DayZ Dev hints at possible DX 12 Engine, are you all willing to wait? I know I am

[john5220 15]

Hello

 

I have been thinking

 

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/220397-new-renderer/

 

The Dev has hinted DX 12 is not out of the question. In regards to the very serious issue of DayZ's performance. My self included I have a HD 7850 xfx, 8GB RAM and a AMD Athlon 760K @ 4 GHZ CPU but I average 12 FPS on low settings. And this is with all drivers updated and everything, all other games like Battlefield 3 runs just fine on High.

 

People from this community have suggested the issue lies with Bohemia as they do not have an Engine that uses more than 1 CPU core.

 

This looks like very bad news for AMD owners. In light of this DX 12 aims to solve this problem, if you look at Mantle drivers in Battlefield 4 it has shown significant improvements on AMD CPUs. DX 12 is aimed to be like mantle in a way.

 

So if it means DX 12, no more CPU issues, an Engine that utilizes 4 CPU cores, no more performance issues. Will you be willing to wait a while longer for a proper release of DayZ? I know I am. I support the idea fully to scrap any plans they have and start all over and bring us a proper DX 12 Engine if it means the betterment for the community.

 

I rather wait a lot longer and have a properly finished DayZ product than be impatient and have something that falls short and feel disappointed. I feel the devs need more time and they need to reconsider a different Engine than the Enfusion. If it means a greater good for all of the community then I am willing to give them all the time they need. I don't want to have a final product and still have so many issues on my AMD system.

 

While I agree AMD isn't as good as Intel, the bottom line is games like Battlefield 3 and 4 takes proper use of the multiple cores unlike DayZ and Arma 3 that only runs on 1 core hence requiring intel.

For example in battlefield 3 my new AMD system with the quad core Athlon 760k richland is faster than my previous intel haswell pentium G dual core. The AMD is ultra smooth on the biggest servers and maps. Sadly its half the performance of the intel CPU when it comes to DayZ. thats because DayZ does not utilize 4 cores.

 

I absolutely love the yellowish lighting effects in Arma 3. I did not know about Arma 3 until after I bought DayZ and if I had known about Arma 3 I never would have bought DayZ.

Arma 3 looks stunning the lighting effects is mind blowing compared to DayZ. performance is also 100% improvement on my AMD system over DayZ. I would love a finished DayZ thats a lot more like Arma 3. If I had to do it all over again I would take Arma 3 in a heartbeat, even the lack of grass makes it more appealing to me than DayZ. I prefer the Arma 3 maps so much more, really sad I didn't do my research in it.

 

My  hope still remains DayZ will have mods like Arma 3 and I could justify my purchase sometime in the future and won't have to regret not buying DayZ over Arma 3. And it will have the beautiful yellowish and purpleish lighting effect like Arma 3. Arma 3 is so flawless if only I  knew about it before.

Edited February 12, 2015 by John5220

[Rags! 1966]

I think one of the Devs mentioned in a report or some such that optimizations would lead to a 30-40% increase in frames. 

 

And to be honest, that's really not what I was hoping for. 

[john5220 15]

30% increase in frames is horrible. Its still very much unplayable, that means people with AMD systems even at 4 GHZ will get no more than 23 FPS.

 

Very very unplayable I hope that report is incorrect because I do not think its legal to ship a completely broken product and I don't see them advertising minimum requirements as a intel CPU

There has to be support for AMD.

[john5220 15]

http://steamcommunity.com/games/221100/announcements/detail/136567799676176785

 

according to that link it seems like I might get my wish, DayZ new render will look like Arma 3 with its beautiful colorful yellowish and purpleish lighting effect

 

Assuming those pics are from the new Render?

[Ben_uk 24]

Not all engines require a vast amount of conversion from one DX version to another. One developer stated that it only took about 50 hours to convert their DX9 engine to a DX11 engine... :/

[AmazingAussie 38]

I think one of the Devs mentioned in a report or some such that optimizations would lead to a 30-40% increase in frames. 

 

And to be honest, that's really not what I was hoping for. 

