Why I will never buy any of your games ever again.

[zukov 490]

agree. lets wait if BI has success with 64bit and hope that they will success with it.

Quote by Greenfist:

THAT was since a long time ago necessary.

maybe isn't a easy task

[roshnak 41]

I really doubt it - it's just pie in the sky thinking.

Ive literally lined up the same exact units with the same exact view distance and settings on the same map on both Arma 3 and VBS2 64 bit and my 16 gigs of ram pipin' to go.

Result: Performance was far exceeded on Arma 3.... Ive mentioned this before but far be it from actual tangible results to interfere with the "...but VBS2 does it!!!!!! Wahhhhh!" tantrums.

This is not a good test. As you yourself pointed out, Arma 3 is not VBS2. While built on the same base, they were built and optimized differently. The only way these test results would be valid is if you tested Arma 3 with a 32-bit .exe and a 64-bit exe, VBS2 with a 32-bit and 64-bit .exe, or some other game in both 32-bit and 64-bit.

[froggyluv 2136]

Make of it as you will, bottom line was it felt far less smooth, had worse fps and I didn't see the ram usage climb very much at all

[Sterlingarcherz101 15]

maybe isn't a easy task

Oh its easy enough. I seen the devs on livestream doing nothing . Instead of working on improving arma. They were in the office basment, looking like the cast from that 70s show.

[roshnak 41]

Make of it as you will, bottom line was it felt far less smooth, had worse fps and I didn't see the ram usage climb very much at all

What are you trying to say here? That 64-bit support would cause a decrease in performance?

[vegeta897 13]

Oh its easy enough. I seen the devs on livestream doing nothing . Instead of working on improving arma. They were in the office basment, looking like the cast from that 70s show.

I constantly forget that the developers are robots, not people, and are not allowed to have any free time outside of working on the game.

[froggyluv 2136]

What are you trying to say here? That 64-bit support would cause a decrease in performance?

That what Dwarden said about minimal gains is highly believable.

[noubernou 77]

LOL imagining SQF in multi-thread environments. Say good bye to 99% of mod makers.

Also A3 is multi-threaded, but the thing is that almost all games are single threaded for their core systems, it is just easier that way, especially when you throw in scripting languages.

Also the main overhead in Arma is AI CPU usage, and in multiplayer you can multithread, it's called headless client, heck you can even have massive parallel processing with dozens of machines running AI if you want.

[Arma3goodCPUlowFPS 12]

BI is very slow when it comes to multicore / multithreading support. here : https://www.bistudio.com/blog/real-virtuality-going-multicore

this was announced in 2009, in a year where other games had already multithreading (!!) support like world in conflict (2007) or all the source games, started by half-life 2 which was released in 2004 (!) and in 2009 they come with M-U-L-T-I C-O-R-E ?! W-T-F?! this reminds me of internet explorer, sorry but i have to post the memes. sometimes memes can say 1000 true words:

[noubernou 77]

Do you even know what multi-core means?

[Arma3goodCPUlowFPS 12]

Do you even know what multi-core means?

you should ask this to the devs

[noubernou 77]

I am asking you. I know the devs know what it means.

[roshnak 41]

http://i.imgur.com/CTgo4KK.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Qd4QNXn.jpg

This image/meme stuff you're doing is real obnoxious.

[calin_banc 19]

LOL imagining SQF in multi-thread environments. Say good bye to 99% of mod makers.

Also A3 is multi-threaded, but the thing is that almost all games are single threaded for their core systems, it is just easier that way, especially when you throw in scripting languages.

Also the main overhead in Arma is AI CPU usage, and in multiplayer you can multithread, it's called headless client, heck you can even have massive parallel processing with dozens of machines running AI if you want.

I would rather have a game that runs well in the first place, with it's few game modes, campaigns and user generated content that is done than having lots of "stuff" in a head-aching game. . There is no point in having hundreds of modds that may or may not behave with each other anyway, when the performance turns the experience into a sore taste.

