whats the plan for optimization?

[grimsonfart 49]

I just took a trip to Elektra and got around 30-40FPS. Kind of sad seing people getting better FPS on much weaker rigs. What expectations should we hope for performance gains when the new renderer hits? Can i hope for 50%?

[mercules 1290]

...was hoping for something fresh, not the same old map with some new villages etc.

It's not the same old map, tons has changed and even those older villages have new life in them now. There are a lot of little places added that give new life to the map.

A question to the developers, are you planning on replacing the vegetation assets at any point? They are really showing their age and should be something not "too" hard to do, plus it would improve the games looks a lot.

They have already replaced some of the rock assets and added in some nice new textures for them. I'm willing to bet the new renderer will untie their hands for certain things and we will see slightly different vegetation.

 

 

I have like 6-7 FPS right now, about half a year ago I had 15-20 in the wilds.

You are playing on a crap computer... what do you expect? Multiple people with the same laptop are report poor performance in various games especially games that utilize a lot of the CPU. A quick Google search will highlight this. It's a laptop, with a laptop CPU that is beat out by I5 CPUs designed for laptops. DayZ is in Alpha and therefore not optimized and thus will require a more powerful computer to run it well, just like a bunch of other games I play.

[Zak_Prestor 15]

You are playing on a crap computer... what do you expect? Multiple people with the same laptop are report poor performance in various games especially games that utilize a lot of the CPU. A quick Google search will highlight this. It's a laptop, with a laptop CPU that is beat out by I5 CPUs designed for laptops. DayZ is in Alpha and therefore not optimized and thus will require a more powerful computer to run it well, just like a bunch of other games I play.

 

I know that my CPU is crappy, but still I can run Witcher 3 with "High+" settings and get over 30-40 FPS, ARMA3 runs "OK" with 30+ FPS on medium, GTA 5 runs on "High" with 30+ FPS. Moreover, when DayZ SA launched, I've got my fair 30-40 FPS in wilderness and 15-20 FPS in Electro/Cherno. After a year the FPS count dropped to 10-25 FPS, now it's barely reaches 15 FPS on same settings. 

 

Edit: My FX-8350 @ 4.9GHz (thanx to watercooling) and Radeon 7870 2GB (which is exactly the same as Radon 7970M) runs this game with 15-20 FPS in towns and around 30 FPS in wilderness. But the worst things are sudden FPS drops when you engage someone in firefights or turn your camera a lot. I've edited my config, added start parameters with CPU count and threads, but still no visible result.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Zak_Prestor

[Mos1ey 6301]

So it's better to add new stuff and feature to wonder why they all glitch like hell afterwards?

 

Strangely enough, yes. When you add a new feature it's fairly common that it either 1) won't work properly or 2) will break something else.

 

Obviously when a game is available to the public during development, as is the case with DayZ, you need to keep it somewhat playable, but for the most part fixing every little thing as you go slows development down massively.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Mos1ey

[mercules 1290]

I know that my CPU is crappy, but still I can run Witcher 3 with "High+" settings and get over 30-40 FPS,

Single player game plays better than online multiplayer game? Should I skip the sarcastic reply? (damn it I think that was it)

ARMA3 runs "OK" with 30+ FPS on medium,

Which doesn't have nearly as many interiors or rendered loot inside said building.

GTA 5 runs on "High" with 30+ FPS.

The online version? That would be a fairly good measure although again it isn't rendering a bunch of interiors and items although the AI and vehicles might be a challenge. Then again GTA V had 5 years of development before releasing to consoles and 6 until released for PC while DayZ has had 2 years.

Moreover, when DayZ SA launched, I've got my fair 30-40 FPS in wilderness and 15-20 FPS in Electro/Cherno. After a year the FPS count dropped to 10-25 FPS, now it's barely reaches 15 FPS on same settings.

Yep, it's going down and I think they really don't care because why optimize RIGHT before they put in a new renderer. Yeah, this alpha game isn't performing excellently, but that is to be expected. It's going to take a potent computer to deal with the unoptimized mess till they get around to working it out.

[stinkenheim 249]

I just took a trip to Elektra and got around 30-40FPS. Kind of sad seing people getting better FPS on much weaker rigs. What expectations should we hope for performance gains when the new renderer hits? Can i hope for 50%?

Last thing I remember seeing was 10-15% increase improving as the software around it is altered/optimized.

