Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
J2_Bidu

About CPU usage - multicore, etc.

Recommended Posts

Quite a few people express concern on how optimized is cpu usage in the game, including how many cores are used.

 

Are people talking mainly about the sp or the mp experience? And on mp, is it client-side cpu or server-side cpu, or both that worries most people?

 

Thanks!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Get a CPU with strong single thread performance and you won’t have to worry.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

Yes the sim uses multiple cores but it still needs each one to perform well. 

SP missions like the Career which have many other aircraft will tax your CPU

I don’t know what “express concern” means really. 

You can change your hardware to suit the game but you can’t change the game to run well on inadequate hardware. 

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Get a CPU with strong single thread performance and you won’t have to worry.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

Yes the sim uses multiple cores but it still needs each one to perform well. 

SP missions like the Career which have many other aircraft will tax your CPU

I don’t know what “express concern” means really. 

You can change your hardware to suit the game but you can’t change the game to run well on inadequate hardware. 

 

Thanks, but my question was not aimed at finding the best hw to run the game, but rather at how good is the use it makes of the available hardware (and how maybe it can be improved, if it can at all).

 

As for your doubt:

https://www.englishclub.com/ref/esl/Collocations/E/express_concern_3797.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J2_Bidu said:

Quite a few people express concern on how optimized is cpu usage in the game, including how many cores are used.

 

CPU bottlenecks are a major source of confusion on this forum. Many hardware discussions center on VR, where the CPU must have greater performance to handle the typical 90 Hz refresh rates and additional draw calls for stereo rendering. On a monitor, the vast majority of system configurations will usually be limited by GPU performance. People unfamiliar with these conflicting requirements are sometimes needlessly concerned by CPU performance.

 

In that respect, the game does make good use of available hardware because the game will run just fine on almost all recent desktop CPUs with the exception of VR, which is used by a minority of players.

 

1 hour ago, J2_Bidu said:

Are people talking mainly about the sp or the mp experience? And on mp, is it client-side cpu or server-side cpu, or both that worries most people?

 

Both SP and MP can experience CPU-limited situations, as it is the rendering that uses most CPU time. Also, servers can become very unstable in certain situations, such as when too many objects are present in the world.

 

The client-side performance could probably be improved by further optimizing the rendering code, but that is a very challenging task for any developer. As long as the game runs acceptably for the majority of players, it's understandable that priorities might be elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

On a monitor, the vast majority of system configurations will usually be limited by GPU performance. .

It’s very common to be CPU limited on a monitor. That bottleneck isn’t limited to VR. Any situation with many other aircraft will rely on your CPU. It’s easy to test. Just put yourself on the runway with a flight of large aircraft like He111s and then drop your graphic settings to min. Note how your frame rate won’t increase accordingly. 

53 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said:

(and how maybe it can be improved, if it can at all).

 

As for your doubt:

https://www.englishclub.com/ref/esl/Collocations/E/express_concern_3797.php

That’s the question about the term “Express concern”

It’s best to not ask the Devs to change the engine to fit your hardware. Select your hardware to fit the game. And it’s clear what hardware will work well and what won’t. 

Don't bang your head against the wall hoping that the game engine will be “optimized” somehow. That’s where these multi core discussions seem to head...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s very common to be CPU limited on a monitor. That bottleneck isn’t limited to VR. Any situation with many other aircraft will rely on your CPU. It’s easy to test. Just put yourself on the runway with a flight of large aircraft like He111s and then drop your graphic settings to min. Note how your frame rate won’t increase accordingly

Fair point. Maybe I should say “often” instead of “usually”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

 

It’s best to not ask the Devs to change the engine to fit your hardware. Select your hardware to fit the game. And it’s clear what hardware will work well and what won’t. 

Don't bang your head against the wall hoping that the game engine will be “optimized” somehow. That’s where these multi core discussions seem to head...

 

That surely didn't cross my mind. What I am wondering is where the main source of performnce problems would be if a greater number of objects was aimed for. I doubt the rendering part would be that bad, there must be a way to gracefully degrade the amount of detail you are rendering, and there is only so much stuff you can have right in front of you.

