Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bravo409

Why more content how about fixing major issues first

Recommended Posts

Bohemia has done what they can for the game at this point, we aren't going to see any improvements. Unlike its predecessor this really is a sub 30 player game if you want playable framerates. Playable in BI's own words is 30 fps, that is their target. You can absolutely sustain 30 fps with decent hardware and below 30 players and about 60 AI and not too many scripts running. Arma 2 however we regularly had 60-90 player games with a lot of AI, so its disappointing to see the sequel perform so much worse, but BI continued to rely on the CPU core getting faster which it really hasn't done.

 

They are niche developer, they certainly aren't AAA and performance is clearly a tertiary consideration for them. Its been the number 1 request feature/bug fix since the very first alpha of the game and it'll be the number 1 problem when its obsoleted by Arma 4. The fix for the performance problems of Arma 2 was actually promised for Arma 3 but none of it materialised. I don't know if they will learn and do it differently for Arma 4 considering just how many sales Arma 3 has had. It seems no one cares enough that the performance is awful, its not hurting the growth of their sales for the series anyway.

 

Like everything else the feedback goes in the same skip out back marked "community requests".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been following the series since Operation Flashpoint, a lot has been done since that time but the last update left anyone who uses the AMD processors at hand, the optimization seems to have had the opposite effect slowing the game startup I neither claim FPS, game with 15 Or 20 I could never have more than 30 the only problem I report is that optimize for Intel and leave AMD aside.

 

I'm sorry for the bad english I'm from Brazil and here the native language is the Portuguese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been following the series since Operation Flashpoint, a lot has been done since that time but the last update left anyone who uses the AMD processors at hand, the optimization seems to have had the opposite effect slowing the game startup I neither claim FPS, game with 15 Or 20 I could never have more than 30 the only problem I report is that optimize for Intel and leave AMD aside.

 

I'm sorry for the bad english I'm from Brazil and here the native language is the Portuguese.

Sorry but you have to realise that BI have done nothing to optimise A3 for Intel. The simple fact is that AMD CPU have lower IPC (Instructions Per Cycle) than Intel counterparts. Essentially they're less efficient, e.g. a Intel quad-core @ 3.5 MHz delivers 10% more than an AMD octo-core running at 4 GHz: http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html

And that's not even mentioning that AMD's CPUs run 50-100% hotter than their Intel rivals (TDP of 125-220 W vs. 84-95 W).

Basically AMD bet on a strategy that failed (lower IPC but higher cores). I really hope that they correct this with their next generation of CPUs (Zen) because competition is good (I don't want Intel to rule the roost or else they'll continue gouging us).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One other point about fixing the game before adding content. Arma's framerate has improved dramatically in the last 18 months-optimizations are happening all the time. The game cannot simply be moved to another engine as many people seem to want-that is impossible. But it is by no means a stretch to maintain solid 60fps on a mid-high end PC, which makes sense as Arma has a huge amount of complex systems running while being played.

 

Generally the complaints I see are people who play a lot of wasteland and king of the hill etc on public severs overloaded with players.

And that is a good thing for any company, to see where people want to go.

Over the last two years, i bet 15 in 20 of the arma players got arma because of those wasteland, epoch, exile, mods. So we have to consider that maybe those mods are a sign of things to come?

 

Sandbox, are the new gen of players. Nobody plays just arma for arma anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Nobody plays just arma for arma anymore.

I do. I play Arma single player only for exactly what it is-a military sim. I dont play any of that life,wasteland,exile stuff, and I just hit 3000hours in game

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do. I play Arma single player only for exactly what it is-a military sim. I dont play any of that life,wasteland,exile stuff, and I just hit 3000hours in game

No offence but I think that you're more of an exception that the rule.

Maybe you and I are dinosaurs?

Seriously, it'd be great to read some metrics on this.

I sure hope BI is practicing data-driven strategy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dug this back up for a few months back, someone did a whole bunch of 'how do you play A3' surveys. 

