To Clarify:BIS, is the 'new' ARMA3 engine as is?

[Fuse 1]

http://www.arma3.com/alpha/faq

[white 1]

If you watch the development of the flight sim series DCS people are making the same argument about more threading.

The issue is that the nature of a game such as dcs or arma is that multiple threads will not be a magical window to super high performance. AI, physics, graphics, core engine functions, sound, scripting, etc all rely on each other and need input from each other to run. Simply dumping it into a separate thread won't speed it up if it needs a result from another thread.

yes but the current situation is almost everything running in a highly bottlenecked core, that is not sustainable. then they throw in clouds and physics that do support multiple threads by themselves but have to go in line and wait for the first core, bottlenecking things even more. im sorry but thats bad coding.

and need i to quote Soma again on why they dont address these issues properly?

the only thing we all want is for them to address this, but their silence and evasive behaviour by not making it on the known issues/sit rep is painting a bad picture considering their past behavior on the same issue.

[dayglow 2]

It's a time vs gains decision. Is it worth rewriting 90% of the code for a 10% gain?

[NeZz_DK 1]

Arma 3 is multithreaded it uses up to 7 threads, the problem is the comunication between the threads and memory allocations for the individual threads. and it isn't a easy problem to solve.

[Reuben5150 2]

One person managed to write or rewrite the multi-core code for Bf3-

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150165770381738

BIS cannot manage to hire someone to do this ???, and just because Arma "is not like other engines" is no excuse for lack of modern hardware support, the engine has to evolve and the longer the issue is side-stepped the harder the problem will be to solve.

I hate to be negative and was really looking forward to A3 for a long time, but BIS looks like its going to be added to the long list of dev's that fail to deliver these days, very dissapointed with this situation.

[white 1]

It's a time vs gains decision. Is it worth rewriting 90% of the code for a 10% gain?

considering people are getting 20% usage on 8 cores, 33% on 6 cores and 50 on quads

i believe if it was addresses properly the gain would be much higher than that.

ive disabled 4 of my 6 cores and had no performance loss, placed settings on ultra with 8x AA and had no performance loss. i took screenshots and ppl made videos about this. its been replicated all over.

theres a huge amount of bottleneck in that 1 core right now and with an api monitor you can see the "1 thread that rules them all".

Edited March 14, 2013 by white

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

To everyone screaming at the top of their lungs "ALPHA!!!!!!!", please stop. You're only looking like a gullible fool. Have you completely forgotten about Arma 2/OA? Or Arma 1? The games that are built on the exact same engine and still to this day have the exact same performance problems that we're seeing today, in Arma 3?

I can make a simple bet though. The people screaming alpha have no idea what that really means in the context of Arma 3. So let me help define it for you.

Example of "ALPHA" that will be resolved by the time the game goes Beta, or Gold:

That is a bug, that can be fixed, and almost 100% will be fixed. This is the type of error you put out Alphas to find.

Example that is not "ALPHA" related and won't be solved by the time this game goes Gold and receives a dozen patches:

http://steamcommunity.com/app/107410/discussions/0/864961722019263834/

Read that, thoroughly, and take it in. For it is fact and not zealous fanboism screaming at the top of their lungs. You cannot deny the hard evidence piling up today and anyone who has half a clue about game development as well as advanced computer mechanics and utilization will know and understand exactly what's happening here. That it will not be fixed in Beta. That it will not be fixed in Gold. And that it is not likely to be fixed in patches. This is a pure limitation of an engine that is over a decade old. If it could be solved, they would have figured it out by now.

The best you CAN do is hope and pray that Intel makes a massive breakthrough in compute performance on single threads and we can just continue, as we have over the years, to brute force our way through the Real Virtuality Engine's poor hardware utilization.

[NeZz_DK 1]

BF3 and Arma are completely different AI wise, BF3 single player experience is kind of limited and in the Campaign, it seems the AI is kind of railed, so I dont think its a fair comparison

[white 1]

BF3 and Arma are completely different AI wise, BF3 single player experience is kind of limited and in the Campaign, it seems the AI is kind of railed, so I dont think its a fair comparison

arma 3 has fps issues even without any AI present on the mission, if it gets cpu intensive the 1 core bottlenecks and everything goes to hell, while ignoring all the unused cores. bf3 on the other hand on 64 player maps will devour every cpu cycle/core you throw at it and keep a decent minimum framerate. multiplayer with 64 people is the only scenario in which the cpu bottleneck becomes apparent on highend cpus, below that even dual cores can handle it and usually then the game becomes bottlenecked by the gpu.

