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

[nodunit 397]

Depends on what they do about shaders, in Arma1 you could turn off normal and specular maps but Arma2 you cannot. Furthermore you can push very high detail on even the lowest computer, but you generally have to sacrifice view distance.

@ OP, the problem is that chances are your friends would drop the game anyway, if graphics are their primary concern then I have little to no doubt that the complexity would drive them away in the end. While the graphics can be pretty, beautiful even, and a great deal of the game, they are not the core, and the core is what drives most away regardless of any imagery.

It's like comparing old classics such as Janes Fleet Command, Fighting Falcon, Janes Longbow and so on, the graphics may not be great by todays standards but it is not the graphics to which we stake everything on. Even todays great DCS black shark is pretty simple in terms of "Graphics", the only real beauty's you'd see would be the aircraft, the rest of it is simple in clutter, very little in shaders and so on. If you have any of these then show it your friends and get thier opinion, if they cannot bare to play them because of the graphics then chances are, it's not for them.

Edited April 25, 2012 by NodUnit

[Recta DP 10]

This discussion is trivial. First off the thread title claims how to sell Arma3 fivefold and then asks for laptop compatible settings -a strangely uncompelling argument. The game - just like every other -has minimum specs as well as offers a free version to test out.

Of course the statement was meant to be provocative. I spoke about my friends: If Arma 2 would look at least acceptable on inferior computers (which fulfill the minspecs), not only one person but five would have purchased it (In my circle of friends).

Arma 1 was looking acceptable with everything on "low", it had crisp and clear graphics, not much LOD switching etc. Arma 2 is not playable if everything is on "low", it's a pixel mess.

In the intial post it states that he has 4 friends who would buy it if blah blah...then goes on to say that it plays as a pixelated mess on their systems. How are they playing the pixelated mess if they didnt buy it :rolleyes:

It's called "Demo Version" and "Arma 2 Free".

@ OP, the problem is that chances are your friends would drop the game anyway, if graphics are their primary concern then I have little to no doubt that the complexity would drive them away in the end. While the graphics can be pretty, beautiful even, and a great deal of the game, they are not the core, and the core is what drives most away regardless of any imagery.

It's like comparing old classics such as Janes Fleet Command, Fighting Falcon, Janes Longbow and so on, the graphics may not be great by todays standards but it is not the graphics to which we stake everything on. Even todays great DCS black shark is pretty simple in terms of "Graphics", the only real beauty's you'd see would be the aircraft, the rest of it is simple in clutter, very little in shaders and so on. If you have any of these then show it your friends and get thier opinion, if they cannot bare to play them because of the graphics then chances are, it's not for them.

But thats exactly my point! They love simulations like OFP or Steel Beasts and want realistic gameplay, they don't care about fancy graphics. The graphics just need to be functional.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Just how many people would like to play A3 on lowest settings anyway? Maybe just wait until A3 is released and see which requirements are needed to enjoy A3 on "functional" graphic setting. Hardware prices will drop and perhaps it will make sense for them to upgrade or buy some new stuff.... On the other hand who knows, perhaps BIS finds a good solution so lowest/low settings will look reasonable good in A3? Guess BIS already knows that not everyone is going to buy "the best pc" just for A3 release. :)

[Sabot And Heat 10]

I'm no CPU / GPU expert, but looking at games that run with Cryengine or games like Skyrim have amazing graphics and I can max out with better than 60 frames a second. I don't know why ARMA 3 requires the primary use of the CPU for rendering, but I wonder why it can't seem to operate at the same frame rates as other games.

Now before I get flamed here by people thinking I'm hating on Arma, this is not the case. I love Arma. It has been an outstanding game.

My speaking out on this is based on concern for BI's future. The intesity and immersion is awesome. But, there are competitors that are starting to take notice and have better graphics/physics engines that far exceed the RV3.

I hope BI will understand that I want Arma to continue and that perhaps redesigning the engine or utilizing another may be the key to the future of the franchise.

