How far has the game come in terms of optimization?

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Many of you guys still don't get it ... Open arma 2 go to editor then place one soldier then press preview : result Very smooth FPS.

Now ,go to editor again and place 1500 AI,press preview ,go get a coffee, and come back result : 10 fps ... don't expect to get same FPS for this amount of AIs.

The game should make ,for each AI, calculations needed ... and i hope you can imagine that there is small room for optimization here ,if you want it to be REAL !

[chortles 263]

I'll take "player-centric optimized" over "renders rock 10 km away", thank you very much!

Incidentally, I still remember what RiE said about simplifying the AI's cover-evaluating after when PMC was worked on it was found that the AI moved extremely slowly in Zargabad because it would try to evaluate EVERYTHING.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Chortles

[dmarkwick 261]

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.

Well, no, it's not quite that bad :) ArmA won't render anything it doesn't need to, or even regard it if there's no unit there. But if there is a unit there, it needs to know about that rock and how to move the AI around it (via cost maps), line of sight etc. It has to do a lot, but it doesn't have to do everything :)

---------- Post added at 07:11 ---------- Previous post was at 07:08 ----------

I'll take "player-centric optimized" over "renders rock 10 km away", thank you very much!

Not me, I'll take battlefield fidelity :) I enjoy the experience of finding the remnants of a battle that happened a long time ago far away... and realising why something else didn't happen as a result.

Incidentally, I still remember what RiE said about simplifying the AI's cover-evaluating after when PMC was worked on it was found that the AI moved extremely slowly in Zargabad because it would try to evaluate EVERYTHING.

Yep. The trickiest thing is finding the appropriate balance. We all want faster gaming but we also want the AI to use enterable buildings like players :)

[chortles 263]

Not me, I'll take battlefield fidelity :) I enjoy the experience of finding the remnants of a battle that happened a long time ago far away... and realising why something else didn't happen as a result.

Fundamental disagreement it is. ;) But then again, I don't "enjoy the experience of finding the remnants of a battle that happened a long time ago far away... and realising why something else didn't happen as a result", if only because it's not the sort of thing that I'd be thinking of or pay heed to (basically I get no sense of epiphany, wonder, awe, etc. from it), i.e. if I came across such in a mission in ARMA 2, so why would I want the processor dealing with such if it could be routed to doing something I'd want more (read: maintaing a consistent 60 fps framerate :D).

Yep. The trickiest thing is finding the appropriate balance. We all want faster gaming but we also want the AI to use enterable buildings like players :)

Makes sense -- though re: "appropriate balance", someone is going to lose out simply because their view is uncompromisingly extreme (not accusing you of being that, you've been cool), and not just in terms of "what should the processor deal with" but so, SO much about ARMA 3. My gosh have we two been through some awful threads...

Mind you, faster gaming IS one of my "views", but then it makes sense for wanting the AI to be able to use those enterable buildings just like players too... but if they're somehow (whether due to time, money or "limits of programmer or engine capability") mutually exclusive, I know which of the two I'd sacrifice to keep the other. ;) I don't want it to BE mutually exclusive...

As for optimization, DMarkwick, some of us then feel that the engine could afford to be more efficient at this processing than RV3 was in ARMA 2, and hopefully RV4 is indeed more efficient in that sense. (Though I personally suspect that what "optimized" will mean to most players is "runs at a consistent 30-60 fps using default settings so long as my system meets minimum hardware requirements".

[celery 8]

I'll take "player-centric optimized" over "renders rock 10 km away", thank you very much!

A player-centric engine (mind that graphical optimization does depend on the player's camera) would mean that any mission with not everything happening near or because of the player would become exponentially harder to make because after a certain distance all bets would be off regarding how the mission would work. Basically you'd have to script a virtual simulation of things that become disabled or degraded if they're crucial to the mission.

[froggyluv 2136]

I'll take "player-centric optimized" over "renders rock 10 km away", thank you very much!

.

Oh hell noes! The whole spirit of the franchise is that the world is alive and events happen independently of the player.

[dmarkwick 261]

Oh hell noes! The whole spirit of the franchise is that the world is alive and events happen independently of the player.

Exactly, the player is no more, or less, important than any other element in the game. I think it's one of it's primary features over other games and should not devolve :)

[chortles 263]

A player-centric engine (mind that graphical optimization does depend on the player's camera) would mean that any mission with not everything happening near or because of the player would become exponentially harder to make because after a certain distance all bets would be off regarding how the mission would work. Basically you'd have to script a virtual simulation of things that become disabled or degraded if they're crucial to the mission.

Hmm, you've got a solid point there -- and the impulse behind my reaction was motivated by wanting to maximize my enjoyment of my single-player experience, not the co-op/multiplayer experience which I understand is as important for you guys, where based on what you described it sounds like the engine's tasks would be made even more difficult because of having to consider multiple players who are just as "centric" as each other. While I have my own prioritizing of wants, you're the one actually in touch with RV4 so if this indeed a technical limitations thing, then mea culpa.

