Arma 3 Frames Per Second and Fluent Moving ?

[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.

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

While you're negating yourself you're also mixing two different things.

[Yett 10]

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....

Actually Arma has something called Scene Complexity. When you look a way from a Static Model or Piece of Scenery such as a Hill it changes it to a low Polygon model. However it doesn't do this with the AI or textures as of yet and it keeps all the scripts activated at all time instead of unloading them everytime they have run. (this is what i want in Arma 3 it to do it for AI and textures)

---------- Post added at 05:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

While you're negating yourself you're also mixing two different things.

There both talking about ram. Not sure what you mean.

[tremanarch 6]

interesting yett, I didnt know this...

I just guess the Devs have their reasons for their implementation of certain things...

[Yett 10]

Can i just point out instead of anyone arguing about how "Arma 3 cannot be optimized". Can we stick to the original questions? Does anyone have any news about the optimization?

---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------

interesting yett, I didnt know this...

I just guess the Devs have their reasons for their implementation of certain things...

If you set your Scene Complexity to 120,000 you will actually be able to see this happening for yourself. When you look at a model it will be a Low Polygon model and when you zoom it it will load. I should also point out it does this for vehicles as-well. A good example of Scene Complexity Optimization is Total War games, when you zoom out all the Units are rendered as 2D low Polygon Models and when you zoom in there rendered correctly.

[batto 17]

However it doesn't do this with the AI or textures as of yet and it keeps all the scripts activated at all time instead of unloading them everytime they have run. (this is what i want in Arma 3 it to do it for AI and textures)

These scripts need to run even units are 10 km away and you can't see them because you're not playing pre-scripted-Call-of-Duty-same-sh1t-every-time game.

[Mr. Charles 22]

Imho, there should be a module in the editor, which does just that. Cache all distant units (depending on your own unit type) and let them fight with according strength attributes like a board game.

[dm 9]

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.

You have no idea what you are talking about, stop posting.

[mr. bravo 17]

Arma renders all the graphics within your View Distance. Whether your looking at it or not.

No it doesnt. There are lod-switching even on close objects and textures when you turn your head around. Shows pretty well on systems with no SSD. But what is rendered on your screen is mainly dealt by your gfx-card and its VRAM, not just your system RAM (Or however it's defined in english).

[Tonci87 163]

Please stop throwing around the word optimization like candy unless you really know what you are talking about.

[-Coulum- 35]

Can we stick to the original questions? Does anyone have any news about the optimization?

Well based on the minimum requirements (I know they are only MINIMUM) I would say that they have optimized it quite a lot. A3 is going to have a lot more going on/detail than a2 yet their requirements are practically the same. I believe one of BI's goals is to make the game playable on a variety of rigs, so Im fairly certain that a3 will run better than a2 relative to the amount of detail and features it has. Just my opinion though, I don't think there's been any official word on the matter.

[Mr. Charles 22]

You have no idea what you are talking about, stop posting.

I just love that dog.

[Yett 10]

You have no idea what you are talking about, stop posting.

http://tinyurl.com/6sg5t4u

Im guessing you are the Genius then? Please inform me how Arma optimization works then!

[metalcraze 290]

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.

Try to render over 500 ai in any other game - you will be lucky to get ~5 provided it will even support that many. Most shooters calculate 10 at most and not as complex by far.

What's your point? You want to render thousands of AIs on your toaster?

[Yett 10]

Well based on the minimum requirements (I know they are only MINIMUM) I would say that they have optimized it quite a lot. A3 is going to have a lot more going on/detail than a2 yet their requirements are practically the same. I believe one of BI's goals is to make the game playable on a variety of rigs, so Im fairly certain that a3 will run better than a2 relative to the amount of detail and features it has. Just my opinion though, I don't think there's been any official word on the matter.

Thank You very much! This helped me and you are the only person who has actually stayed on topic.

---------- Post added at 06:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 PM ----------

Try to render over 500 ai in any other game - you will be lucky to get ~5 provided it will even support that many.

What's your point? You want to render thousands of AIs on your toaster?

*Yett Looks at Total War Games* ...

[metalcraze 290]

So in Total War games every single soldier is a separate AI entity with its own LOS, pathfinding, info sharing and weapon ballistics and not just 100 copy pasted models that do exactly the same thing in 1 group with no pathfinding (since you can move anywhere save for town maps) or AI or anything?

Do those soldiers look for cover separately? Does a flying arrow damages each single soldier exactly where it hits him?

Do you even know what you are talking about?

Edited June 5, 2012 by metalcraze

[Yett 10]

So in Total War games every single soldier is a separate AI entity with its own LOS, pathfinding, info sharing and weapon ballistics and not just 100 copy pasted models that do exactly the same thing in 1 group with no pathfinding (since you can move anywhere) or AI or anything?

Do you even know what you are talking about?

Of course its not. Where did i say it was?

[maddogx 13]

Im guessing you are the Genius then? Please inform me how Arma optimization works then!

