Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Polymath820

Not biting my Tounge anymore

Recommended Posts

This is just god aweful. Look at FPS plotted over time... really what the hell bohemia... I thought it might be my system I thought it might be something else. Nope it is definitely the RV engine itself. Fix it please.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/10/02/arma_iii_video_card_performance_iq_review/1

Before releasing ANYMORE DLC's you really need to fix the problems with the engine currently instead of filling ArmA 3 with bloat-ware that causes more problems!

Look at the data. It speaks for itself.

http://www.techspot.com/news/54026-arma-3-benchmarked-graphics-and-cpu-performance-tested.html

Edited by Polymath820

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me quote from the hardocp article:

Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3 move over, Arma III has just surpassed you on outdoor visual quality, fidelity, and performance demand. Arma III is a game that proves the PC platform’s superiority over console gaming. The PC is utilized, the graphics cards are utilized, in a most impressive way. Words cannot describe it, one must experience the game at the highest quality settings to understand the level of detail and visual quality represented in Arma III.

This game has better, and more realistic visuals, and texture quality compared to Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3. Beyond the textures, object detail, and shaders, Arma III also has the highest viewing distance in any game. Pop-up of objects and textures are a reduced phenomenon in this game, thanks to the high degree of view. That view distance, and object distance also greatly affect the performance, and rightly so. It is refreshing to have a game that doesn't compromise on view and object distance, and lets the gamer go all out if they wish to. This is the power of the PC, the awesome scalability and potential for long view and object distances.

Beyond the visuals, Arma III is demanding on performance. With the ability to set "ultra" texture and object, and shader settings, to the view distance and object distance, to the myriad of AA options, this game pushes today's graphics card to the limit. Even the mighty TITAN isn't enough for Arma III. Arma III demands SLI or CrossFire to run it at high resolutions with all the details up, and still cannot maximize the view distance. Arma III will have longevity when it comes to graphics cards comparisons. You'll be wanting the next generation of GPUs for this game; it simply gives you a reason to upgrade.

We will be adding Arma III to our gaming suite used in reviews. We will be using Arma III in the upcoming AMD GPU launches this month, and moving forward. Arma III will be a great game to truly stress and test the graphics performance of next generation video cards.

Arma III is what I want as a graphically forward looking game. This game should be the benchmark currently for all others to exceed in terms of visual quality. The single player campaign missions will be out in free DLC format this month. We may follow-up with performance and IQ article in those campaign missions as those may be more complex and demanding than the showcases.

What is funny to see: they were limited on the viewdistances which is quite funny in a GPU test since viewdistance is tied to the CPU. A faster GPU doesn't help there.

Oh and i love this one:

The Bottom Line

This is the type of performance taxing game with great graphics that pushes our hardware to the limit. All of our single-GPU video cards failed to play ARMA III at its ultra settings at 2560x1600 without greatly sacrificing our visible range. This is not a bad thing, this should help encourage manufacturers to make better and more powerful hardware, and push forward the PC gaming industry.

Bohemia Interactive deserves huge kudos. It provided an impressive game in ARMA III and improved upon the franchise by progressing the game’s engine to Real Virtuality 4 technology. This means better visual quality from the graphics options and tons of post processing effects, that truly showcase the artists on staff. And did we mention the innovative 20km view distance? That is a phenomenal range compared to other video games on the market.

Our high-end video cards struggled with the highest settings available at 2560x1600, but performed much more admirably at 1080p. The midrange video cards struggled at 1080p. All in all, ARMA III and its greedy demand for graphics horsepower impressed us tremendously.

:EDITH:

Probably not what you wanted to proof. :p

:EDITH 2:

Oh, thanks for those links, thank you so much:

Even when running BF3 on its highest settings using dual GTX Titans in SLI, so many objects simply vanish if you get too far from them on larger maps. That's distracting at best and it definitely takes away from the realism. Point being, this isn't a major issue with Arma 3, and we believe this is at least partly why it's so GPU-intensive, not because it's poorly coded. Your opinion may vary, of course.

Edited by [FRL]Myke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myke;2690462']Let me quote from the hardocp article:

What is funny to see: they were limited on the viewdistances which is quite funny in a GPU test since viewdistance is tied to the CPU. A faster GPU doesn't help there.

