10 add-ons installed (+libraries) - I don't even have things like crutch alerts for Trials because I think things would get worse.

EDIT: big fan of both Code and Dolgubon

Kyzeragon · May 30

SkaiFaith wrote: »

I have since uninstalled Permanent Memento, sadly, but I "can't live" without Cinematic Dialog... And the issue can still happen where I get a page full of errors and I'm forced to reload UI.
Btw, I have just around 10 add-ons installed (+libraries) - I don't even have things like crutch alerts for Trials because I think things would get worse.

FWIW, back when I was first porting Crutch to console, I did many tests in real content while fixing memory leaks. Crutch + Code's Combat Alerts + LibGroupBroadcast + other dependencies stayed constant at ~10MB throughout 2 hours of Bahsei wipes trial progression. I'd go out on a limb to say that it's somewhat competently designed ;D

It's been a while since I did a real test on console flow, but just now, Crutch is steady at 5.33MB over the baseline while doing nothing. Memory usage should go up some in combat, but really not that much because combat addons are just reacting to events and not retaining much data. Or at least, they shouldn't be; I can't speak for ones other than CCA and Crutch. And the little data that is retained is cleaned up after combat ends, upon loadscreen, or exiting the zone.

Won't comment too much on Permanent Memento, but it contains a "memory cleaner," which, as established above, is unnecessary overhead. And if one feels the need to include a "memory cleaner" in an addon that is supposed to do a pretty simple thing... well.

SkaiFaith · May 30

Kyzeragon wrote: »

SkaiFaith wrote: »

I have since uninstalled Permanent Memento, sadly, but I "can't live" without Cinematic Dialog... And the issue can still happen where I get a page full of errors and I'm forced to reload UI.
Btw, I have just around 10 add-ons installed (+libraries) - I don't even have things like crutch alerts for Trials because I think things would get worse.

FWIW, back when I was first porting Crutch to console, I did many tests in real content while fixing memory leaks. Crutch + Code's Combat Alerts + LibGroupBroadcast + other dependencies stayed constant at ~10MB throughout 2 hours of Bahsei wipes trial progression. I'd go out on a limb to say that it's somewhat competently designed ;D

It's been a while since I did a real test on console flow, but just now, Crutch is steady at 5.33MB over the baseline while doing nothing. Memory usage should go up some in combat, but really not that much because combat addons are just reacting to events and not retaining much data. Or at least, they shouldn't be; I can't speak for ones other than CCA and Crutch. And the little data that is retained is cleaned up after combat ends, upon loadscreen, or exiting the zone.

Won't comment too much on Permanent Memento, but it contains a "memory cleaner," which, as established above, is unnecessary overhead. And if one feels the need to include a "memory cleaner" in an addon that is supposed to do a pretty simple thing... well.

Thank you for the insight! To be clear, I never even tried Crutch or CCA simply because I rarely join Trials or Group Dungeons, so I have nothing against those and no informed opinion on how they perform. I was just saying I'd be scared to install them (in my ignorance) because I already encounter crashes with so few add-ons that are supposedly light... Again, thanks for the insight!

code65536 · May 30

Kyzeragon wrote: »

FWIW, back when I was first porting Crutch to console, I did many tests in real content while fixing memory leaks.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of what I mean by "someone who gives a damn about the quality of their code".

(Unfortunately, with the increasing number of people who use AI slop, this sort of thing is more exception than rule.)

ToddIngram · May 31

Or you could play on PC and never have a memory issue and the game will run better and have unlimited add on availability.

When people choose to play on game boxes they choose to accept the limitations of those devices.

SkaiFaith · May 31

ToddIngram wrote: »

Or you could play on PC and never have a memory issue and the game will run better and have unlimited add on availability.

When people choose to play on game boxes they choose to accept the limitations of those devices.

Except we still need to have details (unless I missed them; it's possible) about add-ons limits on Xbox Play Anywhere (PC).
PC boxes could have limitations too after all, for reasons.

ellmarie · June 16

Please increase it. I'm having issues with memory today and it keeps disabling all my addons. I've uninstalled several and last I saw it was at 70/100 mg but it still keeps disabling anyway. I'm not seeing an increase to 200.

FlopsyPrince · July 10

ToddIngram wrote: »

Or you could play on PC and never have a memory issue and the game will run better and have unlimited add on availability.

When people choose to play on game boxes they choose to accept the limitations of those devices.

The only reason I came back now was because I could play it on my PS5 with addons.

SugaComa · July 20

not all AI created addons are built badly - I cant code and all my addons are built using AI, though I do have the added advantage of having a back ground in User Acceptance Testing and System Designs, though mostly for WMS (warehouse management system) and ERP (Electronic Retail Program/Process) systems.

the biggest issue is some developers have private functions trying to be accessed and not dealing with correcting how to call the function they want , these addon that try to everything in one add-on simply cost too much in resources the advantage of seperate add-ons is if they are built correctly when they are not in use they are releasing those resources back to be used an not sitting on them with an ever present open window sitting in a hidden call

bobdrad · July 21

ToddIngram wrote: »

Or you could play on PC and never have a memory issue and the game will run better and have unlimited add on availability.

