Would you decrease detail for less lag?

[Commonplace 28]

I know it sounds weird but here is my explanation:

A lot of people want more. Feature requests threads are quelling over because

of too much demands and people want to have a lot of stuff.

But every feature incoperated (more modules, destructable environment in stages etc.) adds more traffic to the broadband connection which in turn

creates more lag for players.

Would you sacrifice features in order to have less of lag (how much is not defined) or are you all for features, because the editor is the most important

that matters?

[purepassion 22]

Nope I think this would be leading in the wrong direction.

Optimization is the way to go.

[kylania 568]

Never. If I wanted that kind of thing I'd play FPS on a console.

[nodunit 397]

One of the biggest problems with A2 in terms of graphics is that it has too few options in certain area's, for example in A1 you could turn off normal mapping by changing shading detail to lowest, yet in A2 they remain.

If there was an option to turn off normal maps and specular maps this would be a great boost alone, adding the forcing of say the 2nd LOD on lowest unit detail or something would be another great boost as it would half the polycount instantly and run better for those with less powerful computers without at the same giving any visual edge.

All of this would be fine but only if kept as options, that way everyone is happy.

[KC Grimes 79]

The only way most of the guys in my unit experience lag on our server is because of big long maps like Domination. Even then, it's still plenty playable. We NEVER lag on small missions that still take 2 hours to complete and are complex. Optimization is my vote.

[metalcraze 290]

ArmA has one of the most perfect netcodes when it comes to lag.

In other action games anything higher than 50 ms is unplayable. Here you can play even with 200. (And I get less than that even on overseas servers most of the time)

So more features plz

[Big Dawg KS 6]

This poll is terrible and makes little sense.

I don't want ArmA 3 to remove any features, but I also think that less new features and more polish (which can mean more optimization) would be a better policy.

[Flash Thunder 10]

BIS should just hit the magical optimization button that will fix all of our problems. :rolleyes:

[Baff1 0]

I know it sounds weird but here is my explanation:

A lot of people want more. Feature requests threads are quelling over because

of too much demands and people want to have a lot of stuff.

But every feature incorperated (more modules, destructable environment in stages etc.) adds more traffic to the broadband connection which in turn

creates more lag for players.

Would you sacrifice features in order to have less of lag (how much is not defined) or are you all for features, because the editor is the most important

that matters?

I would sacrifce many many features in exchange for lag free gaming.

The development of the netcode in my opinion has gone vastly in the wrong direction. I don't see optimisaton as the cure. I think the problems are fundamental.

For me however I don't see this as being in conflict with the editor. Obviously a dramatic change in the netcode would place more limits on the scenarios you are able to model in a MP game, or force you to program them a different way (with different limitations in mind)... but SP scenarios would be unaffected and to be truthful I've given up on MP with this series. iI's like a kind of torture for me. I almost exclusively play SP these days.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Baff1

[maddogx 13]

BIS should just hit the magical optimization button that will fix all of our problems. :rolleyes:

:D

Word of the decade on these forums: optimization.

[Flash Thunder 10]

:D

Word of the decade on these forums: optimization.

in most peoples context of optimization its absolute Pseudoscience.

LAG free anything is impossible, anyways its more productive to just ignore all these threads but for some reason i enjoy going through the arma 3 subforum FPDR

and whats the purpose of this poll again?

lololololololololol

[purepassion 22]

and would you be so kind to explain your thoughts behind the poll options?

The question was wether to cut some features to get no lags (which impossible btw)

But now you have to decide from "More features, editor all the way" and "Less features, core mechanism, as less lag as possible "

what do you mean with "editor all the way" and where is the connection to the question??

"core mechanism" what do you considder as the core mechanisms??

But again, my opinion is that this would be the exact wrong direction and believe me, before the team implements something new, they always compare ressources/performance versus player benefits/gameplay, so there is no point in leaving existing features out.

Clear answer: NO!

[Archosaurusrev 12]

BIS should just hit the magical optimization button that will fix all of our problems. :rolleyes:

This is how the community thinks optimisation works.

BIS, Y U NO PRESS OPTIMISATION BOTON AND SOLVE PROBLIMS IN 2 MINS?

[zukov 490]

I would sacrifce many many features in exchange for lag free gaming.

The development of the netcode in my opinion has gone vastly in the wrong direction. I don't see optimisaton as the cure. I think the problems are fundamental.

For me however I don't see this as being in conflict with the editor. Obviously a dramatic change in the netcode would place more limits on the scenarios you are able to model in a MP game, or force you to program them a different way (with different limitations in mind)... but SP scenarios would be unaffected and to be truthful I've given up on MP with this series. iI's like a kind of torture for me. I almost exclusively play SP these days.

+1 (i was crucified for this on another thread)

[dmarkwick 261]

People seem to throw the word optimise around as though the big problem is that ArmA is somehow optimise-free. IMO ArmA only works at all because it is extremely optimised. Look at the development blog, they're working on how to predict the future in order to get a little bit more FPS/lag-free experience.