The first iteration of the new renderer really won't be amazing and will work in parity with the current renderer

[Zak_Prestor 15]

Single player game plays better than online multiplayer game? Should I skip the sarcastic reply? (damn it I think that was it)

Which doesn't have nearly as many interiors or rendered loot inside said building.The online version? That would be a fairly good measure although again it isn't rendering a bunch of interiors and items although the AI and vehicles might be a challenge. Then again GTA V had 5 years of development before releasing to consoles and 6 until released for PC while DayZ has had 2 years.Yep, it's going down and I think they really don't care because why optimize RIGHT before they put in a new renderer. Yeah, this alpha game isn't performing excellently, but that is to be expected. It's going to take a potent computer to deal with the unoptimized mess till they get around to working it out.

 

Yep, most MP games are much more demanding to CPU.

ARMA3: Breaking Point and Epoch say "hi!!!!111" with their solid 30 FPS in towns =)

DayZ-SA has been in development for about 3 years. H1Z1 was in development for 1.5-2 years, 7 Days to Die, Miscreated and ARK are also much younger than DayZ-SA, not to mention Mod. but still all those listed games are in much better technical state, while I still prefer DayZ gameplay over all of them.  

 

 

Strangely enough, yes. When you add a new feature it's fairly common that it either 1) won't work properly or 2) will break something else.

 

Obviously when a game is available to the public during development, as is the case with DayZ, you need to keep it somewhat playable, but for the most part fixing every little thing as you go slows development down massively.

 

I meant that it's more common to fix, debug and to test framework properly before adding features. I'm a bit familiar with Unity Engine: our devs struggle hard (maybe they are crappy devs) with bugfixing all that nasty issues they get with Uninty v4 to Unity v5 upgrade. I really wish I'm wrong, but my guess is that with engine switch/upgrade DayZ will get a huge pile of new bugs.

[grimsonfart 49]

It's not the same old map, tons has changed and even those older villages have new life in them now. There are a lot of little places added that give new life to the map.

They have already replaced some of the rock assets and added in some nice new textures for them. I'm willing to bet the new renderer will untie their hands for certain things and we will see slightly different vegetation.

 

 

You are playing on a crap computer... what do you expect? Multiple people with the same laptop are report poor performance in various games especially games that utilize a lot of the CPU. A quick Google search will highlight this. It's a laptop, with a laptop CPU that is beat out by I5 CPUs designed for laptops. DayZ is in Alpha and therefore not optimized and thus will require a more powerful computer to run it well, just like a bunch of other games I play.

It still looks, feels and plays as the same old map. Just because they added some new villages and buildings doesn't help the fact that i have now played this exact map, gone the the exact same places, looted the exact same buildings probably 1000 times by now (i have played the mod since around may 2012 so i know this map as my own pocket). For me it's a dealbreaker getting a "new" game with only it's core mechanics changed. You must really, really love this game to put up with this in my opinion. 

 

I think it was a big mistake not to start fresh (core mechanics can stay). I have serious doubt i will live to see this game running at it's full potential. As the guy above me stated, it has been in development so long compared to other titles that already seem to have as much content as well as far less issues. There is no doubt that development has been close to a disaster.

Edited July 7, 2015 by grimsonfart

[Mos1ey 6301]

 

I meant that it's more common to fix, debug and to test framework properly before adding features. I'm a bit familiar with Unity Engine: our devs struggle hard (maybe they are crappy devs) with bugfixing all that nasty issues they get with Uninty v4 to Unity v5 upgrade. I really wish I'm wrong, but my guess is that with engine switch/upgrade DayZ will get a huge pile of new bugs.

 

In that case I misunderstood your post.

 

Yes, messing with the engine will more than likely cause a tonne of problems while it's going on. It's for the greater good and will result in a better final product though. I'd recommend sticking to stable if you want the most playable experience.

 

 

Yep, most MP games are much more demanding to CPU.

ARMA3: Breaking Point and Epoch say "hi!!!!111" with their solid 30 FPS in towns =)

DayZ-SA has been in development for about 3 years. H1Z1 was in development for 1.5-2 years, 7 Days to Die, Miscreated and ARK are also much younger than DayZ-SA, not to mention Mod. but still all those listed games are in much better technical state, while I still prefer DayZ gameplay over all of them.  

 

You're comparing mods for a finished game to an early build of an unfinished game. If you think back to Arma 3's alpha, the multiplayer had severe performance issues.

 

ARK is not in a better technical state. It runs just as badly as (if not worse than...) DayZ, as you would expect from an early access title.

[BeaverProductions 441]

 

DayZ-SA has been in development for about 3 years. 

 

Around 1.5 actually for principal development

Edited July 7, 2015 by Beav

[Calvin Candie 189]

DayZ is my first and last game I buy in early access.

I want a finished product, don't care much to participate in development process.

But as I loved DayZ Mod, it was a no brainer.

Leared my lesson there.

No more Early Alpha's for me.

[tsandrey 379]

You're comparing mods for a finished game to an early build of an unfinished game. If you think back to Arma 3's alpha, the multiplayer had severe performance issues.

