To Clarify:BIS, is the 'new' ARMA3 engine as is?

[Touch Off 10]

And would you acknowledge the issues relating to performance on above average/high end systems in the feedback section and a future sitrep? We'll see

Have you built upon the same engine that suffered the same inadequacies over the last 10 years? Yes

I would just like some honesty from a company I've paid money to, really. I'm concerned that as you haven't acknowledged the issues that I can't recommend this game.

I had hopes that you would be creating a game that corrected path finding, invisible walls and most of all the optimisation that is needed to allow for a more fluid and stable experience.

Other than getting to the end of the game's life span for newer generation technology to finally have an impact on the way the game feels and plays, are you confident you can optimise the engine so we don't have to run 5GHz overclocked CPUs etc etc and can manage larger battles of AI, say 50 a side, without the audio stuttering and huge impact on framerates?

Will the game eventually be able to utilise the resources that are on mid range PC, like a 560 series nVidia GPU with a previous gen SB CPU or even a 460+ series GPU with Core2 technology CPUs?

Or will we have to face the music and understand that from your point of view there is nothing that will change the performance of the game in future other than hardware upgrades? I mean to say, while things may look nicer, with features added, will nothing change the issues with the current ARMA3 Alpha engine in terms of the invisible wall issue and seemingly poor performance with high specification computers?

Would you clarify your intent to endeavour to optimise the game in this regard? Optimisation normally comes at the final stages of development

I feel that this needs addressing. No acknowledgement for this issue is a sign for me that you are either incapable of making these things better, knowing how long you've had to resolve certain flaws in the game that have long been discussed in these forums, or would rather ignore what many of your customers are reporting?

Neither looks good at the moment and this is why I feel you'd be best off to issue some kind of statement, if possible?

So, would you clarify what we can expect to be addressed in the near future, before the game reaches Beta or the final release, in terms of graphical performance and the utilisation of multi core CPUs more efficiently and the AI issues as mentioned?

From my point of view, I love what you make and have been a long time fan. However I for one had been under the impression that

A: You would be creating a game that was entirely built on a new engine. Not true, misleading articles and possibly conjecture bolstered this opinion on my behalf...

B: It as such wouldn't suffer some of the game breaking issues with the previous titles. Path finding, poor AI use of cover, lack of suppression system, walk through walls and lastly the inability to utilise the cores on more modern CPUs more efficiently. From what people are saying, the way that the devs have built the code to utilise processing power in calculations necessary and what we see in system monitoring software isn't the clear picture of underused CPU power as it may lead us to believe

Edited March 15, 2013 by Touch Off
Edited title of the post detailing the concern a little clearer. Answered questions I was inititally unclear about according to forum posts, links and statements from moderators.

[kremator 1064]

Can I say it? Go on, can I?

IT'S AN ALPHA!

[paecmaker 23]

A: You would be creating a game that was entirely built on a new engine.

B: As such wouldn't suffer some of the game breaking issues with the previous titles. Path finding, poor AI use of cover, lack of suppression system, walk through walls and the inability to utilise the cores on more modern CPUs.

A Creating a totally new engine is not something easy, even less as it must handle an entire world and I dont think BIS had the means to create a new engine from scratch. They have vastly improved the VR engine since the older games and stability will probably increase later on in development.

B And why would creating a totally new engine fix all problems at once, if anything there would probably be even more problems as they had to start over from the start.

With that being said I am not against BI to create a new engine, however for A3 IMO its not needed.

[PFC Magician 10]

I think in 2014 or 2016 release Arma 3

why worry about requirements that will be obsolete?

[Tone71 1]

True, a new engine would have more problems, but not the SAME problems. And you can't excuse everything by constantly saying "it's an Alpha". I too was expecting a new engine, and so far am just a touch disappointed.

[hatbuster 1]

You don't create new engines. Ever.

Unless you do small-scale projects like minecraft.

I agree, however, that multithreading needs to be improved a LOT.

