64-bit executable

[Insanatrix 0]

You seem to think that this precludes any benefits from a larger address space. Where do you think it is being streamed to? Into RAM of course. When you run Arma 2 on Win7 64Bit, which benefits from more RAM being addressable by the application than on a 32 Bit OS, there is noticeably less hdd activity, because the data is still in RAM after the initial stream. Which suggests to me that the effort of work required for the engine to benefit from a 64Bit address space is less than you imagine.

Even if they created 64 bit binaries, coded the memory management system to utilize more than 4gb, they would still need the streaming from the HDD. You're dealing with way too much data to just load at once, your load times would be pretty crazy. However the issue comes when physical memory is exhausted, yet the engine is still needing more and more and more data, far beyond the limits of 32 bit addressing and LAA. Then you start swapping data from memory, to the pagefile, and back and forth and back and forth which is what creates the bottleneck. That is where the streaming from the HDD beings to fail.

It would be time consuming, but it wouldn't be hard. At the very least it would lay the framework for future iterations of the RV engine.

[chortles 263]

I'd rather stop seeing posts about 64-bit executables when they have said they aren't doing it. There's literally nothing to argue. It's plain and simple not going to happen.

Truthbetold that's pretty much the case for most requests on the BI Arma 3 forums.

white, any chart there that lists a 3570K?

[white 1]

Truthbetold that's pretty much the case for most requests on the BI Arma 3 forums.

white, any chart there that lists a 3570K?

not yet i believe, but i woul guess its somewhere between the 2500k and the 3930.

[Zickefoose 1]

you're very wrong...the minority of PC users are gamers with gaming PCs. The standard Home Computeer you get in shops is still somethingn within the 2-4gb Ram and 2.5-3ghz CPU range with a mediocre 512MB -1gb gfx card in the ATI HD 5xxx or nvidia 2xx class or something onboard...and more and more users dont tend to use a desktop PC at all...and Laptops are very limited in performance or very, very, very expensive especialyl in time when spendings for entertainment pusposes have to be cut down for thing like keeping the family car running etc. Keep in mind that right now still a third of all PCs worldwide still use XP.

I would attribute that to XP being the best OS Microsoft has ever been able to produce. And the next release, Vista.. being the most god aweful worst OS there has EVER been. Anybody that is "gaming" does not use XP anymore. Most games won't even run on XP. This one included. So, Metal69's comment seems to be more accurate. People running XP are not running a "gaming" machine. ArmaIII, I dont believe was ever designed to run on "The Standard Home Computer". The more I think about it, the more Metal69 appears to be right. Though, we can only speculate what "most" people have. Though, I bet if we started a poll on this forum to see who runs a 32-bit OS or a 64-bit OS... the 64-bit will have the most users.

[white 1]

high end pcs barely have enough fps to run this, the average household pc has no chance of having any reasonable playability.

that pretty much ends the 32bit being necessary argument.

[VikingWarrior 1]

high end pcs barely have enough fps to run this, the average household pc has no chance of having any reasonable playability.

that pretty much ends the 32bit being necessary argument.

Agreed

[Insanatrix 0]

high end pcs barely have enough fps to run this, the average household pc has no chance of having any reasonable playability.

that pretty much ends the 32bit being necessary argument.

Agree'd.

[PuFu 4600]

it sees but doesnt use them properly, have you ever looked at armas threads on an api monitor? theres mainly 1 thread handling the game, sync and ai on the first core, and crap like clouds and physx spread on other cores that have to wait on the first core to begin with. i have a 6 core aswell, and ive posted screenshots of performance test with only 2 of them avaiable to the game, guess what, same fps, higher cpu usage 90%+ on both cores. the game main game/ai doesnt have enough threads to use more cores, thus, a 6 or 8 cores perform the same as a dual core because the first core is always bottlenecked with anything going on. (worse if the dual core is on a better platform and have higher frequency)

http://i.imgur.com/USKkvXQ.jpg

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2306247

It's not worse then what i see when BF3 is on. The difference here is that BF3 is not using any sort of AI though

That said, do you actually believe that 64 binaries would change that?

