Would you decrease detail for less lag?

[Zipper5 74]

In ARMA 2 pings less than 500ms are okay so long as your desync is not high. I can't play ARMA 2 MP anymore because BattlEye allows kicking for pings and every server has it set to 200ms or less, and my desync is never high. It makes me hold the current MP community in contempt more than you could ever imagine.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Zipper5: A high ping for you may be OK for you but on a server with high numbers of players it slows everyone else down. :(

Which country do you live in? That you cannot get any server below 200ms?

Kind Regards walker

[Zipper5 74]

Qatar, with the fastest internet available here (which also costs a fortune): 4mbps. Yet, for many years I played in the IC:ARMA and CF:ARMA 2 tournaments despite connecting to servers in the US with no trouble and many players on the server.

[metalcraze 290]

:D

Word of the decade on these forums: optimization.

ArmA requires more resources than Counter-Strike... Must mean BIS sucks at coding.

In reply to Zipper5: A high ping for you may be OK for you but on a server with high numbers of players it slows everyone else down. :(

I don't think ArmA netcode works like that. To me it seems like the majority of things you do in the game gets calculated on your PC first and gets sent to the server afterwards while the server doesn't really care if it gets info from the client. Which explains such high ping tolerance.

The problem of server needing replies from all players to send them to everyone which plagued netcode in many old games is certainly not there.

Edited July 21, 2011 by metalcraze

[Maystor 10]

Results of this poll kind of sadden me because this is exactly the reason why I'm not a fan of ARMA 2. The game is already too big for its own good IMO and the majority of the players want even more features, even bigger islands, more units etc. When you compare it to OFP, you can already see how much of a negative impact the sheer size and complexity of ARMA 2 has on network performance. I would gladly give up on most of the proposed new features for ARMA 3 just to have a smoother multiplayer experience so a definitive YES from me.

In one of the posts it is claimed ARMA 2 has one of the most perfect netcodes when it comes to lag. I have to admit at that point I had to check if I wasn't on a wrong forum by any chance :D I mean, it lags and warps in the most simple of missions even in LAN with 0 ping. In fact, it is one of the most disappointing multiplayer experiences I've had considering the amazing potential the game has.

[Archosaurusrev 12]

Over 20% of the possibilities of ArmA arent used by the community.

Fact.

More optimisation and less minor features would be very nice.

Perhaps add those minor features through patches?

[ProfTournesol 956]

Over 20% of the possibilities of ArmA arent used by the community.

For example ?

[Archosaurusrev 12]

See some of those roleplaying missions? Or story driven coop mission with cutscenes?

How many times do you play those in a public server?

Private server with friends?

[PuFu 4600]

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

unfortunately a lot of video game players associate the term lag with low FPS, as well as high latency/ping.

The problems most A2 player have experienced, and have NOTHING to do with the said LAG (network related - MP part) are:

low FPS - hardware related as well as game engine optimization. Most around here still think that a P4 is a decent machine to play a 2011 PC exclusive game..

stutter - usually associated with the amount of large textures the engine needs to read off the HDD. Using a high speed SDD or RamDisk usually fixes this for good.

TBH, i see not relation between the amount of available features and network related lag. Even when it comes down to the amount of network traffic a server needs to handle, a lot of the stuff going on in A2 is not even broadcasted across the network...

So using the same term - LAG, for a range of different issues is far from being productive, and can be observed by trying to read through this very thread: some ppl are complaining about the netcode some about the hardware requirements etc.

Results of this poll kind of sadden me because this is exactly the reason why I'm not a fan of ARMA 2. The game is already too big for its own good IMO and the majority of the players want even more features, even bigger islands, more units etc. When you compare it to OFP, you can already see how much of a negative impact the sheer size and complexity of ARMA 2 has on network performance. I would gladly give up on most of the proposed new features for ARMA 3 just to have a smoother multiplayer experience so a definitive YES from me.

Could you please explain what is the relation between the amount of 3d content available and the netcode? Or the size of the island and the same MP netcode?

