cpu & gpu usage decreasing with increasing AI. pleas read!

[r4m0n 1]

ok guys today after playing some arma 2 CO i wanted to test what is really limiting my fps when playing online.

so what did i do?

first of all i have msi afterburners built in fps monitor running in the background.

additionally i installed aida64 and hooked its built in monitoring tool to msi afterburner.

with this configuration i am able to see following info ingame:

-fps

-gpu clock

-gpu ram clock

-gpu usage in %

-cpu clock

-cpu usage in %

-memory usage in %

i started the editor and placed myself in the middle of chernarus. with my settings of 1440x900 at high i had approx 60fps. cpu was at 28% and gpu at 99%.

after placing lets say 20 static "bots" i noticed the fps going down some 5-10fps while cpu usage still remained at 30% and gpu at 99%.

now it gets weird. the more bots i placed (in the end at least 100) the fps went down to 10 while the cpu and gpu usage went down to 20% too????.

what has happened? is that a bug? i mean i expected the fps going down while everything else is utilized more and more. but the opposite happened?!?!?

my rig: i7 2600k at 4.5, 8gb cl8 1600mhz ram, 120gb ssd, win7 64bit, ati 4890 OC

any ideas ???

regards r.

Edited December 24, 2012 by r4m0n

[tonygrunt 10]

Did you check CPU usage per core?

My guess, AI thread runs on one CPU core and usually it is maxed out. As you enter more bots, the already maxed out core can't keep updating the rest of the game's threads as quick as before (more AI > more calculations) with ultimate result having the game's threads than run on the other cores to be unutilized as they wait to be updated.

Less CPU usage on the remaining cores equals less total cpu % usage.

All these ultimate results to less GPU usage due to the game not being able to update the scene as quick as before due to AI calculations and send it to the graphics card.

[r4m0n 1]

ok this is what i tested right now with monitoring all the cpu cores + HT = "8" cores:

1 group of static bots = 13bots

GPU at 90%

CPU 1 at 14%

CPU 2 at 89%

CPU 3 at 22%

CPU 4 at 0%

CPU 5 at 62%

CPU 6 at 0%

CPU 7 at 42%

CPU 8 at 0%

25 groups of static bots = 325bots

GPU at 87%

CPU 1 at 5%

CPU 2 at 53%

CPU 3 at 48%

CPU 4 at 0%

CPU 5 at 66%

CPU 6 at 0%

CPU 7 at 40%

CPU 8 at 0%

50 groups of static bots = 650bots

GPU at 42%

CPU 1 at 10%

CPU 2 at 35%

CPU 3 at 55%

CPU 4 at 0%

CPU 5 at 39%

CPU 6 at 0%

CPU 7 at 26%

CPU 8 at 0%

fps with 50groups at 7 or 8...

as you can see the gpu & cpu are somehow utilized less the more ai is used. i dont know whether that would happen with static objects too?! but it would explain bad fps in multiplayer games..

maybe some of the devs can investigate this further or at least someone can try reproduce my findings?

P.S: i tested the same situation with a real static object. i placed at least 3000 ammo boxes i think :O). same situation here: cpu & gpu utilized less the more boxes you drop. fps > 15fps.

please clarifiy... arma 2 is just perfect. these type of perfomance issues make that game a no go for most people.

regards r.

Edited December 24, 2012 by r4m0n

[Gunter Severloh 4052]

these type of perfomance issues make that game a no go for most people.

On average who plays with 50 groups of static bots = 650bots

Most I ever used in a mission was maybe 15, and I never had any performance issue even then.

But yes i do agree the more AI the more performance drain.

My specs are worse then most peoples yet I can play the game np, not maxed out but I can run it and

the game looks pretty god still, my specs:

AMD single core 2.6 single core

Geforce gtx 285

PSU 750 watt

2g ramm

A few things that kill performance for a mission:

1. to many AI running around at once

2. lots of AI, explosions, dead bodies and burning vehicles, ect,.

3. to many scripts plus all of the above

4. playing missions on huge maps that have a ton of buildings, and foliage like trees ect,.

Outide of a mission:

1. low specs

2. many programs running in the background

3. registry errors

4. fragmented hard drive

To solve an issue like this, in my own coop missions I used to build to upload to a gameserver I had for a couple years, i would use a catching script:

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=10102

this would reduce the number of AI, thats just units not vehicles, but would reduce them at a certain distance from the player, so if it was set at 500m,

then if you placed lets say 20 groups 500meters away from you, as you got closer the groups would be created, as soon as you added distance between

you and them they would reduce to a minimal.

I find one the most important thing to maintain mission performance, especially for those folks with low end computers like mine, is to have a delete dead body

and destroyed vehicles script, or a body removal script.

Using one of these you can have it setup where after so much time bodies and wrecks ould delete, as dead AI still uses CPU power.

Just my thoughts and experience.

[chrisb 196]

I get these results for my A2 pc, with four cores, no core ever really drops below the 50% mark, always one in the +85’s, one or two +70's, remaining cores usually above +60%.

GPU in heavy areas, as seen, usually 90-99%. Obviously though the gpu can go down to 10% on occasion, but I haven't seen that for a few years to be honest, tends to stay above at least 50%. I make missions to suit the systems in our group and at present my A2 pc is the lowest spec, so the missions tend to be made to suit my setup, may change when A3 comes out.

