Micro AI on 2nd CPU ?

[gL33k 0]

someone con confirm that ?

i read it on armedassault.info , but i think source isn't from Bi .

if it's real , then that rocks.

[icebreakr 3140]

Uh, good luck to BiS on that subject... I just wonder how will MP handle this on multiple clients (single, duo or quad)?

[Viiiper 0]

Uh, good luck to BiS on that subject... I just wonder how will MP handle this on multiple clients (single, duo or quad)?

I believe the min spec for ARMA2 is DUAL CORE, but it can run single core but it have to be very very fast (4Ghz).

Quad not used fully.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Quad not used fully.

Are you sure about that? the biki still recommends a quad core. (Of course those are projected specs, but still...)

[dentist guba 0]

i think they are using the second core for streaming, possibly AI but i'm not exactly sure.

[Killbert 0]

They should put one core for physics.

[Pirin 0]

They should put one core for physics.

There are already separate cards available for physics. NVidia boards even allow you to use a 2nd video card as a physics card instead of video.

With those options available, why would you want a CPU core to be dedicated to physics?

[stakex 0]

They should put one core for physics.

What physics....? So far it seem the games physics will be much the same as ArmA's, which were just slightly improved from OFP. Thus there is no need to have one core handle nothing but physics...

I thought a while ago they said the second core was going to be used for the AI? Could be wrong.

[gonk 0]

Programming for multiple CPU’s is nothing new..  The world of simulation (i.e. real flight Sims)  have been doing it for over 20 years. Not only do they program for multiple CPU’s they schedule the use of the CPU's to a more efficient manner.  I.e. they split the simulation into modules (flight dynamics, avionics, ground handling, weather, visuals, etc) and these modules are given certain priorities in the execution.  I.e. some modules get executed every pass and some every 2nd pass, 3rd , 4th etc.  Example:- calculations on fuel usage does not have to be that up to date.  A half second lag is acceptable, while flight dynamics need to be calculated on every pass.   I think it is too late in the life of the game for this type of programming as it would require a complete re-think and re-write.  In time, I guess games will eventually start to venture down this path.

[NeMeSiS 11]

i think they are using the second core for streaming,

Why? The old xbox could do the streaming with its outdated processor. Everyone acts like the streaming is something heavy while in fact it is done to save resources, thats why it first appeared on the xbox version.

[baddo 0]

A large dataset loaded in the middle of the game in a single thread (all runs on a single CPU core) will cause a noticeable drop in performance.

A large dataset loaded in the middle of the game in another thread in another CPU core doesn't cause that drop in performance.

I think we all have seen how ArmA I has problems with loading resources during playing.

Streaming world data is the first obvious thing for which another CPU would be used, as I see it.

[funnyguy1 0]

Isn't it a matter of HDD rather than CPU?

[dentist guba 0]

Isn't it a matter of HDD rather than CPU?

i guess on the console version having a partial install thing would help but if youre talking about the pc one then not really. things may be stored on the HDD but they stiil gave to be loaded into the game by the CPU (which is CENTRAL meaning everything has to go through it at some point). ARMA at the moment is trying to squeeze every bit of object data along with the simulation and everything through this single core despite the fact that multi-core processors are now quite common.

if the game utilized two or more cores not only would the game be able to stream more objects it would also free up more power for GFX and simulation (as graphics are affected by the cpu as well as the card).

im not an expert though so i don't know exactly how they will split everything between the cores, they have mentioned

DX 10 support and one feature of that is dynamic distribution between cores (which means that when there isn't much streaming happening the freed up power can be diverted to, say, physics.

[gL33k 0]

They should put one core for physics.

high quality physic can be done on cpu anyway.

If you talk to be able to see at 40fps, 60000 object falling on ground, it can't be done on multiplayer . too many bandwith required.

so i don't care.

[gL33k 0]

Isn't it a matter of HDD rather than CPU?

the time needed to load ressource is HDD & CPU related.

but the framerate drop during this loading up , is cpu related. and can probably be solve by using a dedicated core . amha

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

They should put one core for physics.