Probably because you can't asynchronously process the data. The threads have to synced for the game to work. Each thread relies on data from other threads. Thus you have the master thread as you see syncing all the data from the other threads.

Eagle Dynamics is facing the same issues with their DCS line of sims. Breaking off different threads doesn't magically speed everything up because each thread is reliant the others to function.

precisely

Who said they wouldn't have to rewrite how the engine handles memory addressing? I've said many times that they would have to rewrite it. 64bit architecture ALLOWS you to address beyond 4gb of physical memory, They would still have to rewrite the engine to be able to utilize that much memory and get rid of the HDD streaming. It seems that you want to put your own conclusions into my words.

Where did I say making the game LAA is anywhere remotely like making it 64bit? Where did I say 64bit has anything to do with multi-threading? Are you even reading my posts? I've said numerous time that the engine needs a rewrite, it needs to utilize 64bit architecture because the memory footprint of the RV engine has grown so far beyond the 32bit limitation that you are now relying more on your hard drive to act as a memory buffer 3 times over the actual utilized physical memory, than you are relying on your physical memory to feed data and texture's to the GPU and CPU.

And the engine will not be re-written mid development no matter how much you voice your opinion around those forums.

Secondly, I know you were trying to argue your point in a decent manner, show me where I argued my point in an indecent manner. Otherwise I see no relevance to your statement other than to try and draw sympathy like you're the poor lone fanboy defending BI from the evil 64bit aggressor's.

If you want to be taken seriously, you should have data and stop phrasing sentences starting with "it would be idiotic to argue past this point", since you just ended any sort of "discussion" at that point and turned into a monologue.

It is actually you that has the wrong idea, thinking that we are simply saying a 64bit binary will solve everything.

That is precisely what you said:

First of all, to say that ArmA 3 would not benefit from 64bit architecture is a fallacy. Being able to address more physical ram and less virtual ram would be a huge boon to the RV engine.

What we are saying is that the game engine needs to be rewritten to utilize the larger memory addressing of 64bit architecture, because the current method of streaming over 5gb of data to and from physical memory, just plain sucks and is hindering performance and productivity of the software for a large general population of user's.

Who is we in your sentence? And why you keep repeating yourself?

This should have been a top priority since ArmA 2 as the RV engine suffered from the same issue's then, and common sense and logic would tell you that it's only going to get worse with each revision as texture sizes grow and as the game and it's engine expand, therefor needing increased memory capacity to function. Excuse most of us that could see this coming from a mile away, being frustrated and wanting to voice our opinions about the issue. It doesn't help when you have both moderator's and user's misrepresenting the issue as if to say that we aren't asking BI to actually recode the game for a 64bit architecture.

It obviously wasn't a priority. It has been said long time ago that BI will not take the 64 binary route.

Maybe because some moderators, as well as some of users, have been working in the gaming industry, and they have a clue about what they are talking about?

Myke;2341826']@PuFu

don't waste too much energy on this topic or i will have to rename your account to "Don Quixote". ;)

fair enough, but then you would also need to rename some accounts around here to "windmill01", "windmill02" etc ;)

[white 1]

It's not worse then what i see when BF3 is on. The difference here is that BF3 is not using any sort of AI though

That said, do you actually believe that 64 binaries would change that?

It is worse, you are wrong. this is how it should behave:

2 Cores Enabled: GPU usage = 27% / CPU usage = 99.8% / FPS = 31

4 Cores Enabled: GPU usage = 76% / CPU usage = 91.1% / FPS = 47

6 Cores Enabled: GPU usage = 95% / CPU usage = 89.7% / FPS = 70

cpu used as needed, fps scaling accordingly to more cpu cores being avaiable to be used and gpu becoming the bottleneck eventually since cpus nowdays can pretty much easily handle any game when all cores are properly used. and games like bf3, cryssi 3 and farcry 3 being very gpu demanding behave pretty much like this. there are no "loops estressing the cpu there" or "bad multicore scaling" like bis devs like to keep repeating. thats a fairy tale created to sustain the false idea of multicores not scaling well when properly coded, and only scaling in stuff like 3d rendering. those are lies.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18459152

