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

[EDcase 87]

These threads are pointless.

BIS are certainly aware that people aren't happy with performance but the obvious fact is they can't easily get it any better.

All we can do is help them find bottlnecks and hope that they make some breakthrough or at least some improvement in future.

Stop moaning and deal with it or move on...

[nomisum 129]

ymmd os :D

Sent from mobile

[bad benson 1733]

your preferred Battlefield

case in point. where did i say i prefer it?

ArmA still sounds way more authentic, generally.

lol yea right ;) whatever you say...yes arma has super sonic cracks. that's about it. in every other regard bf sounds are waaay superior. both samples AND the system which is at work behind it, which btw eats up resources, which btw is my point :rolleyes: everyone who says that arma is better sound wise than battlefield can't be taken seriously. sorry but it's that simple. i'm not trying to over praise bf here. that's not my point at all but your statements simply require that. and the point is not even authenticity although it easily could be.

ArmA still processes far more complicated gameplay mechanics,

name an example of a such a mechanic that is so resource extensive? diving?! lol...

also why do you ignore the rest on my list like it has no significance at all? you are either missing the point or trying to dodge it.

Doesn't make sense? Too bad, but not really my problem..

lol. nice attitude for someone making lengthy debaty posts...

I've made my point. Take it any way you want, hope it helps somehow. Peace, out.

my point. stop the rationalisation. it won't change the game's performance. it is what it is. end of story..again :p

Edited March 19, 2014 by Bad Benson

[Sneakson 1]

HardSiesta is an ARMA3 fanboy and not going to accept that it isn't perfect in every way and that other games are better than it in some ways... that's about it.

ARMA is greatly ambitious and does some things that other games don't but that’s not an excuse to have the 10 fps in multiplayer which many players are having. There's NO excusing that.

[hardsiesta 1]

snip

Oh ok, maybe I was misreading that "BF does this and that" and the "all of the features that make Arma 3 unique were present in OFP a decade ago. - if you can't see that you are just a apologist. end of story." Let me rephrase it: Bullshit.

Other than that, the debate was obviously done. I have no interest in repeating myself in something already pretty much off topic. I'm also not obliged to comment everything you say, although I found the audio aspect interesting enough to comment my subjective thoughts about.

These threads are pointless.

BIS are certainly aware that people aren't happy with performance but the obvious fact is they can't easily get it any better.

All we can do is help them find bottlnecks and hope that they make some breakthrough or at least some improvement in future.

Stop moaning and deal with it or move on...

Word.

Peace, out.

Edited March 19, 2014 by HardSiesta

[bad benson 1733]

Let me rephrase it: Bullshit.

you win. i hope you can sleep tight now.

Peace, out.

i'll take your word for it. please don't disappoint again.

[Mirek 166]

50-60FPS? i normally have 25-30 in arma 2 and iam entirely happy with that. I have 50-60 when servers are empty and iam not in towm, and i dont see any difference from 25-30. I had 10-15 in arma 3 (thats bad), havent played arma 3 for month or two now, but i dont expect it changed a bit.

[dwaight 17]

i dont think we will achieve that in arma 3, or such.

[grillob3 11]

In my pc arma 3 seems to be using all the cpu cores.

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd123/grillob3/arma3usage.jpg

Edited March 21, 2014 by Grillob3

[dwaight 17]

In my pc arma 3 seems to be using all the cpu cores.

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd123/grillob3/arma3usage.jpg (118 kB)

What kinda fps do you get in MP modes?

[the1freeman 1]

How is multiplayer supposed to be more stable than singleplayer? ROTFL you crazy!

[j4you 10]

How is multiplayer supposed to be more stable than singleplayer? ROTFL you crazy!

Stop troll plz!

Follow the debate for understand what we're talking about!

[Sneakson 1]

how is multiplayer supposed to be more stable than singleplayer? Rotfl you crazy!

ROTFL? What year is this?!

[grillob3 11]

What kinda fps do you get in MP modes?

Around 45 in towns and 70 away from towns, vsync on ( my monitor refresh rate is overclocked to 70) on Tactical Battlefield and king of the hill missions. I don't play coop but when i did was around 35-70. Arma 2 MP i remember getting much better fps.

