fabio_chavez 103 Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) They did? Where did they say that? I see a lot of talk about the server binary performance improvements but not client performance. they on occasions explained that the game is (effectively) single threadded, that the guy who made the engine left BI which left them in a position where they werent able to easily change core functions, that they didnt focus on MP (and MP gamemmodes) because it would require to fix the persitent core issues with the engine first. (e.g. a dev half-jokingly explained to me once that they wont focus on pvp until the game performs well with 100 players, it was a bit of a flimsy pretext to cover up the lack of progress imho but the statement has a certain explanatory value nonetheless) p.s. also there are rumours that they simply are not good at making proper MP gamemodes (lol @ the bot-taxi mission that came with heli DLC :P ) and left it to the community to come up with it, which wasnt completely unreasonable but unfortunately didnt turn out very well in the end (or did it?) ---------- Post added at 08:39 ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 ---------- p.s. 2 "we simply didnt like warfare", would you buy a car from somebody who makes such phony excuses? :) Edited July 1, 2015 by Fabio_Chavez Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chortles 263 Posted July 1, 2015 p.s. also there are rumours that they simply are not good at making proper MP gamemodes (lol @ the bot-taxi mission that came with heli DLC :P ) and left it to the community to come up with it, which wasnt completely unreasonable but unfortunately didnt turn out very well in the end (or did it?)It sure worked out for somebody if not the "traditional" MP mode players...p.s. 2 "we simply didnt like warfare", would you buy a car from somebody who makes such phony excuses? :)How can you prove that it's false even if the official version was also coded like crap? ;)Then again, maybe it sounds more plausible to me because it's the sort of thing I​'d say? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
big_t 1 Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) My pc is perhaps not super fast but it's certainly ok. i7-3770K @ 3.50GHz - GTX 970 - 16GB low latency ram - Win 7 - XFi 7.1 - All SSD's. Games and OS separate. Not to sidetrack the real issues being discussed about engine performance, but OP: You can easily be over clocking that CPU to 4.4Ghz and you will see improved performance for yourself anyway. Arma seems to be a CPU heavy game. Get a $30 Aftermarket air cooler and 4.4 should be no problem for that CPU. I have the same one, The K is made for Klockin' :) About performance: as mentioned it's related to Island size. Stratis is improved performance compared to Altis. Try Thirsk,, good grief I couldn't even get under 60fps on that map with 40 players on multiplayer,( when it was more popular on breaking point). T Edited July 2, 2015 by Big_T Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fabio_chavez 103 Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) the "traditional" MP mode players... as we speak of them: BI should simply bring a PVP AAS (or even simple conquest) mission framework with 2 bases, for squad based, combined arms warfare in the form of official missions. combined arms means in effect: 2 bases with vehicle spawns. by default the vehicles would have moderate respawn times according to the general mission layout. squad based means: requirement of basic squad UI with mission markers as basic squad leader abbility and role assignment/kit restrictions of some sort. These Official Missions would also serve as template layouts for the community to do the magic... its so very simple that there is no logical explaination that it doesnt exist since game release to begin with. p.s. for dummys: AAS means: take control of flag posts in a certain order. conquest means: take control of flagposts in any order. pvp means: no AI (aka Bots). Edited July 2, 2015 by Fabio_Chavez Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chortles 263 Posted July 2, 2015 Didn't kju complain that they didn't want something like that in specifically rejecting Blitzkrieg? Mind you, then they proceeded to not even deliver official TDM/conquest at all... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zeep 3 Posted July 2, 2015 Not to sidetrack the real issues being discussed about engine performance, but OP: You can easily be over clocking that CPU to 4.4Ghz and you will see improved performance for yourself anyway. Arma seems to be a CPU heavy game. Get a $30 Aftermarket air cooler and 4.4 should be no problem for that CPU. I have the same one, The K is made for Klockin' :)T Hi T,I know, i should really get into that and oc my cpu. But i also do 95% of my work on it and i don't want to break anything, with the risk of not being able to work :P Didn't kju complain that they didn't want something like that in specifically rejecting Blitzkrieg? Mind you, then they proceeded to not even deliver official TDM/conquest at all... Blitzkrieg was one of the most fun TvT gamemodes i've played in Arma3. Bis should have just made that an official gamemode right from the beginning. Not