Can a mod make the Arma 3 engine run smoother?

[bravo409 13]

All these mods are great and, great work has been done to make Arma 3 look and sound good but one thing is missing. Arma 3 still lacks the Engine to run those mods smooth and give good FPS. So I was wondering with all these mods changing stuff in Arma 3 how come know one has thought about Moding or fixing the Engine problems that Haunt this game. Reason I say that is because BIS sure isn't, there more interested in fixing Zeus or ropes stuff like that to put it politely. How can we enjoy a game with awesome mods but the Engine will not allow us to have the full experience the mods can do. Please someone or BIS fix the Engine all the problems FPS wise stems from this, surely there has to be a patch or something to fix this main issue. Thanks

[Largos. 10]

Optimizing such a complex and large scale game is an extremely challenging, and timely project which is why it hasn't been completed. I can almost guarantee you BIS is trying to tackle this problem, even with teams working on new features such as the helicopters DLC.

[swiftn7 1]

And I am also pretty sure that the engine itself is locked source, so how should any modder/community-dev have access to the machine code?

[h - 169]

No modder can access the engine itself so such mods not possible.

[.kju 3245]

Reduction of model complexity or texture size could be done.

We would only need a tool able to handle the latest p3d format.

Ref: PROPER projects - Reduced-model-complexity

[calin_banc 19]

The game runs fairly good on lower details (if AI, scripts or other non-graphic issues aren't the problem). You don't need to make it look like's Y2K, just optimize it.

Edited September 12, 2014 by calin_banc

[vran. 13]

The low framerates are caused by the dynamic AI and amount of objects. It's like that since OFP. Having hundreds of individual active AIs or AI groups will cause slowdown on any system because they aren't scripted like in other games and the CPU can't handle it. That's why there is a AI groups limit in the game and why missions with lots of AI run slow. Second reason is the amount of objects. If you have very many objects on a map, it will run slow. There have been attempts to make large and detailed city maps since OFP but a lot of them had performance issues and the same goes with maps with lots of dense vegetation, jungle settings in particular. The grass is especially resouce hungry since it's many individual objects placed across the map. This is also why there is a object limitation per map too and why highly detailed urban and jungle environments are not yet possible in Arma without heavy slowdown. In comparison, other games mostly use maps that are not composed of many different objects but just one map with fixed objects and they are usually quite restricted in size too or cut into segments. In Arma, the maps are comparatively large, loaded directly and the objects can easily be added or removed via game editor or map editing programs.

I think having better support for multithreading and 64-bit memory utilization would help but not as dramatically as some think. A lot of issues come from how the engine functions and it's OFP roots. To fix many of the issues would require a large re-writ of the engine itself. One other option would be switching to a different engine but there is no guarantee that the new engine would do the things Arma does well. Most other engines focus more on "eye candy" over actual functionality and simulated battlefield warfare. The only feasible alternatives could be large scale engines with procedural terrain generation, but those have yet to prove themselves in video and computer games. Personally, I'd love to see Voxel-based and deformating terrains in a Arma game but this remains a silent wish rather than realistic idea. Also, a new engine would mean loss of backwards support (not so easy content porting from previous Armas) and the developers and modders having to learn new things rather than building upon what they already know. For a so community dependant series as Arma is, this is not the best prospect. So I think they will keep improving the existing engine rather than switching to a new one. It's a very flexible engine, despite it's limitations. Community made mods like Day-Z and the Life missions are proof of this, but also other projects. The kind of "sandbox" approach might not have been as easy on a different engine.

It's possible that Arma 4 or the next large expansion DLC for Arma 3 will be more "scalable", giving the player more options over how many objects the game should render, better LOD system, automatic draw distance adjustments and more scripted stuff, including the AI, which could be a mixture of dynamic and scripted. This would both, improve performance as well as make possible some things with which the Arma AI struggles such as better combat behaviour in urban environments, path finding in complex areas and driving of vehicles. I think there is still a lot that can be done with the current engine, if enhanced and upgraded accordingly.

