Will Arma 3 be better optimized

[Steakslim 1]

Just a question, I'm hearing 50 50 down the line, are we looking at the same low FPS as with arma 2. O and maverick quick question, would upgrading my 560 ti to 680 boost my frames or is it a waste since arma is demanding on cpu? I'm running the I5 2500 k oc 4.5, just wanting your opinion.

For certain aspects, yes that would boost your framerate in any game, even ArmA2. Since ArmA2's release I've bounced from a 9800gtx, 260gtx, 470gtx, and finally to a 580gtx, (during a 3 year span using EVGA step-up system) and saw performance jumps with all of them to some degree. Ultimately the 580 giving the best results I think I will ever see out of this aging pc, given some limited overclocking ability with my cpu (I did not get lucky with the batch) and a hot ass house, I can get passed the bottleneck, something you wouldn't need to worry about with your cpu. However depending on what you do in ArmA2, not every mission will play as smoothly as the next. For example, but not exclusively, Domination with it's dozen variations to accommodate the needs of any particular server's clan. You can have some really clean, smooth running domination variants, and you can have some really buggy ones that will feed everyone a shit ton of error reports, crippling everyone's framerates, and bug out a server in 30 min. You're fps can be dependent on the stability of a server and the mission it runs a lot of the time, as far as MP can go. For SP it's all on you I guess.

As for ArmA3, no one can really judge, even with the E3 videos really, till the community alpha it's and we can get 'some' idea of what the performance is gonna be like. However making the jump from a 560ti to a 680 if you have the money, isn't a bad idea if your gonna make good use of it. I'd have a hard time believing someone wouldn't get a decent boost in performance from such a change, in any game.

[Zorg_DK 10]

really, you should actually be waiting for the alpha/demo before making a buy.

Indeed, I'm waiting for the final release before I consider upgrading my 5870. There are probably new and cheaper gfx cards available at that time.

[navy198523 10]

Indeed, I'm waiting for the final release before I consider upgrading my 5870. There are probably new and cheaper gfx cards available at that time.

Yep called open box specials at new egg, I saw a 680 go for 275 dollars, when it posted it was gone in 10 seconds lol, but you do see them come threw for Cheap and thanks maverick.

---------- Post added at 11:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 AM ----------

For certain aspects, yes that would boost your framerate in any game, even ArmA2. Since ArmA2's release I've bounced from a 9800gtx, 260gtx, 470gtx, and finally to a 580gtx, (during a 3 year span using EVGA step-up system) and saw performance jumps with all of them to some degree. Ultimately the 580 giving the best results I think I will ever see out of this aging pc, given some limited overclocking ability with my cpu (I did not get lucky with the batch) and a hot ass house, I can get passed the bottleneck, something you wouldn't need to worry about with your cpu. However depending on what you do in ArmA2, not every mission will play as smoothly as the next. For example, but not exclusively, Domination with it's dozen variations to accommodate the needs of any particular server's clan. You can have some really clean, smooth running domination variants, and you can have some really buggy ones that will feed everyone a shit ton of error reports, crippling everyone's framerates, and bug out a server in 30 min. You're fps can be dependent on the stability of a server and the mission it runs a lot of the time, as far as MP can go. For SP it's all on you I guess.

As for ArmA3, no one can really judge, even with the E3 videos really, till the community alpha it's and we can get 'some' idea of what the performance is gonna be like. However making the jump from a 560ti to a 680 if you have the money, isn't a bad idea if your gonna make good use of it. I'd have a hard time believing someone wouldn't get a decent boost in performance from such a change, in any game.

Hey sorry I thought you were maverick, but thanks for writing back. I agree with you 100 percent, so your sayin I'm good CPU wise but upgrade gpu.

[Atkins 10]

Just a question, I'm hearing 50 50 down the line, are we looking at the same low FPS as with arma 2. O and maverick quick question, would upgrading my 560 ti to 680 boost my frames or is it a waste since arma is demanding on cpu? I'm running the I5 2500 k oc 4.5, just wanting your opinion.

Getting 680 wont necessarily boost ur frames, but it will rather give u option to increase some settings. I got 560 Ti SLI and same cpu and the difference to 1 560 Ti is that I can bump up AA etc to make the game look better.

About the topic itself;

Guys, expect that A3 will run like crap and will be in dire need of optimization, just like A2 did (and for some still does) and you won't be disappointed when A3 is out. Expect the worse, hope for the best.

