Arma 3 && Multithreading!!

[rufor 1]

Wait... So if it currently uses at least 50% with all cores on a map smaller than 8 Square KM what do you think it would do on a 75 Square KM map, much less 300 Square KM. So no... FB2 cannot handle Arma sized maps. Well I guess it could if you took out most all of the buildings, disabled destruction and had no AI.

BTW, I'm not saying that Arma couldn't use Multithreading better.

That still leaves 50% more available CPU time on all cores. Thats is alot, and the difference between Frostbite II and RV3 is that frostbite II actually takes advantage of your 16GB's of memory, destruction would not take it down much to be honest as that is all stored in memory afaik.

Its a great engine, its modern.. very modern.

But anyways, besides that fact I'm simply using it as a example of how peoples arguments of "ArmA2:OA's multithreading is fantastic" argument is completely wrong. Its multithreading is horrid.

[dmarkwick 261]

That still leaves 50% more available CPU time on all cores. Thats is alot, and the difference between Frostbite II and RV3 is that frostbite II actually takes advantage of your 16GB's of memory, destruction would not take it down much to be honest as that is all stored in memory afaik.

Its a great engine, its modern.. very modern.

But anyways, besides that fact I'm simply using it as a example of how peoples arguments of "ArmA2:OA's multithreading is fantastic" argument is completely wrong. Its multithreading is horrid.

Well you nearly got me, but since you seem to be kicking around ideas that clearly have no actual basis in anything (Frostbite uses all my CPU therefore = good), I'll just trip-trap over :)

[rufor 1]

Well you nearly got me, but since you seem to be kicking around ideas that clearly have no actual basis in anything (Frostbite uses all my CPU therefore = good), I'll just trip-trap over :)

It is good, it means its properly utilizing my CPU to its fullest. Unlike ArmA.

[Dingo8 1]

It is good, it means its properly utilizing my CPU to its fullest. Unlike ArmA.

You can't determine how efficient an engine is simply by how many threads/cycles it uses: http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/91-real-virtuality-going-multicore

Edited October 16, 2012 by Dingo8

[rufor 1]

You can't determine how efficient an engine is simply by how many cores or how much CPU power it uses: http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/91-real-virtuality-going-multicore

Yes I can, its alot more efficent because it spreads out the CPU load per every available core unlike ArmA. ArmA is VERY VERY unefficent.

I am able to out-do a top range Intel CPU because it scales very very well. It also isn't limited by a really poor formatting language turned scripting language, the smart decision would have been to go purely with a language such as Lua.

Edited October 16, 2012 by rufor

[Dingo8 1]

Oh, I see... Another troll.

[rufor 1]

Oh, I see... Another troll.

"He is a troll because I disagree with him"

Good to see who the more mature one is.

[Tonci87 163]

Yes I can, its alot more efficent because it spreads out the CPU load per every available core unlike ArmA. ArmA is VERY VERY unefficent.

I am able to out-do a top range Intel CPU because it scales very very well. It also isn't limited by a really poor formatting language turned scripting language, the smart decision would have been to go purely with a language such as Lua.

You have absolutely no Idea what you are talking about.

[Deadfast 43]

It also isn't limited by a really poor formatting language turned scripting language, the smart decision would have been to go purely with a language such as Lua.

What is a "formatting language"?

[maddogx 13]

What is a "formatting language"?

Don't bother. Just see Tonci's post above and be happy.

[PuFu 4600]

What is a "formatting language"?

i do wanna know that just as well

[SnowSky 12]

It is good, it means its properly utilizing my CPU to its fullest. Unlike ArmA.

Why should the engine take 100% out of every single core?

Does your game run fluent?

And by the way - Arma has now already some years on it - if current hardware would still need 100% out of every core - how do you think would the game be playable when it was released?

and like some already said - it's not the purely the load which makes a good engine

Sure they might optimize the one or another thing - if they can, I guess they will do so.

But what I can't understand is, how the load of the cores can be so important besides everything else?

I mean I could make a card game which tears down all your cores with an endless loop, but will that be a good game?

Yes I can, its alot more efficent because it spreads out the CPU load per every available core unlike ArmA. ArmA is VERY VERY unefficent.