When people choose to play on game boxes they choose to accept the limitations of those devices.

Well, that's my point. There is *plenty* of memory on these devices. The size restriction is unnecessarily conservative, given the resources available.

queenlarxene · July 21

ToddIngram wrote: »

Or you could play on PC and never have a memory issue and the game will run better and have unlimited add on availability.

When people choose to play on game boxes they choose to accept the limitations of those devices.

What a silly thing to say.
Not all of us have PC's that could run ESO on par/better than a console, and without any form of cross save, we'd have to start all over again. I've been been playing on and off since console launch, 6 or 7 years of that pretty much daily, starting again isn't going to happen. Not to mention that personally, when I started, I didn't even know add-ons existed for PC, I could hardly see the future and know that they would also arrive on console and that this would therefore be a problem.

On the original topic, I know I'm probably a slight outlier here, but I would happily accept the game running slightly worse in some other way (only SLIGHTLY though) to accommodate a higher add-on memory allowance, assuming that the console genuinely couldn't do both (which I very much suspect they could tbh).

bobdrad · July 24

I don't understand the resistance here, nor the expectation that the game will suffer if add-on memory is expanded. A PS5 has 16GB of memory. Slightly more than 12GB is available to a game. The current limitation of 100MB for add-ons is only 0.8% of that total. Doubling that would still be less than 2% of available memory. It's difficult to imagine that the game is really that tight on working memory. Doubling the memory limit for add-ons would likely have no appreciable impact on game performance.

ZOS_DanBatson · July 24

I recently changed the add-on memory limit warning threshold on console from 70% to 85% and the addon memory limit force reload threshold on console from 90% to 100%. It really shouldn't have been reloading at 90% because that made the effective cap 90 MB which wasn't the intention. That change will be coming in update 52. That being said, code and Dolgubon are correct that when using add-ons that properly maintain their memory budgets, 100 MB should take you reasonably far. We'll take increasing the limit under consideration, but can't promise it at this time.

bobdrad · July 24

ZOS_DanBatson wrote: »

I recently changed the add-on memory limit warning threshold on console from 70% to 85% and the addon memory limit force reload threshold on console from 90% to 100%. It really shouldn't have been reloading at 90% because that made the effective cap 90 MB which wasn't the intention. That change will be coming in update 52. That being said, code and Dolgubon are correct that when using add-ons that properly maintain their memory budgets, 100 MB should take you reasonably far. We'll take increasing the limit under consideration, but can't promise it at this time.

Thank you for responding and for changing these thresholds! That should help.
With much respect to Code (Dolguban was discussing memory leaks, which is another important but distinct issue for which increasing limits would not help) the argument that "properly written add-ons should be small" is certainly true, but it is also theoretical. We'd all love for add-ons to be as small as possible, and many of us commonly swap out more bloated add-ons in favor of more streamlined ones with similar function when we can. But I see that argument as best directed to developers where perhaps it can have an impact.

Practically speaking, players must live with what we have available, and we are running into these memory limits. Raising the actual limit would actually help players.

Do you have data about how often players are hitting the thresholds? Or about how much difference 100MB would make to game performance?

Dolgubon · July 25

bobdrad wrote: »

ZOS_DanBatson wrote: »

I recently changed the add-on memory limit warning threshold on console from 70% to 85% and the addon memory limit force reload threshold on console from 90% to 100%. It really shouldn't have been reloading at 90% because that made the effective cap 90 MB which wasn't the intention. That change will be coming in update 52. That being said, code and Dolgubon are correct that when using add-ons that properly maintain their memory budgets, 100 MB should take you reasonably far. We'll take increasing the limit under consideration, but can't promise it at this time.

Thank you for responding and for changing these thresholds! That should help.
With much respect to Code (Dolguban was discussing memory leaks, which is another important but distinct issue for which increasing limits would not help) the argument that "properly written add-ons should be small" is certainly true, but it is also theoretical. We'd all love for add-ons to be as small as possible, and many of us commonly swap out more bloated add-ons in favor of more streamlined ones with similar function when we can. But I see that argument as best directed to developers where perhaps it can have an impact.

Practically speaking, players must live with what we have available, and we are running into these memory limits. Raising the actual limit would actually help players.

Do you have data about how often players are hitting the thresholds? Or about how much difference 100MB would make to game performance?

You have slightly misunderstood what me and code were talking about. The size of the add-on doesn't matter too much - a large add-on is perfectly fine. Rather, what matters is that add-ons should use an amount of memory commensurate to their function.

(Honestly, after 10+ years, writ crafter has gotten a bit bloated...)

Also, Dan's change did increase the memory limit by 10 MB.

Not a big increase certainly, but it should help.