The RV engine is the worst engine ever made.

[Miza 6]

All I can say that arma 3 is a lot less laggy than dayz for me.

[LiamFX (DayZ) 77]

Another narcist thread....no need to answer....

 

:facepalm:

Yet you answer twice? What is this hypocrisy?!?

I think it's best if you do not speak at all, if anything for your own sake

[LiamFX (DayZ) 77]

Here's a visual example:

 

 

Red = Size of which both Frostbite engines (as well as many other good graphic engines) can render.

 

Green = Size of which the Dayz Standalone can render.

The thing is (and I don't know a lot about game engines to forgive me if I'm wrong) Does DayZ render the whole thing? or is it done in quadrants or setions? 

Because if it's done in sections then it's hard to compare to other games

[Korsbaek 1778]

Problem is he has no idea what he's doing. 

 

Yeah, because Rocket is stupid as shit right?.. No.

 

If you think what he and his team is making is shit, then leave. No one forced you to buy the game. You did it yourself.

 

 

We are a bunch of people who thinks that what Rocket does is amazing! It really is amazing!

[Frell 80]

Here's a visual example:

 

 

Red = Size of which both Frostbite engines (as well as many other good graphic engines) can render.

 

Green = Size of which the Dayz Standalone can render.

 

 

Lol... Frostbite only has maps that big because thats how big the maps are in the nature of their game. They could go bigger easily, DICE is a AAA studio

 

 

You're mixing up rendering and map size

 

 

 

The thing is (and I don't know a lot about game engines to forgive me if I'm wrong) Does DayZ render the whole thing? or is it done in quadrants or setions? 

Because if it's done in sections then it's hard to compare to other games

 

Proper game engines stream map chunks. If VR isn't doing this its laughable

Edited December 29, 2013 by Frell

[Aeoneth 163]

So he should have sold his intellectual property to a developer that actually knows what they are doing. 

 

So they could cater to the masses and make a game that is absolutely nothing like the DayZ we know and love?

[tommes 331]

The VR-engine is truly socialist. It runs shitty on every machine.

 

You don't need to be a programming expert to see that Arma and DayZ doesn't run well. Even Rocket stated in one of the interviews given shortly before SA release that the engine has problems utilizing multiple cores. That is literally a core issue and needs to be attended to at some point. People these days aren't used to put up with that kind of crappy performance because of beeing spoiled by the big blockbuster titles and their optical prowess.

A problem here might be that BI (to my knowledge) is owned by the guys that built the engine. So if they don't see the flaws of their baby probably nothing will happen there. We can just hope their love doesn't make them blind.

Edited December 29, 2013 by tommes

[Bakercompany86 347]

I love the obvious non-programmers who comment like they are experts on game engine development.

 

I also love that they're making judgement about a game engine for a early access alpha that is very unfinished and has been stated as such by the developer.

 

And the game even in this stage is freaking excellent in my opinion.

[Frell 80]

 

 

I also love that they're making judgement about a game engine for a early access alpha that is very unfinished and has been stated as such by the developer.

 

 

They said the same thing about Arma 3

 

Guess what barely improved? Performance. All the way from alpha to release

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

It's literally the only engine in existence that could currently pull of what they are doing. Granted, some games can handle huge maps like RV, however, they don't support ballistics, they generally have very ugly graphics, they basically tend to be games like WoW or whatever. Furthermore, this "intellectual property" started off as a mod for that currently available engine and as such it's easier to directly translate that to a standalone title. Just look at the games that have attempted what this game has. 

 

- Infestation sucks ass. 

 

- Cryengine honestly is a piece of shit and worth nothing except as a graphics demonstration, it's buggy as hell, can't handle large maps, doesn't do well with network communication, and has massive compatibility issues across different types of hardware. Using Cryengine would have all the same difficulties as RV and more. Not to mention that shit is owned by EA, meaning they'd have their grubby little fingers in everything, whipping their slave labor to death and generally fucking up the entire vision of the project. Dean probably wouldn't even be involved if this were the case.

 

- Frosbite also sucks, is still suffering from massive bugs, DICE is owned by EA so fuck them, and also it does not stream the map in chunks. This is the whole purpose of the network bubble in DayZ. That's exactly what it does. It only accesses information around your character. The game is not rendering the entire map all at once. Believing that is complete stupidity - worse - sheer willful ignorance.

 

- Elder scrolls engines load a map in chunks and yet it still can't even touch the map size of RV. Not to mention it handles poorly as a shooter and can't handle multiplayer, whatsoever.

 

Honestly I can't think of any other comparable game engine. Please enlighten me, because there's nothing else on the market that really combines all these features. Simulation aspects are always lacking, map size sucks, it's buggy, and network communication is always going to be a problem regardless of your rendering platform. Period.

