Reduce triangle counts in cities

[Frell 80]

Please do NOT come into this thread saying "it's still alpha" || Arma 3 went from alpha to release with very little performance change. It is important that this is discussed so the same doesn't happen with DayZ. It is a VERY bad impression to players who are new to the Arma engine if this is not tackled before full-release.

 

 

 

I'm on a GTX 770 and this scene gives me 22 fps on lowest.

 

But when looking at the ground or running away from the city I get 60+ (So its obvious its client-side). The games movement and melee and everything is already so clunky, I don't need an astonishingly low fps of 22 ontop of that to further complicate things.

 

I can tell this has to do with the triangle count most likely overloading the rasterizer because when I look right at the ground in the city I climb up to 60+ fps again.

 

Yes object detail is on very low, the only thing I have on is post processing (with AO off) because the motion blur helps sooth the horrible framerate a bit

 

 

All of these buildings look pretty reduced for LOD, so what is causing it?

 

Edited December 21, 2013 by Frell

[gsp167 95]

Big cities defenitly needs FPS improvements, this has been a issue in ARMA 2's Chenarus as well. So yeah, hopefully they do something about it in DayZ. :)

[pager 1]

You do realize that everyone gets this low frame rate even in other games the further the distant you can see the more you Video Card has to render sure you get better Performance when looking at the ground and the Sky or away from the City Less stuff for your Card to Render. ~Pager

Edited December 21, 2013 by Pager

[Frell 80]

You do realize that everyone gets this low frame rate even in other games the further the distant you can see the more you Video Card has to render sure you get better Performance when looking at the ground and the Sky or away from the City Less stuff for your Card to Render. ~Pager

You shouldn't. Planetside 2 fixed this after launch because it was complained about alot. But this same problem is also in Arma 3 and it was never fixed from alpha to release.

 

The town doesn't look good enough at all to warrant this kind of fps hit, it looks like playstation 1 in terms of quality yet it still takes away 40 frames?

Edited December 21, 2013 by Frell

[nickholder85@gmail.com 19]

Big cities defenitly needs FPS improvements, this has been a issue in ARMA 2's Chenarus as well. So yeah, hopefully they do something about it in DayZ. :)

 

Yeah I agree, even people with with decent rigs are struggling to get a decent FPS in cities. I know they haven't even tried optimizing client performance yet, but when they add more loot and infected I'm worried my PC won't be able to hack it lol

[The L!ne 31]

I think the best FPSboost right know is to turn of postprocessing completly. I had a Radeon 6950 until today and was able to play around 25FPS in cities, now I have a GTX760 and get good 40FPS in Zelenogorsk. So I don't think it is completly unplayable in cites, still there should be a smoother experience and not such a big difference between landscape and city.

 

No difference is impossible... when you don't load the GPU with random stuff in landscapes

[badluckburt 974]

Tech time :D

 

How much geometry is being culled and how good is the occlusion culling in the engine?

 

Apart from the sun, I don't think any changes were made to the rendering aspect of the engine (if I'm wrong, please enlighten me :D) so you can expect the same kind of slow-downs as in Arma 2 I think, maybe even a bit more since most models have been enhanced to be enterable.

 

If someone could shed some more light on this, I'd appreciate it.

[Frell 80]

I think the best FPSboost right know is to turn of postprocessing completly. I had a Radeon 6950 until today and was able to play around 25FPS in cities, now I have a GTX760 and get good 40FPS in Zelenogorsk. So I don't think it is completly unplayable in cites, still there should be a smoother experience and not such a big difference between landscape and city.

 

No difference is impossible... when you don't load the GPU with random stuff in landscapes

I only turned post processing on because it had no performance hit for me. For the past few days I've been turning it on and off in different situations and my fps stays the same. Post processing "very high" automatically enables AO even if it says disabled, so make sure you click disabled again and PP doesn't have any fps hit.

 

 

 

 

How much geometry is being culled and how good is the occlusion culling in the engine?