The problems are not only with the AI, but with the rendering part as well, both having HUGE performance issues. Besides the failing of the engine to render multiple dynamic lights with shadows (only the Sun and Moon), the lights go through solid objects and cast zero shadows. Forget about soft shadows, in bloody 2015! Never mind the fact that engine doesn't occlude as it should what isn't in the players view angle, dropping performance heavily (

) or that it fails to actually be capable of rendering vast areas of the map at a decent frame rate in game. Instead of always being at the front of technology because this genre demands it, Bohemia went on the way of supporting only the barely minimum for their games to work.

So yeah, you want performance: switch to another engine or build your own OR make significant changes to this one. Will they have DX12 support when that will be available? Most likely not! At least they'll do some changes in Day Z, "thanks" to PS 4, according to Dean. :rolleyes:

[zukov 490]

small maps small maps small maps

[froggyluv 2136]

How many AI can Cryengine handle at once while calculating non player battles at the same time? Not being facetious I just really wanna know. Codemasters tried on a different engine and could only handle 64 entities -thats including objects like flagpoles. Maybe CE can, I just haven't seen it and that coupled with Star Citizen and Crytek now working hand in hand to basically create a new iteration of CE to enable larger sized maps and handle more AI. Not saying it can't be done, just haven't seen it.

[calin_banc 19]

They are working with some independent guys for the AI, so it will be hard to know. Like many times before it has been said, the AI needs to move from the CPU to the GPU.

[zukov 490]

How many AI can Cryengine handle at once while calculating non player battles at the same time? Not being facetious I just really wanna know. Codemasters tried on a different engine and could only handle 64 entities -thats including objects like flagpoles. Maybe CE can, I just haven't seen it and that coupled with Star Citizen and Crytek now working hand in hand to basically create a new iteration of CE to enable larger sized maps and handle more AI. Not saying it can't be done, just haven't seen it.

for my personal experience in Cryengine 2 (crysis wars) no more than 60 entities (AI and players )in the same scene it was a dev's limitation i don't know in cryengine 3

Edited January 17, 2015 by Zukov

[Arma3goodCPUlowFPS 12]

How many AI can Cryengine handle at once while calculating non player battles at the same time? Not being facetious I just really wanna know. Codemasters tried on a different engine and could only handle 64 entities -thats including objects like flagpoles. Maybe CE can, I just haven't seen it and that coupled with Star Citizen and Crytek now working hand in hand to basically create a new iteration of CE to enable larger sized maps and handle more AI. Not saying it can't be done, just haven't seen it.

cryengine 3 can handle large maps, even larger than arma´s terrain. but the free version of the cryengine doesnt support that nor the new cryengine version on steam where u have to pay 10 euros. you need to get access to the sourcecode and not everyone gets access to the sourcecode of the cryengine. you have to contact crytek and tell them that you need more access to the sourcecode and tell them about your project, progress, team or company etc and large terrain works a bit different in cryengine than in real virtuality but not many know that because of lazyness to research.

about the AI: its true that you cant have many AI in cryengine before FPS problems appear, but the same on arma 3: too many AI = FPS problems. idk if this can be tweaked in cryengine with a cache script or something but on arma 3 it can be tweaked to 100%, first started with the CPU that AI is CPU usage and since real virtuality is a big fail @ CPU usage, there is the point it can be fixed. second is using a cache script.

[Arma3goodCPUlowFPS 12]

Quote from other topic:

I took a profile picture in Palagia in Altis a while ago and captured the following from the game to explain the basic issues with the game on a 3930k running at 4.4Ghz:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3638175/Capture%20Palagia.png (2808 kB)

Each of the bars at the top represents a core (12 in my case since I have a 3930k) over the time of one frame. Ignoring the text at the bottom its pretty obvious that the game is mostly single threaded except at some points in the rendering where it can go very parallel, but performance tests show that its of minimal impact so despite the moments of parallelism the multithreading in this game has limited impact in practice. We can see that the game is dominated by simulation time (the time it takes to update the world on user updates and network received updates and run any scripts) and on rendering time on the CPU. That suggests two things to me about the game:

1) The simulation needs to be parallel or a lot more performant. Its taking over 9ms in this case to do all the various bits of updating the world and AI and such.

