Beta isn't actually that far away

[white 1]

That depends entirely on what kind of occluding techniques/third party software they use. There are some powerful object occlusion techniques that can allow you to render out an entire city with buildings populated with geometry that is occluded from the camera, and thus does not have an impact on framerate.

To see what I mean, check out Unity3d.

yeah but you are talking about a modern engine, doesnt apply. think more like arma 2.

unity is becoming an amazing engine. the thing you talked about: http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Manual/OcclusionCulling.html

Edited April 11, 2013 by white

[lemkeh 1]

I guess is also some theoretical variants with more versions of ONE map. Rough example - would be two map of Stratis (It fits as well for the other official islands) . One is as current map of Stratis, with some additional stuff in the Houses. Practicable for tactical battles with no so many participants etc. Also useable for many different Life mods..

And would be also variant with ruined Stratis - many houses and interiors will be burned, the burned remains of furniture will lie on the street. Most doors will be beaten out and the windows would be broken. Less details, but more burned textures. Good for larger battles. imho.

[NeuroFunker 11]

I guess is also some theoretical variants with more versions of ONE map. Rough example - would be two map of Stratis (It fits as well for the other official islands) . One is as current map of Stratis, with some additional stuff in the Houses. Practicable for tactical battles with no so many participants etc. Also useable for many different Life mods..

And would be also variant with ruined Stratis - many houses and interiors will be burned, the burned remains of furniture will lie on the street. Most doors will be beaten out and the windows would be broken. Less details, but more burned textures. Good for larger battles. imho.

well, u can make ruined stratis, with script, which makes all the building damaged, Plus rainy, cloudy weather, there you go with wasteland or even stalker mod.

[lemkeh 1]

well, u can make ruined stratis, with script, which makes all the building damaged, Plus rainy, cloudy weather, there you go with wasteland or even stalker mod.

Why ruined Stratis pass just in stalker and wasteland mod, but not in war?

[joseph 1]

Umm....... They said they want to release it in Q3. Joseph

[Flash Thunder 10]

Wonder if BIS will be able to find the optimization button by then.....

[gossamersolid 155]

Wonder if BIS will be able to find the optimization button by then.....

Just do what I do and expect that it's going to run the same way it does now. Then if something actually does change, you'll be happy.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Everything.. but how you will justify the fact that BF4 will run at 60fps with a great gfx while ArmA3 at less than half of it? Most ppl will tell you this is crap (and some of them will be right), let's hope they will concentrate to fix this issue before everything else... beta, retail and launch politics apart.

BF3 bullets don't even travel far enough to match Arma's average combat range. There's your justification.

[sproyd 2]

I really don't understand why everyone is complaining about performance issues. Hand on heart I think performance is about right. I play on a laptop and get about 30 frames which I'm very happy with and feels smooth. When it drops below 25 it is much jerkier and is usually due to server issues. If you are getting below 20 frames I guarantee you your rig is not up to any form of modern gaming and you need to upgrade. An i5 and a gtx 660 will run the game well on medium to high settings.

How can you complain about optimization when the game looks stunning and runs much better than A2. BIS have achieved the impossible by boosting graphics AND performance.

In regards to the lack of content I'm personally loving the dev branch and all the incremental updates that I can test. Not to mention I raised a minor issue on the tracker and it was fixed within 2 days I the dev branch!

If you want me content try the allinarma mod, it's fantastic.

[dnk 13]

Basically. It doesn't run THAT much worse than OA, despite having more complex scenes, much improved graphics, and at least somewhat improved AI. Given how A2 was at launch, this is just fantastic for low to mid-end hardware. Seems like some mid- to high-end users are having issues with underperformance, and that's where the complaining is coming from mostly.

[gossamersolid 155]

I really don't understand why everyone is complaining about performance issues. Hand on heart I think performance is about right. I play on a laptop and get about 30 frames which I'm very happy with and feels smooth. When it drops below 25 it is much jerkier and is usually due to server issues. If you are getting below 20 frames I guarantee you your rig is not up to any form of modern gaming and you need to upgrade. An i5 and a gtx 660 will run the game well on medium to high settings.

