Anyone else concerned about ARMA 3 launch September?

[VanZant 48]

A3 has some interesting technical improvements but overall is a step back. Even such improvements are with nuances.

In my case i play it only for modding, to tweak things and testings. For missions or standard gameplay, A2.

I think there are some mistakes involved, maybe bad decisions.

[OrLoK 20]

Hello there

I'll reserve full judgement until after release.

A3, so far, isnt quite what I had imagined but that's my fault for having a vivid imagination.

What I think A3 is, its an updated platform to keep the franchise going. I think eventually the majority of us will move to A3 once the mods start to hit in force.

If we can get the A2 content over "issue" free then there's no real need to go back to A2 IMHO.

It's not the leap many of us were hoping for, but it does mean that we'll still be able to play our fave game for a few years more.

Rgds

LoK

[Lucasmnunesk 2]

I'm with you Orlok, and even after its release i'll wait a bit before making a solid judgement, because if i remember correctly the devs stated that they wish to improve and add some other features even after its release, i still have faith in BIS and i hope A3 will be really Amazing!

[fragmachine 12]

@Marcai - so, the double standard you say? You owned the right to call peoples by names - same goes to the right to decide for someone else which game he should play.

I've already said. It is all tastes. It is all about game play, not graphics. I prefer Chernarus, would like to see more cenral europe maps and units to start playing with A3. As for A2 modded it really feels like a real war. No biggie but in A3 atm it feels like hollywood movie with cheap effects. It will change when ultra-mods like ACE will be published, so hopefully then I could hapilly move back to A3.

[b00tsy 28]

I would like to see some good documentation about all the new modules (or have I overlooked it in the biki?), because I am doing so far most of the things the same as I did in ArmA 2, while the new modules supposed to make mission making easier and faster. Most of the modules I can´t get working properly so far.

[KeyCat 131]

I am not concerned at all. I get a solid 60-80 frames EVERYWHERE at this point on Arma 3 even with 70 players on at once. The game is very responsive and works well.

Do you mind sharing your spec, settings and server you play on, is it PvP or 70 players plus AI? I know I have a older rig but my framrate is practically cut in half from ~25-30 to below 15 when joining a server so my main concern besides AI is the perfomance in MP and hope things will improve before the release.

/KC

[ric 1]

i have glanced over the last few pages and see the debate over what is really important to ARMA's future whether it is MOD's,single player, content, campaigns ..etc but IMHO what the devs should have done from the start is work on nothing but the engine core...revamp,rewrite, rebuild what ever you want to call just so that is capable of fully utilizing 4 core and before anyone starts chiming in about alienation the dual core crowd please understand that in order to evolve and move forward you have to take advantage of the latest tech not cater to yesterdays standard.

We are all well aware of the performance issues A2 had and that they still persist in A3 because it is not an "optimization" issue it is a core issue with the engine that is unable to full utilize all the hardware available, so imagine if you can that BIS does nothing but make the engine as robust as they possible can over the the last 3 years making 128+ player possible along with the ability to have hundreds if not thousands of AI active at the same time...the possibilities for mission making would be endless :) but of course you going to ask what good is that with out content...well the answer to that has been with us for a while....its called I44 ...remember how BF2 got started..it was a mod for bf1942 And if i remember correctly the authors were hired to help in the creation of BF2 .

Now i am sure some of you are grumbling right now about how the WW2 genre is played out but i think most people don't realize the depth of weaponry that WW2 generated...imagine A3 comes out and the first video you see is one of the tank battles at kursk (over 6000 tanks)

I don't care what kind of FPS you like it be real hard to not to be in awe of watching hundreds of tanks duke it out while 128 + players participate :)

---------- Post added at 19:24 ---------- Previous post was at 19:21 ----------

Do you mind sharing your spec, settings and server you play on, is it PvP or 70 players plus AI? I know I have a older rig but my framrate is practically cut in half from ~25-30 to below 15 when joining a server so my main concern besides AI is the perfomance in MP and hope things will improve before the release.