64bits alone? no, but with all the things i mentioned, yes.

i understand syncing AI bottlenecks everything anyway if coded with 1 thread for each ai, but why is it coded like that? ive seen terrible behaviour on arma without any lag, like me shooting someone, the guy not acknowledging the hit, killing me and then acknowledging the hit and dying (cpu bottleneck on the server and everyone else perhaps?). or someone driving a vehicle and me seeing serious desyncing and not following the same path on my screen. ive never seen anything as bad as those situations on regular games.

if syncing exists to get rid of that kind of thing, its doing a bad job.

Edited March 17, 2013 by white

[dmarkwick 261]

It is worse, you are wrong. this is how it should behave:

2 Cores Enabled: GPU usage = 27% / CPU usage = 99.8% / FPS = 31

4 Cores Enabled: GPU usage = 76% / CPU usage = 91.1% / FPS = 47

6 Cores Enabled: GPU usage = 95% / CPU usage = 89.7% / FPS = 70

cpu used as needed, fps scaling accordingly to more cpu cores being avaiable to be used and gpu becoming the bottleneck eventually since cpus nowdays can pretty much easily handle any game when all cores are properly used. and games like bf3, cryssi 3 and farcry 3 being very gpu demanding behave pretty much like this. there are no "loops estressing the cpu there" or "bad multicore scaling" like bis devs like to keep repeating. thats a fairy tale created to sustain the false idea of multicores not scaling well when properly coded, and only scaling in stuff like 3d rendering. those are lies.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18459152

64bits alone? no, but with all the things i mentioned, yes.

So you beleive the devs are lying based on your own observations of the task manager plus some vague other-game-comparisons?

I dunno. I've gotten more sense and credibility from the devs so far. I'm pretty sure thay know more about their engine than either of us, so I will make my judgement based on that :)

[pathetic_berserker 4]

It is worse, you are wrong. this is how it should behave:

2 Cores Enabled: GPU usage = 27% / CPU usage = 99.8% / FPS = 31

4 Cores Enabled: GPU usage = 76% / CPU usage = 91.1% / FPS = 47

6 Cores Enabled: GPU usage = 95% / CPU usage = 89.7% / FPS = 70

cpu used as needed, fps scaling accordingly and gpu becoming the bottleneck eventually since cpus nowdays can pretty much easily handle any game when all cores are properly used. there are no "loops estressing the cpu there" or "bad multicore scaling" like bis devs like to keep repeating. thats a fairy tale created to sustain the false idea of multicores not scaling well when properly coded, and only scaling in stuff like 3d rendering. those are lies.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18459152

64bits alone? no, but with all the things i mentioned, yes.

SFW

BF3 is using the CPU for bling, A3 is leaving some overhead to handle AI when it arrives. This is what you are seeing. Comparing turnips to tomatoes as far as I can see. This argument is made of slider maxers who cant cant comprehend what the ArmA AI is, let alone stand that a game might need the next the generation of hardware to max settings on.

I have no problems running A3 on my current machine or my previous gen machine (Q9650, 8G ram, GTX285). Being realistic about settings solves everything. I do however acknowledge there are some issues currently with MP and operating large amounts of AI , but hey its still early days. besides they already said no to 64bit

[white 1]

So you beleive the devs are lying based on your own observations of the task manager plus some vague other-game-comparisons?

