Optimization and worse graphics: The key to a fivefold increase in sales of ARMA 3

[Recta DP 10]

We (me and four of my friend) were playing "Flashpoint" for years. Today we are all "working adults" and I'm the only one who plays Arma. Why? My friends are of course still interested in a game like Arma. However, no one except me has a high end computer, but just good laptops. Each of them would buy the game immediately, if it ran on his laptop. The laptops are not bad (Think Pad Mobile Workstations, Price: 2100 $) and most games can be played, but Arma is virtually unplayable. If you scale down the graphics quality of Arma 2, the only thing you get is an unplayable "pixel mess".

Me and my friends are not interested in better graphics, but in a proper combat simulation and realism. I would even play Arma 2 with the graphics of "Flashpoint". Arma 2 is actually the only game where I would wish that it had worse graphics. It is likely that the same applies to Arma 3.

This is of course quite subjective, but I do not think I'm totally alone with this.

[instagoat 133]

Just add a super high performance graphics setting that locks everything three LODs down, reduces viewdistance to 500 and turns off shaders. Presto! Instant high performance mode, 60+ fps guaranteed on any rig from 2006 gen onwards.

[tremanarch 6]

low polygon models of course, low res textures, low Areal detail such as trees and grass and bushes..

[maddogx 13]

Lower poly models would not automatically mean worse graphics. By using techniques like displacement mapping (through GPU-side tesselation), you can shift some of the workload from the CPU to the GPU while retaining visual quality.

I really hope they're doing this. Anything that frees up CPU cycles is a good thing.

Edited April 23, 2012 by MadDogX

[metalcraze 290]

Displacement mapping will bring your FPS down just the same as putting those polys in there in the first place.

I also don't understand what you mean by shifting workload from CPU to GPU? High polycounts were GPU's workload all along.

And the point of OP was that his bros do not have top notch systems. So no displacement mapping for them.

Saying that - why not put ArmA2 graphics on minimum and play? It won't look worse than OFP.

[maddogx 13]

I also don't understand what you mean by shifting workload from CPU to GPU? High polycounts were GPU's workload all along.

Geometry is always processed by the CPU and then sent to the GPU for rendering. The more complex the geometry, the higher the workload for the CPU. Especially highly complex scenes can get very CPU intensive this way, and if the CPU is overtaxed it can be a bottleneck.

Reducing poly counts frees up CPU cycles and can thus improve overall performance. Normally this results in reduced visual quality, but tesselation shaders can compensate for this by increasing the geometry complexity on the GPU side.

That's what I meant by shifting workload from the CPU to the GPU.

EDIT: Never mind, it seems I've been living in the past.

Edited April 23, 2012 by MadDogX

[mr. bravo 17]

Hell no. If you're adults with jobs, then go buy yourselves some proper gaming-PC's for gods sake. If teens can do it, then so can you.

"proper combat simulation and realism" is as dependent on graphics and physics as anything else, and I think it's awesome that BIS is putting more work into this in ArmA3 (Especially when it comes to physics). ArmA2 is filled with frustrating realism-killers and limitations that can only be fixed with new hardcoded systems, which will of course put new demands on PC's. Technology must go forward, compared to all stoneage console-ports that are dominating the market.

Optimization is of course important and I'm sure BIS knows this already :raisebrow: That's why we're getting a Community Alpha.

[Recta DP 10]

And the point of OP was that his bros do not have top notch systems. So no displacement mapping for them.

Saying that - why not put ArmA2 graphics on minimum and play? It won't look worse than OFP.

ArmA2 on minimum settings (especially the vegetation) looks worse than OFP; it really is unplayable, I've tried it several times. Some refused to continue playing and said that they would otherwise get "eye cancer". :D

What I still like: There is not that much LOD switching in OFP. The virtual world feels therefore more coherent and convincing.

[antoineflemming 14]

Hell no. If you're adults with jobs, then go buy yourselves some proper gaming-PC's for gods sake. If teens can do it, then so can you.

"proper combat simulation and realism" is as dependent on graphics and physics as anything else, and I think it's awesome that BIS is putting more work into this in ArmA3 (Especially when it comes to physics). ArmA2 is filled with frustrating realism-killers and limitations that can only be fixed with new hardcoded systems, which will of course put new demands on PC's. Technology must go forward, compared to all stoneage console-ports that are dominating the market.

Optimization is of course important and I'm sure BIS knows this already :raisebrow: That's why we're getting a Community Alpha.

In this current economic situation (world over, not just US), and when teens don't have to pay taxes (at least in the States they don't), and working adults do, when some working adults have families to take care of, and teens only have to take care of themselves, that's a really arrogant and ignorant thing to say. Maybe you Swedish guys have everything together and are living in your Utopia, sitting on your money, with no one to take care of, but in other parts of the world people actually have lives that take precedence over gaming.

