What do you consider "optimized" performance?

[Grimey Rick 3417]

I've been hearing a lot of talk of future optimization that's potentially coming to DayZ:SA. I certainly hope we see that, as it's common knowledge that ARMA in general suffers from excruciating misuse of CPU and GPU resources.

 

For myself, I've always tried to keep on top of my hardware to provide close to, if not the best experience possible. I can't stand sitting down to play a game and having to tinker with the settings for an hour before delving into its content. I want to be wowed when I play a game, even if graphics aren't the game's selling feature. Thus, it's unfortunate for me that I've become a die-hard ARMA and DayZ fan.

 

DayZ:SA has the potential to be really stunning: it's got great landscapes, the sun rays are starting to look beautiful, and the character models are coming along nicely. There is no doubt in my mind that when this game launches, it'll look really good; I just hope it doesn't only look good in still screenshots.

 

I don't have the best computer on the block, but it handles itself quite well. I'm running the latest games like BF4 on Ultra and never dropping below 150 FPS. Tomb Raider is eye candy à la max. Don't even get me started on Titanfall... whenever I play it I revel in its buttery-smooth goodness as it drops some of the sexiest visuals I've seen so far. When I launch Titanfall it makes me want to immediately go romance the wife. ;3 But then I launch ARMA 2, ARMA 3, DayZ:Mod or DayZ:SA and my computer feels like a mighty tiger, the alpha of natural feline predators... trying to thread a needle.

 

For me and many others out there, we need that eye candy delivered at a respectable frame rate to be able to fully appreciate a game. Games have evolved so much in the last twenty years that delivering an amazing game without amazing performance and visuals just doesn't cut it anymore. Graphics wise, even the simplest of titles (think Frozen Synapse) deliver satisfying visuals. It's necessary. I just hope Bohemia Interactive has hired NASA-trained, genetically modified programming ninjas in order to pull it off.

 

So I pose to you two questions, fellow gamers:

1. Does the Real Virtuality engine have what it takes to satiate our hunger? Will we ever get amazing performance on an engine that only really uses a single thread of our processor and not even 50% (in most cases) of our graphics cards?
2. Are you satisfied with 40 FPS? Can you get by with 20? Or do you require 60+ FPS at all times?

I'm very interested to hear from you all on this!

 

 

[Etherious 907]

30-40 FPS is good for me. I don't need constant 200 FPS like those other kiddies pretending that they can see a difference between 100 and 130 FPS. xD

[DarkwaveDomina 1099]

I struggle to answer in terms of FPS, but I want some consistency. Even if I have to play at 30 FPS I am sick of it being so messy.

• I want the culling of proxy objects, which was mentioned a month ago now, to be fixed
• I want to stop seeing 40% GPU utilisation in towns and 80-90% elsewhere
• I want to stop seeing 18-28 FPS in towns and 70 FPS elsewhere
• I want to be able to look around in a circle and not have my FPS cut in half because I look east instead of west
• I want to stop having to change my settings depending on what part of the map I am currently in
• I want to see better performance on my machine than some of the crappy computers my friends are using
• I want to see the settings actually matter, as it stands now most of them do nothing in certain situations

I consider this issue worthy of being the top of the list in terms of priority. Nothing ruins my immersion more right now.

 

To answer the poll with purely personal preference, on moderate settings my machine should realistically net me 60+ FPS.

If we were talking about maximum settings then, naturally, my expectations would be much lower and I would settle for 30-40.

Edited April 18, 2014 by DarkwaveDomina

[plexico 386]

kiddies pretending that they can see a difference between 100 and 130 FPS. xD

If you have a monitor that supports 130 FPS or more than you very well can see the difference. 30 fps is a big difference, whether its 30 to 60 fps or 260 to 290 fps our eyes can detect it after trying both.

 

 

The standard for whats considered "Good optimization" is 60 fps at all times with more depending on hardware but I would be happy with 40 fps everywhere. Below that is manageable but not very good, and below 30 fps I get irritated and it takes away from my game play a whole lot.

I find it a lot easier to get engrossed in a game when you're getting good frames.

[tore1005 0]

hello I apologize for my bad english ,

I have this pc :

 

CPU:-------------- AMD Phenom II x4 965 3,40 ghz (OC 4,00 ghz) 
RAM:--------------Kingston DDR3 4GB 1333mhz 
Graphics:------- ATI Gigabyte Radeon HD 7870 2gb
Hard disk :------Sony SATA3 1000gb 
Motherboard:----- Asrock 880GMH/u3s3

 

a pretty decent pc.... I play all games full graphics and stable FPS ... very good fps...

in dayz SA and mod ... in city 22-30 fps ... much lag.....sometimes down to 12 fps , in forest 50-80 fps

1920x1080 resolution and very low graphics , All low ...

I understand it's an alpha ... but other games in alpha more graphics best FPS...

24€ we should have a decent gameplay ...each upgrade disappoint me more , 2 months for 2 stupid weapons

and more bug...introduce a miserable bike at least...

