windies
-
Content Count
706 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
-
Medals
-
Posts posted by windies
-
-
Actually you are wrong.Nvidia PhysX Technology allow the GPU to process "things" like destructible environment (shattered glasses, trees bend in the wind or water flows).
Theoretically with a game engine that has support for Nvidia PhysX Technology, Nvidia card have performance advantages since allow the GPU to process these "things", while with a AMD card these "things" have (need) to be processed by the CPU.
Still, I doubt that Nvidia PhysX Technology can make much of a difference with Arma 3 no matter with which gpu. To realize that we just need to look the needed game engine architecture in order to benefit of Nvidia PhysX Technology.
How is he wrong....? He literally just said that.
-
Is this with all three of your cards? It may be a Trifire issue with your setup. Win-OS has to load all the VRAM from all the cards, even though you are only using the Total amount of just one card. So, three cards need 9 or 12GB address space On top of your Page, and then the games usage of RAM and VRAM. Also Win OS will use all the HDDs/SSDs to even the load of its Page management. Maybe the game sees all of your VRAM from three cards as one(DX does) and is tiring to compensate. Didnt see if you are getting this from just one card?(I dont have a run on mem issue. I have one card.)
Doesn't seem like that would make sense since VRAM is typically mirrored depending on the frame rendering method used. Even if a game detects it as a contiguous amount of VRAM, some games do with my crossfire setup, they won't ever allocate that much AFAIK. Of course with RV's method of mapping data who knows TBH. I have ran it with one card though and crossfire disabled and typically get the same overall commit charge usage in my personal tests.
-
RV uses the file mapping API to cache data outside of the process workspace. If it was a true memory leak it would be in process and not simply a part of the commit charge.
RV literally uses like 10gb of memory easy, simply a large portion of it is outside the process workspace and streamed in on the fly. Very inefficient tbh but a workaround to 32 bit limitations.
-
What's comical to me is that end game, their own content, easily "breaks" the game yet I doubt they see it as such. They still seem to want to blame it on mods and the fact their game is moddable.
-
You can open up modding to monetizing but your opening up a shitstorm along with it honestly and very little of that is based on whether or not the author deserves to be paid for his work or not. It complicates things beyond a reasonable degree TBH.
I think you interpret this nefarious attitude towards modders when it's more of an attitude towards the concept of monetizing modding and the drawbacks vs gains to be had from monetizing it.
-
arma cant use more than 2GB ram its the engine limit..the game itself wants to use more thats why the pagefile usage is really highIt uses file mapping to store data, it uses more than 2GB easily. It's not even pagefile usage as you can monitor that. It's simply commit charge which is literally all RAM in use both virtual and physical irregardless of process. Being able to map within the process work space would be way more efficient though.
-
There is quite a contrast between the usual avoidance, denial, etc that takes place here with regards to performance discussion, and the way the DayZ dev team discuss performance issues, and the short-comings of the engine.Can't tell you the number of posts I've read of people defending sqf here.
Just read a "Status Report" on the DayZ site, that discusses how inadequate sqf really is:
None of this will probably end up meaning anything for A3, but the openness and honesty with which the DayZ team discusses such issues is appreciated... and a welcome change from the "status quo" on the Bohemia forums.
Because it's a new IP and doesn't have the community that ArmA does. It would be kind of hard to say "Hey guys, developing DayZ is just too hard and we're unwilling to do some things" to a community still in Alpha. The problems DayZ has currently are the same problems ArmA has, exacerbated because of the large player counts. Really has nothing to do with it being in Alpha or developmental stages really, it's simply the engines inability to scale to the demands of what you're actually trying to do with it.
Works here though because, simply put, you have a community willing to deal with it more or less and still buy your game. I imagine if BI actually feared the uproar from this community as much as they probably do from the DayZ community you would see much more transparency when it comes to ArmA. Most of the core ArmA community are content developers more or less, I would go so far as to say that 75% of the community has or does develop content for the game in some fashion, whether it be missions or scripts or addons or whatever.
Honestly I would go so far as to say that if the game ran at 5 FPS and constantly desync'd to the point you couldn't play it, this community would still accept it for the most part as long as you could still script and design missions and addons and mods and such. I have honestly ran into people in this community that quite frankly would take the fact that they can mod the game over the fact that they can play the game.
-
The only reason I feel for monetizing mods is to enable the abandonment of the platform while still maintaining some sort of revenue stream while quite honestly capitalizing on the only real strong point of ArmA which is mods. That context is why I mostly don't support monetizing mods. I have no problem with addon makers getting money for their time and have no problem with paying for quality content. Many mods and addons out there easily add content that is way better and much more highly needed than BI's vanilla content. Again though I emphasize quality content and also value for content. I don't want to pay $10 each for 20 mods just to be able to access a server for instance.