 

I'm wondering if there is actually a lack of occlusion culling. Looking at the ground confirms frustrum culling is working, but theres no real way to prove occlusion culling is in.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Frell

[Mos1ey 6301]

You shouldn't. Planetside 2 fixed this after launch because it was complained about alot. But this same problem is also in Arma 3 and it was never fixed from alpha to release.

 

The town doesn't look good enough at all to warrant this kind of fps hit, it looks like playstation 1 in terms of quality yet it still takes away 40 frames?

 

The issues in PlanetSide 2 was that in big battles you were constantly recieving updates from all the other players (every time someone entered or exited a vehicle for example), it had nothing to do with rendering.

 

DayZ will be optimised further down the line. Doing it in alpha is a bad idea because it will just cause problems and have to be redone later on anyway.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Mos1ey

[pager 1]

These are much bigger maps then someother games have. The Quality is there it's just all the stuff your Card has to Render. If you start taking stuff out of the game to make the Rendering better whats the point of having the game in the first place. These are 220Km maps even monster machines will have issues. ~Pager

[Frell 80]

The issues in PlanetSide 2 was that in big battles you were constantly recieving updates from all the other players (every time someone entered or exited a vehicle for example), it had nothing to do with rendering.

 

DayZ will be optimised further down the line. Doing it in alpha is a bad idea because it will just cause problems and have to be redone later on anyway.

 

Did you watch the documentary PS2 did on optimization?

 

And I'm worried if DayZ will 'really' be optimized. I saw Arma 3 go from alpha to release with no performance increase despite all the complaints. It's obvious its an issue at the core of the engine and they couldn't afford to backtrack, but maybe the millions DayZ has dragged in can change that.

 

 

 

These are much bigger maps then someother games have. The Quality is there it's just all the stuff your Card has to Render. If you start taking stuff out of the game to make the Rendering better whats the point of having the game in the first place. These are 220Km maps even monster machines will have issues. ~Pager

You don't see the entire map at once. Modern engines hide stuff not in sight to keep performance up, and there are many ways to do this. 

 

Don't ever let someone make you believe DayZ is "too big" to run smooth. It's avoiding the real issues, it's almost 2014 and engine tech has come a long way.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Frell

[Wookieenoob 191]

i think the way it renders stuff now makes the game even more pretty than arma2. i agree about loot rendering however.

[pager 1]

You don't see the entire map at once. Modern engines hide stuff not in sight to keep performance up, and there are many ways to do this. 

 

No but depending on your settings you may see 2000-3000 meters and thats alot of rendering. ~Pager

[The L!ne 31]

These are much bigger maps then someother games have. The Quality is there it's just all the stuff your Card has to Render. If you start taking stuff out of the game to make the Rendering better whats the point of having the game in the first place. These are 220Km maps even monster machines will have issues. ~Pager

wtf? the maps are not rendered completly when you look in one direction. The game just renderes what you can actually see. So what is the point in the size of the map when you only render an area with the size of an Battlefield-Map?

[badluckburt 974]

I'm wondering if there is actually a lack of occlusion culling. Looking at the ground confirms frustrum culling is working, but theres no real way to prove occlusion culling is in.

 

I'm wondering with you. The only examples of visible occlusion culling I've seen are tech-demos where they render one frame while culling it from a certain perspective constantly and fly around it somehow. I do know Rocket has mentioned the problem before, the slow-downs in cities that is and I believe he said they are working on a fix so my guess is they're either updating the existing one or implementing a new algorithm to deal with the culling.

 

-edit

 

Clarified what Rocket mentioned and fixed a damn typo.

Edited December 21, 2013 by BadLuckBurt

[Frell 80]

 

No but depending on your settings you may see 2000-3000 meters and thats alot of rendering. ~Pager

Distance in game engines is arbitrary, just because its far in human units doesn't mean its harder to render. It has to do with WHAT is being rendered and thats exactly what this thread is about.

