How far has the game come in terms of optimization?

[critanium 1]

In Arma 2, I experienced fps of around 25, which went even lower in cities. However, I recently bought Crysis, and to my suprise I got fps levels of 40 and above. I know Arma 2 isn't very optimized, but is Arma 3 optimized enough that I shouldn't have problems playing it?

Specs:

Nvidia 560ti

I5 2500 (something decent, thats probably not correct)

[Nicholas 5]

Optimizing the game is, I believe, one of their most important tasks right now.

They say that if you can run ArmA II, then you can also run ArmA III with all the new stuff like lighting and ragdolls. I would say that is pretty good.

[sapped 10]

It's gonna run worse than ArmA II, I can assure u that

[Flash Thunder 10]

Well you see all BIS need to do is wave the magic optimization wand and the game will run at 60 fps for you.

You don't even provide your full system specs I mean FPDR

[Olympianmind 1]

Your specs you gave are fine. They are descent for higher end performance on demanding games. Yes, everyone knows that ARMA II wasn't smooth and demanded more performance than that was actually needed if it was better compiled. The thing is that the graphics for ARMA III didn't improve too many times over ARMA II, I mean how can you? ARMA II was beautiful in my terms. But, I will say you will need to upgrade your computer. Even though it is better compiled which gives you more out of what you already have, if you want the highest end it will demand more from what they added. This thread will likely get closed by a moderator because you gave your specs and they will say to look at a topic about system requirements, but this is all i can tell you. It will be better optimized but for top quality upgrade to the specs the developers post in the forums here. Btw the game should suck more juice from your processor, of what I have heard.

[ruhtraeel 1]

Well Smookie said he was running an i5 2500k, GTX 580, and 16GB RAM with everything on high/very high with AA on and getting 35+ FPS with little to medium headcount, and that was like 4-5 months ago.

IMO it will be decently optimized, and I think I will be able to max it, maybe not with AA, but everything else should be OK.

[dmarkwick 261]

In Arma 2, I experienced fps of around 25, which went even lower in cities. However, I recently bought Crysis, and to my suprise I got fps levels of 40 and above. I know Arma 2 isn't very optimized, but is Arma 3 optimized enough that I shouldn't have problems playing it?

"Optimised" is a funny word in the context of ArmA. You're getting higher framerates in Crysis because it's "optimised" in that it's not doing the work that ArmA is. Crysis is a player-centric game engine, whereas ArmA is not player-centric, stuff that happens far away happens just as though you were there to see it. Stuff that happens in Crysis is just the stuff that happens around the player.

[antoineflemming 14]

"Optimised" is a funny word in the context of ArmA. You're getting higher framerates in Crysis because it's "optimised" in that it's not doing the work that ArmA is. Crysis is a player-centric game engine, whereas ArmA is not player-centric, stuff that happens far away happens just as though you were there to see it. Stuff that happens in Crysis is just the stuff that happens around the player.

How about optimization in that the game is using as few resources as possible. How about minimizing memory leaks? How about stuff that doesn't happen around you not get calculated until you are near it? Optimization isn't a funny word. It either refers to maximizing something or minimizing something. Most use it in the context of maximizing frame rate. But how about minimization. At any given point in time, only the things that are in your view are calculated. Could they do something like that? You know, like how view distance and vegetation works? And what would you say is the feature that causes the most performance issues? Either way, if BIS found a way to get ArmA3 running just the same or similar to ArmA2, WITH all the new stuff, then wouldn't you say that the game is more optimized than ArmA2? Meaning somewhere, in some feature or features, they were able to limit the performance hit?

[ruhtraeel 1]

"Optimised" is a funny word in the context of ArmA. You're getting higher framerates in Crysis because it's "optimised" in that it's not doing the work that ArmA is. Crysis is a player-centric game engine, whereas ArmA is not player-centric, stuff that happens far away happens just as though you were there to see it. Stuff that happens in Crysis is just the stuff that happens around the player.

It's... a bit more complicated. Optimizations can include anything from getting rid of unused functions/subroutines in the program that slows the compiler down, all the way to eliminating the NOP's from your mouse or keyboard driver so that your architecture isn't wasting cycles.

In ARMA, it would probably mean the latter, as well as general coding improvement such as getting rid of redefined variables, condensing things into loops, and reusing functions more frequently, having different parameters for each case of use.

