General Discussion (dev branch)

[invisibull 0]

"Playable" is a meaningless subjective distinction. This is why we use FPS, CPU/GPU usage and other objective measures to establish actual performance.

For instance, in a benchmark mission of my own making which is basically 40v40 ai on Altis, pre-new patch, i averaged 52 FPS over 3 minutes as compared with v 1.10 over the same period of time being 38 FPS. This is with the exact same settings and completely unmodded. The long and short of it is that there's a problem, and that's not the whole story. Not only has performance degraded considerably, but now vsync is no longer working properly (I have to alt-tab to get it to work). Also, a few of the mods I've come to rely on for somewhat passable AI behavior have been broken and though this is an understandable consequence of any upgrade, it also adds insult to injury when factoring in the aforementioned performance issues. I don't understand why an update, which BIS had to know was going to degrade performance, was foisted on us. Isn't that the entire purpose of the DEV Branch? I'm now stuck using an increasingly inferior product due to compatibility issues if I want to play on others' servers.

It's just laughable that what has long appeared to be a top complaint, namely performance issues, was not only left unaddressed, but was actually exacerbated with no option to opt out.

And for those who insist that performance isn't that bad, my hat's off to you all. But please don't think for a moment that it matters to me personally how happy your are with your performance as I watch mine degrade empirically.

I'd suggest that BIS roll back the performance degrading AI tweaks and vsync debacle immediately while preserving any benign upgrades such as the campaign, etc. having no effect on performance. It's simply not fair to force DEV type experiments onto those who want a Stable version.

[Shagulon 1]

I'd suggest that BIS roll back the performance degrading AI tweaks and vsync debacle immediately while preserving any benign upgrades such as the campaign, etc. having no effect on performance. It's simply not fair to force DEV type experiments onto those who want a Stable version.

It is unclear as to exactly which branch you play on and are talking about, but as you have posted this into the dev branch thread, I would point out that it is utterly fair for the devs to push out experimental builds into this branch, as the name implies.

Try going back to the stable branch, and if unhappy, post your comments in the general discussion thread...

[invisibull 0]

I've tried both branches, neither is stable at this point. Both have become experimental. Does that clarify?

---------- Post added at 14:49 ---------- Previous post was at 14:44 ----------

Try going back to the stable branch, and if unhappy, post your comments in the general discussion thread...

Thanks, now try being a little less obvious. My comments are here and on the stable branch because they concern the fact that the DEV branch has now become interchangeable with the stable branch with this last update.

[CaptainObvious 95]

DEV branch has now become interchangeable with the stable branch with this last update.

What do you mean?

[das attorney 857]

I recorded it!

I just had this happen in the editor.

Firing rockets from a LittleBird at an empty Offroad HMG, they just flew through it. I thought it was my usual dodgy aim, but I checked in the cam and they definitely went straight through.

EDIT: The miniguns hit as usual though.

[daze23 1]

the DEV branch has now become interchangeable with the stable branch with this last update.

I don't think that's true. the dev branch gets updated pretty much every weekday

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149636-Development-Branch-Changelog/page21

[antoineflemming 14]

I've tried both branches, neither is stable at this point. Both have become experimental. Does that clarify?

---------- Post added at 14:49 ---------- Previous post was at 14:44 ----------

Thanks, now try being a little less obvious. My comments are here and on the stable branch because they concern the fact that the DEV branch has now become interchangeable with the stable branch with this last update.

Nope. Stable branch is 1.10. Dev branch is 1.11

[invisibull 0]

Conceptually, updates to the stable branch should be just that, changes which are tested for stability before being released. By releasing (forcing) changes that were known to cause issues in the dev branch into the stable branch, the line between the two has become blurred. Degrading performance in a finished product by force isn't something I'd expect in a so-called stable build. The anecdotal evidence both on the forum and in conversations i've had with users all points to their having been a major blunder with this update. I am sorry for those i've upset with my apparent lapse in judgment in where i chose to post my original comments. Perhaps Shagulon was right. I just hope my points won't be lost in the shuffle as I still think they are fair and valid.

[windies 11]

He means that the purpose of dev branch and stable branch have become interchangeable by introducing changes that produce a buggy or reduced performance environment to stable.

[maturin 12]

can you get me which models / soldiers this 'no head' hit detection bug affects?

It's probably related to the surrender animation, too.

[CHB68 10]

Nice one....

[themaster303 22]

BI have you looked into cryengine? i thought id actually ask...

you cant use cryengine for arma3. was didcussed so often!

for example: its not possible to make that size of an island in the cryengine.

also that viewdistance...

or are you trolling ?

Edited January 23, 2014 by themaster303

[Alwarren 2765]

thats weird, cause most missions if not all are playble for me.

Every mission eventually slows down to a crawl. Apparently, this has something to do with AI pathfinding suddenly working, and the problem is widely reported, not only by me.

"Playable" is obviously a subjective thing. But since these missions have been playable before, it's the game, nothing else, that slowed down.

[Tonci87 163]

can you get me which models / soldiers this 'no head' hit detection bug affects?

I have expereinced it with CSAT, AAF and US Soldiers. It seems that everyone is affected. It is not only the Head either. I had bullets passing through torsos and legs without doing damage. I played quite a lot of Arma 3 today and I experienced such situations multiple times. For example, during a firefight one AAF soldier was completely invulnerable. I sprayed him from top to toe, every bullet went through without damaging him. The grenade I threw killed him though.