 

ARK is not in a better technical state. It runs just as badly as (if not worse than...) DayZ, as you would expect from an early access title.

 

Arma 3 was in alpha for only a few months and the performance issues were never as severe as in DayZ. I'm not saying that Arma 3 is optimized (hell no), but atleast it was/is somewhat playable.

Edited July 7, 2015 by TSAndrey

[Zak_Prestor 15]

In that case I misunderstood your post.

 

1. Yes, messing with the engine will more than likely cause a tonne of problems while it's going on. It's for the greater good and will result in a better final product though. I'd recommend sticking to stable if you want the most playable experience.

1. You're comparing mods for a finished game to an early build of an unfinished game. If you think back to Arma 3's alpha, the multiplayer had severe performance issues.
2. ARK is not in a better technical state. It runs just as badly as (if not worse than...) DayZ, as you would expect from an early access title.

 

1. What I wanted to say is that ideally DayZ team should have focused on game engine first, because playing a stable game with few content is still more enjoyable than playing a game with lots of content but low FPS and performance issues. Simple example: H1Z1 is nowhere near as fun as DayZ (both mods and SA) for me, but H1Z1 I can actually play time to time, instead of burning my nerves with slide show. I do understand that there is a huge difference between UI designer's, Game Designer's and Core Programmer jobs, so adding more hats and vests won't affect Core Programmer's job much. But still, some features have consumed a lot if Dev team's manhours, and there is no guarantee they would work as intended aftre the engine upgrade. For a simple example: building a solid basement (game engine) for a house is primary, while decorating facade (weapons, backpacks, viruses/deceases) is tertiary (not even secondary).
2. Mods that are developed by enthusiasts, not paid specialists in their leisure time and for free. By the way, ARMA 3 in Alpha was still much more stable than DayZ SA.
3. ARK also has severe performance issues, but has much less in-game glitches and much more working features. I'll watch closely after it's development.

Edit: I welcome any engine upgrades, fixes and polishing, even if some features will be broken.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Zak_Prestor

[randomspawn 215]

...

And those new school houses are a nightmare for FPS, jesus. 

I wonder about that as well. It's obvious to many players that those buildings absolutely destroy your FPS. I am not a coder, and don't desire such a job. However, they have tweaked numerous areas in the game to substantially improve the FPS in those areas. Why didn't they apply those same techniques to the new buildings? I can't imagine putting such a FPS hog in the game without those type of improvements.

[Nerusix 6]

intel core i7 4790k

msi gtx 970 oc

16gb ram

.

.

getting 20-30fps max in cities and 40-60 in the forest.

any1 who can help me?

[Mos1ey 6301]

Arma 3 was in alpha for only a few months and the performance issues were never as severe as in DayZ. I'm not saying that Arma 3 is optimized (hell no), but atleast it was/is somewhat playable.

 

No, it was in open alpha for a few months. It was in alpha (just not open to the public) for much longer. They also didn't have to overcome a lot of the hurdles that have extended the development time for DayZ, such as deciding to make major changes to the engine a year into development.

[grimsonfart 49]

No, it was in open alpha for a few months. It was in alpha (just not open to the public) for much longer. They also didn't have to overcome a lot of the hurdles that have extended the development time for DayZ, such as deciding to make major changes to the engine a year into development.

That should have been a priority during the entire development process. I don't know why they thought they could keep on using a engine that has caused to much issues over it's lifespan. Poor decision making and managment is the biggest reasons for it's current state. As soon as DayZ SA was released, and after playing it for a bit i knew it had potential, it would just take a lot longer than initially hoped for.

[agentneo 337]

You don't optimise unfinished games...what would be the point?

He asked what the PLAN is for optimisation. Before all you 'admins' jump on and troll like you usually do, why don't you read the question?

When is the renderer out? what is the plan for increasing FPS

 

And yes, I would start formulating a plan because this is an old engine and needs a lot of work. Whats a stage by stage breakdown of your PLANNED optimisation process and when will the players see the roll out?

Ask any of your community what the number 1 issue is with Day Z and you will find mostly its the terrible frame rate and lack of ANY optimisation

 

At least attempting to work on the most important issue would be vital work. yes what is the plan for optimisation?

the question is not: do we think optimisation is usually done at the start or end of a game design process. Usually its the end - but most dev teams dont have  a 10yr old engine that runs at 30 FPS That no one seems to be able to say WHEN any optimisation will be done, HOW much of a FPS Increase- will it ever run at 60?

 

Yes i read the status report. Its the usual flashy look at all this great tech with no explanation of when How or Will it even work. The admins here are terrible they jump down everyones throat repeatedly with the same PR drivel. The game is a joke. Dont bring Arma 3 into it that was optimisied and finished so much quicker than Day Z was it only one year? And that runs at 60 in towns if you have a good rig.