Other games hide non-player-centric detail lag quite well. The problem is that ArmA cannot do that. It all needs to be done, everywhere, all the time.

[dm 9]

+1 (i was crucified for this on another thread)

You were "crucified" because you went "herp derp get rid of the AI" :j: (when you can do it already by just making missions that dont use it/them)

[walker 0]

Hi all

The ability to decrease detail for increased Frames Per Second is already there dumb-asses! It has been there since BIS's OFP days! Go into Options particularly Video Options and select Advanced there are lots of sliders and Options Boxes to do just this. The main Optimization people need to do is optimization of their own Game settings. Half the problems people have with lag is failure to optimize their own settings on their own computer.

The other half of the problem is badly run servers and bad choice of server to use by the player. Far too many players rely on ping to judge a server. In fact I recommend that you do not choose a server based on Ping!

Surprised?

Lag, Warping and long load times is a complex area caused by:

• A badly set up server, commonly personal servers of players.
  
• High ping between any client and the server, hence the phrase "High Ping Bastard", and why servers need to be set up to boot players with too high a ping.
  
• A server that is trying to deal with too many things!
  
• That is why missions need to be well made.
  
• Why you need proper trash collection.
  
• Why the mission has to have a number of entities that the server can cope with.
  
• Why the server config needs to be balanced for AI entities versus Player entities.
  
• Why a sensible server Admin tunes their server to what it has to do.
  
• Why a sensible server Admin has multiple configs based on what the mission type is, a high number of clients PvP server config is not the same as the config for a CTI or large numbers of AI coop.
  
• And why the Server needs to be configged with a sensible view distance that most client machines can cope with,
  
• and why you have mission specific view distances for roles. Eg Aircraft and Snipers should have longer view distances than grunts on the ground.
  
• etc.
  

And the commonest cause of slow server is?

The low ping server, run next door to you, by a numpty who does not know what they are doing. They are probably using their old worn out second computer as a game server, or worse still their game Client in a client server mode with CTI on it, a guaranteed lagfest.

A client server or low spec personal server run on a personal broadband connection is only good for 4 to 12 players. A key problem is people wrongly concluding that 20mb Download means they also have 20mb upload speed; when in most cases you have less than 1mb of upload, for example Virgin with its 20mb download, which is one of the Best ISPs in the UK, only has 2mb upload, and only a very few ISPs give greater than 1mb upload speeds mainly on their 50mb and 100mb packages.

http://shop.virginmedia.com/help/discover-broadband/broadband-speed/upload-speeds.html

If you order servers by ping that is what you get at the top, the person nearest to you running a server from their bedroom, with no or a few players on board. To start with with only 3 or 4 players on it and it runs fine. As the number of players increase so do the problems; for a client server, or an old machine, with personal broadband connection, that just plane is not up to it.

You might get lucky and it will be some clan's recruiting server running from a colo farm next door to you on some major ISP, on the national fibre backbone, but don't hold your breath.

So Ping is not the way to judge a server.

THE SOLUTION!

• Order by number of players.
  
• This will list servers by their popularity.
  
• They tend to be popular because they are well set up, and set up and upload speed are more important than ping; as I pointed out above.
  
• Then, and only then, look at ping
  
• Ignore servers with pings greater than 200, but consider any below that.
  
• When you find a good server Favourite it!
  
• Over time you will build up a list of servers that work.
  
• Join a community, they tend to play better than public servers, with all their attendant problems.
  

Hope this helps

Kind Regards walker

Edited July 21, 2011 by walker

[zeep 3]

I would decease detail for more realism.

[maddogx 13]

I would decease detail for more realism.

This is about details/features vs. lag, not realism.

[.kju 3245]

Lag is the wrong term. There is low fps, stutter and network lag, ping and warping.

[maddogx 13]

There is low fps, stutter and network lag, ping and warping.

Which can all be neatly summed up in one word: lag. :)

[.kju 3245]

Which has all different sources, reasons and areas that would require effort.

Sure you could say he meant all of these.

But non precise wording leads to people having a different understanding.

That said the thread and poll is pretty pointless anyway IMHO.

[zukov 490]

maybe a thread regarding only the ARMA 3 MP would be useful, i guess a lot of users's forum have interest around at this aspect

[Alex72 1]

Detail and optimization.

My biggest problem is the grass. Turn it off and fps goes up big time. Its only a problem when there is a lot of it and i have it in vision however. But less ARMA for more fps? Hell no. :)

[Flash Thunder 10]

As walker already mentioned.

The more players in a server typically its a better server because its getting more traffic, typically setup better.

PING less than 200ms is still good

are you really expecting to be able to play arma 2 on MP with the same graphics setting you would use when playing by yourself and not expect any problems/additional lag from it?

time to close this thread.