 

That's their first implementation, no doubt it will be be improved over time.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Quackdot

[ToySmokes 116]

http://steamcommunity.com/games/221100/announcements/detail/136567799676176785

Assuming those pics are from the new Render?

No those are from the current renderer. My game (set to highest) looks pretty like that. The animals on the other hand is probably for the new renderer, but we see them in the developing software

[ToySmokes 116]

The thing is that it doesn't mater if they do a new engine with "only" Direct 11 support for now. The first implementation will not have all 11 features in for example. This is why we only get 20-30% increas of fps. I don't think that changing an engine from direct 11 to 12 would take as long time as developing a whole new engine, which they pretty much are doing now. So they don't have to scrap the idea of the engine they are building now, but instead build it and then maybe later upgrade it.

(I say this without knowledge about programming and so on so if I'm wrong, please correct me)

Edit: 30-40%*

Edited February 13, 2015 by MrCactusMan

[AmazingAussie 38]

The thing is that it doesn't mater if they do a new engine with "only" Direct 11 support for now. The first implementation will not have all 11 features in for example. This is why we only get 20-30% increas of fps. I don't think that changing an engine from direct 11 to 12 would take as long time as developing a whole new engine, which they pretty much are doing now. So they don't have to scrap the idea of the engine they are building now, but instead build it and then maybe later upgrade it.

(I say this without knowledge about programming and so on so if I'm wrong, pleas correct me)

 

Eugen said 30-40% increase, not 20-30%

[ToySmokes 116]

Eugen said 30-40% increase, not 20-30%

Okay sorry, my mistake :)

[nillie 30]

Well as an AMD gfx card user with an octo core AMD CPU that has tried every possible optimization out there, my overall performance is just as crappy on ultra low as it is with everything turned on max on a default CFG. I get like 15-25 fps in Cherno, with occasional drops of 2 to 3 seconds. And even with everything on max, it still looks rather crappy (the lighting etc just looks bland).  At dusk and dawn, the game actually looks good. But during the day, it looks flat and unrealistic even.

 

I dont let this ruin my fun, but i hope i dont have to wait another year before they start addressing some of these issues.

 

PS. i can run games like Battlefield 4 and Arma 3 on ultra without any problems and smooth frames

Edited February 13, 2015 by nillie

[kichilron 8550]

There is a lot of misconceptions and lies going on in this thread. It is simply not true whatsoever that the engine only utilises one core.

 

It greatly benefits from having a faster clockspeed, but this doesn't mean that AMD is completely out the Window. I run an 8 Core AMD CPU and AMD GPU's and yet I somehow magically get 40-70 FPS, even though I am supersampling the game on a 4K resolution on my 1080p screen?

 

That just seems off to what's going on in this thread.

 

I will admit that the game is not optimised whatsoever, but I don't expect it to be and deal with these kind of issues gladly, as I know it will be better down the line. I have mentioned this in another thread as well - ARMA 3 ran even worse than DayZ when the Alpha for it was launched. And now look at it, it runs like a charm. BI will get the performance sorted out when the groundwork is done. It has been proven in the past with A3.

 

 

But one thing you will have to keep in mind is that even major companies will not adapt to DirectX12 for quite some time to come (as it requires a lot of work) - but yet you expect an Indie-Developer like BI to be on it right now?

[Jex 1104]

Eugen said 30-40% increase, not 20-30%

 

 

Okay sorry, my mistake :)

 

 

But he actually meant 31-43% but he didn't want to be pedantic.

[chompster 171]

I run an 8 Core AMD CPU and AMD GPU's and yet I somehow magically get 40-70 FPS, even though I am supersampling the game on a 4K resolution on my 1080p screen?

In all cities, at all time with everything maxed out?(generally curious here) My i7, GTX680 2GB and 12GB while ageing can still take on most games today. But entering Elektro brings it down all the way to 12fps.

 

 

BI will get the performance sorted out when the groundwork is done. It has been proven in the past with A3.

It actually hasn't. If anything, they're known for their poorly performing games.