MP design team lead

I have confidence in ARMA 3 thanks to this.

Oh hell noes! The whole spirit of the franchise is that the world is alive and events happen independently of the player.

We have fundamentally different ideas of "the spirit of the franchise" then. ;) I'll concede that technical limitations can stand in the way of what I was thinking of' date=' particularly in multiplayer (multiple players to be "centric" on? I can definitely see why that's a problem), but... no, "[i']the world is alive and events happen independently of the player[/i]" is NOT one of the things I show up to ARMA for, though it's a nice bonus that evidently others prioritize more, I'm just not fulfilled by it as much as you.

Exactly, the player is no more, or less, important than any other element in the game. I think it's one of it's primary features over other games and should not devolve :)

See my response to froggyluv. ;) Although, I believe I'm being consistent compared to my position in the controls/user interface thread (since the player character is the element by which I experience the game)...

And I'm just not looking to be nearly hysterical as some people (it wasn't either of you two) when "what I want" isn't implemented even though one of the devs clearly explained why this is the case from a development standpoint in line with their creative vision and development goals.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Chortles

[NoRailgunner 0]

Didn't BIS said sometime ago that they do want to reduce distant AI movements/activities? How does or will it work?

[metalcraze 290]

"the world is alive and events happen independently of the player" is NOT one of the things I show up to ARMA for

Dude it's the basis of ArmA that everything in this game is built on.

And it won't change.

Didn't BIS said sometime ago that they do want to reduce distant AI movements/activities? How does or will it work?

They said 'only in campaign'

[chortles 263]

Dude it's the basis of ArmA that everything in this game is built on.

And it won't change.

Frankly, I believe that more coming from froggluv and DMarkwick than coming from you, and even then Celery had a better reason than "it's the basis of ArmA" :rolleyes: a better reason which I accept.

They said 'only in campaign'

This makes sense; when the campaign is single-player only they can do stuff like this without running into the roadblock that I wrote previously (having to account for other players) which seems to make that "reducing of ambient activity" (I think akin to what I was looking for?) a no-go in co-op/multiplayer and thus a no-go as the engine's default. Edited September 14, 2012 by Chortles

[metalcraze 290]

Frankly, I believe that more coming from froggluv and DMarkwick than coming from you, and even then Celery had a better reason than "it's the basis of ArmA" :rolleyes:

It's not a reason. It's just how it is.

If you will place ten tanks 5 kilometers away in the editor and task them with attacking a village - they will do just that. With or without you. And you will be able to see that from 5km away.

That's the core of ArmA for 11 years. That's why you can play 100 different missions and not "Soap come here, mount this MG and watch 3D actors just run at your barrel until I order you to mount the jeep" every time you launch a game.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Oh hell noes! The whole spirit of the franchise is that the world is alive and events happen independently of the player.

This^. Blasphemy !

[andersson 285]

Frankly, I believe that more coming from froggluv and DMarkwick than coming from you, and even then Celery had a better reason than "it's the basis of ArmA" :rolleyes: a better reason which I accept.This makes sense; when the campaign is single-player only they can do stuff like this without running into the roadblock that I wrote previously (having to account for other players) which seems to make that "reducing of ambient activity" (I think akin to what I was looking for?) a no-go in co-op/multiplayer and thus a no-go as the engine's default.

Its not only important for MP. I like to build a virtual war were AI is fighting each other (blufor vs opfor), then I go into that world trying to finish of my own SP-mission.

So if I hear or see an artillery barrage its AI doing their own thing regardless of where and what I do.

I also play missions like that in coop. One example was when me and my friend had a task of sniping an officer in a village: while overlooking the village from a hilltop that village got under heavy fire from the friendly AI. As the AI were fighting we could take out the officer without any opfor AI noticing us. This was not scripted nor was it planned (DAC), it just happened cause the game/mission isnt player-centric.

[tacticalnuggets 24]

No offense, but every post I have read from metalcraze has been about creating conflict and being a troll. Essentially in the template of "I'm right and your wrong, lets argue". No compromises or critical thinking coming to an agreement.

[Tonci87 163]

It's not a reason. It's just how it is.

If you will place ten tanks 5 kilometers away in the editor and task them with attacking a village - they will do just that. With or without you. And you will be able to see that from 5km away.

That's the core of ArmA for 11 years. That's why you can play 100 different missions and not "Soap come here, mount this MG and watch 3D actors just run at your barrel until I order you to mount the jeep" every time you launch a game.

^this

[ProfTournesol 956]

No offense, but every post I have read from metalcraze has been about creating conflict and being a troll. Essentially in the template of "I'm right and your wrong, lets argue". No compromises or critical thinking coming to an agreement.

