Request for a "Minimum" requirements update

[Guest]

About perfs, you should maybe try some benchmarks in dev.

If you're curious, of course

[teabagginpeople 398]

To be more precise. The new 1.61 Dev has some performance enhancers. (not the lance Armstrong /bones Jones type).

Might be worth seeing for yourself.

[oldbear 390]

Of course, I had also some runs with Dev 1.61 and last build among the tests I have done.

 

My question is about some changes inside rendering management, with some changes done in RV engine.

No full DX12 in the near future as we know for sure now, but some changes in such direction.

 

Previously, "Overall Visibility" was a 100% CPU parameter and "Terrain" a mixed CPU/GPU parameter

I am wondering if "Visibility" is turning in such kind of mixed parameter.

[pulstar 55]

Well all this needless "overhauling" has convinced me to steer clear of any upcoming DLC, especially more so since BI doesn't bother to optimise for AMD hardware.

[domokun 515]

Well all this needless "overhauling" has convinced me to steer clear of any upcoming DLC, especially more so since BI doesn't bother to optimise for AMD hardware.

Is 40% increase in framerate "needless overhauling"

https://twitter.com/maruksp/status/738098576803299328

Seriously, AMD owners more than anyone are going to appreciate those kinds of optimisations

 

Don't try to blame AMD's tragic choice of architechture (hex and octo-cores but low-IPC) on Arma's ailing engine.

Fact is, AMD dropped the ball long ago (essentially we're still on the same techno as 2011).

 

Don't believe me?

Check out their share price.

Or the fact that they haven't turned a net profit in the last 5 years.

Despite winning massive contracts with most major consoles.

[pulstar 55]

Well it still serves me on all other games, so until another company releases a milsandbox with AI subroutines akin to Arma, we'll never know how much needless overhead we're wasting.

In fairness, fiddling with the view distance seems to have improved things for me, but this hasn't been documented in the update, whereas before I had +3km distance with good framerates.

[oldbear 390]

@ pulstar : since your post I have cautiously skipped the fact that there is no much room in the suggested requirements update for AMD processors.

For these CPU, I have 2 sources of informations :

- Players being disappointed by the not so good level of Arma3 in-game performances with CPUs and rigs sold as of the "Gamer" kind.

- Reviews from various sources showing that since the Phenom II x4 980 there have been no real improvements.

The cause being choices being made by AMD in processors architecture.

 

 

Source :  http://www.hardware.fr/articles/940-15/cpu-jeux-3d-crysis-3-arma-iii.html  [warning : French language used in source ]

 

From my point of view, even if I understand your frustration, you can't ask a game designer to correct the faulty design of a processor.

Years ago it had been the same situation for Intel Pentium 4, the reason why I was glad to play Operation Flashpoint* with an AMD CPU.

 

* the real one, now "ArmA : Cold War Assault"

[oldbear 390]

@ domokun : of course you are right and Maruk can be happy, but the problem is to show these high performances on one of the best combo -i7 6700K + GF970GTX- you can use to play Arma3.

 

My concern is about people trying to play with CPU not really able to provide a minimal good experience in game.

There are too much people boasting about their 5 GHz OC beast and their GTX 980Ti ... or whining their performances were not at the expected level.

Few people as pulstar  are giving a testimony of the problems encountered by people having a rig right in the official "Recommended" requirements and not getting a nice in-game experience.

 

Of course, it's understandable it can be difficult, for a lot of reasons unrelated to the technical aspects, for a game developer/editor to say that most of the AMD CPU can't be ranked as "Recommended".

Some of them, even if they are -on paper- at this level, as the Athlon II X4 750K, being depressingly disappointing.

[pd3 25]

@ pulstar : since your post I have cautiously skipped the fact that there is no much room in the suggested requirements update for AMD processors.

For these CPU, I have 2 sources of informations :

- Players being disappointed by the not so good level of Arma3 in-game performances with CPUs and rigs sold as of the "Gamer" kind.

- Reviews from various sources showing that since the Phenom II x4 980 there have been no real improvements.

The cause being choices being made by AMD in processors architecture.

 

 

 

Source :  http://www.hardware.fr/articles/940-15/cpu-jeux-3d-crysis-3-arma-iii.html  [warning : French language used in source ]

 

From my point of view, even if I understand your frustration, you can't ask a game designer to correct the faulty design of a processor.

