Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 9/3/2017 at 9:42 PM, Psyrus said:

It's quite a simplistic analogy, and not necessarily aimed at you as you may already be aware, but there are some parts of the game that will never be able to be parallelized (is that a word?)... 

 

Explain how the job of recording the winning lottery numbers in real time (as they are read out) onto a single piece of paper could be parallelized among 16 people. 

 

Or how about having two tasks:

- Recording the winning lottery numbers 

- Looking through a database to find who has won money

__________________________

 

As we can see, if the first task is the only one, parallel computing/work is meaningless, as it is a sequential task... but if we had to do something with that information, we could easily have 16 people take down the numbers, and each have a pre-set part of the database (1/16th) that they search through and report any numbers back to the "main" worker who would then compile their separate 16 results. At the end though, the compilation is still bound by that single worker waiting for everyone to finish before the full data set can be returned. 

 

With something complex like a game engine, things like the UI can probably be offloaded, but a lot of the actual game-logic is interdependent and thus very difficult to parallelize. With any luck though, the devs (OWI & EPIC) can find some nice places to offload work to other threads. 

 

On a side note, I have never tried multithreading something as intricate as game-logic, it may be much easier than I think... hopefully someone more knowledgeable can weigh in :) 

Thanks for the explanation, I knew the benefit was limited, now I know why. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, godamntwitch said:

I would have appreciated benchmarks in English. But still i can find others. Here's what i found about Hellbade Senua's Sacrifice.

"The results here clearly show that in Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice that the game operates at optimal levels when using 4 total CPU cores, with any increase in core/thread count thereafter yielding no further increase in performance."

 

https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/software/hellblade_senua_s_sacrifice_pc_performance_review/8

 

It's extremely common for a dx11 title to have max 4 core usage. But it still doesn't equate to the usage of cores squad currently has. On top of that it's pushing out top of the line graphics.

 

The rest of your examples don't really make that much sense. One is a game that is rapidly improving it's performance, and is almost okay in terms of optimization(PUBG).While the other example is a game going for the cartoon-y look, and isn't pushing the bar whatsoever in graphically or even scale of game. It also doesn't have nearly as bad as performance as squad. 

 

Then when i go down to the examples of good usage. I see games like doom which use a total different api. And then i see star citizen which has had it's optimization "****ed"(sorry children close your eyes) for a while now. Then we can go on to destiny, and i actually go read benchmarks that are in english. I read " The lack of CPU performance scaling across multiple settings sort of makes you wonder what’s going on, and whether the final launch will modify this behavior."

 

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/3038-destiny-2-beta-cpu-benchmarks-testing-research

 

Crisis 3, i guess you got me there. But the game was created a century ago, making it not a good comparison.For the Whither 3 you're correct in saying the game benefits from an i7 with more cores. But where your wrong is that it's using pc resources correctly. Because if you actually check recent benchmarks with chips more than 6 or 8 cores you will see the Whitcher 3 doesn't use any cores past 6. 

https://youtu.be/ocwwaVGUFtk?t=4m16s

 

On a final note, if i wanted to cherry pick my best benchmarks, i would just throw out gears of war. Which scales amazingly across high cpu count, and different cards. 

Gamegpu page have the possibility to change the language on the top of the page, in fact I use the english language normally; my fault, in the hurry I post the original page.

Normally I choose gamegpu (there is a german  site that make a really good job however, but is only in german) because it show a good game benchmark include the load cores of the CPU (and more other info).

My whole post was made to reply at the comment:

Zylfrax791 ask if the "single core specific to just the Squad game logic or is it a trait of UE4?".

 

" isn't pushing the bar whatsoever in graphically or even scale of game. It also doesn't have nearly as bad as performance as squad. "

No one of these new games with UE4 are pushing nothing in terms of graphic or on a scale of game.

 

the sense of the multiple link is based on the fact that that most the games linked are made with Unreal Engine 4 (including games from UE4 Developers) to point out that the "1 core" is a thing in most of the game with UE4.

Actually Squad  using the cores of CPU like the other UE4 games

 

The link to non-UE4 game engine is only to point out 3 things:

- that other games developed with different engine have the same "problem" (Deliverance and Sniper Ghost Warrior)

- that other games developed with different engine have not the same "problem" (Doom, Crysis etc.)

- that other games with same engine work differently:

Sniper Ghost Warrior is new and Crysis 3 is old, both use CryEngine 3 but the cores use are completely different... however both receive better performance from more number of cores instead of high clock and IPC (in fact a 5960X at 3 GHz is better than a 6700 at 3,4 GHz)

 

I tried Star Citizen on August 2016 (one of the free Alpha tests) and on Arena Commander area (a big map where you fight swarm of enemy) the performances was not so bad (100/120 FPS) while the game used all of my core quite equally (on a 5820K, test made with MSI Afterburner).

