Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[white 1]

Anything you can throw at it? Really? You demand 30 fps "Minimum!!!!" at anything you can dream up parameter-wise.....:rolleyes: Tell, me what other high vision dev games allow this -that is, unlimited parameter editor testing while guarenteeing 30 fps "minimum!!!"? Eh? In pre-Beta format no less.

The closest I can think of would be a game called Arma2. Guess they had more ambitious Dev's....

and then i proceeded to define a quite specific scenario, i guess finishing that paragraph was too hard for you.

[froggyluv 2130]

with anything i throw at it. 100 AI, multiplayer with 30 ppl, with tanks, helis, on the shore with explosions and smoke and 3000 view range. again, thats 30 fps minimum. because 30fps isnt enough for smooth gameplay.

I read it fine - and your defined request at the end doesn't negate your outlandish demand at the fore. Arma 2 does exactly as you asked but took time to be optimized to such. Demanding that an Alpha build do what you ask performance-wise makes one have to question the maturity level of the demander...

[white 1]

I read it fine - and your defined request at the end doesn't negate your outlandish demand at the fore. Arma 2 does exactly as you asked but took time to be optimized to such. Demanding that an Alpha build do what you ask performance-wise makes one have to question the maturity level of the demander...

sigh

i guess being able to read is not the same as being able to understand it right? and arma 2 still has bad fps issues.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?85124-ArmA2-OA-(low)-performance-issues

and i never stated that i expected 30 mininum in alpha so i guess its true that you cant read. you take part of a phrase, ignore the paragraph and dont take the rest of what ive said into account as context. what ive said is that 25 average is unacceptable, because a lot of people state that "20-30 fps is fine for arma". you know what that means to me? that you cant read, dont follow the topic and post whatever stupid thing comes to mind not taking anything into account. what i do expect, or better, hope, its 30fps minimum at launch. and im afraid theres a huge possibility that it wont happen based, like i said, on previous games and their vague answers about the issue that theyve already recognized. but who knows, its alpha, anything can happen right? i still hope they will get it right, theres time imho, but all the vague statements and avoiding direct questions dont help.

Edited March 24, 2013 by white

[jumpinghubert 48]

is it possible to make a Little Benchmark? The latest dev build is able to run it under "Scenarios". Maybe one with and one without AI to see the illogical dependencies between AI and cpu-usage.

...to give at last this discussion a quantifiable Background...

Edited March 24, 2013 by JumpingHubert

[froggyluv 2130]

sigh

i guess being able to read is not the same as being able to understand it right? and arma 2 still has bad fps issues.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?85124-ArmA2-OA-(low)-performance-issues

Just lol. Any hard hitting performance game will have a never ending "Performance" thread as that is the nature of PC gaming and tweaking. Anybody with a half decent system and a brain can get Arma 2 decent to outstanding FPS by now. It wasn't that way in the beginning -did they do this by mastering the art of 8 core 100% utilization? No. Of course we'd all like better GPU/CPU utilization or 64-bit executables but that is by no means the end all/be all of optimization and those lamenting about it every other post need to realise that that is not the sole objective of Alpha feedback testing. If thats too much to ask -then maybe Alpha testing isn't for you.

[white 1]

Just lol. Any hard hitting performance game will have a never ending "Performance" thread as that is the nature of PC gaming and tweaking. Anybody with a half decent system and a brain can get Arma 2 decent to outstanding FPS by now. It wasn't that way in the beginning -did they do this by mastering the art of 8 core 100% utilization? No. Of course we'd all like better GPU/CPU utilization or 64-bit executables but that is by no means the end all/be all of optimization and those lamenting about it every other post need to realise that that is not the sole objective of Alpha feedback testing. If thats too much to ask -then maybe Alpha testing isn't for you.

good job on being lazy and not caring enough to read that topic, also good job on making false asumptions about it. and nice going about not knowing shit about how arma 2 performs on current systems and calling people with high end rigs that experience the engines limitations stupid, and i find it ironic considering you just said arma 2 has outstanding fps. funny shit. i really cant say anything more after that.

Edited March 24, 2013 by white

[froggyluv 2130]

good job on being lazy and not caring enough to read that topic, also good job on making false asumptions about it. and nice going about not knowing shit about how arma 2 performs on current systems and calling people with high end rigs stupid, and i find it ironic considering you just said arma 2 has outstanding fps. funny shit. i really cant say anything more after that.