[daze23 1]

if they don't fix it, it'll just end up being 'small-time arma'. that's what it is for me now. I have a lot of fun making simple missions in the editor, but the moment I want to put in a bunch of AI, or play online with a lot of people, I get issues

Edited March 14, 2013 by daze23

[Defunkt 431]

BF3 and Arma are completely different AI wise, BF3 single player experience is kind of limited and in the Campaign, it seems the AI is kind of railed, so I dont think its a fair comparison

Host a game with no A.I. but 64 playable units (i.e. 32 v 32) on a BF3-sized map like Shapur or Proving Grounds and you'll see very clearly that BF3 is far better optimized. It runs smooth as silk and uses all CPU cores and maxes the GPU where most players in the ArmA game will have 1/3 or less of the framerate the same machine manages in BF3 and a fraction of the utilization. It's lazy to write this off as 'they're just different' because it's very visible in a like-for-like comparison.

[Leon86 13]

FALSE.

'Watch Dogs' is running on a brand new game engine called 'Disrupt'

as-yet-untitled tech running Ubisoft's Watch Dogs (an engine built from elements of AnvilNext, the Assassin's Creed 3 Engine; Dunia, the engine powering Far Cry 2 and the upcoming Far Cry 3; and Lead, the Unreal Engine 2-derived tech behind Splinter Cell: Conviction)

http://www.polygon.com/gaming/2012/7/9/3146577/state-of-games-next-generation-video-games

yeah, all new engine, just like skyrim :)

[Aru 10]

You know... Is console port (BF3) vs. pc game (Arma 3) a fair comparsion?

[daze23 1]

arma 3 has fps issues even without any AI present on the mission, if it gets cpu intensive the 1 core bottlenecks and everything goes to hell, while ignoring all the unused cores. bf3 on the other hand on 64 player maps will devour every cpu cycle/core you throw at it and keep a decent minimum framerate. multiplayer with 64 people is the only scenario in which the cpu bottleneck becomes apparent on highend cpus, below that even dual cores can handle it and usually then the game becomes bottlenecked by the gpu.

yep, and for me BF3 does sometimes bottleneck, and drop my GPU usage. but it might drop to around %80, not %20-30 like this game

[white 1]

as-yet-untitled tech running Ubisoft's Watch Dogs (an engine built from elements of AnvilNext, the Assassin's Creed 3 Engine; Dunia, the engine powering Far Cry 2 and the upcoming Far Cry 3; and Lead, the Unreal Engine 2-derived tech behind Splinter Cell: Conviction)

http://www.polygon.com/gaming/2012/7/9/3146577/state-of-games-next-generation-video-games

yeah, all new engine, just like skyrim :)

gj om finding an article from almost a year before they came out saying it was a new engine, GENIUS.

really? god damn. seriously.

skyrim isnt a new engine, its an upgrade from fallout which is an upgrade from oblivion. everything even looks the same. skyrim without the mods looks like shit like forementioned games.

Edited March 14, 2013 by white

[Defunkt 431]

You know... Is console port (BF3) vs. pc game (Arma 3) a fair comparsion?

It most certainly is if the PC game cannot perform as well as the console port.

[AbortedMan 1]

So what I'm getting from this thread is a few tech-buzzword humping "know-it-alls" screaming "MOAR MULTITHREADS PLZZZ!!!" and "HIT THE OPTIMIZE BUTTON DEVS, WTF?!?!!!" aren't happy with how the game runs on their 2nd and 3rd gen hardware.

If multithreading was the fix-all for gaming, don't you think it'd be plastered all over every piece of software that game studios produced? Do you really think its that easy?

On that note, if I see one more kid make a post excitedly throwing around the word "optimization" and non-stop calling for aforementioned magical "optimization" like they've just discovered masturbation, I'm going to have a miscarriage...and I'm a dude....yeah.

