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

[daze23 1]

no, skyrim has an all new engine, look

http://www.ign.com/articles/2011/01/18/skyrims-new-engine-detailed

that was my point earlier that's it's just semantics. these companies, and the press, call these new iterations of their old engine a "new engine" at their convenience. go to the DayZ forum, and tell them the standalone's being made on the "same engine", and watch some of these same people flame you

I don't care. but what is and isn't a "new engine" isn't worth arguing about

[white 1]

that was my point earlier that's it's just semantics. these companies, and the press, call these new iterations of their old engine a "new engine" at their convenience. go to the DayZ forum, and tell them the standalone's being made on the "same engine", and watch some of these same people flame you

I don't care. but what is and isn't a "new engine" isn't worth arguing about

there really isnt an issue in using the same engine, theres an issue, and a history, of a big problem not beign addressed ever in the arma series.

and btw, Rocket is changing a lot of the engine to be serverside like mmo´s. zombies that used AI like arma and were client sided aswell are going serverside only, which means is taking the load off the client side cpu.

just that made the zombie count limit (performancewise) go from 400 to 4000. not to mention other enhancements they are making.

i believe dayz will have a lot more performance and i have huge hope for it not because bohemia is behind it, but because Rocket wants the best game he can make to work great. and yeah, its the same engine. if the game performs well without going multicore, im completely fine with it. afterall there wont be a huge vehicle warfare on Dayz like on arma.

when there was only the mod he kept saying he couldnt do much because the engine was limited, but now hes in control of what can be accomplished, but unfortunatly, only in Dayz.

---------- Post added at 22:13 ---------- Previous post was at 22:00 ----------

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18459152

2 Cores Enabled: GPU usage = 27% / CPU usage = 99.8% / FPS = 31

4 Cores Enabled: GPU usage = 76% / CPU usage = 91.1% / FPS = 47

6 Cores Enabled: GPU usage = 95% / CPU usage = 89.7% / FPS = 70

---------- Post added at 10:43 ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 ----------

Dude there's a shit load more geometry on any BF3 map than on Shapur or Proving Grounds, ArmA will still run like a dog.

that my good Sir destroyed a lot of false arguments about multithread not scaling well.

well done.

Edited March 14, 2013 by white

[daze23 1]

there really isnt an issue in using the same engine, theres an issue, and a history, of a big problem not beign addressed ever in the arma series.

and btw, Rocket is changing a lot of the engine to be serverside like mmo´s. zombies that used AI like arma and were client sided aswell are going serverside only, which means is taking the load off the client side cpu.

just that made the zombie count limit (performancewise) go from 400 to 4000. not to mention other enhancements they are making.

i believe dayz will have a lot more performance and i have huge hope for it not because bohemia is behind it, but because Rocket wants the best game he can make to work great. and yeah, its the same engine. if the game performs well without going multicore, im completely fine with it. afterall there wont be a huge vehicle warfare on Dayz like on arma.

when there was only the mod he kept saying he couldnt do much because the engine was limited, but now hes in control of what can be accomplished, but unfortunatly, only in Dayz.

yep, I post over there too (same name). and all that is kinda them admitting the limitations, and Rocket knowing his game is not gonna work if he doesn't fix it somehow. luckly they have a more limited game to work with. but hopefully some of the stuff they come up with can benefit Arma 3 as well

[PFC Magician 10]

"Poseidon" is the internally used name of the Real Virtuality engine, used to drive all Bohemia games. Are now in what they call Real Virtuality 4 I think that engine is still in development.

[AbortedMan 1]

So moral of the story...the forum goers know what they're doing and know best, while Bohemia Interactive does not and knows nothing.

Did I get it right?

[ric 1]

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18459152

2 Cores Enabled: GPU usage = 27% / CPU usage = 99.8% / FPS = 31

4 Cores Enabled: GPU usage = 76% / CPU usage = 91.1% / FPS = 47

6 Cores Enabled: GPU usage = 95% / CPU usage = 89.7% / FPS = 70

---------- Post added at 10:43 ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 ----------

Dude there's a shit load more geometry on any BF3 map than on Shapur or Proving Grounds, ArmA will still run like a dog.

