Bohemia Interactive's ambitions are always set too high.

[sayjimwoo 2]

I have been a lover of the Arma series since the flashpoint days and they are amazing games. Flashpoint was a performance hog (despite having a high spec PC at the time) and when Arma 1 came out I had high hopes that it would run better. Again It didn't run too well as it was a single CPU core game. When Arma 2 appeared on the scene later, I upgraded my system again as the quad core era was now here and I hoped for a more optimized game. Years later, even high spec PC's cannot run this title at 60fps constantly with moderate action on screen without cranking down some settings. Now it is 3rd time around for the Arma series and I thought Bohemia would finally optimize this game to run on modern machines. I sold my i7 920 CPU and my HD 7970 and I built a new system just for this game - i7 4770k CPU (4.6ghz) a factory overclocked GTX 780 ti, 16 gig 2133mhz Ram and 3 SSD drives. With all the bells and whistles my system cost well over £2,000. Now I only game at 1080p so my hardware for this resolution is MASSIVELY overkill. I use vsync because I can't stand tearing or stutter. All my games (nearly 300 on steam) run buttery smooth without an ounce of stutter and not one drops below the vsynced 60fps, ever (Inc Crysis 3 and BF4).

Now on to Arma 3, my old i7 920 CPU and HD 7970 was no slouch and with some settings turned down I could hold 60fps constantly (single player) until I got into a fight with several AI and then my fps would plummet, that was the reason I built a new system.

On to my new system (i7 4770k CPU (4.6ghz) a factory overclocked GTX 780 ti, 16 gig 2133mhz Ram and an SSD) even with all the latest Arma 3 performance tweaks, Arma 3 doesn't run that much better than my old system. Granted, I can increase the graphic settings higher and get a solid 60fps when there isn't much on screen (single player again) but once I get into a bit of a firefight with the AI, the framerate drops below 60fps. I could drop the graphical settings lower but you don't have to drop the settings much before it starts to look horrible.

I don't believe a top end GPU helps this game in the slightest as it is CPU dependent but if you cannot get a game to run at all times at 60fps at a low resolution of 1080p in the year 2014 with a £2,000 system then they need to start downscaling these games entirely.

I know I don't speak for everyone and some are content with 30-40 fps in Arma games which is great, but I am sensitive to all stuttering and demand a solid 60fps as minimum in all my games.

For over 10 years Bohemia have been plagued with people screaming at them for an OPTIMIZED ENGINE but it has never happened.

I really do love the Arma series but I probably won't return to Arma 3 until I buy a G-SYNC monitor (more Expense) as that seems to be the only solution to stutter when I am dropping below 60fps.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Sayjimwoo

[artisanal 22]

As you said, this is no new subject.

But even if I understand your point, that Bohemia should aim lower which would be like an admission of failure, I think that this isn't the only solution (and on top of that "aiming lower" probably means "uglier game" which would make the game less attractive/competitive).

So on my POV there are 2 3 other possibilities :

- a new engine

- some heavy ground-level optimisations of the RV engine (which seems to be terribly complicate and could be less interesting on a budget aspect, than making OR using another engine)

- a miracle

Edit : NeuroFunker has a point, and it's very very unlikely that any of this would happen for the upcoming arma games (who would be foolish enough to believe something like that could happen for arma 3 ?). I should've told in my post, that to me the best solution would be a direct competitor to BIS and arma.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Artisanal

[NeuroFunker 11]

oh yeah, thus engine experts again. There is no other engine capable of arma needs. Strangely the most known military simularor VBS aka - virtual battle space, being succesful developed on real virtualy engine and failed on cry engine. Welp, here we are back to "arma needz nu engine!"

[[evo] dan 79]

oh yeah, thus engine experts again. There is no other engine capable of arma needs. Strangely the most known military simularor VBS aka - virtual battle space, being succesful developed on real virtualy engine and failed on cry engine. Welp, here we are back to "arma needz nu engine!"

