DirecxtX 12 for ArmA 3?

[Brisse 78]

I don't get it. Are you trying to argue about something? There's nothing to argue about here.

I am still waiting to get an updated UE4 engine (seems Q4 2015 - https://trello.com/c/BQFZD0pl/204-dx12-support) to mess with DX12 and make a comparisson in terms of how things are handled. So far both you and myself are speculating numbers based on the information found on the web (from press to tech docs).

Actually, my estimations are based upon my own experience with Mantle, which is the API that spawned Dx12. I could not care less about press tech docs.

[linuxmaster9 101]

@brisse - what you don't get is that DX12 allows proper multi-thread use, as well as proper "talk" between your GPU and CPU, which is really limited today with DX11. That is also the idea behind Vulkan and Mantle. And due to that, i think ArmA is the perfect game that could really take advantage of it.

The DX12 being kept to Win10 (which is a free update for everyone owning 7 and 8) is a normal move if you ask me. They wanna direct their bussines towards free OS upgrades and updates, similar to both unix and OSX model. Also, allowing everyone (or so far almost everyone, i am not sure of the retail price for win10 so far, but i expect it to be a lot less than 8 is at the moment) is a better strategy, since you can push all updates to everyone, rather than just a small portion of your users.

I really don't see DX12 loosing too much ground anytime soon. Everyone into games and making games uses Windows either way. That comes from someone who uses both OSX and Windows for leisure and building, on a daily basis.

Pufu, Windows 10 Home edition will be priced at $110 and the Pro edition at $199. I am waiting to see whether or not Win X is a flop again or not. It looks just like 8 with a couple tweaks. Im also not a fan of the integration of XBone into Windows. If i wanted a console, I would buy one.

[chortles 263]

I am waiting to see whether or not Win X is a flop again or not. It looks just like 8 with a couple tweaks.

Considering that the Metro screen was basically the complaint about Windows 8 more than anything else, why be surprised that that (and a less hamfisted take on integration with/mobile UI) what Microsoft focused on visually...

[brightcandle 114]

DX12 isn't going to fix the simulation that will have to continue to run single threaded because that is how its written and how all the scripts are written. Since this can get to 30+ms on its own that right there is a limiter to 30 fps. Then about 50% of the frame goes to code around rendering, but as we have already determined Arma doesn't spend much time in the actual API calls, instead it spends most of it in its own code. The multithreading we see in the rendering part appears to be only marginally useful and BI certainly aren't using DX11 to anywhere near its peak, draw calls of 1500-2000 are more like 2003 levels not modern day games (its actually a little bit impressive the game looks as it does with that few calls, but perhaps its due to a lot of CPU calculation). So my theory, which I can't yet prove is that the rendr activity is doing pre API render work, which right now is not parallel and is one of the dominant factors in the time for the game.

There is other stuff in there as well, surprisingly asset loading is non negligible as is client side AI and PhysX, all of which run in the main thread. But really if we are going to point at a big issue its the lack of multithreading in the Arma code, in its engine and everything else. This is mostly a single threaded game. So unless they fundamentally rewrite the simulation and the rendering for DX12 (extremely unlikely since they have touched neither appreciably in 2+ years) it would seem its unlikely to bring any real benefit because the draw call overhead is a relatively small part of Arma execution time per frame, the profiler and GPUView data tells us that for certain.

There are a lot of ifs about how they implement things for DX12, which incidentally would also help DX11 as well by basically the same amount. We can hope but I am not hopeful because mostly the performance binary remains focussed on improving server side performance, like client side doesn't matter at all. Yet all the evidence points to client side performance being a major issue in very small (10 person with 30 AI) games and a massive issue in larger ones.

[vegeta897 13]

What was said: "We're putting DX12 in and we're going to nail down performance"

What everyone heard: "DX12 is going to fix all the problems in Arma"

Sigh... You people. You zero in on a single point and forget the big picture. Tunnel vision.