---------- Post added at 06:22 ---------- Previous post was at 06:21 ----------
I get that everything is derivative, but the point was really about whether SW will get full up with copied rubbish being sold for $.Short answer: it will.
-
I don't see any reason to RAM usage rise. Arma is 32-bit so ~2GB is the limit. Also move around with helo or camera for 5-10mins and see RAM usage for Arma 3 to rise bit above 2GB.Check commit charge combined with process specific usage before, during and after you run the game. I've seen it easily hit 8gb+.
-
The difference there is in the draw distance (land and objects) plus object quality, which should be depended of the GPU. Of course there is the possibility of the render part of the engine to be complete fubar at the moment and take more time than a modern, more efficient engine requires to do certain tasks, but I'm hopping they'll improve that as well when doing the upgrade. And yes, it IS fubar especially when it comes to occlusion. Nevertheless, if the render needs on the main thread 30ms on settings X, by distributing the workload on all available threads, you may end up with only 10ms, gaining extra 20ms in performance for either raw FPS or for more complex task for the sim.Anyway, I'm not going to buy anything from Bohemia from now on until they actually act on all the flaws of the engine and fix them. Like you've said, it's a state of affairs that is in place for a very long time.
For one, if it could have been improved wouldn't it have been when DX11 was implemented? Why would DX12 be the magic bullet?
Secondly, the actual problems and the reason why we have performance problems has nothing to do with graphics settings or graphics API's. It's because the simulation threads stall the entire process.
You also seem to think that DX12 magically multi-threads the entire engine or even the rendering portion of the engine. It doesn't. An API is not an integral part of an engine, in fact saying your adding DX12 to an engine is kind of misleading as what you are doing is upgrading or rewriting your engine to interface with the API. If the engine still performs bad on the previous API, barring API specific issue's like draw calls for instance, it's probably going to perform bad using the next API just as much.
-
As per above:57fps lower graphical settings - http://i.imgur.com/4vi41aK.png
36fps higher graphical settings - http://i.imgur.com/aBAhHgI.png
I didn't say that it will fix all instances and all "all problems begone!", but at least it will allow to play on higher settings, add more clutter around the islands (including furniture), proper lighting with multiple shadow sources, etc.
I'll repeat myself, the engine needs a serious overhaul, but at least this is a step in the right direction.
How is it going to do that? What in your screenshots points to DX12 having any impact on performance whatsoever? I'm lost on the rational behind your argument TBH. Moving to DX12 isn't like some flip the performance switch, in fact in truth the benefits of DX12 really are of no benefit to RV for the most part. We aren't seeing massive amounts of draw calls or any performance issue's from the API side of things. What we see are bottlenecks in BI's engine code, DX12 isn't going to do anything for that just like DX11 did practically nothing for ArmA 3.
It's not a step in the right direction honestly. A step in the right direction would be addressing the biggest issue's with the engine, finding a plan to fix them that both works for the community and works for BI and then implementing that plan. What it is is a step in the same direction, the same direction we've been going for the past umpteenth years whereby BI say's "some things are too hard" or some other generic argument about why things can't be fixed or it's too time consuming or the benefit wouldn't be worth it and then try to hype up a magic bullet the next time a new title comes up for sale.
-
isnt dx12 supposed to spread workload on all cores? why cant the simulation distribute evenly on all cores?It's a graphics API and has nothing to do with the internal simulation within the engine. It might be able to spread the draw calls across multiple cores, that would be the workload it could spread, but since draw calls really aren't the issue with RV it's not going to change anything.
-
Its not just a game being CPU bottlenecked its also why its CPU bottlenecked. If the issue is that the game is trying to make 20,000 draw calls then DX12 will help. If its because the games simulation is very complicated and 100% single threaded it wont. Its just not as simple as the average gamer that spurts this usual rubbish thinks it is. Arma is simulation time driven and its own code interacting with DX11 is what is slow. Thus the end result of moving to DX12 will be minimal without substantial changes to the code and architecture, changes which would benefit DX11 just as much.Can we please stop spreading this rubbish about this game, I swear every page people forget the answer to Arma 3's performance problems have been found, the developers have been caught lying about the cause and as they try and hype us on DX12 we should know better since we have solid data showing its not going to help much.
Bottom line for us is that they don't care enough to fix it until it hurts their bottom line. There's always some scapegoat or magical fix to be had in the future but it never really gets better. I realize that there's a lot to do and it's going to be a lot of work to fix, but whats the alternative? Keep tossing in API after API and cheap fix after cheap fix in to legacy code till it just ceases to work properly anymore?