 

Even now, unless you have headless client running on your server(and even then it wont take much), performance plummets once you enter a city with a hand full of Ai squads in MP. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_4eI_2MPls#t=278

Even the mighty LPC seems to have some issues in cities.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Chompster

[kichilron 8550]

In all cities, at all time with everything maxed out?

 

See, that's where you're going off the tracks. The engine is capable of doing that, there's something else that causes the issues.

 

Of course not when I'm in a town, but noone gets that - but what this tells us is that the engine is capable of being able to handle this kind of graphics easily. When you enter a town your FPS drops and so does your GPU-Usage. This means it's not a problem with the engine nor will DirectX 12 fix this. It will come down to optimise the objects / amounts of objects as well as how the game handles it.

 

 

 

It actually hasn't. If anything, they're known for their poorly performing games.

 

Even now, unless you have headless client running on your server(and even then it wont take much), performance plummets once you enter a city with a hand full of Ai squads in MP. 

 

 

It appears you're wrong again. How does the server calculation have to do with FPS on the client? The only thing you're talking about here is serverside-performance, which will not be affected by neither a new renderer / engine nor DirectX12. It is just what it is. Server-Performance.

[chompster 171]

See, that's where you're going off the tracks. The engine is capable of doing that, there's something else that causes the issues.

 

Of course not when I'm in a town, but noone gets that - but what this tells us is that the engine is capable of being able to handle this kind of graphics easily. When you enter a town your FPS drops and so does your GPU-Usage. This means it's not a problem with the engine nor will DirectX 12 fix this. It will come down to optimise the objects / amounts of objects as well as how the game handles it.

How is poor GPU utilization NOT the fault of the engine?

No way will object optimization alone fix this. BI has always had these issues in their previous games(using some form of this engine) so i don't see how that alone would suddenly fix the games performance.

 

It appears you're wrong again. How does the server calculation have to do with FPS on the client? The only thing you're talking about here is serverside-performance, which will not be affected by neither a new renderer / engine nor DirectX12. It is just what it is. Server-Performance.

The whole headless client thing had nothing to do with DayZ, i was very clear on the topic of ARMA3 there. If you were aware of that, then you seem to think you know a lot more than you actually do. Because in Arma3 Server-side performance has a lot to do with player performance, if it didn't whats the point of headless client even existing? Besides, myself and my arma3 devision leader have done multiple test with and without headless client running on our Arma3 server, and the difference in performance is night and day. With it running we easily got 20-30fps more than when simply spawning in the Ai via Zeus or MCC. But this doesn't really have anything to do with Dayz since, as far as i'm aware, you cant make use of Headless client in DayZ(if you can let me know, awesome) And how server-side performance in DayZ works, i have no clue nor did i ever claim to so no need to delve into that.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Chompster

[Jex 1104]

In all cities, at all time with everything maxed out?(generally curious here) My i7, GTX680 2GB and 12GB while ageing can still take on most games today. But entering Elektro brings it down all the way to 12fps.

 

 

It actually hasn't. If anything, they're known for their poorly performing games.

 

Even now, unless you have headless client running on your server(and even then it wont take much), performance plummets once you enter a city with a hand full of Ai squads in MP. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_4eI_2MPls#t=278

Even the mighty LPC seems to have some issues in cities.

 

That's weird.I have a new i5 but only a gtx570, 8gb ram and an SSD and I've been through electro a few times and run fine. Your card is better, not sure if you have an old or new i7 but still, I would have though you should get at least the same if not better. I wonder what's causing it then?

[foolee 43]

30% increase in frames is horrible. Its still very much unplayable, that means people with AMD systems even at 4 GHZ will get no more than 23 FPS.

 

Very very unplayable I hope that report is incorrect because I do not think its legal to ship a completely broken product and I don't see them advertising minimum requirements as a intel CPU

There has to be support for AMD.

 

I have a 4ghz AMD and I average 28fps with two ancient HD 4670's in crossfire. DX12 has my vote, but even DX10/11 hardware support will make a difference.