/KC

im going to guess he (sheepdog) is playing at 640x480 rez to get 60-80 EVERYWHERE ;)

[spamurai 3]

Do you mind sharing your spec, settings and server you play on, is it PvP or 70 players plus AI? I know I have a older rig but my framrate is practically cut in half from ~25-30 to below 15 when joining a server so my main concern besides AI is the perfomance in MP and hope things will improve before the release.

/KC

im going to guess he (sheepdog) is playing at 640x480 rez to get 60-80 EVERYWHERE ;)

I'm going say it's probably likely he can maintain that. Maybe he is exaggerating a tiny bit, but I can get 50-60FPS in many areas, some vantage points are higher. That's on mostly ULTRA settings.

However, everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt. In the Marina, it can drop to 30-40FPS.

To get a comfortably high FPS I've toggled the draw distances down, there are few places on stratus where you can see farther then 3KM from the ground. Beyond 2KM world objects like bushes and tree and men are so tiny and insignificant at that distance that keeping the draw distance much higher then 2KM is frequently just pointless rendering load on your system. All you are doing is rending a few hundred extra trees and rocks. :P

Experiment for yourself. I will wager you can comfortably increase your FPS without effecting the visual immersion of your average game in a noticeable way. Standing on the lookout of Air Station Mike, You can pull in the Overall draw distance and you won't see fog until about 3.2km. That's looking West across the middle of the island where you can see the west side ocean. I couldn't find too many other places where you could achieve a higher appreciable line of sight.

When you are online, I feel as though the potential of the server itself has a big influence on your performance. Both in the power of it's hardware and the way the settings are managed in the ArmA server configuration. Last night I played the exact same mission, with roughly equal number of players on two different servers with roughly the same ping.

On the first server, my FPS was really bad... 15-25FPS with stutters and hitching. On the second server, 40-60FPS with no performance problems. I chalk this up to problems with the server and how it is setup. Some games are not dedicated, some admins have cranked up the draw distance on the server too high. I have been on servers with a 10KM draw distance which is retarded and of course generates performance problems for players who then blame "ArmA" and not the server.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Spamurai

[Lucasmnunesk 2]

Considering ArmA2 comments about perfomance and its improvements, i have faith ArmA3 will have it advances too regarding perfomance

[ric 1]

I'm going say it's probably likely he can maintain that. Maybe he is exaggerating a tiny bit, but I can get 50-60FPS in many areas, some vantage points are higher. That's on mostly ULTRA settings.

However, everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt. In the Marina, it can drop to 30-40FPS.

To get a comfortably high FPS I've toggled the draw distances down, there are few places on stratus where you can see farther then 3KM from the ground. Beyond 2KM world objects like bushes and tree and men are so tiny and insignificant at that distance that keeping the draw distance much higher then 2KM is frequently just pointless rendering load on your system. All you are doing is rending a few hundred extra trees and rocks. :P

Experiment for yourself. I will wager you can comfortably increase your FPS without effecting the visual immersion of your average game in a noticeable way. Standing on the lookout of Air Station Mike, You can pull in the Overall draw distance and you won't see fog until about 3.2km. That's looking West across the middle of the island where you can see the west side ocean. I couldn't find too many other places where you could achieve a higher appreciable line of sight.

When you are online, I feel as though the potential of the server itself has a big influence on your performance. Both in the power of it's hardware and the way the settings are managed in the ArmA server configuration. Last night I played the exact same mission, with roughly equal number of players on two different servers with roughly the same ping.

On the first server, my FPS was really bad... 15-25FPS with stutters and hitching. On the second server, 40-60FPS with no performance problems. I chalk this up to problems with the server and how it is setup. Some games are not dedicated, some admins have cranked up the draw distance on the server too high. I have been on servers with a 10KM draw distance which is retarded and of course generates performance problems for players who then blame "ArmA" and not the server.

same here, ill be at 60 but in a heli it drops to 25-30 then at the marina it will drop to 25 or in the woods when AI encountered it can drop to 15 :(

[*LK1* 10]

fracture the community

it doesnt matter. community will fi.. oh wait.

[comp_uter15776 1]

it doesnt matter. community will fi.. oh wait.