[daze23 1]

the engine is water under the bridge at this point. lets hope they can get it working better

[Dallas 9]

While Real Virtuality isn't perfect, but it's the reason why I loved OFP and bought ArmA 1, ArmA 2, enjoyed DayZ and just got the ArmA 3 Alpha.

If you want another game, maybe you should buy another game?

[metalcraze 290]

And you can't excuse everything by constantly saying "it's an Alpha".

Yes I can. Because it is an alpha.

I too was expecting a new engine, and so far am just a touch disappointed.

Durr you hit "maek engine" buttan and a new perfect engine comes out of thin air in an instant

[nodunit 397]

One does not simply create a new engine, all engines used in games today are an iterative form of a previous.

Learning the tools, understanding the engine, how to tweak it, how to work with it, how to optimize it, how to create with it, documentation, etc.

None of this is cheap to do and it would be a huge time sink but also time wasted since it push BI back by decades of innovation but it would also make the game feel different and risk alienating communities.

No Arma game will ever be on a new engine, cry engine, frost bite, they just don't do what it does.

Each engine is built and designed for a different purpose hence iterations rather than new, that and cost.

Edited March 14, 2013 by NodUnit

[NordKindchen 12]

Keep in mind that BI is no tripple a studio. They may have the recources to develop a new engine from scratch but that would be accompanied by a huge risc and a lot of problems.

Most of nowadays developers stick to their old engines and develop them further.

Its a wise way to choose. This way there is more money for other parts.

On top of that: Have you ever played any other Alpha? Arma3 is running DAMN GOOD for an Alpha! And yes....HERE is the time to underline its an Alpha. (Since you are not refering to a bug but rather are argumenting as if the game would be final)

Open a ticket for the concerns you have - and if the engine is not capable enough at the end of the day - then its time to complain. But what we see at the moment is not represantative enough.

So in the end: Stop talking as if the game is final. The Alphas barely one week old and they allready gave feedback on what they are working at.

Also - the feedbacker tracker is even integrated into the game! How much more influence on the game can one wish to have!

And of course the old engine is still in use. But for example: They implemted a new lightning engine into it

Doesnt that say enough?

I agree that the AI needs a lot of work still as many parts in the game. But that is what you have to expect from an Alpha.

Now pls write your concerns into a ticket and see how they get fixed.

Best regards

[Flash Thunder 10]

Its not a new engine. Its a damn revision of the Real Virtuality Engine hence the 3.0...

[2nd ranger 282]

Did anybody really think there was going to be a new engine? I mean really? If so, point please to some piece of promotional material that promised one. Anyone who has played more than one game in the series should know that a new engine was not going to happen.

[daze23 1]

it's kinda semantics

and things like this don't help:

http://www.pcgamesn.com/arma-3-video-sheds-light-new-engine

[dayglow 2]

I fully agree with the OP. Arma games have been lagging far behind the other open world military sand box games. Their engines are far superior.

[Flash Thunder 10]

I fully agree with the OP. Arma games have been lagging far behind the other open world military sand box games. Their engines are far superior.

What other games?

[white 1]

Can I say it? Go on, can I?

IT'S AN ALPHA!

Irrelevant, Arma 2 suffers from same issues, and id like to point you out to this bug report 2 years ago, and the answer that was given:

dev-heaven.net/issues/6963

"I am sorry to disappoint you, but some things are really too hard and we are not willing to spend the time on them." - Soma

-

people like you make Bohemia sit in a confortable position and thus not giving a shit about the rest of us that complain about a major issue.

You don't create new engines. Ever.

Unless you do small-scale projects like minecraft.

FALSE.

'Watch Dogs' is running on a brand new game engine called 'Disrupt'

http://www.examiner.com/article/watch-dogs-is-running-on-a-brand-new-game-engine-called-disrupt

----

that said, im fine with it being the same engine, im not fine with the major problems not having been addressed. LIKE MULTICORE WITH PROPER SUPPORT WITH SEVERAL THREADS FOR THE MAIN GAME/AI.

Edited March 14, 2013 by white

[daze23 1]

I fully agree with the OP. Arma games have been lagging far behind the other open world military sand box games. Their engines are far superior.

what's the logic behind this sarcasm? unique games are somehow immune from criticism?