YIKES! 1.2ghz!! I imagine if ARMA3 was scaling like that i would be getting 60+ fps on ultra. @OP i share your concerns, I was all gungho when I saw the video's for ARMA 3 and was under the impression that it was a *new engine. I have little or no hope that this will be resolved as they would have done it already...in its current state it is playable on a small scale and any ""optimizations"" they do will be a robbing peter to pay Paul situation.

ARMA 3 is yesterdays engine on todays hardware and they are asking it todo even more which has created an almost unplayable situation...no amount of bitching or begging is going to change the situation , BIS has decided this is what ARMA 3 is tobe powered by and that is that :( and i fear that will ultimately cripple this franchise.

*new= new or updated engine capable of FULLY utilizing todays hardware

[daze23 1]

So moral of the story...the forum goers know what they're doing and know best, while Bohemia Interactive does not and knows nothing.

Did I get it right?

no, that's just the unreasonable strawman you created

[AbortedMan 1]

no, that's just the unreasonable strawman you created

So what's the point of this thread again?

[ric 1]

So moral of the story...the forum goers know what they're doing and know best, while Bohemia Interactive does not and knows nothing.

Did I get it right?

Dont be silly...had we KNOWN ARMA 3 would be hobbled by the same limitations ARMA 2 has we would not even be here...what do you think would have happened if BIS had stated that ARMA 3 would be built on ARMA 2 with out resolving any of its major issues?...remember this is a business and there in it for the profit not the passion so they are going todo whatever is most economical and profitable for them and that includes reskinning an old engine.

[Planetside 1]

Things I need fixed:

2/5 chance of crashing upon joining a server

CPU utilization worse than Planetside 2

Runs like shit

[Warburg 1]

Dont be silly...had we KNOWN ARMA 3 would be hobbled by the same limitations ARMA 2 has we would not even be here...what do you think would have happened if BIS had stated that ARMA 3 would be built on ARMA 2 with out resolving any of its major issues? ...remember this is a business and there in it for the profit not the passion so they are going todo whatever is most economical and profitable for them and that includes reskinning an old engine.

Arma 3 isn't even released yet you clown. What planet are you from.

[dayglow 2]

The engine has been in development since OFP 12 years ago. Like I said it is very hard for the devs to throw a switch to make it highly threaded.

To rewrite the engine from the ground up, much like Eagle Dynamics with dcs, would be unpractical. I believe the devs when they say that.

I look at BI and their track record, supporting and improving the games they release years later. Look at the beta patch program and the constant stream of increases in performance shows they care. The threading has improved as well. That's why I feel that there is a limit.

And if you simply say they should rewrite the engine from the ground up it shows your complete lack of understanding of the size and scope of the task you suggest.

[AbortedMan 1]

Dont be silly...had we KNOWN ARMA 3 would be hobbled by the same limitations ARMA 2 has we would not even be here...what do you think would have happened if BIS had stated that ARMA 3 would be built on ARMA 2 with out resolving any of its major issues?...remember this is a business and there in it for the profit not the passion so they are going todo whatever is most economical and profitable for them and that includes reskinning an old engine.

By limitations you mean rendering a fully scaled huge map, non-scripted AI with complex routines, 128+ player (privately run) servers, multi-session operations, near unlimited moddability, mo-cap animations, high-res textures, and a plethora of control input hardware options, right?

Sounds like you're a console-minded square peg trying to stuff yourself in ArmA's round hole.

What exactly do you expect from having all this stuff available in a video game? You're right, this isn't BF3, Crysis 3, CoD 47, but those games aren't doing anything close to what even ArmA 1 was doing, let alone ArmA 3. I'm sure it doesn't take a lot of computer cycles to render "Soap" McTavish and the 1km backdrop behind him as the scripted sequence runs the command that makes him prompt you to push the "action" button to grab his hand...doesn't matter if it's multithreaded or not, it's not doing or offering the same.

