Arma 3 Frames Per Second and Fluent Moving ?

[Yett 10]

Hello Everyone, Thanks for your time for clicking on this thread!

The main thing in Arma 2 which made many of us annoyed was 2 things. One was no matter what PC you had even if you had the best PC on the market, 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, of course arma is very big with ram as it has to render a lot of AI and Vehicles at one time. Also the movement especially in Close Quarters was very Non-Fluent for example you could easily get stuck on a door when exiting a building or even get stuck on a small piece of rock when walking around.

With 30 fps and this non-fluent movement in Close Quarters battles it made the game seem all clunky and hard to use.

Now i have searched around but i have not got much more of an answer then "The Netcode is being optimized". I realize that no one can know for sure what Arma 3 is like as they have not played it yet, however does anyone know of anything the developers had said to suggest the direction Arma 3's Optimization and Fluent Movement is going?

To give some example of what i mean;

I have

12gb of DDR3 Ram

2 x Nvida 580 in SLI

i7 processor over-clocked at 4.8ghz x (6 Cores)

2 120gb SSD's

Every single game i play, i will get over 90fps and it would barely go under that. On Arma 2 i can easily get to 30fps and sometimes even 25fps. Ive tried many optimization techniques yet it seems the game just eats a lot of frames, probably due to its ram limit.

So my question is what do you think about the Optimization in Arma 3? Do you think it will be improved? Do you think that we will still get these FPS's? Do you think the fluent movement will be improved?

Thank you all very much for your time!

[NeMeSiS 11]

So my question is what do you think about the Optimization in Arma 3? Do you think it will be improved? Do you think that we will still get these FPS's?

I very much doubt A3 will run better than A2. Any optimization gains are used for improvements.

Also: Not this shit again....

[djfluffwug 10]

If anything, I think the game would be harder to run than ArmA 2, like ArmA 2 was compared to Armed Assault :)

[Yett 10]

I very much doubt A3 will run better than A2. Any optimization gains are used for improvements.

Also: Not this shit again....

It shocks me they dont do some optimization. I mean i know of some great optimization that modern games are using including, when you are not looking at a texture it will not be displayed, this is also commonly used with AI now, the processor is still processing the AI's movements yet it does not need to be loaded into the ram as its not physically there. Then when the player looks towards the AI the game re-renders the AI before the person looks at the AI. The only problem with this which you can get in some games, is when it re-renders the AI back onto the scene they can sometimes be rendered into the wrong place or get stuck, another problem is that if the game cannot render the AI fast enough you will see them just appear, also another problem with this is that it can link up wrong with the server, but the way to solve that is get the server to render the AI completley on servers. I know this is possible as Cryengine uses it and a few other engines.

However if Arma 3 isnt a 64 bit supported application then that will suck massively, im sure Arma 3 will use more ram with its Advanced AI then Arma 2 so we would see a lot more lag if Arma 3 is limited to 2gb of ram.

---------- Post added at 11:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 AM ----------

If anything, I think the game would be harder to run than ArmA 2, like ArmA 2 was compared to Armed Assault :)

Actually the main reason Arma 2 was harder to run than Armed Assault was Graphics and CPU. Arma 2 has quite a massive problem with its ram limits at 2GB, and this means no matter what PC your using it would never use the full ram and only 2gb of ram in the game, so this limits me as a gamemode developer what i can actually put into the gamemode without getting a lot of lag for the clients.

[Booster 1]

Do you think the fluent movement will be improved?

It's an absolute certainty.

[Yett 10]

It's an absolute certainty.

This is very nice to hear! Thank You! Yet what makes me very concerned is there is no solid evidence to support this statement.

