Sm 3.0

[JOGR 0]

Is it possible to force ARMA2 to run with SM 2 instead of 3 for the extreme performance increase it would offer a lot of players.

[Maddmatt 1]

That makes no sense. The whole point of SM3 is to allow for more optimisation and better performance than SM2.

SM2 would decrease performance.

Based on what I've read, at least.

Looking at the ArmA 1 files, they introduced SM3 in a patch and it came with a major performance improvement on SM3 cards. Previously ArmA1 only has SM2.

[JOGR 0]

That makes no sense. The whole point of SM3 is to allow for more optimisation and better performance than SM2.

SM2 would decrease performance.

Based on what I've read, at least.

Looking at the ArmA 1 files, they introduced SM3 in a patch and it came with a major performance improvement on SM3 cards. Previously ArmA1 only has SM2.

Thanks for clearing that up. When I reverted to SM2 in CoH I doubled my performance. I figured SM3 was a bit heavy on DX9 cards. I run ARMA2 on a laptop :) with a 7950GTX Go 512DDR3 DX9.

I get about 20fps "at best" in 1280x with everything on normal and post disabled. Looks pretty good, but I can't stand the lag. I run ARMA1 in 1280x everything on high + post + AA and long view distance. Looks amazing and runs like a dream.

Oh well.. I guess the new AI is hard on the CPU.

[Helmut_AUT 0]

Agreed. I know that in an older game (Riddick EFBB) anything above SM2.0 slows the frames down a lot, and that's a on a 9600GT card which can do DX10 too, so it's not like the card shouldn't be optimized for SM3.0

If the Shaders are only used for the HDR/Lighting engine, then SM 2.0 should work just fine for the job, and it would really increase performance.

[suma 8]

SM 3 means you can implement longer (and more complex shaders). If you would implement the same simple shaders in SM2 and SM3, you should get roughly the same performance.

That said, implementing SM2-level shaders for ArmA II seems out of question for me, as some shaders would have to be cut way to much and the result would be very ugly.

If you think you are shader limited, the best way to improve your performance is to slightly lower the Rendering resolution. If this does not help, it means you are not shader limited and using simpler shaders would not help.

[mr_centipede 31]

SM 3 means you can implement longer (and more complex shaders). If you would implement the same simple shaders in SM2 and SM3, you should get roughly the same performance.

That said, implementing SM2-level shaders for ArmA II seems out of question for me, as some shaders would have to be cut way to much and the result would be very ugly.

If you think you are shader limited, the best way to improve your performance is to slightly lower the Rendering resolution. If this does not help, it means you are not shader limited and using simpler shaders would not help.

Err.... english please? layman terms? rephrase?

[JOGR 0]

SM 3 means you can implement longer (and more complex shaders). If you would implement the same simple shaders in SM2 and SM3, you should get roughly the same performance.

That said, implementing SM2-level shaders for ArmA II seems out of question for me, as some shaders would have to be cut way to much and the result would be very ugly.

If you think you are shader limited, the best way to improve your performance is to slightly lower the Rendering resolution. If this does not help, it means you are not shader limited and using simpler shaders would not help.

Thanks for shedding some light on this subject Suma. If you have other tips regarding performance tweaking, other then lowering rendering resolution, let us know.

Cheers :cheers:

[-=seany=- 5]

SM 3 means you can implement longer (and more complex shaders). If you would implement the same simple shaders in SM2 and SM3, you should get roughly the same performance.

That said, implementing SM2-level shaders for ArmA II seems out of question for me, as some shaders would have to be cut way to much and the result would be very ugly.

If you think you are shader limited, the best way to improve your performance is to slightly lower the Rendering resolution. If this does not help, it means you are not shader limited and using simpler shaders would not help.

Thanks for explaining.

One more question If you don't mind Suma. I asked this already, so apologies if it is irrelevant. But is there any way to change the "shading detail" like we could in Arma1? The option was removed from the GUI options in Arma2, but it is still in the name.Arma2profile. I tried changing the value of this option but it didn't seem to make any difference to performance of image quality. Is it no longer supported with the new engine updates?

Thanks

[Maddmatt 1]

Thanks for clearing that up. When I reverted to SM2 in CoH I doubled my performance. I figured SM3 was a bit heavy on DX9 cards. I run ARMA2 on a laptop :) with a 7950GTX Go 512DDR3 DX9.

I guess that's because the game disabled some shaders when you did that.

Anyway, looking at Suma's post I guess I wasn't completely correct.

[Helmut_AUT 0]

SM 3 means you can implement longer (and more complex shaders). If you would implement the same simple shaders in SM2 and SM3, you should get roughly the same performance.

That said, implementing SM2-level shaders for ArmA II seems out of question for me, as some shaders would have to be cut way to much and the result would be very ugly.

If you think you are shader limited, the best way to improve your performance is to slightly lower the Rendering resolution. If this does not help, it means you are not shader limited and using simpler shaders would not help.

Thanks Suma, nice to have an answer directly from a Developer.

But: If I deactivate all PostProcessing (which I currently do for performance reasons), what's left that is using shaders? Only the aperture/lighting simulation, no?

Maruk has explained that HDR can not be removed since it's an integral part of the lightness/darkness of a scene, and the light calculations wouldn't work without it. But could HDR be done in SM 2.0, and all other shading effects disabled (maybe keep bump mapping)? That would give a nice speed boost, and is nothing advanced for SM 2.0 I think.

Of course, for people who want motion blur, Depth of Field and other goodies you need to keep SM 3.0. These things are optional anyway since 1.02 patch.

And I know from that test I'm shader limited, but I don't want to run lower than native resolution on my LCD.

[JOGR 0]

... but I don't want to run lower than native resolution on my LCD.

You can run windowed "-window" if you want to lower the rendering resolution and keep your monitors native resolution. I run it windowed in 1280x on my 1920x LCD.

[Helmut_AUT 0]

Kind of makes it pointless to own a 27" screen size when you use only part of it, no?

I really would like to hear from Suma - if he can find the time - if SM 3.0 methods are really needed for people who run with PostProcessing disabled. There aren't many shader effects left when you turn that off, and they seem rather simple in what they do (bright/dark, ,screen blur, bump mapping mostly). I totally can understand that stuff like the movement blur and DOF needs the newer methods of SM 3.0, but a "simple effects palette" using SM 2.0 doesn't seem such a weird idea.

[norsu 180]

I would like too see greatly reduced HDR effects in some ArmA2 patch. The effect isn't as bad as it was in ArmA1 but it's still way too much when you are looking straight down or to direction of the sun. Game turns either very dark or very bright, there's very little balance.

This thread has some videos to show how reducing HDR makes a difference:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=77142

[suma 8]

I really would like to hear from Suma - if he can find the time - if SM 3.0 methods are really needed for people who run with PostProcessing disabled. There aren't many shader effects left when you turn that off, and they seem rather simple in what they do (bright/dark, ,screen blur, bump mapping mostly). I totally can understand that stuff like the movement blur and DOF needs the newer methods of SM 3.0, but a "simple effects palette" using SM 2.0 doesn't seem such a weird idea.

Yes, SM 3 is used for everything, not only for postprocess. It may be not obvious at first sight, but many shaders are very complex, including terrain and buildings, where multiple materials are blended together in one shader.

[EricM 0]

Delete. Suma said it better.

Edited July 14, 2009 by EricM