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

[nicolasroger 11]

I am playing since doom 95.

35 is still nice. I enjoy playing 100 FPS game, but this doesn't change the fact that I find 30 FPS enough.

[bravo93 37]

People saying they need to be getting 60 FPS minimum. Whilst I think anything below 30 is not great a minimum of 60? Are you out of your mind? I think 40 more than enough.

[Instynct 1]

It's pretty apparent that those of you who think 30 fps is 'fine' have never played above 30 fps and lack the hardware for any other game.

Someone with a $4000 pc should not get lower than 50fps on lowest settings, it's simply unacceptable.

We will never see 60+ stable fps on multiplayer for this game... proof is in the current performance and amount of time since release. Major lack of progress on BI's end.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Instynct

[bravo93 37]

It's pretty apparent that those of you who think 30 fps is 'fine' have never played above 30 fps and lack the hardware for any other game.

Someone with a $4000 pc should not get lower than 50fps on lowest settings, it's simply unacceptable.

We will never see 60+ stable fps on multiplayer for this game... proof is in the current performance and amount of time since release. Major lack of progress on BI's end.

I think it's more a problem with the servers or MP code than the game being too demanding on people's hardware. Have you noticed the difference in FPS between say a SP mission and the same mission on MP? even without any people on there the FPS drops massively. That's what makes me think there's potential to improve. Also getting same FPS on low settings as high...again just points to poor MP code.

[Bouben 3]

Guys, same as with audio quality etc. everyone has its own standard for FPS requirements in games. I can personally see a huge difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS and would prefer 60 FPS all the time but I cannot say that 30 FPS is not playable. For me, it is perfectly playable though a bit less enjoyable than the full 60 FPS experience.

So don't argue about something so completely subjective. It is a waste of time. To each his own.

And yes, I agree that a game on a really high-end setup should be able to run 60 FPS because there actually are customers that can really see and feel the difference. For them, it really matters and it is really shaping their experience with the product. Not sure if technologically possible in Arma's multiplayer though.

[roshnak 41]

Should I or many other people go see a doctor then because we don't get a headache from playing at ~30 fps? Don't act like everyone is like you, that's all I'm saying. There are many people that won't even recognize the difference between 30 and 60 fps. I think you are exaggerating on purpose, that's why I'm being a little rude here.

You have a right to your opinion, but don't come and tell me that "it's always 60 FPS min" to run a game. It is not for me and for a lot of other. Anything over 30 FPS is perfectly fine for me.

Everyone is different. People have different tolerances for framerate. For me, personally, right around 30 FPS is a sweet spot that causes me to experience nausea and headaches after about 15 minutes of exposure.

Some people do not experience ill effects at 30 FPS, although I find it very hard to believe that anyone could not notice the difference between 25 and 50 FPS in this .gif http://i.minus.com/iuHMClLCinzEh.gif

I understand that you guys find 30 FPS to be tolerable. What I'm asking you to do is acknowledge that your experience is not the case for everybody, and then ask yourself this question: Is it better to assume that people have a higher or lower tolerance for low framerates?

My opinion is that as far as physical ability to play the game, the game should be as accessible as possible. That means making sure that people who experience physical discomfort at low framerates have optons to make the game more playable.

Because it's true. 120fps are a marketing thing, no more no less.

What you are saying is simply not true. The above article, as I have pointed out a number of times, references tests done by the United States Air Force showing that pilots can not only detect images flashed for only 1/220th of a second, but identify the type of aircraft depicted. That's the equivalent of 220 FPS.

And yes, I agree that a game on a really high-end setup should be able to run 60 FPS because there actually are customers that can really see and feel the difference. For them, it really matters and it is really shaping their experience with the product.

This. This whole post is good.

[Sneakson 1]

You seem to be a game engine expert, so maybe you can help them out with your vast experience on how to make a game engine quickly and cost effective that does everything right. ?

Engine isn't great? - What do you know about what makes an engine great. Especially when it has to offer everything that Arma 3 does.

