Bohemia Interactive's ambitions are always set too high.

[fitzee 7]

I don't understand why people buy and play these games if they think the engine is so terrible.

Then they come in here and bitch and moan, talk about bla bla engine is so much better optimized.

Who gives a damn, OpF, as old as it is, is still a better game than the fad of the month garbage you talk about.

/end rant

[roshnak 41]

What else are they supposed to play? This is the only game in town.

Also, you might want to replay OFP. It doesn't hold up that well.

[windies 11]

Rose colored glasses are rose colored for a reason for people sometimes.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Don't buy a simulator if you're expecting a solid 60FPS. This is common sense, case closed.

[GReeves 10]

People whining about not getting solid 60 FPS? Yeah, that's pretty pathetic.

But there is a problem when I can run any game with high graphics just fine while I only get 10FPS in ARMA3 but 30 in ARMA2. That's crazy and unplayable.

[roshnak 41]

Don't buy a simulator if you're expecting a solid 60FPS. This is common sense, case closed.

People whining about not getting solid 60 FPS? Yeah, that's pretty pathetic.

You guys are joking, right? Why should people not expect to be able to play games at a smooth, constant framerate? Since when is wanting a game to run at a framerate that doesn't induce headaches going too far?

And what makes simulators so special that they don't have to run well? I suspect you are referring to civil flight sims, which are slower paced and do not involve players rapidly panning the camera, when low FPS becomes most evident.

Then again, maybe I'm reading things wrong and you guys are actually being sarcastic.

[dale0404 5]

You guys are joking, right? Why should people not expect to be able to play games at a smooth, constant framerate? Since when is wanting a game to run at a framerate that doesn't induce headaches going too far?

And what makes simulators so special that they don't have to run well? I suspect you are referring to civil flight sims, which are slower paced and do not involve players rapidly panning the camera, when low FPS becomes most evident.

Then again, maybe I'm reading things wrong and you guys are actually being sarcastic.

We all want 60fps in any game but it depends on what you have under the hood that counts. Don't expect 60fps on a Pentium 4 for instance, a bit extreme but hopefully you get my drift. It also matters what type of game it is. Please don't compare BF4 / COD to Arma 3, it don't work...

[nomisum 129]

i think the fact the game doesnt utilize the given ressources very well (multicore load?) cant be discussed away. if it would there should be higher fps, even more so for high end rigs.

Sent from mobile

[dnk 13]

Not sure I agree with the OP, but I do agree with the title.

[roshnak 41]

We all want 60fps in any game but it depends on what you have under the hood that counts. Don't expect 60fps on a Pentium 4 for instance, a bit extreme but hopefully you get my drift. It also matters what type of game it is. Please don't compare BF4 / COD to Arma 3, it don't work...

This would be a fair point if the people who were having performance issues were using old hardware. Also, who is comparing BF4 and COD to Arma 3?

Edit: I still think it would be pretty cool if someone could actually name something that BIS tried to do that was too ambitious. I'll give you Java, but what else?

[GReeves 10]

Roshnak, I think the 60FPS guys' argument is that you can't expect that kind of performance out of ARMA3 -- it is a totally different kind of animal than any other game out there. However I do think that I should be getting better than 15FPS.

[vivoune 1]

It's good to see them focus on optimization a bit. Personally with a i5 3570K, SSD, 16Gb ram & a GTX 670 ftw edition for a single 1920x1080 screen, playing mostly multi-player I find myself having to keep things to an overall normal/high quality in order to handle the occasional slow down that bring my fps down to 20 fps regularly. If it weren't for that I could run it ultra with a steady 45-50fps on most scenes. But the performance is simply way too irregular across the board and I end up having to heavily tune the graphics down 100% of my play time for these occasional stuttering that leaves me as unimpressed about the Arma 3 engine's optimization as I was with Arma 2's. I hope the last patch helps in that matter. HDAO fails to impress me too as I barely see any visual improvement nor any fps gain/drop big enough to be worthy of note.