[doveman 7]

I'm getting 20fps doing the Scouting missions in Adapt now. First MP mission the other night started at 15fps and decreased down to 9fps pretty quickly. It wasn't just me either, other players reported the same.

[big_t 1]

The Short Answer to OP question is: Yes! (But not on Altis Map)

Try Breaking Point "Thirsk" map and be astounded at the Multiplayer FPS increase. I went from 35-45 to 60-80 fps. See my rig below it's not spectacular for gaming.

I think the problem is the objects, mainly the buildings, it's evendent when traveling through large towns. I have decent fps for Stratis, but Altis, it just boggs down.

My system:

i7 3770K @ 4.4

2 x 6870 1 gig (crossfire)

16gig of 1333 7-7-7-21 ram

7200rpm HDD

Settings generally high and very high with 2xAA

T

[Westonsammy 1]

HardSiesta is an ARMA3 fanboy

The fanboys aren't the ones defending the game, the fanboys are the ones complaining most...

Anyway, to keep on track with the post, it may be possible, especially on smaller maps with well optimized missions, but for the foreseeable future? I don't think so. I'm going to guesstimate, based on the improvements since Alpha and how ArmA 2's progress has been, maybe in a year or two we can see a mission with large amounts of players on Altis running at 50-60 fps on the most modern rigs.

[j4you 10]

The Short Answer to OP question is: Yes! (But not on Altis Map)

Try Breaking Point "Thirsk" map and be astounded at the Multiplayer FPS increase. I went from 35-45 to 60-80 fps. See my rig below it's not spectacular for gaming.

I think the problem is the objects, mainly the buildings, it's evendent when traveling through large towns. I have decent fps for Stratis, but Altis, it just boggs down.

My system:

i7 3770K @ 4.4

2 x 6870 1 gig (crossfire)

16gig of 1333 7-7-7-21 ram

7200rpm HDD

Settings generally high and very high with 2xAA

T

Thirsk Map?---Breaking Point?

This is ArmA III forum...not a bizzarre alternative to the main game.

What kinds of comparisons you're doing....but LOL!

Edited April 7, 2014 by j4you

[big_t 1]

Thirsk Map?---Breaking Point?

This is ArmA III forum...not a bizzarre alternative to the main game.

What kinds of comparisons you're doing....but LOL!

I'm comparing Arma 3 to Arma 3? What are you working with? Breaking point is an Arma 3 Mod and a fairly popular one from the looks of server population?

I find your Zombie Meme a little distasteful, but to the point. I'm pointing towards an Arma 3 multiplayer game mode that is in fact getting over 60 fps.

Although You may call it find it an abhorrent aberration of the purist comp stomp style, by examining why breaking point thirsk is getting good fps could lead to answers as to why current mulitplayer fps is lacking in performance and point towards a viable solution for Altis and other maps moving forward.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Big_T

[Th4d 10]

In my pc arma 3 seems to be using all the cpu cores.

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd123/grillob3/arma3usage.jpg

Still, usage for arma 3 is shown as 33% on your screenshot, how many cores do you have? 6? 2 cores would be 33% right? Windows spreads usage across cores to even out heat, and it shows as being spread to you since it´s too fast, but it´s just using 2 cores, my bet is that if you disable 4 cores, you will get the same performance with 90-100% usage on the 2 cores left. Arma barely uses more than 2 cores imho, i´ve seen someone at bis saying the same, i believe it was their CEO. Btw, i already tried this on an x6 and x8 cpu, theory held up.

Dayz´s biggest statements on optimizations shed a light on Arma´s worse offenders, main 2 being: "we are making a bubble around the player so he won´t have to deal with everything else that is going on on the entire map" and "we are going to make the server multithreaded".

[igneous01 19]

Still, usage for arma 3 is shown as 33% on your screenshot, how many cores do you have? 6? 2 cores would be 33% right? Windows spreads usage across cores to even out heat, and it shows as being spread to you since it´s too fast, but it´s just using 2 cores, my bet is that if you disable 4 cores, you will get the same performance with 90-100% usage on the 2 cores left. Arma barely uses more than 2 cores imho, i´ve seen someone at bis saying the same, i believe it was their CEO. Btw, i already tried this on an x6 and x8 cpu, theory held up.

