Arma 3 Performance vs. Arma 2

[Tonci87 163]

Yeah I think this needs it´s own thread. People need to be aware of it.

Don´t expect the Alpha of Arma 3 to run as good as Arma 2 does!

Don´t come to the forums complaining that the Alpha is not optimized (of course it isn´t, it´s still an Alpha)

and that you get less FPS with the same settings as in Arma 2 (has to be expected since it is a new version of the engine)

The first thing you want to do is to go into the Settings and make sure that you can run the game smooth. Don´t turn everything to "very high". (@BIS Devs, you may want to include a Popup at the first start of the Alpha that directs the people to the settings and warns them that this game can be very hardware demanding if you choose very high settings)

You may want to apply the same settings that you have in Arma 2, but don´t expect the same FPS.

Judging by the Sys requirements Arma 3 is more demanding than Arma 2, the Alpha will show how much.

I know you guys are just as exited as I am but please don´t forget that this is just an Alpha Build. There will be Bugs, there is room for optimization.

Our job is to report everything we find

[saltatormortis 12]

true words my friend

an alpha or an beta isnt the full game

and its a job not fun and gaming

[tonygrunt 10]

You can see on gamespy that the game version is 0.5.102520, people should hold their complaining at least after it hits 1.x.xxxxxx. :)

[b00tsy 28]

Well considering that ArmAIII should have been released originally in 2012, I assume it will be somewhat optimized already. Otherwise they should not release it as an alpha that you can buy, but release it for free under a select group of testers till it is optimized enough for a public release. If it runs horrible while they release it on Steam then BIS can expect a shitload of negativity on the hub and forum (knowing the Steam whiners a bit). Personally I will be spending most time in the editor where the FPS is not relevant, Im just glad I can finally check it out!

[vegeta897 13]

Well considering that ArmAIII should have been released originally in 2012, I assume it will be somewhat optimized already. Otherwise they should not release it as an alpha that you can buy, but release it for free under a select group of testers till it is optimized enough for a public release. If it runs horrible while they release it on Steam then BIS can expect a shitload of negativity on the hub and forum (knowing the Steam whiners a bit). Personally I will be spending most time in the editor where the FPS is not relevant, Im just glad I can finally check it out!

You can't fully optimize a game in-house or with a limited group of testers. It would cost far too many resources. Part of the goal of the alpha is to improve performance. With a large selection of players, they get to see how the game runs on all different combinations of hardware, which is simply not possible to do by themselves or privately. (unless you're a huge company and have lots of funding)

[midgetgrimm 10]

Very true statement! I have always despised betas/alphas, but mainly because I was a console player, and I never saw much difference between Release version and beta lol. One thing I really love about BI is that they actual develop, and listen to feedback. Dean Hall alone is a great reason to love BI, the effort and time he is putting into DayZ and not releasing garbage.

That being said, I think this will be a great 'research' event for the dev's. All we can do is help by providing as much feedback as possible! Cheers!

[NeMeSiS 11]

Don´t expect the Alpha of Arma 3 to run as good as Arma 2 does!

Even expecting that the full game will run better than ArmA2 does now would be utterly ridiculous.

[metalcraze 290]

Yep ArmA3 will certainly require much more powerful PC to run than ArmA2

Clouds, PhysX (which includes ragdolls and driving models), render-to-texture, even simply increased polygon counts and texture resolutions - forget about ArmA2-level performance.

[raptor90 1]

Even expecting that the full game will run better than ArmA2 does now would be utterly ridiculous.

Arma 3 = Arma 2 OA on steroids with hyped Physx 3 :butbut: and same, more than decade old rendering technology...

Really, it will not run legless even on 2K+ eur PC.

[nikiforos 450]

Please check spoiler. Do you guys think I will be able to run A3 with medium settings?

I think it's easy to understand that Arma 3 will be much more demanding.

[grillob3 11]

Please check spoiler. Do you guys think I will be able to run A3 with medium settings?

I think it's easy to understand that Arma 3 will be much more demanding.

Probably better than that! Medium and some high settings! Specially if you don't go to high on View Distace and AA.

[Laqueesha 474]

don´t expect the Alpha of Arma 3 to run as good as Arma 2 does!

Since when did ArmA 2 ever run well?

I joke, I joke, I kid, I kid! :p

Edited February 28, 2013 by Laqueesha

[[frl]myke 14]

Well considering that ArmAIII should have been released originally in 2012, I assume it will be somewhat optimized already. Otherwise they should not release it as an alpha that you can buy, but release it for free under a select group of testers till it is optimized enough for a public release. If it runs horrible while they release it on Steam then BIS can expect a shitload of negativity on the hub and forum (knowing the Steam whiners a bit). Personally I will be spending most time in the editor where the FPS is not relevant, Im just glad I can finally check it out!

You don't buy the Alpha, you buy the final game and get additionally access to the Alpha as a bonus. You're free to ignore the Alpha completely.

[liquidpinky 11]

Would be nice if they gave us the settings they used in some of the more recent demos so we have a base to aim for.

Stuff it, all sliders to eleven.

