*Petition for performance optimization patch!*

[Llano 11]

doesn't mean your not BF eaither...

p.s. so ive clicked your youtube link, so yeah, bf all the way, enjoy your epic 120fps on epic 2km² maps, with epic 500m view distance. I'll stay with my shitty 40 fps, tiny 270km²map, crappy 3,5km view distance, and boring and "dying fast multiplayer" with 100+ people matches. I think we are done here.

You get 40 fps, at Altis, with 3,5k viewsistance and 100+ ppl on it? Please, what mission?

[jiltedjock 10]

Right, and the CPU runs at 40-50% usually for me. Why is that?

Are you saying that in single player your heaviest used core is only running at 50% ? Have you, by any chance, set Performance Monitor to only show one cpu graph? ( Task Manager > Perfromance tab > View > Processor History )

I'm not saying all players with these have problems, but certainly when I see these performance threads, usually there's some oddity in the rig, something that you'll never see outside of the ~3% of hardcore computer users. They're "oddities" specifically because they're extremely rare in the general gaming population.

And yet their complaints are the same as OFP/Arma/Arma 2 when most of us had weaker hardware.

What issues, specifically, does more than 4 cores cause for Arma 3?

[best2nd 10]

Right, and the CPU runs at 40-50% usually for me. Why is that?

Because that's what the game needs.

What issues, specifically, does more than 4 cores cause for Arma 3?

None.

[St. Jimmy 272]

I'd wait for if they can take an advantage of the DayZ's server-client architecture. That could solve some MP bottlenecks. This is a comparsion between DayZ and Arma.

That kind of architecture could be optional for server hosters. This is one of the reasons why I wait for DayZ.

SP bottlenecks are mostly because of the AI is heavy for the CPU and some people try to run the game with too good video settings.

[barakokula31 10]

I'd wait for if they can take an advantage of the DayZ's server-client architecture. That could solve some MP bottlenecks. This is a comparsion between DayZ and Arma.

That kind of architecture could be optional for server hosters. This is one of the reasons why I wait for DayZ.

I remember one of the moderators (I think it was MadDogX) saying a few months ago, that if they had such a structure in Arma, you wouldn't be able to have mods.

[nik21 1]

Because that's what the game needs.

More so because it is poorly optimized in this regard, I would understand if the game lags if all - or at least one - of my 4 CPU cores were @ 100% load, but nope, on most MP servers with more than 30 players you will get below 30 fps, with more than 40 players often below or around 20 fps while all CPU cores are at ~40% load.. and your video settings don't even matter, it's just that something in multiplayer completely cripples your framerate without any of the hardware components of the client being remotely close to their limits.

Battlefield 3/ 4 for example scale very well with up to 8 cores and even on 64 player matches I get a constant framerate of 45+ in those games with 80-100% load on all 4 CPU cores. Benchmarks have shown that Battlefield even puts >70% load on all 8 cores of an octacore-CPU in Multiplayer matches, that is called proper optimization ladies and gentlemen.

I remember one of the moderators (I think it was MadDogX) saying a few months ago, that if they had such a structure in Arma, you wouldn't be able to have mods.

Very much doubt that, there's enough other games with modding support and a proper server-client architecture. I guess it would just require a rewrite of the current scripting engine which should have happened a long time ago, as it would not only solve a lot of the performance issues but also add a lot of security (clients shouldn't be able to execute scripts whenever they want to). That's pretty much the same thing DayZ has moved to... secure server-side scripting.

[dnk 13]

Are you saying that in single player your heaviest used core is only running at 50% ? Have you, by any chance, set Performance Monitor to only show one cpu graph? ( Task Manager > Perfromance tab > View > Processor History )

My heaviest core is around 50-65% I think. Total is around 40-50%.

What issues, specifically, does more than 4 cores cause for Arma 3?

Hell if I know, but apparently something. I don't engineer the things, and any attempt to explain a possible reason would be the most half-assed of technical speculation: Could be more complex or shared cache management. The AMDs in particular have shared caches and front-end components, which may be where the performance is being hit most (especially for AI). Lots of little overhead and latencies resulting in large waits per frame, resulting in lower performance in FPS. You'd need far better observational tools than the freely available MS technet stuff to get at that, though.