All those asking for "optimization" (guys, my water just broke)...I'm curious to know your PC specs.

[daze23 1]

So what's the point of this thread again?

it's not just about the last few lines of the OP

---------- Post added at 18:54 ---------- Previous post was at 18:51 ----------

All those asking for "optimization" (guys, my water just broke)...I'm curious to know your PC specs.

I'd like to know the PC specs of those not asking for "optimization". or why anyone wouldn't want "optimization" in general

[AbortedMan 1]

I'd like to know the PC specs of those not asking for "optimization". or why anyone wouldn't want "optimization" in general

I'm running with an i5 2500K at stock clock, GTX670 (OC'd 1872Mhz memory, 1135Mhz GPU boost clock, nothing big) 8GB corsair vengeance RAM, ArmA3 and Windows 8 installed on a Corsair Force GT SSD.

I run the game on max settings, ATOC disabled, SMAA ultra high, 8x AA, at 1080p and average 50-60fps (vsync is always on) unless the server starts bogging down, for some reason things get slow to about 30fps...I'm assuming there's a correlation between server performance and client performance, not sure, though.

All in all, A3 runs great and well beyond my expectations...I mean look at the damn thing.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

You can argue all you want with strawman logic - this game will be unplayable on release on Altis with anything more than 50 AI (via a dedicated server!), if this problem persists.

If 2-8 player Co-op & 32-48 Berzerk/Blitz is the future of ArmA III, then I'll shut up, but I'll still shed a tear for Warfare CTI, Domi & Evolution. ;')

Edited March 15, 2013 by Iroquois Pliskin

[AbortedMan 1]

You can argue all you want with strawman logic - this game will be unplayable on release on Altis with anything more than 50 AI (via a dedicated server!), if this problem persists.

What's that about strawman logic again?

Hey, look on the bright side, naysayers, Playstation 4 and the next EA-raped Battlefield will be out in mere months, your 120fps, invisible barrier laden gaming needs will be satiated.

[Bee8190 10]

What's that about strawman logic again?

Hey, look on the bright side, naysayers, Playstation 4 and the next EA-raped Battlefield will be out in mere months, your 120fps, invisible barrier laden gaming needs will be satiated.

We should totally direct everyone who's merely concerned on how well the game will run with xcouple mods and AI thrown in to just go play BF. Let's move backwards!! :)

Problem solved.

Just to clarify - I'm getting reasonably smooth experience on the game so far but anyone remember how CTI missions went to shit after 1-2 hours ingame?

Edited March 15, 2013 by Bee8190

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

What's that about strawman logic again?

Hey, look on the bright side, naysayers, Playstation 4 and the next EA-raped Battlefield will be out in mere months, your 120fps, invisible barrier laden gaming needs will be satiated.

Way to go offtopic, demagogue.

You're saying F-You to every MP mission that has more than 50 AI. We'll see how people will like that.

[ric 1]

By limitations you mean rendering a fully scaled huge map, non-scripted AI with complex routines, 128+ player (privately run) servers, multi-session operations, near unlimited moddability, mo-cap animations, high-res textures, and a plethora of control input hardware options, right?

Sounds like you're a console-minded square peg trying to stuff yourself in ArmA's round hole.

What exactly do you expect from having all this stuff available in a video game? You're right, this isn't BF3, Crysis 3, CoD 47, but those games aren't doing anything close to what even ArmA 1 was doing, let alone ArmA 3. I'm sure it doesn't take a lot of computer cycles to render "Soap" McTavish and the 1km backdrop behind him as the scripted sequence runs the command that makes him prompt you to push the "action" button to grab his hand...doesn't matter if it's multithreaded or not, it's not doing or offering the same.

All those asking for "optimization" (guys, my water just broke)...I'm curious to know your PC specs.

