Arma 3 Performance vs. Arma 2

[MavericK96 0]

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

I certainly hope not. Even with my current rig/settings (in sig) I can't get more than 30-40 FPS in most places in A2:OA. ArmA 3 would be unplayable if that were the case.

Given the "recommended system specs" we shouldn't have a problem, though they do seem extremely conservative.

[DShKM 18]

Performance is the thing I'm most anxious to test out. You can bet that on Tuesday I'm going to see how far I can go settings-wise. If the optimizations are that good, then I don't see why this game wouldn't run at the same performance as current A2 CO or even better. We'll have to see, these next few days are going to be some of the most anxious ever.

[fx2k 1]

I certainly hope not. Even with my current rig/settings (in sig) I can't get more than 30-40 FPS in most places in A2:OA. ArmA 3 would be unplayable if that were the case.

Given the "recommended system specs" we shouldn't have a problem, though they do seem extremely conservative.

You do mean 'unplayable' at your current settings don't you?

Sometimes you have to give a little to gain a lot. I'm one who loves to set everything as high as possible, but there's always a balance to be found in Arma and usually you can get there with a little sacrifice, such as lowering one of those 'very high' settings or perhaps turning view distance down a small notch or two, although I would rather keep a higher view distance over some other details.

Of course, each to their own, what you deem playable could differ significantly to what I do, absolutely no disrespect intended btw.

[Leopardi 0]

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.

Depends. I'm CPU limited so if they can optimize multicore usage better, I could get even better performance with better graphics settings.

[Nexerius 10]

Sticky this, or use this as a first message when opening the game.

Too many people complain when its alpha.

(But then there are also many that excuses anything with "alpha, its alpha!"

[MavericK96 0]

You do mean 'unplayable' at your current settings don't you?

Sometimes you have to give a little to gain a lot. I'm one who loves to set everything as high as possible, but there's always a balance to be found in Arma and usually you can get there with a little sacrifice, such as lowering one of those 'very high' settings or perhaps turning view distance down a small notch or two, although I would rather keep a higher view distance over some other details.

Of course, each to their own, what you deem playable could differ significantly to what I do, absolutely no disrespect intended btw.

Yes, I did mean current settings (I said that actually). I understand there's a balance but I guess my point is that hopefully ArmA 3 is (or will be, probably not at Alpha stage) going to achieve better optimization than ArmA 2, hopefully allowing us to enable similar settings and maintain performance. Leopardi makes a good point about multi-threading, which I've always felt was a major unoptimization in ArmA 2 (barely uses half my CPU power over 4 cores, and CPU usage inexplicably drops when there is a lot of AI). Hopefully ArmA 3 will take better advantage of that.

I've done a lot of playing around with the settings of ArmA 2 to get it running to a level I find acceptable, visually and framerate-wise. I've always felt that there could be improvement in performance, though, and I hope ArmA 3 achieves that. That's all. :)

[fx2k 1]

I've done a lot of playing around with the settings of ArmA 2 to get it running to a level I find acceptable, visually and framerate-wise. I've always felt that there could be improvement in performance, though, and I hope ArmA 3 achieves that. That's all. :)

You and me both, of course :)

Edit: Sorry missed the other part, think its time for me to clock off :)

[Zyromkiru 10]

Also people saying because it's a new engine and new technology in no way what so ever means it will need a stronger PC. It's all about the optimization and sometimes newer things are less stressful on the hardware. But since we will be in alpha we can help them make it optimized which is essentially a part of what we are doing already.

[froggyluv 2136]

Good thread and I would go even further stating that anyone who even remotely considers this a problem should definitely stay away from the Alpha as not to clutter up the feedback threads. Of course there will be performance issues as it is just that -an Alpha. That is, as long as say, 10 ragdolls don't cause a BSOD...

[gammadust 12]

We need a BENCHMARK!

...to actually evaluate, and i am not sure a Benchmark mission will be included in the Alpha, at least one that could help us more objectively compare A3 vs A2.

So let me leave a suggestion to the community:

> Chalenge new and old mission makers alike, during Alpha (or more realisticaly during Beta) to come up with a feature rich mission which could measure relative A3 vs A2 performance. Do the same for absolute performance?

> BI could turn this into a contest and prize the best Benchmark with an inclusion in final build.

[sproyd 2]

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.