---------- Post added at 11:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 AM ----------

Also i would like to add this is not just me who is curious of this question. Thousands of Arma 2 players have been asking the questions on other forums and youtube and there is no clear answer yet. I believe that we should try to find an answer regarding this relatively big question being only a few months away from the Releasing Dates. So if anyone has anything which can help answer this question we would be extremely happy to read it! Thanks everyone :)

[solviper 27]

Wow 30 fps... I wish I had your computer. ;)

[Yett 10]

Wow 30 fps... I wish I had your computer. ;)

This of course is the problem. Im guessing you were being sarcastic. Yet all other games can run well over 90fps, yet arma lags behind with a low of 30fps even on a debatably "Powerful Gaming PC". I know a lot of people are happy playing arma at 30 - 20 fps however a lot of us are not and it does make a lot of the audience decide to leave Arma or Un-install the game, meaning less people online and meaning this affects all of us directly.

[batto 17]

Actually the main reason Arma 2 was harder to run than Armed Assault was Graphics and CPU. Arma 2 has quite a massive problem with its ram limits at 2GB, and this means no matter what PC your using it would never use the full ram and only 2gb of ram in the game, so this limits me as a gamemode developer what i can actually put into the gamemode without getting a lot of lag for the clients.

Perhaps You can increase it to 3GB http://superuser.com/questions/280855/on-linux-there-is-a-3gb-1gb-kernel-option-how-do-i-do-this-in-windows-7-32-bit

[Yett 10]

Perhaps You can increase it to 3GB http://superuser.com/questions/280855/on-linux-there-is-a-3gb-1gb-kernel-option-how-do-i-do-this-in-windows-7-32-bit

Hey thanks for help, however that was regarding booting on a 32 Bit Windows 7 Operating System. As windows will not boot from more than 2GB of memory on 32 bit. I have a 64 bit machine, yet Arma 2 is a 32 bit application which cannot be run in a 64 bit mode meaning for absolutely everyone it will use no more than 2GB of ram!

---------- Post added at 12:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 PM ----------

Update: 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.

[batto 17]

Then maybe you can set it to 4GB on 64 bit Windows. I've no experience with it though.

Update: 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.

Yeah but on 32 bit Windows 2GB is reserved for Windows but since your Windows is 64 bit using 4GB for 32 bit programs could work. Maybe... no experience.

[tremanarch 6]

Every single game i play, i will get over 90fps and it would barely go under that. On Arma 2 i can easily get to 30fps and sometimes even 25fps.

Most games you play are console ports. they are optmised to run that way. arma 2 is a pc game - thats sth. completely different. try anno series for example or other pc games. frames are dropping faster there. they dont cut everything down for a 512 MB xbox console in pc games.

but these tricks like very optimised textures you think are 3d but arent and such stuff, is expensive in manhours.

look at BF3, this runs on a 512 MB crap console.. with their optimisations they could maybe run quarter of chernarus map in BF3 graphic for PC's, but they didnt.. or the scaling is just that bad. you cant compare arma to any other game, cause no other game has such a big map. And I must say I like the arma 2 graphic more than BF3, and I think it looks better! (it just lacks some ground objects and little physx Effect to be fully rival of BF3-ish graphics

, but then it would easily beat BF3 to the ground.. DOnt get me wrong I also liked BF3 a lot..)

pc games are often sandbox like, simulation like. the dont are a narrow corridor where every designer could make it to ~60fps... in pc games unexpectet stuff happens etc..

Edited June 5, 2012 by tremanarch

[EDcase 87]

EDIT:Well said Tremanarch,

Just because you think you have a high spec computer that you can put all options to "Very High" with 10k viewdistance and get 90fps.

Reduce some things (which you probably won't even notice) and you will have much better performance.

As for the "fluent movement". Basically you want BF3/MW/CS running around?

ARMA is a slower paced sim type game. Does anyone really think they can run around in a house with an assault rifle in the ready position and not knock it on a door frame or wall...?

That is why ARMA has a "lower weapon" button which no one seems to use. In fact very few players I've seen in youtube vids even use the lean option. :j:

ARMA3 will be more "fluid" as they've demonstrated more advanced stance positions. As for controls, we'll have to wait and see.

