white

i would vote yes but the poll is locked.

Its on my sig, AMD Phenom II X6 (Thuban) @3750. first core is always higher, the sum of all core togheters get cpu usage to around 32-34% which is the same as 2 full cores in a 6 core. (thats when using all 6 cores obviously) With only 2 cores avaiable it does spike both cores to above 97%, but of course it doenst stay that way and barely touches 100%. the game syncs all threads with the main thread, including those dozens of physics and clouds threads handled by the other cores, so even when using 6 cores the first core has to wait for those while at the same time trying to handle everything else alone at the first core, and for a very small moment it stops and wait. That can be seen using an api monitor, and was shown by a user named "Homer Simpson" to Dwarden with screenshots on a Steam discussion topic with a lot of information which Dwarden closed. i rarely saw my gpu spike to 60%, even with everything on ultra and with AA on, and ive seen it go as low as 15% during multiplayer, no matter what launch settings, how many cores i let avaiable, etc. CPU bottleneck on the very first core is the reason that i can turn on AA with no fps impact whatsoever. on any other game turning on AA equates do losing a lot of fps since it takes a lot of gpu power. So on our side if you already have spare memory, ssd and a good gpu, the onyl thing you can do is buy a better cpu or overclock as high as you can. Multihtreading can be done properly, the issue is that this engine doesnt. The game support multicore but doesnt use more than 2 cores properly. you can find benchmarks with dualcores handling the game the same as 8 cores, and im not talking about intel vs amd, im talking amd vs amd. About dayz. well i remember when rocket was still only working on the mod and said something like how the animations and how the AI sync with the server were the major performance issues that prevented the game from habving more zombies, and they were the things he couldnt fix in dayz mod since they were engine bound, or something to that effect. and the things they claimed to have changed are exactly that, and have stated that the game fares better now with 1000 zombies than it did with 200 on the mod. i might be a little off with the numebrs but you get the point. i think its a lot easier to get an i7 overclocked to 5ghz as a server handling 1000 zombies than all 20 ppl playing with clients like that with all of them processing those same 1000 zombies and having to sync them all between themselves, in order for noone bog down the entire server with all the syncing that still happens in arma 3.

thats because how threads are handled. most of the game runs in a big thread on the first core, this one gets maxed out. then you have a lot of shitty threads that can spread to other cores, but they all wait for the first core to be processed in order to move along. so what you get it 90+ usage on the first core and low usage on the rest. try disabling all but 2 cores, those crappy threads will fit into the second core, and both core works will work at 90%+. but you will experience the same performance, because the first core will have the same botteneck as before. (shown here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS&p=2321697&viewfull=1#post2321697 ) the AI being handled by 1 thread and everything having to sync across client/server is and have been a bad design choice and i doubt it will be changed. BIS is aware of this, thats why they are changing a lot of the code in DayZ to be serverside, but that was Rocket leading the development and not caring about extending indefinitely the launch date. i call it wanting the best game he can offer and having the balls to make the extra effort.

not everyone overclocks nor they should be supposed to in order to play a game properly. 30+ fps minimum. a 660ti could handle this game fine, mine never goes higher than 45-55% with AA on.

doesnt apply when the performance is cpu bound. same issues on arma 2 so its not about being an alpha or not. google: arma 2 performance issues and check for similarities about how the game behaves/user complaints about performance and cpu/gpu usage. hint, they are the exact same. and last but not least, Dwarden already said "of course we are aware of the issue".

or accept horrible fps as being "fine" to play.

with 200ms+ expect only to be competitive against the stupid AI. above 30ms it starts to have impact on any first person shooter playability on PvP, and above 150ms it becomes a major disability.

arma is able to use more cores but it mainly uses 2 cores max. you can test it by disabling the extra cores and get no loss in fps. what drives the game is the first core running the games major thread, and its also what bottlenecks other cores/gpu.

every gear item should have weight and weight should affect speed.

placebos, the "usefull" ones are already automatic.

some guy even with no island, just the sea, went upwards with the camera until he got to 1-2 fps. with just water.

particles are on low also, and my specs are on my sig, and this thuban has 6 full cores each with its own decoders. and about those cores, around the page 22 or so i disabled 4 cores leaving only 2 avaiable, the performance was the same and i proved with screenshots, the performance issue on this engine lies in the first core on the 1 major game thread) yeah the magic of properly hosted servers on properly made missions, ive played on a lot of different servers and missions, im yet to catch that unicorn, reminds me of the "no true scotsman" fallacy for some reason. 60 fps minimum you say? with 150 ai 14 players and lets say also flying an heli (since theyre an integral part on most missions)? well sir i extend my skepticism to you aswell.

