New terrain reveal - Tanoa

[windies 11]

Hi mate,

This is more of an observation rather than based on quantitative data but I tend to agree that 64 bit would be nicer for data streaming (so that when you enter a new area it wouldn't do that "grind" effect as it loads new mesh and textures it). I would also say though that if it ran AI on diff cores natively, that would really go a long way to make the experience smooth when playing.

I often experience a distinct slowdown when AI get tripped into "combat" that I don't get if I slave them off to HC and let that handle their routines. It's a pita to code missions for HC though so I'd also like to see the game handle it within the process and spawn a new thread to control them (or at least spawn a new binary to handle the AI and move all AI data to it without the mission maker having to do it themself).

From some of the frame time analysis I've seen, the actual process itself tends to stall out a lot on basically nothing. I'm just guessing but it could be that during these "pauses" it's waiting for data to be streamed into the process work space. AFAIK what's stored in the file mapping API, even if it's stored in RAM, resides outside the process work space therefor it has to be paged in in some way. Yeah you can see this as hitches and stutters in game but even if you don't notice a stutter or hitch it could literally stall the process out enough on a constant basis to create a significant frame time overhead. Again I'm just guessing but it seems plausible.

Pretty sure even with the HC, AI Pathfinding is calculated on the server and on the client both and is sync'd together over the network. The slowdown you get is the FSM's initializing and again AFAIK They're still purely in script and due to the serial limitation of SQL cannot be processed in parallel which is sorely needed. The HC is another one of those band-aid type fixes that I would rather not see.

Not only would a new scripting language capable of parallel processing need to be introduced, be it Java or whatever, but then all the FSM's and scripts currently in the game would then need to be ported over and depending on how they're coded it would most likely cause a huge headache. Although really all that would realistically need to be ported over would be AI algorithms and most of the simulation and physics. Again would still be a headache but it's not like it's not doable.

I think as far as multiplayer is concerned, a lot of the disparage in performance between MP and SP stems from data streaming and needless simulation processing on both client and server due to flawed design and implementation. MP hits the commit charge in the nuts figuratively. Easily you can get a 12gb commit charge if not more playing with 10-12 people with moderate amounts of assets with a starting commit charge of 1-2gb. You only have a 3.5gb work space, probably closer to 2gb realistically, so you're basically streaming about 2-3x your process work space on the fly.

In a sense, whats really needed is a new engine foundation, something they can build on and port as much of the current engine into, while revising and updating what needs to sorely be fixed. Hopefully what they are doing with Enfusion but we will wait and see.

[calin_banc 19]

Yeah, that may be it, since the draw calls apparently are not the culprit. Also the increase in performance while using higher speed memory and SSD could reinforce your point.

[brightcandle 114]

One thing the profile data showed me was that asset loading is done on each frame right at the end after its rendered, on the main thread. We all know about the ExThreads setting so it was a bit of a surprise to me to find a couple of milliseconds disappear into asset preloading on the main thread but there it was anyway. I suspect an SSD really helps with that particular part and since its right there in the main thread which is the bottleneck for the entire game its going to have an impact.

As far as I can tell multiplayer seems to hit the FPS a bit in two distinct ways. The first is that the world sim time goes up. This is most likely a combination of script running time but its also likely the inclusion of other human players. The second thing that increases is rendering time and my theory there is its associated with the player models themselves, due to the high customisation of the models I suspect we get a lot of CPU time generating those models every frame from the kit available and that causes a reduction in performance. Oddly enough it doesn't seem to matter if you are looking at them or not, just whether they are within your object view distance.

[zukov 490]

the fantastic analysis above don't change the fact that A3 is a living diorama, if the devs don't work hard to fix or remove some parts, it's pretty impossible that user created missions will have success

[freesets 11]

The problem with MP isn't really to do with object count but more to do with increased simulation which basically adds to frame time therefor making rendering slower. Actually I don't think any of the performance issue's currently present within ArmA really have much to do with the rendering aspect, unless you increase resolution or AA or settings until it DOES become a factor, rather it has much more to do with how much simulation is going on and therefor increasing frame time.

