What is it that makes the fps so bad? Engine? DX9?

[hotcakes 348]

1920x1080 & I've already overclocked it to 4ghz but toned it back due to overheating, the fans are a bit old and don't take enough care of them given previous houses - roomates had cats and the fur built up, they still run great but it gets way to risky to overclock atm (55-60cc dayz now, 70 on some high end games 79 is the cut off point.) So add in 1 more fan on the top, 2 more on the front, and two more on the bottom, replace the one on the top that's already there, and replace the one on the back, as well as replace the one on the side.. and should be more than able to handle it. (or get water cooling ;3)

 

You shouldn't care as long as your parts work within thermal specs. The refrigerator computer kids on the internet are funny. 

 

What's your voltage? Looks like you're throwing stupid amounts of volts like I was saying.

Edited August 14, 2014 by hotcakes

[Halven (DayZ) 11]

I dont care if its 25, 40 or 60 as long as it runs smooth, and it does.

At 25 or 40 fps it doesn't run smooth.

Go in to a big city, look around and then compare that to when you look down in to the ground in third person.

[roguetrooper 201]

I would like to be able the grass. Useless eye candy and FPS consumer. It does the opposite of what you suppose of it. It conceils your view while others can see you from already about 100 meters.

[AzrailCross 48]

You shouldn't care as long as your parts work within thermal specs. The refrigerator computer kids on the internet are funny. 

 

What's your voltage? Looks like you're throwing stupid amounts of volts like I was saying.

 

 

I haven't tried to overclock my CPU from 3.2 to 4.0 for about six-eight months, and without doing it again I couldn't tell you what the volt's were to do it, not even entirely sure how much I'm throwing at it by default but nothing special as at the moment nothing's overclocked, just running on standard factory settings for my prior post.

 

As for the mention of running it ice cold; nah I'm not that into 'must run freezing cold!' in regards to my computer, but as it stands to overclock it would literally be death to this system, it runs as is between 55-56C with pretty much nothing but background processes and google crome running; but on more intense games (lately found this to be shadow warrior didn't play nice on higher settings, ended up getting my CPU to 70-75C (160ish degrees) and the cut off 'protection' is 79C  that's cutting it a bit to close. Particularly when you start to get a whiff of burnt plastic and feel the back of your tower like your touching the outside of a oven.

 

Overclocking for this machine will have to wait until I get some better cooling, and when I do, new graphics card and more ram to go with it. But the whole purpose for posting my specs is despite this system being 3 years old and not overclocked; it actually handles DayZ fine; that's not to say those with higher end systems shouldn't complain - obviously something is going on there, but tuning back the settings to very low across the board except for textures, objects, and AA to normal (particularly shadows in cities, that's the biggest killer to my system; 90% of the time run very low, but disable shadows altogether in cities and suddenly I'm going at what feels like 30fps but haven't directly pulled up a counter to test that.. still, big.. big difference from sloggish can't aim for sh@% in cities to .. smooth.)

[Rauchsauger 94]

As the title says, what exactly is it that makes DayZ run so bad?

Or atleast in citys and other areas with much buildings.

Is it the current engine or that it only runs on DX9, or both?

I've heard that DayZ atm only can use one of the processors cores, is there any truth to this?

I know it's an alpha and it's far from done and optimized, but have Boheima mentioned anything about this?

 

 

Your hardware.

It is alpha.

 

Though I have no problems at all - I even set preferredObjectViewDistance and viewDistance to twice what was doable through ingame config

(though i suspect that there is a cap)

[Lefty Nicky 0]

I5-4440@3.10GHz

6GB-DDR3

GF750TI

Win 8.1

 

No problems at all. It seems that the more powerful your rig is, the less DayZ makes out of it.

 

However, I do not track my FPS at all, I'm fine if the game runs fluently and i dont have lags at all, which is the case for me. I do not notice any difference when coming down the coast running into Elektro or moving straight over a hill down inside Novo. But again, i dont monitor my FPS, I dont care if its 25, 40 or 60 as long as it runs smooth, and it does.

 

I run DayZ on medium to high settings.

 

When you start to die always in a  shooting confrontation due your low fps, you will care... basically, with low fps  you can't see moving targets where they reallly are and all your shots go whereever else except the target. In other words, your client is too slow to represent an accurate snapshot of what is really going on in real time and this has nothing to does with smoothness....