Graphics aren't great? You must be kidding, because I think it is one of the best looking games on the market right now.

Sound isn't great? - I'll give you that. There is some room for improvement, but I don't think its a problem of the RV engine.

Lack of content? - How is that even remotely related to the game engine?

Battlefield 3 as a comparison/positive example? - get outta here...

I am quite the authority on video game engines, thank you, seeing as I’ve played many games in my days.

Yes, the engine isn't great In terms of stability anyways.

We have bugs, bugs, bugs and even when we don’t we have general instability and many of us bought high-end computers to play ARMA3 and only have 30% CPU utilization driving us nuts.

The graphics are quite well but definitely a few years behind the other big name shooters.

There being much content would have been an excuse for the engine to be worse if they had spent more time making content than optimizing the engine however that’s not clearly the case.

Currently we have an engine that not too many of us are happy with AND not an entire singleplayer campaign, only one aircraft et cetera. Makes me wonder what happened during development to make BIS end up doing everything quite halfway.

Currently not many players are too hopeful about stability improving a lot either. It’s not the worst imaginable scenario but it’s also not going to appeal to the mass audience or compete with Battlefield/Call and as such won’t make BIS enough money to have more creative freedom next time.

Battlefield is a example of a game that’s optimized beyond belief in my experience of it.

Should I or many other people go see a doctor then because we don't get a headache from playing at ~30 fps? Don't act like everyone is like you, that's all I'm saying. There are many people that won't even recognize the difference between 30 and 60 fps. I think you are exaggerating on purpose, that's why I'm being a little rude here.

Because it's true. 120fps are a marketing thing, no more no less.

That's BS. Anyone can tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps in an indirect comparison.

120 Hz is not a marketing thing at all. It will make non-combat situations easier on the eye and high-speed action a lot more manageable.

I've played the built-in ARMA shooting challenges quite a lot and that made me understand what big a difference framerate does to your aim.

Humans have quick reaction times, much quicker than you would believe and a higher framerate will let you do things you thought your hands were too slow to do, except they're not.

You're intentionally slowing yourself down to suit the input lag when you're playing at 30 fps.

People saying they need to be getting 60 FPS minimum. Whilst I think anything below 30 is not great a minimum of 60? Are you out of your mind? I think 40 more than enough.

The thing is a lot of us have high-end computers and get 60 fps in most other games... that's why we should have 60 fps in ARMA. Not because anything else is intolerable to play at.

[jgbtl292 0]

The graphics are quite well but definitely a few years behind the other big name shooters.

arma is a shooter with mini level design ?? sure that's is new for me :d have you any plan how many more objects arma has in a sight field than a shooter bf or cod !!! and arma has no stupid hitboxes the chase after the player, when he server has a bad day ^^ and this hitboxes chase after the player is on over 50% on bf or cod servers - then i need no 100 fps with this system thats only looks and feels good ^^ than i play i better with 40 -50 fps . :D the problem is i have this only in singleplayer ^^

the other thing is - game fps and movie fps are complete different things !!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited March 11, 2014 by JgBtl292

[Sneakson 1]

arma is a shooter with mini level design ?? sure that's is new for me :d have you any plan how many more objects arma has in a sight field than a shooter bf or cod !!! and arma has no stupid hitboxes the chase after the player, when he server has a bad day ^^ and this hitboxes chase after the player is on over 50% on bf or cod servers - then i need no 100 fps with this system thats only looks and feels good ^^ than i play i better with 40 -50 fps . :D the problem is i have this only in singleplayer ^^

the other thing is - game fps and movie fps are complete different things !!!!!!!!!!!!

I never ARMA has small levels and never said anything about movies.

[j4you 10]

..............Not because anything else is intolerable to play at.

Thx Sneakson for explain again to somebody what i have tried me too in mine previous post....I sincerely appreciate it!

Perphas it's fault about my bad english!...or may be not,but i dont understand why the rules about all videogames fails if we touch this title!...like if this product come from directly from Olimpus (..keeping in theme Zeus)!

