Quick status update for week 8 November

[Elo 44]

Rocket has not said one word about client-side fps except that "the general consensus is that it's greatly improved from the mod". Why is everyone getting their panties in a bunch? :huh:

 

 

What

 

He's worried about servers forcing high graphics on clients to remove any unfair advantages

[CapricornOne (DayZ) 379]

Yes. I know. That's what the words "average" and "minimum" imply

 

My question is if he's really talking about a minimum of 15 fps, or an average of 15 fps where performance might occasionally be lower than the target of 15

From what I gathered it was minimum

[CapricornOne (DayZ) 379]

What

 

He's worried about servers forcing high graphics on clients to remove any unfair advantages

Ah, scratch that so. :lol: However the post is still relevant to a lot of people who have been voicing concerns recently.

[m.w. vindicator 880]

The update is much appreciated. Anyone who uses a loot map for this game when it comes out is an idiot.

 

 

Going in Blind is the DayZ way!  No meta gaming m8s

[BelMarduk 169]

forgive please my stupid :huh:

 

what is difference of server fps and client fps?

 

how is affect player this ones?

ummm, that would be lag would it not? hence the rubber banding zombies and them glitching through walls.

[SJKSJK 225]

Rocket, this year?

[Zanders 65]

If you take all the games out there right now in a way they all suck. Dayz is still fun but the problem is that its getting old. Specially when you know that theres a better dayz around the corner :(

[Mathos (DayZ) 41]

Iv played at 15 fps and its not fun

I play 15-20 FPS constantly. C'mon, son.

[Karmaterror 982]

I'm disappointed by the FPS issues, ARMA 3 was a total flop, was meant to be an improvement and yet it runs worse than ARMA 2, I don't think I've ever hit over 30fps in either game and I have an 780 + 4770k now and the games run worse than my older PC :\ 

 

Just license out a better engine. 

 

I don't get the argument of A.I either, the A.I is shit, Dead Rising 3 has thousands on screen at once and they act far better. People saying zombies drop FPS in Dayz when there are like 5 on the screen....... I just don't believe it, that or there is something deeply wrong with the A.I. Apparently the system has been changed for SA and yet the FPS issues are still there... 

 

Like wtf is going on? I could forgive it if this was pushing the boundaries  but like we have GTA V on consoles getting a smoother frame rate with far more going on, even in online and we have BF4 online with 64 players with destruction and everything, yet I get over 100FPS maxed out there with MSAA turned up. People then blame the map size, no it isn't that, you'd still get the same fps issues on small Dayz maps..

 

 

I'm not going to buy the SA until it is running at a smooth 60FPS on my machine, I could forgive a mod, I'm not going to forgive a full release game. 

 

Man the start of that post.....its like saying BF4 was a flop because it was harder to run than BF3 lol. Of course A3 will run slowwer than A2....not only has it got all the graphical updates, but a much larger map. 

 

Not seen dead rising 3 but i remember dead rising 2 had a lot of zombies....but if ya remember it was all instanced (if thats the right word), so you loaded from one small map to another. The small maps allowed for very high detail and large AI count. On a well populated dayz server you would still have as many zombies as on a single dead rising map. Only they are spread over a map thats probably hundreds of times the size of one of those little sections on Dead Rising.

 

Battlefield benefits from having both small maps and no AI to spawn (well in deathmatch anyway) Thats why they can handle the destruction and awsome levels of detail. Its always a compromise in a game engine. Although i have thought to myself that dayz would do very well on the GTA 4 engine, i always stop and think, no. It dosent look anywhere near as realistic, its got no physics for bullet drop, it would probably fall to pieces trying to handle 100+ players. 

 

Arma 2 is great engine for dayz.....harsh, survival game....harsh, realistic (if demanding) military sim engine :)

[m.w. vindicator 880]

Guise.  

 

 

Server FPS is what Rocket is talking about.  15 server FPS does NOT (NOT!) mean 15 client fps.   You could be seeing 60fps on your machine, while the server is going at 15 fps.

 

 

They are different number entirely!

[ZlobaRUS54 441]

Guise.  

 

 

Server FPS is what Rocket is talking about.  15 server FPS does NOT (NOT!) mean 15 client fps.   You could be seeing 60fps on your machine, while the server is going at 15 fps.

 

 

They are different number entirely!

 

Well, client fps should be synced to server state update somehow?

[m.w. vindicator 880]

Well, client fps should be synced to server state update somehow?

 

I don't know how it works.  But I know they are different. I don't think they are related

[TIC 1050]

The only problem I have with the mod is looking directly towards large cities with dense buildings (Chernogorsk, Elektrozavodsk) or dense forests/grass which creates FPS drops. I hope this is resolved or somewhat worked on.

Edited November 11, 2013 by TIC321

[☣BioHaze☣ 7337]

Alpher is as Alpher does.