[windies 11]

I have expereinced it with CSAT, AAF and US Soldiers. It seems that everyone is affected. It is not only the Head either. I had bullets passing through torsos and legs without doing damage. I played quite a lot of Arma 3 today and I experienced such situations multiple times. For example, during a firefight one AAF soldier was completely invulnerable. I sprayed him from top to toe, every bullet went through without damaging him. The grenade I threw killed him though.

I've had this happen before as well, whereby a unit reacts to being hit but takes no damage unless you hit them in a certain area. I've seen a soldier take 6 .50 shots from the GM6 in the face and keep going, and I think I reported it back in alpha or beta but was told it was just me. Doesn't seem to matter the unit type or anything, it just simply happens for no reason.

[Rodbar 10]

you cant use cryengine for arma3. was didcussed so often!

for example: its not possible to make that size of an island in the cryengine.

also that viewdistance...

or are you trolling ?

You dont need that size island , you only need the impression , Farcry 3 was plenty big enough , Arma engine is dated thats as plain as day and is at the bottom of its inherent problems .

[Tyl3r99 41]

you cant use cryengine for arma3. was didcussed so often!

for example: its not possible to make that size of an island in the cryengine.

also that viewdistance...

or are you trolling ?

no i was being serious because i wasnt aware of the past conversations regarding the cryengine.

nope not trolling :)

[Kerc Kasha 102]

Anyone who starts shouting about 'changing' the game engine has literally 0 idea of what they're talking about and do nothing but listen to marketing hype.

Not only would it take an incredibly long time for them to change engine - it'd probably show zero benefit as they'd have to readapt everything in the current engine to the new one which may lead to increased performance by virtue of doing a rewrite but will more than likely lead to new instability and further issues.

It's not worth doing this, BI have their own working engine, it's the systems that need an overhaul an 'engine' is just all those systems put together.

[windies 11]

Anyone who starts shouting about 'changing' the game engine has literally 0 idea of what they're talking about and do nothing but listen to marketing hype.

Not only would it take an incredibly long time for them to change engine - it'd probably show zero benefit as they'd have to readapt everything in the current engine to the new one which may lead to increased performance by virtue of doing a rewrite but will more than likely lead to new instability and further issues.

It's not worth doing this, BI have their own working engine, it's the systems that need an overhaul an 'engine' is just all those systems put together.

They need to fix this engine but the question is, can it be fixed? If it can't be fixed then what? You're only other options are a brand new engine or a pre-existing engine that you license. The third alternative which I wouldn't consider much of an alternative is to stick with RV, assuming it can't be fixed, and dealing with the limitations in place as your player base gets smaller and smaller as people leave in frustration for engine's that are just as open ended as RV, only not in the same "scripted" sense.

[Kerc Kasha 102]

They need to fix this engine but the question is, can it be fixed? If it can't be fixed then what? You're only other options are a brand new engine or a pre-existing engine that you license. The third alternative which I wouldn't consider much of an alternative is to stick with RV, assuming it can't be fixed, and dealing with the limitations in place as your player base gets smaller and smaller as people leave in frustration for engine's that are just as open ended as RV, only not in the same "scripted" sense.

The only reason it 'can't' be fixed is they either don't have full access to the code because A) they don't own it or B) lost the full source, neither of which are true.

It's just going to take a lot of work and will require some systems being remade, a lot of which were for Arma 3.

[NeuroFunker 11]

Anyway, they have all the cash, to spend on rewriting the engine now, which is obviosly the only one, to use for arma.

[windies 11]

The only reason it 'can't' be fixed is they either don't have full access to the code because A) they don't own it or B) lost the full source, neither of which are true.

It's just going to take a lot of work and will require some systems being remade, a lot of which were for Arma 3.

Plenty of sources about how they don't have full documentation on the source behind their engine. I think that plays a big role in if they can even being to fix it or not.

[Victim9l3 11]

I keep running into the same problem as a couple of you. I'm using the GMB Lynx to shoot a green rifleman. 300 yards out, gun set to 300, I take out the combat medic next to him and everysingle time, I shoot at least 3 bullets right through him. I know it's going through him because I see the dust from the wall right behind him. It seems to be his whole body. Not just his head. But when I was shooting him from a different position that was still 300 from him, I hit him everytime. It's similar to when there is a wall or something that isn't getting rendered that I can't see, but the bullets still land behind him.

[Kerc Kasha 102]

Anyway, they have all the cash, to spend on rewriting the engine now, which is obviosly the only one, to use for arma.

Cash can't solve everything, if it could everything would have been swell post Day Z, sometimes it's just difficult to find the right people for the job. Can't just walk out onto the street and throw money in the air and expect a bunch of experienced engine programmers to run through your door and fix it.

---------- Post added at 10:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 AM ----------

Plenty of sources about how they don't have full documentation on the source behind their engine. I think that plays a big role in if they can even being to fix it or not.

Hahaha what? The people who created the engine still work at BI.

[jumpinghubert 48]

For instance, in a benchmark mission of my own making which is basically 40v40 ai on Altis, pre-new patch, i averaged 52 FPS over 3 minutes as compared with v 1.10 over the same period of time being 38 FPS.

thanks for your qualified feedback :) We need an official ai-heavy benchmark!