[andersson 285]

Sure, but it sounds like he thinks arma2/3 can be optimised to 40 fps on his rig just because it can run crysis with that fps.

[celery 8]

I believe Real Virtuality is the most optimized engine in existence for the job it has to do. If you'd make some other engine do non-player-centric simulation across a vast terrain in the scale and detail of the Arma series, it wouldn't even resemble anything playable.

If the game is running badly on a new rig, a better term would be compatibility with different computer setups. Arma 2 should run reasonably smoothly on today's PCs, for example I get a fairly stable 50-60 fps on 560 Ti and Phenom II x6 processor.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Celery

[Pyrophosphate 1]

I believe Real Virtuality is the most optimized engine in existence for the job it has to do. If you'd make some other engine do non-player-centric simulation across a vast terrain in the scale and detail of the Arma series, it wouldn't even resemble anything playable.

If the game is running badly on a new rig, a better term would be compatibility with different computer setups. Arma 2 should run reasonably smoothly on today's PCs, for example I get a fairly stable 50-60 fps on 560 Ti and Phenom II x6 processor.

I think the problem people have is that there are so many variables involved in the performance. You get 50-60 fps, but on what settings/view distance? How many AIs running around? Which map, and where?

[Smurf 12]

E3 videos and the Showcases recorded by BIS were running smooth on a good system.

GC ones were kind of sluggish, didn't seems so smooth despite the powerfull system. What happened there?

[andersson 285]

I have always had relative smooth experience with BIS games. I make sure my computer is made up from hw-parts that work good together and try to avoid bottlenecks. My friend plays arma2 with stable ok FPS on my old rig I built back in 2006 (updated gfx card though). One cannot expect to only slap in a hi-end gfx card and a fast cpu and get the best arma2 performance even if it works for most corridor games.

Then when you have a computer that do work in a harmonised way with good timings you better keep an eye on the software and drivers too...

So far my experience is that arma2 use all of the computer, one bottleneck and your fps might suffer. The computer doesnt need to be the best spec as long as it functions good.

[dmarkwick 261]

How about optimization in that the game is using as few resources as possible. How about minimizing memory leaks? How about stuff that doesn't happen around you not get calculated until you are near it? Optimization isn't a funny word. It either refers to maximizing something or minimizing something. Most use it in the context of maximizing frame rate. But how about minimization. At any given point in time, only the things that are in your view are calculated. Could they do something like that? You know, like how view distance and vegetation works? And what would you say is the feature that causes the most performance issues? Either way, if BIS found a way to get ArmA3 running just the same or similar to ArmA2, WITH all the new stuff, then wouldn't you say that the game is more optimized than ArmA2? Meaning somewhere, in some feature or features, they were able to limit the performance hit?

Somewhat interesting reply but it doesn't bear much relation to the particular point I was replying to.

---------- Post added at 19:05 ---------- Previous post was at 18:42 ----------

I believe Real Virtuality is the most optimized engine in existence for the job it has to do. If you'd make some other engine do non-player-centric simulation across a vast terrain in the scale and detail of the Arma series, it wouldn't even resemble anything playable.

I agree. And anything less will mean less... battlefield fidelity :) but I expect there are some things that can be done, like calculating very distant distant ragdoll in slow-time, who cares if a unit takes 15 seconds to fall over 10km away? :) BTW I heard this sort of delayed processing happens already. That I never saw or suspected it means it works :)

[Desrat 0]

Well Smookie said he was running an i5 2500k, GTX 580, and 16GB RAM with everything on high/very high with AA on and getting 35+ FPS with little to medium headcount, and that was like 4-5 months ago.

IMO it will be decently optimized, and I think I will be able to max it, maybe not with AA, but everything else should be OK.

Well the new Geforce GTX 660 was released today and from tests I've seen in various reviews/reports in these so called "Corridor Shooters" like Crysis and (sigh) BF3 it seems to compete toe-to-toe with the GTX 580 more or less, now will that equate to similar results in ArmA2/3? I'm hoping someone checks that soon..

I've been holding onto my ageing Radeon 5830 in preparation for the green teams mid range efforts and the 660ti was a over my usual £200 budget, so if this can match the GTX 580 then it seems like a good match for me, although I personally expect the price to drop a little pretty quickly.