This time he's right. Persistent world, that's what ArmA is.

[-Coulum- 35]

Often metalcraze is right but the way he goes about proving/saying it isn't always very graceful...

Anyways, the non-player centric + huge scale of arma are key features of the game. They also limit performance, but if BIS were to take them away it would take away some of that stuff that "makes arma arma" instead of other fps. It also helps convey that "you are merely a cog in a much bigger machine" idea.

Long ago, a dev did mention the possibility of making the campaign more player centric or introducing a module that would allow mission creators to make their mission player centric I believe. For the campaign it may not be that bad of an idea, just to lower the amount of people that complain about performance.

[tacticalnuggets 24]

This time he's right. Persistent world, that's what ArmA is.

This thread isn't about that. Nor can you coin ArmA as any direct thing. Its used as a modding engine, a multiplayer simulator, a persistent world, a conflict simulator, and many other things.

EDIT: Let me make it a little more clear. Calling ArmA a persistent world is absolutely redundant. It is a semantic waste of time and a simple thread derailment.

Edited September 15, 2012 by tacticalnuggets

[chortles 263]

This thread isn't about that. Nor can you coin ArmA as any direct thing. Its used as a modding engine, a multiplayer simulator, a persistent world, a conflict simulator, and many other things.

My preferred answer to set off others is "ARMA is a video game and not a simulator". :D

That's also part of why I took Celery's explanation over anyone else's.

Anyways, the non-player centric + huge scale of arma are key features of the game. They also limit performance, but if BIS were to take them away it would take away some of that stuff that "makes arma arma" instead of other fps. It also helps convey that "you are merely a cog in a much bigger machine" idea.

Whereas I'm less willing to sacrifice performance for "making arma arma" (since that implies something about the limits of the programmers' skill), which is why I took the Gamescom presentations so positively -- because it doesn't look like performance is sacrificed as much as I felt that to be the case in ARMA 2. Then again, my main look-out-for stuff as an end user would be consistent high framerate and bug-free running, and if Celery's words imply that that would NOT be the case with player centric then sure, I'll sacrifice player-centric to keep the framerate and stability.

[ProfTournesol 956]

This thread isn't about that. Nor can you coin ArmA as any direct thing. Its used as a modding engine, a multiplayer simulator, a persistent world, a conflict simulator, and many other things.

EDIT: Let me make it a little more clear. Calling ArmA a persistent world is absolutely redundant. It is a semantic waste of time and a simple thread derailment.

But REGARDING THIS TOPIC it is OVERALL a persistent world. And if you think it is a thread derailment, thus you don't understand much what it means. A non player centric game isn't easy to optimize and shouldn't be to compared to other player centric ones.

[chortles 263]

But REGARDING THIS TOPIC it is OVERALL a persistent world. And if you think it is a thread derailment, thus you don't understand much what it means. A non player centric game isn't easy to optimize and shouldn't be to compared to other player centric ones.

To emphasize what I said in the post before, I think that the optimization in the Gamescom build was pretty good in the sense that the build seemed to be running smoothly with a consistent framerate and bug-free. I'd be bothered if the Community Alpha initial build was any worse than that (except in bugginess), but that's because the Gamescom build set such a good standard. :D

[chrisb 196]

Its come on in a2 and should therefore benefit a3.

Would be nice if they leave the release until they are sure that it is optimized as best as pos..

____

Plus, I think the arma series are hybrid video games, cross between the two game/simulation.

[tacticalnuggets 24]

But REGARDING THIS TOPIC it is OVERALL a persistent world. And if you think it is a thread derailment, thus you don't understand much what it means. A non player centric game isn't easy to optimize and shouldn't be to compared to other player centric ones.

This is a regardless scenario of optimization. If you can store and execute the information of a battle between AI in a multiplayer game while saving resources on the clients then that is optimization of real time events. All caps doesn't really help btw. :P

[wipman 1]

Hi, i think that first of all... we should agree on what we understand as "optimization", and then begin to argue; optimization could mean run 500.000 more polygons at the same speed and drawing distance that you've your ArmA2:CO configured at, that's in fact an optimization, but... we'll take it in that way...?!.

I think that the ArmA3 gonna be more optimized than the ArmA2 or the OA, but see and feel the optimization... gonna depend on our machines more than on the engine, that sure that gonna need a good CPU to run clean without jumps it's a matter of money.

If you've your View Distance set at 3000, you don't gonna see anything beyond that; if something happens beyond that distance... it'll happen on the memory, but you wont see it or the effect of those events until that you're at 3.000m from those units or events. Remember, the tracers effect... is just viewable until 600m from the shooter, unlike IRL were it can be seen by killometers... someones will call that fact "an optimization..." i call it robbery. Let's C ya