DM is not wrong I'm afraid. Half of the things you've posted are patently false, and the other half of the time you seem to be mixing up concepts like rendering and simulating. I recommend reading up on the subject instead of making broad (and false) statements and then expecting other people to take the time to explain why you are wrong.

[metalcraze 290]

Then why do you even bring it as an example?

Name a game comparable to ArmA in scale that you think is optimized better and we will talk.

[Yett 10]

DM is not wrong I'm afraid. Half of the things you've posted are patently false, and the other half of the time you seem to be mixing up concepts like rendering and simulating. I recommend reading up on the subject instead of making broad (and false) statements and then expecting other people to take the time to explain why you are wrong.

Hmm. Well thanks for pointing out some of the things i said was wrong. I have been told by other people thats the way it works, however i trust that your right when you say im wrong.

---------- Post added at 06:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:17 PM ----------

Then why do you even bring it as an example?

Name a game comparable to ArmA in scale that you think is optimized better and we will talk.

I brought it as an example because you said name a game which renders hundreds of Ai.

[Tonci87 163]

Thank You very much! This helped me and you are the only person who has actually stayed on topic.

---------- Post added at 06:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 PM ----------

*Yett Looks at Total War Games* ...

Mentioning Total war as a good example of great AI numbers perfectly showcased how little you know on the subject. (P.S.: TW AI is piss poor. I wouldn´t even touch the game without Darthmod)

[Yett 10]

I refuse to argue anymore in this thread. I just wanted some answers. If anybody has those answers please post them.

[metalcraze 290]

I brought it as an example because you said name a game which renders hundreds of Ai.

TW doesn't render hundreds of AI. 100+ soldiers = 1 AI, and a very primitive at that (move and attack anything within range).

I refuse to argue anymore in this thread. I just wanted some answers. If anybody has those answers please post them.

You got your answers. They just aren't what you want to hear.

[maddogx 13]

Hmm. Well thanks for pointing out some of the things i said was wrong. I have been told by other people thats the way it works, however i trust that your right when you say im wrong.

I can see that arguing with you is beyond pointless, but I've wasted some of my time picking out some out examples regardless. Here we go:

at some point you would be down to 30 Frames Per Second, and the reason for this is Arma 2 is a 32-Bit Application and therefore can only use 2047mb / 2.0gb of ram at one time

False. Not only can Arma2 use 3GB of RAM, but increasing the amount of things loaded into RAM will not improve your framerate. Arma already streams the terrain, objects and textures it needs at any one time asynchronously into RAM, so the only problem increased RAM would solve is LOD popping caused by streaming from slow hard drives. Increasing RAM usage is not a magic wand for better framerates. (EDIT: Proof.)

I was wrong, 32 bit applications can use up to 4GB of ram, however it seems the Arma 2 Developers have decided to cap the actual ram usage of the game for 2GB for some reason im not sure of.

1. False. Standard 32bit applications are limited to 2GB.

2. False again. As pointed out above - Arma2 is LAA (large address aware) and can address up to 3GB.

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

You are insinuating that Arma2 renders everything that it simulates, which is false.

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

If something is being simulated, it needs to be loaded. (Note: that doesn't mean it needs to be rendered, as pointed out above.) You can't calculate AI without loading them into RAM. It should also be pointed out that far away things are simulated with a lower fidelity, which is a form of optimization.

Arma renders all the graphics within your View Distance. Whether your looking at it or not.

Completely false. Arma2 employs frustum culling just like any other game. In fact, it even features occlusion culling in certain cases, meaning that objects obscured behind other objects or terrain are sometimes not rendered, even if they are within the player's FOV.

Im not obsessed with maxing settings. I would be happy to run it on low if that gave me more FPS.

Running the game on low does give you more FPS. On my rig with fairly high (but balanced) settings, 30 FPS is pretty much the minimum I ever experience. Usually it is around 50 or more. If I turn the visuals down, I can achieve a minimum of 40FPS or even higher at any given time. At very modest settings I can achieve a solid 60FPS with VSync enabled. The framerate is absolutely dependent on your settings. The settings are, in fact, something you can optimize.

Edited June 5, 2012 by MadDogX

[lapa 1]

Yett's rig, as specified in the first post, should run Arma2 at more than 30 fps. Even though this is not directly related to Arma2's optimization, something's clearly amiss.

It is what it is. Welcome to the world of PC gaming. Certain hardware combinations and different drivers just won't run properly.

Yett, you should head to the troubleshooting section.

[Damu 10]

I refuse to argue anymore in this thread. I just wanted some answers. If anybody has those answers please post them.

So my question is what do you think about the Optimization in Arma 3?

It could be always better. It's always price:gain ratio.

Do you think it will be improved?

Yes.

Do you think that we will still get these FPS's?

Yes. "Unoptimized" usually means in extreme cases - very high visibility distance, big scale battles with lots of AIs and thousands of particles.

Do you think the fluent movement will be improved?

Yes.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. Arma3 is not finished and lots of work (also in optimization) is waiting. Often it's a matter of compromise(s). We are unable to catch all the issues on every rig in the world. But we will keep trying. Alpha could help a lot.