Lazy for not sitting down and spending my Sunday reading a thread from 2009 with over 2000+ posts. Yes, your right, I am uncaring.... Pretty sure i know how Arma 2 runs on a variety of rigs since Ive had multiple builds since then -since OFP even. And yes, Arma 2 runs well for most people -sorry your having problems.

Lets get back to being on-topic now m'kay?

[doveman 7]

Just lol. Any hard hitting performance game will have a never ending "Performance" thread as that is the nature of PC gaming and tweaking. Anybody with a half decent system and a brain can get Arma 2 decent to outstanding FPS by now. It wasn't that way in the beginning -did they do this by mastering the art of 8 core 100% utilization? No. Of course we'd all like better GPU/CPU utilization or 64-bit executables but that is by no means the end all/be all of optimization and those lamenting about it every other post need to realise that that is not the sole objective of Alpha feedback testing. If thats too much to ask -then maybe Alpha testing isn't for you.

Insulting crap. The devs have admitted that the A2 engine has problems, particularly with AMD CPUs, due to the AI and the fact that the client fps is affected by the server means no matter how decent someone's system and brain are, the fps online is, to a large extent, out of their control.

[tet5uo 4]

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt...

[Insanatrix 0]

Just lol. Any hard hitting performance game will have a never ending "Performance" thread as that is the nature of PC gaming and tweaking. Anybody with a half decent system and a brain can get Arma 2 decent to outstanding FPS by now. It wasn't that way in the beginning -did they do this by mastering the art of 8 core 100% utilization? No. Of course we'd all like better GPU/CPU utilization or 64-bit executables but that is by no means the end all/be all of optimization and those lamenting about it every other post need to realise that that is not the sole objective of Alpha feedback testing. If thats too much to ask -then maybe Alpha testing isn't for you.

Explain how this game is a "hard hitting performance game". It's poorly optimized, I won't say it's poorly coded as I have no access to source and even if I did I'm sure I wouldn't know if it was or not. However I do have tools and utilities that can tell me how "hard hitting" it is on my hardware. Those tools and utilities say that it's moderately using CPU and GPU resources. It doesn't appear to be very "hard hitting" from a standpoint of actual hardware usage, more so from ignorant assumptions.

Just because something performs poorly and has x amount of feature's that have nothing to do with said performance, doesn't mean it's some ultra hard hitting performance game. Just means it's not optimized or not coded efficiently/properly. Just because ArmA has a fully encompassed editor, has no bearing on it's use of computer processing resources or hardware nor does it have any bearing on the performance of said engine in 3d rendering and calculations. Just because it has a military setting, has no effect on performance. Ignorance is a breeding ground for both prejudice and stupidity, something you see an awful lot of in most gaming communities, something you can honestly see in this community if you take an impartial look.

There are performance problems with this engine, they have repeated through each iteration of the engine it seems like. To put it quite bluntly, ArmA 2 runs just as poorly as ArmA 3. It suffers from the same performance problems, it suffers from the same bottlenecks. I'm hoping that BI addresses the issue's, I'm not saying I don't have faith or that they won't. I just find it odd that when exhausting the 32 bit addressing, they chose to stick with 32 bit addressing and use virtual memory paging as a solution. I didn't find it odd with ArmA 2 because the engine was pretty feature set and although 64 bit OS and CPU's were common back then, they weren't as common as today. With ArmA 3 though I find it very odd that you would keep streaming from the hard drive rather than going 64 bit and reaping the benefits of being able to address more RAM. It really should have been a goal, especially considering as someone above me pointed out that the game won't be released for 6-12-18 months.

Even Eagle Dynamics finally went 64 bit due to the nature of their software and the demands of it. Storing and rendering large amounts of texture and data for landmasses and objects.

[bobby budnick 0]

-cpucount does not seem to be working for me. All 6 cores are (under)used in the same way with -cpucount=1 or -cpucount=6. It would be understandable for only one core to be fully used due to the nature of typical multi-threading, but even that is not happening right now. On my dual core dedicated server, neither core is fully utilized either.

[froggyluv 2130]

Percentage of coreX used is not the sole decider of how enjoyable the playability of a game is. Neither is FPS -take Red River for instance, seemed pretty well optimized and had a very steady FPS but at what cost? 64 count entity limits and teamates that must stay tethered to a 100m radius -that was the tradeoff. Features and to what extent they let us push parameters matter and should be used to temper harsh judgements of overall playability.

