So what is the excuse for the poor performance now?

[scaramoosh 162]

With the mod it was how ARMA 2 wasn't designed for what Dayz was trying to do, apparently Zombies were a major cause of poor performance. However the SA has apparently been redone, a lot of it from the ground up, the zombies aren't even there, there is barely any loot around and the player count is tiny compared to a lot of custom servers for the mod. Yet for some reason the performance is worse than the mod, this is something that has been reflected by my mates too, now I dunno if modders are just doing a better job with custom maps or whatever, but performance on Chernarus + at least is terrible. AO is a major source of a performance drop, so I naturally have this off, but still as soon as I got to one of the major towns, my FPS drops to 20. It has nothing to do with my GPU either because my friend who has a 560 gets better performance than my 670 and my friend who has a 780ti gets worse performance as well.  I'm so sick of people blaming other peoples hardware, when it is clearly not the case...

 

What is causing the problem? It is obvious that there is more on screen at once, but GTA V runs the online on consoles that are like 8 years old at this point and they perform better and lets be honest, GTA V even looks a lot better than ARMA 2 does as well. So I have a hard time believing it is down to it being more packed with buildings, there is never anything going on, it cannot be all the loot, it cannot be zombies... clearly.

 

Has any one working on the game actually looked to see if something is glitched and using up way more resources than it should be? Like a wall with several layers of textures that has been copied and pasted a lot or something?

 

I just don't get how performance was one of the key issues, there was a year to work on it, stuff got reworked from the ground up and yet there were no gains.

 

Time to mod someone else's engine guys?

[creature 1189]

They did it just to see you post again so that we may remind you about the alpha word and the small wall of text you agree to every time you start up the game.  :thumbsup:

[kichilron 8550]

What is causing the problem? It is obvious that there is more on screen at once, but GTA V runs the online on consoles that are like 8 years old at this point and they perform better and lets be honest, GTA V even looks a lot better than ARMA 2 does as well. So I have a hard time believing it is down to it being more packed with buildings, there is never anything going on, it cannot be all the loot, it cannot be zombies... clearly.

 

The difference is, that the older the console, the more experienced they are with what they can do. That's why the graphics become better and better over the years while the performance is still somewhat acceptable. You can't really compare consolegames to a pure PC MMO that is in Alpha-State. What do you expect to come out of that? They are working on it and they are looking to improve.

 

Not to mention that consoles are extremely streamlined and always use the same components and that's the only thing you have to work with, whereas computers can have a HUGE variety of components, different brands of components, different clocks. What do you expect?

 

No wonder GTA V looks better than ARMA 2, because it's from 2013, while ARMA 2 is already 4-5 years old. Why do you even start comparing those? It hardly makes sense.

 

 

Has any one working on the game actually looked to see if something is glitched and using up way more resources than it should be?

 

Yes - they have a report from ATI and NVidia and they have gotten feedback from them they can work with. It has always been like that with BIS games ,though.

 

Just out of curiosity - do you own an AMD-CPU and -GPU? Do you have ARMA 3? What's your MP performance on there?

 

If you really want to complain, complain about the performance of ARMA 3, as that is actually a full price title that has already been launched, whereas DayZ isn't.

Edited February 9, 2014 by kichilron

[Wolfguarde 108]

Poor optimisation. I don't say that as criticism of the game, but simply as a statement; game's in alpha and their primary goal was getting a (relatively) playable game up for testing. Optimisation will, hopefully, clear up performance/lag issues and allow them to start filling the game out to be the monster it has the potential to be.

As for having a year to work on things... I haven't done much coding, but what little knowledge I have in the field suggests that you start with one completed product as a draft and finish with something completely different once you're done reworking it. And most of that reworking is mind-numbingly boring, requiring countless hours of poring over every single thing you/your team has written to find inconsistencies and logic conflicts while usually having little or no idea what you're looking for. It's every bit as frustrating as it sounds.

Edited February 9, 2014 by Wolfguarde

[chysgoda 3]

Early Access Alpha?? Does that mean anything to you?

[shadowjack 254]

 It has nothing to do with my GPU either because my friend who has a 560 gets better performance than my 670 and my friend who has a 780ti gets worse performance as well.  I'm so sick of people blaming other peoples hardware, when it is clearly not the case...

 

 

 It very well "can" have to do with GPU. Just because one card is better on paper does not necessarily translate to better performance in any given game. To many variables. I know of many instances where an older, lower spec card will outperform newer/higher in a given scenerio.

 

I promised my self i would not play the alpha card. But yeah give them time to work with the GPU folks

[combatcomm1 234]

Close your mouth! Nobody wants to see that. 