I dunno. I've gotten more sense and credibility from the devs so far. I'm pretty sure thay know more about their engine than either of us, so I will make my judgement based on that :)

you can try it yourself and watch how your core to fps ratio works, theres no secret to it. causality my friend. theyve clearly stated in the past that other game´s cpu/gpu usage behaves the same as arma, and that they dont scale multicore usage well like one would expect, and well, i can prove that wrong quite easily.

if i say something when theres enough facts to prove me otherwise, i must accept im wrong. if i keep saying the same thing anyway when trying to not fix something/stating i cannot fix it for time/budget reasons, for years, (arma2) while pushing a product... well... doesnt leave much space for more conclusions. well theres is the one that they simply dont know better even when people keep shouting it, i could accept that.

i understand they built the engine in a peculiar manner that cant take advantage of multicores, but noone can say other games dont make use of it properly, because that would be a lie. also cannot be said that it couldnt be changed, since its a matter of effort/cost/time, and not being impossible or not.

but like i always say, prove me otherwise if im wrong.

Edited March 17, 2013 by white

[5133p39 16]

theyve clearly stated in the past that other game´s cpu/gpu usage behaves the same as arma, and that they dont scale multicore usage well like one would expect, and well, i can prove that wrong quite easily.

May i ask where did "they" stated that? Could you post a link to the relevant source?

[calin_banc 19]

So... if the other cores are barely used, then could perhaps Bohemia use them for more physics like Crysis 3, BF 3, RF:G? I mean, if they just sitting there, doing almost nothing... why not put those resources to good use?

[white 1]

May i ask where did "they" stated that? Could you post a link to the relevant source?

i think in the low cpu usage topic around page 20. here:

these who always expect theirs multicore CPU maxxed out by games fail to realize that there is always overhead by syncing or minimal timeframe needed to finish operation on actual primary thread ,

there is also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law and much more problems in multithreaded coding (there are whole books about it)

so 99+% utilization of both CPU / GPU or just all multiple CPU/GPU in complex gaming is yet to be seen , they not benchmarks and specialized tasks ...

we will work on improving multithreaded capability of the Arma 3 engine,

yet this feature is in Arma 2 engine since 2009 http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/91-real-virtuality-going-multicore

ironically the last paragraph from the article still does apply

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS&p=2320137&viewfull=1#post2320137

and ive replied to that shortly after questioning it, didnt get any more direct replies back.

So... if the other cores are barely used, then could perhaps Bohemia use them for more physics like Crysis 3, BF 3, RF:G? I mean, if they just sitting there, doing almost nothing... why not put those resources to good use?

because of how the engine is coded the first core bottlenecks everything, thus making everything else wait for it, and that, makes most of the other cores useless. the game needs to have this aspect redesigned in order to use the hardware thats avaiable.

Edited March 17, 2013 by white

[[frl]myke 14]

Just out of curiosity, may i ask about the programming/developing background the people in this thread have?

[white 1]

Myke;2343168']Just out of curiosity' date=' may i ask about the programming/developing background the people in this thread have?[/quote']

an argumentum ad hominem is prone to happen, but anyway, ive finished harvards cs50 online course and seen mit´s introduction to programming openware course, never worked with it, but im always interested in learning. and most of my friends either work as programmers or have development offices for decades, and yes ive asked them a lot of questions lately since theyre all on my skype all day like me.

ive worked in retail, advertising, developing products and for the last few years, 3d architectural visualizations. (modeling, texturing, lighting, rendering, post processing)

[Insanatrix 0]

It's not worse then what i see when BF3 is on. The difference here is that BF3 is not using any sort of AI though

That said, do you actually believe that 64 binaries would change that?

precisely

And the engine will not be re-written mid development no matter how much you voice your opinion around those forums.

If you want to be taken seriously, you should have data and stop phrasing sentences starting with "it would be idiotic to argue past this point", since you just ended any sort of "discussion" at that point and turned into a monologue.

That is precisely what you said:

First of all, to say that ArmA 3 would not benefit from 64bit architecture is a fallacy. Being able to address more physical ram and less virtual ram would be a huge boon to the RV engine.

Who is we in your sentence? And why you keep repeating yourself?

It obviously wasn't a priority. It has been said long time ago that BI will not take the 64 binary route.

Maybe because some moderators, as well as some of users, have been working in the gaming industry, and they have a clue about what they are talking about?

fair enough, but then you would also need to rename some accounts around here to "windmill01", "windmill02" etc ;)

I'm only responding to your quote's of my statements.

