Optimize optimize optimize

[wild_man 4442]

I play experimental build

 

they make some changes and adding many new items etc

 

BUT GAME IS RUNNING WORSE :o

 

this is serious problem

 

please rocket and devs STOP TO ADD ITEMS WE CANNOT USE  :huh:

 

START TO FIX OPTIMIZE ;)

 

I know they have team of artist and designer who need to stay busy

 

cool, keep busy but don't add this stuff to game when we cannot use in game :|

 

example cooking pot - great but we cannot cook

 

firewood/matches - fantastic but we cannot make fire

 

pen paper - awesome but we cannot write nothing

 

there is more like pliers and small wrench etc from original release still have no function

 

and game keep getting slower

 

too few zeds

 

less loot spawn locations

 

they going wrong direction :o

 

make game running fast and smooth then slowly add new item new feature WHEN MECHANIC FOR USING EXIST

Edited January 30, 2014 by KoS

[DeatHTaX 1217]

While there are some issues with the game and how it runs, I think that the optimization will come later towards the beta and end product of the game. There may just be some simple glitch or messed up code causing some sort of graphically related malfunction causing the lag :)

 

Who knows :3

[kichilron 8550]

Whenever you start fixing one thing, another thing breaks. It hardly runs as is, that's the feeling I get atleast.

 

When the last patch came there was a bit of a desync-issue going on. This can possibly originate from the things added to the game.

 

In my oppinion you're right on some way, but noone holds them back from releasing new stuff such as new items. That's not the major thing slowing the game down and especially not the serverside, which is responsible for the zombies and loot.

 

If you think about it, just pure diversity in lootspawns and items added to the game doesn't mean it's getting slower.

 

 

What really makes the difference is the gamemechanics. If they were to add more stuff such as more ways of getting sick, an actual temperaturesystem - that would be the things slowing the clients down majorly and if that were to happen I would start worrying.

 

But they really did listen to the community and tried adding an anticombatlog system. That's a good thing and possibly changing something about the general performance, but I can take that if that means something changes about the logging problem and it works.

 

 

TL;DR: On one hand they need to sort the performance out, but adding a bigger variety in items / weapons is not what slows the game down.

[deus_drone 98]

Please post the specs of your computer if you wish to say the performance is decreasing.

We need all the facts just not "My game is running slow"
go to DXdiag, copy + paste here please

[wild_man 4442]

TL;DR: On one hand they need to sort the performance out, but adding a bigger variety in items / weapons is not what slows the game down.

I realise this :beans: 

but why add something we cannot use?

is making no sense :huh: 

save this for later time then when they coding mechanic for this example firewood matches cooking pot they do nice update

NEW PATCH 'FIRE AND COOKING IS ADDED'

this would be great, everytime wood is spawn it stay this put load on server because nobody using :|

 

so putting item in game impossible for use affect load on server maybe small amount but is for no benefit :huh: 

 

Edited January 30, 2014 by KoS

[kichilron 8550]

so putting item in game impossible for use affect load on server maybe small amount but is for no benefit :huh: 

 

It doesn't put more load on server, as there's only a specified amount of items spawned on restart. If anything, it just brings in a bigger variety of items, some of which you can't use. That's all.

 

While I understand, that it can be frustrating for the playerbase not to be able to use it - nothing added since launch was actually not useable, was it? I think everything that doesn't work at the moment, such as the cooking pot, the firematches, the wood - it was all there on release.

 

Things you might find in the exp. branch do not count, as it's very possible, that unused items are removed from the loottables alltogether when it goes live, while the assets remain in the gamefiles.

 

It merely uses up space on your drive at that point, nothing else. It's only affecting your performance when loading up the game / gamefiles for the first time.

[Tizzle 90]

I agree with everything KoS is saying. It seems like they're fixing and adding really trivial things while leaving some of the biggest concerns untouched

[ChiefMasterKush 321]

but why add something we cannot use?

is making no sense :huh:

So we can kill you while you're looking at useless items and not feel bad about it.

