I think we can all agree... optimization

[Fuzzy McDoodle 10]

That this game needs optimization. It's a shame that ArmA 2 and OA have such poorly coded games, and as such their main problem with most people is not being able to run/run well with great spec systems.

Do you think we can expect a focus on optimization this time around, so instead of running on low, when I should be running on high, I can actually run it at high?

Edited May 19, 2011 by Fuzzy McDoodle

[maturin 12]

The game is well-optimized. It is highly scalable and you can play it with weaker hardware.

It's just full mysterious vendettas against certain computers. Most of the people who bitch about having to play at 30fps have more expensive PCs than the people who run it perfectly, it seems.

[Primarch 10]

I think we can all agree that this thread should be deleted and its starter should be warned for creating a non-descriptive thread name. READ THE RULES!

[Fuzzy McDoodle 10]

The game is well-optimized. It is highly scalable and you can play it with weaker hardware.

It's just full mysterious vendettas against certain computers. Most of the people who bitch about having to play at 30fps have more expensive PCs than the people who run it perfectly, it seems.

I beg to differ. After playing BC2 on my computer (another poorly optimized game that was made for consoles) still runs better (on all high) looks 10x better, and I can't seem to reason why their engine is better optimized.

I understand they are 2 completley different games and need to render totally different things, but there must be some way for BI to improve the quality and optimization of their engine.

---------- Post added at 03:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 PM ----------

I think we can all agree that this thread should be deleted and its starter should be warned for creating a non-descriptive thread name. READ THE RULES!

God, some of you guys are such assholes. If you wanted me to change the name you could have politely asked...

[dale0404 5]

Dude, I don't know what your computer specs are but I think you are doing something wrong.

[maturin 12]

I beg to differ. After playing BC2 on my computer (another poorly optimized game that was made for consoles) still runs better (on all high) looks 10x better, and I can't seem to reason why their engine is better optimized.

Battle...field 2?

I'm sorry but that's incredibly stupid. The scope of what each game has to handle isn't comparable.

[Undeceived 392]

I think we can all agree that this thread should be deleted and its starter should be warned for creating a non-descriptive thread name. READ THE RULES!

And what makes you think that "we all" agree with you nitpicker?

I agree a little bit with you, Fuzzy. In A2 the performance was rather low, but in OA it became a lot better (Chernarus too).

Nevertheless sometimes I also wonder why the frames are so low for me... The strange thing sometimes is that is makes no difference if you have 1000 meters view distance or 5000! :D

I really hope that BI will continue optimizing the performance - Arma 2 definitely was a step in the right direction though (compared to Arma 1 ;) ).

Edited May 19, 2011 by Undeceived

[sic-disaster 311]

Because BC2's engine is not trying to model a 20x20km game world, filled with possibly hundreds of AI soldiers which all have to think for themselves where to take cover, commands relayed by NCO's on the fly, and each fired bullet which has to be calculated to follow a realistic trajectory with possibly the chance to deflect on hard surfaces, huge forests, towns and cities.

Because BC2 has shoebox-sized maps (although biggest size shoes :P) with a max of 32 people running around. And although buildings can be destructed, it's all pre-calculated and pretty much the same each time, with the exception of the ground being hollowed out by explosions.

Face it: they are two different games with engines written for completely different purposes.

Any comparison between them is simply unfair.

[Fuzzy McDoodle 10]

Because BC2's engine is not trying to model a 20x20km game world, filled with possibly hundreds of AI soldiers which all have to think for themselves where to take cover, commands relayed by NCO's on the fly, and each fired bullet which has to be calculated to follow a realistic trajectory with possibly the chance to deflect on hard surfaces, huge forests, towns and cities.

Because BC2 has shoebox-sized maps (although biggest size shoes :P) with a max of 32 people running around. And although buildings can be destructed, it's all pre-calculated and pretty much the same each time, with the exception of the ground being hollowed out by explosions.

Face it: they are two different games with engines written for completely different purposes.

Any comparison between them is simply unfair.

No no, I said I realize that. The scope of the 2 games is completley different, I'm no video game engineer, but there must be some way to properly load the map/AI most efficiently while utilizing multiple cores and properly scale down LODs, models, and grass etc. effectively.

The graphics look great from the released screens of A3, I just hope that the game can run better than A2 and A1

[Splintert 10]

There is no such thing as 'bad code'. It either works or it doesn't, and no sane company would release inefficient code. Think about what the computer is actually doing, all the physics, AI, rendering, etc. It's a highly advanced game. Don't expect perfect FPS, especially if you try to max out your system's hardware.

[Przemek_kondor 13]

I think author doesn't understand "optimization" term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimization_%28computer_science%29

Well optimized game could work worse than bad optimized one. Smoothness or whatever you want to see is combination of complexity, amount of data to process, performance and optimization (probably there are more).

As you can see optimization is only one of the factors. Without seeing the source code and expert programming knowlegde you can not say anything about optimization of the game.

[Fuzzy McDoodle 10]

I think author doesn't understand "optimization" term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimization_%28computer_science%29

Well optimized game could work worse than bad optimized one. Smoothness or whatever you want to see is combination of complexity, number of data to process, performance and optimization.