Here's some player type related results-

 

What do you do in Arma 3?

http://i.imgur.com/eximDV7.png

 

Have you ever used a game changing mod?

http://i.imgur.com/K014Rn8.png

 

How long have you played the series?

http://i.imgur.com/cQxxweQ.png

 

Do you own DLC?

http://i.imgur.com/VFfppV2.png

 

Favourite role?

http://i.imgur.com/gh69x35.png

 

(Originally in German, apparently Sonstige means 'Other' )

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the last two years, i bet 15 in 20 of the arma players got arma because of those wasteland, epoch, exile, mods. So we have to consider that maybe those mods are a sign of things to come?

 

Hopefully not ;)

 

/KC

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offence but I think that you're more of an exception that the rule.

Maybe you and I are dinosaurs?

Seriously, it'd be great to read some metrics on this.

I sure hope BI is practicing data-driven strategy.

Nah, there's plenty of blokes here, especially the main addon makers who play it as it was advertised, a good old milsim, survival shit and zombies ain't my cup of tea, despite the pretty awesome maps, I'd still be inclined to think the players are more evenly split, 50/50.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But can you name any other game that offers maps of 20x20km or even 40x40km?

And with support for up to 100 players?

And with massive support for mods?

And that strives for such realism?

 

That is fair, but why does Project Argo run bad and have netcode issues then when its just 5vs5 on a half sized Arma map?

 

In that context why does BF2 or BF3 etc run great with more stuff and players than Project Argo. Why does Planetside 2 run better despite having 1000 of players on the same server. Some times you hear the "every bullet and artillery shell is calculated" argument, but in that case Planetside 1 actually did have long range artillery that could be firing none stop for hours. Probably more simplistic ballistics, but still the amount of data would still be larger than most Arma games or severs. Server structure, client side hit detection some might say, but maybe Bi needs to think about such in regards to their game as well. Because I just dont buy this notion that it is "practically impossible" to improve the performance in Arma because it has some Tomahawk missile or artillery being fired from the other side of the map...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is fair, but why does Project Argo run bad and have netcode issues then when its just 5vs5 on a half sized Arma map?

 

In that context why does BF2 or BF3 etc run great with more stuff and players than Project Argo. Why does Planetside 2 run better despite having 1000 of players on the same server. Some times you hear the "every bullet and artillery shell is calculated" argument, but in that case Planetside 1 actually did have long range artillery that could be firing none stop for hours. Probably more simplistic ballistics, but still the amount of data would still be larger than most Arma games or severs. Server structure, client side hit detection some might say, but maybe Bi needs to think about such in regards to their game as well. Because I just dont buy this notion that it is "practically impossible" to improve the performance in Arma because it has some Tomahawk missile or artillery being fired from the other side of the map...

 

tube.com/watch?v=XvaWvlVxEvQ

you do realize that Project Argo is simply a test bed for the mission design and not for the engine that is going to be used for the final product...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you do realize that Project Argo is simply a test bed for the mission design and not for the engine that is going to be used for the final product...

 

Yes and that has NOTHING to do with the point I was making. The placeholders in PA are practically Arma3, but in a very small format and still it has both performance and network issues... You have to see my comment in context of what I am replying to because I am not really talking about PA here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and that has NOTHING to do with the point I was making. The placeholders in PA are practically Arma3, but in a very small format and still it has both performance and network issues... You have to see my comment in context of what I am replying to because I am not really talking about PA here.

what IS the point you're making then, as you're comparing apples to Oranges. 2 different games, 2 different concepts, 2 different everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

comparing apples to Oranges.

 

Nice obfuscation attempt. If you dont get my point, which is rather simple, that is on you and that is fine, but I dont get the impression you are really asking. Enjoy a picture of what you would most likely call, apples and oranges.

apples.jpg

I still think Bi needs to think in new ways in order to get their tech running better... Just like I thought Arma 3 would be better served on the Steam platform because of community sync in context to updates than how Arma 2 was released. Which also wasnt that popular to say back then...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it obfuscation when you're comparing 2 different games to A3? You were even wrong when you compared Project Argo to Arma3 and PuFu corrected you on that point too. You're the one who started to compare games like BF2 and BF2  to Arma3, then started posting stuff about Planetside..

 

 

You have to see my comment in context of what I am replying to because I am not really talking about PA here.

Really ??? 

 

 

That is fair, but why does Project Argo run bad and have netcode issues then when its just 5vs5 on a half sized Arma map?

Seems you're opening sentence contradicts your response JoJo ;) and you said I was obfuscating ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×