---------- Post added at 02:19 ---------- Previous post was at 02:14 ----------
...Also worth mentioning, like BrightCandle put in some posts back, the draw call may be small, but handled very inefficiently not due to DX11, but thanks to bad/old codding. Who knows, perhaps Bohemia will actually improve on that as well since is working at the render with the goal of improving. At least DX12 pushed them to act in a way.
It really has little to do with the renderer honestly as a good portion of frame time is spent on nothing but simulation and waiting for simulation to finish. In a perfect world, there would be no pauses or breaks in execution of threads during the frame time. Since the engine is so monolithic in nature, from my understanding, the fact that a good 40-50% of the frame time the simulation thread is stalled means that everything else is waiting for it to finish and hence the low performance. It's really down to the fact that the simulation code is the primary bottleneck.
-
it would be needed if RV engine would buffer data into RAM. As it doesn't (the engine continuously streams data directly from HDD - when the engine was designed, ram was scarce, HDD capacity wasn't really an issue), there is not really a point to it.There's a point to it, it's just generally glossed over as being too much work. The way the engine does it's mapping now is inefficient compared to what it could do it with 64 bit mapping. I guess it's debatable as to how much of a performance improvement it would be, I consider hitches and stuttering from data streaming to be a factor of performance, but I think it's short sighted to say there's no point to it. Unless you truly think that 32 bit addressing will never be exhausted given the growth of data size.
Seems like it comes down to a "make do with what we have until it breaks" mentality more than it being optimal or pointless.
---------- Post added at 22:23 ---------- Previous post was at 22:22 ----------
Even better than an SSD? (Serious Question)Ram response time is in nanoseconds, SSD response time generally like 1ms or less.
-
Why would it help? The problem isn't people's hardware but the engine. We're already throwing more and more powerful hardware at the engine with every revision yet we see with each revision that newer hardware begins to make less and less of an impact.
I know it's like beating a dead horse, but the performance problems that RV suffers from as a whole will never be fixed by hardware alone. How is a 16 core Xeon and Workstation GPU's like Firepro's and Quadro's going to help when the engine can't make efficient use of enthusiast hardware? Even for people with semi older hardware, upgrading will not make a substantial difference.
-
The DLC as it looks from a pure consumer perspective is really that of a donation system where you get some cool stuff for donating, weapons, missions, music etc... but the real meat you are gonna get anyways in the platform updates. That's just how it is from a consumers perspective. Rationalize it how you want or whatever but it is what it is in practice.
I'm not saying it needs defending, or it's a poor system, or really passing judgement on it. Whether you buy it or not is honestly a personal choice and there's no right or wrong in it. What's funny is seeing the people going "OMG You got thousands of hours of enjoyment, You're an ingrate for thinking this stuff isn't worth it or should be free or blah blah blah" as if viewing it from that perspective, the perspective of the consumer, is somehow wrong. There's really a culture clash among this community, between people who are coders or programmers and feel sympathy for every little woe or headache they believe BI to have felt or succumbed too and then people who are just basically consumers who buy something and either the content meets or fails to meet their standard of value.
-
The evidence is to the contrary, DX11 is not the limiting factor to Arma 3's frame rate. The game frame rate is limited more by its own simulation and the code it has surrounding DX11. This is a fact based on profiling information, its not a guess, its not a suspicion, its supported by cold hard numbers captured in development tools. People seem to ignore this like its a matter of opinion, it isn't, I have shown you the data and told you how to collect and verify it yourselves.People do ignore it, hell the developers ignore it. No use fighting it, just let it happen. One day it will catch up.
People hear buzzwords like "CPU limited", see that DX12 eliminates "CPU limited" problems in games and assume it will solve all the problems without really understanding why or what's going on. That's all the industry has been for awhile is hype and buzzwords anyways.
Imagine what would have to happen for BI to actually "fix" RV in the sense that it would both run better and make better use of current and future gen hardware. It's reached a point where I don't think it's feasible to actually fix TBH. Writing a new engine from scratch might be a less time consuming approach rather than trying to debug and re-code the preexisting engine. Who knows though.
-
Pretty good points Benson.
-
comparatively
Sometimes when I talk to you, yes it feels like I am ... truly .... talking to a banana.