As you can see optimization is only one of the factors. Without seeing the source code and expert programming knowlegde you can not say anything about optimization of the game.

Then every single FPS guide or link on Google must be wrong...

I only assumed that most people agreed that ArmA 2 runs worse than it should, at least with all the people I've talked to.

[Przemek_kondor 13]

Most of the people who played arma don't have basic programming knowledge.

Give me 2 other titles which run better with the same amount of data to process and complexity, then I'll agree on that.

[LugNut 10]

Ok, maybe the big brainers are right, A2 runs great considering how much elaborate stuff is going on.

I'll agree with the intent of the OP's post though, it doesn't run well enough to play smoothly regardless of the reason. There's always stuttering, lag, LOD and texture flashing and loading. Unless I see a BIS developer throw up their hands and say "Hey guys, with todays technology, this is the best we can do" I'll continue to think there's a way to improve it.

[Splintert 10]

One thing I'd like to see is a game with 'compatibility mode' where the graphics engine is scaled down for weaker systems. It would be much similar to Mount and blade: Warband's DX7 mode.

[blackmamba 0]

try the latest beta patch? it has optimized the texture loading, its listed in the changelog.

(current patch candidate)

[80336] Optimized: Reduced frame rate drops caused by texture loading (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/14397)

[65605] Optimized: Fixed problems caused on some Vista systems by running too many threads at the same time.

[68990] Improved: Reduced stutter when looking around, esp. with visibility 5 km or more.

[66997] Optimized: Grass not rendered when flying high and fast, should reduce stutter.

its a large list, check it out. the sim is evolving. arma3 will show how much and how far they have come at BIS.

http://www.arma2.com/beta-patch.php u can read whats new there in the changelog.

Edited May 19, 2011 by blackmamba

[KillerBunny 0]

I have to agree with the OP, there's got to be SOMETHING that will make ArmA 3 run better on a pc with max settings.

[BullyBoii 10]

does anyone know what the system specs are, i couldnt find them anywhere

thanks

BullyBoii

[blackmamba 0]

my question is does arma2 and 3 use a frame limiter... like most combat flight sims do.

then hardware means little advantage..

---------- Post added at 08:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 PM ----------

System requirements

Operating system: Windows 7 / Vista

Processor: Intel Core i5 or AMD Athlon Phenom X4 or faster

Memory: 2 GB

Video card: Nvidia Geforce GTX 260 or ATI Radeon HD 5770 with Shader Model 3 and 896 MB VRAM, or faster

DVD: Dual Layer compatible

Hard disk: 15 GB free space

Other: DirectX® 10

wowah.......

Edited May 19, 2011 by blackmamba

[WarriorM4 10]

Yes I agree but what I also want to see fixed and has plagued the series since Operation Flashpoint 1 is the vehicle physics and tracked vehicles that fishtail out of control and over speed down hills.Come on BIS fix this.

[blackmamba 0]

•Physical simulation & improved animations - take advantage of PhysX™ supporting the vehicle simulation, in-game interactions and the revamped animation system.

http://www.bistudio.com/index.php/english/games/arma3

so no i dont agree with the op........and ya i ran ofp and resistance and started out with the cracked demo...

14 posts since 2002 yikes....

Edited May 19, 2011 by blackmamba

[wobbleyheadedbob 10]

There is no such thing as 'bad code'. It either works or it doesn't, and no sane company would release inefficient code.

Bahahahaha!!!!! You should work where I do. You'd delete that post vey quickly.

There is more BAD code in the world than there is good code.Trust me.

When it comes to particular coding problems there are usually multipe ways to get the job done. Different options are often suited to particular scenarios, when you pick the wrong one you can often go down a path that completely over-complicates your solution and the result is inefficient code.

Managers see no profit in redoing work that has already made them money so optimizing existing code hardly ever happens.

If you'd like an example of a well written engine: Farcry 1

I used to run that game on a PIII 733 with a Geforce 2 at 35+ frames in a loaded scene. Let me remind you that game had large environements, physics and decent lighting.

anyhoo, this is turning into a rant...

END

[blackmamba 0]

hmmm was far cry a flight sim? cant compare the two.

Edited May 19, 2011 by blackmamba

[Heatseeker 0]

Arma 3 will perform incredibly well because it looks more or less the same but requires:

OS – Windows 7 / Vista

CPU – Intel Core i5 or AMD Athlon Phenom X4 or faster

GPU – Nvidia Geforce GTX 260 or ATI Radeon HD 5770, shader Model 3 and 896 MB VRAM, or faster

RAM – 2 GB

HDD – 15 GB free space

DVD – Dual Layer compatible

DirectX® – 10

.

[bloodxgusher 10]

I think we can all agree that this thread should be deleted and its starter should be warned for creating a non-descriptive thread name. READ THE RULES!

Whats your deal. there is nothing wrong with his title. Its clearly talking about optimizing...you sound worser than most mods...geez

I for one think he has a point and hope to see some of that in this installment.