Arma 3 Frames Per Second and Fluent Moving ?

[BinaryCode64 1]

Deleted

Edited March 10, 2013 by BinaryCode64

[dale0404 5]

This has been discussed to death peeps by all and sundry. There are reasons the game uses a 32 bit system search and you will find...

[Yett 10]

For COD or BF probably. For ArmA? I would not be so sure about that.

I was referring to AAA* games.

Not Arma.

[Leon86 13]

Just because its 100 times bigger doesn't mean to say you have to render EVERTHING!

arma doesnt render everything.

I was referring to AAA* games.

Not Arma.

what games?

[dm 9]

Just because its 100 times bigger doesn't mean to say you have to render EVERTHING!

ArmA is not player-centric like CoD and BF are. The AI continue to fight even when you're on the other side of the map, they wont just sit there like dummies until you get close enough to activate them. If this is the "optimisation" option, then I'll take my clunky frame rates thanks very much.

[BinaryCode64 1]

Deleted

Edited March 10, 2013 by BinaryCode64

[metalcraze 290]

It takes a lot of Man-Hours to optimize a game. But if they optimize it for consoles, why should'nt they optimize it for PC? I mean it doesn't effect the look or feel of the game at all and Arma needs a bit more space so it can be powered to its full potential.

But ArmA2 is optimized. Didn't you read? It takes only 1.5 GBs to render hugeass 200+ sq. km maps with all kinds of stuff in them

While Skyrim with its ~5x5km map already needs 4 GBs on PC.

Skyrim has neither the detail of Chernarus nor comparable texture quality.

That's just an example of RAM optimizations and how ArmA engine is so much better at streaming.

[mr. bravo 17]

Seeing how Arma2 runs today compared to 3 years ago, there have DEFINITELY been lots of optimization. Saying anything else deserves a slap to the face. I'm not having any problems running the game at all. Only things that still kills performance is high AA-settings and ridiculous view-distance, but which is expected. Oh and of course shitty built missions that just makes your CPU go complete bananas.

I'm expecting Arma3 to be a heavy game to run, because of all the new tech they've built into the engine (Obviously). It's huge and it's great looking, and will be so for many years. No other game out there can match it, or even Arma2 for that matter. I think it's awesome to still have pure PC-games like this around to make the newest of hardware sweat their electronic balls off, just like in the good old days. It makes you appreciate it more! (As long as it delivers of course)

And judging from previous statements about this from BIS, I dont think you're even meant to be able to max every setting in the game. Instead they give us some ridiculous possible settings to play around with, and to optimize/balance it for however we prefer it and play. Like, if you're flying a lot, you might want very high viewdistance, but wont need much ground-detail. If you're on the ground, it's the opposite. I think these choices are better than to limit the settings available for everyone, which will also make the graphics look outdated quicker.

Its not poorly optimised, its just 100 times bigger.

Quote of the day!

[-Coulum- 35]

Just because its 100 times bigger doesn't mean to say you have to render EVERTHING![

I don’t think arma renders the graphics that you aren’t looking at. And if you think they should make it so ai don’t function when you aren’t looking at them…Just NO. One of the best things about arma is the fact that it is not player centric and a whole battle can go down without you even being near it. Its awesome to come see the aftermath of a battle and try to determine what exactly happened. If that’s your idea of optimization I don’t agree with it.

And really 30 fps min is very good. I just reinstalled my computer to clean it out. It improved my arma performance by quite a lbit. I now get 30fps max with less than 50 ai on the map, no AA, and medium settings everywhere else. And I am ecstatic. It still looks relatively good. There are lots of complaints that BI doesn’t optimize there game, but it is just as much up to the player to optimize as well. Maxing out is not optimization! I don’t know why everyone is obseesed with maximum settings. If BI were just to cut the max setting in half there wouldn’t be all this complaining about optimization. Be grateful BI has given you so many options in the first place.

Als for fluency and control, yes there is definitely room do improvement but I think bi know this and are working to cure it.

[maturin 12]

30fps... oh boo hoo.

I could shoot you at 12fps. Learn to play.

[BinaryCode64 1]

Deleted

Edited March 10, 2013 by BinaryCode64

[pvtdancer 5]

From the looks of it they are doing a good job, I do think that ARMA 3 will be more intensive than 2 but its how it will use the resources that are available that counts. I would think given the time they have had and the improvements made in the industry, How could they not take advantage of more ram? the question will be is will they cap it again or just let it take what it needs.

[SpunkMonkey 1]

While DM didn't say it, I will: if you don't know what you are talking about, please just don't. It's painful.

[Yett 10]

ArmA is not player-centric like CoD and BF are. The AI continue to fight even when you're on the other side of the map, they wont just sit there like dummies until you get close enough to activate them. If this is the "optimisation" option, then I'll take my clunky frame rates thanks very much.

Just because the AI are fighting across the other side of the map doesn't mean they need to be loaded into the RAM.

---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:24 PM ----------

But ArmA2 is optimized. Didn't you read? It takes only 1.5 GBs to render hugeass 200+ sq. km maps with all kinds of stuff in them

While Skyrim with its ~5x5km map already needs 4 GBs on PC.