Like I said before, when I first bought Arma 2, my FPS were sitting around 30 in the standard benchmarks at default settings - they escalated incrementally until they soared at 50-70+ What happened? Video card drivers improved that much? Did 64 exe sneak in the dark of the middle of night? No, probably game code was optimized and made more efficient. Like I also said before, 64 bit would be great and I'd love to see it, but crying about it and insulting Dev/Owner by calling them lazy, insinuating they're dumb and you all know better is ridiculous. Please show me the awesome, optimized full world mil sim with ragdoll, physics, PiP and unlimited AI that is obviously par for the course easy to make that you all have made.

[Insanatrix 0]

Percentage of coreX used is not the sole decider of how enjoyable the playability of a game is. Neither is FPS -take Red River for instance, seemed pretty well optimized and had a very steady FPS but at what cost? 64 count entity limits and teamates that must stay tethered to a 100m radius -that was the tradeoff. Features and to what extent they let us push parameters matter and should be used to temper harsh judgements of overall playability.

Like I said before, when I first bought Arma 2, my FPS were sitting around 30 in the standard benchmarks at default settings - they escalated incrementally until they soared at 50-70+ What happened? Video card drivers improved that much? Did 64 exe sneak in the dark of the middle of night? No, probably game code was optimized and made more efficient. Like I also said before, 64 bit would be great and I'd love to see it, but crying about it and insulting Dev/Owner by calling them lazy, insinuating they're dumb and you all know better is ridiculous. Please show me the awesome, optimized full world mil sim with ragdoll, physics, PiP and unlimited AI that is obviously par for the course easy to make that you all have made.

Hyperbole much?

[froggyluv 2130]

Hyperbole much?

Thats what I thought. I'll leave you now to your little underground revolution of usurping lazy & dumb developers.

Good luck!

[guusert 1]

64 bit would be great and I'd love to see it, but crying about it and insulting Dev/Owner by calling them lazy, insinuating they're dumb and you all know better is ridiculous. Please show me the awesome, optimized full world mil sim with ragdoll, physics, PiP and unlimited AI that is obviously par for the course easy to make that you all have made.

Why The F should we have made that? We are no devs. We don't get paid. Do you think we should fix this? What kind of sick person are you? Is this what the gaming industry is going to be like? The consumers, people who have no knowledge about how to creat a game like this have to finish the game?

And no, it's far from ridiculous to call them lazy. After knowing about this huge problem in ArmA 2 they haven't even admitted that the CPU utilization problem exists. This game could be something. But now it's nothing. Almost no one can play this fine. And still they continue like nothing is going on, screwing everyone. I seriously hate these devs. The fact that it doesn't even matter which videocard you have is ridiculous. Games depend on videocards! Not processors!

[gammadust 12]

Why The F should we have made that? We are no devs. We don't get paid. Do you think we should fix this? What kind of sick person are you? Is this what the gaming industry is going to be like? The consumers, people who have no knowledge about how to creat a game like this have to finish the game?

Nobody was suggesting for you or me or us gamers to solve the perceived issue. You make it sound absurd.

(...) Games depend on videocards! Not processors!

Which makes me think this game definitely is not for you...

[Insanatrix 0]

Thats what I thought. I'll leave you now to your little underground revolution of usurping lazy & dumb developers.

Good luck!

Exactly when did I say any of that? Do you mind quoting me? The only semi derogatory thing I have done in this thread is to call you ignorant, which I would say is a pretty apt conclusion given your propensity for accusing others of doing things they haven't done to support your own claims. At most I may have insinuated they are lazy to have not made the switch to 64 bit, depends on how you want to take it.

It still doesn't negate the fact that 9/10's of your post was hyperbole.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Insanatrix

[guusert 1]

Nobody was suggesting for you or me or us gamers to solve the perceived issue. You make it sound absurd.

Which makes me think this game definitely is not for you...

Please show me the awesome, optimized full world mil sim with ragdoll, physics, PiP and unlimited AI that is obviously par for the course easy to make that you all have made.

And this game is definitely not for most people who like to play a game without incredible lag. In this game it doesn't even matter what videocard you have. A GTX 460 or a GTX Titan, it doesn't matter. It's all about the processor. It's absurd.

EDIT:

And to froggyluv:

awesome, optimized full world mil sim with ragdoll, physics

You think they did a good job with that lol Have you even driven a car yet?

Edited March 24, 2013 by guusert

[froggyluv 2130]

Exactly when did I say any of that? Do you mind quoting me? The only semi derogatory thing I have done in this thread is to call you ignorant, which I would say is a pretty apt conclusion given your propensity for accusing others of doing things they haven't done to support your own claims. At most I may have insinuated they are lazy to have not made the switch to 64 bit, depends on how you want to take it.

It still doesn't negate the fact that 9/10's of your post was hyperbole.

I'm replying to this group as a whole but I do remember you calling out Dwarden specifically while alluding your surprise that you 'couldn't believe how ill informed' he was on the matter. Note previous page in which poster calls out the owner or the above rant in which he explictly states how "he hates the devs".

This is the kind of blatant disrespect that is bothersome. Its fine to voice your displeasure of the product or how they failed you in delivering 64 bit (that they never promised and actually said the opposite) -but this arrogant, self entitled blowhardedness is just a little over the top don't ya think. Such abusive and demeaning language would never be tolerated in a Mod such as Ace's thread -"You guys are lazy!!" Of course, one is free and another a product we paid for - but that doesn't negate common civility and tone now does it?

It really doesn't matter how many times you say hyperbole, the fact remains that my illustration of 'why and how much content/features' effects overall ability to optimize but more importantly -deliver a playable game rich in all of those things. You have no status quo to compare their product to as they stand alone in their niche. Crysis'es/FarCry/Battlefield are streamlined for their particular brand of more confined/scripted or zero AI and NO editor to test out the potentially endless limits of say, an Arma.

Hyperbole out!

[Insanatrix 0]

I'm replying to this group as a whole but I do remember you calling out Dwarden specifically while alluding your surprise that you 'couldn't believe how ill informed' he was on the matter. Note previous page in which poster calls out the owner or the above rant in which he explictly states how "he hates the devs".

This is the kind of blatant disrespect that is bothersome. Its fine to voice your displeasure of the product or how they failed you in delivering 64 bit (that they never promised and actually said the opposite) -but this arrogant, self entitled blowhardedness is just a little over the top don't ya think. Such abusive and demeaning language would never be tolerated in a Mod such as Ace's thread -"You guys are lazy!!" Of course, one is free and another a product we paid for - but that doesn't negate common civility and tone now does it?

It really doesn't matter how many times you say hyperbole, the fact remains that my illustration of 'why and how much content/features' effects overall ability to optimize but more importantly -deliver a playable game rich in all of those things. You have no status quo to compare their product to as they stand alone in their niche. Crysis'es/FarCry/Battlefield are streamlined for their particular brand of more confined/scripted or zero AI and NO editor to test out the potentially endless limits of say, an Arma.

Hyperbole out!

The only person acting self entitled is you. Acting like your emotionally hurt because other people are criticizing Bohemia Interactive. Seriously, disassociate yourself. You don't have the foggiest clue how x feature affects performance, you have yet to give a proper example other than, Red River couldn't do it so it must not be possible. You have no idea the memory constraints or the processing constraints of the engine nor what it is capable of yet you see fit to tell us how we are wrong and the engine is maxing out everything. Most of your responses are hyperbole. It's like your trying to parade in front of the community your vast knowledge only to never realize how ignorant and wrong you are.

Yea I said I was surprised at Dwarden's lack of understanding on the topic, that's not me calling him dumb or lazy. Again, another example were even the slightest criticism and you think we're evil trolls hell bent on BI's demise. Seriously, grow up and learn to read and comprehend. I respect him and everyone at BI for what they do as developers, because I criticize something in order to make it better, doesn't diminish my respect for them whatsoever.

The only disrespect, arrogant and self entitled "blowhardedness" is from you and those like you, who can't disassociate themselves from a development company. Any criticism towards the developers you take personal and lash out and bash anyone who has any free thinking approach on a subject that doesn't paint BI as the messiah of your entertainment woe's. Like I said grow up.

Until you actually understand what you are arguing about, your opinion is pretty much useless hyperbole aimed at defamatory and derogatory pokes and prods at "this group as a whole" which you so aptly lump anyone who has a thought or expression that is both beyond your comprehension and understanding as well as against your own created status quo into.

[dnk 13]

is it possible to make a Little Benchmark? The latest dev build is able to run it under "Scenarios". Maybe one with and one without AI to see the illogical dependencies between AI and cpu-usage.

...to give at last this discussion a quantifiable Background...

This this this this this!

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt...

Good response. Thank you for your contributions to the thread.

I just find it odd that when exhausting the 32 bit addressing, they chose to stick with 32 bit addressing and use virtual memory paging as a solution. I didn't find it odd with ArmA 2 because the engine was pretty feature set and although 64 bit OS and CPU's were common back then, they weren't as common as today. With ArmA 3 though I find it very odd that you would keep streaming from the hard drive rather than going 64 bit and reaping the benefits of being able to address more RAM. It really should have been a goal, especially considering as someone above me pointed out that the game won't be released for 6-12-18 months.