Look I have played a lot of BF1942, BF2 BF:BC2 & BF3 and a lot of A2, OA, BAF, PMC & ACR and I think I can say I'm unbiased.

You linking a crappy screenshot of Wake Island, arguably one of BF3's worst maps (dgmw one of BF2's best), is just flaming. Ignoring map size you can't say that Arma 2 (any expansion or user Island) holds a candle to the visual fidelity of BF3's Firestorm or Caspian maps - both of which are big maps (albeit not as big as Takistan/Chernarus). You have to face the fact that Frostbite is far better optimized than Arma's engine (and of course better resourced thanks to EA).

Caspian Border

http://www.sweclockers.com/image/red/2011/09/29/Bf3+2011-09-29+13-43-03-24.jpg?t=original&k=adad1d27

vs Chernarus

https://dev-heaven.net/attachments/14187/Chernarus_GPS_COORDS_067039-067042_long_straight_vertical_white_line_in_ground_and_in_map__9_.jpg

Operation Firestorm

http://bf3blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/operation-firestorm-4.jpg

vs Takistan

http://www.plannedassault.com/images/screenshots/a2_little_birds_over_takistan.jpg

[-Coulum- 35]

I just hope there are many options so I can easily sacrifice graphics for performance.

I know that in arma 1, I had high fps on high settings. But when I tried arma 2, no matter how low I set the options I couldn't get the same performance and the same "prettiness" as arma 1. I hope this is not the case in arma 3. I want to have the ability to play arma 3 with the same graphics and fps as arma 2 if I adjust the settings right. I don't know if this is reasonable and of course is only in regards to the final release, on a map that has no ai or anything actually happening. For the alpha I expect a real mess but that's okay... because its the alpha.

[PuFu 4600]

Okay - although Arma doesn't tend to abide by the normal laws of computer power (20FPS when BF3 on High will give 50FPS lol)

In fact it sort of does...

[*]Arma is infamous for being CPU heavy - for those with an i7 processor it is hard to comprehend Arma requiring much more heavy lifting.[/quote[

very simple reason. Poorly multithreaded optimization.

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.

There won't be any tesselation. Neither terrain or units/vehicles/buildings

[*]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

There won't be any sort of cloth and particle simulation afaik.

[gammadust 12]

snip

somethings wrong with your 3rd link. (not too biased but i am sure you could find a less monotonous field in Chernarus)

[sproyd 2]

In fact it sort of does...

very simple reason. Poorly multithreaded optimization.

There won't be any tesselation. Neither terrain or units/vehicles/buildings

There won't be any sort of cloth and particle simulation afaik.

Re: Computer power comment - of course it does it was a joke

Re: Multi-threaded optimization. Yes. Do we know if there is optimization that has been worked on?

Re: Tesselation - I thought I could remember in one of the videos (either underwater or infantry) that the dev commented and said "note the tessellation on the rock". I could be wrong as I just tried to find it and couldn't - anyone else remember this?

Re: PhysX - I know but I am saying that PhysX does not have a huge performance impact it is instead just an nVidia proprietary tech term.

[grillob3 11]

I am playing missions using Dserver+HeadlessClient+game in the same machine everything very high and VD around 4-5k !Best performance i ever seen in arma 2! All my cpu cores work at around 40-70%. If somehow they could implement that on the game in singleplayer missions too would make much easier to get better performance out of cpu and making easier to go higher on graphic settings!

[AlexVestin 24]

There won't be any sort of cloth and particle simulation afaik.

I'm not sure if should to categorize this as physX particle simulation, but I'm fairly sure I've seen helicopters blowing away smoke in ArmA3

(Not talking about the smoke from the chopper, but smoke from a nearby vehicles wreck etc.)

I'll post a vid if I find one.

[fx2k 1]

You have to face the fact that Frostbite is far better optimized than Arma's engine (and of course better resourced thanks to EA).

I wouldn't go as far as saying "far better optimized than arma" myself, perhaps optimized well for role it plays, yes.

Frostbite 2 has it relatively easy by comparison, some fancy cover up effects, no cpu heavy AI, considerably smaller terrain sizes, Bandar is what, 5k x 5k? Everything beyond the edge of the playable map (give or take a few hundred meters) is extremely low detail, etc.

Of course, they are both different in their own right and shouldn't really be compared imo.