*Begins the process of readying the pimp hand...*

Never use that term! It'll.... fracture the community :s

[Sheepdog 4]

Do you mind sharing your spec, settings and server you play on, is it PvP or 70 players plus AI? I know I have a older rig but my framrate is practically cut in half from ~25-30 to below 15 when joining a server so my main concern besides AI is the perfomance in MP and hope things will improve before the release.

/KC

Hey no problem:

3930K I7 CPU, GTX 680 SLI, 16GB Corsair Dom. Ram, Sabertooth X79 MOBO, that should be the main peices I need to mention..

Also, its 70 PVP. I've been playing a lot of the 60 person wasteland servers and even with everyone on, ZERO issues with frames. The only thing I could think about your frames being cut in half on multi is the vsync (I think thats it?) setting. If thats enabled your frames will be shit.

Also as far as settings.. I run everything on Ultra, except I disabled shadows and run terrain on low. Not because I can't run it on Ultra but because I can spot people much easier with those thing's disabled.. (a lot of people do this btw).. I have tested with everything on and it makes no difference in frames what so ever to be honest.

On a side note.. a huge thing for frames actually is based around the server. Also, I keep my view distance at around 2000. Having max view DOES effect my frame rate, but realistically having it past 2-3km is useless for the most part.

I find it interesting that a lot of people are having frame issues especially in the woods. I HAD issues in Alpha with the town Marina. It was rediculous.. almost unplayable.. at this point though I never question what my frame rate is because it never drops to a point that I notice it while playing.. (saying it stays ABOVE 30-40 at all times)

Edited August 12, 2013 by Sheepdog

[mac81 0]

Not so worried about the release of A3 in a month because even in the unlikely event that the dev team will not keep on working on some important issues named by the community there will anyway be a huge number of modder who will work on it like it was in the past for the ArmA series.

[ric 1]

Hey no problem:

3930K I7 CPU, GTX 680 SLI, 16GB Corsair Dom. Ram, Sabertooth X79 MOBO, that should be the main peices I need to mention..

Also, its 70 PVP. I've been playing a lot of the 60 person wasteland servers and even with everyone on, ZERO issues with frames. The only thing I could think about your frames being cut in half on multi is the vsync (I think thats it?) setting. If thats enabled your frames will be shit.

Also as far as settings.. I run everything on Ultra, except I disabled shadows and run terrain on low. Not because I can't run it on Ultra but because I can spot people much easier with those thing's disabled.. (a lot of people do this btw).. I have tested with everything on and it makes no difference in frames what so ever to be honest.

On a side note.. a huge thing for frames actually is based around the server. Also, I keep my view distance at around 2000. Having max view DOES effect my frame rate, but realistically having it past 2-3km is useless for the most part.

I find it interesting that a lot of people are having frame issues especially in the woods. I HAD issues in Alpha with the town Marina. It was rediculous.. almost unplayable.. at this point though I never question what my frame rate is because it never drops to a point that I notice it while playing.. (saying it stays ABOVE 30-40 at all times)

Soooooo the new "recommended specs for smooth play are a $600 CPU and 2 $400 video cards in SLI.....:rolleyes: do you also have an SSD?

[nireus912 1]

Oh Yes. Super concerned.

In my opinion this game is still in alpha phase...

graphic bugs, poor UI design, poor game design, poor in-game communication design....etc.

I hope they'll have something to surprise me in the September release. I hate to admit I've waste money on a game.

[Sheepdog 4]

Soooooo the new "recommended specs for smooth play are a $600 CPU and 2 $400 video cards in SLI.....:rolleyes: do you also have an SSD?

Actually, I do have an SSD

No offence, but this is the problem with the mindset of PC players now a days. People think that their $800 PC should run EVERYTHING they touch on Ultra. It's not how this thing works. If you want to play, you got to pay. PC gameplay is different than a console. If you want ultimate performance unfortunately its going to cost you some money. There are a lot of games coming out in the next year that are going to require rigs that are a little more beefy than the average consumer has to get the max performance out of them. Having said that, thats why adjustments to graphics and view distance etc exist. As this thread seriously points out as a game developer, you cant please everyone.