Years ago it had been the same situation for Intel Pentium 4, the reason why I was glad to play Operation Flashpoint* with an AMD CPU.

 

* the real one, now "ArmA : Cold War Assault"

I figured this would be an issue and I'm glad as hell I basically saved a 1.58 build for safe keeping.

I'm certainly not going to deny that AMD has issues I'm not going to defend my hardware and cry about how it should work better than it has, but this has really sealed it for me. I'm basically holding on white-knuckled to my 1.58 release and doing whatever it takes to keep it for as long as I feel the need to enjoy A3 as mine is the 980 black ed Phenom II and subject to those very diminishing performance returns.

I will be building a new machine either late in the year or sometime early next year, but I'm simply not taking the kind of performance hit that I assumed I would on this recent update simply because I know damn well my hardware is too old and simply isn't worth upgrading. It's annoying that I'm having to go to such extremes to preserve A3 in an optimal state for this machine, but it appears I now have to do what I have to do. No real complaints, I know this PC is getting older, I just wish it was easier to keep A3 for my own personal use within a performance envelope which I enjoy and am happy with.

I just absolutely will not accept a reduction in performance that I have previously enjoyed (framerate, drawdistance, etc) in exchange for fancier visuals, I like my 3+k draw distance,  as well as a nice balanced ability to have a reasonable number of AI operating at the same time.

I'm assuming if my system were just slightly less dated I would possibly not experience such diminishing performance returns in the face of the 1.61 optimization update, but I'm glad as hell I had the presence of mind to quarantine my 1.58 installation otherwise my performance and capability would have dropped beneath what I was previously enjoying and possibly into "why bother" territory.

 

[oldbear 390]

@ p3d : could you provide some more infos about what seems a proven fact to you :  "... diminishing performance returns in the face of the 1.61 optimization update."... ?

[oldbear 390]

Back to the GPU front :ph34r:

 

... after some test on my  Pyrgos test mission and a short flyover Tanoa

 

On my "Dev" rig, I am using an i7-3770 and an entry end HD 7770 GPU.

This card performances are well above those of the  HD 7750 from the official "Recommended" requirements.

It  seems that since the 1.60 "Visual Update" as on Tanoa 1.61 Dev-Build this GPU is overloaded, always used at a 100% level.

 

So, I am seriously looking for GPU requirements for Arma3 - Apex "Minimum" update.

[I give up 152]

Mate, anything from AMD/ATI that ends on 50 is not good for gaming, at best is good for Microsoft Office.

I am using a 5870 (from 2008) and is quite nice for A3.

Anyway, whatever GPU (or cpu) never had issues except when I was testing the freakin game having 9GB of GPU Vram and yes that's an issue because the game engine cant handle with it in matters on RAM.

A3 is a light game in matters of hardware.

[bullet purveyor 85]

Is your buddy still having issues with his x-58 chipset on win 10?

I was contemplating doing a clean install when I get my 1070, but if there is a lot of performance problems with x58 I might as well stick to win 7.

Anyone else experience issues with this?

[pd3 25]

@ p3d : could you provide some more infos about what seems a proven fact to you :  "... diminishing performance returns in the face of the 1.61 optimization update."... ?

Where specifically have I touted proven facts?

AMD has opted for an awkward architecture that doesn't seem to be easily accommodated, phenom IIs are simply getting older on top of that.

That alone would indicate that there's simply not much left to squeeze out of them performance wise, similarly my graphics adapters are getting older, in spite of serving me quite well for it's original purpose (playing Arma 2). 

I did not perceive how much more performance could be optimized out old older, more awkward hardware with this new update, when faced with people who run AMD systems pointing out that they're seeing definite reductions in overall performance even post-optimization, I think my suspicions were well founded, and that's all I really need right now.

Granted I do not have an exact replica of this machine to compare performance to, and I'm absolutely not going to dick around with moving gigs of data updating and trying out the new update and then moving around gigs more information back if I don't like it and then having to defragment my HD.

Perhaps I am missing out, but the risk of that estimate being wrong is far worse than simply being happy with what I know works for me.

I'm the kind of person who will walk away with what I know I can be happy with than risk anything knowing I might end up with something I'm not.

That being said, I'm fairly confident there's really not much BI could do to transition a system like mine to the new visual update without performance loss, and right now my enjoyment of the Arma 3 is balanced on knife's edge as it is.