A contented mind is a perpetual feast! :-)

Regards

Edited March 11, 2014 by j4you

[novemberist 2]

He basically just summed up my whole critique with this sentence. Arma 3 is not a benchmark program for your expensive hardware. It's a game and it is playable even without an astrononmically high framerate.

Most people complaining will start their criticism with "So I bought this really expensive gaming rig..." and in fact they are just angry that their expensive computers now don't produce the numbers they are expecting and that would make them feel better about their investment, whereas they actually don't have any problem with the gameplay at all. Just turn your fps counter off every once in a while and enjoy the game ffs.

Roshnak has a valid point about accesibility, I agree. But if a game causes you to become sick, no matter at what framerate, there is maybe a bigger problem which you should take care of?

I would be the last person to complain if BI found a way to improve our framerates both in single- and multiplayer. But sometimes you have to make concessions and not take some of the things for granted that Arma offers and other games don't. How Arma 3's graphics are "a few years behind" other games is absolutely beyond me. I think I have played or seen most major titles of the last 5 years and can't think of a lot of games that look better overall (only in some areas like animations and textures maybe).

[j4you 10]

He basically just summed up my whole critique with this sentence. Arma 3 is not a benchmark program for your expensive hardware. It's a game and it is playable even without an astrononmically high framerate.

Most people complaining will start their criticism with "So I bought this really expensive gaming rig..." and in fact they are just angry that their expensive computers now don't produce the numbers they are expecting and that would make them feel better about their investment, whereas they actually don't have any problem with the gameplay at all. Just turn your fps counter off every once in a while and enjoy the game ffs.

Roshnak has a valid point about accesibility, I agree. But if a game causes you to become sick, no matter at what framerate, there is maybe a bigger problem which you should take care of?

I would be the last person to complain if BI found a way to improve our framerates both in single- and multiplayer. But sometimes you have to make concessions and not take some of the things for granted that Arma offers and other games don't. How Arma 3's graphics are "a few years behind" other games is absolutely beyond me. I think I have played or seen most major titles of the last 5 years and can't think of a lot of games that look better overall (only in some areas like animations and textures maybe).

If i understand correctly, ArmA III it's game unique of its kind ,and therefore, we can also avoid pretending then it can be better optimized, as it is already now,and anyway, if they did..it will be only another additional gift for us!

And just in case .... if this miracle will happen ... how many times I should thank them? ... because you forgot to mention it!...;););)

Anyway!

There is a huge different from a favor request and a obligation with regard to a customer....also when we talk about a product like a....videogame!

I dont think then somebody it's waiting the unbelived patch..but the situation in this moment it's so garbled then frankly we dont need others defense lawyers....they know how to do it very well by itself!

Why you dont accept then somebody criticize this title? What different about your money and the mine?...nothing...right?

So....If i was enjoy like you,i will not stay here to fight a battle pointless...for me,but I would have to have fun!

In a title like this one, better FPS mind even, better AIM, more smooth movements, and therefore, greater accuracy in every situation!..and we need it so much!

Edited March 11, 2014 by j4you

[roshnak 41]

He basically just summed up my whole critique with this sentence. Arma 3 is not a benchmark program for your expensive hardware. It's a game and it is playable even without an astrononmically high frame rate.

Most people complaining will start their criticism with "So I bought this really expensive gaming rig..." and in fact they are just angry that their expensive computers now don't produce the numbers they are expecting and that would make them feel better about their investment, whereas they actually don't have any problem with the gameplay at all. Just turn your fps counter off every once in a while and enjoy the game ffs.

If you are responding to j4you, you are misreading his post. He is saying that Arma is not special and that it is not acceptable for Arma to run worse than other games.

I've also been posting this whole time that it isn't about FPS counters or some stupid dick waving contest. Low frame rate cause many people to become physically uncomfortable, regardless of whether there is a number displayed in the corner of the screen. Stop trying to trivialize this just because you don't personally experience it.