That said, I'm kinda-sorta with the OP. Only thing I wish I could turn down is some of the particle effects. I notice that I get the most lag when there are particle effects going on, especially in MP. That usually marks the difference between like 45-50 FPS and like 15 FPS at the worst of times. Like smoke, and dust, that sort of thing. Is there some way to turn that off that I haven't recognized, or is there really no way to turn that off? If no way, then that's what I wish I could turn off. I'm not a fan of turning down things like textures and such. Can't stand a game with bad textures unless the gameplay is exceptional.

EDIT: Also, Recta DP, I hate Lenovo. I think they're terrible. At least the ThinkPad I had would overheat all the time. And NOT just when running ArmA.

[kimozabbi 1]

go buy yourselves some proper gaming-PC's for gods sake

Do you mean my 5 year old laptop won't be good enough? Just joking, I'm digging your attitude man, too many people want 'all the things' but expect it to run on a peice of rubbish.

[Recta DP 10]

Hell no. If you're adults with jobs, then go buy yourselves some proper gaming-PC's for gods sake. If teens can do it, then so can you.

Yes, but my friends tend to play very little. To buy an expensive gaming-PC for a single game that you play only twice a month is not an easy decision. They have wives, living rooms, etc. most likely they would buy a PS3 or XBox for their television...

"proper combat simulation and realism" is as dependent on graphics and physics as anything else, and I think it's awesome that BIS is putting more work into this in ArmA3 (Especially when it comes to physics). ArmA2 is filled with frustrating realism-killers and limitations that can only be fixed with new hardcoded systems, which will of course put new demands on PC's. Technology must go forward, compared to all stoneage console-ports that are dominating the market.

Really? I also play "Steel Beasts Pro Pe". It has similar graphics as OFP and there is no publicly available armored warfare simulator that is more realistic and atmospheric. The immersion is great, although the graphics are bad.

---------- Post added at 02:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:54 PM ----------

In this current economic situation (world over, not just US), and when teens don't have to pay taxes (at least in the States they don't), and working adults do, when some working adults have families to take care of, and teens only have to take care of themselves, that's a really arrogant and ignorant thing to say. Maybe you Swedish guys have everything together and are living in your Utopia, sitting on your money, with no one to take care of, but in other parts of the world people actually have lives that take precedence over gaming.

Very well said!

[mr. bravo 17]

In this current economic situation (world over, not just US), and when teens don't have to pay taxes (at least in the States they don't), and working adults do, when some working adults have families to take care of, and teens only have to take care of themselves, that's a really arrogant and ignorant thing to say. Maybe you Swedish guys have everything together and are living in your Utopia, sitting on your money, with no one to take care of, but in other parts of the world people actually have lives that take precedence over gaming.

Hobbies are always a matter of priorities, so that's not even a valid argument. I'd rather say it would be incredibly selfish to say games should be uglier just so other people can enjoy it, while enthusiasts with game-priorities are being ignored.

Good PC hardware isnt very expensive today, especially if you buy things second hand and look around for whatever parts you can practically get for free. If you're low on cash and want to be able to game, a laptop is the worst thing you can buy. If you also need something portable, then maybe it would be a better idea to get something cheaper for that part, and save the rest for a more powerfull desktop instead, where you get a lot more performance for your money? $2100 laptops are quite overkill unless you need it for some kind of rendering.

It's all about some basic research and using your imagination. You dont need to buy a Ferrari to have a fast car.

[antoineflemming 14]

No, they shouldn't make ArmA3 ugly. But they should add more options so that players like Recta DP can make the game "uglier", more runnable I'd say. I'd like the option of turning off certain particle effects, like smoke, or dust, things like that. The game would run a whole lot better for some people if just that could be turned off via the ingame menu. So, honoestly, if ArmA just had even more options, then that would increase the chances of the game being able to run on lower end machines.

But, as well, the OP's title isn't true. Having worse graphics as a whole would decrease ArmA's sales. Good graphics and, now, good animations, and probably good multiplayer will most likely boost ArmA's sales, because people like graphics. People like things that look good.

[Recta DP 10]

$2100 laptops are quite overkill unless you need it for some kind of rendering.

Yes, the laptops are used as portable workstations (Some calculations are done on the GPU.)

You dont need to buy a Ferrari to have a fast car.

I have a "fast car", but Arma 2 seems to need a Ferrari. :D

[Panda_pl 0]

Let's start by saying I can play Arma2 just fine on MSI GE500 laptop, which costed me nowhere near $2100. Turn down the graphics and you're fine mate.

If the GPU on laptops you have described is something like ATI Mobility FireGL V5250 that would be quite a bottleneck in gaming, from what I just saw (performance tests score quite low). I am not sure what you are running.

Perhaps the $2100 laptops were really not built for gaming or the drivers are causing trouble because nobody would think to make the game compatible with work PC.

