The RV engine is the worst engine ever made.

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

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.

 

:facepalm:

 

The mod ran on Arma 2, did it not?

[Frell 80]

:facepalm:

 

The mod ran on Arma 2, did it not?

Yes but the game wasn't built to spawn loot in the way Rocket did, so alot of the performance went downhill from there.

 

Arma 2 raw ran better than the mod. But the point above is why standalone runs better

Edited December 29, 2013 by Frell

[Bakercompany86 347]

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"

 

 

Out of curiosity, what are your PC specs?

[OrLoK 16182]

No personal slights, please, or ill simply lock.

[maliceubx 73]

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.

 

Tenfold? What?. Standalone has made some improvements but overall the architecture has to support less calculation than it did previously (Less guns, no vehicles, no item respawns, no zombie respawns, 1/100th of the amount of zombie AI, 15-20 less players, no air physics due to no flying) and it runs the SAME if not a slight bit worse than the mod at the moment.

Edited December 29, 2013 by CDriVe1335

[melvindorf 4]

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

Yeah think so

 

Out of curiosity, what are your PC specs?

 

Out of curiosity what are yours and what fps are you getting in cherno and what fps do you get in the woods?

[Frell 80]

Out of curiosity, what are your PC specs?

GTX 770, i7 2600S 3.8ghz  8GB RAM 

 

22-28 fps in cities 40-60+ in woods on lowest

Edited December 29, 2013 by Frell

[kruger287 13]

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.

Yeah same man I don't even have a "Powerhouse PC" and i run high smooth my specs are

AMD FX-6100 Black edition @ 3.3ghz

4 Gig ram Gskill

GTX 760

And by fine its 40-45 in cities

60+ everywhere else :|

As for the whole this engine isn't great topic we have a good year or 2 until full release its already doing better than the mod

i run the mod like shit and i run the SA smooth as butta

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

Tenfold? What?. Standalone has made some improvements but overall the architecture has to support less calculation than it did previously (Less guns, no vehicles, no item respawns, no zombie respawns, 1/100th of the amount of zombie AI, 15-20 less players, no air physics due to no flying) and it runs the SAME if not a slight bit worse than the mod at the moment.

 

It doesn't perform the same. In the mod I would be lucky to get 30 frames per second in the middle of nowhere. At this point, I get 20-30 fps in cities, 40-50 + in sparse areas. That's on a three year old mobile graphics chip.

Edited December 29, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[Frell 80]

Tenfold? What?. Standalone has made some improvements but overall the architecture has to support less calculation than it did previously (Less guns, no vehicles, no item respawns, no zombie respawns, 1/100th of the amount of zombie AI, 15-20 less players, no air physics due to no flying) and it runs the SAME if not a slight bit worse than the mod at the moment.

I forgot about that, theres also hardly any zombies in the game right now.

 

Once the game is in full force it will most likely be crawling again unless a good chunk of that money goes to proper rewrites

[maliceubx 73]

It doesn't perform the same. In the mod I would be lucky to get 30 frames per second in the middle of nowhere. At this point, I get 20-30 fps ion cities, 40 + in sparse areas.

 

Ive always gotten 20-30 in cities but I will give you that wilderness fps has improved.

[melvindorf 4]

Yeah same man I don't even have a "Powerhouse PC" and i run high smooth my specs are

AMD FX-6100 Black edition @ 3.3ghz

4 Gig ram Gskill

GTX 760

And by fine its 40-45 in cities

60+ everywhere else :|

As for the whole this engine isn't great topic we have a good year or 2 until full release its already doing better than the mod

i run the mod like shit and i run the SA smooth as butta

 

 

40-50 in city's? yeah right, screens or im calling bullshit......

Edited December 29, 2013 by melvindorf

[OrLoK 16182]

Hello there

 

What needs to be remembered is that the engine will not be changed. That would not be very sensible.

 

What most likely would happen is that they would continue to refine and improve, rebuild certain aspects of their own engine.

 

Hopefully with the success of the retail version some profits would be allocated for development that would both assist DAYZ and future RV releases.

 

I very much doubt they would hamstring themselves.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[kruger287 13]

40-50 in city's? yeah right, screens or im calling bullshit......