I actually tend to think that the issue's with Altis and it's size stem from the data streaming that BI uses to constantly stream data into and out of the process work space, not so much object count or view distance. If you think about it, if the process is waiting for data to be streamed into the work space, that's cause for a stalled thread right there. It's probably why draw calls aren't much the issue but the actual size of the island is the issue. Also why it would seem older content runs better, because it's smaller data sizes being streamed. How that plays into Tanoa and performance I think will depend more on it's detail and data size rather than raw object count or anything render related.

It's one of the reasons why I've always been a proponent of 64 bit binaries. I think it would be one alleviation of a problem, but only if they truly do away with the actual streaming and map completely to RAM, something which would probably require work on the engine which I think they are reluctant to do. It would probably increase the minimum RAM requirement to 8-12gb+ but if that's what's needed for a stable platform then so be it. RAM is honestly pretty cheap anymore.

you bring a good point here, but this is a double edge sword here, i remember when cod ghosts was released requiring 8 gb of ram min and dx11, a lot of people screamed that activision obliged them to update the computer. i know 2 years ago 8 gb was more expensive than today but as a platform designed to work on medium hardware, increasing the specs like that would please some and displease a lot more. i think that will come to arma 4 but i doubt a3 expansion will rewrite the engine that far...bringing dx12 is already good we have to see next year the improvements.

as for enfusion i read somewhere(dayz discussion) that they kept the basics from the current engine added 64 bit routines in a lot of places and rewritten the obsolete parts to match the new hardwares of today and of what they anticipate it will be tomorrow(like they did in ofp).

Edited June 20, 2015 by freesets

[bad benson 1733]

a lot of people screamed that activision obliged them to update the computer. i know 2 years ago 8 gb was more expensive than today but as a platform designed to work on medium hardware, increasing the specs like that would please some and displease a lot more.

yea but i think there's a difference between COD's backyard levels and old ass engine and arma simply requiring a lot of hardware already as is due to its scope (and other reasons ;)). the problem with arma has always been that it didn't even run great with the most uptodate hardware. arma needs technology updates badly. if it means alienating people playing on a toaster, so be it :p

to me that's the biggest flaw. having bleeding edge ambitions in terms of scale but not using bleeding edge concepts and tech. the reasons for that are another story. just saying.

[freesets 11]

yea but i think there's a difference between COD's backyard levels and old ass engine and arma simply requiring a lot of hardware already as is due to its scope (and other reasons ;)). the problem with arma has always been that it didn't even run great with the most uptodate hardware. arma needs technology updates badly. if it means alienating people playing on a toaster, so be it :p

to me that's the biggest flaw. having bleeding edge ambitions in terms of scale but not using bleeding edge concepts and tech. the reasons for that are another story. just saying.

im with you on that. i don't care that the cool kid cant play it on his cool macbook air at school like cod trollZ fragger simulator :cool:, but sadly those people probably represent 70% of the clients and for that fact the minority(those with 3000$ alienware pc) are set aside a little. in fact it plays okay on low settings on medium-low hardware (7-900$) but if you put high settings on high end it may have the issues you say. only HYPER-high hardware(32gb ram, dual/quad 8 core cpu, thermelectric cooling, etc) can play it on full max settings and 1000 ai units at 100fps.

[froggyluv 2136]

only HYPER-high hardware(32gb ram, dual/quad 8 core cpu, thermelectric cooling, etc) can play it on full max settings and 1000 ai units at 100fps.

Arma3? Nah, it'll still bottleneck even for that guy. I know THAT guy ;)

[calin_banc 19]

im with you on that. i don't care that the cool kid cant play it on his cool macbook air at school like cod trollZ fragger simulator :cool:, but sadly those people probably represent 70% of the clients and for that fact the minority(those with 3000$ alienware pc) are set aside a little. in fact it plays okay on low settings on medium-low hardware (7-900$) but if you put high settings on high end it may have the issues you say. only HYPER-high hardware(32gb ram, dual/quad 8 core cpu, thermelectric cooling, etc) can play it on full max settings and 1000 ai units at 100fps.

If will run ok, then it's fine. When people get in the game and see it perform like a turd, it's getting hard to get back into or recommend it to a friend.