Skyrim has neither the detail of Chernarus nor comparable texture quality.

That's just an example of RAM optimizations and how ArmA engine is so much better at streaming.

Arma 2 is so optimized that all PC's get 20fps when it does render a lot.

[tremanarch 6]

Just because the AI are fighting across the other side of the map doesn't mean they need to be loaded into the RAM.

How should it be calculated then? ?

Or did you mean the soldier textures or something?

Maybe you should watch the quakecon video I posted first!

[metalcraze 290]

Arma 2 is so optimized that all PC's get 20fps when it does render a lot.

Mine gets 32-40. It has hardware from 08-09. Most of settings are at high. VD is 3km. The only problems I have when there are huge battles going on or huge VD on Chernarus.

What are these ALL PCs you are talking about?

Also FYI 30 fps is the limit of FPS on all consoles.

when it does render a lot.

Maybe because it renders a lot?

[Yett 10]

I don’t think arma renders the graphics that you aren’t looking at. And if you think they should make it so ai don’t function when you aren’t looking at them…Just NO. One of the best things about arma is the fact that it is not player centric and a whole battle can go down without you even being near it. Its awesome to come see the aftermath of a battle and try to determine what exactly happened. If that’s your idea of optimization I don’t agree with it.

And really 30 fps min is very good. I just reinstalled my computer to clean it out. It improved my arma performance by quite a lbit. I now get 30fps max with less than 50 ai on the map, no AA, and medium settings everywhere else. And I am ecstatic. It still looks relatively good. There are lots of complaints that BI doesn’t optimize there game, but it is just as much up to the player to optimize as well. Maxing out is not optimization! I don’t know why everyone is obseesed with maximum settings. If BI were just to cut the max setting in half there wouldn’t be all this complaining about optimization. Be grateful BI has given you so many options in the first place.

Als for fluency and control, yes there is definitely room do improvement but I think bi know this and are working to cure it.

Arma renders all the graphics within your View Distance. Whether your looking at it or not. And if you read what i said, i said when you dont look at the AI it unloads them from the RAM but the CPU is still processing there movements and tactics. 30fps is very low for a 2012 game. Im not obsessed with maxing settings. I would be happy to run it on low if that gave me more FPS.

[tremanarch 6]

I get now ~50 - 60 fps without AA when zoomed in on CHernarus.. in Takistan I am about ~80 fps..

thats is really fun to play this way... I just wished for better AA, but I only have the 560 TI - will definately upgrade to a 670 or 680

try these Settings: http://s1.directupload.net/images/120605/miz6qbw3.jpg

hoch = high

sehr = very

niedr.. = low

Edited June 5, 2012 by tremanarch

[Yett 10]

30fps... oh boo hoo.

I could shoot you at 12fps. Learn to play.

Challenged Accepted. If you can prove me to you are at 12fps and i will be at 60fps and lets see if you can kill me.

[batto 17]

Just because the AI are fighting across the other side of the map doesn't mean they need to be loaded into the RAM.

Oh really? Exactly where is it supposed to be loaded accroding to you?

Arma 2 is so optimized that all PC's get 20fps when it does render a lot.

That's your problem. Your computer is much much better than mine and I get 50-60 fps with 2km view distance on Takistan.

[Yett 10]

How should it be calculated then? ?

Or did you mean the soldier textures or something?

Maybe you should watch the quakecon video I posted first!

Easy. Same way as Crytek do it. When your not looking at the AI, it sets them to a low textureless polygon model and removes there animations, so they just move along the map and still caculate, when you look back at them it re-renders all of the Polygons and Models and Textures.

---------- Post added at 05:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------

Mine gets 32-40. It has hardware from 08-09. Most of settings are at high. VD is 3km. The only problems I have when there are huge battles going on or huge VD on Chernarus.

What are these ALL PCs you are talking about?

Also FYI 30 fps is the limit of FPS on all consoles.

Maybe because it renders a lot?

Try to render over 500 ai on the map you will get 20fps no matter what PC you are on, due to the ram Arma uses.

---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 PM ----------

Oh really? Exactly where is it supposed to be loaded accroding to you?.

Same way as Crytek do it. Load a low polygon model into the ram.

[tremanarch 6]

but ArmA clearly renders only what you see. Because when I move my view the frames get higher or lower.. just look in the sky and you have 200 fps cause it does not render all the rest....

[Yett 10]

So im guessing the majority people don't mind if the game is "optimized"?

[pvtdancer 5]

No I wouldn't mind, Having a High frame rate is a must to keep you in the game if you go from a high FPS to a low one that will pull you right out of the experience.

Edited June 5, 2012 by PvtDancer
Replyed to an old post.

[tremanarch 6]

If ArmA III is as optimized as ArmA II is now, I am very happy!

but memory isnt really the problem here...

I would like an option to load everything into ram before playing, even if it takes 5 minutes and takes 8 GB, but after this nothing would be needed.. Could be an option... So I could start maps and missions without loading ^^