Dayz´s biggest statements on optimizations shed a light on Arma´s worse offenders, main 2 being: "we are making a bubble around the player so he won´t have to deal with everything else that is going on on the entire map" and "we are going to make the server multithreaded".

you do realize that core use is not a feasible estimate for measuring multi-threaded-ness of Arma?

Most of those threads are probably waiting to synchronize with other threads. Hence why cpu is idling. Its not the amount of threads or cores the game uses, but how much time has to be spent synchronizing. Sadly all current software suffers from slow locking mechanisms and virtual memory fences.

However Microsoft has been working on new hardware based memory fences and locks, that will be much faster and greatly improve multithreaded performance. Unfortunately, those features are only available in windows 8 right now.

Also, only the OS can decide which core a thread will run on.

[Th4d 10]

you do realize that core use is not a feasible estimate for measuring multi-threaded-ness of Arma?

Most of those threads are probably waiting to synchronize with other threads. Hence why cpu is idling. Its not the amount of threads or cores the game uses, but how much time has to be spent synchronizing. Sadly all current software suffers from slow locking mechanisms and virtual memory fences.

However Microsoft has been working on new hardware based memory fences and locks, that will be much faster and greatly improve multithreaded performance. Unfortunately, those features are only available in windows 8 right now.

Also, only the OS can decide which core a thread will run on.

Sure, except others fare better dealing with the bottlenecks on the first core and are a lot better with multithreading If they need to be in order to perform well enough, since most games are GPU limited. "arma has a vast blah blah" and cant be compared, but it´s not like you need to know everything that goes on on the map and like there is no better optimizations to be done, have they fixed the issue with broken building being left under the map? guys over at DayZ know these issues are limiting their design, i remember when dayz was going to be 200 players with 1000 permanent spawned zombies, and are trying to do something about it. Shit, ArmA still claims 60VS60 players on the website giving out very weak machines as minimum/recommended requirenments.

And i remember valves hybrid way of multithreading that claimed scalable linear gains on the way they were doing it: http://techreport.com/review/11237/valve-source-engine-goes-multi-core , also, today nvidia released a driver that dealt a lot better with render batch overhead, no improvement here, 28 fps yesterday on a campaign single player mission, 28fps half an hour ago and lowering settings makes no difference.

Anyway i think i´ve over extended this off topic cpu core discussion, was just trying to correct the false assumption that the guy there had more than 2 working cores usage at any time in arma. We just need good enough performance no matter how they achieve it, bis has big performance improvement plans for DayZ that do seem very interesting, what are the ones for ArmA? Will ArmA benefit directly from them aswell? If so, great then, just hurry up already it´s been a few years overdue.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Th4d

[ACPL Jon 68]

All Your quotes are belong to me, T.

See my rig below it's not spectacular for gaming.

My system:

i7 3770K @ 4.4

2 x 6870 1 gig (crossfire)

16gig of 1333 7-7-7-21 ram

7200rpm HDD

Settings generally high and very high with 2xAA

from 35-45 to 60-80 fps.

I don't think You know the meaning of the word spectacular. Or gaming. Geez, some people...

Edited April 8, 2014 by JonPL

[Sneakson 1]

Still, usage for arma 3 is shown as 33% on your screenshot, how many cores do you have? 6? 2 cores would be 33% right? Windows spreads usage across cores to even out heat, and it shows as being spread to you since it´s too fast, but it´s just using 2 cores, my bet is that if you disable 4 cores, you will get the same performance with 90-100% usage on the 2 cores left. Arma barely uses more than 2 cores imho, i´ve seen someone at bis saying the same, i believe it was their CEO. Btw, i already tried this on an x6 and x8 cpu, theory held up.

Dayz´s biggest statements on optimizations shed a light on Arma´s worse offenders, main 2 being: "we are making a bubble around the player so he won´t have to deal with everything else that is going on on the entire map" and "we are going to make the server multithreaded".

Day Z even has bipods!

[kieran89980 10]

I play on Domination Takistan solid 50-60