[bad benson 1733]

im with you on that. i don't care that the cool kid cant play it on his cool macbook air at school like cod trollZ fragger simulator :cool:, but sadly those people probably represent 70% of the clients and for that fact the minority(those with 3000$ alienware pc) are set aside a little. in fact it plays okay on low settings on medium-low hardware (7-900$) but if you put high settings on high end it may have the issues you say. only HYPER-high hardware(32gb ram, dual/quad 8 core cpu, thermelectric cooling, etc) can play it on full max settings and 1000 ai units at 100fps.

arma 3 on macbook air? 70%? hm. i'm pretty sure the game is unplayable on anything but mid to high range. the demographic you describe does not play arma 3 at all because they can't.

my specs are recommended and i can not play most large mission in MP (dom like stuff) above 20 FPS (mostly below) no matter the settings. i tried endgame a few times and nope. not smooth either which is a shame because i liked the concept. but PvP with FPS jumping up and down is a no go.

and all the people i know who have great pcs get around 40 FPS with a lot of dips (so not average). not talking editor here ofc.

some call that "plays okay". to me that's broken. wasn't that big of a problem in arma 2. maybe it's something that happened when they put in physX or something because it sure isn't graphics settings related.

and that's the reason i would never update my pc just for arma. because it won't fix it. it will just move you above the border of playability. but if there is tech that can be used in arma that would make an update 100% worth it. by all means!!

good will towards the devs, who btw have mentioned performance (as if it was a new feature..) and DX12 on E3 publically as goals, is one thing but let's stay based in reality. everyone knows that arma has performance problems. it's not this made up phenomenon by people who don't know how to use graphics settings.

[GilgaMesh 10]

arma 3 on macbook air? 70%? hm. i'm pretty sure the game is unplayable on anything but mid to high range. the demographic you describe does not play arma 3 at all because they can't.

my specs are recommended and i can not play most large mission in MP (dom like stuff) above 20 FPS (mostly below) no matter the settings. i tried endgame a few times and nope. not smooth either which is a shame because i liked the concept. but PvP with FPS jumping up and down is a no go.

and all the people i know who have great pcs get around 40 FPS with a lot of dips (so not average). not talking editor here ofc.

some call that "plays okay". to me that's broken. wasn't that big of a problem in arma 2. maybe it's something that happened when they put in physX or something because it sure isn't graphics settings related.

and that's the reason i would never update my pc just for arma. because it won't fix it. it will just move you above the border of playability. but if there is tech that can be used in arma that would make an update 100% worth it. by all means!!

good will towards the devs, who btw have mentioned performance (as if it was a new feature..) and DX12 on E3 publically as goals, is one thing but let's stay based in reality. everyone knows that arma has performance problems. it's not this made up phenomenon by people who don't know how to use graphics settings.

What he said. Pretty sure the FPS goal for devs is around 40 for high end PCs which is shit (I7 2700 , r9 280, 12gb ram, it's not the newest but it's pretty high end for a 2013 game) . Take it that way, with the dx12 implementation they are aiming for massive drawcalls envioriments like jungle, and we all know how shit this engine is at handling big drawcalls. So all benefits of dx12 are gone and you just have your 20-40 fps, like always.

Dx12 isn't gonna save your arse on this new island. On the other hand, it will improve performances on other islands like Altis and Takistan.

This is fuckin annoying. Every time a new thing of Arma comes out I have to wait at least 2-3 years to play it decent, but by then, it's outdated.

Edited June 20, 2015 by GilgaMesh

[bad benson 1733]

no idea how exactly this works but shouldn't the fact that a jungle is a lot of the same objects repeating maybe even sharing textures help? i think you should also mark your speculation as such until you have actually played the expansion. just saying :p

[skyace65 19]

Now I'm not a hardware genius. But could Nvidia's NVLink in next years cards give noticeable performance improvements?

A link for those who don't know what it is

http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/03/25/gpu-roadmap-pascal/

[Chairborne 2594]

no idea how exactly this works but shouldn't the fact that a jungle is a lot of the same objects repeating maybe even sharing textures help? i think you should also mark your speculation as such until you have actually played the expansion. just saying :p

I think it also depends how cluttered the jungle is, how dense the bushes and grass are, how detailed the textures are, etc etc.