[Scoggs 1]

I think they could maybe move more stuff onto the gpu. I tend to only use at most 50% of my gpu (gtx 580) while playing.

It kinda sucks if it is waiting on my cpu cause currently it is going as fast as it can go (4.6GHz).

[Sealife 22]

I believe Real Virtuality is the most optimized engine in existence for the job it has to do. If you'd make some other engine do non-player-centric simulation across a vast terrain in the scale and detail of the Arma series, it wouldn't even resemble anything playable.

I believe it but however its not so much factual anymore :

Geomerty not recognised when distance from Camera / player is > _x is massive problem ai vehicles flying when within range of player and suddenly geometry is drawn is massive problem .

Ai walking through buildings is another Major problem also, all mission breakers , non player centric engine is what RV maybe but in this modern age it is losing its lead and what you have said there is actually a falsehood and really only hinders development not progress it.

There are an infinite amount of other problems and always have been but there not Game breaking like those two are for me . Its true that things are going on real time in OFP days out of view , however these days those things are not being done as good , so in this terms engine has become less and less optimized in some areas.

EDIT

I dont ever like to sound damning about the RV because i am in Awe of what Suma and co have made it into over many years , so i shall add that in very other aspect i could write a paragraph more profound than the Tears in rain speech from Bladerunner, however i shant because those like me who know the engine ,already know what i would say :).

Edited September 13, 2012 by Thromp

[celery 8]

I believe it but however its not so much factual anymore :

Geomerty not recognised when distance from Camera / player is > _x is massive problem ai vehicles flying when within range of player and suddenly geometry is drawn is massive problem .

Ai walking through buildings is another Major problem also, all mission breakers , non player centric engine is what RV maybe but in this modern age it is losing its lead and what you have said there is actually a falsehood and really only hinders development not progress it.

Those don't have much to do with optimization though, do they?

[Sealife 22]

Of course they do, ironically they are victims of optimisation ,in my opinion of course , I could add bridges and all other things .

Engine itself is without question optimised twenty fold since ofp and with java coming properly evem more so.

However as the question was asked how has the game been opyimised ,i believe there has been some significant cost and suffering as a result and I believe must and will stop IMO .

I have faith , but all is not lost because I can survive on PR /DayZ and the editor but that's selfish :)

P.S unfourtunately in my last post I put engine is less optimised where I meant game sorry for confusion caused if so.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Thromp

[-Coulum- 35]

I am surprised I can even play arma on my computer. I would say the game is already pretty optimized as is, and even agree with Thromp to a certain degree, and say sometimes it seems "too" optimized, or rather, optimized in the wrong methods. For example, I am not positive, but if the current LOD situation was because BIS were trying to optimize the game, I would prefer it not to be optimized. Or if vehicles and objects suddenly popping into apearance is optimization, I would prefer to do with out it. Alas BIS can never win though.

But remember, The player has a huge amount of control due to all the settings we have. And arma 3 will probably have even more. I think what people need to remember is that they can't expect to max the game out and still run it smoothely.

[critanium 1]

My mistake, I should have known that Arma is demanding in more ways than a game like Crysis. Arma has to render things such as rocks very far away, even if theres no unit there. I know Arma has to calculate everything. I suppose an upgraded processor (i5 2500k) will get the job done in my price range.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

...so i shall add that in very other aspect i could write a paragraph more profound than the Tears in rain speech from Bladerunner, ...

I agree with everything else......but no.

[Desrat 0]

For me one of the problems with the ArmA series is the data streaming tech, causing pop-in, and poor/slow LOD switching. Adding an SSD drive went someway to reducing this for me but more work on this aspect of the engine is/was definitely needed (as it's still not perfect and obviously not every one has access to an SSD yet), however the devs have stated that they have apparently addressed this in A3 so fingers crossed we can see an end to vehicles with square wheels

[Mr. Charles 22]

I believe Real Virtuality is the most optimized engine in existence for the job it has to do. If you'd make some other engine do non-player-centric simulation across a vast terrain in the scale and detail of the Arma series, it wouldn't even resemble anything playable.

If the game is running badly on a new rig, a better term would be compatibility with different computer setups. Arma 2 should run reasonably smoothly on today's PCs, for example I get a fairly stable 50-60 fps on 560 Ti and Phenom II x6 processor.

:d: