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

[trnapster 12]

Well there are a lot of factors...

Players on the other servers (We are running 3 Servers on 1 Root)

Runtime of the mission

Vehicle/AI count on the mission (We actually did some changes in the vehicle cleanUp script)

Server FPS in general

Edited March 10, 2014 by trnapster

[novemberist 2]

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. I almost never look at my fps count and most of the time 30 fps or even below are perfectly playable. It's thus mostly a question of perception than anything else. Sure, there need to be further optimizations and players with high end hardware should be able to get a decent framerate, but this issue is IMO hugely exaggerated. 30 fps in an open world that stretches 270km^2 and can contain hundreds of units fighting simultaneously, while looking absolutely awesome? That's fine with me...

[trnapster 12]

If you've ever played a game with 120 FPS on a 120Hz monitor you don't want to go back to 60FPS... or even 30

[novemberist 2]

If you've ever played a game with 120 FPS on a 120Hz monitor you don't want to go back to 60FPS... or even 30

I haven't...so maybe I'm just lucky I haven't been spoilt in that way yet. Don't really know what difference it would make to my gaming experience to be honest...

[jgbtl292 0]

30 60 or 120 - the point for me its under 30 with drops to 20 is hard with aiming - no fun and constantly drops under 24 i have i eye pain after 1 hour and I look terrible ^^ - and it is not on the old - ok maybe a little with 36 jears

[Sneakson 1]

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. I almost never look at my fps count and most of the time 30 fps or even below are perfectly playable. It's thus mostly a question of perception than anything else. Sure, there need to be further optimizations and players with high end hardware should be able to get a decent framerate, but this issue is IMO hugely exaggerated. 30 fps in an open world that stretches 270km^2 and can contain hundreds of units fighting simultaneously, while looking absolutely awesome? That's fine with me...

60 fps is way, way better than 30 fps though.

The difference between 30 and 60 fps is about the same as the difference between 60 and 1000 fps actually.

Aiming is a lot easier at 50-60 fps than 30, I can guarantee it. I haven’t spent a lot of time with 120 Hz monitors but the improvement is a lot less over 60, than 60 is over 30. About half the improvement, I think it is.

But the big issue is that ARMA isn’t just a demanding game, it’s extremely unstable too! Even if you have a max fps of 70 your minimum can still be 20 without intentionally trying to lower it in the editor. All it takes is some smoke or just about any action.

I would be happy if I could have a max of 60 and min of 30 in any and all situations... even a max of 50 and a min of 30. But as it stands now I can dip down to 20 even in missions where my average is 40-50.

[jgbtl292 0]

I would be happy if I could have a max of 60 and min of 30 in any and all situations

sure in singleplayer ! not in the MP mode :confused:

[Sneakson 1]

sure in singleplayer ! not in the MP mode :confused:

I would be happy to have 30-60 in multiplayer too :p Why not?

50-60 would be better but this is ARMA so I wouldn't dream of it.

[nicolasroger 11]

What he means is that you can already have that in single player, but not currently in multiplayer.

[trnapster 12]

The problem with muliplayer is, that the client FPS reacts on the server FPS. If the server FPS drops below 10 FPS the clients will feel a drop too.

[Sneakson 1]

With the ARMA4 engine BIS should start thinking about the engine. Compatibility, consistency, stability and elegance.

Then again I’m not sure what they were thinking while developing ARMA3. Engine isn’t great, graphics aren’t great, sound isn’t great and the game still doesn’t even have a complete singleplayer campaign. Not amazing amounts of content… I guess all work went into the editor or something then.

If only BIS could manage the consistency of Battlefield 3, a game that’s sexy and smooth on all settings and computers and also have the mod support that only ARMA seems to have then they could blow all competition out of the water easily.

[novemberist 2]

With the ARMA4 engine BIS should start thinking about the engine. Compatibility, consistency, stability and elegance.

Then again I’m not sure what they were thinking while developing ARMA3. Engine isn’t great, graphics aren’t great, sound isn’t great and the game still doesn’t even have a complete singleplayer campaign. Not amazing amounts of content… I guess all work went into the editor or something then.

If only BIS could manage the consistency of Battlefield 3, a game that’s sexy and smooth on all settings and computers and also have the mod support that only ARMA seems to have then they could blow all competition out of the water easily.

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...