Surely, the way A2 deals with textures (their size and sheer number) is not the best possible option for a game, but then again, you need to understand the middleware limitations (DX) as well as the sandbox concept behind it.

Moreover, the size of an island, from my experience, has nothing to do with the amount of network traffic needed/handled by the server.

For me, what makes A2 the game i keep coming back to is the openness and the unlimited possibilities offered. More features? Hell yes. But that doesn't mean BIS shouldn't revise their netcode and look over how the game handles the available resources in order to get the most of them.

---------- Post added at 05:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 PM ----------

See some of those roleplaying missions? Or story driven coop mission with cutscenes?

How many times do you play those in a public server?

Private server with friends?

MP part of this game is a LOT bigger than you generic public server.

* Story driver coop missions? Check - private server. Cutscenes? Well, i prefer none in a MP game, especially since you can't skip those, and seeing them a nth time when playing the mission again can get frustrating.

* Roleplay missions? Check - private server

[gossamersolid 155]

Over 20% of the possibilities of ArmA arent used by the community.

Fact.

More optimisation and less minor features would be very nice.

Perhaps add those minor features through patches?

Please, just stop posting... everytime I read one of your posts I want to shoot myself in the head...

Edited July 22, 2011 by GossamerSolid

[zukov 490]

unfortunately a lot of video game players associate the term lag with low FPS, as well as high latency/ping.

The problems most A2 player have experienced, and have NOTHING to do with the said LAG (network related - MP part) are:

low FPS - hardware related as well as game engine optimization. Most around here still think that a P4 is a decent machine to play a 2011 PC exclusive game..

stutter - usually associated with the amount of large textures the engine needs to read off the HDD. Using a high speed SDD or RamDisk usually fixes this for good.

TBH, i see not relation between the amount of available features and network related lag. Even when it comes down to the amount of network traffic a server needs to handle, a lot of the stuff going on in A2 is not even broadcasted across the network...

So using the same term - LAG, for a range of different issues is far from being productive, and can be observed by trying to read through this very thread: some ppl are complaining about the netcode some about the hardware requirements etc.

Could you please explain what is the relation between the amount of 3d content available and the netcode? Or the size of the island and the same MP netcode?

Surely, the way A2 deals with textures (their size and sheer number) is not the best possible option for a game, but then again, you need to understand the middleware limitations (DX) as well as the sandbox concept behind it.

Moreover, the size of an island, from my experience, has nothing to do with the amount of network traffic needed/handled by the server.

For me, what makes A2 the game i keep coming back to is the openness and the unlimited possibilities offered. More features? Hell yes. But that doesn't mean BIS shouldn't revise their netcode and look over how the game handles the available resources in order to get the most of them.

---------- Post added at 05:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 PM ----------

MP part of this game is a LOT bigger than you generic public server.

* Story driver coop missions? Check - private server. Cutscenes? Well, i prefer none in a MP game, especially since you can't skip those, and seeing them a nth time when playing the mission again can get frustrating.

* Roleplay missions? Check - private server

from confirmed features

1. Volumetric clouds
   
2. All the buildings on Lemnos can be entered and are destructible .
   
3. RTT ( render to texture ) is confirmed.
   
4. Arma 3 will include the TOH flight model , but not in the main campaign .
   
5. The island is 2.4 times bigger then Takistan .
   
6. The island will have 50 villages .
   

each of these features will make lag

plus

1. exagerated draw distance
   
2. small or huge mission you have to load a 400 km2's map
   
3. AI PAthfinding
   

maybe a "Google mainframe" will handle this game on line, not a commercial game server

the pool is preventing that this game will be used a benchmark for own rig, but is my opinion

[Zipper5 74]

each of these features will make lag

So either buy a new PC if it can't handle it or stick to ARMA 2. Ideally a sequel improves on the original, not just rehashes it. If you want rehashed sequels go play Call of Duty, Battlefield or HALO. They would be more ideal for you anyways if your main concern is balanced (yeah right) competitive multiplayer.