I'm not here to argue i'm just stating that i have a playable experience

i do not give the slightest what someone wants to call bs

if you don't believe me then fine but I run great and i said 40-45

Have a nice day :)

[tolagarf 15]

Rocket mentioned in one of his streams that they do intend on replacing the render engine completely. But not anytime soon, as it isn't really a high priority. If you can't handle the current engine, well hey don't play. 

Edited December 29, 2013 by TolaGarf

[melvindorf 4]

I'm not here to argue i'm just stating that i have a playable experience

i do not give the slightest what someone wants to call bs

if you don't believe me then fine but I run great and i said 40-45

Have a nice day :)

 

Well I got a FX 8120 and a gtx 670. I get 25-30 in citys and 40-60 around the wilderness. Have heard very much the same reports from every amd user I have spoke too and a fair amount more from the intel guys. Perhaps your mistaken or something idk. What I do know is you aint getting 40-50 in cherno no way no how  :)

[Bakercompany86 347]

I'm running:

 

-AMD FX 8150 8-Core, Liquid Cooled

-GeForce GTX 660 TI (not overclocked)

-8 Gigs DDR3 (Corsair Vengeance, not that it matters)

 

I run smooth everywhere.  I will get exact numbers tonight when I'm home.  But I never EVER encounter crazy FPS drops.

 

 

What I do get, is random FPS spikes (drops).  This happens in the middle of fields, just as much as in cities.  Which means programming flaws, not engine performance.  This engine is great for DayZ.

[melvindorf 4]

Seriously Baker I have a very similar rig to you and very different experiences. What do you consider smooth? what fps are you getting?

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

Occlusion culling isn't even enabled yet. Does the word alpha ring a bell?

[Frell 80]

Occlusion culling isn't even enabled yet. Does the word alpha ring a bell?

Why do people assume alpha means the developers can suddenly read minds?

 

Its important for the community to bring up flaws instead of assuming they're already acknowledged

[xendrid@gmail.com 0]

Rocket mentioned in one of his streams that they do intend on replacing the render engine completely. But not anytime soon, as it isn't really a high priority. If you can't handle the current engine, well hey don't play. 

 

It would be very nice if that were true. My expensive rig would like to have a word with you on your final comment, however.

[kruger287 13]

Well I got a FX 8120 and a gtx 670. I get 25-30 in citys and 40-60 around the wilderness. Have heard very much the same reports from every amd user I have spoke too and a fair amount more from the intel guys. Perhaps your mistaken or something idk. What I do know is you aint getting 40-50 in cherno no way no how  :)

 

Well look at it this way I do get the frames I said it doesn't matter what YOU get it matters what I get I have had friends with the exact same setup as me and get the worst frames ever who knows I also don't run my games on high res I run on 1280x1024 which is suitable to me ( so don't bash me for low res) So we could go back and forth all day it wouldnt make a difference I play the way I do and get what I do you play the way you do and get what you do simple as that no amount of telling me that I dont get something makes it true. I never understood why it matters how another runs anyways. So that's the end of that lets get back on topic.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Kruger287

[Bakercompany86 347]

Why do people assume alpha means the developers can suddenly read minds?

 

Its important for the community to bring up flaws instead of assuming they're already acknowledged

 

 

The problem is people aren't pointing out flaws, they're introducing strawman arguments.

 

Unless you're an expert programmer with a copy of the engine sourcecode, how on earth would you know the engine is the problem?  You simply need to report "I have FPS drop *insert location*".

 

 

But some are just spouting off that the engine is garbage, the engine is the worst engine ever, we should be using CryEngine etc etc.  That's all bullshit.  Report the bugs, report the flaws, but don't create false arguments about stuff you don't have the slightest bit of knowledge on.

[tommes 331]

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?

 

Your way of arguing is weird. You attack two points I've never made.

1. I never talked about other engines doing it better.

2. I never said it's easy.

 

So what do you want? Just utter some fanboy defense?

 

Let me clear my points up for you again:

1. There are performance issues with the current version.

2. They need to be addressed

3. People are spoiled by stunning visuals of blockbuster titles.

 

Try to argue against those! Please!

[melvindorf 4]

What I thought would make for improvements in performance would be this "network bubble" Rocket was banging on about. Was this included in the current build of the game? Because I don't see any difference performance-wise between SA and DayZ mod. I mean I understand that there is a lot of work to be done with optimization but I honestly thought that the network bubble would be more major of an improvement.