I know some won't like what I have to say so I'm preparing for indirect.

ERN, ERN, ERN... Incoming, Incoming, Incoming... ERN, ERN, ERN... Incoming, Incoming, Incoming

---------- Post added at 01:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:10 PM ----------

@ Recta DP

I agree fancy graphics arent the number one concern, but in todays watershed of graphical enhancements and physics elements being completely within BI's capability...why not?

As far as fancy graphics are concerned...even Esimgames updated the original Steel Beasts to SB PRO PE. Now it has full day/night cycles and they are about to implement shadows. My point...no, shiny graphics don't replace content, but they are desired.

[froggyluv 2136]

Let me be the first to fire then.

Cryengines games suck. Period. Sure they may look flashy with the tiny areas and egocentric scale shooters but once your done being wowed by all of the shiny floating trash -your done. Skyrim (although I think looks decent) has been generally lambasted for selling out and not utelising the full extent of PC powers -hence the many high texture mods that are so popular. Once they have Two Towers scale battles with a real combat mechanic experience -Ill be impressed.

Most people and previewers are pretty blown away by Arma3's graphics especially considering your in a fully functioning environment -not just pretty backdrops and glowy things. Of course Arma2's livestock tend to glow as well...:o

It's called "Demo Version" and "Arma 2 Free".

Might have been good idea to mention that in intial post. I thought Arma2 Free was all Low Rez anyway?

Edited April 25, 2012 by froggyluv

[antoineflemming 14]

Arma 1 was looking acceptable with everything on "low", it had crisp and clear graphics, not much LOD switching etc. Arma 2 is not playable if everything is on "low", it's a pixel mess.

So in other words you're saying that there's more that makes ArmA2 unplayable than just high quality textures, right?

[Recta DP 10]

So in other words you're saying that there's more that makes ArmA2 unplayable than just high quality textures, right?

Yes, they use a lot of new shaders, high poly models, more "decoration" objects, etc. ArmA1 was better suited for players who played on "low" graphic settings. But let's end the discussion... maybe my friends really need new computers ;-).

[dmarkwick 261]

I'm no CPU / GPU expert, but looking at games that run with Cryengine or games like Skyrim have amazing graphics and I can max out with better than 60 frames a second. I don't know why ARMA 3 requires the primary use of the CPU for rendering, but I wonder why it can't seem to operate at the same frame rates as other games.

ArmA differs from those other titles in one very pertinent way; it's not player-centric. Other games are (mostly) only concerned with processing stuff that surrounds the player in his current location. ArmA though applies processing to every unit on the entire map, regardless of whether you're there to see it or not, regardless of whether you even ever see the outcome or not. Those other titles may have some amount of this (like Skyrim) but they're rare, and don't process every move & decision like ArmA does.

As an example if you place some opposing units on the far side of the map 10km away, they will proceed to engage each other, making the same decisions, moves & tactics using the terrain & local objects as though you were there to see it.

As far as I know the rendering utilises the GPU mostly the same as other titles.

[kimozabbi 1]

ArmA though applies processing to every unit on the entire map, regardless of whether you're there to see it or not

I'm guessing the new ragdoll physics and physx collisions will put more of a load on our computers than Arma 2 does, will that still be the case even if we can't see units, for example units out of our view on other side of map.

[dmarkwick 261]

I'm guessing the new ragdoll physics and physx collisions will put more of a load on our computers than Arma 2 does, will that still be the case even if we can't see units, for example units out of our view on other side of map.

Well, although it makes sense to apply ragdoll to units across the map (in case you ever get over there) there's no reason it has to be done in real-time :)

[kimozabbi 1]

Well, although it makes sense to apply ragdoll to units across the map (in case you ever get over there) there's no reason it has to be done in real-time :)

OK thanks for explaining.