First of all it wouldn't require an entire rewrite of the RV engine. It would require 64 bit binaries and 64 bit memory pointers to be utilized however. That's completely doable in the time frame that we are dealing with here. We're in an alpha state right now, Now is the time to make the shift.

Secondly what data do you want? You want a log of memory usage corresponding with a drop in CPU and GPU utilization once the process exhausts physical ram and starts constantly swapping between physical and virtual memory? Tell me where to send it. It happens the moment the program is loaded. Physical memory usage stays exactly the same from the second you load ArmA 3 to the title screen. The only thing that changes is the amount of virtual memory that is used, hence physical memory has been exhausted and it is now constantly paging from physical to virtual memory.

That is not precisely what I said. Being able to address more physical memory due to the higher addressing space of 64bit pointers would be a boon to the RV engine, since it's completely limited by virtual memory/HDD throughput. That requires more than just implementing a 64bit binary, but also making use of 64bit memory pointers which does require reworking how the current memory allocation system functions. It is you who are trying to simplify it for your own argument.

We, meaning anyone who has a free thinking brain that doesn't hang on every word a developer for their favorite software development company says, as if the Messiah has thus spoken and the laws of computing somehow bend to their will. Maybe if your words weren't tainted with a brown stain, you actually had more than just "but Suma said it wouldn't help", and you actually possessed some knowledge of computer engineering and science with some sort of factual basis on why larger memory addressing wouldn't help, you didn't believe Bohemia Interactive to be the end all be all messiah of the computer science world, I would take you more seriously. Instead all you are trying to do is argue the words, not the meaning or the functionality. Hence why I said arguing beyond this point is idiotic, simply because you are so convinced you're right, that having the program written with 64 bit binaries, using 64 bit memory pointers, running at some unfathomable speed and you would still argue against it simply because the words of a software developer have more credibility to you than all of computer science and engineering combined. It's called confirmation bias.

The general good ole boy's humor that marks both you and [FRL]Myke's posts shows that you care more about self image than you do about problem solving or critical thinking. The rest of your posts just make it all too painfully clear.

[5133p39 16]

i think in the low cpu usage topic around page 20.

Well, its not - i've looked through pages 1-30 and didnt found anything.

So, i guess you should try to find it and post the links (otherwise some might think that now YOU are lying).

because of how the engine is coded the first core bottlenecks everything, thus making everything else wait for it, and that, makes most of the other cores useless. the game needs to have this aspect redesigned in order to use the hardware thats avaiable.

There might be few things that should get redesigned, thats true for every code at all times, but what leaves me puzzled are your psychic abilities - you didn't see a single line, yet you know exactly what is wrong with the code, and you know all the solutions.

Can you also predict future? Would you please PM me the next lottery winning numbers?

[white 1]

Well, its not - i've looked through pages 1-30 and didnt found anything.

So, i guess you should try to find it and post the links (otherwise some might think that now YOU are lying).

look again, i just edited my previous post with it (in this topic). that one in particular talks about cpu/gpu usage and multithread in games, and both his statements and some in the article he posted are wrong. check the reply i made there soon after, acctually, check that entire topic slowly since you seem to miss a lot of things, you will learn a lot there. but there were more statements about it on other places/topics aswell, sorry because im not about to scavenge the rest of them aswell.

There might be few things that should get redesigned, thats true for every code at all times, but what leaves me puzzled are your psychic abilities - you didn't see a single line, yet you know exactly what is wrong with the code, and you know all the solutions.

Can you also predict future? Would you please PM me the next lottery winning numbers?

deducting using evidences,you know, using logic. you should give it a try. theres a lot of information on the subject between users and the devs statements here on arma 3, on steam discussion (especially on a topic there that dwarden closed) and on arma 2 aswell, since its the same issue and its been discussed for years, including the 64bits issue, and ive been reading it.

dont come here with a parachute without doing your homework and expeting to know what i know so far. i dont know everything, far from it, but apparently you dont know shit.