[PuFu 4591]

regarding 2gb cap, you are wrong

arma2 (or at least oa) is LAA capable. i am sure it will be the same for a3, as there is little to no chance of having a 64 binary.

[Leon86 13]

It shocks me they dont do some optimization. I mean i know of some great optimization that modern games are using

Yes! moar optimisation!

It's like free performance, magic! y u no use devs?!??!?111!!?

Edited June 5, 2012 by Leon86

[Robster 11]

erm

why it's so difficult to get a 64bits version ? If I remember well Far Cry had one... and it was a long time ago...

Does anyone know if we have some poll available to ask for a 64 bits version?... ArmA 3 deserves more power... if you know what I mean :)

[jw custom 56]

To give some example of what i mean;

I have

12gb of DDR3 Ram

2 x Nvida 580 in SLI

i7 processor over-clocked at 4.8ghz x (6 Cores)

2 120gb SSD's

Every single game i play, i will get over 90fps and it would barely go under that. On Arma 2 i can easily get to 30fps and sometimes even 25fps. Ive tried many optimization techniques yet it seems the game just eats a lot of frames, probably due to its ram limit.

Then you're doing something wrong...

[rye1 21]

As for the "fluent movement". Basically you want BF3/MW/CS running around?

ARMA is a slower paced sim type game. Does anyone really think they can run around in a house with an assault rifle in the ready position and not knock it on a door frame or wall...?

That is why ARMA has a "lower weapon" button which no one seems to use. In fact very few players I've seen in youtube vids even use the lean option. :j:

ARMA3 will be more "fluid" as they've demonstrated more advanced stance positions. As for controls, we'll have to wait and see.

BF3/MW2 arguments died long ago, when people got fed up of others referencing them in every God damn wishlist post and whenever someone requests something even vaguely related to those games. He's not asking for that type of system, he's asking for a better and more fluid moving ability, whatever that encompasses he can share with us...

Yes, you can run around with an assault rifle in the ready position, any collision means going to low-ready. It's like asking, "Is this physically possible?", there are many reasons where and how you could do it, the real question you should ask: 'So you want to be able to use the rifle fully upright when it is not clipping anything? (Collisions!) Because I think it would be a cheat to be like that all the time' - which would be a fair comment and everyone agrees on.

I use the lower weapon, I have seen 50+ others do, especially on long patrols... walks - scout might have his up but others may not. We used to make the 'recruits' put it down due to AD/ND's. I never use it in combat or Close Quarters. I have seen many lean, I myself use it and I'm sure many others do - it depends on the cover available.

[metalcraze 290]

[/color]Update: 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.

Like the game not taking more than 1.5 GBs even with dozens of mods loaded?

[dm 9]

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

Wrong, this is not the reason at all.

It shocks me they dont do some optimization.

[JwHs 1]

First read this:

http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/85-breaking-the-32-bit-barrier

And then, this:

http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/91-real-virtuality-going-multicore

[Yett 10]

Most games you play are console ports. they are optmised to run that way. arma 2 is a pc game - thats sth. completely different. try anno series for example or other pc games. frames are dropping faster there. they dont cut everything down for a 512 MB xbox console in pc games.

but these tricks like very optimised textures you think are 3d but arent and such stuff, is expensive in manhours.

look at BF3, this runs on a 512 MB crap console.. with their optimisations they could maybe run quarter of chernarus map in BF3 graphic for PC's, but they didnt.. or the scaling is just that bad. you cant compare arma to any other game, cause no other game has such a big map. And I must say I like the arma 2 graphic more than BF3, and I think it looks better! (it just lacks some ground objects and little physx Effect to be fully rival of BF3-ish graphics

, but then it would easily beat BF3 to the ground.. DOnt get me wrong I also liked BF3 a lot..)

pc games are often sandbox like, simulation like. the dont are a narrow corridor where every designer could make it to ~60fps... in pc games unexpectet stuff happens etc..