[bad benson 1733]

no idea what you're talking about but all i see here is people arguing if one can "nail down performance" by "putting in DX12" or not. saying "nail down performance" is not saying "we might accidently get a few FPS from adding DX12".

if you are trying to somehow imply to keep expectations low, then yes, i totally agree that it would be wise to do that.

[I give up 152]

Let's not forget the main reason for bottleneck in Arma 3 and is not even related with any API.

Memory and file cache management.

Arma 3 places (cache) a considerable amount of data in Hard Drive and use more RAM than any other application that I ever saw.

The data placed in Hard Drive requires a continuous write and reading while RAM is being flushed.

Unless in the upcoming times some one invent a Hard Drive that can have the same processing speed of a CPU/GPU/RAM, Arma 3 will always have bottleneck in the CPU, GPU and even RAM.

DX12 maybe will bring some advantages in rendering stuff like foliage, shadows or reflections, but here Arma 3 already performs quite well (except PIP).

The main situation is related with terrain and objects and the impact of these in system performance and this is not related by any way with rendering.

[vegeta897 13]

no idea what you're talking about but all i see here is people arguing if one can "nail down performance" by "putting in DX12" or not.

That's exactly what I'm pointing out. The devs didn't say "we're going to nail down performance by putting in DX12." They said they were putting in DX12, and nailing down performance. DX12 is only one part of the task. People are acting like BI is going to do nothing else but implement DX12, and if that doesn't increase performance they're going to give up, or something. They've been working on performance since the alpha released, they're not going to stop until it's good. DX12 or not.

[fareast 20]

If arma isn't bottlenecked by draw calls or graphics why the fps drop significantly when i increase both object and view distance to the max even in the editor?

[Brisse 78]

If arma isn't bottlenecked by draw calls or graphics why the fps drop significantly when i increase both object and view distance to the max even in the editor?

These settings are not only visual, but also affect things like AI. For example, AI use object distance to determine how far AI soldiers can see, so the CPU time that goes into AI is dependant on your object distance setting.

[connorwarman 60]

What effect would DirectX-12 have on FPS for ArmA? I understand they would be positive, but how drastic?

[NeMeSiS 11]

What effect would DirectX-12 have on FPS for ArmA? I understand they would be positive, but how drastic?

Based on the estimates of how ArmA3 uses the CPU from other people here i would say 10% for the most obvious use cases. Which is of course a guess, but i am pretty sure it will be in that order of magnitude.

EDIT: Estimate may be on the optimistic side, cant find the posts i based this on, did it a while ago.

EDIT2: They may be adding some new graphical stuff that would not be as efficient in DX11, so it may not end up being 1:1 comparable.

Edited June 22, 2015 by NeMeSiS

[bad benson 1733]

That's exactly what I'm pointing out. The devs didn't say "we're going to nail down performance by putting in DX12." They said they were putting in DX12, and nailing down performance. DX12 is only one part of the task. People are acting like BI is going to do nothing else but implement DX12, and if that doesn't increase performance they're going to give up, or something. They've been working on performance since the alpha released, they're not going to stop until it's good. DX12 or not.

erm nope.

there's no and. there's direct causal connection.

and even if your interpretation of what they said was true. you are ignoring also Mareks tweet about DX12 having significance for arma 3 and overall the things that DX12 has in store.

https://twitter.com/maruksp/status/558735038335172608

if you think they are adding DX12 for water reflections or something then you're just badly informed.

as for continuous effort to fix/improve performance. yea sure. i agree. the question is, what are the gains we have seen so far?

so i think you just like to tell people to calm down for no reason or something :p

EDIT2: They may be adding some new graphical stuff that would not be as efficient in DX11, so it may not end up being 1:1 comparable.

hah. good point.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Bad Benson

[vegeta897 13]

erm nope.

there's no and. there's direct causal connection.