Edited August 14, 2014 by Lefty Nicky

[Mookzen 67]

My fear is that the game is impossible to optimize to a respectable level due to the underlying old-as-grandma's-tits shitty architecture that was never intended for it's current use, they've struggled for years and years more on the mod, best to curb your expectations because, clearly, it's not gonna get much better than this. On the other hand, the hardware of the players will get better over the long development period ahead, therefore it would -seem- like the game is running better regardless of what the devs do, but considering all the ambitious stuff they want to add, probably not.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Mookzen

[TomatoSupra 207]

 

You shouldn't. But then again, I don't have these problems. I built my machine about 2 years ago, and I don't lag in cities at all. Not at all. I've got good CPU and good memory, but this is a lower end card by today's standards, only cost me $90 for the card. No lag in cities for me, at all really. And I dual screen and keep task manager and Chrome open with Facebook up, DayZ forums, or anything else that suits my ALT+TAB fantsy.

• Intel Core i5-3570K Ivy Bridge Quad-Core 3.4GHz (3.8GHz Turbo)
• G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB (4 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800)
• GIGABYTE GV-N65TOC-2GI GeForce GTX 650 Ti 2GB 128-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16

 

 

Lawl @ we have the same graphics card.

 

If you combined that graphics card with an AMD processor with built in graphics, you would be even better off ;)

[hahaudied 0]

Just dayz being dayz. I get anywhere between 20-60 fps with most settings maxed@1080.

 

i7@4.3ghz

16gb ddr3

gtx 770

win 7

[Death By Crowbar 1213]

Lawl @ we have the same graphics card.

Well now this is interesting - since we're identical in at least that aspect do you notice the tremendous lag so many complain about or is your experience more along the lines of what I'm claiming - that I don't notice any lag in cities?

[TomatoSupra 207]

Well now this is interesting - since we're identical in at least that aspect do you notice the tremendous lag so many complain about or is your experience more along the lines of what I'm claiming - that I don't notice any lag in cities?

 

I have my GPU paired with an AMD card with built in graphics. I have a little lag sometimes and by that i mean my FPS will drop from ~70 to about ~30 when im in a huge city.

 

So yes, i do notice Some lag, but it doesnt make the game unplayable.

[Halven (DayZ) 11]

Your hardware.

It is alpha.

 

Though I have no problems at all - I even set preferredObjectViewDistance and viewDistance to twice what was doable through ingame config

(though i suspect that there is a cap)

It does not have anything to do with the hardware, read the previous posts.

[instynct 99]

"Facts"

 

This is an alpha game

 

it runs like dog shit

 

Why the hell would you upgrade your computer based off your experiences in an alpha game

 

KBAI

It doesn't run like dog shit just because it's in alpha. It runs like this because it's using an outdated engine just like every game by bohemia. and they don't care as long as they keep making money.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Andromeda

[mercules 1290]

Lawl @ we have the same graphics card.

 

If you combined that graphics card with an AMD processor with built in graphics, you would be even better off ;)

 

Not true, most AMD processors are worse than the equivalent Intel. I run an AMD GPU and Intel CPU and it runs the game well but a large number of people complaining about snapshots for framerates turn out to have AMD processors many of those the infamous "octo-cores. 

[flimsypremise 94]

It doesn't run like dog shit just because it's in alpha. It runs like this because it's using an outdated engine just like every game by bohemia. and they don't care as long as they keep making money.

 

OK Mr. Game Engine Expert, can you explain to us exactly what isn't optimized in the Arma III engine, what such optimization would entail, or really anything that might in any way let us verify your claims?

[EvilTigerAce 131]

I only have 16 GB of Kingston HyperX Beast RAM :3

[deepfried 95]

Its plain as day that the performance problems are hard baked into the engine, they have existed though all of the Arma games, the fact that its in alpha does not mean the the performance will be magically fixed once the game goes gold.  Its also well known that the performance bottleneck is very much CPU rather than any other component. I doubt very much that this will change significantly at any point in the game's development, so we just have to suck it up and get used to it.

[Super_Duty 466]

You can throw as much money at hardware all you like and performance is unlikely to change much at this stage.  I'm an eye candy freak, in all the games I play, and there are game engines out there that are just cpu cycle whores.  This engine one falls into that category.  I, like others are running a 3570K at 4.4 +/- liquid cooled.  I have dual R290x's that are basically at idle most of the time (i know, crossfire is a problem with this engine) and 16gb ram, because it was on sale.  I also have a later generation SSD.  Shadows are a big culprit, but also a necessary piece of information for this particular game.  Although the upper limit on shadow settings are really distracting. 18 FPS, in Cherno (Fraps) is tough to manage with Zed's/Infected trying to take your head off.

[instynct 99]

OK Mr. Game Engine Expert, can you explain to us exactly what isn't optimized in the Arma III engine, what such optimization would entail, or really anything that might in any way let us verify your claims?