But if a game causes you to become sick, no matter at what frame rate, there is maybe a bigger problem which you should take care of?

No. It is a scientific fact that low frame rates (how low depends on the person) cause eyestrain and discomfort. For me, personally, the area right around 30 FPS tends to be enough to kick in a motion-sicknees-like feeling when I pan my screen around. Once the FPS drops to around 15-20 FPS, there is enough of a gap between frames that it starts looking more like a slideshow and no longer makes me nauseous, but the game becomes even less playable.

I don't understand why you are trying to argue this. Your whole argument hinges on the claim that people aren't really noticing a difference in frame rate, but I've posted evidence that is not the case. Do you want me to find more articles and examples? I can. Google even auto-completes "human eye 30" to "human eye 30 fps myth."

More reference:

http://xcorr.net/2011/11/20/whats-the-maximal-frame-rate-humans-can-perceive/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ResearchBloggingAllEnglish+%28Research+Blogging+-+English+-+All+Topics%29

http://www.cameratechnica.com/2011/11/21/what-is-the-highest-frame-rate-the-human-eye-can-perceive/

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Here is an especially good website for seeing the effects of different frame rates: http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/ (bonus points for quotes from Peter Jackson plugging higher frame rates even in movies -- 48 FPS in this case)

Try removing the balls and upping the velocity of the background to 200 px/s (simulating panning your view in a first person shooter) with no motion blur (many games don't have motion blur, and few implement it properly). Try setting the frame rate to 15, 30, and 60 FPS. There is a pretty clear difference between frame rates. The difference between 30 and 60 becomes bigger the higher the velocity of the background, or the faster you move your mouse in game.

Edit: Also, this isn't just about what you can see. In this game, machine guns fire slower at lower frame rates. If you are averaging 30 FPS, that means you're probably dipping down to 20-25 FPS fairly regularly, which negatively affects systems in the game that rely on frame rate, for example, firing your gun.

Edited March 11, 2014 by roshnak

[jaemn 10]

That's not what I was saying. You probably just started playing video games a couple of years ago on your fancy flatscreen and are so spoilt by recent technical developements that your eyes hurt if you don't have everything in super HD and 120fps.

30 FPS was unacceptable when playing Quake 3 on a CRT monitor in 1999. It's still awful now (asshole).

Should I or many other people go see a doctor then because we don't get a headache from playing at ~30 fps?

Yes, because your vision is atrocious. It's almost as bad as being in a room full of mag-ballast fluorescent lights (thankfully they don't seem to make those anymore). Edited March 15, 2014 by jaemn

[Bee8190 10]

I am little baffled by this discussion.

Someone is happy with 30 fps and that's good for them, no need to shout it from the rooftops but why so strongly object when someone mentions they would welcome more?

120 Hz or more capable panels might be nothing but marketing for some but making it sound like it's some redundant technology aimed at younger audience is least to say ignorant.

If that was the case we all would be stuck in grainy DVD times instead of blu ray and low resolution lossy Mp3 instead of 24 bit flac.

Some people are spending serious money on their computers, just to find out it makes no difference whatsoever

[novemberist 2]

30 FPS was unacceptable when playing Quake 3 on a CRT monitor in 1999. It's still awful now (asshole).

So we're talking about Quake 3 now? I already said fps might be a different issue in fast paced games like UT, Quake or whatever.

Asshole? Wow, that was really uncalled for...

Yes, because your vision is atrocious. It's almost as bad as being in a room full of mag-ballast florescent lights (thankfully they don't seem to make those anymore).

How dare you judge my vision, brat? Thanks for taking this discussion to a new level, but I refuse to talk to someone like you.

Edited March 12, 2014 by novemberist

[roshnak 41]

For the record, you're the one who started calling people out for being young, inexperienced, and spoiled. I believe the purpose of the Quake reference was to illustrate that people have been demanding frame rates higher than 30 FPS since at least the late 90s.