They probably could do with having a look into the engine (READ - Not replacing it), or maybe contacting someone to help them as there are some much better (multithreaded) pieces of software out of there. Maybe talk to the Labview guys at National Instruments or something. I know they don't make games, but they do know how to get a computer to scale to all the cores safely, I know this because I use it a lot at work and it can use all 12 threads on my work PC provided I break the tasks up properly. Its not that the game doesn't run well enough for me, but they obviously have recognised they are reaching the limits of the engine in its current state (Look at Dwardens work on the server binary, or why the TOH FM was ditched)

[roshnak 41]

I don't think BIS has their ambitions too high, because their ambitions don't seem to be that high. Arma 3 isn't a revolution of the series, it's mostly tweaks and improvements.

Edited January 20, 2014 by MadDogX

[tpM 478]

Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.

[Defunkt 431]

oh yeah, thus engine experts again. There is no other engine capable of arma needs. Strangely the most known military simularor VBS aka - virtual battle space, being succesful developed on real virtualy engine and failed on cry engine. Welp, here we are back to "arma needz nu engine!"

Oh yeah, the BI apologists again. If you ever decide to open your eyes and actually try and appreciate what BI could be doing better and how a thoroughly modern engine scales across multiple CPU cores try reading these results on Frostbite 2 (an engine which is now more than 2 years old): http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18459152. There's nothing about what ArmA does that wouldn't benefit from the same ability to multi-task, in fact given that so much of what is unique about ArmA is AI decision making and a non-player-centric simulation I should think it should benefit far more from threading than an action-centric shooter like BF3.

[roshnak 41]

So getting off the topic of gender, what exactly do you guys think was too ambitious about Arma 3? Because, like I said before, the game doesn't seem that different from Arma 2 to me.

[RushHour 11]

Welp, here we are back to "arma needz nu engine!"

"Arma 2 runs like shit"

- No it doesn´t, Cherno is so big no other engine can do it!

*Arma 3 comes out, runs bigger map and runs better*

"Arma 3 runs like shit"

- No it doesn´t, lolzor cryengine failed blablablabla.

Maybe we should wait until Arma 5 before people start realizing the Arma engines are the most poorly optimized engines there has ever existed in gaming.

[nomisum 129]

i too believe biggest part of the problem is the giant task to rework the ground structure of the engine and rewrite old code.

as true as those occurences are to the original game, i would love not to see this a decade after :j:

[maddogx 13]

Thread cleaned up, duplicate account banned (again).

[Bouben 3]

The ideal state for players would be if BIS polished what they already have WIP and not starting anything new until then. That would not be, of course, ideal state for BIS as they need to keep the income steady - therefore having to make new features that players would want to buy.

[msy 22]

I don't think BIS has their ambitions too high, because their ambitions don't seem to be that high. Arma 3 isn't a revolution of the series, it's mostly tweaks and improvements.

Campare to VBS3, ARMA3 is so normal

[mamasan8 11]

Stances, attachments and new textures (but less of everything else). Must be really high ambitions.

Would you buy Far Cry 3 if it looked like Far Cry 2? Exactly...every new game has better textures, noone buys it otherwise.

I can understand the conundrum when you have to make the engine work on dualcores (not everyone has quad or more) but making the game solely run on 2 cores isn't such a great move. It should scale to hardware. Sounds like a bandaid fix to an old engine.

It's like beating a dead horse. After a couple of years it gets very old.

[NeuroFunker 11]

Oh yeah, the BI apologists again. If you ever decide to open your eyes and actually try and appreciate what BI could be doing better and how a thoroughly modern engine scales across multiple CPU cores try reading these results on Frostbite 2 (an engine which is now more than 2 years old): http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18459152. There's nothing about what ArmA does that wouldn't benefit from the same ability to multi-task, in fact given that so much of what is unique about ArmA is AI decision making and a non-player-centric simulation I should think it should benefit far more from threading than an action-centric shooter like BF3.

show me a game, what uses frostbyte engine, which is similar to arma. And then we will talk further.

---------- Post added at 14:33 ---------- Previous post was at 14:29 ----------

"Arma 2 runs like shit"

- No it doesn´t, Cherno is so big no other engine can do it!