[liquidpinky 11]

I'm no CPU / GPU expert, but looking at games that run with Cryengine or games like Skyrim have amazing graphics and I can max out with better than 60 frames a second. I don't know why ARMA 3 requires the primary use of the CPU for rendering, but I wonder why it can't seem to operate at the same frame rates as other games.

Why, because all them trees. I can run one of Take Ons maps with 20k draw distance and 12k object distance, none of those two above could even dream of it.

And if you can't bring either Skyrim or Crysis below 60FPS, you clearly arent maxing them. I can force Skrim down to single figures, especially in the Falkreath area, again you can thank trees for that mostly.

CPU is loaded by higher draw distances, the further you want to see the more they load. Another reason why Skyrim and Crysis don't seem to load them much is because they have far smaller draw distances, certainly compared to my settings in game anyway.

[antoineflemming 14]

Yes, they use a lot of new shaders, high poly models, more "decoration" objects, etc. ArmA1 was better suited for players who played on "low" graphic settings. But let's end the discussion... maybe my friends really need new computers ;-).

Ok. I was just trying to get clarification on what exactly you meant. I agree with you.

[frostwyrm333 1]

they need to get rid of the massive CPU bottleneck, people say that it its using CPU for simulating but if you try an editor mission with only 1 unit (yourself) it still squeezes CPU to death. I don't understand why is it so anyway.

[Choki 10]

Like max sayd

Optimization is a word that people throw around when they want more performance at no cost. It's fairy tale land without knowing what you're talking about.

[froggyluv 2136]

Like max sayd

Haha, good point. Aren't their 3879 Beta Patches an attempt at optimization? Its like people think "if thos damn Dev's would just do their darndest for an entire weekend....."

[Sabot And Heat 10]

@ DMArk

The player centric bit is something I hadn't considered. However, didnt I understand that BI was making A3 player centric just as you described? Wasnt it something to the effect of when other characters get out of view they will freeze?

@ Liquid Pinky

I have maxed all my sliders in Skyrim. Save for adjusting a .ini file, there is no further to go and I still get 60 plus frames.

@ FroggyLuv

Allow me to counter battery on your P.O.O. (<---Anyone?)

Nothing you said really explained why Arma couldnt look better. You just started firing arrows at other games and how they suck. They don't suck because they 'are shiny', they suck because they are not Arma type games. With that logic...should Crysis back peddle on the graphics then the game would not suck. Thats absurd. Clearly you should be able to see the difference.

Arma 2 (and soon 3) does look good...it just needs to be smoother.

[froggyluv 2136]

I don't know, Point of Orientation?

Well I don't know if you noticed but I also said Egocentric -meaning player centric. You brought those games to the comparison table so I felt the need to highlight that they are not in the same genre as Arma and that they also basically blow (excepting Farcry). You know what else runs smooth and look great on my pc? Unigine's Heaven - but its not worthy of comparison to Arma, just like the games you've brought up. No game has ever matched the AI pathfinding of Pacman (maybe Mrs.Pacman) or the 8 turn thinking ahead of Chessmaster -yet is it fair to compare all games to these? Alls Im saying is it's easy to say, "hey, that game looks great and runs smooth, why cant Arma?". Look at whats going on beneath the hood of the car first.

[liquidpinky 11]

@ Liquid Pinky

I have maxed all my sliders in Skyrim. Save for adjusting a .ini file, there is no further to go and I still get 60 plus frames.

You are missing out on some nice visuals then, you need to push it further than the sliders allow. ;)

[Flash Thunder 10]

@Frostybowman

Because those games you mention are all cell streamed, are filled with visual trickery, complex culling, lod systems, 2d faces, low resolution maps etc. If you look into the distance at the throat of the world in Skyrim all you can see is basic textures, basic mesh and a whole lot of z fighting phenomena.

[maturin 12]

Not to mention Skyrim's tree models are incredibly low quality, barely a step above Oblivion's. All vegetation is spaced out so as not fill the screen, the game only loads one small cell at a time with any detail. On top of this, there is barely any grass, again unlike Oblivion, which was a true PC-buster.

