End Game multiplayer performance. Will it ever improve?

[smiley_ie 7]

Didn't play in a while i get worse performance overall since last update.

[vran. 13]

Maybe a possible solution to low mp fps would be a auto detail drop down feature that would automatically reduce graphical detail to improve performance during mp play. The users that wouldn't want it could always disable it.

[gossamersolid 155]

Maybe a possible solution to low mp fps would be a auto detail drop down feature that would automatically reduce graphical detail to improve performance during mp play. The users that wouldn't want it could always disable it.

That wouldn't solve anything.

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

Maybe a possible solution to low mp fps would be a auto detail drop down feature that would automatically reduce graphical detail to improve performance during mp play. The users that wouldn't want it could always disable it.

I have already tried this in a MP environment. Most clients end up disabling it in favour of manual control.

[icehollowpoint 10]

Maybe a possible solution to low mp fps would be a auto detail drop down feature that would automatically reduce graphical detail to improve performance during mp play. The users that wouldn't want it could always disable it.

That doesnt solve anything

my game runs almost exactly as bad on low settings as it does on high settings. One of the many infuriating thing about arma is that nothing you do outside of turning off AA or lowering resolution actually improves frames, or hurts it for that matter. Turning everything to low might get me 1-4 fps more, and make the game look like a hot mess.

Bohemia still hasn't commented on why the last few patches have hurt performance so badly despite featuring no graphical upgrades....

It was fine just a few patches ago....

[brightcandle 114]

That doesnt solve anything

my game runs almost exactly as bad on low settings as it does on high settings. One of the many infuriating thing about arma is that nothing you do outside of turning off AA or lowering resolution actually improves frames, or hurts it for that matter. Turning everything to low might get me 1-4 fps more, and make the game look like a hot mess.

Bohemia still hasn't commented on why the last few patches have hurt performance so badly despite featuring no graphical upgrades....

It was fine just a few patches ago....

BI continues to pursue performance patches around improving the amount of players a dedicated server can handle. They long since abandoned even talking about improving client side performance, they haven't done anything but make it worse since retail. Its ironic that we are hear because there was a point in the middle of alpha where performance was genuinely improved and it felt really good and I remember playing quite a lot of PvP as a result, we had a very popular mission at that time running on a public server. But then they broke it again and its been this way ever since. I have explained what is actually happening technically many times but I think the politics of what is going on needs to keep being discussed otherwise the complaints about performance will fade away and they wont ever start to address the client side performance issues apparent to everyone that plays this game. There is simply no evidence BI is working on this problem, I can find no improvements in the performance builds because it all seems to be focussed on network performance, something we don't have an issue with.

[windies 11]

BI continues to pursue performance patches around improving the amount of players a dedicated server can handle. They long since abandoned even talking about improving client side performance, they haven't done anything but make it worse since retail. Its ironic that we are hear because there was a point in the middle of alpha where performance was genuinely improved and it felt really good and I remember playing quite a lot of PvP as a result, we had a very popular mission at that time running on a public server. But then they broke it again and its been this way ever since. I have explained what is actually happening technically many times but I think the politics of what is going on needs to keep being discussed otherwise the complaints about performance will fade away and they wont ever start to address the client side performance issues apparent to everyone that plays this game. There is simply no evidence BI is working on this problem, I can find no improvements in the performance builds because it all seems to be focussed on network performance, something we don't have an issue with.

The only thing I can think is that they are working on Enfusion as a solution to the inherent issue's in RV. If so I can understand why they're silent about performance improvement with ArmA 3 as there's probably nothing they can do, even though they could it would be a waste if Enfusion is the end goal. It's still a big IF but honestly I don't think they can bury their heads in the sand about the issue much longer.

I highly doubt we will see it for ArmA 3, maybe ArmA 4 however?

[icehollowpoint 10]

The only thing I can think is that they are working on Enfusion as a solution to the inherent issue's in RV. If so I can understand why they're silent about performance improvement with ArmA 3 as there's probably nothing they can do, even though they could it would be a waste if Enfusion is the end goal. It's still a big IF but honestly I don't think they can bury their heads in the sand about the issue much longer.

I highly doubt we will see it for ArmA 3, maybe ArmA 4 however?

again though, not to sound like a broken record

but even if they cant improve performance, WHYYYYY are they making it WORSE??

[windies 11]

again though, not to sound like a broken record

but even if they cant improve performance, WHYYYYY are they making it WORSE??