[Steakslim 1]

Yep called open box specials at new egg, I saw a 680 go for 275 dollars, when it posted it was gone in 10 seconds lol, but you do see them come threw for Cheap and thanks maverick.

---------- Post added at 11:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 AM ----------

Hey sorry I thought you were maverick, but thanks for writing back. I agree with you 100 percent, so your sayin I'm good CPU wise but upgrade gpu.

Yeah, if your cpu isn't good enough clocked @4.5ghz, then my future plans are fucked lol. As for getting the 680, personally I'd do it, but as a precaution wait till later in the year, like Black Friday and possibly get it for cheaper, or to see if you'd still want it by then.

[metalcraze 290]

All I want is for ArmA 3 to run about as good as ArmA 2 with better graphics.

Unrealistic expectations. Do you want BIS to make your videocard two times faster through some voodoo magic or something?

[Bee8190 10]

It might be possible to a degree I guess. I mean isn't tessellation and occlusion culling that kind of magical stuff that keep healthy framerates yet makes visuals better in the latter case?

[Dingo8 1]

Unrealistic expectations. Do you want BIS to make your videocard two times faster through some voodoo magic or something?

If they manage to make the code running on the CPU (which often causes a bottleneck) efficient enough, many people could get better looking graphics without performance loss.

[gossamersolid 155]

If they manage to make the code running on the CPU (which often causes a bottleneck) efficient enough, many people could get better looking graphics without performance loss.

I wouldn't say get better looking graphics, I'd say have better performance.

When playing maps with a lot of AI, no matter what my settings are, my framerate is pretty much the same due to the CPU being the bottleneck.

[Dingo8 1]

I wouldn't say get better looking graphics, I'd say have better performance.

When playing maps with a lot of AI, no matter what my settings are, my framerate is pretty much the same due to the CPU being the bottleneck.

And if you reduce the bottleneck, it may allow you to utilize more of your GPU's power, which means there could be room for improved graphics.

[metalcraze 290]

If they manage to make the code running on the CPU (which often causes a bottleneck) efficient enough, many people could get better looking graphics without performance loss.

So are you saying that with enough of that magical optimization I will be able to run ArmA3 on a Sempron with a 1000 of AIs without any problems?

[Dingo8 1]

So are you saying that with enough of that magical optimization I will be able to run ArmA3 on a Sempron with a 1000 of AIs without any problems?

I'm going to assume you either misread what I wrote or are trolling.

[liquidpinky 11]

Wow, why did this become about RAMdisk? Lol.

All I want is for ArmA 3 to run about as good as ArmA 2 with better graphics. That means there should be some optimization, and more utilization of my hardware. When I am getting like 50% CPU usage and 30% GPU usage, and like 15-20 FPS, there is a problem.

Also, for what it's worth, I've done quite a bit of testing with RAMdisk vs. SSD, and SSD actually gave me a smoother experience overall.

Optimization is nothing without a little tweaking at your end, your own case in point I will give you some pointers.

CPU, needs to be in the fours. My own at 4.2 is probably still not fast enough but is 24/7 stable on every game and program I use.

Your settings:

3600 View is pretty poor to start with, get it cranked up. Your CPU is bored out of it's skull at the moment on that setting.

Atoc, set to zero. I can't honestly think that anyone would actually like it switched on and it certainly isn't worth the waste in power. A throwback from your 570s perhaps?

Set your 3D rendering to over 100 percent, preferably 125% upwards.

AA, are you just using the SMAA or are you backing it up with good old hardware AA? If not do it. Give your 680 something to do. Although when it comes to 20k distances you will probably have hardware AA low or disabled to milk some more FPS.

Post Processing. Yeah, I like it low too. None of this looking through Vaseline covered glasses shit for me either.

It is also worth monitoring your CPU and GPU use during play, including GFX memory usage to get the full picture as you card can say it is only at 50% usage but the memory is actually choked up at 100%. Quite common in A2 and OA.

If so it is time to turn those textures down.

I could use up almost all 3GB of my VRAM on 1920 x 1200 res and can easily fill it now with 5940x 1080.

As for RAMdisk, I found by far the biggest benefit was actually using it as a page-file and removing paging from my other drives. Crazy I know, but very effective.

A3 performance better than A2 and OA, probably not by miles but the additional options brought over from Take On means you can tweak more FPS out of it or settle for the same but have the game looking more how you like it.