 

I don't know where people are getting this idea that the game runs so poorly. You must be running windows fucking 98 because I have a 3 year old gaming laptop that is becoming rapidly outdated and sluggish, and I get pretty great performance overall on medium/high settings. On an Asus G73jh. With a larger, non-native screen. Really, if you can't figure out how to buy a decent computer to play games, go buy a fucking Xbox and join the liege of whiny casual console gamers.

Edited December 29, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[calle 100]

Every person who says that DayZ is laggy etc. have forgotten that they bought an Alpha at a reduced price.
Yes, I know, the engine itself is a different story.
What you are forgetting is that in Arma 2 and Arma 3 the engine has to calculate everything at once, every single bullet, reload, step that the AI does.
Have a look at it again. The AI does. You can easily fit more than 300 AI's on the map in ArmA.
Rocket has said that he has rewritten/removed this, and not only rewritten, we are not using any "soldier AI" anymore. This is no longer a military simulator.

DayZ is not even optimised clientside yet.
You'll never find an engine today that does the things the RV engine does.

[felthat 84]

EA doesnt own Cryengine (Crytek does). Crysis fooled ya but it was only fruit of partnership of those two companies.

[OrLoK 16186]

Hello there

 

Arma can render up to 10km (in game) at a time and most likely more if configured, its all up to how powerful your PC is.

 

Ive just installed skyrim and although the avatar control is smoother (although only disembodied arms and not actually a full avatar) the game world is not as pretty or realistic as Chernarus IMHO

 

The game engine is fine for its purpose.

 

Has it been utilised to its best effect, well that's debatable, but people seem to be judging everything on the standard the game is now, thats not fair in an alpha.

 

Perhaps in beta but not now.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[tommes 331]

I also love that they're making judgement about a game engine for a early access alpha that is very unfinished and has been stated as such by the developer.

 

The rendering engine isn't a fresh hatched egg. It's a more or less continueous development since Operation Flashpoint. The performance was considered bad when Arma2 was published in 2009. 4 years later it's still as crappy as back then while hardware performance has increased dramatically...like it always does.

As I said in my last post, they need to get their shit together and make that engine use hardware resources more efficiently. No coding knowledge necessary for that conclusion.

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

The rendering engine isn't a fresh hatched egg. It's a more or less continueous development since Operation Flashpoint. The performance was considered bad when Arma2 was published in 2009. 4 years later it's still as crappy as back then while hardware performance has increased dramatically...like it always does.

As I said in my last post, they need to get their shit together and make that engine use hardware resources more efficiently. No coding knowledge necessary for that conclusion.

 

Once more, PLEASE provide a demonstration of an engine that can currently do this, and combines FPS simulation and realistic ballistics, and is multiplayer, and has a persistent database. If it's so "easy," then why hasn't it already been accomplished already?

Edited December 29, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[phoboss 224]

While I agree that the GPU utilization needs to be better (why have a GTX 6** or 7** when its at 40% capacity most of the time), and the overall performance isn't that great, I have just one question for the "haters".

 

Name one engine better suited for DayZ! 

 

And don't say, write a new one, because that just shows you have no idea what a gigantic undertaking that is. 

[Frell 80]

It's literally the only engine in existence that could currently pull of what they are doing. Granted, some games can handle huge maps like RV, however, they don't support ballistics, they generally have very ugly graphics, they basically tend to be games like WoW or whatever. Furthermore, this "intellectual property" started off as a mod for that currently available engine and as such it's easier to directly translate that to a standalone title. Just look at the games that have attempted what this game has. 

 

- Infestation sucks ass. 

 

- Cryengine honestly is a piece of shit and worth nothing except as a graphics demonstration, it's buggy as hell, can't handle large maps, doesn't do well with network communication, and has massive compatibility issues across different types of hardware. Using Cryengine would have all the same difficulties as RV and more. Not to mention that shit is owned by EA, meaning they'd have their grubby little fingers in everything, whipping their slave labor to death and generally fucking up the entire vision of the project. Dean probably wouldn't even be involved if this were the case.

 

- Frosbite also sucks, is still suffering from massive bugs, DICE is owned by EA so fuck them, and also it does not stream the map in chunks. This is the whole purpose of the network bubble in DayZ. That's exactly what it does. It only accesses information around your character. The game is not rendering the entire map all at once. Believing that is complete stupidity - worse - sheer willful ignorance.

 

- Elder scrolls engines load a map in chunks and yet it still can't even touch the map size of RV. Not to mention it handles poorly as a shooter and can't handle multiplayer, whatsoever.