[no use for a name 0]

People have to also realize that Arma is just as dependent on other hardware...I can pretty much max all graphics (minus 3D Resolution) on an empty map with a 560Ti and still average FPS in the high-40's to mid-50's; but when you start adding AI, scripts, addons, etc. etc. CPU/HDD usage goes up also. On a very AI-intensive map I usually only average ~30FPS. This is usually why when people turn down their graphics all the way they still have crap performance because their CPU, HDD, and other hardware are just as crap.

I'm all for optimization, but this isn't like every other game on the market and it really utilizes your whole PC. Just saying don't expect a "magical" fix for performance, and start saving for a decent PC

[NeMeSiS 11]

ArmA2 runs fine on med-high settings on a ~450€ PC from more then a year ago.

Thats a >1000€ laptop of course, but i have a cheap laptop for school/low end games and a midrange PC so i can play decently/have a nice media center.

EDIT: Also, as mentioned above: In many missions you are limited by your CPU, in which case turning down graphics barely matters anyway.

Edited April 23, 2012 by NeMeSiS

[NeuroFunker 11]

well ofcourse everybody wants arma 3 be well optimized, but we wont find it out untill its being released. I put a big hope in BIS to optimize it as much as possible.

[Choki 10]

you need to buy a real pc. the actual games are not for laptops...

increase in sales arma 3? WTF? And battlefield 3? sells like crazy and never is going to work on a laptop

[maddogx 13]

you need to buy a real pc. the actual games are not for laptops...

increase in sales arma 3? WTF? And battlefield 3? sells like crazy and never is going to work on a laptop

Weird, a friend of mine is always playing BF3 on his laptop. (Then again, it is a bloody expensive gaming laptop. :p)

[Reoisasa 1]

I am highly suspect at any of your guys' needs for $2000+ mobile workstations. The fact that you cannot afford to build a $1000 gaming desktop (which you could also outfit with a workstation graphics card for a few hundred dollars) because you overpayed for these overpriced mobile computers is your fault. Game developers have to push the envelop or video games will never advance.

[Hillsbills 1]

While I'm against catering to those with low end PC's my mid range has been running ARMA2 just fine for years, upgrade over time don't drop all your cash at once. I'm looking forward to slowly building my new ARMA3 rig. That said, changing the graphics won't increase sales, we're a niche bunch.

[wipman 1]

Hi, the people talks about how they spect that the ArmA3 runs well enough while still looking "good enough" on a mid-end computer; everyone spects this from a game... but the thing is to determinate what means "good enough" on the graphical field... the possible new players/customers of the ArmA3 don't know or understand that the main problem of the game is all the things that it haves to check In Real Time all toguether aside of the graphics, and in a very very big space.

Most of the possible new customers/players see the few ArmA3 videos and they just say "wow, how cool!", "i hope that it moves in PC", "looks like that it would need a good PC", "looks like the BF3!"; but they don't know the game series or their mechanics... they spect some arcade for dumbs instead a game that's the most serious and tactical (talking about groups management and execution) on the civilian market and they don't recognize the job behind the picture and what it demands to get the whole thing "good enough". For me good enough means don't have less than my native resolution (1280x1024) with the textures and models set to High while the rest is on Medium and the AA at x2 with a minimun view distance of 2000m, moving at not less than 32fps; that's good enough for me. But for others... this would be a F dream... while for others... this would be a rubbish and a cause of legitimate complain, this last ones don't get all the things the game "is thinking about" far beyond what you don't see.

BIS will gain and keep more new customers if they find a way of achive what a casual gamer would take as "good enough graphics" with medium settings keeping (again) a good enough FPS rate; musn't be that easy to make a game for a wide range of different people with different computers, make it "good enough" for 'em all could be an impossible task. Let's C ya

[Panda_pl 0]

Weird, a friend of mine is always playing BF3 on his laptop. (Then again, it is a bloody expensive gaming laptop. :p)

So do I.

Just note that laptop screen resolution is much smaller than your 1080p HD monitor. Smaller render window = twice the performance.

Besides any game that can run on console will run on decent laptop. They have quite outdated hardware in that box.

[froggyluv 2136]

I have a "fast car", but Arma 2 seems to need a Ferrari. :D

If your talking Laptops then yes but you really can't expect the creators who already have a hellava time trying to optimize for the vast variety of desktops to now make laptop performance another concern. A mid range desktop can be built to play Arma2 at high to very high settings as well as enhancement mods for a very reasonable price these days.

Hobbies are always a matter of priorities, so that's not even a valid argument. I'd rather say it would be incredibly selfish to say games should be uglier just so other people can enjoy it, while enthusiasts with game-priorities are being ignored.

This. I play golf at the $30 a day ranges while friends spend thousands and thousands for their private clubs to enjoy their better' landscape graphics'. Would be silly for me to yell at the ghetto groundsmen to spruce up the place for me :p