Will Arma 3 be better optimized

[vhenom 1]

As in will the game run better in multiplayer to resolve the frames issues every1 gets in higher player co-op servers.

It's kinda hard to explain what I mean but the example im going is a 64 player bf3 multiplayer match the frames stay relatively the same as a 32 player but in Arma 2 a 32 player and a 50 player are drastically different in the fps.

[Maio 293]

You cant compare a BF3 MP session with a ArmA Mp session. BF 3 doesn't even have AI, the ArmA engine has to keep track of a whole heap of things. On that note it is expected of BI to improve the net-code so that we have a smoother experience out of the box. A lot of the solutions brought by the ArmA 2 beta patches are integrated in ArmA 3 so, in theory, we should see an improvement.

[vhenom 1]

You cant compare a BF3 MP session with a ArmA Mp session. BF 3 doesn't even have AI, the ArmA engine has to keep track of a whole heap of things. On that note it is expected of BI to improve the net-code so that we have a smoother experience out of the box. A lot of the solutions brought by the ArmA 2 beta patches are integrated in ArmA 3 so, in theory, we should see an improvement.

Has BI released any specs on how much improvement people should see? or are we gunna have to wait for alpha

can i get these beta patches for arma 2 oa and are they net-code fixes?

[Steakslim 1]

beta patches are readily available to everyone, see the Beta Patch section of the forum for more info.

[-=Grunt=- 10]

I believe he means this issue that everyone seems to get...

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?127236-Super-low-GPU-usage-on-MP-only

[MavericK96 0]

I'd like to see:

1) 100% (or close to it) CPU/GPU usage if necessary (instead of low usage and low FPS as we've seen numerous times)

2) 64-bit native executable (which leads to...)

3) More RAM utilization

Definitely room for improvement over A2 / OA. Can't say I'm extremely disappointed in A2 / OA performance as-is, but my hardware is barely being tapped most of the time and I still get FPS drops into the teens on occasion.

[chortles 263]

What MavericK96 said -- I definitely wouldn't mind spreading out the load instead of it being concentrated on one component excessively, but I'm going to speculate that we're going to have to wait for the community alpha to find out, and my understanding is that the community alpha is for testing gameplay more than performance.

[gossamersolid 155]

I don't think the 64-bit executable will be coming any time soon. I swear I've seen multiple times that BIS doesn't see the exact need for a 64-bit executable. Also I've never seen ArmA use above 1.5gb of ram, so 64-bit wouldn't help anything as it's not even using the limit of 32-bit yet.

[sapped 10]

I don't think the 64-bit executable will be coming any time soon. I swear I've seen multiple times that BIS doesn't see the exact need for a 64-bit executable. Also I've never seen ArmA use above 1.5gb of ram, so 64-bit wouldn't help anything as it's not even using the limit of 32-bit yet.

ArmA 2's executable is already 64-bit, it's the game engine which can't handle more than 2047mb of RAM for some other reason

[PuFu 4600]

ArmA 2's executable is already 64-bit, it's the game engine which can't handle more than 2047mb of RAM for some other reason

Good god.

A2 binary is NOT 64bit. A2 binary is LAA though (or at least OA one), not that it matters much in terms of ram usage (LAA - up to 3gb for 32 bit systems, up to 4gb of 64bit ones)

That said, for a game that has the amount of textures and models that needs to be streamed to use just 1.5gb of ram, instead streaming everything right of the HDD...well, i would have done it differently...

[Dingo8 1]

I'd like to see:

1) 100% (or close to it) CPU/GPU usage if necessary (instead of low usage and low FPS as we've seen numerous times)

2) 64-bit native executable (which leads to...)

3) More RAM utilization

Definitely room for improvement over A2 / OA. Can't say I'm extremely disappointed in A2 / OA performance as-is, but my hardware is barely being tapped most of the time and I still get FPS drops into the teens on occasion.

All these issues have already been talked about by the devs in at least two posts. Try using search.

Here's one of them: http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/91-real-virtuality-going-multicore

[PuFu 4600]

All these issues have already been talked about by the devs in at least two posts. Try using search.

Here's one of them: http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/91-real-virtuality-going-multicore

what last two posts?

the link your provided is from 2009, and the aim was A2. Please understand that the hardware today is different than it was then, and A2 was aimed for dual and quad cores (the e6xxx/e7xxx and q6xxx q8xxx q9xxx series). There have been some proper advancements since then.

[Dingo8 1]

what last two posts?

the link your provided is from 2009, and the aim was A2. Please understand that the hardware today is different than it was then, and A2 was aimed for dual and quad cores (the e6xxx/e7xxx and q6xxx q8xxx q9xxx series). There have been some proper advancements since then.

At least two posts, not last. I know the link I provided is from 2009, but it's still relevant, as it explains the challenges the programmers are facing while trying to make the engine efficiently use multiple threads. It also dispels the myth that 100% usage of all cores is always desirable. But yes, they have of course made lots of performance enhancements since then, and judging by the videos so far from this year's E3, A3 will probably run like a dream compared to A2. :)

Edited June 16, 2012 by Dingo8

[metalcraze 290]

How and why will BIS load a quad core to 100% unless with junk code?

Also ArmA3 will most definitely run "worse" than ArmA2 for many reasons - the biggest of which being PhysX (for CPU) and clouds (for GPU). In fact I can't wait for the sweet tears of people who demanded PhysX and will now cry about how ArmA3 is unoptimized.