Being the one who mentioned the release date, I will have to agree to this. Sticking with 32-bit on such a massive streaming game is fairly short-sighted. Whatever defenses I've made for the development, this is something that really needed to be fixed. With multicore support, they can at least do a half job (and quantifiably I think they have) and get tangible results, which is why I've been more forgiving, but here that's impossible, and the LAA solution was already in place and doesn't cut it for 2013 anyway.

they haven't even admitted that the CPU utilization problem exists. And still they continue like nothing is going on, screwing everyone. I seriously hate these devs. The fact that it doesn't even matter which videocard you have is ridiculous. Games depend on videocards! Not processors!

Well, first Arma has always been a CPU-heavy game. There is just so much geometry to deal with on 3km+ draw distances, plus having 50-150 AI which actually have to do things more complicated than following simple scripts, you can't get the same results as other shooters with vastly smaller draw distances, map sizes, and AI that have a lot less to "think about".

And, I'm getting tired of explaining this to you, but the devs have admitted there's an issue. In this thread. And what do you want them to do exactly? They're busy, you know, designing a game. They're not PR spokesmen. Your sense of entitlement is bewildering: "I need devs tell me every day my concerns are valid!"

[Leopardi 0]

Well, first Arma has always been a CPU-heavy game. There is just so much geometry to deal with on 3km+ draw distances, plus having 50-150 AI which actually have to do things more complicated than following simple scripts, you can't get the same results as other shooters with vastly smaller draw distances, map sizes, and AI that have a lot less to "think about".

"CPU heavy" is a wrong term, the issue is the utilization. ArmA III uses only 30% of a hexacore when BF3 uses 91%. Basically in BF3 a normal 3000MHz CPU is a 9000MHz CPU because of better optimization. If the A3 engine was that good utilizing the CPU, it'd be just as smooth as BF3.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Leopardi

[froggyluv 2130]

The only person acting self entitled is you. Acting like your emotionally hurt because other people are criticizing Bohemia Interactive. Seriously, disassociate yourself. You don't have the foggiest clue how x feature affects performance, you have yet to give a proper example other than, Red River couldn't do it so it must not be possible. You have no idea the memory constraints or the processing constraints of the engine nor what it is capable of yet you see fit to tell us how we are wrong and the engine is maxing out everything. Most of your responses are hyperbole. It's like your trying to parade in front of the community your vast knowledge only to never realize how ignorant and wrong you are.

Yea I said I was surprised at Dwarden's lack of understanding on the topic, that's not me calling him dumb or lazy. Again, another example were even the slightest criticism and you think we're evil trolls hell bent on BI's demise. Seriously, grow up and learn to read and comprehend. I respect him and everyone at BI for what they do as developers, because I criticize something in order to make it better, doesn't diminish my respect for them whatsoever.

The only disrespect, arrogant and self entitled "blowhardedness" is from you and those like you, who can't disassociate themselves from a development company. Any criticism towards the developers you take personal and lash out and bash anyone who has any free thinking approach on a subject that doesn't paint BI as the messiah of your entertainment woe's. Like I said grow up.

Until you actually understand what you are arguing about, your opinion is pretty much useless hyperbole aimed at defamatory and derogatory pokes and prods at "this group as a whole" which you so aptly lump anyone who has a thought or expression that is both beyond your comprehension and understanding as well as against your own created status quo into.

"It's very rude and self-entitling of you to point out how rude and self-entilitling I've been!!!" ;)

O just a little surprised at Dwarden?

Honestly I would expect a developer to know these things and have a better understanding of them.

-Insanatrix.

Sounds more like asanine patronizing....

And sorry you don't understand my point of 100% CPU utilization != Great Game. Lately the alpha has been playing swimmingly for me on MP averging 40 fps and Im sure it will only get better from here on out. :)

Have fun!

[Planetside 1]

"It's very rude and self-entitling of you to point out how rude and self-entilitling I've been!!!" ;)

O just a little surprised at Dwarden? -Insanatrix.

Sounds more like asanine patronizing....

And sorry you don't understand my point of 100% CPU utilization != Great Game. Lately the alpha has been playing swimmingly for me on MP averging 40 fps and Im sure it will only get better from here on out. :)

Have fun!

My point is that 100% utilization = great game. Your opinion is 100% wrong and I guess your brain is being utilized at the same level ArmA3 utilizes my cpu!

[froggyluv 2130]

My point is that 100% utilization = great game.

Such as...?