[dmarkwick 261]

each of these features will make lag

None of those features will create lag. The number of AI & players will create lag.

[zukov 490]

So either buy a new PC if it can't handle it or stick to ARMA 2. Ideally a sequel improves on the original, not just rehashes it. If you want rehashed sequels go play Call of Duty, Battlefield or HALO. They would be more ideal for you anyways if your main concern is balanced (yeah right) competitive multiplayer.

mi rig is quite good for handle this game, i still play graw2 and AA3 i'm like arma for the veichles and other things, i wrote that i prefer more the game run smooth then features that will make this game less playable on line, not many peoples can host a lan for play.

i don't understand why a lot of peoples in this forum, when reads the words "on line o MP" writes immediatly "go to play cod etc" BIS doesn't want to make ARMA 3 for MP?

[NoRailgunner 0]

Zukov - no, BIS are just keen on great SP experience and players who like the real OFP atmosphere (and maybe a little bit of the good+old GhostRecon) but not that GRAW123456/AA123456 shoebox shit. :rolleyes:

[Windexglow 10]

from confirmed features

1. Volumetric clouds
   
2. All the buildings on Lemnos can be entered and are destructible .
   
3. RTT ( render to texture ) is confirmed.
   
4. Arma 3 will include the TOH flight model , but not in the main campaign .
   
5. The island is 2.4 times bigger then Takistan .
   
6. The island will have 50 villages .
   

each of these features will make lag

plus

1. exagerated draw distance
   
2. small or huge mission you have to load a 400 km2's map
   
3. AI PAthfinding
   

maybe a "Google mainframe" will handle this game on line, not a commercial game server

the pool is preventing that this game will be used a benchmark for own rig, but is my opinion

Arma 3 has confirmed gameplay. This causes lag, yet another poor design decision by bi.

[gossamersolid 155]

Arma 3 has confirmed gameplay. This causes lag, yet another poor design decision by bi.

Not sure if serious?

You are saying another poor design decision because you are expecting your PC to play the next iteration of the game and not take a performance hit.

Then people would complain that BIS didn't add enough to the game to make it worth the money...

[5LEvEN 11]

It's a dedicated PC game... So don't expect to be running it full specs on release. Optimizing for a console is much easier because everyone is running the same software and hardware, where as optimizing on the PC is completely different as almost no one has the same hardware and software... Same concept for each, just for the PC you will be optimizing for many different configurations.

On my PC (yes its very old) I can run arma 2. No not at full specs hell I barely run it to be honest, but I do make it work. I have a 4000+ cpu, 430gt, and 4gb of 800mhz ram cas 5... My settings are view distance minimum(500m for inf, and 2500m for flying), Post Processing effects off, textures very high, memory default, res 1080p, aa off, af very high (16x), objects very low, terrain detail very low, and hdr normal... So tbh it kind of makes me mad when I see someone complaining about the performance of the game on there 20x better then mine system... Yes I will be upgrading soon :)

Do NOT expect to run it at max, expect to run it... If you cannot run it at at least 25fps with very low to low settings and meet recommended requirements, then by all means complain, but if your complaining because you cannot run it at max with at least 25fps then please STFU.... This is PC gaming, expect to have to upgrade every now and then just to run a game... As a PC gamer I EXPECT AND WANT my games to push my system to the limit and force me to upgrade eventually.

[dale0404 5]

Arma 3 needs all the features it can fit inside the box. Lets hope the box is bulging.

[HellToupee 0]

It's a dedicated PC game... So don't expect to be running it full specs on release. Optimizing for a console is much easier because everyone is running the same software and hardware, where as optimizing on the PC is completely different as almost no one has the same hardware and software... Same concept for each, just for the PC you will be optimizing for many different configurations.