Also, I am reporting my performance and what I am experiencing. Someone else with a lot less in their PC may have similar experience, if your trying to get "the recommended specs" to play this I am pretty sure there is a thread for that. This is a discussion about the September release and in my mind things are much closer to being finished then people give it credit for. Simply put, I am enjoying playing the game.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Sheepdog

[KeyCat 131]

3930K I7 CPU, GTX 680 SLI, 16GB Corsair Dom. Ram, Sabertooth X79 MOBO, that should be the main peices I need to mention..

Also, its 70 PVP. I've been playing a lot of the 60 person wasteland servers and even with everyone on, ZERO issues with frames. The only thing I could think about your frames being cut in half on multi is the vsync (I think thats it?) setting. If thats enabled your frames will be shit.

Also as far as settings.. I run everything on Ultra, except I disabled shadows and run terrain on low. Not because I can't run it on Ultra but because I can spot people much easier with those thing's disabled.. (a lot of people do this btw).. I have tested with everything on and it makes no difference in frames what so ever to be honest.

Thanks for sharing Sheepdog!

Besides having a great rig, running terrain on low pretty much explains why you have such nice numbers. It also explains why I regulary get my ass handed in PvP since I don't disable stuff to make it easier ;) For me terrain on low is not an option, I crave grass on the screen since it was introduced in ArmA I else it feels to much ~2004.

/KC

[ric 1]

Actually, I do have an SSD

No offence, but this is the problem with the mindset of PC players now a days. People think that their $800 PC should run EVERYTHING they touch on Ultra. It's not how this thing works. If you want to play, you got to pay. PC gameplay is different than a console. If you want ultimate performance unfortunately its going to cost you some money. There are a lot of games coming out in the next year that are going to require rigs that are a little more beefy than the average consumer has to get the max performance out of them. Having said that, thats why adjustments to graphics and view distance etc exist. As this thread seriously points out as a game developer, you cant please everyone.

Also, I am reporting my performance and what I am experiencing. Someone else with a lot less in their PC may have similar experience, if your trying to get "the recommended specs" to play this I am pretty sure there is a thread for that. This is a discussion about the September release and in my mind things are much closer to being finished then people give it credit for. Simply put, I am enjoying playing the game.

3930K I7 CPU, GTX 680 SLI, 16GB Corsair Dom. Ram, Sabertooth X79 MOBO and an SSD...so basically you have a $2000 rig..correct?

here are the "RECOMMENDED" specs from BIS.

PROCESSOR Intel Core i5-2300

AMD Phenom II X4 940

GRAPHICS Nvidia GeForce GTX 560

AMD Radeon HD 7750

GPU MEMORY 1 GB

DirectX® 11

RAM 4 GB

the above specs say nothing about running 2 680's or having an SSD or 16GB or ram....i don't even think it would cost $600 to build the "recommended" PC so your point is mute...people are not expecting to much ...what they are expecting is to have ALL there hardware utilized....HEY i have 8GB of ram!...oh wait the game is hobbled by 32bit...HEY i have a quad core!...oh wait the game can only use 2 cores effectively...

there are demanding games out there but having to buy a $2000 rig to compensate for the inability of the engine to properly utilize available hardware is no justification to tell people they "expecting to much"...for a lot of us its not our hardware its the engine that is the problem.

what do you think is going to happen sheepdog when the final release comes out and all the gaming sites start there reviews? do you think there going to come here first and comb through the forums looking for all the tips and tricks to getting a solid and smooth 30 FPS? or do you think they will load up the game and accept what ever ARMA 3 default there rig too (like high and ultra for mine) whether they have a rig like yours or a "recommended" rig its not going to go well because it will point to the engine as the culprit and less the hardware.

[kridian 33]

For me terrain on low is not an option, I crave grass on the screen since it was introduced in ArmA I else it feels to much ~2004.

Exactly! I'll be damned if I'm going to run this without grass on or shadows up to High. Defeats the purpose of this $400+ graphics card.