Additionally, Arma might have lower performance for these processors since it's all still mostly limited by the first core, which might be less of an issue with other games, especially ones without the complex AI that Arma has (which all seems to run off that 1 thread on that 1 core and holds the rest of the simulation up). Other games wouldn't have such an effect, and all the cores would be used more, making it seem comparatively that these 8c processors were underperforming considerably in Arma.

Let's keep in mind that a lot of low-performance issues are subjective as much as objective - players expecting X FPS at Y settings based on experiences with other games, then complaining when they get 1/2 X or have to use 1/2 Y or something of that nature. And then there are clear cases where something's just wrong and it's not just subjective... but a lot of complaints are seemingly subjectively based on expectations, and as such this lack of real support for more than fully utilizing 2 or 4 cores can create a "performance issue" for the user, even if objectively their system is running as would be expected for the engine and quality settings.

Edited December 4, 2013 by DNK

[NeMeSiS 11]

Because that's what the game needs.

Not really true. There is 1 thread that will fully use 1 core, while all the other cores are barely used. If BI could get some stuff out of the main thread to other cores CPU usage would increase.

EDIT: To be fair, i dont think FPS would increase much even if a magical 'optimization patch' did happen. After doubling our FPS we would just throw more scripts and AI at the game until it ran like this again. Remember that the game runs fine when you are alone on the island in the editor: It is the mission editor who influences most of the performance, and apparently he thought it was acceptable.

EDIT2: Simpler example: Currently the game Kerbal Space Program lags for most people with spaceships of about 300 parts, and people complain. If they completely rewrote the physics part of the game and it would allow people to use 600 parts until lag they would just make bigger rockets and complain that they can only use 600 parts. :p

Edited December 4, 2013 by NeMeSiS

[windies 11]

Not really true. There is 1 thread that will fully use 1 core, while all the other cores are barely used. If BI could get some stuff out of the main thread to other cores CPU usage would increase.

EDIT: To be fair, i dont think FPS would increase much even if a magical 'optimization patch' did happen. After doubling our FPS we would just throw more scripts and AI at the game until it ran like this again. Remember that the game runs fine when you are alone on the island in the editor: It is the mission editor who influences most of the performance, and apparently he thought it was acceptable.

EDIT2: Simpler example: Currently the game Kerbal Space Program lags for most people with spaceships of about 300 parts, and people complain. If they completely rewrote the physics part of the game and it would allow people to use 600 parts until lag they would just make bigger rockets and complain that they can only use 600 parts. :p

I agree with you to an extent except that if the theoretical maximum was increased, it gives you more "middle ground" to play with. Even if FPS didn't increase by very much, say 5-10 FPS, it's still that much. The difference in this game between say 40 FPS and 50 FPS is close to going from say 20 FPS to 50 FPS in most other games. I don't know why, but this game is only really smooth running at 40+ FPS, at least for me because I know someone out there will find fault with me for saying that.

[Game__On 10]

Nope, i agree with the above statement.

Anything below 40 fps is unbarable. 40 to 50 is bleh , + 50 is what i would consider "playable without too much immersion going down the drain" .

I mean, you simply NEED smoothish gameplay if you don't want to be reminded constantly that you're playing a very badly optimized VIDEO GAME.

[ratszo 17]

Nope, i agree with the above statement.

Anything below 40 fps is unbarable. 40 to 50 is bleh , + 50 is what i would consider "playable without too much immersion going down the drain" .

I mean, you simply NEED smoothish gameplay if you don't want to be reminded constantly that you're playing a very badly optimized VIDEO GAME.

Strictly a matter of opinion.

I run 'nvidia half-refreshrate' @75hrz giving a smooth, steady 37.5fps.

And as the saying goes about opinions..., everybody's got one.

[Instynct 1]

I find it so funny that everyone gives this game a free pass performance wise because 'the map is huge'. Really??? That is no excuse for such low performance as people are getting with modern pcs. Have you ever heard of something called view distance? It's not like your computer renders the entire map at the same time. Sure the map size should have an impact on performance but not as poorly as the game currently runs in multiplayer.

[[frl]myke 14]

A perfect example how such a thread should look like: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?169484-What-I-found-about-performance-and-I-what-I-want-to-help-fix-it

You may now think about it why a dev posted in the linked thread and not in this one here. If you're interested to help improving the performance (which needs improvements, no doubt about this point), be welcome to participate in the above linked thread. And since we don't need duplicate discussions cluttered through the forums, this thread is now....

-Closed-