 

Just in case you aren't familiar with how LOD works, just because you see a house in the distance doesn't mean its super detailed. It's actually swapped out with a VERY low detailed model that looks like a cardboard box until you get close.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Frell

[pager 1]

wtf? the maps are not rendered completly when you look in one direction. The game just renderes what you can actually see. So what is the point in the size of the map when you only render an area with the size of an Battlefield-Map?

I do know you don't render the whole I'm not that stupid but you still do render anywhere from 2000-3000 meter and thats more then most Battlefield maps are in size.

[Frell 80]

I do know you don't render the whole I'm not that stupid but you still do render anywhere from 2000-3000 meter and thats more then most Battlefield maps are in size.

Read post above

[pager 1]

 

 

Distance in game engines is arbitrary, just because its far in human-units doesn't mean its harder to render. It has to do with WHAT is being rendered and thats exactly what this thread is about.

 

Just in case you aren't familiar with how LOD works, just because you see a house in the distance doesn't mean its super detailed. It's actually swapped out with a VERY low detailed model that looks like a cardboard box until you get close.

 

OMG yes when you come to a town you have to render everything in it OK. this isn't a BATTLEFIELD TYPE GAME if you want a custom loadout all the time on RESPAWN and have no loot or enterable buildings then play Battlefield This game was made to have all these buildings the loot and everything else I'm sure down the road it will get better but maybe getting back 20 to 30 frames not all of it.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Pager

[Frell 80]

OMG yes when you come to a town you have to render everything in it OK. this isn't a BATTLEFIELD TYPE GAME if you want a custom loadout all the time on RESPAWN and have no loot or enterable buildings then play Battlefield This game was made to have all these buildings the loot and everything else I'm sure down the road it will get better but may getting back 20 to 30 frames not all of it.

You have no knowledge of rendering tech behind games, I'm sorry

[badluckburt 974]

OMG yes when you come to a town you have to render everything in it OK. this isn't a BATTLEFIELD TYPE GAME if you want a custom loadout all the time on RESPAWN and have no loot or enterable buildings then play Battlefield This game was made to have all these buildings the loot and everything else I'm sure down the road it will get better but maybe getting back 20 to 30 frames not all of it.

 

Congratulations. You just made my ignorelist. Are you sure you're posting in the right thread by the way?

[davschall 11]

I'm wondering if there is actually a lack of occlusion culling. Looking at the ground confirms frustrum culling is working, but theres no real way to prove occlusion culling is in.

I was wondering the same thing a few days back cause I realized i wasnt as cpu limited anymore, like in the mod. So I did some research on the Real Virtuality engine and couldnt find anything that mentioned it being apart of the engine. OFC youre right that you cant prove its working in game so unless the devs chime in, we cant really know.

[OrLoK 16182]

Hello there

 

TBH, and this is just my view as a player, even though there will be "optimisation" the RV engine has always been a bit chuggy when in towns, I cant really see it changing that much in the future.

 

Then again R and the team have discovered some choice bugs within the old engine.

 

My point being, IMHO they may well squeeze a good few FPS more out of it, but I would not expect drastic changes.

 

I may well be wrong.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[Frell 80]

 

My point being, IMHO they may well squeeze a good few FPS more out of it, but I would not expect drastic changes.

 

I expected this from the start and told people so they don't get their hopes up. Its a shame its semi-confirmed to be a core issue.

 

Surely the money coming in from DayZ can make Bohemia afford to try and speed it up?

Edited December 21, 2013 by Frell

[pager 1]

I don't care iggy me thats fine. You all are compair this to Battlefield much smaller maps and just faster pace game type. You all play this game for the survivalness of the game and bigger maps to hide tents and stuff on. With the size and rendering distance of the map the game it's going to come with some FPS lost there will be no way to stop that. ~Pager

 

p.s.

All the Vehicles haven't been add in yet which is going to make it even more of a challenge for them because that will down FPS as well also Tents and other stuff that are saved to the map. Just more fun for them to come.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Pager