Can someone tell me why you'd make a game of 2013 very CPU heavy?

[igneous01 19]

The low cpu utilization stems from a few problems.

1. The operating system decides in the end how much cpu time it wants to commit per process. Generally programs are defaulted to a certain percentage use so that the cpu is able to process the other process' in the background. (like the windows process') I suggest people tinker with the priority of arma 3 to force the cpu to do more checks on it. You can do this by right clicking the process in task manager and setting the priority.

2. Multi/Hyper Threading and core utilization is all dependant on keeping threads synchronized. This requires locking threads out and letting one in, until it finishes, then releasing the lock and letting the next thread in. This is a big problem in all software development right now. The more complicated the interactions between threads are, the more sluggish it will be because of locking.

about the ai:

Overly complicated AI coding. Theres a good possibility that the source code for the ai has become so complex that its very difficult to improve or optimize anything. It is so dynamic that you cant even properly QA it because the possibility that it will perform the action is not known. Trying to debug non-deterministic algorithms is really really hard to do. Thats why a lot of game developers avoid having non deterministic ai. However, despite how crude the ai in arma is, its still the best, if not the only, ai of its type that exists in gaming right now. Although I was impressed by Crysis 3 ai decision making.

[dayglow 2]

Because BIS never liked to optimize. Operation Flashpoint had huge REAL requirements (what is written as requirements in official documents is always a joke). Also arma 1 and 2 had huge requirements, greater than any other games at that time, and the releases become more frequent. So when i bought a PC that runs these games nicely, the next part came out, with even bigger requirements... so arount Arma 2 i give up with this sequel.

I'm not gonna play on low FPS, nor i want to spend money on a new pc just because this game(while every other games run nicely).

BIS programmers are just lazy. They said at the release of arma2, when people asked why don't they use directx 10.1 (which has a lot of good features for an open world game like this), but they said "we don't see enough improvements in it". They rather say, "the user will buy a better PC so we shouldn't need to optimize"

By the way, if arma 3 still uses directx 9, that eats the most of the cpu! Every open world game that uses old 3d techniques is limited by the single core performance of the CPU, as directx9 can use a single core to generate the draw calls (every object in game, needs a draw call to be sent to gpu in every frame).

the usage of nvidia Physix will make it worse. it's a pile of junk, with a lots of restrictions. It's usually used by game developers for money (nvidia pays for developers to use their **** so people will buy nvidia video cards too... while in reality 98% of the physix effects are run on CPU and not on GPU. The only difference is, when it detects nvidia gpu, the physics using all of the CPU cores, if it isn't detects nvidia gpu, physics is restricted to 1 cpu core).

Wow, first post ever and you know for a fact that the devs are lazy. Can you please post a link to your game so I compare Arma3 to a competent game.

[tortuosit 486]

The only difference is, when it detects nvidia gpu, the physics using all of the CPU cores, if it isn't detects nvidia gpu, physics is restricted to 1 cpu core).

Source?

[sanyigz 1]

Source?

Google and reading tests...

best to use search words "physx scam"

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/09/03/mafia-2-physx-performance/1

http://www.realworldtech.com/physx87/5/

etc.

Nvidia has done a lot of bad things with physx.

Wow, first post ever and you know for a fact that the devs are lazy. Can you please post a link to your game so I compare Arma3 to a competent game.

LOL the post count determines if i know something or not? I was played with operation flashpoint since it's demo was released, and of course with Arma-s too.

The best gaming experience i had, was with OFP multiplayer, including CTI on various servers. But i got tired seeing slideshow like FPS, or the price of the new PCs that are able to run correctly the newest games of BIS(while for any other games including simulations, it'S unnecessary) ... I've also modded OFP...

By the way this isn't my first account, the old got left away when the forum engine replaced.

Edited March 10, 2013 by sanyigz

[dayglow 2]

I don't know you, I can only go on the info presented in the forum. You come here in your first post of your account and acuse the devs of being lazy. It's up to you to prove that statement.you can claim anything you want, but there's nothing to back up that claim.

Still waiting for your example of proper coding you've created so I can better understand your position in the laziness of the devs.

Or are you just talking out of your ass?

Edited March 10, 2013 by DayGlow

[Leon86 13]

physx scam

Yeah, if you look for stuff like that you'll find it.

if you look harder you'll also find performance doesnt magically go up by using sse over x87 because the bottleneck is elsewhere.

[xx_fr0st-w0lf_xx 10]

Why is it cpu intensive?

Lets take an AI, we will call him bob. Bob is part of 8 man squad. His squad is tasked to move to hill, and defend it against the opposing force. Now bob spots an enemy. Bob relays the information by communicating with his team leader giving the position of the enemy. Bob now moves to cover independently and awaits for orders. He scans the horizon looking for more opfor in the general direction. The squad leader tasks bob with killing not the man he spoted but another enemy. Bob doesn't see the enemy so he independently decides to move to another tree to get a visual. Shots are fling back and fort and he manages to kill his targeted man, he relays the information back to the squad leader. Just then the squad leader is hit in the neck and killed and bob must take over command of the squad. He orders 4 men to engage and the medic to heal his teammate all while trying to return fire and see that his squad doesn't take to many casualties.

