Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Leopardi

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    752

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Leopardi

  2. Posted

    The engine doesn't even utilized muli-core CPUs. In other words, not matter how many cores you have in your CPU, the game will only use 1 core. I highly doubt it will get fix/optimized. Its been almost 6 years and the issues in this game still persist.

    And multiplayer FPS is dependant on server FPS. This is really sad, BF3 utilizes over 90% of my 6-core CPU and BF4 will even more.

  3. Posted

    DirectX 11.2 is available only to users with:

    Windows 8.1 (not yet released officially)

    DirectX 11.2 compliant GPU (atm. HD 7xxx and 8xxx AMD only)

    DirectX 11.2 compliant drivers (for sure HD7xxx serie don't have it and i'm not sure about HD8xxx either)

    DirectX 11.1 is available only for Windows 8 and 8.1 and also only some hardware supporting it (AMD mainly)

    the so called 'platform update' for Windows 7 isn't full specs 11.1 (btw. i needs manual update from customer)

    so considering majority users is on Windows 7 (maximum DirectX 11.0) , Windows 8 ( maximum DirectX 11.1 w/o W8.1 update) and some on Windows Vista (maximum DirectX 11.0)

    the answer is clear ... the Ecosystem is too shattered to support 'minor' featureset ...

    the situation reassemble state of DX10 on Vista introduction soon followed by Windws 7... (new MS console enroute, DX ecosystem and userbase spread across two, three OSes)

    The DICE dev was actually talking about 11.1 having the CPU improvements. So even W8 users will benefit from it... in a couple of years majority will be using 8 and 8.1, and AFAIK there will be no ArmA IV out by then, so investing in 11.1+ support makes sense for me.

  7. Posted · Edited by Leopardi

    Well, first Arma has always been a CPU-heavy game. There is just so much geometry to deal with on 3km+ draw distances, plus having 50-150 AI which actually have to do things more complicated than following simple scripts, you can't get the same results as other shooters with vastly smaller draw distances, map sizes, and AI that have a lot less to "think about".

    "CPU heavy" is a wrong term, the issue is the utilization. ArmA III uses only 30% of a hexacore when BF3 uses 91%. Basically in BF3 a normal 3000MHz CPU is a 9000MHz CPU because of better optimization. If the A3 engine was that good utilizing the CPU, it'd be just as smooth as BF3.

  9. Posted

    Crysis 3 is another example of good cpu usage. It uses all 8 threads on my i7 and reaches up to 90-95% cpu usage, mainly on the second level. With that kind of usage in this game, it would skyrocket the FPS.

    Yeah there really is no excuse, BIS just needs to get their shit together and make it work - it's possible.

  11. Posted

    Don't expect 100% cpu usage with a quadcore in a game and your gpu is at 40/50 % because of cpu bottleneck and your graphic settings.

    Also I'm suprised that your cpu usage reach 80% while most of people in this thread including me report 60% at max.

    Someone has any thoughts on this ?

    Yeah don't expect 100% with a quadcore or hexacore, but expect 91.1%.

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

    If ArmA III won't be able to even utilize 75% something is reaally wrong with the code.

  12. Posted

    let me just post this here again:

    2 Cores Enabled: GPU usage = 27% / CPU usage = 99.8% / FPS = 31

    4 Cores Enabled: GPU usage = 76% / CPU usage = 91.1% / FPS = 47

    6 Cores Enabled: GPU usage = 95% / CPU usage = 89.7% / FPS = 70

    based on the fps increase anyone can gather those arent wasted cpu cycles in loop to increase usage by faking it.

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

    ArmA 3 FPS would skyrocket if utilization was this good. Too bad we can't even get 50% of this utilization level, gotta admit EA can do at least some things right.

  13. Posted

    Yes indeed, you shouldn't be able to set FOV higher or lower than what is "realistic". It would also be nice to be able to set both normal and zoomed FOV seperately. This is because I might want my default FOV to be higher but my zoomed to be the default so I am not at a disadvantage while focusing + aiming at a target.