By limitations I mean the engine does not have the ability to FULLY utilize modern hardware and I am not talking about the latest and greatest like the 8 core chips I mean quad cores that have been around for years...I have a QX9650 that was released in 07 ...you would think as a developer they would be kinda of forward thinking...i think 6 years is plenty of time to add in true multicore support.

The engine has been in development since OFP 12 years ago. Like I said it is very hard for the devs to throw a switch to make it highly threaded.

To rewrite the engine from the ground up, much like Eagle Dynamics with dcs, would be unpractical. I believe the devs when they say that.

I look at BI and their track record, supporting and improving the games they release years later. Look at the beta patch program and the constant stream of increases in performance shows they care. The threading has improved as well. That's why I feel that there is a limit.

And if you simply say they should rewrite the engine from the ground up it shows your complete lack of understanding of the size and scope of the task you suggest.

making an engine that is capable of utilizing current hardware would give the company another 10 year engine...I hardly call that impractical, what do you think is going to happen here? as you said they cant just flip a switch and have full multi-core support...so the engine will be tied to pretty much one core bottlenecking the GPU and killing the frame rate and causing performance issues.

As i said above quad cores did not just come out....they have been around for over 5 years...plenty of time to adapt your engine or lay the ground work for a future one (now)

Edited March 15, 2013 by ric

[3instein 10]

"All those asking for "optimization" (guys, my water just broke)..."

LOL just brilliant. :D

Mick.

[AbortedMan 1]

As i said above quad cores did not just come out....they have been around for over 5 years...plenty of time to adapt your engine or lay the ground work for a future one (now)

Oh, is that how long it takes for your game development studio to adapt your equally feature-filled and functional engine?

[mr_centipede 31]

I'm sure it will be more optimized on the road ahead. I'm running in SP everything is fine... no lagging and all, though my VD only cap at 1600m. Never played MP yet. The problem with MP, it's not necessarily how the game utilize your hardware, maybe also the infrastructure of internet line... So the problem might be with the netcode optimization. Also, the problem with PC software development is that there are a lot of permutations of different hardware combo/setups.

We can argue all day all year long here. Wouldnt it more effective just to log a report on the feedback tracker? The point of alpha here is to test for stability so that the final game will be a smooth experience. So yes, it's an ALPHA. And we are the ALPHA testers... It doesnt mean we can ignore them, it's just that we have to give a proper feedback.

In short, ARMA3 wont be on new engine. It will be on RV engine, upgraded and hopefully more optimized when BETA comes out.

[b00tsy 28]

the engine powering Far Cry 2

I had brilliant performance in that game defenitely, of course easy to say without complex AI all over the map.

And by reading this thread I think a lot of you are to spoiled with your heavy duty top of the line PCs. I can run the Alpha on an old standard dualcore with 2Ghz processor and a single GeForce 9300 GE and still get 15 20 fps on lowest settings (yes really) ... and I still have fun playing it. Ok I won't attempt to play with 200 AI cos I will have 5 fps then, but the fact that the old turd of a PC with antique hardware can run the alpha at all is a great compliment to BIS.

Edited March 15, 2013 by B00tsy

[dayglow 2]

By limitations I mean the engine does not have the ability to FULLY utilize modern hardware and I am not talking about the latest and greatest like the 8 core chips I mean quad cores that have been around for years...I have a QX9650 that was released in 07 ...you would think as a developer they would be kinda of forward thinking...i think 6 years is plenty of time to add in true multicore support.

making an engine that is capable of utilizing current hardware would give the company another 10 year engine...I hardly call that impractical, what do you think is going to happen here? as you said they can just flip a switch and have full multi-core support...so the engine will be tied to pretty much one core bottlenecking the GPU and killing the frame rate and causing performance issues.

As i said above quad cores did not just come out....they have been around for over 5 years...plenty of time to adapt your engine or lay the ground work for a future one (now)

No they can't just flip a switch. But they have been constantly been improving the performance of the engine. But as I said there are deminishing returns to the amount of work required.