Oh and i love this one:

:EDITH:

Probably not what you wanted to proof. :p

:EDITH 2:

Oh' date=' thanks for those links, thank you so much:[/quote']

Whats the excuse for:

OFP:? http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?17359-Recommended-tuning-suggestions

Armed Assault 1:? http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?52021-Hardware-Issues-Tips-Tricks-Solutions

ArmA 2: ? http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?85124-ArmA2-OA-%28low%29-performance-issues

ArmA 2 OA: ? http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?85124-ArmA2-OA-%28low%29-performance-issues

And now ArmA 3? http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS

And "scale" Unigine has a map size of 64,000,000m^2 thats a big map.

And what else? Peoples CPU's are not "powerful enough"?

What is your recommended system specifications? For certain configuration of settings?

E.g View Distance etc?

Here we are, right off the back of my disk case:

Recommended System Specifications:

OS: Windows Vista or 7

CPU: Intel Core I5-2300 / AMD Phenom II X4 940

GPU: Nvidia GTX 560 / AMD Radeib 7750 with 1 GB VRAM

DirectX: 11

RAM: 4GB

HDD: 25GB

So what are these specifications based on?

Are they plucked out of thin air?

Low settings all round including a view distance of less than 800Meters? At just playable frame-rates. I feel cheated as a consumer and down right frustrated with Bohemia and because of all this hell I experience now I probably won't be investing in ArmA 4 and potentially any other games relating to bohemias development. I did it to EA I refused to buy BF4 because BF3 was a pile of bat detritus that deserved to be on the pile with the ATRI's ET game cartridges

Now if these problems didn't exist why are people who have I7's and GTX 780's with sufficient driver updates etc, suffering the same issue? Why? Justifying the game is GPU Intensive is still not an answer. The server executables don't even run on multiple cores? ArmA has suffered problems from day one. Look at all the posts in every single sub-forum. And constant adding content, just bloats the game and causes more problems every update you break something every update you fix something you broke before? Where does this endless cycle end?

It's been 15 years anyone would think the game would be in an extremely polished refined state.

Edited by Polymath820

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting how you ignore the conclusions from the tests you linked yourself.

Tell me, from a pure logical point, who shall i trust more: websites and authors that mess with games for years for a living, which requires a high level of competence or a forum member i know nothing of? No offence, mate, just tell me how would you decide whom you would trust more? What would you think?

And no, i do not ignore the linked threads but i do know, no matter how good a game is, there will be always people complaining about it. Without context (how many run the game fine vs. how many do have problems with) those threads are almost meaningless.

:EDITH:

Justifying the game is GPU Intensive is still not an answer.

First, it is CPU intensive (also GPU but CPU has more impact). Second, just because you refuse to accept an answer doesn't make it invalid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"High level of competence" Are you joking? You are just going to justify a judgement based on voluminous data? From authors or website Authors. I know for fact websites can be paid to give testimonials and can be paid in perks or money to manipulate data, it frequently happens the term is "appealing to an authority" You appeal to the authority that the information they give you is fact. There is inconsistent data from multiple systems right across the board I've seen I3's performing better on ArmA 3 then an I7. So what is it?

Our bottleneck or yours inside of your code? That only shows itself in the event of slightly different micro-architecture execution environments and system components?

Oh look setting all settings as low as they can go and setting view distance to maximum hmmm not much core usage difference across the board at all. And GPU usage well that drops to 0 - 14% So tell me again, the game relies on the CPU? then wouldn't ArmA 3 be utilising the multi-cores more? The only thing I have noticed the CPU being eaten by is AI.

And just for the record I do not trust anyone including scientists sometimes. Cross-matching and cross-referencing helps. Unless of course a website is endorsed by a scientific community that has stringent quality control.

Argue parts Argue people are idiots, but you can't argue you got your recommended specifications wrong and owe people a big apology. I would never have bought ArmA 3 if I knew my system would not handle it. I could have put the money towards something else.

I have done extensive performance analysis and my GPU I think is the bottleneck but I'd rather know now and completely know because of the inconsistent data everywhere that if I "do" upgrade my GPU due to my CPU being used little or none, I will get better frame-rates but I don't feel like blowing $400 on a new card if it does nothing.

Edited by Polymath820

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And just for the record I do not trust anyone including scientists sometimes.

Since you deny to trust anyone, this concludes there can't be an answer you ever would accept. This renders this thread pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×