[calin_banc 19]

but there is no guarantee that the new engine would do the things Arma does well. Most other engines focus more on "eye candy" over actual functionality and simulated battlefield warfare.

Of course there is a guarantee since you make it that way, but it actually needs time and the desire to do it. The only thing arma does well, it's the feeling of large scale engagement, somewhat/partially realistic battlefield between relative small group of units. That is it. Hundreds of units? It only take a few dozen to drop the FPS like a stone. Nothing in particular is exceptional, only the "bird's eye view" shows potential, when you see the game as a whole, as a great concept.

[pulstar 55]

Battlefield has tons of clutter and destructible, furnished buildings. The Arma engine simply isn't the best in terms of optimization. They should offload more to the GPU as well.

[gossamersolid 155]

Battlefield has tons of clutter and destructible, furnished buildings. The Arma engine simply isn't the best in terms of optimization. They should offload more to the GPU as well.

Battlefield also has fuck all going on and the maps are tiny.

[miketim 20]

This title is so misleading, go back and read it... How is it related to what you OP actually posted

"new mod for making the arma 3 engine run smoother"

What does that sound like to you lol

[EDcase 87]

No offense intended but the OP obviously has no idea about coding. (or spelling. Hopefully not English native)

BIS are working VERY hard to make the game run smoothly. My friends and I have noticed much improvement since release. (if you play on a low power machine obviously you can't expect much)

[Sandy* 10]

Battlefield has tons of clutter and destructible, furnished buildings. The Arma engine simply isn't the best in terms of optimization. They should offload more to the GPU as well.

Under the gazillion layers of post-processing that Battlefield has, lies a game that is very ugly, low-poly and static. I'm also interested what you mean by "offloading more to the GPU", I had this conversation back in alpha with people thinking GPU PhysX can run core physics on the GPU instead of just a bunch of eyecandy effects. Someone even said the AI should be offloaded to the GPU. :j:

[bravo409 13]

This title is so misleading, go back and read it... How is it related to what you OP actually posted

What does that sound like to you lol

Laugh it up quiz kid cause you know the title made you open it up to see what I was talking about. I specifically made the title sound that way so people would go hmm what's in the thread. Called advertising my friend. Anyway got a great response to it. One of the things I notice is stratus plays smoother then Altus. Thing is Altus has more on the map to make good missions but can't cause the map has so many objects it plus add a couple of Ai make it like 15-20 fps. In one of last threads I explained about speed up time function and how it smooths the fps issue but you can't give orders much less hear them. What engine does vbs run on ??? Might help

[kklownboy 43]

"...What engine does vbs run on ??? Might help." The Real Virtuality engine. DO your homework. And now you are on my ignore list. Nite.

[big_t 1]

Legit question: Its is possible to chop the current altis map into say 5 parts? For myself and some others: Stratis runs much better and I believe it's due to the smaller size and amount of objects loaded. When playing say CTI or some other mode and you are only really using a portion of the map, would it not be better to load only the relevant segment of the map? Just asking because I don't know if it would be possible to do.

T

[Bouben 3]

All these mods are great and, great work has been done to make Arma 3 look and sound good but one thing is missing. Arma 3 still lacks the Engine to run those mods smooth and give good FPS. So I was wondering with all these mods changing stuff in Arma 3 how come know one has thought about Moding or fixing the Engine problems that Haunt this game. Reason I say that is because BIS sure isn't, there more interested in fixing Zeus or ropes stuff like that to put it politely. How can we enjoy a game with awesome mods but the Engine will not allow us to have the full experience the mods can do. Please someone or BIS fix the Engine all the problems FPS wise stems from this, surely there has to be a patch or something to fix this main issue. Thanks

In short,

you have absolutely no idea.