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.

[dm 9]

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?

Take a look at the map size, ai count, vehicle count and various other things for your average console game, then compare to the numbers for ArmA.

Its not poorly optimised, its just 100 times bigger.

If BI had a dollar for every time someone threw the word "optimised" around without knowing what they were talking about, they wouldnt even need to make games anymore...

[tremanarch 6]

My knowledge is based off a conference from the Doom Developer (just forgot the name, the one with the red hair: edit: John Carmack).

There he went into details why consoles work so different and what they do to optimise etc. I guess it was this Video:

It is not the same to optimise a game for PC or console. I guess a AAA* title is 95% optimised for consoles and only 5% of money goes into the port or sth. (just a wild guess but you get the tendency). They optimise it in other ways you may think, they use tricks etc. Just play a modern Console game (like BF3) and look good: you see most textures are quite low (lower than ArmAII) but you dont realize it when playing only when looking for it. They optimise this way players dont notice stuff. Its very complicated. They put so much money in optimising it for 512 MB millions of dollars.. you cant just scale that to a 8 GB RAM PC.. it is sth very different. It doesnt work that way.

There is no: Optimised and unoptimised Game.

There is a game optimised for console or optimised for PC or optimised for X MB of RAM etc.. It doesnt make sense to optimise it just for 4 GB of RAM when porting to a PC, cause there are very many different PC configurations out there.

And clearly Developers like BIS dont have millions of dollars just to optimise their game, this money is needed for the game itself. Only triple A titles get that kind of optimisation. The most money of todays triple A titles goes into this optimisation. It is not like a weekend with 4 Devs or sth. It is like: this is the real Development nowadays. The rest: Story setting etc this is the minor part who can be done in 4 weeks by 5 people... People just dont realize this..

Edited June 5, 2012 by tremanarch

[Yett 10]

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs48/f/2009/210/5/a/face_palm_by_Draculasaurus.gif

Take a look at the map size, ai count, vehicle count and various other things for your average console game, then compare to the numbers for ArmA.

Its not poorly optimised, its just 100 times bigger.

If BI had a dollar for every time someone threw the word "optimised" around without knowing what they were talking about, they wouldnt even need to make games anymore...

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

---------- Post added at 03:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:10 PM ----------

My knowledge is based off a conference from the Doom Developer (just forgot the name, the one with the red hair: edit: John Carmack).

There he went into details why consoles work so different and what they do to optimise etc. I guess it was this Video:

It is not the same to optimise a game for PC or console. I guess a AAA* title is 95% optimised for consoles and only 5% of money goes into the port or sth. (just a wild guess but you get the tendency). They optimise it in other ways you may think, they use tricks etc. Just play a modern Console game (like BF3) and look good: you see most textures are quite low (lower than ArmAII) but you dont realize it when playing only when looking for it. They optimise this way players dont notice stuff. Its very complicated. They put so much money in optimising it for 512 MB millions of dollars.. you cant just scale that to a 8 GB RAM PC.. it is sth very different. It doesnt work that way.

There is no: Optimised and unoptimised Game.

There is a game optimised for console or optimised for PC or optimised for X MB of RAM etc.. It doesnt make sense to optimise it just for 4 GB of RAM when porting to a PC, cause there are very many different PC configurations out there.

And clearly Developers like BIS dont have millions of dollars just to optimise their game, this money is needed for the game itself. Only triple A titles get that kind of optimisation. The most money of todays triple A titles goes into this optimisation. It is not like a weekend with 4 Devs or sth. It is like: this is the real Development nowadays. The rest: Story setting etc this is the minor part who can be done in 4 weeks by 5 people... People just dont realize this..

Well im actually im going to say your wrong here. Every AAA* game does not go through millions of dollars of optimization. The engine that the game is made from goes through millions of dollars of optimization and then the games are built on top of this. The most of the money is actually spent on Marketing the games.