Of course on multiplayer is a shit (and not only on FPS performance but also on input lag) but on a point of view of CPU cores use is perfect; I think that the problem is related to the netcode.

And there are a lot of people that have fun online at 20 FPS... what a lovely day for games.

 

Regarding PUBG performance... I don't have it but if barely 50/60 FPS on a top machine is good maybe it means that "Human eye cannot see beyond 60 FPS" is the new standard.

 

The Witcher 3 does not benefit from something that is more than 4 cores, it's true, but it still have a better distribution of load on CPU than other UE4 games.

For my point of view, the use of one core at 80/100 % and the other cores at 5/20 % is not a good thing (it's only a personall obsession, which I inherited from Total War Rome 2, the ****** optimization I never see, like Arma 3).

 

Regarding Gear of War 4, I perfectly know what you mean:

 

 http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/gears-of-war-4-test-gpu

 

This make me start think in a bad manners to the whole new gaming based on:

- crowfunding game that point on good graphic and mediocre performance.

- AAA games that are not so different from crowfunding games but cost at least the double.

 

Did you notice how the workload on CPU is well balanced in Gears of War 4 ?

Each time I see it I think that make a good CPU optimization cost a lot more than saying procedural sentence like "the game ask a lot resources and is better to have a frequency CPU".

Since each time I see this I become sad I link a funny thing completely OT.

http://i.imgur.com/YNtLpwW.gifv

 

8 hours ago, Psyrus said:

If you know any english sites that test that comprehensively, I'm sure everyone is keen on you sharing it. In all my years I've never seen a single site with such a breadth of data. There is an automatic translation selector at the top right of that site anyway 

thank you

 

Edited by eagon89

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of technical discussion over here eh? I'm not gonna pretend I know all that, but as a player, I can notice some things.

 

What really matters to me is gameplay, eye candy is waaay down on my priority list. And from what I see (I'm really guessing here), that's what really matters when we look at a game's popularity. Some really dated games remain popular today not because of appearance, but because they feel good to play. Damn, even PR still has people playing it.

 

Squad has awesome gameplay, but it's in no way complex enough to justify it running so badly. It also, to be honest, looks like sh1t.

 

Then comes the argument "but it's still in development, it's an alpha" - no sh1t sherlock. Problem is, I know there are a lot of people who would want to play it, but can't. When you develop a game on an early access model, in which you depend on people buying the game to develop it, and at the same time you stop a lot of people from buying it because it needs a top gaming rig...well..... That's a very bad recipe isn't it?

 

I personally only bought it because it was 50% off, and I decided to try it and refund if it ran too bad on my machine. I had already read horror stories of people with i7's having performance issues, so I was worried. Unlucky me, I spent my refund period playing OP first light with 15 people on the server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vegetal said:

A lot of technical discussion over here eh? I'm not gonna pretend I know all that, but as a player, I can notice some things.

 

What really matters to me is gameplay, eye candy is waaay down on my priority list. And from what I see (I'm really guessing here), that's what really matters when we look at a game's popularity. Some really dated games remain popular today not because of appearance, but because they feel good to play. Damn, even PR still has people playing it.

 

Squad has awesome gameplay, but it's in no way complex enough to justify it running so badly. It also, to be honest, looks like sh1t.

 

Then comes the argument "but it's still in development, it's an alpha" - no sh1t sherlock. Problem is, I know there are a lot of people who would want to play it, but can't. When you develop a game on an early access model, in which you depend on people buying the game to develop it, and at the same time you stop a lot of people from buying it because it needs a top gaming rig...well..... That's a very bad recipe isn't it?

 

I personally only bought it because it was 50% off, and I decided to try it and refund if it ran too bad on my machine. I had already read horror stories of people with i7's having performance issues, so I was worried. Unlucky me, I spent my refund period playing OP first light with 15 people on the server.

Developers (peace be upon them) are highly skilled people but it is still an indie game meaning it's probably the first time they attempt a complete game of their own. Big step from doing a mod. I don't think you can expect exactly the same extravagant results from such a small team doing stuff with minimal backing from investors etc. The good thing is they are not forced into filtering all their ideas through a bunch of idiots who don't really care about the results (only about ROI), and can instead focus on giving us exactly the game we all really want. We pay them for that because we can't find this game elsewhere. If the game is a bit slow it's also a price we have to pay I guess. But then again, few games let you shoot your bullets straight over a few km and still be able to hurt a dude on the other side. They say it's an alpha btw, but I think the game will never be feature complete. It's more like an ever-developing organism I think. That is what's also great btw, that we can actually influence the developers because they are actually interested in good ideas even though returns are small.