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

Well, if we were in "beta" I would expect 50-60 fps on my system.  As we are not I am very satisfied with the performance I get on my system.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Caboose187

[DarkwaveDomina 1099]

Well, if we were in "beta" I would expect 50-60 fps on my system.  As we are not I am very satisfied with the performance I get on my system.

It's okay Caboose, you're allowed to be dissatisfied with something and still accept that it is part of alpha.

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

It's okay Caboose, you're allowed to be dissatisfied with something and still accept that it is part of alpha.

But I'm not dissatisfied.  I answered the question.  To be more precise I understand that the game is not optimized and I am quite content with my performance.  I trust that this issue will be dealt with at some point in time.

[DarkwaveDomina 1099]

Okay Caboose. :P

[Zedertone 378]

But I'm not dissatisfied.  I answered the question.  To be more precise I understand that the game is not optimized and I am quite content with my performance.  I trust that this issue will be dealt with at some point in time.

Kuhbewse. 

KABOOSE.

CUHBOOS

KUBUSE

[Mullraugh 1151]

Anything that helps make the game not look like a crappy lego stopmotion by a 5 year old, I'll be happy with.

 

(like this one)

[hannibaldaplaya 1095]

Anything that helps make the game not look like a crappy lego stopmotion by a 5 year old, I'll be happy with.

 

(like this one)

 

Still not as low as the framerate I get in cities.  :P

[NOLA (DayZ) 17]

30-40 FPS is good for me. I don't need constant 200 FPS like those other kiddies pretending that they can see a difference between 100 and 130 FPS. xD

 

I play on a 144hz monitor. Trust me, 60fps vs 100 vs 144 all show an extreme difference.

 

 

 

As for correct optimization, I just want to see the game use at least 75% of both my CPU and GPU. Right now it only uses 30%~ of my i5-4670k, with a grand total of 40%~ of my 780ti. I get about 94fps average, most settings on high at a 133% resolution. (no aa/pp/fxaa/bloom/motion blur)

 

FPS drops to about 40 in towns. Ridiculous.

 

And the game can use up to 7 threads. No hyperthreading support as far as I know though.

[weedmasta 784]

I'd be happy as long as it doesn't drop below 30-40.

[Mos1ey 6301]

This topic is incredibly flawed. It depends entirely on your system...

 

I mean you can't say Crysis 3 doesn't run with 60 FPS on an iPhone therefore it is poorly optimised and due to the massive open world nature of DayZ it's never going to run with 60 FPS on your "average" system.

[Pwnykins 4]

This topic is incredibly flawed. It depends entirely on your system...

 

I mean you can't say Crysis 3 doesn't run with 60 FPS on an iPhone therefore it is poorly optimised and due to the massive open world nature of DayZ it's never going to run with 60 FPS on your "average" system.

 

Ok so what about MY system?

 

i7-4770K

EVGA GTX780ti SuperClocked 3GB

16GB 1866MHz RAM

Samsung 840 EVO SSD (Game installed here)

Asus Maximus VI Formula Motherboard

 

Tell my why I can't get a steady 60 FPS on this rig?

[vostoceq 0]

My rig

Phenom II X6 1100T @ 4ghz- 20-30% usage while playing DayZ SA per core (unparked cores)
GTX570 1280mb SOC version by gigabyte, slightly OC´ed by me-    15% usage in town, 20-30% usage in countryside and forests. When I stare to ground or sky GPU usage jumps to 99% (I dont really get it)

rest of the rig- 8 gigs corsair ram (some fast pieces, my friend bought them for me to fit into rig), Asus Formula IV Extreme, game is installed on 1tb 7200rpm HDD

 

FPS
Town like elektro and berezino are almost unplayable for me (no matter what settings I set low, medium, high) around 20 fps.
Countryside and forests are ok (40+ fps, but again no FPS boost when I set the game on low, high etc. only FPS loss when I turn on AA)

If I have 30+ fps in cities and 50+ at forests and country... I will be one happy mother fucker

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

 

 

Ok so what about MY system?

 

i7-4770K

EVGA GTX780ti SuperClocked 3GB

16GB 1866MHz RAM

Samsung 840 EVO SSD (Game installed here)

Asus Maximus VI Formula Motherboard

 

Tell my why I can't get a steady 60 FPS on this rig?

 

Because the game isn't optimized due to it being in ahhh screw it.   It's just not optimized

[Etherious 907]

I play on a 144hz monitor. Trust me, 60fps vs 100 vs 144 all show an extreme difference.

 

 

 

As for correct optimization, I just want to see the game use at least 75% of both my CPU and GPU. Right now it only uses 30%~ of my i5-4670k, with a grand total of 40%~ of my 780ti. I get about 94fps average, most settings on high at a 133% resolution. (no aa/pp/fxaa/bloom/motion blur)

 

FPS drops to about 40 in towns. Ridiculous.

 

And the game can use up to 7 threads. No hyperthreading support as far as I know though.

