1-5 FPS with max visibilty 12x12 km on plain water

[NeuroFunker 11]

There is obviously something wrong with the engine. I'm launching the game with -world=empty command, what it does, it doesn't load stratis at start, when you launch the game, and boosts loading time. Wanted to make some screens at maximum view distance, and set both to 12km. I did it straight after game started, so the world didn't load, only plain water. But what a surprise it was, when my fps dropped from 60 to 5? No wonders it is impossible to try stratis with 12km view distance, when you already geting 5 fps at empty map?

Edited March 16, 2013 by NeuroFunker

[Max255 59]

Well, I could run Stratis at 12k VD with my "crappy" PC. 15-30fps on high settings, not playable but not as bad as 5fps with plain water.

Though I agree, there is something wrong with the game still, but hey - it's an alpha... Things can and probably will change.

[Zyromkiru 10]

This is a no duh situation although rendering the water i believe is harder than rendering land in front of you. Could be wrong but ya, I noticed usually when I stare into the water my gpu and cpu usage go down

[nicolasroger 11]

Interesting. I can confirm that.

I went from 175 FPS at 500view distance too 3 FPS at 12k view distance. Object count have no effect on FPS (as expected).

Also, GPU at 3% usage wich CPU near 40%(core 1) usage when 12k view distance

but GPU at 92% usage and cpu at 91%(core 1) usage when at 500 view distance? Shouldn' it be the other way around? (honest question)

I can't see really more details in the picture if I go from 500 to 12k. It just looks like some grey area was added for all that matter. So there is definitely way for optimization here.

Is there a ticket in the tracker about this behavior? I hope this will help the devs somehow.

Edit: I played with view distance a bit more and for me the FPS start to drop really fast at around 3k. Not sure it is really helpful but who knows.

I am not on the Dev build.

EDIT 2:

-playing with the option "Terrain Quality" actualy impact the behavior quite a bit. For exemple, I get 130 fps with view distance at 7.5k and terrain quality at Very high, but I only get 5 fps when setting it at Low!

-Shadow Quality have some impact, but it is minor (about 10 fps)

-Post processing to max drop fps to about 40%

Edited March 16, 2013 by nicolasroger

[white 1]

Interesting. I can confirm that.

I went from 175 FPS at 500view distance too 3 FPS at 12k view distance. Object count have no effect on FPS (as expected).

Also, GPU at 3% usage wich CPU near 40%(core 1) usage when 12k view distance

but GPU at 92% usage and cpu at 91%(core 1) usage when at 500 view distance? Shouldn' it be the other way around? (honest question)

when things are light on the cpu side it lets the gpu do its job, so the gpu usage and fps goes up.

when you increase visibility and the cpu cant handle shit, the gpu usage goes down and so does the fps.

why the cpu usage is also low you ask? because the game main thread + sync code runs on 1 core, and since it doesnt properly handle multicores, most of your cpu is never used, ever. (unless you have just a dual core)

someone posted an anandtech forum cpu benchmark comparison in which an intel dual core was neck to neck with an amd x8 8350.

imho, the ocean should be a shader completely handled by the gpu, so should be the clouds. (yes it could be done)

running on cuda/nvidia gpu: (could be opencl code and run on both nvidia and ati i suppose)

Edited March 16, 2013 by white

[nicolasroger 11]

Thank you for your reply.

I think this clear up the cpu/gpu load question.

Now how can the terrain detail set to the best quality gives better performance?

[white 1]

Thank you for your reply.

I think this clear up the cpu/gpu load question.

Now how can the terrain detail set to the best quality gives better performance?

im not sure how exactly it works, but ive seen a lot of people stating that when on low some of the settings are handled more by the cpu, and on high goes to the gpu.

i havent been able to duplicate it nor found detailed information about how it works, but might be the case.

[NeuroFunker 11]

can't confirm about high terreain detail on stratis. At Marina, in centre of town, setting terrain detail over standart settings, drops my fps to 30. At standart i have 40-50. Same with object details, have them both at standart, and i have quite playble performance.

[nicolasroger 11]

I also tried it while on the island and looking at the sea and overall the performance was worst with terrain quality set to Very high. So I wonder why the performance is better when there are not island at all.

Edited March 16, 2013 by nicolasroger

[charliemilk 10]

I have an idea of what it might be. I believe there was a similar fault in another game. The game engine is rendering the bottom of the sea in. So although you can not see the ocean bottom it is rendered and all the objects, fish AI, lighting of sea bed etc is all being rendered but not seen.

---------- Post added at 12:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 PM ----------

Interesting. I can confirm that.

I went from 175 FPS at 500view distance too 3 FPS at 12k view distance. Object count have no effect on FPS (as expected).

Also, GPU at 3% usage wich CPU near 40%(core 1) usage when 12k view distance

but GPU at 92% usage and cpu at 91%(core 1) usage when at 500 view distance? Shouldn' it be the other way around? (honest question)

I can't see really more details in the picture if I go from 500 to 12k. It just looks like some grey area was added for all that matter. So there is definitely way for optimization here.