2) The game seems to be heavily dependent on draw calls to the graphics pipeline. Its spending nearly 12ms just doing this and that would suggest there is just too many draw calls and CPU overhead is dominating.

In addition sound and physx are all running in the same thread which a lot of games have them run separately which would save a couple of milliseconds as well. I also think that if this is performance at 4.4Ghz on a sandy bridge you aren't going to do much better regardless of your CPU. Worse that that the game seems to be hyperthreading insensitive. We can see it loads core 0 and 1 at the same time and yet they are the same underlying core, and then the rendering process threads seem to run cores next to each other as well while other real cores aren't being used at all. That is just really poor generally and its going to hurt performance.

So the game is very heavily dependent on a single CPU core and clockspeed, it also benefits from memory bandwidth but its also fair to say that the issue is mostly the game and the way its written. There is nothing any of us can do. I hope the others have answered your questions so I wont address that but wanted to show you what you are up against to try and get the game running well.

[Defunkt 431]

I know the devs know what it means.

They may know what it means but implementing it appears to entirely elude them.

Here's how a modern engine (actually what is now a 4 year old engine) scales on multiple cores;

AMD Phenom II x6 1090T under-clocked at 1.2 GHz (to ensure the game is CPU bound)

2 Cores; GPU:27% CPU:99.8% FPS:31

4 Cores: GPU:76% CPU:91.1% FPS:47

6 Cores: GPU:95% CPU:72.6% FPS:70

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

[eymerich 11]

Quote from other topic:

In short: lack of optimization.

I don't think that's due to being lazy.

It looks to me that Arma is not anymore the diamond head of Bis project.

We'll see in the future if this will be a winning strategy...

[brightcandle 114]

In short: lack of optimization.

I don't think that's due to being lazy.

It looks to me that Arma is not anymore the diamond head of Bis project.

We'll see in the future if this will be a winning strategy...

People like to say lack of optimisation a lot, but as a programmer I can tell you its a not exactly a well defined term. What I have done is said what sort of optimisation is required and why the game is running poorly. Lack of optimisation just isn't a useful term, especially when in the case of Arma 3 much of the problem looks to me to be with the number of draw calls they are making and hence its partly that they made the models and world with too much in it. Maybe they can fix that but they probably can't, that isn't really poor optimisation (in the sense of algorithmic complexity or not taking shortcuts for rendering that make little difference) but rather the game is ahead of what DX11 can actually handle. Their simulation isn't multithreaded but then its also a 100% redesign of the core logic of their game to fix that, these aren't optimisation decisions they are design ones and hence I feel are extremely unlikely to be fixable for A3.

So I don't agree its a lack of optimisation, that term meaning very little anyway its more fundamental than that.

[UkropyPrivyet 32]

I agree, though I have other motives for not purchasing anything else BIS makes, such as how they used "early-release" to take in massive amounts of money and then proceed to release a game where there are four factions that all use the same copy-pasted vehicles and weapons for that matter. I don't want a game where every rifle handles the exact same, I want there to be distinct advantages and disadvantages for each force.

Edited January 20, 2015 by FR4NCH3K

[St. Jimmy 272]

They may know what it means but implementing it appears to entirely elude them.

Here's how a modern engine (actually what is now a 4 year old engine) scales on multiple cores;

AMD Phenom II x6 1090T under-clocked at 1.2 GHz (to ensure the game is CPU bound)

2 Cores; GPU:27% CPU:99.8% FPS:31

4 Cores: GPU:76% CPU:91.1% FPS:47

6 Cores: GPU:95% CPU:72.6% FPS:70

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

That's interesting not only because of multiple core usage but beccause how low GHz he can run the game. That's some serious optimization and no wonder the game runs well on consoles.