    Zoomed FOV should not be configurable past the default limit, then it's good.

  14. Posted

    We've had some very non-constructive and aggressive posts in this thread.

    Most of them by people forgetting that this is the first version of a public alpha, but frankly many of them by Dwarden as well.

    The important thing is that the community has highlighted what probably should be the number 1 issue for BIS to address right now. Remember, it's Monday, and the Alpha has been out for less than a week. With a major issue like this, the developers need time to discuss this amongst themselves before any concrete announcements can happen.

    Negativity is understandable, since this problem has been out there for years unfixed.

  15. Posted · Edited by Leopardi

    these who always expect theirs multicore CPU maxxed out by games fail to realize that there is always overhead by syncing or minimal timeframe needed to finish operation on actual primary thread ,

    there is also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law and much more problems in multithreaded coding (there are whole books about it)

    so 99+% utilization of both CPU / GPU or just all multiple CPU/GPU in complex gaming is yet to be seen , they not benchmarks and specialized tasks ...

    we will work on improving multithreaded capability of the Arma 3 engine,

    yet this feature is in Arma 2 engine since 2009 http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/91-real-virtuality-going-multicore

    ironically the last paragraph from the article still does apply

    There is no excuse, look at Frostbite 2 engine, I can get 100% GPU utilization easily in it, with 100% utilization for CPU main thread and like 75% for the rest.

    ArmA 3 just gives 85% for main / 30% or less for others. GPU is bottlenecked down to 20-30%. There clearly is a problem with the engine and it needs fixing or you'll only have people with 4.5GHz OC'd newest Intels playing this game.

  17. Posted

    That's what ArmA3 seems to be doing already and that's a huge problem. Ideally every other AI soldier should be calculated by every other core to distribute the load.

    People complained a lot about AI being calculated on a single core in ArmA2 and it doesn't seem to have been changed.

    No, it's not utilizing it:

    G23Z2hI.jpg

  18. Posted · Edited by Leopardi

    Surely this comes before any other bugs since people can't actually even play the game with this performance.

    G23Z2hI.jpg

    http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716

    http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=220

    http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1264

    http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=465

    The tracker is literally full of these low fps/low utilization reports. I'm much above the recommended and I can't even get the minimum required 30 FPS performance on Standard or Low settings.

  19. Posted

    AI needs a lots of CPU power for calculation, hence the performance drop, and keeping everything synchronized is more important then raw computer power, hence the bottleneck, atless this is where I think the problem lies.

    If it needs, why doesn't it use the power? Put it on the other cores merely running at 20%, instead of lagging the game to hell and back with FPS on the minus.

  20. Posted · Edited by Leopardi

    How are BIS even monitoring the frametimes while developing since its not available as a command? Would be so much simpler to analyze performance if we had a GPU/CPU frametime graph and FPS counter via commands, like Frostbite 2.

  21. Posted · Edited by Leopardi

    Guys, make sure you turn GPUMaxFramesDetected and GPUFrames Detected to 1 in your ArmA3.CFG file in your Documents\ArmA 3 Alpha folder. It helps a lot. I went from like 19 FPS to 32FPS.

    No you didn't, lowering it lowers performance... that feature was invented to improve performance.

    There goes the hope of playing ArmA III anytime soon. Maybe in 2 years when I'll finally have the chance to ditch my AMD CPU.

  23. Posted · Edited by Leopardi

    In editor's completely empty map, High preset with MSAA and post processing effects disabled, I get about 40FPS looking at the rocky hill from stratis runway, 120FPS when I zoom in with the scope. In Helicopter showcase looking at the same hill in the beginning gives about 20FPS. On Ultra preset it drops below 10FPS.

    GPU usage is ridiculous 20% and CPU doesn't go above 30% either.

    And yeah I have fresh Win7 install too.

×