[calin_banc 19]

Under the gazillion layers of post-processing that Battlefield has, lies a game that is very ugly, low-poly and static. I'm also interested what you mean by "offloading more to the GPU", I had this conversation back in alpha with people thinking GPU PhysX can run core physics on the GPU instead of just a bunch of eyecandy effects. Someone even said the AI should be offloaded to the GPU. :j:

You mean this

? Yeah, it can be done. You had there more 16k AIs on a HD4890 card. :j: AMD showed the demo 5 or 6 years ago. Also ArmA 3 cannot maintain 60fps on low setting or even 30 at times (and i5 2500k OC + 7950OC in 1050p is no weak rig).

Anyway, mods cannot modify the code at it's core, only make rough adjustments in some areas. Best option would be to have a high end server to play on smaller map(s) with low number of players, AIs and scripts.

[NeMeSiS 11]

You mean this

? Yeah, it can be done. You had there more 16k AIs on a HD4890 card. :j: AMD showed the demo 5 or 6 years ago. Also ArmA 3 cannot maintain 60fps on low setting or even 30 at times (and i5 2500k OC + 7950OC in 1050p is no weak rig).

While i am greatly in favor of offloading pathfinding to the GPU, there is more to ArmA AI than just pathfinding and you should not expect results anywhere near a techdemo.

[nikiforos 450]

Main problem is the AI pathfinding and not the size of the map.

[calin_banc 19]

While i am greatly in favor of offloading pathfinding to the GPU, there is more to ArmA AI than just pathfinding and you should not expect results anywhere near a techdemo.

No, I would expect better than that. That AI does seem to do what the AI in this game does: go from a to b with a purpose, change action if a variable from outside the system is introduced, work in groups, etc. At this point is clear that the series cannot go any further without major changes to the way things work. And this has to be done by Bohemia, not by modders.

[twangydave 7]

I look around and see so much user created content that is amazing. The best stuff IS optimised by authors spawning AI only on player approach, caching and dead body/vehicle clear-up.

All systems do and will have limitations and working successfully within these constraints is what separates those that can and those that cannot.

The authors of these great mods, campaigns and missions do not sit on their hands waiting for the game to be 'fixed' before they engage with it, they excel even with the limitations and constraints that are the current reality.

Arma 3 needs a decent computer, that much is true and it's unlikely to be optimised that it will run great on older systems. Some say that the game is badly designed and poorly engineered to the extent that even really good computers fail to make it really whizzy.

I don't know about that stuff. It runs great on my PC and I think there is a lot to enjoy. As far as active AI is concerned, my performance is great up to about 150 AI and then starts to crap out after that. That seems like a good number to me, bear in mind that if BI give stable 300 v 300 fights then people will question why they can't get a 400 v 400 fight to run smoothly. That's the way it's always been, people are never content with performance, they always want more.

[calin_banc 19]

150 AI engaged in a fight, at the same time, in a city, pretty much kills performance last time I've tried it. :)

Edited September 12, 2014 by calin_banc

[bravo409 13]

In short,

you have absolutely no idea.

Well tell me Sir why do I have no idea...I made this thread because I thought this would be a good subject to debate about. I have been playing Arma since Arma 2 came out and have seen some great things with this game. Arma3 on the other hand has nothing but fps issues and among other things but main thing I see poor optimization which has plagued this series since the begging.

[nikiforos 450]

I don't know about that stuff. It runs great on my PC and I think there is a lot to enjoy. As far as active AI is concerned, my performance is great up to about 150 AI and then starts to crap out after that. That seems like a good number to me, bear in mind that if BI give stable 300 v 300 fights then people will question why they can't get a 400 v 400 fight to run smoothly. That's the way it's always been, people are never content with performance, they always want more.

Proof of evidence that you can run 150 AI with good FPS and not lag? Make a video , tell us what you got in frames when 150 AI engage each other or put a video.

And please tell us what system you got , it's quite important I guess.