Furthermore, if you honestly cannot see a difference between 30 and 60 frames per second, then your vision is objectively worse than people who can. In this particular case, that may be an advantage for you, since you do not experience the ill effects of a game running poorly. It doesn't change the fact that your vision is not on par with fighter pilots who can identify images of aircraft that have flashed in front of them for 1/220th of a second.

Edit:

How dare you judge my vision, brat? Thanks for taking this discussion to a new level, but I refuse to talk to someone like you.

Dude:

Should I or many other people go see a doctor then because we don't get a headache from playing at ~30 fps?

You're the one who asked the question.

You are also the one who started judging other people's health when you told me there was something wrong with me because low frame rates cause me discomfort. Perhaps you shouldn't say things that you wouldn't like said to you?

Edited March 12, 2014 by roshnak

[novemberist 2]

For the record, you're the one who started calling people out for being young, inexperienced, and spoiled.

Furthermore, if you honestly cannot see a difference between 30 and 60 frames per second, then your vision is objectively worse than people who can. In this particular case, that may be an advantage for you, since you do not experience the ill effects of a game running poorly. It doesn't change the fact that your vision is not on par with fighter pilots who can identify images of aircraft that have flashed in front of them for 1/220th of a second.

You are also the one who started judging other people's health when you told me there was something wrong with me because low frame rates cause me discomfort. Perhaps you shouldn't say things that you wouldn't like said to you?

You are defending the guy calling other people asshole with this weak sh*t? Not even close to being the same thing (and if anyone had the right to call me an asshole it would be you and not some random guy who just joined the conversation)

The one who says he gets sick from playing computer games complains if someone suggests he maybe better check that out or play less instead of blaming the game for it? Weird logic.

Why would my vision be subject of this discussion if I didn't complain about getting sick? No use bringing it up.

Sorry for getting off-topic so much. I'm out of here.

edit.

BTW, we are talking about 30fps because I mentioned that I have 30 fps on my pretty old computer. I'm sure most of you guys with good machines are way above that, yet still complain. It's not like a framerate of 30 is Arma 3 standard, not even in multiplayer...

Edited March 12, 2014 by novemberist

[roshnak 41]

The one who says he gets sick from playing computer games complains if someone suggests he maybe better check that out or play less instead of blaming the game for it? Weird logic.

First of all, I still don't appreciate the subtle digs you are trying to get in, insinuating that I'm playing to many video games -- whereas previously you claimed that I hadn't been playing long enough to have a valid opinion. It takes roughly 15 minutes of gameplay for me to begin to feel the effects of low frame rate. It's also completely natural for flickering images to induce eye strain, although it's less pronounced since we've moved beyond CRT monitors. This is the kind of thing that I take issue with. You are making statements without any evidence or knowledge of the subject, despite my referring you to multiple sources to become more educated on the matter.

BTW, we are talking about 30fps because I mentioned that I have 30 fps on my pretty old computer. I'm sure most of you guys with good machines are way above that, yet still complain. It's not like a framerate of 30 is Arma 3 standard, not even in multiplayer...

Actually we are talking about 30 FPS because you made the claim that:

The real problem began, when players started believing that games are not playable below anything near 50 fps and so now they keep watching their fps indicators more than their actual game.

Which is a myth that I cannot stand. It's false on a number of levels, not least of which is that a demand for more high frame rates is not a new thing in video games. Furthermore, the idea that it's not worth investing time and resources to try and get games to run at more than 30 FPS is a toxic one, and based on bad interperetions of the reasons for specific frame rates in film.

My only goal here has been to make clear that demands for high framerates are not about a bunch of kids trying to brag about buying the most expensive computer. While these attitudes certainly exist, it is also true that humans are more than capable of recognizing flickering images at 60 Hz and beyond, and it's wrong to discount the opinions of a group of people because of your false impression that they are a bunch of spoiled kids fighting over who has a better computer.

VVV Edit:

@roshnak: did you ever try a 120 Hz monitor? I've never heard of low fps making anyone sick but I know 60 Hz makes a lot of people sick.