Play multiplayer on an expensive pc and see how you get shitty fps no matter what you do or what server you play on or what settings you play on.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Andromeda

[Rauchsauger 94]

It does not have anything to do with the hardware, read the previous posts.

 

If it runs just fine on my hardware even with very high settings - it is (at least in part) a hardware issue

[Halven (DayZ) 11]

If it runs just fine on my hardware even with very high settings - it is (at least in part) a hardware issue

What is your hardware?

With my hardware i can play pretty much every game out there (Crysis, Far Cry, WoW etc) with high settings in 1080p and rarely drop below 60 fps.

And as i mentioned earlier, a mate of mine runs 2xGTX780 in SLI, has 16gb of ram and a i7 4790k and also has shitty fps in citys, and that's a rig that maxes out pretty much any complete game on the current market in 1440p.

So no, in DayZ the hardware is not the problem, unless it runs better on older hardware.

[zanbato 48]

i run a FX8350 @ 4.5Ghz, 8gb Ram and 2xGTX780 in SLI, FPS in large towns is about 25 FPS and outside of towns 60+ FPS with most settings on high or better, i get the odd FPS drop now and again but i've played worse.

[LeeVanSpliff 156]

I think the OP has a very relevant question, and I think this thread quickly de-railed into discussions on hardware specs.

The game definitely doesn't perform as well as it used to. In 0.46 I amused myself by mocking friends who play on potatoes. In 0.47 I started getting some fps drops in towns.

In 0.48, I seem to have pretty much the same fps in towns (maybe slightly higher). On top of that, I sometimes have a lag spike of approximately one second. It appears to happen when getting within rendering distance of a town (which is not surprising, but didn't use to happen on my system in previous versions).

There must be some changes made that makes my FPS drop. Possibly some early version of whatever that still needs to be optimized. There were rumors of unoptimized buildings, but I can't remember having seen it confirmed anywhere.

Furthermore, the latest patch notes say

Note: Change log pending contributions from engine/programming team.

The missing notes could be very relevant for our understanding of our performance. The whole debate on hardware is sort of pointless till we know what the engine folks have to say.

Just my 0.02

[byrgesen 1341]

Play multiplayer on an expensive pc and see how you get shitty fps no matter what you do or what server you play on or what settings you play on.

 

Well thats not true at all....

The "problem" in Arma III, is that the server setup and mission layout rules the FPS. So if its a bad server setup and a cluttered mission, all will suffer from it.

But its perfectly possible to do a 40 man mission in Arma III, with 100's of AI, with no lag or FPS drops.

Ive played missions like that every sunday since the game was in Alpha (ive even created some of them my self), with a milsim community and it works just fine, if the mission is created without clutter and scripts draining resources.

 

@OP

One of the major FPS drawbacks in the game atm, is the renderer.

Basicly the game renders EVERYTHING within your view screen, that includes trees, grass, rocks, bildings, ALL things inside buildings (which you cannot see) and all loot. This is extremly demanding and this is why most people get FPS drops when looking at towns/cities.

They are well aware of this problem and that is why they want to disconnect the renderer from the simulation, so they can upgrade it and have a much easier way of controlling what will be rendered on the screen.

 

As soon as they can control the rendering of stuff inside buildings, loot and what ever else is actually hidden in your view screen, we will see a increase in FPS.

There really is no reason to render the fireaxe inside the building, which is 1km away from the player, at all times, but that is how it works right now.

And the fact that we now have 64-bit server architecture, also means more stuff can be moved from the client onto the server, so the clients wont have to handle much else, but the rendering process. Should also help.

 

This is gonna take a tremendeous amount of time, but in the end we will feel the difference and hopefully we will have full DirectX 11 support aswell, which will help the FPS aswell :)

[umberfive 89]

In my opinion it is just the unoptimized engine. Not because it is old. There are engines out there far older that perform better and look good too. The game is almost playable on my machine, given the fact that I use an infamous AMD octa-core. The main problem seems to be that the engine doesn't seem to be optimized for multi-threading. Neither CPU nor GPU are effectively used. Maybe that's a drawback of using DirectX 9, although most of us use at least Windows 7. On the other hand, I play also Arma 3. With nearly the same settings and using DirectX 11, it performs nearly as bad as DayZ. In the wilderness I get around 35 - 50 FPS, in cities it drops to 25 - 40, depending where I am in the city. I can live with at least 30 FPS, if they were constant. What's more disturbing, since 0.47 I have sudden FPS drops to nearly 0 for at least a second. Something went wrong in the last two patches.