There are already separate cards available for physics. NVidia boards even allow you to use a 2nd video card as a physics card instead of video.

With those options available, why would you want a CPU core to be dedicated to physics?

Because people were deciding from the very time that the Ageia card was released that it just made more sense to do those calculations on a motherboard.

Physics can affect gameplay, so if someone doesn't have the card, it changes their gameplay.

[Lou Montana 101]

Quote[/b] ]Micro AI on 2nd CPU ?

Yes, and for those who have only one mono-core CPU, no micro-AI

[wiper 0]

Uh, good luck to BiS on that subject... I just wonder how will MP handle this on multiple clients (single, duo or quad)?

easily i'd say as AI will be probably processed only on the server like it's the case in OF and Arma

[MP.Green 0]

very down to earth question: if u want to buy a new computer only for ArmA2, dual cores or quad?

if quad cores are not fully used or supported, is it wiser to get a dual cores with higher frequency?

[nubbin77 0]

Quote[/b] ]very down to earth question: if u want to buy a new computer only for ArmA2, dual cores or quad?

if quad cores are not fully used or supported, is it wiser to get a dual cores with higher frequency?

I think this is a ligitimate no-nonesense question. Some of us may want to upgrade in the next 6-9 months. At this stage of develpment, I would think that would be a known technical detail.

Possible answers I would think are:

Yes Arma will utilize all 4 cores.

Yes Arma will benefit from a 4 core system in the fact that it will fully utilize 2 cores and the other 2 will be offsetting the pc's normal operations.

No - Arma only supports 2 cores, a quad core will add no extra benefit.

I understand the need to keep certain aspects of the engine vague or provide "maybe" answers. But in this case I would think this would have been determined by now. I doubt if it was written for dual core BIS could implement quad core support (I could be wrong, BIS has done enough other miracles). I'd love to hear something official, as I intend to upgrade around the holidays...

[ArMoGaDoN 0]

Seconded, the information on ArmA2's planned CPU core usage needs to be available as soon as possible.

Micro-AI on 2nd Core we know about so far,

IF the machine is a 4(or more)-core, WILL some extra work such as background texture/landscape streaming from disk be offloaded to the other cores too?

I would _assume_ this to be so, but we need confirmation so that decisions over hardware paths and purchases can be made ahead of time.

We DO NOT need to know details here of what cores and what processing will happen on which core, but if BI are planning to use more than 2 cores, if available on the machine, then we'll need to know this information soon.

As noted in a previous post all this depends on the current level of modularisation in the existing code and design - only BI know whether they might be able to shift program modules around onto different cores and make it work to increase performance and fluidity.

p.s. NVidia's PhysX API will also be coming to ATI cards soon, certainly by the time ArmA2 launches, so physics processing will eventually shift across to use that irrespective of video-card type.  Probably not in ArmA2 though I'd guess.

A thought here, would future use of PhysX processing enable towed objects to work in multiplayer?  Or is the problem more to do with 'scope' of player view on a large battlefield?

[suma 8]

Currently I can provide only an estimation, for final words you still have to wait for later:

Our intention is to scale at least to some extent to quad cores (this means with quad cores you should have either better performance in some scenes than in dual cores). Therefore the game should run better on Quad Core compared to Dual Core assuming they both run at the same frequency.

That said, you can get higher frequency Dual Core for the same money as you could get Quad Core. My prediction is 3.3 GHz Dual Core will most likely run the game better than 2.5 GHz Quad Core, while both will cost you approximately the same.

One thing to note: different scenarios / workloads may show different performance patterns - e.g. it is possible missions with huge numbers of units will runner better on 2.5 GHz Quad Core than 3.3 GHz Dual Core.

Disclaimer: this is only a prediction and things can still change before the game is released.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Interesting info, Suma. Ta.

[sandzibar 0]

right... so a 3.3 quad core it is then

[ArMoGaDoN 0]

Thank you for the reply Suma, much appreciated.

It's good to know that you are trying to mould ArmA2 to use the machine's capabilities as much as you can sensibly achieve.

Your intention to do wonders is all we need to know right now!

This is good news indeed.