[-Coulum- 35]

I hope your wrong Tonci, but of course you are probably right. I literally just meet the min requirements of A3 so I will be playing with pretty much the lowest settings and still will be viewing a slide show rather than a game. But who cares, I just want to be able to explore the new features. Probably won't be upgrading until the beta or full game comes out so I can get a good idea of what the ideal rig would be.

[metalcraze 290]

As a general rule with ArmA - always treat recommended settings as minimum for any kind of comfortable play with semi-decent visual settings.

[avigrace 1]

Didn't they mention last year that if you can run Arma 2 you should be able to run 3 fine, I was under the impression that they have optimised the engine and stuff even with all the new. But I know it's an alpha and it won't be perfect day one I was just hoping my i5 and 6970 would run it reasonably well and I wouldn't need a new PC just yet! Guess we find out next week unless the OP has tried it already and the warning is a true one..

[b00tsy 28]

Myke;2305840']You don't buy the Alpha' date=' you buy the final game and get additionally access to the Alpha as a bonus. You're free to ignore the Alpha completely.[/quote']

Yes yes you are right. I was just thinking ahead about the new (younger) crowd buying it on Steam and then create 100 topics on the hub about the performance. DayZ is also alpha and look at the Steam hub topics and all the whiners.

Ohh and for me personally, if I have 10+ fps I already call it 'playable' as you don't need 60fps in arma, nice to have though.

[call_911 10]

Will probably spend 1st hr or testing performance in various areas etc, co32 Operation BugHunt

[fx2k 1]

Myke;2305840']You don't buy the Alpha' date=' you buy the final game and get additionally access to the Alpha as a bonus. You're free to ignore the Alpha completely.[/quote']

I do have to say, the bis page somewhat implies that your are buying the alpha in the way it reads and is organised in my opinion.

It should be laid out a little more along these lines (a quick and dirty mock up mind you)

http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj585/SWS_UK/arma_info_zps17f89a71.png (313 kB)

Edit: not that it bothers me, just the way it reads... and thats me straying off topic, sorry..

Edited February 27, 2013 by FX2K

[sproyd 2]

Okay - although Arma doesn't tend to abide by the normal laws of computer power (20FPS when BF3 on High will give 50FPS lol) - for those who know a bit about modern gaming tech and its demands I'm not expecting it to run much worse than Arma 2 on modern cards.

• Arma is infamous for being CPU heavy - for those with an i7 processor it is hard to comprehend Arma requiring much more heavy lifting.
  
• BIS have made the jump to DirectX 11 (from DirectX 9). This will give much better lighting tech without much performance hit - this is something that makes the Arma 3 screenies and video look so much better. Shadows look a lot better too and not as jagged.
  
• If BIS have used tessellation (which I think they have) this will give a MUCH higher perceived polygon count without equivalent FPS hit of using actual polygons - especially useful for rocky outcrops etc. Although it does have quite a performance hit - so hopefully its toggle-able or reduce-able.
  
• If you have a good graphics card PhysX won't tax much of your FPS. Batman Arkham series was a heavy user of PhysX (for Batman's cape and atmospheric blowing leaves etc) and toggling it had a marginal performance hit
  

Don't get me wrong - the game will be more demanding - but the FPS impact won't be huge if you are currently on an i5/i7 & GTX560+ or Kepler GPU. Of course the Alpha/Beta will be less optimized to exacerbate things

[metalcraze 290]

Didn't they mention last year that if you can run Arma 2 you should be able to run 3 fine, I was under the impression that they have optimised the engine and stuff even with all the new.

Because while optimization makes sure there's nothing else taxing the system but what's needed to handle the game - there's no majikal optimization to make ArmA3 run on IBM 386

(20FPS when BF3 on High will give 50FPS lol)

If ArmA2 graphics was just as dated as BF3's then sure - it would've been a reason to call it unoptimized but alas.

Not mentioning that ArmA is much more than 500m x 500m maps with 64 non-AI players tops.

Edited February 27, 2013 by metalcraze

[Assifuah 1]

I imagine the FULL PRODUCT will be more optimized than ARMA 2. I mean, look at the already released footage such as E3 or Gamescom. It seemed to run pretty smooth, mind that they weren't destroying their systems with mass troops on the editor. ;)

[Zyromkiru 10]

For alpha I expect playable at least on some settings. For Full release I do expect it to have better performance than Arma 2 or near the same if it's not playable on release with the goods turned on then it's not worth releasing. Can't simulate something if it doesn't run well.

I'm not concerned however.

[fx2k 1]

Because while optimization makes sure there's nothing else taxing the system but what's needed to handle the game - there's no majikal optimization to make ArmA3 run on IBM 386

If ArmA2 graphics was just as dated as BF3's then sure - it would've been a reason to call it unoptimized but alas.

Not mentioning that ArmA is much more than 500m x 500m maps with 64 non-AI players tops.

You forgot the colour grading to hide the real underlying texture quality :P

BF3 uses many tricks (aside from its small by comparison map sizes) to ensure it can run adequately on consoles, which is why PC's can usually eat it for breakfast so to speak. Arma is a different beast. Considering what each AI unit processes and the shear scale of A3, its understandable that it takes a little more than the average 'console game' which is most games these days.