He said DX12 would help kick up performance. He said performance was something they wanted to nail down. That does not mean DX12 is the only thing they're doing to improve performance. Like I said, they've already been doing things for performance since the game launched. They're not going to stop now just because DX12 is coming.

and even if your interpretation of what they said was true. you are ignoring also Mareks tweet about DX12 having significance for arma 3 and overall the things that DX12 has in store.

How am I ignoring that? I didn't say DX12 wouldn't have an impact. I said it's not the only thing BI have going for improving performance.

if you think they are adding DX12 for water reflections or something then you're just badly informed.

Never said anything close to that, nor did I say DX12 was not being integrated for anything but performance reasons.

as for continuous effort to fix/improve performance. yea sure. i agree. the question is, what are the gains we have seen so far?

The posts just before mine were railing on the topic of whether DX12 was the only thing needed to improve the game's performance. Maybe I just imagined the misinterpretation, but I can't see why that is even a point of a discussion. I figured since DX12 is the only thing BI mentioned, people think that's the only thing being done. It's the only reason I can imagine for people bringing unrelated performance issues into this thread that DX12 is not going to address.

so i think you just like to tell people to calm down for no reason or something :p

I can neither confirm nor deny this!

[calin_banc 19]

These settings are not only visual, but also affect things like AI. For example, AI use object distance to determine how far AI soldiers can see, so the CPU time that goes into AI is dependant on your object distance setting.

Yeah, but the CPU and GPU usage also drop if it's just you and the map, no AI, no nothing. Also when in game, if you are at an end of the map, looking towards the water you get higher FPS than looking inland, with the view blocked by a hill or something - so relatively small view distance. A lot of optimization needs to go into the engine. Occlusion is handled very bad which is also obvious in Day Z.

[Brisse 78]

Not saying you are wrong, or that the optimization is good enough. Just saying there's more to it than just visual fidelity and GPU usage :)

[bad benson 1733]

He said DX12 would help kick up performance. He said performance was something they wanted to nail down. That does not mean DX12 is the only thing they're doing to improve performance.

nobody ever said otherwise, certainly not me. you are the only person drawing an imaginary line. of course they do other things, i sure hope so, how those other things increased performance so far is another story.

I can neither confirm nor deny this!

lol whatever dude ;)

let's hope DX12 has an impact because eventhough i appreciate them trying, i don't see any results worth mentioning so far. i mean the game has been released for what, 2 years now? so that's the reason why people get worked up about DX12. it's called being realistic about what you can actual see in, well, reality. which is no gains without DX12.

so yea DX12 could be the thing that finally gives this engine a real (even if small) boost since nothing else seems to work. again. show me the gains. what is that well known past patch version that increased performance?

good intention to fix something is one thing but if there are no real results it's not surprising that people focus on DX12 implementation rather than what they've heard countless times before, don't you think?

there's only so many times you can say "we're working on it" and it'll satisfy people and make them wait patiently. if you like to focus on their good intentions, do that, by all means, good for you. :p

[Armitxes 36]

DirectX 12 can drastically improve the game performance that's for sure, how much however will depend on your GPU aswell as CPU.

You can only guess for the exact numbers but 10FPS extra should be an absolute minimum.

[miketim 20]

Is directX 12 even coming to Windows 7? If you look at the steam hardware survey, many players (myself included) still use windows 7, and I'd really rather not have to upgrade to windows 10 (which apparently has even more shit that sells your data). I'd even wager that a portion of the players on this forum might still use Windows XP, I think I remember a Polish guy who still uses it. It would really suck if only those who "upgrade" their operating system would get the *major* performance benefits.

[Armitxes 36]

Is directX 12 even coming to Windows 7? If you look at the steam hardware survey, many players (myself included) still use windows 7, and I'd really rather not have to upgrade to windows 10 (which apparently has even more shit that sells your data). I'd even wager that a portion of the players on this forum might still use Windows XP, I think I remember a Polish guy who still uses it. It would really suck if only those who "upgrade" their operating system would get the *major* performance benefits.