Also comparing BF3 which is very simple to ArmA2 is wrong. There are many factors coming into play. 50 players usually mean that mission designers put more AI in the game and of course more ballistic calculations are needed to be done and each player is calculated as AI essentially (at least AI LOS calculations are still present). I remember I've played at DAO.nu public pvp server with 120 players once but no AI and framerate was 40-ish - considering my system and Chernarus it was good.

[Bee8190 10]

The minimum requirements suggest the opposite I believe, metalcraze. I understand you would have to turn many many eye candy off but that IMO at least means that setting will actually matter and will finaly make difference if lowered or otherwise.

If I also recall correctly, one of the DEV's (Jay?, during E3 video showcase) said they're working on something like more effective (optimized) AI, so that they prefferably look cover at close objects, instead of every object in the open world. (or something along the lines)

I'd bet real cheddar that we'll be impressed how good arma 3 will run ;) Although as always, all is and will be dependent on ingame settings.

[2nd ranger 282]

If I also recall correctly, one of the DEV's (Jay?, during E3 video showcase) said they're working on something like more effective (optimized) AI, so that they prefferably look cover at close objects, instead of every object in the open world. (or something along the lines)

He was talking about improvements already made in OA patches.

[metalcraze 290]

The minimum requirements suggest the opposite I believe, metalcraze. I understand you would have to turn many many eye candy off but that IMO at least means that setting will actually matter and will finaly make difference if lowered or otherwise.

Look at ArmA2 minimum requirements and tell me is it possible to play in any comfortable way on that PC?

If I also recall correctly, one of the DEV's (Jay?, during E3 video showcase) said they're working on something like more effective (optimized) AI, so that they prefferably look cover at close objects, instead of every object in the open world. (or something along the lines)

No he said they will include only closest objects in cover calculation to move faster through towns. I don't see how it's relevant to performance being brought down by PhysX affecting every box on a 300 sq. km map.

What we saw in E3 demo wasn't even a real scenario with a ~100 of AI for 50 players and it already demanded much more resources than ArmA2.

I'd bet real cheddar that we'll be impressed how good arma 3 will run ;) Although as always, all is and will be dependent on ingame settings.

Sure ArmA3 will run good enough on whatever the top notch system of the moment is. I'm saying that expecting it to be "optimized" which for many people means "ArmA3 running well on my netbook" is futile.

Lagdolls aren't free.

[noone1 1]

I think they are downgrading the graphics for better performance. The game also looks more streamlined, almost like a more realistic CoD or BF taking place in a open world. The Real Virtuality engine is shit though. It ran like crap even in OFP despite OFP having shite graphics. No amount of added features will change the fact that it's a poorly optimized and outdated engine.

[[frl]myke 14]

Look at ArmA2 minimum requirements and tell me is it possible to play in any comfortable way on that PC?

Minimum requirements are mean't to run the game comfortable but actually run the game. Like many others you don't understand what "minimum requirements" means:

Minimum requirements = you can run the game, even with playable FPS, if you set everything to lowest in the video options.

Recommended = you will have playable FPS with Normal settings (not high/very high, these are for future PC's).

[metalcraze 290]

Don't tell that to me. I wrote they are next-to-meaningless when making a guess about ArmA3 over ArmA2 performance.

I think they are downgrading the graphics for better performance. The game also looks more streamlined, almost like a more realistic CoD or BF taking place in a open world. The Real Virtuality engine is shit though. It ran like crap even in OFP despite OFP having shite graphics. No amount of added features will change the fact that it's a poorly optimized and outdated engine.

What engine isn't outdated, well optimized and can do the same things (ballistics, large scale maps with position of every dropped mag remembered forever, advanced non-player centric AI, hundreds of soldiers on the map, non-HP positional damage systems, extreme modability etc etc)?

Just curious. Maybe BIS will use it as an alternative in future games.

Edited June 16, 2012 by metalcraze

[mr. bravo 17]

I think they are downgrading the graphics for better performance. The game also looks more streamlined, almost like a more realistic CoD or BF taking place in a open world. The Real Virtuality engine is shit though. It ran like crap even in OFP despite OFP having shite graphics. No amount of added features will change the fact that it's a poorly optimized and outdated engine.

Yet I see no other engine out there doing what RV does in Arma and VBS. Not even close. That's why I'm here.

No doubt the engine has flaws, just like any other. That's why they keep updating and developing it. It's the same process as most other popular engines out there like Unreal Engine, ID Tech, Source, etc. Many of them still have roots from the 90's.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Mr. Bravo

[froggyluv 2136]

What engine isn't outdated, well optimized and can do the same things (ballistics, large scale maps with position of every dropped mag remembered forever, advanced non-player centric AI, hundreds of soldiers on the map, non-HP positional damage systems, extreme modability etc etc)?

Just curious. Maybe BIS will use it as an alternative in future games.

This should be fookin stickied. What is this ultra optimized engine that RV so sorely lacks behind because I wanna buy that game ASAP?

[jblackrupert 14]

Oh come on now kids, everyone knows the Frostbite engine is the most advanced engine EVEEEEEERRRRRR111!!!!

[ruhtraeel 1]

Ok so one of the devs already said that he was running almost everything on high/very high and getting smooth 35+ fps with an i7 2600k and a GTX 580.

Hopefully ARMA 3 can use RAM more effectively, I got 16GB just sitting there

[Dingo8 1]

Ok so one of the devs already said that he was running almost everything on high/very high and getting smooth 35+ fps with an i7 2600k and a GTX 580.

Cool, source?

Hopefully ARMA 3 can use RAM more effectively, I got 16GB just sitting there

Make a RAM disk and use it to cache game files, so you get performance that's even better than if you used an SSD. :)