 

[oldbear 390]

@ p3d : when I had asked "could you provide some more infos about diminishing performance returns in the face of the 1.61 optimization update" it was a real question.

I am looking for all available information in order to push a bit the "aggionamento" I am asking for.

 

As far as I understand, the last update does not push harder on the CPU part of the hardware but now, I am getting an heavier load on the GPU.

As I have given all my previous "OFP", "Arma", "Arma2" and hosting no more AMD based rig in my living room, I will be happy to get some help.

 

In order to test some Dev build and Release candidate, I am using extra swap HDs and or BI Tools.

[pd3 25]

@ p3d : when I had asked "could you provide some more infos about diminishing performance returns in the face of the 1.61 optimization update" it was a real question.

I am looking for all available information in order to push a bit the "aggionamento" I am asking for.

 

As far as I understand, the last update does not push harder on the CPU part of the hardware but now, I am getting an heavier load on the GPU.

As I have given all my previous "OFP", "Arma", "Arma2" and hosting no more AMD based rig in my living room, I will be happy to get some help.

 

In order to test some Dev build and Release candidate, I am using extra swap HDs and or BI Tools.

Oh well then.

That would also explain my issues as well, my crossfired 6970s have done their job well enough during their heyday, but I can see how that simply wouldn't carry the additional "weight" imposed upon them, they're older cards.

I'm simply going to stick with what I know my system (and myself) can tolerate in terms of performance.

Back in the good old days if you didn't like a certain update, so long as you had them archived you could just reinstall and update to whichever version you preferred, the risk is far too great now for personal experimentation.

[oldbear 390]

@ bullet purveyor : no more X-58 / Windows 10 issues for my Team Leader for he has done a 'rage switch' to Skylake and an i7-6700K

From the past ...

Source : http://www.hardware.fr/articles/778-1/comparatif-geant-185-processeurs-intel-amd.html

From my point of view, in order to play Arma3, a GTX 1070 is not n°1 priority.
Getting an up to date efficient CPU is a better choice.
On a budget, an i5-6400 or an i3-6320 on a B150 MoBo will do the job.

[oldbear 390]

Ouch ! :blink:

 

After having received a  PM, I have done some tests on my "bench rig" ie Pentium G4500/GTX 750 Ti.

Even if GPU usage had switch to in the 90/100% range on my test mission and benchmarks, I seen no FPS loss on Altis or Stratis from 1.58 to 1.63.

It even seems more fluid ...

Switching to Tanoa, my 1st tests -flying a chopper- are showing a 100% load and 10/20 FPS loss.

 

I have done various tests with GTX 770 and HD 6870 on 1.63 dev-build.

My feelings are that, even if Arma3 is still heavily CPU dependent, now it has became also more GPU demanding.

Last year, I had good performances level with a HD 7770, it's no more the case.

 

In my opinion, in order to play Arma3 not only an efficient CPU [a recent Intel i3/i5 recommended] is needed but also more than an entry level gaming card seems advised.

I am still looking for the right level.

 

Note : I have been unable to switch fast from Dev to Stable using "Game Updater", it seems it's not allowed with Tanoa.

[Gwynbleidd 28]

Unfortunately, it definitely did become more GPU demanding. I did some tests 1.60 vs 1.58 legacy on my 6950, and I have lost around 10fps with the newest update.

 

For example, in vehicles showcase just starting a mission and standing at the beginning I had 62fps (1.58). On 1.60, doing the same I get 53fps. Moving around and quickly turning around in that same area, I get drops down to 43fps (1.60) vs 53fps I get on 1.58 - which is really noticeable. Tried multiple missions / places, and there definitely is a 10fps drop on my gpu.

 

Most people that complained about the fps loss had 6950, one of them had 270x. I'm really wondering about your 6870 now, did you see any noticeable loss on Altis or Stratis? 


 

[oldbear 390]

As far as I know there are 2 main causes to FPS drop playing Arma3 with "Visual Update" since 1.60 and on Tanoa with 1.63 dev-build  using an old GPU

 

- Arma3 is still heavily CPU dependent and that the reason why last year on August 4,2015  on SITREP #00117 speaking about last developer diary, Joris-Jan van't Land has said :

Our stance on building interiors has changed from the main game's terrains. In the broadest terms, fewer buildings will be fully enterable. You'll find more buildings that are partly enterable, and also some that cannot be entered at all. Kavala's hospital is an example of being partly accessible. There are various reasons for this approach. We all know that Altis had a great many enterable buildings, but they were void of furniture and felt suspiciously empty. We don't have the resources to solve this by producing top-notch varied interiors for all buildings. There is also performance to consider, which is helped by having more solid structures. This topic may be controversial, but we felt it better to be open about this at an early stage. We're still producing the final structures and experimenting with the balance, but it's quite clear not every building will have a full interior.