Right, I'm running:

Q6600

4GB DDR2

GTX 560Ti

My processor is from 2007, I built this machine in 2008 and the only thing I've upgraded is my graphics card every 2 years. I can run ArmA 3 at a playable framerate and my settings are medium-hight @ 1920x1080. If I can run it, there's no excuse. My processor is a dinosaur in terms on technological age.

Upgrade your damn computers or lower your settings.

Edited April 17, 2013 by GossamerSolid

[wildw1ng 2]

cant wait to see altis :)

[NeuroFunker 11]

i say, if people want to have at least 40+fps on altis, they should be able to play stratis fluently 60+ anywhere. Since altis is much much more bigger then stratis, it will also need much more and more computer resources.

[Insanatrix 0]

Basically. It doesn't run THAT much worse than OA, despite having more complex scenes, much improved graphics, and at least somewhat improved AI. Given how A2 was at launch, this is just fantastic for low to mid-end hardware. Seems like some mid- to high-end users are having issues with underperformance, and that's where the complaining is coming from mostly.

Not only that but we are using a very small island compared to Altis. How many with good rigs got good performance on Utes but terrible on Chernarus?

[white 1]

Right, I'm running:

Q6600

4GB DDR2

GTX 560Ti

My processor is from 2007, I built this machine in 2008 and the only thing I've upgraded is my graphics card every 2 years. I can run ArmA 3 at a playable framerate and my settings are medium-hight @ 1920x1080. If I can run it, there's no excuse. My processor is a dinosaur in terms on technological age.

Upgrade your damn computers or lower your settings.

or accept horrible fps as being "fine" to play.

[sproyd 2]

@DNK even though your comment is favourable towards the A3 engine you have to remember that OA is Takistan and Takistan is a VERY basic terrain with minimal objects. Stratis is much more detailed in my opinion and when I run Takistan on A3 (using allinarma mod) it runs MUCH faster than OA.

Mid to high end users complaining about a lack of optimisation (i.e. going from 45-60fps and they expect > 60fps) are frankly stupid. Optimisation for upper end graphical hardware always comes last and is usually implemented by nVidia post retail release. I mean you just need to look at all of the GeForce main driver updates and you can always see the latest games have been dramatically improved i.e. 68% performance improvement for 2x GTX680 SLI in BioShock Infinite (or something of that nature) but as far as I'm aware there have been no optimisations by nVidia/AMD yet because the game isn't finalised and hence things could change and their efforts will be wasted. nVidia/AMD offer their customers this level of support as an extra free service that you get for owning their hardware - you are sort of guaranteed support for games that haven't yet been released yet when you buy their cards. They are by no means obliged to spend their time optimising their drivers for a game that's not even released, let alone out of Alpha yet!

[white 1]

Mid to high end users complaining about a lack of optimisation (i.e. going from 45-60fps and they expect > 60fps) are frankly stupid. Optimisation for upper end graphical hardware always comes last and is usually implemented by nVidia post retail release. I mean you just need to look at all of the GeForce main driver updates and you can always see the latest games have been dramatically improved i.e. 68% performance improvement for 2x GTX680 SLI in BioShock Infinite (or something of that nature) but as far as I'm aware there have been no optimisations by nVidia/AMD yet because the game isn't finalised and hence things could change and their efforts will be wasted. nVidia/AMD offer their customers this level of support as an extra free service that you get for owning their hardware - you are sort of guaranteed support for games that haven't yet been released yet when you buy their cards. They are by no means obliged to spend their time optimising their drivers for a game that's not even released, let alone out of Alpha yet!

doesnt apply when the performance is cpu bound. same issues on arma 2 so its not about being an alpha or not.

google: arma 2 performance issues and check for similarities about how the game behaves/user complaints about performance and cpu/gpu usage. hint, they are the exact same.

and last but not least, Dwarden already said "of course we are aware of the issue".

Edited April 17, 2013 by white

[sproyd 2]

Complaining that your FPS is crappy on an old computer is like complaining that you lost a Formula 1 race because you were driving a Prius.