Sorry, Microsoft DirectX 12 will Windows 10+ exclusive according to AMD and Nvidia (can't find Microsofts Statement, but I think they mentioned it during a MVA course)

EDIT: "So DirectX 12 will, we’re told, only work with Windows 10" -rockpapershotgun

Edited June 22, 2015 by Armitxes

[linuxmaster9 101]

Is directX 12 even coming to Windows 7? If you look at the steam hardware survey, many players (myself included) still use windows 7, and I'd really rather not have to upgrade to windows 10 (which apparently has even more shit that sells your data). I'd even wager that a portion of the players on this forum might still use Windows XP, I think I remember a Polish guy who still uses it. It would really suck if only those who "upgrade" their operating system would get the *major* performance benefits.

THIS ^^

I am all for low-level APIs. But NOT when they lock you into one specific platform. Especially a platform that has most privacy experts up in arms over it. For DX12, all they really did was slap Mantle on DX11. Nothing overly new hence why they came out with it so freaking fast. While the complete spec for Vulkan has not been finalized yet, It is a complete rework of the API. They are writing it from scratch. They are doing away with the 20 year old code. And, they are not platform locking it. They never did. With DX12, if you dont jump to Windows 10/XBone, you cant play. Or you can only play at reduced performance or weaker graphics. It is very much like the work that BI is doing about the Linux/Mac port they are considering.....it too wont support DX12 let alone DX11. So, speculation is that they will use DX9 and WINE to make it work. Which, play Arma 3 in DX9 and tell me what you think of it. Do that, and I can almost guarantee you no one will buy it. Not when Unreal is using Vulkan and coming out to Linux and Mac and looking sexy as all hell.

Build in your Low-level APIs by all means. But, make it NOT platform specific. Especially if you are even considering a future port to the other operating systems. What is the huge difference between the two? DX12 is backed by......Microsoft only and is WinX/XBone only. Vulkan is Multi-platform (All platforms including XBone and WinX) and is backed by the following companies:

http://i.imgur.com/1Fqmopi.png (116 kB)

And their current member list which includes Microsoft (gasp!)

https://www.khronos.org/members/member_list

The unofficial rumor at the moment remains that Khronos Group seems likely to unveil the formal Vulkan specification at SIGGRAPH in August. SIGGRAPH 2015 runs from 9 to 13 August in Los Angeles but who knows what we'll see the week before in Germany at GDC Europe or if there will be any early surprises.

Edited June 22, 2015 by LinuxMaster9

[heavygunner 179]

Arma 3 already struggles with getting a better performance and just because some people are to stubborn to upgrade their OS doesn't mean that BIS should care about them. If they can play now without DX12 they probably can live without it in the future.

[Armitxes 36]

Microsoft / Windows 10 haters incomming.

Arma 3 already struggles with getting a better performance and just because some people are to stubborn to upgrade their OS doesn't mean that BIS should care about them. If they can play now without DX12 they probably can live without it in the future.

This.

"Especially a platform that has most privacy experts up in arms over it."

Scared because of your privacy? Well then keep off the internet, it doesn't matter which OS you use - Windows is by far the most popular one and so in the main focus by everyone, including experts.

Microsoft also had a fail with WinVista followed by a great success with Win7. History may repeat.

Most never tried Windows 10 and already say it's terrible. Install it on a VM or older computer to test it out before you complain, you can even turn the app stuff (tiles) completly off.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Armitxes
sdadasdasdas

[calin_banc 19]

Is directX 12 even coming to Windows 7? If you look at the steam hardware survey, many players (myself included) still use windows 7, and I'd really rather not have to upgrade to windows 10 (which apparently has even more shit that sells your data). I'd even wager that a portion of the players on this forum might still use Windows XP, I think I remember a Polish guy who still uses it. It would really suck if only those who "upgrade" their operating system would get the *major* performance benefits.