 

So, again, my question is not headed at what machine to get but rather what is the intrinsic bottleneck in the engine, and if most problems lie on the client or on the server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said:

So, again, my question is not headed at what machine to get but rather what is the intrinsic bottleneck in the engine, and if most problems lie on the client or on the server.

I’m not sure what the point of asking a question like that. Are you designing missions? 

AI and flight models have a lot to do with the object limits as I’ve heard. 

The only thing that concerns us as players is what type of hardware works best, not to understand every bit of how the engine works. Likely nobody here on the forum knows that for sure. 

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Game engine is starting to be outdated.

It can not utilize modern core counts and this is holding some aspects back.

 

Im sure developers are aware this issue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, J2_Bidu said:

What I am wondering is where the main source of performnce problems would be if a greater number of objects was aimed for.

 

Every task done sequentially by the CPU takes a certain amount of time and therefore decreases performance. That can include anything from AI to rendering. It's impossible to say exactly what takes the most time without seeing the source code and running some tests. 

Edited by Mitthrawnuruodo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Godspeed said:

Game engine is starting to be outdated.

It can not utilize modern core counts and this is holding some aspects back.

 

Im sure developers are aware this issue.

 

What are you considering “modern core counts” because I believe it already uses 4.

The min system requirement for the game lists i5 and i7 CPUs which are quad core. 

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

It's impossible to say exactly what takes the most time without seeing the source code and running some tests. 

 

Yeah I know it's hard to figure out, I'm a developer too. But since we have such a large number of "testers" (the players) it might be possible to figure out some patterns.

28 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I’m not sure what the point of asking a question like that. Are you designing missions? 

AI and flight models have a lot to do with the object limits as I’ve heard. 

The only thing that concerns us as players is what type of hardware works best, not to understand every bit of how the engine works. Likely nobody here on the forum knows that for sure. 

 

Not at all. I neither design missions nor am I particularly interested in how the engine works. My graphical computation abilities ended somewhere in College with a very poor traffic 3d simulator. But I'd like to know how far we are from ever getting more ground units, for instance.

Edited by J2_Bidu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the developers are aware of any limiting bottlenecks. I'm also sure they will look at trying to deal with them, where it is practical, and when they have the resources. There are unlikely to be any magic fixes that suddenly double the number of objects that can be modelled though, since this is mature code, and performance is likely to have been well studied. 'Optimisation' isn't some sort of panacea that can pull performance from nowhere, and neither is multithreading - the latter in particular can sometimes add overheads that negate much of the benefit, and almost always make debugging more difficult. Code needs to be reliable, as well as fast. And fundamental reworks of complex code bases take a lot of time...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

What are you considering “modern core counts” because I believe it already uses 4.

The min system requirement for the game lists i5 and i7 CPUs which are quad core. 

 

It was made before Ryzen.

It was made in time when Intel was sitting in decaying throne where it had to do nothing.

 

Quad Core is dying breed and its now only on new budget cpu's.

Sim does not utilize cpu well over quad core.

 

 

6 and 8 Cores is the new normality.

Its flying sim and enthuastic level cpus needs to be supported.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes, and I believe this kind of code (realtime, multithreaded) might not be the best candidate for automated testing, so I imagine regression testing must be a great pain, and huge refactoring a nightmare. The stability of the releases, despite the occasional bug, is impressive.

Edited by J2_Bidu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Godspeed said:

6 and 8 Cores is the new normality.

Its flying sim and enthuastic level cpus needs to be supported.

 

 

CPUs that meet the current system requirements also need to be supported. The developers need a broad customer base to fund future development, and they won't keep that if they optimise the code for hardware that most customers don't have.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

CPUs that meet the current system requirements also need to be supported. The developers need a broad customer base to fund future development, and they won't keep that if they optimise the code for hardware that most customers don't have.

 

At the moment they are safe since there are no competition.

There are more and more simmers who are having more modern hardware even people who buy their computers at supermarkets.

 

Im not here to start and argue but its true this sim is showing some age already.

Best thing happened when sim started to support DX11 from DX10.

 

They did real effort and performance gains where noticeable.

Now in future they have to do same things again to be the king.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Godspeed said:

6 and 8 Cores is the new normality.

Not really

Such CPUs represent 14% and 3% of the market. 