It does have Hyper-threading support albeit very horrid support. And at least you get 40 FPS in cities, on max I get 15 FPS.

[Mos1ey 6301]

 

 

Ok so what about MY system?

 

i7-4770K

EVGA GTX780ti SuperClocked 3GB

16GB 1866MHz RAM

Samsung 840 EVO SSD (Game installed here)

Asus Maximus VI Formula Motherboard

 

Tell my why I can't get a steady 60 FPS on this rig?

 

 

Because the game is not well optimised. I'm not trying to claim that it is.

 

The main problem for you is your i7 CPU. Currently DayZ does pretty much hammers one core to 100% and the others will hover at about 10% load. Try disabling hyperthreading, that should help.

[crazzekiff 93]

This topic is incredibly flawed. It depends entirely on your system...

 

I mean you can't say Crysis 3 doesn't run with 60 FPS on an iPhone therefore it is poorly optimised and due to the massive open world nature of DayZ it's never going to run with 60 FPS on your "average" system.

Yeah, somehow. But is has to run decently on the recommended specs PC's.

Imho, I want the game [when it's finished, but hopefully soon :D ] to run with 20-30 fps on the "minimum specs" PC's and with at least 40fps on the "recommended specs" PC's. 

And they have to do lots of optimization, if you look at Arma III, I can play that with 50-60fps on mostly high graphics while I can play DayZ only with 20-25fps, also on high graphics, and it looks way shittier than Arma does...

[TheScruffyBandit 382]

This topic is incredibly flawed. It depends entirely on your system...

 

I mean you can't say Crysis 3 doesn't run with 60 FPS on an iPhone therefore it is poorly optimised and due to the massive open world nature of DayZ it's never going to run with 60 FPS on your "average" system.

 

Why exactly is the size of the map detrimental to framerates to such an extreme? The game shouldn't be actively rendering the entire game world, only what's within visual distance should be directly effecting performance; at most it should be caching data for stuff outside visual distance in RAM, which shouldn't have anywhere near the effect on performance we're currently seeing.

 

Considering even moderate computers like my own see similar performance in built up areas to much more powerful PCs, I'm inclined to think that the majority of the FPS issues we're seeing have little to do with anything clientside and have more to do with the unusual server driven architecture of Standalone, hopefully as multithreading and 64bit support come in for DayZ servers, we'll see noticable improvements, couple that with fixing the issues like occlusion culling and hopefully framerates will reach less painful levels.

 

All that said, blaming the size of the map is just an easy, ready made excuse and isn't exactly a convincing one.

Edited April 18, 2014 by TheScruffyBandit

[terminal_boy 860]

Why exactly is the size of the map detrimental to framerates to such an extreme? The game shouldn't be actively rendering the entire game world, only what's within visual distance should be directly effecting performance; at most it should be caching data for stuff outside visual distance in RAM, which shouldn't have anywhere near the effect on performance we're currently seeing.

 

Considering even moderate computers like my own see similar performance in built up areas to much more powerful PCs, I'm inclined to think that the majority of the FPS issues we're seeing have little to do with anything clientside and have more to do with the unusual server driven architecture of Standalone.

DING DING! We have a winner!

[St. Jimmy 1631]

Why exactly is the size of the map detrimental to framerates to such an extreme? The game shouldn't be actively rendering the entire game world, only what's within visual distance should be directly effecting performance; at most it should be caching data for stuff outside visual distance in RAM, which shouldn't have anywhere near the effect on performance we're currently seeing.

 

Considering even moderate computers like my own see similar performance in built up areas to much more powerful PCs, I'm inclined to think that the majority of the FPS issues we're seeing have little to do with anything clientside and have more to do with the unusual server driven architecture of Standalone, hopefully as multithreading and 64bit support come in for DayZ servers, we'll see noticable improvements, couple that with fixing the issues like occlusion culling and hopefully framerates will reach less painful levels.

 

All that said, blaming the size of the map is just an easy, ready made excuse and isn't exactly a convincing one.

Yep the performance problems are about how the engine simulates and draw (not probably the right term but whatever) terrain under the same core. The simulation can't happen faster than the server allows so in the city your fps is lower because CPU can't be fully utilized on buildings. Cities are pretty CPU heavy so that's why the effect is so bad even with high end CPUs. Forest isn't that heavy for CPU so that's why people get better fps there. Forest is mostly limited by the GPU.

 

The map could be 20km² but the low city fps would still be the same.

 

Nad about the poll. 60fps with the moderate settings is what I call well optimized. Under that it's playable.

Edited April 18, 2014 by St. Jimmy

[bastardo 12]

The game is fully optimized when it is able to fully utilize my cpu and gpu. Right now I got an i5-750(5 years old) and a gtx 670 and my FPS hovers around 20-40 in some of the big cities but I only have 50% cpu usage and 17-30% GPU Usage, I would at least one of those numbers to be 80%+ when I'm at low fps. That's optimized to me.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Bigbadasswolf