On my PC (yes its very old) I can run arma 2. No not at full specs hell I barely run it to be honest, but I do make it work. I have a 4000+ cpu, 430gt, and 4gb of 800mhz ram cas 5... My settings are view distance minimum(500m for inf, and 2500m for flying), Post Processing effects off, textures very high, memory default, res 1080p, aa off, af very high (16x), objects very low, terrain detail very low, and hdr normal... So tbh it kind of makes me mad when I see someone complaining about the performance of the game on there 20x better then mine system... Yes I will be upgrading soon :)

Do NOT expect to run it at max, expect to run it... If you cannot run it at at least 25fps with very low to low settings and meet recommended requirements, then by all means complain, but if your complaining because you cannot run it at max with at least 25fps then please STFU.... This is PC gaming, expect to have to upgrade every now and then just to run a game... As a PC gamer I EXPECT AND WANT my games to push my system to the limit and force me to upgrade eventually.

People do not expect to run at max, but they do expect to have it playable at some settings, problem with Arma 2 was there seemed little difference between low and max, it still ran poorly at lowest settings while games like crysis 1 pushed the max it still ran great on older machines when you turned down the settings.

While even now with hardware that came out after arma 2 it still doesnt run all that smoothly, your graphics card for example the 430gt came out more than year after arma 2.

[purepassion 22]

Not sure if serious?

might have been irony

I totally stick to zippers opinion. A sequel is there to add new things and expand the previous title. Arma 3 is fortunately one of the very rare PC exclusive games left and should not be ashamed to have high requirements. (Why should it anyways?)

The best optimization can be found under Options-Graphic in the game menu.

[maddogx 13]

The best optimization can be found under Options-Graphic in the game menu.

So true.

Unfortunately, many people who spend big bucks on their computer hardware fall into this mindset where they expect to max out the settings on every single game, mainly because most of the mainstream games nowadays cater to them in that respect. I remember before Arma2 was released, someone on these forums was actually saying "I hope they don't make the graphics too good in Arma2. If I can't at least set everything to High with my 8800GTS, I'm not buying it!"

Not that it matters that Arma2 still looks great on medium. Seriously, it's not even about wanting the game to look good; it's all about the psychology of feeling "rewarded" for building an expensive rig. These people would probably be perfectly happy if BIS removed the "very high" settings from the game and renamed the others "medium" -> "high" and "high" -> "ULTRA!", aswell as reducing the max view distance to 5k. It may be lower, but hey, at least we can max it out now! :rolleyes:

I just hope BIS doesn't listen to these morons, but keeps on doing what they always do. ;)

[purepassion 22]

All about prestige mate...

But well I think everyone here agrees that the team should not castrate Arma 3 for performance reasons ( They said they will not remove features from arma 2 anyways) and will do the best job they can to optimise the game. Lets all just buy the best hardware we can and enjoy an awesome game!

[PuFu 4600]

from confirmed features

1. Volumetric clouds
   
2. All the buildings on Lemnos can be entered and are destructible .
   
3. RTT ( render to texture ) is confirmed.
   
4. Arma 3 will include the TOH flight model , but not in the main campaign .
   
5. The island is 2.4 times bigger then Takistan .
   
6. The island will have 50 villages .
   

each of these features will make lag

LAG doesn't mean low FPS. It means latency and increased network traffic

Most of the above doesn't create network traffic, or is handled by the server (no game server has a dedicated GFX card anyways - but it is obvious you know nothing about a server in the first place).

plus

1. exagerated draw distance
   
2. small or huge mission you have to load a 400 km2's map
   
3. AI PAthfinding
   

maybe a "Google mainframe" will handle this game on line, not a commercial game server

Again, draw distance, and size of a map have NOTHING to do with the server. Get your facts straight

[ziiip 1]

Not that it matters that Arma2 still looks great on medium. Seriously, it's not even about wanting the game to look good; it's all about the psychology of feeling "rewarded" for building an expensive rig. These people would probably be perfectly happy if BIS removed the "very high" settings from the game and renamed the others "medium" -> "high" and "high" -> "ULTRA!", aswell as reducing the max view distance to 5k. It may be lower, but hey, at least we can max it out now! :rolleyes:

Hahah, this sounds so true. :D