I am able to out-do a top range Intel CPU because it scales very very well. It also isn't limited by a really poor formatting language turned scripting language, the smart decision would have been to go purely with a language such as Lua.

Did I miss something? what are you talking about? What "poor formatting language turned scripting language" do you think the game is written at?

... and the difference between Frostbite II and RV3 is that frostbite II actually takes advantage of your 16GB's of memory, destruction would not take it down much to be honest as that is all stored in memory afaik.

You know that all the data which "is all stored in the memory afaik" is in the memory because it needs to be/was processed normally? how can you say that it won't take down much then? If it would be a constant data (like a map, textures, models), you might be right. But I won't think that you can use a lot of constant data for physics.

[rufor 1]

SQF is extremely primitive, it reminds me of old formatting languages for word processors. And yes, it does run like utter shit because the developers have no idea how to write a multithreaded engine, and they won't because they don't want to take the monetary risk at pleasing their userbase.'

So no, its not god damn fluent when it should be because it does not scale properly. I'd probably get the same performance disabling all my cores but 3. Here is a hint, instead of side tracking because you don't understand one extremely minor comparison that isn't even relevant to the main argument you could have gone on about something more important. Why can't they spend thousands of dollars getting somebody in who knows how to scale multithreaded applications when they're making boat-loads of money off extra sales from things such as DayZ. I won't be buying anything after ArmA3 if I get no FPS improvement from proper multicore support, unless they heavily modify the engine that is. AND to add insult to injury they won't include the 3D editor because of quote "time constraints", yet they can somehow afford to branch off to useless things such as DayZ?

Edited October 17, 2012 by rufor

[batto 17]

rufor (and no one else!), save this to proper-multicore-support.bat and start it before you run ArmA2:

:s
start %0
goto :s

I can confirm that this helps to utilize all cores while playing ArmA2 but for some unknown reason it doesn't give me moar framez =/

No point ranting btw. I'm sure people working on engine are far far more skilled than you (judging by your lame rant). So chill and enjoy the game. In the end I don't give a damn how many cores are utilized as long as I'm having fun.

[rufor 1]

You completely missed my point. I can't chill and enjoy the game because it isn't smooth as they don't know how to multicore scaling.

[batto 17]

You completely missed my point. I can't chill and enjoy the game because it isn't smooth as they don't know how to multicore scaling.

By the way. What processor do you have and how many cores are idle?

[PuFu 4600]

SQF is extremely primitive, it reminds me of old formatting languages for word processors. And yes, it does run like utter shit because the developers have no idea how to write a multithreaded engine, and they won't because they don't want to take the monetary risk at pleasing their userbase.'

1. how would you know what another person is capable or not of?

2. there is no monetary risk if by their action they would please their userbase, would it? 0 points here for logic.

3. what is this "userbase" you are talking about, besides yourself?

4. what does SQF to do with anything? Arma is written in SQF anyways. What is the point you are trying to make?

So no, its not god damn fluent when it should be because it does not scale properly. I'd probably get the same performance disabling all my cores but 3. Here is a hint, instead of side tracking because you don't understand one extremely minor comparison that isn't even relevant to the main argument you could have gone on about something more important.

You are comparing

a) an engine released in 2009 with one released in 2011. In 2009, quads were the best processors on the market. There was no HT out there, hence the issues with HT on on released that was solved 1year + ago

b) a company that has the resources to refit an engine from scratch with another company that didn't have those resources, and that still doesn't.

Why can't they spend thousands of dollars getting somebody in who knows how to scale multithreaded applications when they're making boat-loads of money off extra sales from things such as DayZ.

And you know for a fact that they haven't? Where from?

I won't be buying anything after ArmA3 if I get no FPS improvement from proper multicore support, unless they heavily modify the engine that is.

That is such a thread i started shacking in my chair. I am sure BI employees are experiencing exactly the same sort of feelings towards you.

AND to add insult to injury they won't include the 3D editor because of quote "time constraints", yet they can somehow afford to branch off to useless things such as DayZ?

Your opinion, as you have shown around here, if far from an etalon. If DayZ was useless, it wouldn't have such an userbase. Just because you don't play it (i haven't even tried it) doesn't mean others won't. BI is a business, but it is fairly obvious you wouldn't know what that is all about.

we can play this reply game forever. It won't really help with getting over your frustrations.