[NordKindchen 12]

@Flash Thunder I noticed your signature. Since you are writing about terrain texture improvements it seems you could be interested in this suggestion I wrote.

Best regards!

[metalcraze 290]

FALSE.

'Watch Dogs' is running on a brand new game engine called 'Disrupt'

http://www.examiner.com/article/watch-dogs-is-running-on-a-brand-new-game-engine-called-disrupt

Yeah and the game is no different from all other console open worlds with zero interactivity. Just same boring 'select your scripted missions' in an empty town where stuff spawns and despawns 50m away.

[white 1]

Yeah and the game is no different from all other console open worlds with zero interactivity. Just same boring 'select your scripted missions' in an empty town where stuff spawns and despawns 50m away.

you guys really like circlejerking. i proved his statement wrong and you pull a lowly unusefull argument out of your ass just to try to somewhat justify him being wrong. he made an statement and i proved him wrong, thats it.

try to understand logic and grow some balls already.

btw, that game is being made FOR PC and its going to be PORTED to consoles so check your facts and dont try to guess what an unreleased game will be like, ull just be stating bullshit.

[metalcraze 290]

What logic? For the past ~12 years ArmA engine was constantly evolving while so called "new ones" are just stagnating in the exactly same place for a decade.

So they wasted time and money making an engine for a game that nobody will play 6 months after it's released? I will just say - good for them.

[white 1]

What logic? For the past ~12 years ArmA engine was constantly evolving while so called "new ones" are just stagnating in the exactly same place for a decade.

So they wasted time and money making an engine for a game that nobody will play 6 months after it's released? I will just say - good for them.

go back and read my first post, i know its difficult but read it again, i never said they should make a new engine. but i argued with the false statement that companies never make new engines from scratch, which was false, and i proved it with 2 seconds on google. you are buring yourself in an argument you created and only exists in your imagination. stick to reality please and take your time to read the posts properly, even if you need to read them a few times to understand them.

again if you find it too difficult, heres what i previously stated:

"that said, im fine with it being the same engine, im not fine with the major problems not having been addressed. LIKE MULTICORE WITH PROPER SUPPORT WITH SEVERAL THREADS FOR THE MAIN GAME/AI."

god damn.

[NeZz_DK 1]

I don't see any multi-gpu scaling issues on my setup

I created a profile for Arma 3 set the Crossfire profile to "Optimize 1x1" and now both my HD 6970 are utilized up to 99% and the framerate is beetween 30 to 90 FPS.

I'm running with a Core i7 3770k @4.2Ghz

I do see multithreading issues, but I think its caused by the memory allocator.

I see a big difference in framerate across the different memory allocators included with the Alpha, when I have a 100 vs 100 AI battle running.

So I hope BIS is going to upgrade the TBB4 memory allocator to the latest version Intel released in feburary, at least it couldn't hurt to try it out and see if it brings any performance improvements.

[dayglow 2]

Irrelevant, Arma 2 suffers from same issues, and id like to point you out to this bug report 2 years ago, and the answer that was given:

dev-heaven.net/issues/6963

"I am sorry to disappoint you, but some things are really too hard and we are not willing to spend the time on them." - Soma

-

people like you make Bohemia sit in a confortable position and thus not giving a shit about the rest of us that complain about a major issue.

FALSE.

'Watch Dogs' is running on a brand new game engine called 'Disrupt'

http://www.examiner.com/article/watch-dogs-is-running-on-a-brand-new-game-engine-called-disrupt

----

that said, im fine with it being the same engine, im not fine with the major problems not having been addressed. LIKE MULTICORE WITH PROPER SUPPORT WITH SEVERAL THREADS FOR THE MAIN GAME/AI.

If you watch the development of the flight sim series DCS people are making the same argument about more threading.

The issue is that the nature of a game such as dcs or arma is that multiple threads will not be a magical window to super high performance. AI, physics, graphics, core engine functions, sound, scripting, etc all rely on each other and need input from each other to run. Simply dumping it into a separate thread won't speed it up if it needs a result from another thread.