Will we ever see a stable multiplayer running at 50-60 fps?

[Holden93 12]

Just asking, it seems like this engine is simply broken..

EDIT: Sorry, wrong section, can a mod please move this?

[HorbeySpector 164]

Will we ever see a stable multiplayer running at 50-60 fps?

No, we won't.

[zio sam 77]

Nope.

[SnowSky 12]

It depends on what you want.

[iRONIC]Simply put - buy a monster machine install only required drivers, create a 10x10m map, put only yourself on the map, and have fun with multi monster double extreme 314159265358979fps.[iRONIC]

To be honest, what would you like to hear?

What shall we tell you?

Reduce your configurations to a realistic setting and try to play stratis without many scripts and AIs.

Wait a few patches / hardware-generations and I'm sure you will get a fluid rate at a higher graphical setting and with more AI and scripts.

I always had the feeling, ArmAs engine is not made to maximize for the present hardware, but for the future. That's also the reason why I bought my last computer 1.5yrs after ArmA 2, and my next computer will be bought later this year.

Still I can play on my old medium rig without crying :)

(By the way, also actual hardcore systems might have problems maximizing everything on ArmA 2, depending on the mission you will be able to bring the fps down to 10 also on a computer you buy in 10 years)

Edited January 25, 2014 by SnowSky

[defk0n_NL 2]

It depends on what you want.

I always had the feeling, ArmAs engine is not made to maximize for the present hardware, but for the future.

Arma 2 doesnt agree with you.

[UltimateBawb 1]

It's not impossible, a new server executable BI's testing allows for extremely good FPS compared to the regular one, try it out yourself: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?169944-Arma-3-STABLE-server-1-08-quot-performance-binary-quot-feedback

[bad benson 1733]

It's not impossible, a new server executable BI's testing allows for extremely good FPS compared to the regular one, try it out yourself: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?169944-Arma-3-STABLE-server-1-08-quot-performance-binary-quot-feedback

that's great news if it's true. is there any way to identify servers that run it or do i have to trust the admin to put an info in the name?

[wickerman 10]

Either they make it or they could set all other work!

270 QKm / 4 man search system. . :cool:

[AlexVestin 24]

It's only been 4 & 1/2 months since ArmA3 public release. Development has still only just begun.

All I have to say.

[Instynct 1]

HIGHLY UNLIKELY, ^ You say that like 4 months isn't a long time... If it could be improved much it would have been done so already.

[nuxil 2]

Just asking, it seems like this engine is simply broken..

EDIT: Sorry, wrong section, can a mod please move this?

stable 50-60 fps.. not by a long shot.

broken engine. well i rather say verry outdated. it was even outdated when arma2 came out imo.

putting in new fancy shaders/graphics does not make a engine upto date.

once the engine is able to scale/offload its work across all cores and go native 64bit i'll say its updated. and we might see better fps.

but this will take time and seems like has never been pri1 for bis.

patch 1.10 even made it worse. more calulations added to ai. meaning the cpu needs more cycles to do its stuff. resulting in less fps.

this is a video showing how bad it really is. its taken from the ai test thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYc7GkDLXro

Edited January 26, 2014 by nuxil

[dnk 13]

Yeah, 4.5 months after the "final" release. Development should be at least 95% done by now, though I suppose I can't fault them for continued support and improvement. But that should've already been in, certainly within a couple months of release.

Of course, it CAN be improved, but it might take another year or two, or they might never get around to it (though it seems they are trying hard now).

[roshnak 41]

Of course, it CAN be improved, but it might take another year or two, or they might never get around to it (though it seems they are trying hard now).

This is pretty much the thing that concerns me about this series. Don't get me wrong, I love it, but a lot of things could have been improved with each iteration of the game. Four games in and most of them haven't been. If I have to wait until the sixth or seventh game to see improvements that should be in this one, I'm just going to stop buying them (with a great deal of disappointment).

[Holden93 12]

I always had the feeling, ArmAs engine is not made to maximize for the present hardware, but for the future.

Lol, an engine made for the future that doesn't use most of my cores, right.

[b0s 18]

Some might want to see singleplayer @50 FPS also!

[SnowSky 12]

Lol, an engine made for the future that doesn't use most of my cores, right.

I think you didn't get my point. Not for the "future", but for the "future hardware". As arma has not release cycles like COD, the engine has to live much longer.

They let the players choose, what the maximum is.