[Sneakson 1]

I was shocked to hear September 12th yesterday. I was expecting a october-november date really.

Hitting mid-September will have the game out long before Battlefield and Call of Duty around November 1st.

So I can see how it is somewhat strategic but early October would had been enough or possibly even early december after the Battlefield vs CoD calamity has died out a bit.

And releasing it this early... I really think they could use some more work with it because initial reviews will review what there is to review and not really take into account what makes it into the game a month later.

Anyways I am hoping for a great winter and that both ARMA, Battlefield and CoD work well enough by November.

In September I’m quite sure ARMA will be in the shadow of oooh... I dunno... GTAV?

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

No doubt prospective customers will be asking themselves which to buy, I hope the PR dept. are making up extra large goodie bags for reviewers lol. I was optomistic and I am prepared to wait for further development but the state of play at release seems a little flat. There isn't a wealth of community produced items to bolster it either. I know you don't like criticism but if you think you can paper over the cracks on this one, I suspect you're wrong.

[KingoftheSandbox 10]

Afer some coop sessions today, yea im really concerned. lets say, sure it will be a more polished release than Arma 2, but this is not enough i think. The problem remains cause the engine has some hardcoded bugs which they might never be able to fix.

1.Still Super AI 4 weeks before official release. I cant believe they will do all the AI work in that time, lets see. KI is cheating which some videos showed. They know your position, they detect you like they have X-Ray Vision.

2.AI is glitching trough walls, still not fixed. If this isnt a serious bug...?! They dont do often, but they do.

3.Watchtowers, they look good, they would be great for the gameplay. AI is laying down in them, glitching through the wall, shooting you, but you cant hit em. If you code them to only stand up, they HANG in the seeling or do other "funny" things. nice immersion killer + gamebreaker.

4.Immersion Killer, DEAD PEOPLE standing up and living for 1 secound again, comon, still, really?

the list goes on and on, as you can see on the feedbacktracker, i wonder if this was a good idea to do again for BIS. now they can show all the bugs, from which they can fix maybe 10% at all. This is really sad.

Well i will play it, and i will create missions for it, cause i love it and i hate it;-) There would be 1000 positive things to say OF COURSE, but im really dissapointed so far that there are still so many bugs.

[Harry_Flashman 1]

Yes, definitely concerned. I played the Alpha for a while and returned for the Beta. I've had fun in the Beta, but it's very buggy. I get scripting errors when I log onto MP servers (though I have no scripts, see the same ground ripple effects when crawling in prone, continuously see players desynching in MP, run into issues with scopes not working as desired etc. etc.) I'll play it a bit on release - but if it's really just in alpha/beta state at point of launch, I'll probably leave it for 6 months and come back when it's fixed. Don't get me wrong - I love the game, but it feels far from ready to launch. I will eventually spend a lot of time with it. Eventually.

[chortles 263]

I was shocked to hear September 12th yesterday. I was expecting a october-november date really.

Hitting mid-September will have the game out long before Battlefield and Call of Duty around November 1st.

So I can see how it is somewhat strategic but early October would had been enough or possibly even early december after the Battlefield vs CoD calamity has died out a bit.

And releasing it this early... I really think they could use some more work with it because initial reviews will review what there is to review and not really take into account what makes it into the game a month later.

Anyways I am hoping for a great winter and that both ARMA, Battlefield and CoD work well enough by November.

In September I’m quite sure ARMA will be in the shadow of oooh... I dunno... GTAV?

To be quite honest, if you posit "early October would have been enough" for preempting BF4/COD: G... well, GTA V comes out September 17, so a September 12th launch is an even better position for preempting all three (yes GTA is that big).

Also, I can give you two words as to why "early December" is way too late: Black Friday.

@ KingoftheSandbox, I'll just ask if you are playing stable branch or if you're playing dev branch at all. The reason I ask this is because there's been quite a bit of AI work on development branch but we've gone quite some time without a stable branch patch, so that necessarily means that none of that has taken effect in the regular MP scene yet... but hopefully the fixes (that are already on dev branch) are included in the upcoming, final pre-release stable branch patch. :D