Quad core 54%

 

298167D7-8158-41E7-A3FD-F33E14432947.jpeg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Not really

Such CPUs represent 14% and 3% of the market. 

Quad core 54%

 

298167D7-8158-41E7-A3FD-F33E14432947.jpeg

 

 

54% and many with IGPU they would not run the sim anyway.

You can see the trend there and 6/8 cores are on the rise.

Ryzen 3xxx are behind the door.

 

If you could pull the statistics from Sturmovik player base you could see it better.

I have 4/8 cpu and its on its life support to 2020 when DDR5 arrives.

 

 

Edit: And for clarification sim does not need 6 or 8 cores to play. It needs to start support it for user that are having modern PC.

Edited by Godspeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Godspeed, are you suggesting that the developers stop work on the existing code, and begin again from scratch? 

Share this post


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

 

 

54% and many with IGPU they would not run the sim anyway.

You can see the trend there and 6/8 cores are on the rise.

Ryzen 3xxx are behind the door.

 

If you could pull the statistics from Sturmovik player base you could see it better.

I have 4/8 cpu and its on its life support to 2020 when DDR5 arrives.

No doubt enthusiast players of the type that buy sims like this tend to have stronger than average hardware. But quad core is certainly the most popular 

I see you have a quad core as well so why are you asking for more?

Share this post


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

So, Godspeed, are you suggesting that the developers stop work on the existing code, and begin again from scratch? 

 

I cannot answer that but if we look at older sims their time did come.

So is the time for this Sturmovik one day but gaining extra life by updating the engine for more modern hardware is maybe wise.

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

No doubt enthusiast players of the type that buy sims like this tend to have stronger than average hardware. But quad core is certainly the most popular 

I see you have a quad core as well so why are you asking for more?

 

Like i said my ancient cpu is on life support.

I should have updated it already but i did not and now i dont want to.

 

Because DDR5 is coming and not going to buy DDR4 anymore since its clock is ticking.

It would trap me to DDR4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way to avoid your software becoming outdated is not to write any. Otherwise, you have to make a decision as to how long you maintain the codebase before you abandon it. And that decision isn't ours to make. Given the option, in a context where there is no direct competition with a newer product, I suspect most developers would opt to stick with an existing product as long as is practical. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, since the customer base for a product with a short lifespan and a need for high spec hardware is necessarily going to be limited. Aim for a broader customer base, and you can offer a mature product offering much more in the way of content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Godspeed said:

Like i said my ancient cpu is on life support.

I should have updated it already but i did not and now i dont want to.

Most of the world is in the same boat as you are. That’s why they don’t design games to run on 6+ core CPUs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The devs said recently that they were looking at increasing the draw distance in the game. That and other improvements such as flight models suggest to me that they already have plans in the works to improve the game engine. The change to Dx11 came as an almost complete surprise when released. Even though (as I remember it) it had been mentioned as a possibility in the future, it caught us by surprise when it was released almost as an afterthought. Perhaps, further tweaking of this sim engine is already being worked on. I have to believe it is.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

I neither design missions nor am I particularly interested in how the engine works. My graphical computation abilities ended somewhere in College with a very poor traffic 3d simulator. But I'd like to know how far we are from ever getting more ground units, for instance.

 

If you're interested in missions that have a lot going on, check out the Havoc over the Kuban campaign. I was playing it last night and it's quite impressive what Gambit has been able to do with ground units during the course of a mission. The whole thing seems quite alive and there is a lot going on, including ships in the nearby port, rocket and artillery units firing on a battlefield as you pass over, and what looked like a 40 vehicle convoy to attack as the main mission objective.

Share this post


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

 

If you're interested in missions that have a lot going on, check out the Havoc over the Kuban campaign. I was playing it last night and it's quite impressive what Gambit has been able to do with ground units during the course of a mission. The whole thing seems quite alive and there is a lot going on, including ships in the nearby port, rocket and artillery units firing on a battlefield as you pass over, and what looked like a 40 vehicle convoy to attack as the main mission objective.

 

Thanks! It looks good, but unfortunately, in IL2 (unlike in ROF) I can't really fly most planes. Still a long way ahead. I've mostly been flying the BF109, Stuka, managed to take off in the JU52 and land in it, not much else... but not really the issue of my post here.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...