Because they keep adding to it and adding to it. If they stop then they piss off all the people who don't care if the game runs like a potato.

95% of the problem is simply that the game is heavily scripted and most of it's functionality is written to be modified by script and also limited by that. The fact that it's so monolithic in nature is because of how heavily scripted it is.

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

again though, not to sound like a broken record

but even if they cant improve performance, WHYYYYY are they making it WORSE??

60 FPS on Stratis with 20-40 AI, what is the problem?

[phronk 895]

I haven't tried connecting to an End Game server, but if the server allows players to join with their mods enabled, that's the issue. Mods being run that aren't on the server, regardless if you're using what those addons add, will cause the server to get spammed with RPT errors and slow down gradually over time.

[fabio_chavez 103]

i consulted a carribean witchdoctor, he explained to me that the problem are the chicken, they are evil and cause bad fps in multiplayer.

[bad benson 1733]

60 FPS on Stratis with 20-40 AI, what is the problem?

how about any other actual scenario the game is played in? i like how you carefully picked your conditions there. Stratis and a low number of AI. i see what you did there ;)

if you waste effort avoiding most situations in this game you can totally enjoy it, agreed. but let's not act like there is no problem, shall we. if there wasn't you would've said "60 FPS...period". so you seem to actually know what people are talking about :p

a general advice i'd have pretty much in line with the above though.

don't play the game on Altis. just don't. unless you like your aim disrupted in any area that is more densly populated with objects. ported arma 2 maps seem to run way better. try to play on those.

generally don't except arma to run even close to stable FPS. the game is simply not capable of it. sad but true.

try to play missions that have next to nothing happening scriptwise in the background. this is different than arma 2. it's a no go and pretty much the reason why missions that were standard public server material back then are now really bad. the official reason on this is: people who could in arma 2 can't script anymore...believe what you like.

pick arma 3 PvP very wisely, if you really want to experience it. it needs careful picking of a location (even object density) and super careful scripting, if you want to experience anything close to other games, as in not having your aim disrupted constantly because the game has to load something.

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

how about any other actual scenario the game is played in? i like how you carefully picked your conditions there. Stratis and a low number of AI. i see what you did there ;)

if you waste effort avoiding most situations in this game you can totally enjoy it, agreed. but let's not act like there is no problem, shall we. if there wasn't you would've said "60 FPS...period". so you seem to actually know what people are talking about :p

I know, i was just being flippant.

But you do concede that the game itself is not poorly optimized, because under the right conditions it plays at an acceptable 60 FPS.

We have narrowed down in this discussion that 2 primary causes of FPS drop:

1. Island size.

2. AI.

So the engine/game itself does not require more optimization, but just the AI, since we cannot really do much about the island optimization. Scenarios with few AI rarely garner complaints about low FPS.

[chortles 263]

How ironic then that some of the devs behind End Game (the ones that picked the location) chose to set the only official (and thus nominally easiest to get into) iteration on Altis and not on Stratis... I mean c'mon, Agia Marina of "early alpha CQB throwdown fame" was right there!

[bad benson 1733]

I know, i was just being flippant.

But you do concede that the game itself is not poorly optimized, because under the right conditions it plays at an acceptable 60 FPS.

We have narrowed down in this discussion that 2 primary causes of FPS drop:

1. Island size.

2. AI.

So the engine/game itself does not require more optimization, but just the AI, since we cannot really do much about the island optimization. Scenarios with few AI rarely garner complaints about low FPS.

i think you are oversimplifying. the "right" conditions could also be a CS:GO sized map. that's besides the point. this is arma. large scale combined arms and stuff, remember?

optimization can also be done on assets and the way islands are set up. i doubt that just the size is the main factor. it's more about the assets used and the way they are distributed. it's a choice the devs made. and it was a poor one at that when it comes to Altis (imho). and even then it's not that simple.

chernarus is large and considerably densily populated in some areas. and tbh i haven't tested those areas (Cherno and Elektro) in arma 3 because avoiding them is deeply conditioned into my soul from playing arma 2 (a lot) and dayZ (enough).

i really don't want to come across as trying to be only negative but looking at many other technical aspects of the game (the architecture modders can access and its flaws) i find it hard to believe that there is no room to optimize the engine itself too when there's often already room for improvement on the config level or the way configs are structured. and besides. it's a pretty bold statement by you to just rule that out 100%.