---------- Post added at 19:19 ---------- Previous post was at 19:17 ----------

doesnt apply when the performance is cpu bound.

I agree - can you please find me someone that is CPU bound and doesn't know why? I think we all know by now that Arma has terrible multi-core utilisation and hence favours a high clock speed rather than a modest quad+ core.

A good processor costs peanuts compared to a good GPU setup - I mean a Core i5 3570K is about £180 and will easily clock to 4.5GHz - that will CPU bound only the fastest GPUs for MP use and in SP only if you have ridiculous number of AI going on.

[white 1]

Complaining that your FPS is crappy on an old computer is like complaining that you lost a Formula 1 race because you were driving a Prius.

---------- Post added at 19:19 ---------- Previous post was at 19:17 ----------

I agree - can you please find me someone that is CPU bound and doesn't know why? I think we all know by now that Arma has terrible multi-core utilisation and hence favours a high clock speed rather than a modest quad+ core.

A good processor costs peanuts compared to a good GPU setup - I mean a Core i5 3570K is about £180 and will easily clock to 4.5GHz - that will CPU bound only the fastest GPUs for MP use and in SP only if you have ridiculous number of AI going on.

not everyone overclocks nor they should be supposed to in order to play a game properly. 30+ fps minimum. a 660ti could handle this game fine, mine never goes higher than 45-55% with AA on.

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

I agree - can you please find me someone that is CPU bound and doesn't know why? I think we all know by now that Arma has terrible multi-core utilisation and hence favours a high clock speed rather than a modest quad+ core.

A good processor costs peanuts compared to a good GPU setup - I mean a Core i5 3570K is about £180 and will easily clock to 4.5GHz - that will CPU bound only the fastest GPUs for MP use and in SP only if you have ridiculous number of AI going on.

Not necessarily. With my 4.6Ghz i7 I'm seeing diminished CPU usage and subsequently GPU usage in multiplayer. In single player my CPU usage is much higher and my GPU is able to be capped and pegged at 99% usage. I'm sincerely hoping that there's some bad bugs in the network and server code that need to be addressed still, because multiplayer performance is abysmal even on my high end machine. I am aware my GPU isn't exactly a GTX 680 but it still performs damn well and I throttle back my graphics settings to Standard to counter for this.

My fps in single player is usually 100+ at 1920x1200 and my game visually looks nearly as good as anyone elses. The problem is the online code and perhaps the hardware running the servers. It needs some serious tuning.

[white 1]

Not necessarily. With my 4.6Ghz i7 I'm seeing diminished CPU usage and subsequently GPU usage in multiplayer. In single player my CPU usage is much higher and my GPU is able to be capped and pegged at 99% usage. I'm sincerely hoping that there's some bad bugs in the network and server code that need to be addressed still, because multiplayer performance is abysmal even on my high end machine. I am aware my GPU isn't exactly a GTX 680 but it still performs damn well and I throttle back my graphics settings to Standard to counter for this.

My fps in single player is usually 100+ at 1920x1200 and my game visually looks nearly as good as anyone elses. The problem is the online code and perhaps the hardware running the servers. It needs some serious tuning.

thats because how threads are handled. most of the game runs in a big thread on the first core, this one gets maxed out. then you have a lot of shitty threads that can spread to other cores, but they all wait for the first core to be processed in order to move along.

so what you get it 90+ usage on the first core and low usage on the rest. try disabling all but 2 cores, those crappy threads will fit into the second core, and both core works will work at 90%+. but you will experience the same performance, because the first core will have the same botteneck as before. (shown here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS&p=2321697&viewfull=1#post2321697 )

the AI being handled by 1 thread and everything having to sync across client/server is and have been a bad design choice and i doubt it will be changed. BIS is aware of this, thats why they are changing a lot of the code in DayZ to be serverside, but that was Rocket leading the development and not caring about extending indefinitely the launch date. i call it wanting the best game he can offer and having the balls to make the extra effort.