[roshnak 41]

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. I almost never look at my fps count and most of the time 30 fps or even below are perfectly playable. It's thus mostly a question of perception than anything else. Sure, there need to be further optimizations and players with high end hardware should be able to get a decent framerate, but this issue is IMO hugely exaggerated. 30 fps in an open world that stretches 270km^2 and can contain hundreds of units fighting simultaneously, while looking absolutely awesome? That's fine with me...

First of all, I don't see how the size or scale of Arma 3 changes the effect that lower framerates have on me. It's not like I'm sitting there going, "Man, Altis sure is big; suddenly 30 fps doesn't hurt my eyes!"

Second of all, here is a .gif of a bar moving from side to side at different framerates. There is a very clear difference between 25 and 50 fps. http://i.minus.com/iuHMClLCinzEh.gif

If you would like to learn more about how the brain interacts with the eye do detect and identify flashing images up to 220 FPS, here is an article: http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

Edit:

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. ?

I don't think such a vague suggestion as, "BIS needs to focus on developing their engine for Arma 4" warrants such a hostile and patronizing response.

Also, can we please not turn this into another misinformed discussion about game engines?

Edited March 10, 2014 by roshnak

[lincolnlou 10]

They focus to much on extra content... they need to focus on the engine first and fix this... its pretty sad how i can play any game out there on highest settings and when i play this i cant have everything on very high and ultra.... kinda stupid... game been out for months just wish they fix this bull shit already

[trnapster 12]

The problem with the RV engine is, that there is a lot of legacy stuff in it (even since OFP). At some point BIS really have to think about a major revamp of it. But this probably would also mean no compatibility with older mission/addons

[jgbtl292 0]

Arma 4 .... bis has say arma 3 is the last arma for a long time - arma3 its the base for the next years ;) - cut your dream of arma 4 :D

the other is - arma is a very complexe game and the team from arma 3 is very smal für this copmlexe game. the lead programmer and others works and day z - arma 3 need min. one year i think bevor its playable

Edited March 10, 2014 by JgBtl292

[jumpinghubert 48]

On the eutw-servers its not impossible to get 55-67fps 25vs25 outside of towns. Thanks for that kind of servers!

[Tonci87 163]

This weekend I´ll participate in a 50 players combined Arma coop Event. (Actually my first big Arma 3 Session) I´m curious how good, or bad my FPS will be.

[novemberist 2]

First of all, I don't see how the size or scale of Arma 3 changes the effect that lower framerates have on me. It's not like I'm sitting there going, "Man, Altis sure is big; suddenly 30 fps doesn't hurt my eyes!"

That's not what I was saying.

So you don't think the enormous size of Arma's maps and a view distance of many kilometers has an effect on your framerate? You can have your 60fps+ , but you will have to stick with your usual small maps like in most other games.

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. I've been through worse gaming experiences than Arma in my 20 years of playing computer games.

I don't think such a vague suggestion as, "BIS needs to focus on developing their engine for Arma 4" warrants such a hostile and patronizing response.

Also, can we please not turn this into another misinformed discussion about game engines?

His tone does, certainly. If you know better, because you have technical insight, feel free to make suggestions. Otherwise it is just the usual trolling an BI bashing. I agree, but what can be considered misinformed and what not is not on you to decide, unless you prove me otherwise.

[ruhtraeel 1]

They focus to much on extra content... they need to focus on the engine first and fix this... its pretty sad how i can play any game out there on highest settings and when i play this i cant have everything on very high and ultra.... kinda stupid... game been out for months just wish they fix this bull shit already

This * 1000. Yes, making an entire engine from scratch is a lot of work, but since they aren't forced to release a game every year like CoD, they have the time to do so.

There are even things that can be fixed with less effort, and have even been done by the community:

1. Switch weapons while walking

2. Interrupt actions (I wouldn't still be reloading if I was being shot at)

3. Breathing is way too loud

[roshnak 41]

That's not what I was saying.

So you don't think the enormous size of Arma's maps and a view distance of many kilometers has an effect on your framerate? You can have your 60fps+ , but you will have to stick with your usual small maps like in most other games.

I understand what you were saying. The size and scale of the game does not excuse poor performance or make it more palatable for people who are sensitive to low framerates. 30 FPS in a first person shooter gives me a headache whether the game takes place in a narrow corridor or on a massive island.