[Dontstealmycheese 118]

With the mod it was how ARMA 2 wasn't designed for what Dayz was trying to do, apparently Zombies were a major cause of poor performance. However the SA has apparently been redone, a lot of it from the ground up, the zombies aren't even there, there is barely any loot around and the player count is tiny compared to a lot of custom servers for the mod. Yet for some reason the performance is worse than the mod, this is something that has been reflected by my mates too, now I dunno if modders are just doing a better job with custom maps or whatever, but performance on Chernarus + at least is terrible. AO is a major source of a performance drop, so I naturally have this off, but still as soon as I got to one of the major towns, my FPS drops to 20. It has nothing to do with my GPU either because my friend who has a 560 gets better performance than my 670 and my friend who has a 780ti gets worse performance as well.  I'm so sick of people blaming other peoples hardware, when it is clearly not the case...

 

What is causing the problem? It is obvious that there is more on screen at once, but GTA V runs the online on consoles that are like 8 years old at this point and they perform better and lets be honest, GTA V even looks a lot better than ARMA 2 does as well. So I have a hard time believing it is down to it being more packed with buildings, there is never anything going on, it cannot be all the loot, it cannot be zombies... clearly.

 

Has any one working on the game actually looked to see if something is glitched and using up way more resources than it should be? Like a wall with several layers of textures that has been copied and pasted a lot or something?

 

I just don't get how performance was one of the key issues, there was a year to work on it, stuff got reworked from the ground up and yet there were no gains.

 

Time to mod someone else's engine guys?

You are playing a game that is in alpha that is using a hybrid mashed engine, and it has been stated MANY times optimization will happen further down the road. Fail beans for you sir.

[dallas 5195]

OP I can't imagine, why you'd keep playing a game, when you see every little bug and flaw as a direct attack on your person and a clear sign of you being personally deceived by the developers of DayZ

 

You sense of entitlement just seems so misplaced and ignorant, I mean, it looks like you've been part of this community since the dawn of the mod and yet you seem totally surprised by the approach to the style of development. You might recall, that we experienced similar unintended setbacks during the various DayZ mod patches, how can you be so absolutely clueless, when you've chosen to hang around for so long?

 

And suggesting another engine is just stupid. If you don't like the RV engine, why you stick around, it's not like they ever hid, which direction they were going?

Edited February 9, 2014 by Dallas

[DMentMan 707]

the excuse now is alpha.

[raphier 4]

Same crap that happened with The Witcher 1. No matter how strong PC you had it still stuttered. Gamebryo was one awful engine and there was nothing that could redeem it.

[St. Jimmy 1631]

There isn't somehow enough room for the CPU work on all the buildings. If you run Chernarus+ alone in the A3 editor the performance is awesome. Something in this engine blocks client for using enough CPU power in multiplayer. So it can't be that buildings are unoptimized but it's something else causing the CPU bottleneck in DayZ. The new arcitechture still doesn't allow the client to be enough free of the simulation. We can only hope that the client side optimization solves this but if it doesn't the engine is screwed and we can say sure that the bottleneck is the same like in Arma.

The bad performance doesn't have anything to do with "bad" GPU. With better GPU you can just put some settings higher but the fps remains the same because it's again all about the CPU bottleneck.

[BlackSun (DayZ) 3]

GTA5 had a budget of $280 million. DayZ does not has that same budget

[scaramoosh 162]

I'm sick of "it's Alpha"......... It is the ARMA 2 engine, the game has had a year for work to try and sort these problems out and they haven't. It is just another excuse for the poor performance... is ARMA still in alpha? Is ARMA 2 still in alpha? What about ARMA 3? They all suffer from poor performance. 

 

I hate the excuse of AAA developer vs a small team... If you cannot make an engine, buy one, they can be modded for your needs, just look at the original COD team, they're still dragging a glorified Quake 3 engine out and now Respawn are using Source. Fucking Dean and the gang have modded ARMA 2 heavily for Dayz apparently...... mod some performance out of it...

[Dontstealmycheese 118]

I'm sick of "it's Alpha"......... It is the ARMA 2 engine, the game has had a year for work to try and sort these problems out and they haven't. It is just another excuse for the poor performance... is ARMA still in alpha? Is ARMA 2 still in alpha? What about ARMA 3? They all suffer from poor performance. 

 

I hate the excuse of AAA developer vs a small team... If you cannot make an engine, buy one, they can be modded for your needs, just look at the original COD team, they're still dragging a glorified Quake 3 engine out and now Respawn are using Source. Fucking Dean and the gang have modded ARMA 2 heavily for Dayz apparently...... mod some performance out of it...

Then stop playing bro, peace. Also, they had a year to BUILD the game. 

[raphier 4]

GTA5 had a budget of $280 million. DayZ does not has that same budget

True, but GTA also had 5 iterations and 13 years to upgrade their tech

[Element47 2480]

as i read recently, Bohemia has stated themselves on several arma 2 and arma 3 issues, that the RV engine suffers from legacy code and will continue to do so as rewriting the whole engine is beyond possibility with the ressources available to BI, so performance will remain suboptimal for the remaining life of the engine.

 

i'm fine with that, i think the team is pefectly capable of creating a unique, enjoyable experience with the tools they have.