 

If you are disappointed in the game now you can probably come back in like five years and find that it's actually a great game. Your money won't be wasted. PR is still very much a good game, though dated.

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im no computer nerd / geek or expert but are people thinking their FPS is poor because people tell them it is so, so it must be...

 

I have been running squad on a I7 16gb ram .. gtx 1050 with upgraded mb.. but the CPU is about 3-4 years old... now I do not get great frame rates as you would expect, but I only know that because people say 'oh the frame rates are so poor' so I check it .. and omg.. I get under 50fps... so that must mean the game is unplayable right? 

 

I used to play it on a gtx 750 until about 6 months ago and my fps were between 25 and 30... I had settings turned down low... 

 

Now, I turn off all settings and my fps jumps up to between 50--60fps at most... 

 

turning them on it creeps down to about 30-50fps, I turn off most of the lighting effects which to me make the game more difficult not because I really notice any difference in game play !... but leave shadows/explosions/foliage stuff etc at high... and my fps ... between 40-50... 

 

tbh If I had never measured it I would never know my fps was poor because the game runs absolutely fine... the human eye probably cant tell the difference between 30 fps and 100fps but because someone tells you its bad you end up believing them... 

 

this moaning about FPS is never going to stop because there are so many people with so many different configurations of pc's and so many misplaced expectations based on 'its the developers problem not mine' attitude that it is in reality a futile exercise. 

 

I understand people want to run it on the highest settings possible.. I can actually do that and I don't get any problems at what is deemed to be low FPS .. so its like measuring your ***... it wont get any bigger the more you measure it... just let it be and enjoy the play time.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

turning them on it creeps down to about 30-50fps, I turn off most of the lighting effects which to me make the game more difficult not because I really notice any difference in game play !... but leave shadows/explosions/foliage stuff etc at high... and my fps ... between 40-50... 

Shadows and foliage are some of the most intensive effects, and many players turn foliage down to low just to increase visibility. Low Shadows also makes it easier to see people in the game, and reduces the performance cost. You are turning off low-impact settings and keeping high-impact settings at high levels, so you aren't going to see any benefit from that.

 

Quote

tbh If I had never measured it I would never know my fps was poor because the game runs absolutely fine... the human eye probably cant tell the difference between 30 fps and 100fps but because someone tells you its bad you end up believing them... 

 

this moaning about FPS is never going to stop because there are so many people with so many different configurations of pc's and so many misplaced expectations based on 'its the developers problem not mine' attitude that it is in reality a futile exercise. 

 

I can tell when my FPS changes, or if there's an increase in frametime, and I can look at my monitoring apps to confirm it. There are maps where I easily get 60-70 FPS at most locations because mountains without a lot of foliage take up most of the screen, and this isn't resource-consuming to render. Then I'll crest a hill and my view increases to take in most of the map, and I can instantly tell that my FPS has dropped to 45-55 even before I check RTSS to confirm.

Some people want the option of high fidelity graphics that make use of their high-end equipment. This game can be an walking simulator sometimes, and the lighting and scenery make it more enjoyable and aid in immersion. So we want to be able to have a pretty game on high settings.

 

But there are also people who want smooth, consistent FPS at lower settings, either because they have less powerful hardware, or because they value a steady framerate over visual effects like realistic shadows and foliage. If a game cannot gain performance by lowering settings, there is an issue. 

 

Tl;dr There needs to be an ongoing discussion about graphical quality v. gameplay quality, and there are material reasons to care about framerate/frametime/game performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess if people want to munch down on the placebo of FPS above 50 then fine... but as I said, a fully optimized game will still find its moaners because it will never meet their expectations.

22 minutes ago, Hay Lobos said:

Shadows and foliageare some of the most intensive effects, and many players turn foliage down to low just to increase visibility. Low Shadows also makes it easier to see people in the game, and reduces the performance cost. You are turning off low-impact settings and keeping high-impact settings at high levels, so you aren't going to see any benefit from that.

 

 

I can tell when my FPS changes, or if there's an increase in frametime, and I can look at my monitoring apps to confirm it. There are maps where I easily get 60-70 FPS at most locations because mountains without a lot of foliage take up most of the screen, and this isn't resource-consuming to render. Then I'll crest a hill and my view increases to take in most of the map, and I can instantly tell that my FPS has dropped to 45-55 even before I check RTSS to confirm.