In that case, they are not playing ArmA 3 under Win XP. That's the problem with gaming today, everyone wants to cover as wider as possible demographic and by doing so, they limit themselves or end up creating content that is either low in quality or features compared to previous iterations (dumb down) or moving forward si done at the speed of a snail.

Bohemia said in one of the threads that they didn't get in the Mantle alpha/beta testing and that Tilled Resources, a feature that is already in DX11.2 if I'm not mistaken and that allows to use very high resolution textures, is not used because not many people have the OS. Of course, players will say: why should I upgrade since the game will run bad just as well?

We have multiple core systems, including multi core CPUs and GPUs (CF/SLI) and 64 bit plus tones of software technology out there, but this game/engine is not using it even now. Although, it's quite old. Yes, a lot from DX11.x itself. At this point, the whole demographic excuse is just that, an excuse. Make a good game, make it run properly on current hardware and people will buy it, even if it's PC exclusive. Just think how many players heard about the game, checked it out and went away due to performance, incredibly clunky UI, AI, lots of mods that have no proper sorting while trying to get into a MP mach and so on.

Also big plus and like for Johan - Frostbite Technical Director wants DX12 and Windows 10 for next-gen

Read more at http://www.tweaktown.com/news/44506/frostbite-technical-director-dx12-windows-10-next-gen/index.html

PS: Win 8.1 is faster and works just as well in desktop view compared to any windows OS previously and Win 10 is rumored to be even faster.

[I give up 152]

It seems there is some difficulty to understand Microsoft strategy.

In first place we cannot compare Windows 8 with Vista. With Vista there was real issues in matters on compatibility, drivers and performance. With Windows 8 is exactly the opposite, performs much better than Windows 7.

With Windows 8 is only a matter of design and operation methods, while for social media and for mobile devices (notebook/laptop) is quite good, for gaming machines or even workstations there is no advantage in Windows 8, in fact in some circumstances there is a real disadvantage and on top of that, a huge privacy loss. While with Windows 7 we are able to disable all Microsoft "spyware" services, with Windows 8.1 we can't, even digging deep and killing this stuff, we see these services running randomly.

Now, why all this? Because in fact there was no need for a new Operative System, so why?

The answer is simple.

While 10/15 years ago the real profit was coming from Operative System sales, today is not what happens. Today the real profit is coming from the services sold by Microsoft.

The users need to be leaded to these services and Windows 8 is built under this concept, the user is basically forced to be part of Microsoft, sharing everything what happens in is computer.

Microsoft grab this information and through a elaborated marketing strategy sells more services and products.

Basically that's why Windows 8 was a flop, people (in general) understand this and stay way and also because in fact there was no valid reason to get Windows 8.

In large part Windows 8 is being used by machines that are sold with Windows 8 installed. Windows 8 is being used by 18% of Windows users.

But since basically the future of Microsoft (and other companies) is dependent of this business strategy something had to be made.

So Microsoft renamed Windows 8 to Windows 10 and yes it is basically a name change, Windows 10 is the Windows 8, the main difference is more privacy loss and more dependency of Microsoft services.

But this is not enough, obviously, under these conditions Windows 10 will follow Windows 8 on recycle bin.

Microsoft know this, that's why they had to find a marketing strategy and honestly they found the best one. DirectX 12.

Microsoft knows that everyone, hardware manufacturers, gaming studios, developers, brands and users will jump on this train with eyes closed and knows that DirectX 12 will be the key for success. In a couple of years no one will remember Windows 7 or 8.

So yes, Windows 10 is going to be a sucess and for Microsoft was not that hard, basically they are using Xbox API renamed as DirectX 12 which basically has little or none dependency from CPU, relying mainly on GPU to operate.

That's why DirectX 12 is so CPU "friendly", does not need it.

Anyway, with DirectX 12 announcement no one cares anymore about Windows 10 features or design, when we see Windows 10 references what we get? DirectX 12.

This is what separates average companies from successful ones. Good job Microsoft, well done.