Did Bohemia Int. respond to the low performance issue?

[liquidgreg 1]

Does anyone know if the developers responded to the low performance issue,

___and if they are working to fix it?

[Leon86 13]

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS/page73

read the last bunch of pages.

[Fuse 1]

are working to fix it?

They said they wanted their new game to run poorly on most computers. It's the best way to make money. :p

[Alabatross 1]

I have to say when it comes to performance its the biggest thing consoles have contributed to.

Think about it, consoles have very harsh limits which force you to do two things:

1. Lower the game quality

2. Optimize more and do more tricks

If consoles were NEVER created we'd be playing games that hog up our cpu and gpu in a very messy way because there are no limits. People with excellent cards would say your card isn't powerful enough when in reality it is, the games just aren't as optimized.

A good analogy is war. Things get invented SO much quicker during a war, same goes for game engines. When companies are competing to out do each other in quality on a sub-par system they'll go to great lengths to get exactly that. Most games release for consoles also, which means the PC community benefits from alot of the optimizations.

And before anyone tells me its the AI -> I get worse fps in multiplayer than I do single player.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Alabatross

[Exakt785 1]

It is still early in the development, it may take about a month or two (maybe more, depending on their timetable) before we see any real performance boost.

They will work on it when they hit the BETA stage, right now, their focus is to implement all functionalities. Once they hit BETA, this is when they start the polish of the game (graphics, performances, game balance), while trying to fix the big issues that may still be lingering.

As for the AI, as stated in the post above, the AI can cause a lot of strain on the server, it depends on how the mission was built. Does the AI spawns for every places where it should be at the beginning of the mission, or does it spawn once the players are within a certain distance of an objective. The former causes a lot of lag/performance drops for most of the mission while the latter depends totally on where the players are. If there is a player near each objectives, than you get the same amount of lag/performance drops as if the AI is spawned at the beginning of the mission, if the players all go for the same objective and proceed one objective at a time, there is less strain on the server, since there is less CPU usage for the AI itself.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Exakt785

[johncage 30]

I have to say when it comes to performance its the biggest thing consoles have contributed to.

Think about it, consoles have very harsh limits which force you to do two things:

1. Lower the game quality

2. Optimize more and do more tricks

If consoles were NEVER created we'd be playing games that hog up our cpu and gpu in a very messy way because there are no limits. People with excellent cards would say your card isn't powerful enough when in reality it is, the games just aren't as optimized.

A good analogy is war. Things get invented SO much quicker during a war, same goes for game engines. When companies are competing to out do each other in quality on a sub-par system they'll go to great lengths to get exactly that. Most games release for consoles also, which means the PC community benefits from alot of the optimizations.

And before anyone tells me its the AI -> I get worse fps in multiplayer than I do single player.

most pc games perform very well. the problem is actually developers not fully utilizing the available resources. lack of quad core support is a good example. i knew a game from 2009 , rise of flight, that thought ahead and implemented it, the game didn't run so well since dual cores were the norm back then, but now everyone can run it smoothly. it's about thinking ahead. consoles have actually mitigated that necessity in software development.

also, just because you're developing for pc, doesn't mean you're not thinking about optimization. the basic issues are still the same, except the pc allows for superior visuals, processing speeds, etc.

[Exakt785 1]

It is also funny to hear, "We don't have these kind of issues with consoles"... Well that is far from the truth, especially at this stage of the project. Also the (current) consoles are very limited memory wise, they only have 1GB of RAM/VRAM (either that they share the same 1GB or is split 512MB RAM and 512MB VRAM).

[Alabatross 1]

It is also funny to hear, "We don't have these kind of issues with consoles"... Well that is far from the truth, especially at this stage of the project. Also the (current) consoles are very limited memory wise, they only have 1GB of RAM/VRAM (either that they share the same 1GB or is split 512MB RAM and 512MB VRAM).

I never once said that

I said consoles force engine developers to optimize more and it benefits everyone

[chortles 263]

I never once said that

I said consoles force engine developers to optimize more and it benefits everyone

Mind you, said developers or whoever does the PC version then tend to not scale the work up to take advantage of PC hardware gains, which is where "console port" as a pejorative came from -- and why the 8 GB of GDDR5 was treated as a big deal in some circles. (For comparison, I run the Arma 3 alpha on a desktop with 8 GB of DDR RAM and a video card with 2 GB GDDR5.)

[Exakt785 1]

I never once said that

I said consoles force engine developers to optimize more and it benefits everyone

That didn't meant you, that is why I didn't use your post as a quote, it is something that I hear often, both at work and outside.

[Fuse 1]

I never once said that

I said consoles force engine developers to optimize more and it benefits everyone

Sort of. Some times. They're optimizing for hardware that's standardized and a decade old. What that usually means is the games run like crap or control like crap on a modern gaming PC, and there's less of a drive to develop new engines which would better utilize modern hardware. They also rely heavily on "tricks" like enormous guns in 1st person that improve performance but detract from over-all quality.

Thankfully modern consoles have made gaming more main stream, and that is bringing more users to the PC.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Fuse

[dm 9]

your card isn't powerful enough when in reality it is, the games just aren't as optimized.

Yes, because chopping vast swathes of functionality out of a game is totally "optimising" it...

[liquidpinky 11]

The only good thing to come out of the consoles is SMAA, created initially for the PS3.

I quite like my 360 controller too if truth be told.

[Alabatross 1]

Yes, because chopping vast swathes of functionality out of a game is totally "optimising" it...

That explains why the single player requires so much CPU power but it doesn't explain multiplayer