Oh, DayZ. (FPS test pictures)

[tommes 331]

Apples and oranges! Comparisons across different engins are wothless. They are optimised for completely different purposes.

3D video gaming and what is that other thing?

[tommes 331]

Can't believe yet another fps thread.

 

This had been bouncing around the forums for years. It's not entirely PC related, it's the software that came from Arma2/Operation arrowhead and so on. DayZ is still based on that. If you're getting low fps I'd bet that if you had task manager open and a gpu monitor (afterburner for example) they'd both show you were using less than 100%. Probably less than 50% of one of the other (CPU - GPU). It's just the game at the moment. It might get better.... It has to.

RV engine just can't use more than one core properly. BI seriously has to do something about that. These days gamers won't put up that easily with having shitty frames AND shitty looks on monster rigs at once.

[DaLexy 0]

You're cursed.

 

...

And this is why ? Im totally confused XD

 

Sorry for being offtopic, but this makes me curious :P

[SFRGaming 718]

You should be getting so much more from that system, to the people who think Dayz will be optimized, don't talk such crazy nonsense. BI never optimize but hey me might be able to run Dayz better in 2-3 years time.

I really don't think so. DayZ is un-optimized as hell

[djporternz 644]

You should be getting so much more from that system, to the people who think Dayz will be optimized, don't talk such crazy nonsense. BI never optimize but hey me might be able to run Dayz better in 2-3 years time.

BS. BI optimise the hell out of the ArmA engines, but they are optimising the whole system and are not wholey fixated on graphical FPS. The ArmA engines are doing way more than the Crysis engine will ever be capable of.

 

TBH, if you want an accurate figure for future performance from DayZ's version of the RV engine, go play ArmA III and add 3~5% on the client, and run the server and add 5~10% onto its performance.

 

 

3D video gaming and what is that other thing?

No. Not even close. Different engines are just that. Completely different from the ground up. Different in their basic requirements. It is impossible to do any sort of objective, unbiased direct comparison between them.

 

The crysis engine becomes a dog when you try to push then much past 4km^2. ArmA runs pretty much on a par with Crysis if you arbitrarily limit the map size to these small areas. Other engines are likewise very limited on what sort of land area they are able to use. The only ones that are capable of using large land areas similar to the RV engine lose geographic detail and bog down very quickly.

 

There are a few emerging engines that look good using very large geo datasets, but for the most part these are using procedural landscapes or purely 'natural' features (i.e. no man made structures ATM). But these come with very high hardware requirements and there are no examples available that actually have anything like the processing that would be required for a fully functioning game.

Edited March 11, 2014 by DJPorterNZ

[raezion420 97]

All I know is my fps for dayz sa is not that bad right now at 25fps being low end in cities. If it gets better sweet, if not, its still playable.

 

I should have my new CPU, mobo, and ram in a couple days to try it out. (4.4 8 core 16 gig ddr3)

 

I get 25-80fps in dayz sa with settings turned almost all the way up, and in arma 3 multiplayer I get 9-20fps with everything turned all the way down or off.

 

Pretty sure either my ddr2 ram, or my 3.4 quad core, is bottlenecking my system, as the fps stays the same even when i drop the resolution, doesn't matter what resolution I run, fps stays the same.  

 

Either way, I can run dayz a shit load better so I have no complaints. 

[omgwtfbbq (DayZ) 1069]

The crysis engine becomes a dog when you try to push then much past 4km^2. ArmA runs pretty much on a par with Crysis if you arbitrarily limit the map size to these small areas.

 

I can fully understand why the CryEngine would annihilate any computer if the map scale was on the level of ArmA, but if ArmA is sized down to Crysis' level design, I should be getting hundreds of frames per second while completely maxed out, not be "on a par" with the CryEngine.

 

The RV engine is unoptimized, and I hope they'll solve all issues with framerates by release date.

 

Unrelated, but I still think DayZ is going to miss its window if it comes out in two years. All interest in it will be lost.

[tommes 331]

I'm not a developer and I don't get why the size of the map brings down local fps so much because the part I can see stays pretty much the same anywhere, anytime and anyengine. Serverside it's obvious. Anybody up to enlighten me?