My in-game settings, can change upwards though from time to time, never below these however, over recent beta's I have pushed 'Object detail' to high seems to be no performance drop.. I use 'IVD' mod, so the view distance shown may not be the one used, I tend to stay at 2000-3000 on the ground and anything upto 10000 in the air, depends on load..

What load line do you run ?

Mine is as follows:

"C:\Program Files\Bohemia Interactive\ArmA 2\Expansion\beta\arma2oa.exe" -beta=Expansion\beta;Expansion\beta\Expansion -nosplash -nofilepatching -skipintro -winxp "-world=empty" "-cpucount=4" "-maxmem= (to suit yours)" "-maxVRAM= (again to suit yours)"

(obviously if your not running the beta’s it would not mention that in your load line)

I use win7 64 & 32 bit. I run the game from the 32bit (not ‘x86 program files’), straight forward ‘program files’, only because it gives me better performance.

Mine is a gaming pc, so nothing else on it other than the game and whats needed to see it on screen, plus of course minimum security. Background running processes should be kept to a minimum, as they can cause problems.

Lean & Clean (very clean), always.

Not sure if any of this will help..:)

Edited December 24, 2012 by ChrisB

[Gunter Severloh 4052]

What load line do you run ?

I'd assume your talking to me but:

Im on Winxp 32bit, my normal target line for a modern day warfare type play is:

E:\Games\Arma2\arma2oa.exe -nosplash -skipIntro -mod=@CBA;@CBA_A2;@CBA_OA;@COWarMod;@COWarModSM

But I normally play with:

E:\Games\Arma2\arma2oa.exe -nosplash -skipIntro -mod=@CBA;@CBA_A2;@CBA_OA;@I44;@COWarModI44

suppose I should try the betas.

nothing special really, but I really dont get any performance loss, unless theres a ton of Ai in the mission and lots of

explosions on a cluttered map like chenarus, or like fallujah.

[r4m0n 1]

What load line do you run ?

i run CO through play-with-six. enabled following:

- update to latest beta

- force run as admin

- cpucount=4

- exthreads=7

maybe some of the devs can answer... but i think there has to be something in the game code itself.

normally all hardware should be stressed more and more the more you give it to compute. in arma 2 the game seems to go backwards past a certain point of load. gpu and cpu are DEFINITELY stressed / used / utilized less the more happens ingame...

maybe some internal engine scripting errors?

regards & hoping for a solution...

r.

[chrisb 196]

I'd assume your talking to me but:.

No sorry Gunter, that post was aimed at @r4m0n.:)

@r4m0n

But as Gunter shows, I did not go as far as my mod line setup, which I do in-game now. All my folders are type sorted, i.e. '@ai_enhancements' etc, pbo's are tested and sorted, similar to what Gunter does with the mods he's done, only not all in one folder.

I use SU for updating all the mods listed on their launcher, those I have that are not listed on SU (100's), I manually update :(, I don't use it to launch the game. Still think you could be trying out different things to see, you may wait a while for a dev to reply..;)

[r4m0n 1]

Still think you could be trying out different things to see, you may wait a while for a dev to reply..;)

hi,

i really hope some of you guys tries to reproduce my findings too. i hope the devs will investigate that if more people have same results. to me this does not seem to be a configuration type aftereffect. i am experimenting with the setting in arma a long time now and concluded that there must be something within the arma engine code itself. some limitation or whatever!?

normally every application stresses a specific part of your hardware more or less. less utilization with more stress is very strange to me. just try to monitor your hardware same like i did. i would be surprised if you have other findings. i have friends playing with 2x 580 gtx, i5, i7, 680 gtx etc. all have the same issues.

hopefully we get an answer / workaround or solution from the devs to this.

to be honest arma is still one of the coolest games in regards to mods like ACE or I44.

best regards

r.

[max power 21]

Does this perhaps mean that there is a bottleneck somewhere that is not cpu or gpu related?

[Jastreb 69]

Two words = hard drive. ;)

Dont forget that one, probably the most important part.

[Hud Dorph 22]

No - hardly hard drive are the problem as its already been discussed that single ssd perform just as good as a raid-ssd setup, armawise.

[Jastreb 69]

Then how would you explain bottleneck in Arma? If its not CPU, and its not GPU, then whats left? Drives, and system FSB? Or its far more complex than I can imagine..

[.kju 3244]

to be expected behavior and normal. move on with it - it cannot be "fixed"

this is how the engine works (more AI, longer computation duration for AI, aka longer frame, aka less frames per second + AI is not threaded)

[r4m0n 1]

Does this perhaps mean that there is a bottleneck somewhere that is not cpu or gpu related?

that is exactly what we are talking about! if hardware is performing bad although declared sufficient / and or overpowered you are at the point of bad / ineffecient software-programming.

;2268831']to be expected behavior and normal. move on with it - it cannot be "fixed"

this is how the engine works (more AI' date=' longer computation duration for AI, aka longer frame, aka less frames per second + AI is not threaded)[/quote']

we are talking about a multiplayer game not sp only. "move on with it" is a really bad excuse. since i bought that game in feb.2011 i am waiting for optimizations & performance increases. unfortunately arma 2 is a big slap into the face of us buyers! since 2009 that game has just excuses for nearly everything. i am scared of arma 3 and will seriously reconsider any decisions this time...

no offense guys... but thats really not ok! there are many better performing games in terms of graphics than arma 2. you just CANNOT always blame "bad" hardware.

regards r.