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. I've been through worse gaming experiences than Arma in my 20 years of playing computer games.

Once again, there is no need for you to be so hostile or try to discredit me by accusing me of being "new" to video games -- as if that would make any difference. I haven't been around since the dawn of PC gaming or anything, but I've been playing since Half-Life. I played video games on a CRT monitor when a 60Hz refresh rate made your eyes (metaphorically) bleed because of screen flicker. In the "old days" a good CRT monitor had a refresh rate of at least 85 Hz (that's 85 times the screen refreshes per second, by the way) in order to avoid eye strain. I remember how even back then there were a bunch of people who thought people can only detect 30 FPS because "that's what movies play at."

Perhaps you would like to take a look at the article I linked in my previous post -- published in 2001, in case you think it was written by someone spoiled by "new technology" -- and educate yourself on how humans perceive a series of flashing images and interperate them as motion.

And by the way, I never said that there weren't games that run worse than Arma. MY post was strictly meant to debunk your argument that "The real problem began, when players started believing that games are not playable below anything near 50 fps..."

A desire for smooth framerates is not a new thing. It was important enough in 2001 to have an article written about it. The only thing that is suprising to me is that, 13 years later, people are as ignorant as ever about the topic.

[novemberist 2]

I understand what you were saying. The size and scale of the game does not excuse poor performance or make it more palatable for people who are sensitive to low framerates. 30 FPS in a first person shooter gives me a headache whether the game takes place in a narrow corridor or on a massive island.

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.

I also don't agree that there is no difference in regards to the size and/or pace of a game. In fast shooter games like Unreal Tournament etc. with very tight levels and lots of stuff going on all the time, a high and steady fps might be much more important than in a rather slow paced game like Arma.

I remember how even back then there were a bunch of people who thought people can only detect 30 FPS because "that's what movies play at."

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

Perhaps you would like to take a look at the article I linked in my previous post -- published in 2001, in case you think it was written by someone spoiled by "new technology" -- and educate yourself on how humans perceive a series of flashing images and interperate them as motion.

I will, but I doubt an article will make me question my own perception.

A desire for smooth framerates is not a new thing. It was important enough in 2001 to have an article written about it. The only thing that is suprising to me is that, 13 years later, people are as ignorant as ever about the topic.

And as we've learned now, what constitutes a "smooth framerate" is a very subjective matter, depending on many factors and not just mere numbers. Ignorant? Maybe...but why would I even care and weep about low framerate when 30 fps are fine for me?

If it's possible, I hope for you and all other people who care, that you can one day enjoy Arma3 at very high framerates, but I think it wouldn't make a big difference for me.

[j4you 10]

Hi.

How we know well, each title have a specification hardware where each user must check if he is enable to play it.

But in ArmA III, it's yet possible understand ,because there to many variable bugs then affecting the structure about this game.

I am sure then possibility to be able to get high FPS in this game,it will be directly proportional to the quality of the patchs then BIS will made, and not in your risky investment about another CPU and or GPU!

And about how much FPS need to run a game...it's always 60 FPS min.,and even ArmA III makes not exception to this rule,and dosent care if you can play to 35 or 50 FPS and feel you enjoy and to see so smooth,right now!...Come back here between 2 or 3 years....and you will see....definitely less to 100%!

Anyway,,,,i am talking about your eyes and you can straining their like you wont...but before talking whit a nice Oculist...and tell me if i was wrong!

Regards

Edited March 11, 2014 by j4you

[nicolasroger 11]

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.

The problem right now is simply that the multiplayer FPS is unaffected by graphic settings. Single player run fine for the vast majority of people, so the engine is in fact fine or this side.

[j4you 10]

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.

I dont know how old are you, but belivme,what it was nice to 35 FPS just two years ago...now it's unplayable for me!

For that reason i saied......right now you are enjoy......go on and you will see!

It 'easy to talk when you are still young ..... just later you will say...Damn!

We're talking about eyes .... and not personal taste! :-)

my 2 cents...of course!

The problem right now is simply that the multiplayer FPS is unaffected by graphic settings. Single player run fine for the vast majority of people, so the engine is in fact fine or this side.

I agree 100% about the engine......for that reason i dont accept absurd excuses to justify them...not more!

Regards

Edited March 11, 2014 by j4you