They could also say, uoooou - people start ranting if they don't get 60 fps, lets make an AI limit up to ten, and a small tiny map with 5x5km and a distance visibility of 500m.

Perhaps now you got my point.

[ck-claw 1]

that's great news if it's true. is there any way to identify servers that run it or do i have to trust the admin to put an info in the name?

I think there advised to put [Perf] in front.

[Sneakers O'Toole 2]

I think you didn't get my point. Not for the "future", but for the "future hardware". As arma has not release cycles like COD, the engine has to live much longer.

They let the players choose, what the maximum is.

They could also say, uoooou - people start ranting if they don't get 60 fps, lets make an AI limit up to ten, and a small tiny map with 5x5km and a distance visibility of 500m.

Perhaps now you got my point.

the future of hardware is increased parallel processing, not faster processing. Your point is only valid if processors are getting faster, to the tune of about 1.5ghz a year, which they aren't.

[duffbeeer 10]

stable 50-60 fps.. not by a long shot.

broken engine. well i rather say verry outdated. it was even outdated when arma2 came out imo.

putting in new fancy shaders/graphics does not make a engine upto date.

once the engine is able to scale/offload its work across all cores and go native 64bit i'll say its updated. and we might see better fps.

but this will take time and seems like has never been pri1 for bis.

patch 1.10 even made it worse. more calulations added to ai. meaning the cpu needs more cycles to do its stuff. resulting in less fps.

this is a video showing how bad it really is. its taken from the ai test thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYc7GkDLXro

Im so glad our i7/i5 customer base can now finally have a slightly better AI, who gives a damn about the other peasents. Seriously, im asking myself what kind of priorities BI has in fixing stuff.

Afaik the [perf] server improvements went all into 1.10 stable but where all eaten up by the new "pathfinding". This is ridicoulus.

"Multithreaded Server

Target delivery: Early 2014 & Ongoing

To assist with increasing player and zombie numbers, we will be parallelizing the server architecture. Currently RV does offload some extra threads off to other cores, but this is for rendering and file handling - neither of which are issues for the dedicated server which uses no rendering and has a greatly reduced file footprint. This should provide some very, very dramatic improvement in performance where additional cores are available. Note, however, that this will increase the complexity of hosting DayZ - it may mean that we see a greater dispersion in the capacities of DayZ servers."

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/156129-confirmed-upcoming-features-for-dayz/

I wonder why Rocket can actually do this and Arma 3 cant.

Edited January 26, 2014 by duffbeeer

[bad benson 1733]

I think there advised to put [Perf] in front.

thank you!

[maturin 12]

Arma 2 doesnt agree with you.

Ah, nostalgia.

ArmA 2 was vastly more future proof than ArmA 3 (in terms of reqs, not visual quality). The jump in recommended specs to A3 was very small.

[Nexerius 10]

I think we can all agree that if they make a new arma game (arma 4) they really need a new engine. Im sick and tired of all the problems there are with this one. Though i enjoy the game a lot, and i like it, there are far too many problems to not notice them and never see them go.

Bohemia should probably start to reduce all these graphics settings they are going for. Most of us cant even run the game 30+ FPS on low-mid settings anywhere. Even in cities, with only 25 players on a mission thats not very complicated i couldnt go above 20 FPS.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Nexerius

[GReeves 10]

if they make a new arma game (arma 5)

Did I miss out on ARMA4? :D

[Nexerius 10]

Oh woops, i didnt think right there, editing :P Thanks :p

[jiltedjock 10]

I think you didn't get my point. Not for the "future", but for the "future hardware". As arma has not release cycles like COD, the engine has to live much longer.

They let the players choose, what the maximum is.

They could also say, uoooou - people start ranting if they don't get 60 fps, lets make an AI limit up to ten, and a small tiny map with 5x5km and a distance visibility of 500m.

Perhaps now you got my point.

So, you think future hardware is going to have CPUs with fewer cores, but the cores will be very fast? Because by your logic, that is the "future hardware" that Arma has been written for.

Thankfully, BIS have very cleverly copied re-developed Arma 3 to use the same number of threads as Arma 2, most of them on one core . So if you were fortunate and bought one of those "future hardware" CPUs for Arma 2, you have got the right kit for Arma 3. Nice one.

Alternatively, you have zero worthwhile insight into this.

I know which one my money is on.

Edited January 27, 2014 by jiltedjock