I'm no expert on the subject though, just the way I see it, and I have around 780hrs in BF3 to date.

Edit: but I also dont want this thread to turn into a BF3 / Arma fanboi thread, so ill shut up now :)

Edit 2: and personally, I think Arma 2 can look pretty awesome, by comparison to your caspian border screenshot, heres one from Panthera:

With no added Vaseline :P not quite the same, but age matters too.

1600 KB image removed

Apologies for the embedded image, it was supposed to be a link (DOH) since it was hosted on steam's gallery:

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/918999765389822160/54348A9FFB6D6E2210BFD6A078492A81A12FF335/

Edited February 28, 2013 by FX2K

[Mafia101 0]

Well, I would not see huge performance hit in Arma 3 Alpha and that's simply because we have relatively small map Stratis which is bit comparable to Utes (not really, but still). Utes runs at least 2x better than Chernarussia in Arma 2. So if Chernarussia runs more or less fine then I guess Arma 3 Alpha with Stratis aswell. BUT there is totally different story if we get our hands on Lem... Altis, which is Huge map, high quality terrain, huge urban areas... that's the point where real performance hit will come. Just my guess :)

Seems we having A3 vs BF3 stuff too. Oh man, back in a day when there was OFP vs BF2, yeah :)

[metalcraze 290]

You linking a crappy screenshot of Wake Island, arguably one of BF3's worst maps (dgmw one of BF2's best), is just flaming. Ignoring map size you can't say that Arma 2 (any expansion or user Island) holds a candle to the visual fidelity of BF3's Firestorm or Caspian maps - both of which are big maps (albeit not as big as Takistan/Chernarus). You have to face the fact that Frostbite is far better optimized than Arma's engine (and of course better resourced thanks to EA).

Actually BF3's visual fidelity is much lower than that of ArmA2. Nice try linking BF3's maxed out screenie with some rolling terrain (and stones blocking much of view) and then ArmA2 screenshot with a field and trees without much view, medium detail and no AA. And yet even then ArmA2 has much more polygonal detail already than cardboard cutout trees of Caspian Border and next to zero grass.

And Takistan vs Firestorm? Why not take a screenshot of Firestorm from 50m away from one of its many empty hills too?

[Tonci87 163]

Well, I would not see huge performance hit in Arma 3 Alpha and that's simply because we have relatively small map Stratis which is bit comparable to Utes (not really, but still). Utes runs at least 2x better than Chernarussia in Arma 2. So if Chernarussia runs more or less fine then I guess Arma 3 Alpha with Stratis aswell. BUT there is totally different story if we get our hands on Lem... Altis, which is Huge map, high quality terrain, huge urban areas... that's the point where real performance hit will come. Just my guess :)

Seems we having A3 vs BF3 stuff too. Oh man, back in a day when there was OFP vs BF2, yeah :)

Yeah that has to be considered too. We will have better Performance on Stratis then on Lim.... Altis

I hope they include a godd benchmark Mission.

I also hope that they include a hint system in the settings that tells you what each setting does and if it is CPU or GPU heavy.

[froggyluv 2136]

Ignoring map size you can't say that Arma 2 (any expansion or user Island) holds a candle to the visual fidelity of BF3's Firestorm or Caspian maps - both of which are big maps (albeit not as big as Takistan/Chernarus).

I dunno. I find the graphics pretty lackluster in BF3 when flying as compared to http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m594/froggyluv/This_zps79bd2f3e.jpg or this http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m594/froggyluv/Alsothis_zps8e173f01.jpg

Really what BF3 has going for it is better microterrain of the immediate vicinity.

Edited February 28, 2013 by froggyluv
Detail was set at Normal

[-Coulum- 35]

I don't really want to feed the whole battlefield vs arma debate, but I do have to say that BF3 has better ground textures at medium range (end of clutter draw distance - 450 metres). And I don't think this is only possible in BF3 because they have some trick up their sleeve or they have smaller maps. ... could be wrong.

[DShKM 18]

Enough with the BF3 vs ArmA comments. You'll have a moderator in here faster than you can blink. This is a performance thread for ArmA 2 vs ArmA 3.

[grillob3 11]

9 months ago the arma 3 was show on E3 and from the videos looked pretty good and very smooth! That was in a single gtx 580 + i7, so by now its probably even more optimized! i think we will get a better alpha than we are expecting! ;)