i dont play wasteland, but i have played almost everything else. my settings are mostly with things on standard/high with shadows, pip, clouds off and all ranges below 1400. i get 15-50 fps. mostly around 25. on any server with more than 10 people with any fight going on. i would like a video with you playing any mission at any server with 20+ people and some ai running around/shotting at something and vehicles/helis with those 45-60fps. i really do, because i have never seen one, by anyone. am i calling you a liar? yes i am.

quote 1 person who said that. and we are already disappointed for the fact tha the game doesnt come close to half of what you mentioned, nor it will, and yes i can see into the future.

yeah but you are talking about a modern engine, doesnt apply. think more like arma 2. unity is becoming an amazing engine. the thing you talked about: http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Manual/OcclusionCulling.html

alpha and omega bitches http://i.imgur.com/DTrr6JM.jpg

lol, probably.

you could try to place the cards in performance mode on the nvidia control panel/power management, that way they wont turn off(lower its clock) when underutilized and might help with your freezing problem.

yeah i was tired of entering the heli showcase and the benchmark mission that guy did, so lately ive been playing different missions with around 10ppl or less on low ping servers, some missions are unbearable and some i can withstand the low fps to try to enjoy the game. on the heli showcase i barely saw any difference in the last few dev updates, i saw some improvement (around 20%) but i did change my cpu from 3,0ghz to 3,75ghz and guess what was the % in clock increase.

last couple of days i entered the game to try to play but couldnt find any DEV servers with people on them. seems that for some reason there are a lot less servers (some servers i havent seen anymore) and the ones left seem to have higher ping than before. so i gave up till some proper DEV servers appear. there are also a few servers that i already know by name that only appear on the list after pressing refresh 3-6 times (random actually) but their ping doubled for some reason. locally my ping is fine (12ms to cities close by, 133ms to east-usa), even tried changing my dns servers using namebench, but to no avail.

so volumetric clouds are a lie. is that it? first crysis had them in 2007 im sure it mustve been optimized a lot by now. well i leave them on disabled in order to be able to play anyway, the good thing is that i always know where east is, lol.

I´m sorry, i thought that was obvious. and yeah i would be mistaken if asked if you had a life, after all you do work for free for a company made to make money, one would need a lot of spare time for that imho. I´m sorry i didnt know you had telepathy and knew what ppl think and do all around. you wanted an stabilished stats sample and i gave you one, the fact is you dont like the outcome thats all (and i guess if you would take the time to separate all the posts on this topic you would get a similar ratio, but you can do that yourself if you want to). And if you voted that way, against you own experience, you just voted wrong on a very simples matter, and that says a lot considering how you post. so you agree that the game only needs those when they lack basic funcions that should be on the game to begin with. Do you also donate money to mcdonalds and from time to time go inside one to wipe their floors? but like i said, you doing it doesnt bother me at all, just dont try to make it sound rational, because you will fail. one thing is helping a company to make a better product by making them aware of its flaws, which you perceive by using its products, another one is going as far as doing their job for them, big difference. and if you want do donate to really importante issues im all for it, but i doubt anyone at bohemia is starving.

so, any word on supressed weapons continuing as fake as they are? / have been on arma2 ?

so you are unaware of the very popular (most voted) voting on the bug report, mentioned a few times on this topic, i really didnt expect that since you are so very knowledgeable about the issue on this topic. you logic makes no sense, given how popular launcher are, thats exactly why it is important. if it werent popular then would be uninportant. how many games out there require a launcher for basic server browser functions. "its an alpha". arma 2 isnt, and as stated who knows if they will do anything about it or not. only "whiners" draw attention to the problem so it becomes a priority or not, not the useless fanboys. its called doing someone elses job for free, and thus making them money while at it. but you are free to do so as much as you want, doesnt bother me. and i even ignore the fact that all you are doing might be completely redundant considering you dont have a clue about what the development team are doing about it, since theyre not very forthcoming.

what about 1191 vs 13, is that a good stats sample? I thought thats what game design in pre production was for, along with making a schedule and alocating resources to take care of what will be accomplished, shouldve been easy taking the experience and feedback from years of others games like arma 2 and knowing what they would keep or scrap. after launchers became so widespread that shouldve been a hint that the gamespy serverbrowser they use is complete shit compared to todays alternatives. i would even understand an answer like "gamespy is here to stay" or "we wont waste resources on using another one". but hinting that they simply dont know when beta is in a few months? i guess im alone in thinking thats wierd for a development company no matter what the project is. im sorry didnt know that reporting the bug wasnt enough, so we have to find (without access to the code) and maybe i guess solve the bug aswell. thats a new approach. all while theres people peing paid that should be doing that. (maybe they are? who knows)