 

Walkable buildings and/or tropical dense vegetation are pulling hard on the CPU

 

- Arma3 1.60 "Visual update" is adding heavy load on both CPU and GPU during the rendering process.

This is hinted when you switch from a look toward inland to a look toward the sea

In the "old times", you can get a big jump in your FPS, it's no more the case, you will gain a maximum of 10 FPS.

It means, that unless DI dev have now populate underwater depths with a lot of submersed cities, one of the culprit is the sexy "new water shader and reflections tech".

 

I think also that playing with an "old" GPU is not helping.

It seems that AMD is no longer supporting HD 6000 GPU so you can get only "Legacy" or old Beta and that's probably also one of the cause of the issues.

Having done some "donations", I have no more old playable Nvidia GPUs in my living room, only a HD 6870 and a HD 7770.

So I cant tell for the Nvidia counter part.

[oldbear 390]

Today, I will bring in what is looking as a new "piece of evidence"

 

Having done some tests in my "Minimum" hardware requirement researches, I was a bit impressed by GPU utilization high level on my "Test" rig.

I was wondering if using a dual core CPU was adding something, so I have done some more tests using my "Dev" rig.

This PC is in fact based upon my previous gaming PC using an i7-3770 and, for more than one year now, a HD 7770.

 

Until now -before 1.60 release- the small HD 7770 was performing well without much impact on the FPS level and a variable usage rating between 60 and 90%.

 

With Dev-build 1.63 I had experienced what seems an unusually low use of CPU # 0 at 20/30% and CPU # 2 was higher at 30/40% with a significant drop under the 30 FPS level.

 

 

In order to elaborate on the subject, I had replaced the HD 7770 by a GTX 770 and then the situation has returned more or less similar to what it was before with a CPU usage # 0 to 60/80% and a FPS level around 50.

 

 

It seems that there is now a CPU bottleneck related to the graphics card performances playing Arma3 with "Visual Upgrade" and splendid “light management effects" on and in the water.

Usage of a high level graphics card seems to have a higher impact on performance than it has before and even a mid-range processor performances seems constrained by an entry level GPU.

[oldbear 390]

From Joris-Jan van 't Land about Visual Update on  SITREP #00139

 

In our video update we also mention that the Visual Update, previously planned for Eden Update, has now slipped to Apex.
Only the parallax ground surfaces will go out with 1.56, but the rest of the changes still need more work to leave a good first impression.
What makes up the rest of this package?
There is the overhauled lighting configuration itself, for all terrains, times of day and weather (contrast, saturation, etc.).
Then there is multi-component fog simulation, a better shore shader and the optional Screen Space Reflections (these can be too demanding for some systems).
It's possible you'll see them appear on Dev-Branch ahead of Apex itself, but the components are mostly dependent on each other, so we need to coordinate this carefully.
All of these changes are unrelated to our investigation into DirectX 12 by the way.
This has not yet yielded useful results, so we don't have any concrete news on that front.

... and on SITREP #00151

Now for some 'real talk', on the topic of performance.
This naturally comes up whenever graphical fidelity is discussed, so we'll explain again how we feel this upgrade can affect overall performance.
The lighting changes themselves should not have an impact.
Then there are a few changed technologies that are not optional and in our tests can have a small effect, namely the new shore shader, multi-component fog and previously released parallax map improvements.
Finally, the Screen Space Reflections used on water are actually expensive, but they are optional.

 

The most expensive options such as Antialiasing FSAA and Water Reflections can be switched off, but on the present "Minimum" rig based upon "Intel Dual-Core 2.4 GHz or AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz" they must be set off in order to let the game "run" at a low FPS level.

There is not much room for tweaking with the initial  "NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT and ATI Radeon HD 3830" required GPUs.

Adding "Nvidia GeForce GTX 560/AMD Radeon HD 7750" in requirements last version is from my point of view a step in the right way.

Let's wait some movement on the CPU front.

[oldbear 390]

Testing the Preview is a challenge in itself because of the "volatile situation".