Some people want the option of high fidelity graphics that make use of their high-end equipment. This game can be an walking simulator sometimes, and the lighting and scenery make it more enjoyable and aid in immersion. So we want to be able to have a pretty game on high settings.

 

But there are also people who want smooth, consistent FPS at lower settings, either because they have less powerful hardware, or because they value a steady framerate over visual effects like realistic shadows and foliage. If a game cannot gain performance by lowering settings, there is an issue. 

 

Tl;dr There needs to be an ongoing discussion about graphical quality v. gameplay quality, and there are material reasons to care about 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

due to the development process that squad uses SCRUM, it prioritizes the minimal viable product (a shooting game). Its the main reason for the early access craze where developers get all their money upfront.

 

I seriously doubt they will optimize the game as it doesn't fit this "minimally viable product" or if their is will came very much later (in beta).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Randall172 said:

I seriously doubt they will optimize the game as it doesn't fit this "minimally viable product" or if their is will came very much later (in beta).

u3UdDfjKRd6BLokeO7E2PQ.jpg

So during your game/software development, when do you usually do major/final optimization passes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Psyrus said:

u3UdDfjKRd6BLokeO7E2PQ.jpg

So during your game/software development, when do you usually do major/final optimization passes?

 

We have a smaller optimization phases throughout dev, but the major optimization efforts are right before release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Randall172 said:

We have a smaller optimization phases throughout dev, but the major optimization efforts are right before release.

Right, so kind of like how a couple of major versions ago (v7?) there was a big optimization pass, and there will be several in and following the v10 release? And then in the beta and RC versions there will most likely be the highest focus on optimization? I don't understand how you think from your own experience and what the devs have done thus far that they won't optimize the game more. o.O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I prefer to repeat that they programmed the optimization phase clearly with the Beta, so I like to think that the real optimisation will come very later (I don't know if V10 mean Beta).

81d9816be01668e4506e9459656ddaf5_origina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Randall172 said:

due to the development process that squad uses SCRUM, it prioritizes the minimal viable product (a shooting game). Its the main reason for the early access craze where developers get all their money upfront.

 

I seriously doubt they will optimize the game as it doesn't fit this "minimally viable product" or if their is will came very much later (in beta).

Thus far OWI has always been transparent and even somewhat open to user feedback so I don't think its fair to categorize them in this fashion. Honestly Squad was a decent playable game before vehicles so it's a question of semantics really. They could have presented that infantry version as the finished game and simply called these updates "performance packs" and charged for them. Hell, they could have even charged for individual weapons and vehicles if they wanted to.

 

No, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and I'm 100% sure they will follow through with the timeline and deliver on all their promises including optimization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Randall172 said:

due to the development process that squad uses SCRUM, it prioritizes the minimal viable product (a shooting game). Its the main reason for the early access craze where developers get all their money upfront.

 

I seriously doubt they will optimize the game as it doesn't fit this "minimally viable product" or if their is will came very much later (in beta).

This is just BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

...I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and I'm 100% sure they will follow through with the timeline and deliver on all their promises including optimization

This is good, but remember, the final product could not be perfect.

 

Meanwhile... A tips for increase fps

EXx3FLw_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&f

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

solely for documentation purpose:

18 hours ago, Gatzby said:

[...] Alpha 9.9 brings fixes for some nagging issues, and some performance improvements too. Be sure to let us know how they feel!

  • Implemented several performance improvements on player updates, movement, animation and inventory.
    [...]

Offworld Out.

I think this fits quite well into this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, beginna said:

solely for documentation purpose:

I think this fits quite well into this discussion.

absolutely, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎08‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 8:14 AM, Randall172 said:

due to the development process that squad uses SCRUM, it prioritizes the minimal viable product (a shooting game). Its the main reason for the early access craze where developers get all their money upfront.

 

I seriously doubt they will optimize the game as it doesn't fit this "minimally viable product" or if their is will came very much later (in beta).

why would you come to this conclusion because they may be using SCRUM? ... the minimal viable product has already been delivered.. SCRUM can be used in many different ways for development and runs with multiple side by side threads... optimisation will more than likely work on a side thread once they have released v10 ... you cannot do everything at once and scrum tends to allow for 2 week dev with possible review and roll back and 1 month releases... you need a minimum product before you can optimize...like a house.. you need walls before you paint...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2017 at 11:30 AM, beginna said:

solely for documentation purpose:

I think this fits quite well into this discussion.

I got another @ 5-7fps out of 9.9, so I'm happy with the way things are going. I'm hopeful about v10 and the new animations as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×