*Arma 3 comes out, runs bigger map and runs better*

"Arma 3 runs like shit"

- No it doesn´t, lolzor cryengine failed blablablabla.

Maybe we should wait until Arma 5 before people start realizing the Arma engines are the most poorly optimized engines there has ever existed in gaming.

See you in like 6 years again. Come back when arma 5 is here, and tell us your experience.

[seba1976 98]

What you love about the series, wouldn't be there, if it wasn't for BIS' ambitions. No one else try it then, and no one is trying it now. There's a reason. BIS never had the know-how to do it the best possible way, but I'm eternally grateful to them, for what came out of their "ambitions".

[NeuroFunker 11]

What you love about the series, wouldn't be there, if it wasn't for BIS' ambitions. No one else try it then, and no one is trying it now. There's a reason. BIS never had the know-how to do it the best possible way, but I'm eternally grateful to them, for what came out of their "ambitions".

well said, we would have another cod or bf clone, cause BI just wanted to cash it's community, without allowing it to mod, and force feed with countless dlc's.

[x3kj 1247]

I'd say deep down in the engine is an old core that is rotten by now. They have to pull all that out and replace it while still keeping it kinda alive (open heart surgery basically)... that's pretty difficult and based on the limited stuff i know, i'd say they are doing that... at least that's what i hope they do.

The Arma 2 AI was the most rotten thing imo, they barely tried to fix it back then... Now there's at least someone at it as far as i can tell from the AI report thread in dev section.

Arma is the only shooter franchise not consumed by moneymoneymoney cashcow crap...

+ sandbox + realism (relative) +open worlds +modding

So i wish them the best, because arma is all i have now =P There's no replacement.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Fennek

[iceman77 18]

I know I don't speak for everyone

You sure don't lol. So after playing OFP and then A1, that wasn't enough for you to see an inevitable pattern? Man you could have hopped on another most realistic military sandbox game, instead of wasting your time. oh wait, this is it (aside from vbs)...

[RushHour 11]

See you in like 6 years again. Come back when arma 5 is here, and tell us your experience.

I don´t have to, i can tell you right now.

Arma 5 will run better then Arma 3 but with supercomputers of that day it will still run like shit because crap from Arma 2 is still laying around in the engine. And we still haven´t gotten an improved door system.

You´re welcome.

[NeuroFunker 11]

I don´t have to, i can tell you right now.

Arma 5 will run better then Arma 3 but with supercomputers of that day it will still run like shit because crap from Arma 2 is still laying around in the engine. And we still haven´t gotten an improved door system.

You´re welcome.

if you know nothing will change, why bother in posting here anyway?

[RushHour 11]

if you know nothing will change, why bother in posting here anyway?

The only way you can try to change it is by posting here. But people like you will forever try to dumb things down so i must maintain the balance.

yes-man vs no-this-is-shit-men.

-

I love alot of stuff about Arma, i think it´s visually stunning but i will never glance over obvious things that are wrong. Like for instance the door system.

I cannot imagine a single person on the dev team haven´t realized just how F´d up that system is. And it´s been years with no change.

You are quite obviously content with these sort of things. I´m not.

Edited January 20, 2014 by RushHour

[NeuroFunker 11]

The only way you can try to change it is by posting here. But people like you will forever try to dumb things down so i must maintain the balance.

yes-man vs no-this-is-shit-men.

-

I love alot of stuff about Arma, i think it´s visually stunning but i will never glance over obvious things that are wrong. Like for instance the door system.

I cannot imagine a single person on the dev team haven´t realized just how F´d up that system is. And it´s been years with no change.

You are quite obviously content with these sort of things. I´m not.

well, why couldn't you be more specific like that before, then just saying: arma 5 will have all the illness arma 3 has?

[roshnak 41]

well, why couldn't you be more specific like that before, then just saying: arma 5 will have all the illness arma 3 has?

What part of "crap from Arma 2 will still be laying around the engine" and "we still haven't gotten a new door system" wasn't specific enough for you?

[NeuroFunker 11]

you didn't understand me, i said you could be specific like that before, not just saying: arma 5 will still be crap like arma 3.