On N'ziwasogo, which is pretty much what you say, i barely get 15fps with viewdistance down to 1km (i usually play with 3-4k minimum as infantry).

[vegeta897 13]

This is fuckin annoying. Every time a new thing of Arma comes out I have to wait at least 2-3 years to play it decent, but by then, it's outdated.

Outdated by what? Is there a newer game that does what Arma does? Or do you just mean outdated by your arbitrary standards? Okay then, by my arbitrary standards Arma has been fantastic since release, and has only gotten better. I've never had issues running the game well on my i5 2500 and 7870 except in very AI-heavy missions that don't have any optimization by the mission maker.

I'd consider Arma to be the opposite of outdated, since it lets you set your graphics to things that current computers can't handle, but future ones will (oversampling, extreme view distance).

[bad benson 1733]

I think it also depends how cluttered the jungle is, how dense the bushes and grass are, how detailed the textures are, etc etc.

On N'ziwasogo, which is pretty much what you say, i barely get 15fps with viewdistance down to 1km (i usually play with 3-4k minimum as infantry).

that's a really bad example though since it uses a bunch of different assets from different sources etc. maybe even different material types used on different plants without any central thought behind it (no judgement here).

what i was trying to say is that i think, with my low understanding of the technical details, by setting up the assets a certain way you can make dense areas perform better. another thing is more freedom for clever usage of lods due to the main canopy of trees hiding everything below from far away. also sharing data, instancing etc.

and these techniques probably advance more and more with API updating. if it was just about bigger numbers we wouldn't need API but only faster and faster hardware.

anyways. i think it's wise to reserve judgement for when we get hands on. there's enough to judge that we can already test ;)

[mistyronin 1181]

One vehicle that could be really outstanding and benefit of this setting is a seaplane, it could be used by Civilians, Guerrillas / Pirates or Main factions:

Edited June 20, 2015 by MistyRonin

[GilgaMesh 10]

Outdated by what? Is there a newer game that does what Arma does? Or do you just mean outdated by your arbitrary standards? Okay then, by my arbitrary standards Arma has been fantastic since release, and has only gotten better. I've never had issues running the game well on my i5 2500 and 7870 except in very AI-heavy missions that don't have any optimization by the mission maker.

I'd consider Arma to be the opposite of outdated, since it lets you set your graphics to things that current computers can't handle, but future ones will (oversampling, extreme view distance).

Just look outside of BI and see where games are heading. Check their graphic and their incrasing level design size. If your only comparison is CoD you are a double ignorant then. I hope you realize this game doesn't cast shadows from light sources. Not even one. I hope you realize this game uses 2006 shaders and the lighting is broken (it goes trhough objects). What about the tools? Why do you think the large majority of skilled artists doesn't even bother with this engine? Because it's not worth it. I know people that wouldn't work for this game even for money.

And what about AI that can't even uses roads? What about the half arsed phyisic implementation and the ridicolously bad ragdoll? What about their animation system?

THis game always had an huge potential that now it's vanishing with the hopes of having a decent game.

And I hope you realize you don't know what are you talking about.

Island looks good tho, but that's not enough. I hope they reveal some exciting stuffs later because this game is FAR from decent.

PS, I will not stop posting this, they even failed on delivery of a decent trailer.

And nope, mangroove trees doesn't grow in ocean water.

Edited June 20, 2015 by GilgaMesh

[bad benson 1733]

One vehicle that could be really outstanding and benefit of this setting is a seaplane, it could be used by Civilians, Guerrillas / Pirates or Main factions:

i love this idea. i think this doesn't even require extra engine features. i'm almost sure someone (modder) already tried this an it worked.

[vegeta897 13]

Just look outside of BI and see where games are heading. Check their graphic and their incrasing level design size. If your only comparison is CoD you are a double ignorant then.

I didn't mention CoD at all. Or any game, for that matter. That was my entire point, that there are no games to compare Arma to unless you want to compare apples and oranges.

