I think we can all agree... optimization

[blackmamba 0]

http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2011/05/glorious-mission-first-pla-made-first.html video

http://news.ifeng.com/mil/video/detail_2011_05/12/6354705_0.shtml

glorious mission from your local friendly PLA Army

maybe compares to this.....

nah arma dudes would defeat PLA on their own turf and thats a challenge .......BRING IT.

man I am gettin Amped up for ARMA3 as you can tell................

Edited May 19, 2011 by blackmamba

[Meek 10]

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

You are clearly not a programmer.

[metalcraze 290]

You wanted physics.

Don't be upset that ArmA3 will be even more "badly optimized" now

[mach2infinity 12]

You are clearly not a programmer.

I know, I'm sure many people spat out their coffee (*insert other beverage if different*) after reading it.

[harr0w 10]

im pretty sure they spotted it as one of the major concerns of the community arma 2 wasnt at its best. but its got to be a pretty big task with the amount of shit that goes on in one game of arma sp or mp. then having to deal with the amount of variations people have with there rigs. heres hoping

[froggyluv 2130]

Aren't they (devs) always working to optimize their games with relentless patches? Sure we all want perfection but the scale of these games can't be stated enough. Farcry is still player-centric, and those games are a lot easier to keep a lid on.

[RadioActiveLobster 10]

The game/engine it's probably going to be compared to the most will be Battlefield3/Frostbite3.

From what I read all the footage of BF3 so far has been running at 60 FPS on one 580.

Granted there is going to be a lot more going on in ArmA III than I would assume in BF3 but I would hope that come Nov when we are all playing BF3 we can get a pretty good idea of how ArmA III will run.

[metalcraze 290]

You are joking, right?

[Yapab 10]

I agree, the ARMA2 engine needs to be scrapped and something new needs to be built. Not getting ARMA3 unless I see "new engine" or proof that it actually runs well.

Also, we cant even finish PMC coop campaign so why would we get excited or happy about ARMA3.... bugs prevent us finishing it and they are still on the "to do" list in the CIT...

[Bulldog Six 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!

I disagree - the title says it all!

and the author of this post is absolutely right, this game needs real optimization, not just hollow words and promises like in OA.... !!

---------- Post added at 04:05 ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 ----------

Battle...field 2?

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

who said Battlefield 2? "BC2" stands for Bad Company 2.

that makes your statement the incedribly stupid one.:rolleyes:

[Scubbo 10]

at the rate DICE is scaling its engine~ we might have that OFP replacement we've always dreamed ... if only they allowed mod support :p

[eymerich 11]

I am a bit disappointed - although arma3 wasn't unexpected to me - about the new comer..

What destroyed (definitly) my interest in arma first and in arma2 later is the very bad hdr's use.

It was introduced in arma and it's issues are still there in arma2.

I've given enough support to bis (arma2, oa, pmc) hoping they would solve that problem ( please: don't suggest setaperture 0) and they didn't.

So, at least for me, things are now different: until hdr - bug will be solved i'll never bought arma3.

[metalcraze 290]

I agree, the ARMA2 engine needs to be scrapped and something new needs to be built. Not getting ARMA3 unless I see "new engine" or proof that it actually runs well.

It will never run well unless you will have a good enough PC

Are you really surprised ArmA2 which offers much more than CoDs/BFs made for 6+ years old tech demands more?

You can see my PC in my sig. It runs good enough there unless of course you'll try to max it out

Edited May 20, 2011 by metalcraze

[paul1290 10]

I'll probably upgrade to play this game as I now have enough reasons (ArmA 3, Witcher 2, DCS: A-10C) to get better hardware.

At the same time I'd be lying if I said I was looking forward to it as much this time.

While I'm glad things are finally moving forward in this regard, I can't help but feel I'm paying more and more for what seems like smaller and smaller improvements. This can be a subjective thing, but unless the system requirements change I might end up having to pay just as much to run ArmA 3 well as I did for the jump between ArmA and ArmA 2, but it doesn't feel like quite same leap, at least visually.

I do hope the increased hardware requirements will mean more units, more sophisticated AI behavior and pathfinding, more simulation in general happening at once.

This is probably more a complaint about PC gaming in general rather than ArmA specifically.

Edited May 26, 2011 by paul1290

[rangerpl 13]

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

Even if it did, it wouldn't matter since above or near 30FPS you're okay. We're talking about getting 10-20FPS. That's where it gets frustrating.

It would be excellent if ArmA 3 could take advantages of things like more RAM, perhaps even offloading things to the GPU when the CPU is stressed.

[kremator 1064]

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?

I think we can agree that if that avatar is ACTUALLY you, you may need to optimize your weight by about 20%.

*Yawn* another useless thread. Game is fine.

[Flogger23m 2]

Agreed. ArmA 2 AO is poorly optimized. I can get 60 frame rates in a town or desert, but look at 2-3 trees and my frame rates will drop to 20. I know they can be demanding hardware wise, but dropping 40 frame rates is a little too much.