[Grimey Rick 3417]

Apples and oranges! Comparisons across different engins are wothless. They are optimised for completely different purposes.

 

While this is true, all ARMA games have piss-poor optimization. At this point, it's pretty inexcusable.

 

With the computer in my signature I get 25 minimum frames per second in a city with everything on maximum. I have gotten as high as 180 frames per second up north. For me, it makes no difference whether or not I run the game on very low or very high settings, I get the same frame rate. Go figure.

 

EDIT: Proof the engine blows: look at GPU/CPU usage. Any time I'm near/in a building, even one single building, my GPU/CPU usage plummets from ~90+% to ~25-50%. Maximum settings, ~50 FPS in NWAF around the buildings. If I turn away from the buildings scattered around NWAF, instant ~90% GPU/CPU usage and double the FPS, up to around 100.

 

Edited March 12, 2014 by Grimey Rick

[Vigilante_Gamer 101]

First of all, DayZ is based on a branch of the Take On Helicopters engine.

 

It's difficult to compare DayZ to a game with SIGNIFICANTLY smaller maps and numbers of objects and players like Crysis.

 

Lastly, it's still in alpha. The real judgement will come when the game is actually finished, not still in early development.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Vigilante_Gamer

[KarmaCoin 72]

I'm not a developer and I don't get why the size of the map brings down local fps so much because the part I can see stays pretty much the same anywhere, anytime and anyengine. Serverside it's obvious. Anybody up to enlighten me?

 

You're right! The size of the map shouldn't bring down FPS at all because not all of the map is rendered at once.

 

The reason a large open map like that in DayZ can't be made in the Cryengine 3 is because the Cryengine 3 doesn't support terrain streaming so client's must keep the entire map's terrain in memory at all times. This ends up being more memory than the game can allocate. 

 

Why did Crytek not include terrain streaming in their newest engine? Good question, I have no idea.

[dusty_nuttles 130]

Yeah yeah, different games, different map scale.

 

EDIT2: My follow up point is they NEED to prioritize optimization of the damn game. I'd like to see significant improvements by the next two updates.

 

Your comparing Crysis 3 to DayZ? Come on man.

 

What you NEED to do is prioritize your research methods instead of wasting e-space. Read rocket2guns reddit/twitter, read Hicks_206 reddit/twitter. All will be revealed.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Bennet

[irl-calibre 744]

I came to the conclusion nearly ten years ago that BI develop software for alien technology, it's the only rational explanation I could come up with as I don't think I've ever possessed a computer capable of running any current title with current technology at maximum settings.  Ever!!

[TheScruffyBandit 382]

I don't Mind the people who have better computers than me having better framerates at the same setting, what gets frustrating is the people with slower systems.

 

Currently running:

955BE c2 ~ 3.6Ghz.

8gb of DDR3-1333 in dual channel.

Asus M4A785TD-EVO motherboard.

MSI Radeon r9 270 GAMING 2gb.

 

I play at 1680x1050

 

ingame settings

 

texture details: high

texture filtering: high

 

objects: Low (This setting seems to be the only one that effects my framerates in towns)

terrain: High

clouds: High

shadows: High

 

aa: Low

alpha to coverage: All

edge smoothing: SMAA low

hdr quality: low

ambient occlusion: disabled

postprocessing quality: Low

bloom: Slider all the way down.

rotation blur: Slider all the way down.

 

20-30fps in towns, 50-60 (or higher) in the wilds.

 

I know my CPU is somewhat dated, but I'm never even close to 100% useage on any core. Frustrating game.

Edited March 15, 2014 by TheScruffyBandit

[EvilTigerAce 131]

Same here, running on relatively low settings with i5 (3.4 GHz), Radeon 7970 (!) and 16 GB (!) RAM.............

[terminal_boy 860]

My PC runs DayZ SA from 50-70 FPS in forests. I'll get around 30-40 in cities.

That'll down to the highly overclocked CPU.

[omgwtfbbq (DayZ) 1069]

Coincidentally, my framerate peaked during Crysis 3's final boss

 

 

 

(first picture is imgur, second is photobucket. Imgur is currently better quality so I'm going to use that from now on)

Edited March 15, 2014 by omgwtfbbq