That's my opinion but I did find the 1st 'survive' campaign was as dull and unnecessary as it felt like moving in a 'corridor', it just seemed like a waste of dev's time and resources. So I'm not excited at all for the second 'adapt' episode, especially considering how much time and effort they seem to require in order to provide so few and short missions. But to each his own as I'm sure many other must have found it to be a great experience (although I've yet to meet any). On top of all that the lack of any new weapon, vehicles or features makes this update a very disappointing one for me and the people I play with, especially considering the focus is now apparently on the 3rd episode of the campaign along with jets that are to me a big waste of time in such an infantry focused sim (A lot of servers just forbid or heavily restrict the buzzard anyway so objectives areas aren't cleaned in a few minutes and many people I met simply share that wish to have a clean realistic sky rather than a swarm of buzzing slow moving planes like in Bf3/4). All in all It'll be quite some time still before I see an update on the horizon that might better my experience in Arma III. I don't mean to rant, I just don't like what I see.

[tortuosit 486]

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.

60 fps? Well then you should take your hands off Arma and to be honest, never return back. Go MP or massive AI action and you may see <10 fps, which would make you mad.

[daze23 1]

Don't expect 60fps on a Pentium 4 for instance

seems like a strawman when the OP went out and bought a 4770k

[calin_banc 19]

It's all very relative. Some are satisfied with 30fps, other with 60 or 120, nevermind the minimums. And then you have the issue of AI which isn't that good and an overall sensation of choppiness. Being a large sandbox holds no excuse. You could say they've failed seen like that, but at the same time is more than enough for others.

[daze23 1]

nevermind the minimums.

that's kind of the thing here: some people do focus on the minimum. some the average. some quote the highest number they've seen. and some aren't even looking at a number...

[rangerpl 13]

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

Because the "lololol altis can't run on frostbite" circlejerk gets old.

[Kerc Kasha 102]

Arma's performance problems is caused by a few things, I'm probably wasting my time explaining it but I'll do it anyway and hopefully at least some people will understand it enough.

1) due to the heavy sim nature of the game, the game uses a lot of CPU based calculations for AI, projectiles and physics. This (particularly the ai) is a massive draw on the cpu

2) the scripting engine is heavily reliant on the CPU, poorly scripted missions usually makes performance drop significantly

3) draw calls - unique objects and objects in general require the CPU to do extra work in order to tell the gpu what and when to draw things, this is the reason why there's a cpu bottleneck. Reducing the detail of the maps (less buildings and the like) would improve this but you're going to have shittier looking maps, and if you think having no furniture is bad imagine if they have to do that.

fixing these issues isn't a trivial task, the AI itself probably needs to be completely rewritten because it's showing its age and is performing terribly, it needs to be multithreaded which will help tremendously (take a look at the headless client stuff... that's essentially a hacky way of doing multi-threading.) The draw call stuff can be improved slightly without losign quality but will be a lot of work... generally speaking it will be better to clear up other CPU issues so that it's less of a bottleneck.

[antoineflemming 14]

Arma's performance problems is caused by a few things, I'm probably wasting my time explaining it but I'll do it anyway and hopefully at least some people will understand it enough.

1) due to the heavy sim nature of the game, the game uses a lot of CPU based calculations for AI, projectiles and physics. This (particularly the ai) is a massive draw on the cpu

2) the scripting engine is heavily reliant on the CPU, poorly scripted missions usually makes performance drop significantly

3) draw calls - unique objects and objects in general require the CPU to do extra work in order to tell the gpu what and when to draw things, this is the reason why there's a cpu bottleneck. Reducing the detail of the maps (less buildings and the like) would improve this but you're going to have shittier looking maps, and if you think having no furniture is bad imagine if they have to do that.

fixing these issues isn't a trivial task, the AI itself probably needs to be completely rewritten because it's showing its age and is performing terribly, it needs to be multithreaded which will help tremendously (take a look at the headless client stuff... that's essentially a hacky way of doing multi-threading.) The draw call stuff can be improved slightly without losign quality but will be a lot of work... generally speaking it will be better to clear up other CPU issues so that it's less of a bottleneck.