 

the great german poet Goethe once wrote: "In der Beschränkung erst zeigt sich der Meister" -

which Oscar Wilde referenced in "The Decay of Lying", and translated to:

 

"It is in working within limits that the master reveals himself"

 

and i think there is much truth to that. We shouldnt worry too much about the engine - it is the craft that determines, whether this will succeed or not.

Edited February 9, 2014 by e47

[Hetstaine 10852]

I pray every night that they will be able to achieve a solid 30 fps across the board ..but you know..at the back of mind i just don't think it is ever going to happen. You just never know though, weirder things have happened. Moses parted the seas, Madonna shaved her armpits and the Titanic was raised..there is hope.

[The_Gunisher 10]

While there are obviously still massive performance issues, everyone can see that, I think you're flying way off the handle. I would suggest giving the game a few months and seeing if it's improved to your standards. Dean has said on this forum, and you were warned when you bought the game that it wasn't worth playing. No if's no buts, you were warned.

 

Underneath your rage there are a couple of concerns I share. For instance there seems to be alot of new content and idea's being added into the game, without any real performance gain as yet. If we want more zombies, loot, and cars and god knows what else with what everyone's demanding, are they gonna be able to do all this while firstly reaching and then maintaining decent performance? I don't know is the answer, but for now I'm still confident they can square it at least enough to offer a decent gaming experiance.

 

So in short hold your peace and wait, give it a rest and come back to it when you've cooled off and see if it's a game for you.

[dallas 5195]

Was the Titanic really raised?

[kichilron 8550]

There isn't somehow enough room for the CPU work on all the buildings. If you run Chernarus+ alone in the A3 editor the performance is awesome. Something in this engine blocks client for using enough CPU power in multiplayer. So it can't be that buildings are unoptimized but it's something else causing the CPU bottleneck in DayZ. The new arcitechture still doesn't allow the client to be enough free of the simulation. We can only hope that the client side optimization solves this but if it doesn't the engine is screwed and we can say sure that the bottleneck is the same like in Arma.

The bad performance doesn't have anything to do with "bad" GPU. With better GPU you can just put some settings higher but the fps remains the same because it's again all about the CPU bottleneck.

 

 

Let me ask you one question: Where is the SERVER in there?

 

I simply can't understand why people would even bring this up from a persons point of view who has worked with this. If you simply think about how the server acts in any BIS game you will easy enough figure out that it has always been dependant on serverside-performance. Not only do you not run 90% of the functions and the code of DayZ when in the Editor because you aren't even loading it up - you also would not even be able to execute the code, because the editor technically is not a server.

 

Even if the serverside code would be included in the version you're running on your machine in the editor - it would still not be a server and most of the code would simply be ignored.

 

You can not just take the map and say: "Look at it - it's alright!" and thus go back and say the engine is flawed, as there's no way for you to understand how it even works.

 

 

Of course it's all down to the code implemented by the DayZ dev team, as that is what is changing the game. They are working hard enough to implement the features and it has been like that in the mod already as well. They are adding new stuff and only with 1.8 they have taken what they had and completely reworked it and look at it:

 

It's running flawlessly on a normal server with 50-60 FPS even in big coastal cities.

 

The performance will change significantly as soon as they start working on optimising, but they're doing enough adding new things, because people are screming for them, that they are busy with that.

Edited February 9, 2014 by kichilron

[Element47 2480]

Was the Titanic really raised?

 

 i think that was the "hope" part....

[SwarfwgaHead 45]

Honestly, this kind of thing is why I try to avoid open communities based around BI games. The engine is old, and updates in hardware are not going to make the problems go away, BI have said as much, it's not something they try to hide. But, I honestly don't believe any of their games are rendered unplayable on modern machines. You might have to tweak your settings a bit, but you can get the game to run well enough to play and enjoy. sure it may not be 60+fps but jesus, if you're that anally retentive about your frames go play something else. The RV engine has done, and continues to do, something that I have yet to encounter on any other engine. If you bought the game knowing full well it was BI, and that it was being built on the RV engine, then you shouldnt be expecting a massive increase in frames over their previous games.

[OrLoK 16182]

Hello there

 

I saw a film where they raised the Titanic, so it must be true.

 

Anyhoo, IMHO I would expect the DAYZ final to run the same as Arma3 runs on my system. Im not expecting miracles and super high FPS. I am expecting a deep slow paced game, with exciting moments.

 

Super high FPS, whilst lovely hopefully wont be really needed.

 

I have alot of faith in the team though to do some "interesting things" with the RV engine but ive been lucky enough to be close enough to be able to see a little more than the average forum user.

 

There will be optimisations across the board but whether they will reach the average users expectations? Well Im not sure.

 

Fingers crossed.

 

Im certainly not going to rant and rail on about it though.

 

rgds

 

LoK

[kichilron 8550]

ive been lucky enough to be close enough to be able to see a little more than the average forum user.

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

 

Im certainly not going to rant and rail on about it though.

 

 

Thank you.