Is there a ticket in the tracker about this behavior? I hope this will help the devs somehow.

Edit: I played with view distance a bit more and for me the FPS start to drop really fast at around 3k. Not sure it is really helpful but who knows.

I am not on the Dev build.

EDIT 2:

-playing with the option "Terrain Quality" actualy impact the behavior quite a bit. For exemple, I get 130 fps with view distance at 7.5k and terrain quality at Very high, but I only get 5 fps when setting it at Low!

-Shadow Quality have some impact, but it is minor (about 10 fps)

-Post processing to max drop fps to about 40%

Hi, interesting info there. Did the shadow option increase make FPS more or less? Also Can you put your PC information in your signature so we can see what you are running ARMA III ALPHA on so we know how relevant it is to us please pal?

[chrisb 196]

@nicolasroger, yes, and some screenshots with fps counter, I use msi afterburner, no real performance hit, only when recording.

@charliemilk , I think you could be right, sounds plausible, fps does reduce a little looking out to see whereas it was the opposite in A2.

:)

[nicolasroger 11]

Hi, interesting info there. Did the shadow option increase make FPS more or less? Also Can you put your PC information in your signature so we can see what you are running ARMA III ALPHA on so we know how relevant it is to us please pal?

Alright, I updated my signature.

I wasn't clear, but higher shadow quality decrease de FPS by about 10.

I will upload some screenshots soon (using fraps), but what do you want to see exactly?

EDIT: I uploaded 2 screenshot here: http://imageshack.us/g/831/arma3high4kview.jpg/

View distance is set at 4K to show a good range of FPS. I changed the terrain quality from one screenshot to the other. Again, low terrain quality = low FPS and Ultra terrain quality = ultra FPS.

You can also see the cpu and gpu usage and the FPS.

Edited March 17, 2013 by nicolasroger

[chrisb 196]

I will upload some screenshots soon (using fraps), but what do you want to see exactly?

.

Thats great to see screenshots, so much better I think, especially when shown for a purpose, helps others that might have that system. There are soo many on here that will say "I get this" or "I get that" with their settings at this or that, but never ever show a screenshot, so someone else with that same system that can't get the same performance starts worrying. Any screenshots I put up tend to have fps counter, far better. The A3 album I have in my sig has lots of pics with fps counter included, its as a guide for those with a similar system. Showing the performance monitors as well is even better, I used to do that in A2, when talking about performance.

Anyway;

The terrain detail is a very odd thing, the complete opposite to mine, I have it set at Standard, if I put it any higher it eats my fps, and I mean really eats it. Set lower and I get massive gains in fps. For the rest in that tab concerning those below..

Tex = Ultra

Objects = Ultra

Terrain = Standard

Cloud = Ultra

Shadow = Standard

Particles = Very High

I reciprocated with a couple of screenies..

Airfield

Driving

:)

[nicolasroger 11]

Thank you ChristB, I understand more what you mean about screenshots.

I have in fact the same behavior as you on the island. The FPS I show are only in the menu when you start the game with the command -world=empty. It is important to remember that hehe. Sure what is important to us is the island performance, but by rendering only the water, I think it can help to pinpoint settings that are badly optimized for now or other weird behavior.

[charliemilk 10]

What is the CPU monitor called that you use. Mine is just a single dial and only shows overall CPU usage not each core.

[TSAndrey 1]

Water is the biggest perfomance killer (atleast for me) so it doesn't really surprise me

[nicolasroger 11]

I use a windows 7 gadget called "all cpu meter"

you can find it here: http://addgadgets.com/all_cpu_meter/

[chrisb 196]

There is also PlayClaw4 free download, but they do the same thing..

[charliemilk 10]

I use a windows 7 gadget called "all cpu meter"

you can find it here: http://addgadgets.com/all_cpu_meter/

Just got it. It's pretty good. Like how you can re-size it.

[moosenoodles 0]

Ive not noticed a reply in this thread yet regarding the old facts from the other armas of "the water is rendered even under the island map even though you dont get to see it" ..

Is this still true with arma 3 I wonder?

[nicolasroger 11]

moosenoodles: interesting, I wasn't aware of that for the old arma.

Judjing by the videos posted in this post, I would say it is entirely possible, but what do I know really? : http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?150573-what-do-you-call-this-shimmering-effect

[TSAndrey 1]

This explains it pretty much: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?151363-Water-is-the-1-performance-killer

[tremanarch 6]

plain water in a3?i thought there are textures under water aswell?

[bobby budnick 0]

edit:

Water problem still there in the DEV update.

edit 2:

Terrain quality has an effect here. At "very high" it runs ok. Maybe 20-30 fps. On "very low" it gets extremely choppy. Maybe less than 3 fps.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Bobby Budnick

[TSAndrey 1]

Terrain quality has an effect here. At "very high" it runs ok. Maybe 20-30 fps. On "very low" it gets extremely choppy. Maybe less than 3 fps.

You mean the other way around?