Make sure the game utilizes quad cores efficiently. ArmA as well as flight sims really need to do this. :)

[max power 21]

You've seen a similar application perform better, have you? Whether a program is poorly optimized or not is impossible to even speculate on without profiling data. They have had this engine for some time. It's most likely been profiled to hell and back. That's not to say there aren't innovative techniques they could try, and also not to say that they haven't tried them. And were they to make fundamental changes, how long until they even optimize it back to the point their old code was?

My point is that the state of the engine is not something you can know about. A better complaint would be that the game is too hardware intensive. If you have trouble running the game after your visit the troubleshooting forums, that is good user feedback, I think.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Max Power

[Flogger23m 2]

You've seen a similar application perform better, have you? Whether a program is poorly optimized or not is impossible to even speculate on without profiling data. They have had this engine for some time. It's most likely been profiled to hell and back. That's not to say there aren't innovative techniques they could try, and also not to say that they haven't tried them. And were they to make fundamental changes, how long until they even optimize it back to the point their old code was?

My point is that the state of the engine is not something you can know about. A better complaint would be that the game is too hardware intensive. If you have trouble running the game after your visit the troubleshooting forums, that is good user feedback, I think.

Call it what you want, but a simple tree degrading that much performance can't be normal.

Like wise, after turning back some settings, now smoke effects cause serious performance degradation. I used to run it fine with lots of smoke grenades going off, now a single one will drop my frame rates from 60 to 10.

[froggyluv 2130]

I used to run it fine with lots of smoke grenades going off, now a single one will drop my frame rates from 60 to 10.

Ouch!!

Specs?

[Make Love Not War 10]

There is no such thing as 'bad code'. It either works or it doesn't <snip>.

You are clearly not a programmer.

;1930208']I know' date=' I'm sure many people spat out their coffee (*insert other beverage if different*) after reading it.[/quote']

Yes. Successful troll was successful.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Make Love Not War
Added more quotes for clearer context

[-)rStrangelove 0]

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.

I dunno why you think BIS would keep the fan community from buying a highly optimized version of ArmA2 if such a version would exist. You almost sound like you believe ArmA2's performance is held down by BIS on purpose. Cmon mate, think again: BIS releases patch after patch for several years now (OpF, Armed Assault, ArmA2, ArmA2: OA), what tells you that?

Btw: if you didnt buy OA its all your fault, as you cut yourself off from optimizations. Optimization is done by working staff and they need to earn money.

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.

So to make you feel better the only thing you care about is a setting in the options menu that says: 'maximum' ? Reminds me of the SpinalTap joke with the 'custom' Marshal top which featured a '12' for maximum volume. All others go to 10, but his went on to 12. Cool, huh?

[Richey79 10]

What destroyed (definitly) my interest in arma first and in arma2 later is the very bad hdr's use.

It was introduced in arma and it's issues are still there in arma2.

.

You're not alone in finding how the HDR is handled extremely annoying.

And yes, to whoever said that we now seem to be required to upgrade our rigs for less and less return, I most certainly agree with you.

I'm not sure that I'm going to feel like building another gaming rig in the near future. It just doesn't seem worth it for the few genuinely worthwhile 'proper' PC games that come out these days.

Either the next generation of consoles will give gaming in general a shot in the arm and boost PC gaming once again, or they'll be so capable that I'll finally make the switch to console. Mind you, with Sony's recent woes and the recession, I can't imagine the big companies have a burning desire to release new machines in the near future, so that they can go back to low returns per unit.

What I would love in Arma 3 would be a dedicated low stress option. Now, we can currently turn the graphics settings way down, but in the end, the only result of turning down 'object quality' is that you get stutter when you zoom in to look at anything. Basically, turning the graphics settings down can actually damage your frame rate.

My idea of a low stress option would be to make the game look like VBS2: reduce every possible stress on the GPU and CPU, but leaving the gameplay pretty much untouched. For example, rather than simply using lower LODs at closer distance, swap in buildings that don't have nearly as many polys. Maybe they could even include a simplified ballistic system and then prevent the mode from being used in multi-player. I'm sure there are a lot of players out there who, like me, don't care about eye candy, but just want to be able to play the game smoothly with lots of AI and a high view distance.

I just don't think that Arma2 does scale terribly well on lower settings. I know that I get better performance with HDR and shadows set to 'very high', for example. And going back to Arma 1 doesn't particularly help, since it doesn't support multi-core CPUs efficiently.

[Primarch 10]

Obviously people do not seem to understand that the title has been changed as soon as I mentioned the OP about it. "I think we can all agree... " was the title before.

[crazyrobban 10]

I have a i7, 6gb of 1800mhz ram and a Geforce 260GTX, and I have the same performance hits as Flogger.

Smoke-grenades, using night-vision, looking at trees(!) all make my fps drop a lot.

Sometimes, I load up Desert just to feel it run really smooth.