Edited April 17, 2013 by white

[sproyd 2]

not everyone overclocks nor they should be supposed to in order to play a game properly. 30+ fps minimum. a 660ti could handle this game fine, mine never goes higher than 45-55% with AA on.

Can I ask what your CPU is? And are any of your CPU clocks running at 100% while your GPU is at 45-55%?

---------- Post added at 20:15 ---------- Previous post was at 20:11 ----------

Not necessarily. With my 4.6Ghz i7 I'm seeing diminished CPU usage and subsequently GPU usage in multiplayer. In single player my CPU usage is much higher and my GPU is able to be capped and pegged at 99% usage. I'm sincerely hoping that there's some bad bugs in the network and server code that need to be addressed still, because multiplayer performance is abysmal even on my high end machine. I am aware my GPU isn't exactly a GTX 680 but it still performs damn well and I throttle back my graphics settings to Standard to counter for this.

My fps in single player is usually 100+ at 1920x1200 and my game visually looks nearly as good as anyone elses. The problem is the online code and perhaps the hardware running the servers. It needs some serious tuning.

If you play on a fresh MP server with only a few players I am fairly sure you will get similar FPS to your SP performance. There is a major issue with crappy server hardware - exacerbated on an 'old' server in persistent game modes like Wasteland with a lot of players - you need a BEAST server to run this smooth. This has nothing to do with BIS its a simple law of computing - the server needs to calculate HEAPS!

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

If you play on a fresh MP server with only a few players I am fairly sure you will get similar FPS to your SP performance. There is a major issue with crappy server hardware - exacerbated on an 'old' server in persistent game modes like Wasteland with a lot of players - you need a BEAST server to run this smooth. This has nothing to do with BIS its a simple law of computing - the server needs to calculate HEAPS!

Every other online game I've ever played, frame rate is client dependent. When a server is having a tough time coping with the load, you get latency and dropped packets, NOT frame rate rape. That's a serious flaw and it has everything to do with BI.

I'm not hating, because I love this game and I love what they do with it, but man this stuff has got to get resolved. It's archaic, some of the problems with this engine.

[sproyd 2]

Actually come to think of it, and jogged by @White's post, I think DayZ may run into much worse issues with server hardware not up to task as not only will it be handling all the loot spawning and tracking players but all of the hundreds of zombos which no longer just spawn upon players in the area but should spawn independently.

I don't envy DayZ players in that regard.

---------- Post added at 20:23 ---------- Previous post was at 20:20 ----------

Every other online game I've ever played, frame rate is client dependent. When a server is having a tough time coping with the load, you get latency and dropped packets, NOT frame rate rape. That's a serious flaw and it has everything to do with BI.

I'm not hating, because I love this game and I love what they do with it, but man this stuff has got to get resolved. It's archaic, some of the problems with this engine.

I get your point - but I honestly think that based on the number of variables in A3 compared with say BF3 there is more load on servers. Latency, dropped packets and rubber banding are generally bandwidth issues and you will get those on some A3 servers too without losing Frames.

I'm pretty sure that I drop frames on shitty BF3 servers (not that I've played it for about 9 months).

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

I get your point - but I honestly think that based on the number of variables in A3 compared with say BF3 there is more load on servers. Latency, dropped packets and rubber banding are generally bandwidth issues and you will get those on some A3 servers too without losing Frames.

I'm pretty sure that I drop frames on shitty BF3 servers (not that I've played it for about 9 months).

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/soldier/KuraiShidosha/stats/227255210/ this is me on Battlelog. I haven't really played the game in months either, it died for me a long time ago. But until it did I played it quite extensively and enjoyed it. From my 400+ hours in that game online, I have never experienced frame-rate drops that were not due to my hardware being subpar. The worst that ever happened were server crashes where I lag out and get disconnected. But even in those 64 player servers when all hell was going on, my frame rate was dependent solely on my hardwares ability to render the scene at hand. How do I know? Look down at the floor and FPS skyrocketed to 200. Do this in Arma online (not just 3, any of them) and you'll see that your frame rate doesn't improve to the extent that your hardware could take it.