60 Hz was a problem back when people still used CRT monitors, because they basically turn off and back on (this is not fully technically correct, but close enough) each time they refresh, causing the whole screen to flicker. It's similar to the problems caused by old flourescent lights that flickered at 60 Hz. It's not really a problem on LCD monitors because of the screen doesn't "turn off" between refreshes.

I don't really need a 120 Hz monitor, nor can I afford one right now, although I don't doubt that they would deliver a smoother experience. 60 FPS doesn't cause me any problems. 40 FPS doesn't cause me any problems. 30 FPS gives me headaches in certain games, notably first person shooters. This is due to the choppy rate at which the entire screen refreshes during turns. It's not particularly uncommon or unexpected, nor is it debilitating or anything. It's also something I rarely experience; I have a pretty good computer and am willing to turn down graphics settings to get a smooth frame rate.

Edited March 12, 2014 by roshnak

[Sneakson 1]

@roshnak: did you ever try a 120 Hz monitor? I've never heard of low fps making anyone sick but I know 60 Hz makes a lot of people sick.

If you haven't already I would try if a 120 Hz monitor makes you feel better. Could be caused by a combination of 60 Hz and low fps maybe?

Anyways all sorts of things make people sick: blur, motion blur, parallax (latest iOS)…

[aseliot 2]

BTW, we are talking about 30fps because I mentioned that I have 30 fps on my pretty old computer. I'm sure most of you guys with good machines are way above that, yet still complain. It's not like a framerate of 30 is Arma 3 standard, not even in multiplayer...

Eh no I have a 7950 OC (320 euros at the time) which is basically a 7970 stock and i7 860 and without making the grass and a lot of details just dissapear and look like washed out paintings I can't get a steady 60 fps while I can run things like Battlefield 4 and The Witcher 2 on ultra. And no those games are not like ArmA but this game doesn't do anything so special that it shouldn't run well. Look at just cause 2, game is way bigger still looks descent and I can get 60 fps easily.

[novemberist 2]

Eh no I have a 7950 OC (320 euros at the time) which is basically a 7970 stock and i7 860 and without making the grass and a lot of details just dissapear and look like washed out paintings I can't get a steady 60 fps while I can run things like Battlefield 4 and The Witcher 2 on ultra. And no those games are not like ArmA but this game doesn't do anything so special that it shouldn't run well. Look at just cause 2, game is way bigger still looks descent and I can get 60 fps easily.

Oddly enough of all the games you guys keep mentioning, in singleplayer Arma 3 is the most stable and fluidly running on my now very old computer (Core i3, GTX285, 8GB). I still don't agree with Arma not offering anything special (i.e. something that other games don't offer) but we have already discussed that.

[spanishsurfer 58]

:don 14:

[aseliot 2]

Oddly enough of all the games you guys keep mentioning, in singleplayer Arma 3 is the most stable and fluidly running on my now very old computer (Core i3, GTX285, 8GB). I still don't agree with Arma not offering anything special (i.e. something that other games don't offer) but we have already discussed that.

That's kind of weird yeah what is your i3 clocked at my i7 is just at 2.8Ghz, I heard overclocking might help but I tried already I don't think it the room for it because even with my h80i it gets too hot.

Also I meant more in technical terms than in gameplay features, big open world with lots of drawdistance and objects on the screen is the only thing I can think of.

[Sneakson 1]

That's kind of weird yeah what is your i3 clocked at my i7 is just at 2.8Ghz, I heard overclocking might help but I tried already I don't think it the room for it because even with my h80i it gets too hot.

Also I meant more in technical terms than in gameplay features, big open world with lots of drawdistance and objects on the screen is the only thing I can think of.

FYI, pobably because his graphics card is weaker than his CPU and the games that run worse for him and better for you are graphics card dependent :p

ARMA3 is often said to be CPU-dependent. Not completely, at all, but more so than other games.

How hot is your CPU? With water-cooling your CPU shouldn't be warm at stock clock if that's what you're saying.