[Etherious 907]

I'd have to agree too, this experimental patch is sorta bad. I run even worse now then I have ever had. And for your info I have a 780 Ti (Another on the way ^-^) and 4770K. :P

[DeatHTaX 1217]

I agree with everything KoS is saying. It seems like they're fixing and adding really trivial things while leaving some of the biggest concerns untouched

 

Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe these issues aren't being "untouched" and Dean and his team know what they're doing?

 

I mean everyone kept bitching about Combat logging and shit so they attempted to fix that, so if they could have fixed most of the other issues for the better at this point don't you think they would have?

 

I think they know what they're doing more than we do, for the most part, unless one of you is on the development team and has seen first hand what's going on and has a differing opinion. 

 

I know this sounds like a typical fan boy response, but seriously, just give them time. They're gonna do things the way they think is best for testing the game and the elements of it. And we know they're listening.

 

:)

[DarkwaveDomina 1099]

I'm with DeatHTaX. They have mentioned that optimisation is something on the list and important, in one of his streams Dean Hall mentioned they'd had particularly damning feedback from AMD/Nvidia etc. and that there was a ton of wiggle-room with regards to optimising performance. I'm sure someone is already working on it.

[stolenbanjos 110]

From my understanding, it would be a waste of time to optimize the game now BECAUSE they have more stuff to add. If they optimize now, they will have to optimize again later, so it would be redundant and unproductive work. Anyone else confirm this?

[five3 4]

They could add the most baller shit ever to the game but if the game isn't a smooth, enjoyable experience who will want to play it?

 

The more the add now, the more the work it will cause when they attempt to do some optimization. An alpha is meant to focus on the core gameplay, not all these frivolous ideas they've come up with.

[kichilron 8550]

They are highly aware of the issues, but like I mentioned prior, it's not worth fixing yet.

 

It will be changed down the road and is a higly touchy issue with BIS - just take a look at ARMA 3 and how that performed on release and it was getting better and better and better and it can actually run 60 FPS now - even though it had maximu 10-20 on the very first alpha-release.

[hellcat420 212]

they would be stupid to optimize the game right now. once they got more mechanics added the optimization would be right back to square one, and they would have to spend time doing it all over again. if you dont like how the game is quit playing till alpha is close to being over. basically what the guy above me said haha

[DeatHTaX 1217]

They could add the most baller shit ever to the game but if the game isn't a smooth, enjoyable experience who will want to play it?

 

The more the add now, the more the work it will cause when they attempt to do some optimization. An alpha is meant to focus on the core gameplay, not all these frivolous ideas they've come up with.

 

Can you please show me your resumê for all of the games you were the lead developer on so I would be more inclined to believe what you're saying?

 

Not trying to be a jerk. Genuinely just want to know what experiences give you this outlook on an alpha

 

From my understanding, it would be a waste of time to optimize the game now BECAUSE they have more stuff to add. If they optimize now, they will have to optimize again later, so it would be redundant and unproductive work. Anyone else confirm this?

 

 

This makes more sense to me

[Window Licker 504]

Forget where I saw it but "Dean" said "somewhere" client optimization doesn't typically happen until just before beta, while it would be awesome cos my system is above spec and it still sometimes runs like a chunky vomit milkshake, wouldn't the optimization just get messed up when they added more stuff and functionality? 

 

The idea behind optimization is to get all the components operating in harmony.  How can you do that when large portions of the code are unwritten?

[five3 4]

From my understanding, it would be a waste of time to optimize the game now BECAUSE they have more stuff to add. If they optimize now, they will have to optimize again later, so it would be redundant and unproductive work. Anyone else confirm this?

 

I can confirm that you are wrong. You want a solid base to work from, not a pile of rocks. What if later they find out that the way they are handling items (from the format they are loaded from, to the way they are transferred over the network) has a huge performance impact? It would be much more work to go back and fix everything compared to getting it right and then working from there.

