Go Back   OC3D Forums > [OC3D] General Forums > OC3D News
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1  
Old 01-03-21, 07:36 PM
WYP's Avatar
WYP WYP is offline
News Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 19,937
Programmer cuts GTA V's load times by almost 70% - Rockstar needs to fix this!

"The problems shouldn't take more than a day for a single dev to solve"



Read more about GTA Online's PC loading time fix.

__________________
_______________________________
Twitter - @WYP_PC
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-03-21, 08:10 PM
ImprovizoR's Avatar
ImprovizoR ImprovizoR is offline
OC3D Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 649
I am extremely curious to see if they will actually fix it now that they have a solution handed to them on a silver platter. They are a very, very arrogant and vane company, so I will be positively surprised if they go ahead and actually do it.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-03-21, 08:23 PM
Kleptobot's Avatar
Kleptobot Kleptobot is offline
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 376
Would like to see this benchmarked on different system configurations. That being said it's pretty embarrassing for the devs that coded this initially.
__________________
delided 3570k (watercooled)
hd7970 (watercooled)
8GB Gskill XM
3*140 SR1 Rad
all stuffed in an FD arc midi
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-03-21, 08:25 PM
Dicehunter's Avatar
Dicehunter Dicehunter is offline
Resident Newb
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ye Olde England
Posts: 14,826
Rockstar are pretty well known for releasing unoptimised code, This should not surprise anyone and I highly doubt they will do anything about it, Rockstar worship money above all else, Even integrity, They will ignore this.
__________________
= Steam/Origin/Uplay - Dicehunter =
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-03-21, 08:28 PM
tgrech tgrech is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 2,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kleptobot View Post
Would like to see this benchmarked on different system configurations. That being said it's pretty embarrassing for the devs that coded this initially.
Wouldn't quite agree, from the looks of it, seems like the implementation used for sscanf had changed from the original coders environment, would assume this is something that compiled and ran fine for PowerPC's or possibly with the x86 consoles own compilers, but the code didn't get re-profiled and updated for x86 PC port.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-03-21, 02:31 AM
ET3D ET3D is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kleptobot View Post
Would like to see this benchmarked on different system configurations. That being said it's pretty embarrassing for the devs that coded this initially.
I imagine that the original dev just wrote a function that reads a file and checks for duplicates and expected it to be run once. Plus there were, for example, just 100 entries in the file.

Then someone else probably added an easy way to get a single value over that. Then someone else had some use for going over all the values and decided to use that function, a black box.

That all went unnoticeable because there were just 100 values in the file. Even at 1000, it was hardly an issue, taking a fraction of a second. Years later, it's 63,000, and that bit of code is a major bottleneck.

The problem isn't directly with either the function itself or its use, but the combination of them. Programmers all use functions without going into their code, and people often write functions inefficiently when they don't expect them to be a bottleneck. That's something that's typically found later, when profiling for performance bottlenecks.

That, to me, is the embarrassing part, that nobody has seen fit to look into the long loading times and fix them, not that someone wrote suboptimal code to begin with.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-03-21, 03:22 AM
NeverBackDown NeverBackDown is offline
AMD Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 17,684
Yeah I agreed with ET3D. Its not that it was unoptimized to begin with. Only 100 entries is incredibly small and quick.

But as the problem got bigger and bigger, you'd think after all that time compiling and then launching the game hundreds if not thousands of times per team that fixing the loading issues would end up saving the company hundreds of thousands of dollars as the teams can work quicker and be more productive than the alternative, which is probably walk away for a quick break but end up taking longer than you need and coming back after the game already loaded.

Should have been a priority later in development.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-03-21, 04:23 AM
looz's Avatar
looz looz is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Finland
Posts: 2,203
The load times have been rather horrid since the beginning, so I doubt they began by parsing a mere 100-1000 entries.

I had a strong hate/love relationship with early GTA V online as the servers could crash occasionally and then getting everyone back to the same lobby could easily take like 15 minutes.
__________________
i7 9900k - 16GB - 3080 XC3 Ultra - 660p 1TB + MX500 2TB - HE-4XX w/ Topping D30+A30
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump










All times are GMT. The time now is 04:34 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.