Edited March 17, 2013 by white

[Insanatrix 0]

Myke;2343168']Just out of curiosity' date=' may i ask about the programming/developing background the people in this thread have?[/quote']

Taken a few college programming classes but just didn't care much for it, not enough to make a career out of it. Other than that it's just personal experience from reading and researching things, building computers and learning what every little settings does, googling things I don't understand and researching them until I have a better grasp of what they encompass. I have quite a few friends in the programming field, most noteably one works for NOAA and one works for NWS Yorktown, that I generally talk to and ask for questions and advice on things. I've still got a 286SX out in my garage that was in my first computer and that was right around the time where I first got interested in computers and technology.

Not the most professional background, which I'm sure will be used against me.

[NimrodAUS 10]

You don't even have a triple screen setup and you're talking shit? LOL.

And uh, my laptop has a full size keyboard. You really should educate yourself on gaming laptops, because you don't have a clue. 17" is big enough when you have to take it somewhere. OH YEAH! There's USB, VGA, DP and HDMI ports, so.... Yeah all of those 'issues' can be dealt with. Yeah, you're entitled to have an opinion, but the moment you start being a dipshit about it, then there's an issue.

I have an idea, since your computer is so amazing, why don't you post a 3D Mark score.

There's nothing amazing about my computer, it's not the latest or greatest but it runs ArmA 2 well and that's pretty much the only game I play/ have time to play these days. Don't know why your so defensive of gaming laptops. They have there purpose sure but I just can't imagine how you think you can justify it to be as good as having a full size desktop layout for playing games. It never had been and it never will be. Wake up to yourself mate. I'm over debating this with you.

[5133p39 16]

look again, i just edited my previous post with it (in this topic). that one in particular talks about cpu/gpu usage and multithread in games, and both his statements and some in the article he posted are wrong. check the reply i made there soon after, acctually, check that entire topic slowly since you seem to miss a lot of things, you will learn a lot there. but there were more statements about it on other places/topics aswell, sorry because im not about to scavenge the rest of them aswell.

Ok... i dont get it - where does Dwarden write that "other game´s cpu/gpu usage behaves the same as arma" or "they dont scale multicore usage well like one would expect".

More importantly, what exactly is NOT true on that Dwarden's post?

---------- Post added at 15:24 ---------- Previous post was at 15:19 ----------

there were more statements about it on other places/topics aswell, sorry because im not about to scavenge the rest of them aswell.

But you should! especially after how little you presented so far (puting words into dev's mouths, and then being unable to prove youre right)

[white 1]

Ok... i dont get it - where does Dwarden write that "other game´s cpu/gpu usage behaves the same as arma" or "they dont scale multicore usage well like one would expect".

More importantly, what exactly is NOT true on that Dwarden's post?

sigh. first off i bolded the most important part. he states that high cpu/gpu usage in gaming is yet to be seen. and a few posts before that, here, i posted a high cpu/gpu usage in bf3. exactly what he said was yet to be seen, and in different topics people posted the same thing on other games.

and

on a topic about low cpu usage in which everyone is talking about how the game underperforms in multicore, he states as an excuse:

"these who always expect theirs multicore CPU maxxed out by games fail to realize that there is always overhead by syncing or minimal timeframe needed to finish operation on actual primary thread"

but again, thats proven wrong with high cpu usage on multithreaded multicore games.

being able to read words doesnt mean you are able to understand what is written.

[5133p39 16]

sigh. first off i bolded the most important part. he states that high cpu/gpu usage in gaming is yet to be seen.

NO, he wrote that 99+% usage is yet to be seen (and he's right - if your game uses 100% cpu/gpu, something is wrong, not good)

on a topic about low cpu usage in which everyone is talking about how the game underperforms in multicore, he states as an excuse:

"these who always expect theirs multicore CPU maxxed out by games fail to realize that there is always overhead by syncing or minimal timeframe needed to finish operation on actual primary thread"

And? Since i am aparently so stupid, maybe you could explain what is wrong with this statement, please.