I actually get poorer FPS in dungeons, on account of all the high poly models, like the ones you get in ArmA.

[nodunit 397]

Polycount really isn't the killer, textures usually require more performance than a simple shaded high polygon model. For example, in many engines normal maps take 2x the resources that a same size diffuse does, so if you have a 2048x2048 and a normal map of the same, you could equate that to a 4096x4096 diffuse, which is why many games generally have them at half size. Another reason is as many have said, vegetation..normal maps do not like alpha channels for the most part, if you look at Crysis vegetation you may be surprised to know that there are NO normal maps in the bushes or trees and as such it gets a great boost from it.

Meanwhile in Arma2's case you have normal maps on bushes and tree's, I can't recall if grass uses them but in any case they really cause a hit, which is why the lowplants addon is so successful in frame rates, it doesn't have those shaders. The other big thing is that there is no way to disable these maps, take a look at nearly every game out there and you will see that they have options to disable shaders from least to more intensive including normal maps. The strange thing is that Armed Assault (Arma 1) actually allowed this by setting texture detail to low, you would lose specular AND normal maps but gain a huge frame increase.

If there was a full fledged addon pack including vehicles and infantry that redistrubuted the pbo's with half sized normal maps and blank ones for tree's (unless possible to remove the rvmat altogether) I garuntee you would see a dramatic increase in performance.

[Sabot And Heat 10]

@ Froggy Luv

Under the hood, yes...that's why I asked because I don't know, which I stated at the onset. Your guidance is to inquire, but your answers are laced with irritation. Perhaps being less eager to "fire indirect" and more eager to just have an adult conversation like the others did might serve you better?

P.S. Close...Point of origin. Where we fire our counter batterys and send combat patrols to the p.o.o. after we get hit by insurgents.

@ Liquid Pinky

I'll have to check out how much further I can push it. With that being said it looks great now and I wonder if it's necessary. Thanks.

Edited April 27, 2012 by frostybowman

[froggyluv 2136]

@ Froggy Luv

Under the hood, yes...that's why I asked because I don't know, which I stated at the onset. Your guidance is to inquire, but your answers are laced with irritation. Perhaps being less eager to "fire indirect" and more eager to just have an adult conversation like the others did might serve you better?

P.S. Close...Point of origin. Where we fire our counter batterys and send combat patrols to the p.o.o. after we get hit by insurgents.

.

Well sorry if my tone offends you but I do get irritated with the amount of what I believe to be false and unfair comparisons. To me OFP series has always been somewhat overly ambitious and while glorious in its achievements, of course sometimes falters due to its all encompassing enourmous scale. As an old head gamer playing since the late 70's, more and more todays games are imo, getting serverly watered down in terms of content and really over doing the splashy "wow!" graphics with no substance. OFP series is almost like a bastion or oasis against an ever encroaching horde of medocrity so yes, I get a bit defensive because it's all I got :)

It was really this statement which I believe triggers a knee jerk reaction

.

But, there are competitors that are starting to take notice and have better graphics/physics engines that far exceed the RV3.

IMHO, they are only competitors in that they both make game.

Edited April 27, 2012 by froggyluv

[Sabot And Heat 10]

@ Froggy Luv

Fair enough, but don't be irratated. I think Arma is great and I preach about it regularly to my peers, suboordinates and leadership who have never seen it (well most have in VBS2 form but didnt know).

For the record, I agree that OFP/ARMA has been a bastion against mediocrity too. That is an excellent way to describe it. I just believe both graphics and content are truly possible.

As far as the term competitors, I meant it in the simplest business model form. I want BI to get more money through more sales. I would like EA, UBISOFT and other mediocraty masters to disappear. However, they truly have mastered at least the graphical content and there is always something to learn...even from ones competitors.

Take care.

P.S. I'm waiting for an "...am I not merciful ?!" Lol.

Edited April 27, 2012 by frostybowman