Now in the brief scenario think of how many calculations were done to make bob function independently for 1 minute.

Now multiply that For. Every. Unit. In. The. Map.

Now multiply that for every minute that passes in your mission.

This is why there is so many calculations.

[froggyluv 2136]

I was played with operation flashpoint since it's demo was released, and of course with Arma-s too.

...I've also modded OFP...

.

Lol, another case of 'Founding Father' syndrome. "I've played/been around since OFP!!! So I have a right to tell the Devs a thing or two ...Blah Blah Blah..." -well woopdie for you. Its not as if your a shareholder that helped build this company ya know :j:

And how you gonna call them lazy when to this day they still are busy releasing patches for previous games -a little perspective please.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Google and reading tests...

best to use search words "physx scam"

Just go away, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

I'd like YOU to calculate rigid body collisions & ragdolls on a napkin, while I drive my Hunter APC in ArmA III. No? You can't? Then get informed.

[truedarkrei9n 1]

The GPU is not actually better at computing anything than the CPU is. It is better at mass calculations where decisions don't need to be made, however, AI requires decisions to be made, the CPU is designed to handle this. CPUs have all sorts of fun features such as branch prediction and such to help it do so.

[nicolasroger 11]

GPU is only good at parallel computing. That mean they are really good at calculating double loops contained in codes because they have soo many cores that can calculate stuff simultaneously.

So if you want to move more code on the gpu, you will only see a performance inscrease for the codes parts that are using double loops in them. For the rest you might actualy see a decrease in performance.

You can see more info on the devs blog here : http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/91-real-virtuality-going-multicore

It is old (2009) but it will help you get the general idea.

Now can the AI be calculated on the gpu? Maybe, since the AI might be calculated in parrallel, but only the devs know if it worth it performance wise. But the thing is that people are seeing really bad performance while playing multiplayer with no AI in the server. SP run fine for most of us! So there is something that needs to be done at this level

[calin_banc 19]

Couldn't you call it parallel computing if a lot of AI's have to be at once in the game? That AMD demo (

) with 5000 AI showed pretty well that it can be done efficiently on the GPU even with the artificial intelligence adapting to the environment when doing their tasks.

[tet5uo 4]

I love how all the irrational fans won't admit that the game has an issue with CPU usage.

You yell at us saying that the game is doing SO MUCH MORE than any other game out there, and this part is true. BUT, why does all this extra work only tax a modern CPU to 25% or so while these "inferior" games can peg my CPU to 100% and actually be able to send some draw-calls for my GPU's to get some work.

I love Arma series more than anything I've ever played, but I'm not so enamored of it that I can't admit it has it's flaws.

Grow up fan-boys.

[Tiglet 10]

Yes the game has a huge map, but there is no way any game should have this performance. The game is just very badly optimized at this point. even when just looking at a town with NO AI it's laggy on the best PC's out there. I wish some company with a good engine would try and have a go at this kind of game.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I love how all the irrational fans won't admit that the game has an issue with CPU usage.

You yell at us saying that the game is doing SO MUCH MORE than any other game out there, and this part is true. BUT, why does all this extra work only tax a modern CPU to 25% or so while these "inferior" games can peg my CPU to 100% and actually be able to send some draw-calls for my GPU's to get some work.

I love Arma series more than anything I've ever played, but I'm not so enamored of it that I can't admit it has it's flaws.

Grow up fan-boys.

Good spam post. Haven't you noticed the 41-page sticky thread about Low CPU utilisation?

We know it's the same issue that we had in ArmA II with physics simulation added on top.

[dayglow 2]

I love how all the irrational fans won't admit that the game has an issue with CPU usage.

You yell at us saying that the game is doing SO MUCH MORE than any other game out there, and this part is true. BUT, why does all this extra work only tax a modern CPU to 25% or so while these "inferior" games can peg my CPU to 100% and actually be able to send some draw-calls for my GPU's to get some work.

I love Arma series more than anything I've ever played, but I'm not so enamored of it that I can't admit it has it's flaws.

Grow up fan-boys.

Are you talking 100% across all cores or a single core doing the lifting? Multi-threading only will do so much. Not all calculations can be done completely independent of each other. Threads wphave to wait for info from other threads to keep everything synced so you can expect every core to be running at max rate as they have to wait for info.

[pdxmark 1]

I'm going to assume that Arma3 still streams some of the textures from the HDD as Arma2 does. If this is the case, Arma2/3 will gain significant performance increases in average and lowest FPS and LOD performance with the use of SSD(singular drive or RAID configuration). The HDD has always been a bottleneck for Aram2 performance.

[rekrul 7]

when you increase the viewdistance in Arma each AI object increases its viewdistance.

I doubt that. In Arma2 I never had any AI engage me at 800m+. I'm pretty sure their (max) VD is much lower.

[5133p39 16]

I doubt that. In Arma2 I never had any AI engage me at 800m+. I'm pretty sure their (max) VD is much lower.

AI engagement range depends on more factors than just a viewdistance (for example - weapon maxRange/maxRangeProbab, and the other unit camouflage/accuracy values).