I hope you realize this game doesn't cast shadows from light sources. Not even one. I hope you realize this game uses 2006 shaders and the lighting is broken (it goes trhough objects). What about the tools? Why do you think the large majority of skilled artists doesn't even bother with this engine? Because it's not worth it. I know people that wouldn't work for this game even for money.

I hope you realize all of those things are secondary to the game itself. You know, the reason people actually play it. Nobody starts playing or keeps playing Arma for its graphics. Least of all not specific technologies. What the hell do I care what year their shaders are from?

And what about AI that can't even uses roads? What about the half arsed phyisic implementation and the ridicolously bad ragdoll? What about their animation system?

Did I say Arma was perfect? I said there are no games that do what Arma does but better. Other games may have specific elements that are better when compared to Arma, but that isn't the same thing. I could make a browser game in a few days that has impeccable AI road navigation. I could make a unity game that has proper shadows. What does that prove? Arma's achievement in development is the culmination of all that it offers, and on a massive scale. Cherry picking comparisons doesn't prove anything. How can you realistically expect a developer to create a game that is as good or better in every aspect than any other game? One where you can't point to a single part of it and say "this part is not done as well as other games do it." Such a feat is nearly impossible. It's what BI can strive for, but complaining that they can't achieve it is asinine. Especially when you aren't even being constructive with your criticism.

THis game always had an huge potential that now it's vanishing with the hopes of having a decent game.

Why is it vanishing? Arma has become more popular than it used to be, and Arma 3 has seen more feature growth and improvement than any previous Arma.

And I hope you realize you don't know what are you talking about.

My post made 2 points: that there is nothing else that offers the Arma experience out there, and that my dated system can run the game well. Can you refute either? You just did nothing but put words in my mouth and point out more things that totally ignore my first point. I would say that you don't know what I'm talking about.

---

It's easy to look at an ambitious project and point out the flaws. They are always going to exist. If you were to try designing a game that had everything you wanted, it would be stuck in development hell eternally. There is never a point where you can consider a game like Arma to be complete. There is always something that can either be added or improved. BI has to make choices and set priorities. No matter what choices they make some people are going to disagree. The way you speak about the game's problems, if you were in charge of development the game would never make it out the door. By the time you implemented all the features you wanted, your tech would be years old. Oh no, we can't have that! Better redevelop it all. By the time you do that, something else is years old. It's an impossible task. What you aim for is a project with a reasonable scope that enough people find acceptable. You get that out the door, then you work on a list of prioritized improvements. They cannot work on everything at once. Why do you think the role of project manager is a thing? If game development was just "add in anything you can think of, make it the best possible" you wouldn't need a project manager. There needs to be someone to decide on the scope and make decisions. Coming up with what a game should have is a lot easier than coming up with what the game shouldn't.

Edited June 20, 2015 by vegeta897

[mistyronin 1181]

i love this idea. i think this doesn't even require extra engine features. i'm almost sure someone (modder) already tried this an it worked.

Yup, the An2 already works. So it would just add a vanilla cool model :)

[bad benson 1733]

Edit: offtopic...

@MistRonin: hah. i knew i saw it somewhere :)

Edited June 20, 2015 by Bad Benson
removed OT

[XOSPECTRE 40]

I thoug arma engine allows only 3.5 g of ram limitation same like arma is only 32 bit and probably always will be.anyway I run arma on max on acer nitro v 17 black editon cost me 31 000 korun ceskych its around 1000 $ if im correct...forgot quote to ferseet

[CaptainObvious 95]

PS, I will not stop posting this, they even failed on delivery of a decent trailer.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/63614702/ok3.JPG

And nope, mangroove trees doesn't grow in ocean water.

Eh, wat?

[Callsign 128]

Just going to leave this here as inspiration for the Devs - and also to get our collective modding creative juices flowing. I really recommend it as an intro to the South Pacific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pacific_%28TV_series%29

- With Dutch for Joris ;)

Available on Blu-ray here - http://www.amazon.com/Wild-Pacific-Blu-ray-Benedict-Cumberbatch/dp/B002BEXDXO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1434885631&sr=8-1&keywords=south+pacific+bbc