everything has to be large scale battles etc. Kju, and a few more people like Murcie and Galzo, understand how to make TvT / PvP fun imo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fabio_chavez 103 Posted July 2, 2015 Didn't kju complain that they didn't want something like that in specifically rejecting Blitzkrieg? Mind you, then they proceeded to not even deliver official TDM/conquest at all... blitzkrieg would have been a great framework for this, right there at hand for them to build upon, though theyd rather give nothing than something :( sure, performance wise the groundwork of arma3 was not optimal for like 50vs50 pvp or something but if they would have had the will they could at least have delivered some nice and lean official mission framework along the lines of traditional MP. i may seem to have a fundamental position to this and the notion of a official conventional pvp mission seems to be not so relevant these days but only because, after 2 years of arma3, all the people who share similar sentiments dont touch arma anymore (or frequent the forums for that matter)... though without reasonable doubt, global server population today would be threefold, with mentioned features. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
big_t 1 Posted July 2, 2015 Hi T,I know, i should really get into that and oc my cpu. But i also do 95% of my work on it and i don't want to break anything, with the risk of not being able to work :P Oh yeah , I know that feeling, with computers especially "if it's not broke ... don't fix it". The main concern for damage is overheating the cpu. Keep an eagle eye on temperatures in the beginning. Proceed with slow increments (3.7ghz,3.9ghz,4.1ghz) and stress test with prime 95 all the while watching temps closely. Check out the overclocking communities (overclock.net), plenty of tutorials and they are usually more than ready to give some friendly advice for the beginner. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ric 1 Posted July 4, 2015 they on occasions explained that the game is (effectively) single threadded, that the guy who made the engine left BI which left them in a position where they werent able to easily change core functions, that they didnt focus on MP (and MP gamemmodes) because it would require to fix the persitent core issues with the engine first. (e.g. a dev half-jokingly explained to me once that they wont focus on pvp until the game performs well with 100 players, it was a bit of a flimsy pretext to cover up the lack of progress imho but the statement has a certain explanatory value nonetheless)p.s. also there are rumours that they simply are not good at making proper MP gamemodes (lol @ the bot-taxi mission that came with heli DLC :P ) and left it to the community to come up with it, which wasnt completely unreasonable but unfortunately didnt turn out very well in the end (or did it?) I remember during the alpha I booted my PC to run only one core and then I started the Arma3 server and loaded a mission i had made and it loaded fine until the AI spawned then it crashed, at its heart Arma is an old engine that was not coded for multicore and until there is a fundamental rewrite nothing will change and they will continue to rob peter to pay Paul. :( Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zeep 3 Posted July 4, 2015 Oh yeah , I know that feeling, with computers especially "if it's not broke ... don't fix it". The main concern for damage is overheating the cpu. Keep an eagle eye on temperatures in the beginning. Proceed with slow increments (3.7ghz,3.9ghz,4.1ghz) and stress test with prime 95 all the while watching temps closely. Check out the overclocking communities (overclock.net), plenty of tutorials and they are usually more than ready to give some friendly advice for the beginner. Thank you for the tips! /ot Is there more information about the new engine BIS is moving to that i can read? I'm following the engine development of Dayz too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zukov 488 Posted July 5, 2015 question: End Game multiplayer performance. Will it ever improve? answer: no thread closed ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
enex 11 Posted July 5, 2015 question:End Game multiplayer performance. Will it ever improve? answer: no thread closed ;) 18-06-2015 EXE rev. 131231 (game) EXE rev. 131231 (launcher) Size: ~343 MB DATA Fixed: CfgPatches contained unnecessary modules Tweaked: Chaff particle effect Fixed: Supports module - Artillery units would sometimes fail to fire End Game Fixed: Empty groups were not garbage collected Improved: Network traffic optimizations ENGINE Added: New script command arrayIntersect Fixed: Hosted server considered Client settings instead of Server settings from CfgRemoteExec Changed: exportJIPQueue script command changed to #exportJIPQueue server command Fixed: Could not load some terrains in Buldozer, crashed after loading Fixed: Exploit with inGameUISetEventHandler granted a menu hack possibility Fixed: Zeroing is still visible if HUD is disabled - see http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=23960 26-05-2015 EXE rev. 130903 (game) EXE rev. 130903 (launcher) Size: ~114 MB DATA Fixed: Launcher bug Fixed: Usage of the playMove command to switch to warming-up animations in End Game scenarios Fixed: Zeus player ignores initPlayerLocal.sqf Added: Zeus hard-coded availability check, to ignore scripts for Zeus players Tweaked: Decreased update rate of BIS_fnc_moduleZoneProtection Fixed: When the Zeus Game Master module was deleted, its script kept running (thanks MDCCLXXVI for the report) Added: It's now possible to disable "XXX is now Zeus" notifications by calling: <curatorModule> setVariable ["showNotification",false]; Fixed: Even pilots have proper memory points for legs (see http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=20761) Fixed: It was possible to remotely rewrite BIS functions by inserting a 'recompile' property. This is now disabled; the property is now accepted only by root functions. Added: New samples for 6.5mm and 7.62mm LMGs for vehicles Added: New samples for 35mm autocannon Fixed: Static weapon AI sensing put on par with normal soldiers Fixed: Recoil for static weapons is back End Game Fixed: The Officer objective had ImmediateDownload as false Fixed: ImediateDownload > ImmediateDownload Fixed: Error during downloading Intel Fixed: "GetSideCompletedObjectivesCount" would always return 0 Added: Caching of shared tasks for shared objectives Optimized: Shared Objectives refactored to lessen the network load Tweaked: Command sleep replaced with uiSleep to allow setTaskLocal execution even on the briefing screen ENGINE Added: New MFD animation sources ClockHour, ClockMinute and ClockSecond Fixed: Unable to throw grenades after changing the player by command selectPlayer LAUNCHER Added: Hint on how to force an update of a Workshop item in Steam Client Improved: Clarified error messages when app files are corrupted or can't be loaded 15-05-2015 EXE rev. 130759 (game) EXE rev. 130760 (launcher) Size: ~43 MB DATA Tweaked: Better usability of sitting with tied hands / warming up (Marksmen scenes) animations Fixed: Stance indicator arrows in prone and crouch stances End Game Fixed: Log of player UID onPlayerConnected Fixed: Script error related to BIS_fnc_loop Removed: Unneeded RPT spam from Shared objectives functions Added: After establishing the FOB, a marker is created at its location in the map Added: WarmupDelay property added to Objectives Instance Module and it sets the time players have to wait during the warmup phase ENGINE Tweaked: AI AT soldiers will not switch assigned target when holding fire Added: Sound - separated turret servo sounds: vertical & horizontal (properties soundServo and soundServoVertical) LAUNCHER Improved: Positioning of a window in bounds of screen workspace And I can go on.Obviously this are not big performance changes but every small improvements help. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bad benson 1733 Posted July 5, 2015 (edited) have you compared FPS before and after these changes? not saying it didn't change, just that they might as well not have had any noticable impact as most performance related things so far and that without a measurement the info is worthless. especially since IF there was a change it was pretty hard to notice probably. i have yet to see mass occurrence of posts about performance increase. i mean i think the biggest thing was 5 fps for server performance or something along those lines when Dwarden made an effort. which was nice. but that still won't fix client performance i think. not saying they aren't trying but we all and them especially know that without major changes there won't any major improvement. with so many moving parts small tweaks can even back fire. i think i even read DNA stating that himself somewhere. it's not so much about End Game performance anyways. more about general MP performance in anything that is more than 5 player coop with next to nothing large scale or script wise happening. so waiting for the End Game devs to fix that is probably pointles anyways. Edited July 5, 2015 by Bad Benson spellZ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chortles 263 Posted July 7, 2015 blitzkrieg would have been a great framework for this, right there at hand for them to build upon, though theyd rather give nothing than something :(Hence why I specified TDM and Conquest -- blitzkrieg wasn't going to happen (see kju's remarks), but then they didn't even deliver twitch shooter modes.Is there more information about the new engine BIS is moving to that i can read? I'm following the engine development of Dayz too.Bohemia hasn't gone into detail, but a company brochure described it (the new engine, not DayZ's) as a merge of Real Virtuality with Enforce (the engine behind Carrier Command: Gaea Mission and Take On Mars), which had some speculating that Arma 3 would be the last "pure RV" game.Incidentally, from today's changelog: End Game Added: Scripted event handlers - EndGame_OnStageChanged / EndGame_OnStartGameObjectiveCompleted / EndGame_OnObjectiveStateChanged / EndGame_OnObjectiveCompleted / EndGame_OnObjectiveEnded Improved: Zeus support Improved: FPS boost (the equipment rewards functionality was bringing FPS down significantly) Improved: Adding items to Virtual Arsenal created unnecessary network overhead Share this post Link to post Share on other sites