of course i'm mostly speculating about technical details too when it comes to "under the hood"-stuff but seeing how the engine is lacking in so many places when you look at it closer (anim system, weapon system and how they are tied for example) i find it pretty easy to believe that it also has a lot of problems "under the hood". who knows. maybe it's the sum of many small things that in the end forms a big pile.

from what i've experienced first hand, heard and read over the years since ofp i think the real problem is that it's a very old engine and that it has hardly progressed at the core for a sadly very trivial reason (or not so trivial depending on perspective ;)): the simple fear of changing a running system. i'm just guessing here but it sometimes seems to me that under hood it's like a very old house of cards which no one has the guts to really touch. on a level i totally get it. on another it makes me very sad.

sorry for the long post. just trying to squeeze all my thoughts in there late at night ;)

[icehollowpoint 10]

I know, i was just being flippant.

But you do concede that the game itself is not poorly optimized, because under the right conditions it plays at an acceptable 60 FPS.

We have narrowed down in this discussion that 2 primary causes of FPS drop:

1. Island size.

2. AI.

So the engine/game itself does not require more optimization, but just the AI, since we cannot really do much about the island optimization. Scenarios with few AI rarely garner complaints about low FPS.

No, this is hand waving over the fact the last few patches have brought on a precipitous drop in performance - that has NOTHING to do with AI, islands or scenario design.

It absolutely is to do with the optimization, otherwise why would it have gotten WORSE?

Its not like I'm some freak issue either, mods such as breaking point have opined that they had to drop their player counts on all servers because of the drop in performance. Again, this is not a change in island size, AI count or scenario design, or the fabled "poorly optimized mod" when the only thing that has changed, is the bloody patches.

[ascendence3 15]

hey guys,

for years i have wondered what exactly makes ARMA run so awful

and we have never gotten an answer, i mean this problem has been occurring since the launch of ARMA2 maybe even before that. (i havent played arma1)

so what exactly makes the whole bad performance and desync happening, why cant a dev just tell us what is causing this whole issue

[windies 11]

@ Bad Benson

I think you're pretty much correct about it being like a house of cards no one wants to touch. I also think the engine was built to have so much functionality within scripting that it's also limited by this. From my understanding SQL is very serial. Also I think there are a lot of engine design choices for the sake of scripting that compound the performance issue's. Rendering being synchronous to simulation, inefficient data streaming instead of effective memory management which honestly is a pretty

hackish" way to do it and I don't mean data streaming in general simply the way BI did it to overcome 32 bit limitations that they experienced back in ArmA not even ArmA 2. I think because the AI is so tied to scripting in it's execution that being able to effectively parallelize it without honestly another scripting language or serious work to SQL is practically impossible. It's just A LOT of things that compound the issue and it's frankly because they've let it reach this point while probably using the excuse "Some things are too hard" even to themselves.

It's not that I don't get it, it's just that I sometimes honestly wonder if BI would be happy reaching a point where their engine basically won't run anymore because they basically keep adding and adding and adding without ever fixing or maintaining anything. If anything hardware is just going to keep getting more and more parallel in it's operation as far as logic units are concerned.

[brightcandle 114]

hey guys,

for years i have wondered what exactly makes ARMA run so awful

and we have never gotten an answer, i mean this problem has been occurring since the launch of ARMA2 maybe even before that. (i havent played arma1)

so what exactly makes the whole bad performance and desync happening, why cant a dev just tell us what is causing this whole issue

I have answered it as well as can be answered from outside the dev team: http://www.reddit.com/r/arma/comments/303xr4/understanding_arma_3_performance_problems/

[fabio_chavez 103]

I have answered it as well as can be answered from outside the dev team: http://www.reddit.com/r/arma/comments/303xr4/understanding_arma_3_performance_problems/

the devs even pretty much confirmed your descriptions 1:1

[teilx 4]

After Warfare the next MP Mode that was killed by the Engine and Dev's itself.......xD

[brightcandle 114]

the devs even pretty much confirmed your descriptions 1:1

They did? Where did they say that? I see a lot of talk about the server binary performance improvements but not client performance.

[chortles 263]

After Warfare the next MP Mode that was killed by the Engine and Dev's itself.......xD

No idea what you're talking about here, although I vaguely remember a dev stating that there wouldn't be an official Warfare mode because they flat-out didn't like Warfare.

[teilx 4]

a dev stating that there wouldn't be an official Warfare mode because they flat-out didn't like Warfare.

who cares....they failed with the two gamemodes