[deebz1234 243]

agreed, dayz and arma 3 are using my cpu's multi cores

that coupled with super sampling 200% with the gtx 970, im easily sitting 100+ fps and looks fantastic.

However in congested areas/firefights it still drops from 100 fps to 35-40 fps LOL

 

but the hope here maybe would be the increase in frames in congested areas as well?

hopefully this aspect is affected and not just reliant on the engine?

[Wh1spY 110]

30% increase in frames is horrible. Its still very much unplayable, that means people with AMD systems even at 4 GHZ will get no more than 23 FPS.

Eum.. I get 30-35 fps in cities (Novo, Cherno etc.) with my AMD Phenom 1090T @ 4Ghz, SO a 40% increase in fps would mean that I could get 42-49 fps instead, which will make a HUGE difference in terms of play-ability. Every little frame is important when you are in between 30-60 fps.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Wh1spY

[ToySmokes 116]

But he actually meant 31-43% but he didn't want to be pedantic.

Okay well let's not be that pedantic then so I'm not wrong a second time xP

[john5220 15]

Arma 3 runs pretty good for me and I have the 760K Athlon 4GHZ and HD 7850 GPU with 8GB RAM

 

However DayZ SA runs at 12 FPS for me in cities etc. Even on lowest settings the only way to fix it is edit the cfg and reduce the total lighting down to arma 2 level which is horrid btw.

 

I have tried everything including reinstalling windows 7

 

People keep saying Arma 3 and DayZ uses only 1 core but when I check taskmanager I see all 4 cores light up on my AMD

 

If I play heroes of newerth only 1 core lights up in task manager

Edited February 13, 2015 by John5220

[chompster 171]

That's weird.I have a new i5 but only a gtx570, 8gb ram and an SSD and I've been through electro a few times and run fine. Your card is better, not sure if you have an old or new i7 but still, I would have though you should get at least the same if not better. I wonder what's causing it then?

Well yeah it's definitely due to my old CPU. It's a i7 2600K @ 3.4Ghz. But again, as others always mention in these types of threads, other games still run pretty good if not fine. The issue is and i have a feeling always will be that this engine is simply too CPU intensive and nowhere near utilizes your GPU enough, this has been proven countless times.

 

So if you have a old/weak CPU you're going to suffer greatly in cities especially and even if you have a good one you'll still suffer because too much is being done on the CPU instead of letting the GPU do it(which with a lot of things, they are more than capable of completely taking over from the CPU)

 

But it's very understandable why BI hasn't done it. It would be an insane amount of work to really get to the root of the problem or to just get this engine to properly multithread and allocate things to the GPU. Dayz team is already doing an incredible amount of engine work so adding even more onto that just isn;t realistic. But it's a real shame nonetheless and it should have been taken care of right after Arma2 imo for A3. They keep improving and adding to the engine of course, but there is only so much you can do. Especially when the foundation isn't that amazing to begin with.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Chompster

[john5220 15]

It should never be the case that if you have an older CPU you will suffer in cities.

 

DayZ does not really have anything ground breaking for it to perform this badly. Compare to battlefield 3 on 64 player maps, sure not same size as DayZ but BF3 on High graphics runs flawless on my system and looks atleast 1000000000 X10^24 times better than DayZ

Edited February 13, 2015 by John5220

[BleedoutBill 1636]

Since this engine is being developed for DayZ as well as future titles, I think that it is safe to assume that it will eventually support DX12 and DX11 will only be an interim step.

 

The big question is, can the devs get satisfactory performance out of the engine via optimization, prior to adopting DX12. I do not think that we currently have sufficient information to make this determination.

 

As a matter of fact, there are many unanswered questions:

DX12 is only available in W10, which will not be released until the end of the year +/-.

How much horsepower will it take to run W10?

Will enough people have already upgraded to W10, by the time that DayZ is ready to launch ver 1.0?

How much work will it take for the devs to support DX12?

Can a small studio like BI afford to hold DayZ back from release, even though the DX11 version runs satisfactorily?

Can a DX12 patch be released as an update, after the game is launched?

 

At this point there are many more unknowns, than knowns.