I can run Chernarus on 20k view distance with ToH, but then I can set the object render lower to compensate.

Depends on what your ideal for the settings are. Although every slider to 11 would be nice, unfortunately NASA won't let me borrow their computer.

[Vixente 10]

As for RAMdisk, I found by far the biggest benefit was actually using it as a page-file and removing paging from my other drives. Crazy I know, but very effective.

That tweak is awesome, never thought of that, have to try it some day. When i have shitloads of ram... :)

[GoodSoundForYou 1]

can`t wait for it

[grandstack 1]

You can't deny ARMA II is horribly optimized.

[MavericK96 0]

Optimization is nothing without a little tweaking at your end, your own case in point I will give you some pointers.

CPU, needs to be in the fours. My own at 4.2 is probably still not fast enough but is 24/7 stable on every game and program I use.

Your settings:

3600 View is pretty poor to start with, get it cranked up. Your CPU is bored out of it's skull at the moment on that setting.

Atoc, set to zero. I can't honestly think that anyone would actually like it switched on and it certainly isn't worth the waste in power. A throwback from your 570s perhaps?

Set your 3D rendering to over 100 percent, preferably 125% upwards.

AA, are you just using the SMAA or are you backing it up with good old hardware AA? If not do it. Give your 680 something to do. Although when it comes to 20k distances you will probably have hardware AA low or disabled to milk some more FPS.

Post Processing. Yeah, I like it low too. None of this looking through Vaseline covered glasses shit for me either.

It is also worth monitoring your CPU and GPU use during play, including GFX memory usage to get the full picture as you card can say it is only at 50% usage but the memory is actually choked up at 100%. Quite common in A2 and OA.

If so it is time to turn those textures down.

I could use up almost all 3GB of my VRAM on 1920 x 1200 res and can easily fill it now with 5940x 1080.

As for RAMdisk, I found by far the biggest benefit was actually using it as a page-file and removing paging from my other drives. Crazy I know, but very effective.

A3 performance better than A2 and OA, probably not by miles but the additional options brought over from Take On means you can tweak more FPS out of it or settle for the same but have the game looking more how you like it.

I can run Chernarus on 20k view distance with ToH, but then I can set the object render lower to compensate.

Depends on what your ideal for the settings are. Although every slider to 11 would be nice, unfortunately NASA won't let me borrow their computer.

Thanks for the post. Some comments:

1) My sig says 3.8 but my CPU's been running at 3.995 lately with Intel's "boost" thing, so it's almost in the 4's. If I wanted higher I'd have to upgrade (which I might, but going from ~4 to 4.2 or so doesn't seem worthwhile) Plus, the issue is that it's running at like 50% utilization even with maxed out settings. So there is a game problem there.

2) 3600 VD was what I found to be a good balance for performance on my machine. Sure, I can do 10k VD on Utes or something, but once you start loading up AI on a map like Chernarus or some of those heavy jungle third-party maps, anything above 3600 turns into a slideshow. Trust me, I was using 5000 before and it just got too slow at times.

3) AToC I actually flip-flop back and forth on. Lately I've been using no AA (or "Normal" rather than V. High) and no AToC because I did some testing and, while like 90% of the time I can run full AToC and V. High AA, it will cause massive lag when zooming in in certain areas in Chernarus. So now I've got it off and just use PPAA on max.

4) I've also tried 3D rendering over 100%, and honestly even setting it to 200% it just makes it look vaguely like 4x MSAA to me, with a more massive performance hit. I'll test some more and see if it's any benefit.

5) Regarding hardware AA, read above. It runs well most of the time but again, there are massive lag instances that make it hard to use all the time.

6) VRAM wise...I haven't ever seen A2 max out my VRAM regardless of settings. I'll check it out but I don't think it's that.

7) Regarding SSD/Page File...I just turn the page file off. Works well for me with 12 GB RAM. Some people will say it's bad but I've never had a problem doing it and it seems to make ArmA 2 smoother without it.

The issue with low utilization and low FPS is not some localized thing, a lot of people have experienced it and from my testing it will happen regardless of settings in certain circumstances during the game. It's an optimization issue in the engine itself, since lowering settings will often not make any difference, other than just lower your utilization even more (keeping the same FPS).