With last Preview update [4Go DL last 'afternoon'] it seems that the CPU cost of the "new water shader and reflections tech" has been lowered to a more acceptable level.

 

Water Reflexions Off

 

Water Reflexion [High] On

 

 

 

Helo runs on Editor using i7-3770/HD 7770  "Dev rig" and 1680x1050 monitor.

As on previous screens Overall Visibility = 3500m

 

[Brisse 78]

It's a good thing someone decided to make a thread like this. In my opinion, the current minimum and recommended specs for the Windows build are fraud. Yes, you can start the game on a PC like that but it will not run well enough to be enjoyable, or even playable.

 

I've been playing the game since alpha and put more than 1300h (no idea how I put up with the games issues during all those hours, but it's been frustrating) into it. This is what I have to say so far about the experience on my PC which is an FX-8350, R9 290X, 16GB DDR3 and SSD storage for both the game and OS:

Altis and Stratis is playable as long as you stay away from Kavala, complex scenarios, and multiplayer. Are those acceptable conditions for a PC which surpasses the recommended specs by a large margin? NO!

Tanoa release candidate is not playable in any way currently.

 

I use modest settings, and I am especially restrictive with the view distance and object distance which I usually set to 2000m and 800m which makes the game playable but unpleasant to look at, with objects (including soldiers and vehicles) popping in well within engagement distance which hurts game-play badly. Are those acceptable terms for a PC which surpasses the recommended specs by a large margin? NO!

 

I define enjoyable as 60+ fps without stuttering.

Playable is 50+ fps with only occasional stuttering.

When I say unplayable above, the game constantly drops below 30 and stutters badly with not only low, but also very irregular frame-rate. Is that acceptable for a PC which surpasses the recommended specs by a large margin? NO!

 

The FX-8350 is one of the fastest AMD chips currently offered to consumers, yet I cannot enjoy the game properly with it. Is that a CPU issue? NO! It's a game optimization issue.

Look. Beats out the i7-4790K in multi threaded performance! The FX-8350 is no slouch! It plays any game perfectly fine except Arma3.

 

The recommended system specs for CPU should be something like:

Intel: i7-2600 or better

AMD: NOT COMPATIBLE

[oldbear 390]

In fact you are not getting the point

 

1° As I have said previously to an AMD CPU owner :

 

... I have cautiously skipped the fact that there is no much room in the suggested requirements update for AMD processors.

For these CPU, I have 2 sources of informations :

- Players being disappointed by the not so good level of Arma3 in-game performances with CPUs and rigs sold as of the "Gamer" kind.

- Reviews from various sources showing that since the Phenom II x4 980 there have been no real improvements.

The cause being choices being made by AMD in processors architecture.

...

From my point of view, even if I understand your frustration, you can't ask a game designer to correct the faulty design of a processor.

Years ago it had been the same situation for Intel Pentium 4, the reason why I was glad to play Operation Flashpoint* with an AMD CPU.

 

Here is a display of average benchmarks results of 8 games : Crysis 3, Arma3, X-Plane 10, F1 2013, Watch Dogs, Total War : Rome 2, Company of Heroes, Anno 2070 :

 

 

Arma3 is not the only game suffering from the fact that AMD has taken a wrong path ...

You are not the only player lured to AMD based "Gamer" rigs by marketing sirens' song.

 

2° You are saying "... I define enjoyable as 60+ fps without stuttering. Playable is 50+ fps with only occasional stuttering."

 

It's your feeling and opinion, I respect it.

Mine is quite different, I am an old experienced Arma* Player and a veteran video gamer, having started with Pong some time ago.

Some game must be played at a high level of FPS, it's not Arma* case.

Arma* is a "slow" game, infantry based with a tactical orientation mostly fought in short range firing exchange or CQB fight.

From my point of view, Arma* is unplayable under 20 FPS.

I know, I have tested Arma3 with a Core2Duo E6600/HD 4870 and an Athlon II x2 250/GTS 450 in the 15/25 FPS range.

Over 30 FPS, the game is quite playable.

Playing-testing with my "Bench" rig Pentium G4500/GTX 750Ti I am getting 40 FPS on Helo's Arma3Mark and 28 FPS on Greenfist's YAAB.

In game, I am getting 25/45 FPS on "Very High" and 3500 m Overall Visibility

 

 

* the real one, now "ArmA : Cold War Assault"