[Window Licker 504]

I can confirm that you are wrong. You want a solid base to work from, not a pile of rocks. What if later they find out that the way they are handling items (from the format they are loaded from, to the way they are transferred over the network) has a huge performance impact? It would be much more work to go back and fix everything compared to getting it right and then working from there.

I disagree, doing what your suggesting would require them to edit the same code multiple times as they added functionality.  Its much easier to write it all and have it sloppy then trim off the unneeded code then to trim code only to add it back later effectively doing the same job multiple times. Not only that but they would need to do this for every single patch they make!!

Edited January 30, 2014 by Window Licker

[DeatHTaX 1217]

I disagree, doing what your suggesting would require them to edit the same code multiple times as they added functionality.  Its much easier to write it all and have it sloppy then trim off the unneeded code then to trim code only to add it back later effectively doing the same job multiple times. Not only that but they would need to do this for every single patch they make!!

 

In other words, optimizing towards the end eliminates a lot of labor redundancies, and redundancies cost time and money.

 

So....yeah as of right now I'm with Window on this. 

[terminal_boy 860]

You might tweak a few underlying frameworks while you're still adding code, but you can't optimise and stabilise a complex software architecture until you've got all the code modules up an running.

Trying to optimise while you're still adding features often makes the finished item more flakey rather than polished.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Terminal Boy

[terminal_boy 860]

 2IbJf4oXOxU

Send key setting, over.

[Ankhenaten 111]

Send key setting, over.

:ph34r:

[Tweakie 199]

1:I would love higher FPS myself, BUT using the old Tim Schafer analogy.

Asking devs to do ONE THING (Optimise) first, is like asking an artist to paint all the yellow before he can use other paints, it is doable, but it will likely be a crap painting.

 

2: Alpha (which is the current state of the game), is generally not when you balance/optimise/fix stuff, that is the beta stage. Alpha is the stage where you throw stuff at the wall and see if it/what breaks.

 

3: When actual optimizations are ready and don't break other features of the game, they will added. Until then, let the people working on optimizations, work on optimizations and do their work right, so we don't have to patch the patches for the updates.

To quote any good dev "It is done, when it is done"

 

4: The people doing animations, gun models, etc, etc, etc, that you see in the current updates, are probably utter shit at doing engine side optimizations to a engine that is basicly 12+ years old. The people who can do optimizations for this engine, are doing it. Or do you want them to stop working until the engine guys are are done?

Hint: Dayz would reach beta in 2016.

 

5:

What the developers say:

“DayZ Early Access is your chance to experience DayZ as it evolves throughout its development process. Be aware that our Early Access offer is a representation of our core pillars, and the framework we have created around them. It is a work in progress and therefore contains a variety of bugs. We strongly advise you not to buy and play the game at this stage unless you clearly understand what Early Access means and are interested in participating in the ongoing development cycle.”

Soo the question is, do you "clearly understand" Early Access?

Repeat: "We strongly advise you not to buy and play the game at this stage unless you clearly understand what Early Access means and are interested in participating in the ongoing development cycle.”
 

[drewsta 74]

I'd have to agree too, this experimental patch is sorta bad. I run even worse now then I have ever had. And for your info I have a 780 Ti (Another on the way ^-^) and 4770K. :P

This may be a little off topic but I'm just curious now. May I ask what running even worse for you is? I'm curious because I'm running an older core I5 760 @ 3.5ghz with a 1gb 560ti and have a solid 40 fps everywhere but the big cities where it will drop to 25 without fail. At those frame rates the game is silky smooth and I do mean smooth with very little stutter in the cities. My settings are 1920x1080 with FXAA very high, antialiasing high, all trees and grass, all other setting in the high/very high but no post processing or occlusion etc. Those frame rates produce a beautiful gaming experience on a 27 inch monitor and I'm thrilled at those results as I'm sure a majority of players would agree, I also understand that can vary greatly from player to player. I post this here because I was curious to know what "running even worse" actually was with a 4770k and 780ti?