-
There is nothing to do. The only way to change things is a competitor....the last "competitor" was....äh....Dragon Failing :p It seems to be no other company have the balls to create a similar game...seems to be not easy to make one....no competition have bad effects on products.If you have a banana wich isn´t acceptabel for you. What do you do? Do you say to the banana: you are NOT acceptable 1000x? Or do you think it 1x and take another banana? BIS have obviously other priorities than me or you or can´t optimize the game with the current budget....whatever, I am not an expert in business economics or computer science...
Do I talk to an inanimate object expecting positive change? No. Do I talk to the people who design and develop said object expecting positive change? Yes.
As much as I want to say ArmA needs competition because it really does to light a proverbial fire under BI's asses, The majority of problems that we see now are because of choices 5+ years ago and the ramifications and repercussions of those choices. Doesn't excuse it, doesn't make it acceptable even if you choose to accept it because you have no other recourse.
Whether you personally choose to accept things the way that they are because you can't live with the alternative doesn't mean others aren't free to civilly speak their mind on the subject. If you don't like It I suggest you take some of your own flawed logic and stop speaking.
-
sorry but thats all well known shit so you have the choice to eat it or to leave it or: to give tipps how to run the game a little bit better than shit :p....sry for my cryptic englishIt's not cryptic, it's just not acceptable. I mean you might like being told to eat shit or leave it as you so eloquently put it, but I'm pretty sure most don't.
-
No offense meant honestly but that interview firmly cemented to me that BI seem hellbent on blaming performance issue's of the core game on mods and also shows me that BI are the masters of saying a lot while actually saying nothing. Ultimately it's disappointing at best. Personally if I devoted a lot of my time to developing any mods or content on this platform I would be a bit miffed at them trying to pass the buck to me when it comes to their engine. Granted mods can affect performance, but it's been shown time and time again that the main issue's lay within the engine, not mods.
Also with the semi confirmation that the new engine won't be used in Arma 3 and with the ethos of developing on the Arma 3 platform for a long time, My guess is this will be the last Arma we see for awhile, if we ever see a new release.
-
1
-
-
LOL? for all newcomers and for you: gpu power helps nothing in arma3 :p. Changing from GTX570 to R9 290 gave me some average fps in small sp scenarios but nothing in ai-heavy missions and MP, especially in minimum fps. Nothing new.....i assume. Intel cpu + clockspeed + ramspeed + choosey behavior in the choice of mp-servers and you´re comparable happy with this game. But of course more fps are welcome BIS :cool:*shrug* you basically just said to be "comparably happy with this game" you have to try for the the most optimal of circumstances. Ironically that's what most people complain about, the game running like crap under less than optimal circumstances when it really shouldn't. Again though you still have to lower your expectations and standards to accept it even under ideal circumstances.
Not sure if you actually realize you agree with me on principle even if the viewpoints are different.
-
I wouldn't suggest the cost of building a new Intel system to replace a functioning AMD system is worth it just to play one game, even ArmA3 but I can say that upgrading from a Phenom II X4 955 (can't remember exactly what I had it overclocked to but it was as high as was possible with a decent third-party tower cooler) to an i5-4670k @4.4Ghz has made a world of difference for me and instead of getting slideshows of 13fps or worse at times on my clan's server, it doesn't seem to go below a playable 30fps anymore.Obviously BIS is constantly updating ArmA3 and the client FPS when playing on servers depends on various factors, including the particular mission and the number of AI, so it's hard to say for sure that the upgrade is wholly responsible. I just know that with the AMD system every session there'd be at least one or two missions which were unplayable and that's never been an issue since I switched to Intel.
My 965 never ran the game all that bad compared to my i5. I basically upgraded just the mobo/ram/cpu when I first started this build and kept the GTX 480. Performance difference in ArmA was nowhere near amazing, even after overclocking. Even with crossfired 290's now I still hit 20 fps quite frequently in multi player. I noticed it even in coops back when I used to play with CiA in missions that didn't even seem like they were that demanding. I just got too frustrated constantly trying to fix it and ultimately just gave up playing. There's really something wrong with the engine, not so much in single player but in multi player most definitely.
Also 30 fps isn't really playable to me. Maybe I would say it's tolerable, but not what I would call playable. Difference of opinion maybe, but I can easily tell a marked difference between 30 and 60 fps, especially in ArmA where everything is tied to FPS.
Low CPU utilization & Low FPS
in ARMA 3 - TROUBLESHOOTING
Posted
Most of the problems they aren't transparent about. Blaming performance on mods as a scapegoat as one example. I admit their PR is way better than Eagle Dynamics, which honestly isn't saying much as ED's PR is pretty bad but has gotten better, but that tends to be all it is. You see more transparency out of DayZ for example and I think it has to do with even just a little competition versus the practically no competition and seeded community of ArmA.