[dm 9]

However I for one had been under the impression that

A: You would be creating a game that was entirely built on a new engine.

What the tits ever gave you that idea?!?!?!

[white 1]

So what I'm getting from this thread is a few tech-buzzword humping "know-it-alls" screaming "MOAR MULTITHREADS PLZZZ!!!" and "HIT THE OPTIMIZE BUTTON DEVS, WTF?!?!!!" aren't happy with how the game runs on their 2nd and 3rd gen hardware.

If multithreading was the fix-all for gaming, don't you think it'd be plastered all over every piece of software that game studios produced? Do you really think its that easy?

On that note, if I see one more kid make a post excitedly throwing around the word "optimization" and non-stop calling for aforementioned magical "optimization" like they've just discovered masturbation, I'm going to have a miscarriage...and I'm a dude....yeah.

its about needing it or not. arma 2 is a cpu intensive game that desperatly needs to be fed with more cpu cycles. most if not all other games run fine with great fps with how many cores they were designed with. because thats a design choice. why i mentioned arma 2? well arma 3 suffers from the exact same issue.

theres no problem if a game runs with 60-120fps with 1 core or 2, none at all. but there is when it goes as low as 5-10fps. and that is the reason.

and yeah most new triple a games do use multicore. udk, cryengine, source, frostbyte 2, all of them can use it, and they can for a reason.

Edited March 14, 2013 by white

[AbortedMan 1]

its about needing it or not. arma 2 is a cpu intensive game that desperatly needs to be fed with more cpu cycles. most if not all other games run fine with great fps with how many cores they were designed with. because thats a design choice. why i mentioned arma 2? well arma 3 suffers from the exact same issue.

theres no problem if a game runs with 60-120fps with 1 core or 2, none at at. but there is when it go as low as 5-10fps. and that is the reason.

and yeah most new triple a games do use multicore. udk, cryengine, source, frostbyte 2, all of them can use it, and they can for a reason.

Oh do they? Show us.

[Leon86 13]

gj om finding an article from almost a year before they came out saying it was a new engine, GENIUS.

really? god damn. seriously.

skyrim isnt a new engine, its an upgrade from fallout which is an upgrade from oblivion. everything even looks the same. skyrim without the mods looks like shit like forementioned games.

no, skyrim has an all new engine, look

http://www.ign.com/articles/2011/01/18/skyrims-new-engine-detailed

And you dont switch engine halfway in development, if it's bits and pieces of other engines put together that'll still be the case now.

[Aru 10]

It most certainly is if the PC game cannot perform as well as the console port.

Really? If the console port has 10% trees and rest of the trees are 2D pictures of that doesn't physically exist. You may read this one between the lines.

And yes, Arma needs some improvement.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Aru

[Defunkt 431]

Oh do they? Show us.

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

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

---------- Post added at 10:43 ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 ----------

Really? If the console port has 10% trees and rest of the trees are 2D pictures of that doesn't physically exist. You may read this one between the lines.

Dude there's a shit load more geometry on any BF3 map than on Shapur or Proving Grounds, ArmA will still run like a dog.

[Reuben5150 2]

You know... Is console port (BF3) vs. pc game (Arma 3) a fair comparsion?

Yet still better optimised for pc than arma.....

[white 1]

Oh do they? Show us.

go read about them, i see no point of doing that for you.

no, skyrim has an all new engine, look

http://www.ign.com/articles/2011/01/18/skyrims-new-engine-detailed

And you dont switch engine halfway in development, if it's bits and pieces of other engines put together that'll still be the case now.

so its true, i thought it was the same because it looked similar, i guess thats the graphical designs "fault" then. but i believe them until proven otherwise, why? dozen, even hundreds of people that came in contact with the code and ppl would be able to recognize similar old code, they wouldnt be able to keep that a secret, just doesnt happen. same goes for the new engine from scratch that i mentioned, its new from scratch until proven otherwise. and you dont know better as much as you want to.

noone change engines halfway? sir i present you 3dRealms, i believe they hold a record in doing that.

---

and btw, Bf3 isnt a console game ported to pc, its one of the few games nowdays that were made for PC and then had a lower version ported to consoles. Dice knows their shit. and btwe Watch Dogs is following the same path.

Edited March 14, 2013 by white