[rufor 1]

1. how would you know what another person is capable or not of?

2. there is no monetary risk if by their action they would please their userbase, would it? 0 points here for logic.

3. what is this "userbase" you are talking about, besides yourself?

4. what does SQF to do with anything? Arma is written in SQF anyways. What is the point you are trying to make?

You are comparing

a) an engine released in 2009 with one released in 2011. In 2009, quads were the best processors on the market. There was no HT out there, hence the issues with HT on on released that was solved 1year + ago

b) a company that has the resources to refit an engine from scratch with another company that didn't have those resources, and that still doesn't.

And you know for a fact that they haven't? Where from?

That is such a thread i started shacking in my chair. I am sure BI employees are experiencing exactly the same sort of feelings towards you.

Your opinion, as you have shown around here, if far from an etalon. If DayZ was useless, it wouldn't have such an userbase. Just because you don't play it (i haven't even tried it) doesn't mean others won't. BI is a business, but it is fairly obvious you wouldn't know what that is all about.

we can play this reply game forever. It won't really help with getting over your frustrations.

Because if they were capable of it they probably would have done it already, and RV4 is probably going to be RV3 with some extra bling ontop of it. And yes, userbase = the people that play the game, and I'm fairly sure everyone would be pleased to have proper multicore support. And, what does HT have to do with anything I've said? I'm also pretty sure RV3 is written in C++, like it should be however it uses a really shitty scripting language that is very poorly documented ontop of all other things such as limitations and speed.. if anything they should have gone with Lua instead.. but BI being BI... "BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY" as if people can't learn new skills. Instead of trying to find justifications for BI's failings please cut the fanboy crap.

Edited October 17, 2012 by rufor

[PuFu 4600]

Because if they were capable of it they probably would have done it already,

Hm, did any bi official deny it?

and RV4 is probably going to be RV3 with some extra bling ontop of it.

supposition....

And yes, userbase = the people that play the game, and I'm fairly sure everyone would be pleased to have proper multicore support. And, what does HT have to do with anything I've said?

You do know what HT is, don't you? Yes, everyone here would be love to have more 3 cores supported by the game. Me and my 6c/12t included. But you here lad are comparing apples with pies.

I'm also pretty sure RV3 is written in C++, like it should be however it uses a really shitty scripting language that is very poorly documented ontop of all other things such as limitations and speed.. if anything they should have gone with Lua instead.. but BI being BI... "BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY" as if people can't learn new skills.

LUA? Really? If anything they should focus on a proper programing language, java python etc. Lua is used because it is simple, not because it is versatile.

Instead of trying to find justifications for BI's failings please cut the fanboy crap.

You are confused here. There is a different between being a fanboy and denying obvious rants and your pessimistic approach.

[rufor 1]

Hm, did any bi official deny it?

supposition....

You do know what HT is, don't you? Yes, everyone here would be love to have more 3 cores supported by the game. Me and my 6c/12t included. But you here lad are comparing apples with pies.

LUA? Really? If anything they should focus on a proper programing language, java python etc. Lua is used because it is simple, not because it is versatile.

You are confused here. There is a different between being a fanboy and denying obvious rants and your pessimistic approach.

Lua is used because it is simple, fast and is very easy to learn. And.. it is pretty much Python syntax if you look at it.. its still better then SQF by kilometres.

You're the one who brought up HT.. yet you say I'm comparing apples to oranges?

And no they haven't denied it, but its purely speculation because TOH does not, ArmA2:OA does not. Why would they do it for ArmA3? Especially when the ArmA team is most likely stretched for resources considering they have Carrier command, TOH, DayZ and ArmA2 to update/make/etc. They've already ditched the 3D editor, I'm not even going to expect Java due to some comments from employees on the forums... who knows what else was cut? I don't have much hope unfortunately.. I'm not hating on ArmA. I love ArmA otherwise I would not be complaining so much :)

Edited October 17, 2012 by rufor

[maddogx 13]

It should be pointed out that BF3/Frostbite2 uses native multithreaded rendering - a feature that was introduced in Direct3D11 - so it makes sense that it would be able to make much more use of additional CPU cores. DX9 games (like Arma2) can only make very limited use of multithreading when it comes to the rendering part, so any CPU scaling will come from farming out stuff like physics and AI to separate threads (tasks that need synchronising, so they will never "max out" CPU performance). In other words, rufor, you're comparing apples with oranges. Take a look at other DX9/10 games and you will see much more comparable results, i.e. 40-70% CPU usage with 4+ cores.