 

Most of us would gleefully pay to be playing the -30 player Version of the SA.

 

I like the 50 player number to start. With an eye for the average server to eventually handle twice that long before there are problems.

 

I would like equal performance across the map as well but I expect that is a complicated matter if you're talking about rendering cities full of EVERYTHING.

 

I was REALLY hoping for not being hit through walls by zombies.

 

All in all I'm trying to keep expectations low for the initial release and hope I can contribute something to make it better along the way.

 

It's hard not to daydream of a shiny SA version and so much Chernarus+ to explore!

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

Well, client fps should be synced to server state update somehow?

 

No. They are not synced. The server controls status updates, but it doesn't control client side rendering. Those are completely different. Basically it's like the difference between latency and FPS. While server fps can have some effect (especially when the net-code is not fully optimized), it doesn't actually slow down your GPU's ability to render graphics (I believe this may provide insight to Dean's proposal of "separating rendering from simulation.") Lower server fps means lower ticks (or pings) and therefore latency. But because rendering is client side, you don't actually see most of that going on. 15 ticks per second is actually quite high, if you think about it. That means you are syncing with the server every 1/15th of a second. In truth, even 5 ticks per second is pretty rapid. You can't count to 200 milliseconds.

Edited November 11, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[☣BioHaze☣ 7337]

I put this in the "just saw Rocket" thread but I believe I can rightly post this at least here as well.

 

Transcript from the Dev meeting Rocket called on Friday:

 

Edited November 11, 2013 by BioHaze

[ZlobaRUS54 441]

No. They are not synced. The server controls status updates, but it doesn't control client side rendering. Those are completely different. Basically it's like the difference between latency and FPS. While server fps can have some effect (especially when the net-code is not fully optimized), it doesn't actually slow down your GPU's ability to render graphics (I believe this may provide insight to Dean's proposal of "separating rendering from simulation.") Lower server fps means lower ticks (or pings) and therefore latency. But because rendering is client side, you don't actually see most of that going on. 15 ticks per second is actually quite high, if you think about it. That means you are syncing with the server every 1/15th of a second. In truth, even 5 ticks per second is pretty rapid. You can't count to 200 milliseconds.

 

Well... It still seems to me that if the simulation  on the server is running at a lower ticks per second then clientside you will see the world lagging around you while you own movement will be smooth.

[Elo 44]

No. They are not synced. The server controls status updates, but it doesn't control client side rendering. Those are completely different. Basically it's like the difference between latency and FPS. While server fps can have some effect (especially when the net-code is not fully optimized), it doesn't actually slow down your GPU's ability to render graphics (I believe this may provide insight to Dean's proposal of "separating rendering from simulation.") Lower server fps means lower ticks (or pings) and therefore latency. But because rendering is client side, you don't actually see most of that going on. 15 ticks per second is actually quite high, if you think about it. That means you are syncing with the server every 1/15th of a second. In truth, even 5 ticks per second is pretty rapid. You can't count to 200 milliseconds.

 

 

Playing with up to 400ms of latency doesn't sound like a fun experience

Edited November 11, 2013 by Elo

[CapricornOne (DayZ) 379]

Playing with up to 400ms of latency doesn't sound like a fun experience

Hence why getting 20 fps minimum is the final obstacle in the way of release.

[djshauny1 222]

I like how dean said yep, once that network bubble is done we will release and thats the ONLY thing holding us back.

 

So, its done. Where is the game?

Edited November 11, 2013 by nicefish

[damian.blystone@gmail.com 8]

By now you should know you can't take everything that rocket says to heart.

[fluxley 2228]

I like how dean said yep, once that network bubble is done we will release and thats the ONLY thing holding us back.

 

So, its done. Where is the game?

 

They have implemented the network bubble and tests have shown that the server isn't quite performing as they would like and needs a bit of optimization before they release.

This seems very reasonable to me, and to be expected when making such a huge change to how the game works.

 

Would you prefer they just release the game in an unplayable state and ignore obvious issues that need to be fixed first?

Edited November 11, 2013 by Fluxley

[djshauny1 222]

They have implemented the network bubble and tests have shown that the server isn't quite performing as they would like and needs a bit of optimization before they release.

This seems very reasonable to me, and to be expected when making such a huge change to how the game works.

 

Would you prefer they just release the game in an unplayable state and ignore obvious issues that need to be fixed first?

Ohh i see i thought it was completely finished.

 

Thanks mate.

[klesh 2423]

[sav112g 114]

I think that while the few problems before release get ironed out by the guys working on that part the others get more time to fix more and more to give you a better release.

 

Honestly every working day this does not drop is also a day the game has been fixed more. I’d be happy for it to be weeks before you lot get to help out testing it

Edited November 11, 2013 by sav112