 

Honestly I can't think of any other comparable game engine. Please enlighten me, because there's nothing else on the market that really combines all these features. Simulation aspects are always lacking, map size sucks, it's buggy, and network communication is always going to be a problem regardless of your rendering platform. Period.

 

I don't know where people are getting this idea that the game runs so poorly. You must be running windows fucking 98 because I have a 3 year old gaming laptop that is becoming rapidly outdated and sluggish, and I get pretty great performance overall on medium/high settings. On an Asus G73jh. With a larger, non-native screen. Really, if you can't figure out how to buy a decent computer to play games, go buy a fucking Xbox and join the liege of whiny casual console gamers.

 

 

Careful not to compare engines used in games built for 2007 hardware (consoles) to PC only games

 

Every free roam game can be as big and prettier than chernarus with nextgen. But Bethesda chooses to not do multiplayer because they're known for single player RPGs. They also use smaller maps in an attempt to jam pack them full of content, otherwise you just have alot of walking.

 

Just because a game has a smaller map or lack of something does NOT mean it doesn't support it. Engines are usually shaped to fit design but can easily be expanded on.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Frell

[xendrid@gmail.com 0]

OP got carried away with the topic title, ignore that superficial error and look at the actual point. The engine itself needs to be fixed.

 

I expect there will be significant FPS increases soon which MIGHT get me to at least 30 fps in large cities, but something tells me that is wishful thinking. I played through Arma3's alpha, beta, and then to release and performance was absolutely dreadful for awhile, but now that the game has been fully released it performs well, though not as well as it could. That is the point people are trying to make. The pathetic CPU and GPU utilization will always be around. Arma 2 wasn't "successful" because it just wasn't accessible to enough people. Bohemia has really improved their quality of game design and how they execute it. DayZ won't have that much of an issue, but in the grand scheme of things it will hurt it.

 

If they put in the incredible amount of work to address the issue (which I really hope they do), then it will only open more doors for the devs and players both.

[tsandrey 379]

5 page thread on this

 

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/156638-reduce-triangle-counts-in-cities/

 

 

The arma engine is notoriously bad, and I'm tired of people saying "its because dayz is so big" because it isn't. It's almost 2014, this kind of scale is common now.

Common? Where? What other games can create terrains and missions like Arma?

[Frell 80]

Common? Where? What other games can create terrains and missions like Arma?

Common as in almost every engine could handle it if the developers wanted to.

 

Most engines out there are being used in games that don't need to have a big free roam world. I'm sure if the developers wanted to and knew what they were doing any engine could be shaped to handle it. Look at the Witcher 3. They went from small single player instances to a giant freeroam world

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

Just because a game has a smaller map or lack of something does NOT mean it doesn't support it. Engines are usually shaped to fit design but can easily be expanded on.

 

Good job defeating your own argument. If engines can be tailored to design, then the same is true of this one. Again, I have great performance on this game on a laptop bought in 2010. It looks beautiful. All your points are moot.

[Frell 80]

Good job defeating your own argument. If engines can be tailored to design, then the same is true of this one. Again, I have great performance on this game on a laptop bought in 2010. It looks beautiful. All your points are moot.

I never said RV couldn't be fixed

 

I said will they do it now after so many years of neglect

 

And none of my points are moot. You're comparing engines used in games that are created primarily for consoles (2007 hardware) to 2013 pc games. Its a no brainer why arma never went to consoles.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Frell

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

I never said RV couldn't be fixed

 

I said will they do it now after so many years of neglect

 

They're doing it right now, Einstein. Again, performance from the mod to the SA has already increased tenfold, this is apparent to anyone who is looking at the two objectively.

Edited December 29, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[Bakercompany86 347]

They're doing it right now, Einstein. Again, performance from the mod to the SA has already increased tenfold, this is apparent to anyone who is looking at the two objectively.

 

Am I the only one who actually has really good performance on high settings?

 

My game looks gorgeous, runs smoothly about 90% of the time, and generally performs well.

 

I'm not sure what some are expecting from an early access alpha build of a game.  But I think the expectations are a bit higher and maybe even unrealistic.

 

This engine is perfect for this game.  Give them time.  Especially since the official release isn't even slated until 2015, and even that's a ballpark figure at this point.

[Frell 80]

They're doing it right now, Einstein. Again, performance from the mod to the SA has already increased tenfold, this is apparent to anyone who is looking at the two objectively.

Hey condescending fuck, I wasn't comparing performance to the mod.

 

I was comparing it to every other Arma game released. They all have one thing in common: they run like potatoes.

 

One of the forum admins even said "your fps now is most likely final, but there may be some room to speed it up a bit"

Edited December 29, 2013 by Frell