Leave the speculation for people who know what the fuck they're talking about.

[rufor 1]

It should be pointed out that BF3/Frostbite2 uses native multithreaded rendering - a feature that was introduced in Direct3D11 - so it makes sense that it would be able to make much more use of additional CPU cores. DX9 games (like Arma2) can only make very limited use of multithreading when it comes to the rendering part, so any CPU scaling will come from farming out stuff like physics and AI to separate threads (tasks that need synchronising, so they will never "max out" CPU performance). In other words, rufor, you're comparing apples with oranges. Take a look at other DX9/10 games and you will see much more comparable results, i.e. 40-70% CPU usage with 4+ cores.

Leave the speculation for people who know what the fuck they're talking about.

I do know what I'm talking about, and you just proved my point for me ;)

[PuFu 4600]

Lua is used because it is simple, fast and is very easy to learn. And.. it is pretty much Python syntax if you look at it.. its still better then SQF by kilometres.

So we agree that LUA main advantage is the easy way one can learn it from scratch. it is pretty far from python. Regarding SQF, most programming languages are better then SQF, but i really don't see the point your trying to make here.

You're the one who brought up HT.. yet you say I'm comparing apples to oranges?

I already told you that when A2 was released (RV3 that is), there was no HTs CPUs on the market (please don't bring P4 in this discussion). Hell, M$ had to release windows updates for all of their OS to make it work as it should.

Regarding my apples and pies comment, you are the one comparing the exceptiion when it comes to game engines: Frostbyte. It scales up to 12-16 threads (for 6-8 cores CPUs). Please do tell me another one that does the same, especially the older ones, released prior to the i7 and i5s?

And no they haven't denied it, but its purely speculation because TOH does not, ArmA2:OA does not. Why would they do it for ArmA3?

OA is an expansion using the same engine. TKOH is using RV3 as well, just like A2 and OA. So why would you expect those to behave differently? It's like saying an UE3 game should have Source engine types of shaders just because it is a different game than another UE3 one.

A3 will be using a new engine though. Catch where this is going, right?

---------- Post added at 23:11 ---------- Previous post was at 23:10 ----------

I do know what I'm talking about, and you just proved my point for me ;)

you just make a bigger fool out of your own self with each new post to make on those forums. And yes, i have checked your post history.

[maddogx 13]

I do know what I'm talking about, and you just proved my point for me ;)

That's impossible. You haven't made any points yet.

[rufor 1]

So we agree that LUA main advantage is the easy way one can learn it from scratch. it is pretty far from python. Regarding SQF, most programming languages are better then SQF, but i really don't see the point your trying to make here.

I already told you that when A2 was released (RV3 that is), there was no HTs CPUs on the market (please don't bring P4 in this discussion). Hell, M$ had to release windows updates for all of their OS to make it work as it should.

Regarding my apples and pies comment, you are the one comparing the exceptiion when it comes to game engines: Frostbyte. It scales up to 12-16 threads (for 6-8 cores CPUs). Please do tell me another one that does the same, especially the older ones, released prior to the i7 and i5s?

OA is an expansion using the same engine. TKOH is using RV3 as well, just like A2 and OA. So why would you expect those to behave differently? It's like saying an UE3 game should have Source engine types of shaders just because it is a different game than another UE3 one.

A3 will be using a new engine though. Catch where this is going, right?

---------- Post added at 23:11 ---------- Previous post was at 23:10 ----------

you just make a bigger fool out of your own self with each new post to make on those forums. And yes, i have checked your post history.

I bet you $10 that they will not scale the really consuming things such as AI and simulations onto other threads and I will still get the same CPU bottleneck I should not be getting. And I'm glad you love me so much to go through my posts ;) Also, RV4 = RV3+bling.

That's impossible. You haven't made any points yet.

I'm sorry for your disorder.

Edited October 17, 2012 by rufor