The FPS issues most are talking about are a direct result of the latest stable update. That's not what you're talking about. That means something they did caused this. Now, BI says that it's the AI pathfinding and that now AI are calculating more, as they are intended, meaning the FPS will drop. Sure, it'll take time, but I do believe that some way or another, they need to try to simplify it if possible. Really hope it's possible. But the currently talked about performance issues are not the ongoing issues the game has. It's specifically the drop in performance post-update compared to pre-update.

[calin_banc 19]

I've posted some in another thread, but I'll put it here as well for the sake of possibilities:

For rendering if nVIDIA is stubborn and refuses to go with AMD, Bohemia could use Open GL and nvidia extensions for it, although it won't be as good as mantle. For physics, at least for rigid bodies, PhysiX I think it's the fastest out there and it scales nice on 3 or 4 threads. Then there is also the issue of 64 bit exe and so on.

Bottom line, it can be done, Bohemia just needs to contact AMD (if they aren't under contract with nvidia) and also nvidia of course and get their stuff working. won't be done over night, but in 1-2 years (mantle should come faster), this game and engine, would be way ahead from where it's now or it's competition. Or we could keep the status quo and pretend all is good.

[Alwarren 2767]

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

I don't think that's the point.

I agree that Frostbyte is not a solution for Arma, as a matter of fact, I don't think there is an engine out there that can handle Arma-type games for the sheer size of the terrain. Outerra maybe, because it can create big terrains, but so far most of it looks procedurally generated, and it's not clear to me in how far a terrain for Outerra could be really designed in every detail.

Asking for dropping RV in favor of CryEngine will not work. CryEngine cannot handle the terrain size.

But there are issues with the RV engine where it shows its age, and those issues are in dire need of addressing. In this time and age, being non-multithreaded and restricted to 32 bits is already quite a drag. The terrain technique is basically unchanged from 2001'S Flashpoint. People are right to point out that the engine is aging. There has been a lot of work recently, and to be honest, a sunrise in Arma has never looked so stunning as it does now in Arma 3 with a bit of the new fogging thrown in. But we REALLY need adaptive terrain grids, or VBS3's high-res inserts, in order to have roadside ditches and good terrain micro-detail.

So, as usual, the truth is somewhere in between. I don't think Arma needs a new engine, but I do need the Arma engine needs a few major upgrades

[NeuroFunker 11]

I don't think that's the point.

I agree that Frostbyte is not a solution for Arma, as a matter of fact, I don't think there is an engine out there that can handle Arma-type games for the sheer size of the terrain. Outerra maybe, because it can create big terrains, but so far most of it looks procedurally generated, and it's not clear to me in how far a terrain for Outerra could be really designed in every detail.

Asking for dropping RV in favor of CryEngine will not work. CryEngine cannot handle the terrain size.

But there are issues with the RV engine where it shows its age, and those issues are in dire need of addressing. In this time and age, being non-multithreaded and restricted to 32 bits is already quite a drag. The terrain technique is basically unchanged from 2001'S Flashpoint. People are right to point out that the engine is aging. There has been a lot of work recently, and to be honest, a sunrise in Arma has never looked so stunning as it does now in Arma 3 with a bit of the new fogging thrown in. But we REALLY need adaptive terrain grids, or VBS3's high-res inserts, in order to have roadside ditches and good terrain micro-detail.

So, as usual, the truth is somewhere in between. I don't think Arma needs a new engine, but I do need the Arma engine needs a few major upgrades

well, one thing saying: rv engine suxxzorz! Frostbyte gives me 120fps! BI should get rid of that engine! Another, to say, rv engine is really the one engine, what can handle arma needs, yet it's quite old, and needs a big update. Thus game engine "experts", are quite amusing, they want to put a formel 1 car engine, in to a mining truck, because they want more speed. ;)

[g00d69 2]

Problem is that if people want arma III running with one of the last generation game engines, we will all need a NASA computer.:D

[NeuroFunker 11]

Because the "lololol altis can't run on frostbite" circlejerk gets old.

tha one made no sense.

[[evo] dan 79]

Snip

This is what I have been trying to get across for ages, but this does sum it up very well for me. (Hence why I suggested they go talk to someone with multithreading experience and see what they can do to help (my example was someone like NI because Labview scales quite well, but you wouldn't use it for arma))