My hope is that with ArmA 3 we will see higher utilization and thus similar performance with better graphics. That's all I'm saying. Maybe that won't be the case but I can dream. :p

[Leon86 13]

You can't deny ARMA II is horribly optimized.

sure we can.

there's no way of knowing how efficient arma 2 is, as there are no other games that do something on a similar scale.

[froggyluv 2136]

sure we can.

there's no way of knowing how efficient arma 2 is, as there are no other games that do something on a similar scale.

Exactly. As compared to what similar product grandstack?

[dmarkwick 261]

You can't deny ARMA II is horribly optimized.

I'm always amazed that ArmA2 performs as well as it does, considering what it does :)

[MavericK96 0]

sure we can.

there's no way of knowing how efficient arma 2 is, as there are no other games that do something on a similar scale.

Well, it comes back to the argument that if you are getting low CPU AND GPU utilization, and still low FPS, there is an optimization problem somewhere. With the vast majority of games, you either get maxed out utilization and slowdown due to a bottleneck, or low utilization coupled with high framerate because the hardware doesn't need to work as hard.

I'm not saying ArmA 2 is awful in terms of optimization or anything, I get perfectly playable framerates 95% of the time. But there's clearly room for improvement, it's really not hard to see that. I think even with better multi-threading support we could see some huge improvements in performance, due to AI/scripts eating up a lot of CPU time.

I'm always amazed that ArmA2 performs as well as it does, considering what it does :)

Me too, and I tell people that a lot when they complain about the ArmA 2 engine/performance. ;)

[cashxx 10]

Operation Flashpoint from 2001 wouldn't run on the latest and greatest PC at that time and has been the same for each major release and I highly doubt Arma 3 will be any different.

Excited for Arma 2 I built a new PC that had an i7 920 2.66Ghz with 6GB of RAM and with the 285 video card, which was descent at that time. Arma 2 came out and wouldn't run on it that great, with the graphics turned up a little it wouldn't run, had to pretty much run all the settings on low and some normal to get it to play semi well and look well at the same time. To get it to play even better I over clocked my system to 3.6Ghz which helped a bunch and made the most difference and upgraded from 2x285 video cards to 2x480 video cards and that made a pretty big change as well. One 285 wasn't enough so I got 2 and that helped, but still wan't great. The 2x480 helped and that is still my system today.

But don't expect to get Arma 3 and max the graphics out because its probably not going to happen. Almost better waiting a year after the release and getting the next gen video and cpu's and then build a new system then and go nuts on it to get smooth game play. And things tend to somewhat get better over time as they patch the game to fix issues.

Biggest thing with Operation Arrowhead is what I call the lag, but have been corrected many times that its desync I believe. Whatever it is it needs fixed! I think the 1.50 patch was supposed to fix it, but its still there. Not nearly as bad, but its still there. That forced me to go back to just Arma 2 and don't have that issue, plus I like the wooded scenery better than the desert in OA.

But one thing I keep seeing from Bohemia is they want this to be the most stable release of all their releases so hopefully it will run well, but if history repeats itself I wouldn't be surprised.

Anxiously awaiting the public beta!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited June 21, 2012 by cashxx

[Leon86 13]

Well, it comes back to the argument that if you are getting low CPU AND GPU utilization, and still low FPS, there is an optimization problem somewhere. With the vast majority of games, you either get maxed out utilization and slowdown due to a bottleneck, or low utilization coupled with high framerate because the hardware doesn't need to work as hard.

I'm not saying ArmA 2 is awful in terms of optimization or anything, I get perfectly playable framerates 95% of the time. But there's clearly room for improvement, it's really not hard to see that. I think even with better multi-threading support we could see some huge improvements in performance, due to AI/scripts eating up a lot of CPU time.

Me too, and I tell people that a lot when they complain about the ArmA 2 engine/performance. ;)

The low gpu & cpu util seems to be mainly in multiplayer.

as for cpu utilisation there's also people with i7's complaining they see only about 35% cpu usage, which is 70% in reality because hyperthreading has no use.

[tremanarch 6]

Well, it comes back to the argument that if you are getting low CPU AND GPU utilization, and still low FPS, there is an optimization problem somewhere.

no the hardware is good for small effect games but not for vast landscapes with AI Calcs.... utilization says nothing.. not all calcs can be parallized.. its not that easy in the real world... you cant bake a cake in 1 millisecond with 10000 cooks..

[CameronMcDonald 146]

you cant bake a cake in 1 millisecond with 10000 cooks..

But it'd be fucking awesome if you could. :D