As for Ark someone mentioned it..i think that games a broken disator but look it has gone from running 20fps to 60fps on my rig within a few weeks as their devs are pushing out many updates. Day z has seriously not progressed at all in its alpha, its all style no substance. By the way adding hats and guns wont break optimisation! thats just variations of code u already have taken from code already in Arma 2.

 

The game has had almost 3 years dev time if u take into account the mod plus how old is Arma 2 Chernarus map and they still cant get it to run??????

 

Still no solution for the public server hive either, people kicking everyday to ensure their pay to win loot.

Edited July 8, 2015 by AgentNe0

[Accolyte 1727]

I don't know why they thought they could keep on using a engine that has caused to much issues over it's lifespan. Poor decision making and managment is the biggest reasons for it's current state.

 

You can't suddenly conjure up an engine capable of doing what VR does. The engine is certainly not without issues, but most other engines would implode just trying to load up Chernarus, let alone Chernarus with items, AI and other players.

 

 

He asked what the PLAN is for optimisation. Before all you 'admins' jump on and troll like you usually do, why don't you read the question?

 

If we 'troll' it's because this questions is asked in a new thread pretty much every week. If people would just search the forums everyone would be happier :)

 

 

The game has had almost 3 years dev time if u take into account the mod plus how old is Arma 2 Chernarus map and they still cant get it to run??????

 

[citation needed]

 

Not that you can come up with any because you're wrong.

 

And no, you don't take Arma 2 or the Mod into account. Why? Try searching the forums ;)

Edited July 8, 2015 by Accolyte

[agentneo 337]

 

 

 

[citation needed]

citation- Day  z mod first release Jan 21 2012-- so thats over 3.5 years ago since the mod first came out for the 2009 tactical shooter video game ARMA 2 and its 2010 expansion pack, ARMA 2: Operation Arrowhead. So Chernarus map has been out over 5 years, the mod 3.5 and the standalone since December 2013 :)

 

thats a long time to wait for a playable frame rate right :D

i think its frustrating thats why i used the word troll you never ever give any sort of detailed plan and it comes across like the dev's haven't got a clue When or even if half of this stuff will come out and work. In short we need more details, dates, and bullet points. Saying "3 to 6 months"  every couple of months isn't helping.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DayZ_%28mod%29

Edited July 8, 2015 by AgentNe0

[wil24567 240]

The plan for optimization is patience........lots and lots of patience......

[Accolyte 1727]

Like I said. Neither Arma nor the mod have anything to do with the development of the standalone. There were a few placeholder items items that were carried over from the mod, but those have been all but removed/replaced by original assets. And here you are, posting info about Arma 2 and the mod.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Accolyte

[agentneo 337]

I was asking about optimisation, when is the roll out for the new renderer and how exactly is the plan coming together for optimisation?

It was your mods that threw us off topic with the usual trolling and avoiding questions more than politicians

[kichilron 8550]

I was asking about optimisation, when is the roll out for the new renderer and how exactly is the plan coming together for optimisation?

It was your mods that threw us off topic with the usual trolling and avoiding questions more than politicians

 

Wa'? You're the one trolling and starting the argument about ARMA 2 being from 2009. Make up your mind.

 

And that they're working on the new renderer is quite apparent, seeing as they're disclosing it in the dev-reports (which you said you were reading).

 

You can't really blame them for not giving exact dates on the new technical stuff, seeing as when they're atleast one day over people like you come screaming and trying to rip their hearts out as if you're their boss.

 

We already know you don't have the patience to deal with this, but atleast be civil about it.

Edited July 8, 2015 by kichilron

[agentneo 337]

Wa'? You're the one trolling and starting the argument about ARMA 2 being from 2009. Make up your mind.

 

And that they're working on the new renderer is quite apparent, seeing as they're disclosing it in the dev-reports (which you said you were reading).

 

You can't really blame them for not giving exact dates on the new technical stuff, seeing as when they're atleast one day over people like you come screaming and trying to rip their hearts out as if you're their boss.

Hi im not rising to your personal trolling to me, your always trying to get an argument started so that you can give out your little moderation spanking. I was intiially referring to the first devs comments to the OP which were typical of the style: " do u think we should optimise at the start or end of game design."

No one is expecting a day by day calender just  a bit of hope that this game will ever be more than a broken mess.

 

Just learn some manners, you come across as a complete arrogant troll in every post. its probably due to your age and immaturity, that you always want to try and get a rise out of  people. Stay calm and allow other people to express their opinions on the game, which surprisingly might not all be as positive as yours.

Edited July 8, 2015 by AgentNe0