Arma 3 Benchmark Proposal for BI (Please add your voice)

Considering the performance and consistency issues we are seeing in the game and the long running debate between BI and gamers over where the issues lie, I suggest the following proposal:

BI should host a small number of 100+ player server in various locations across the gaming world (US Europe, Asia), running an optimized, multiplayer mission (with AI) to illustrate the stability and performance of the game.

Its that simple. No debate on CPU or GPU usage. Just servers hosting 100+ players with good quality, consistent performance.

Yes its a challenge and a risk for BI. If they truly believe the game is meets the standards they outlined in the games description then please show us. I would love to play it. That's why I bought the game.

I would ask that the forum admins stickie this post and that you the forum users support it with by adding your voice to this thread.

Peace out...

Good idea!

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?151794-ArmA3Mark-Benchmark-your-ArmA-3/page13

to make this benchmark sticky would be a nice first step.

This would be a grand idea, the only downside i would see if the different hardware players have on their PC's, effecting individual performance

i would love such a server without AI

BI definitely needs to step forward and do this or admit they made a mistake assuming their engine was capable of large player capacity. Honestly, I did not buy Arma 3 for COOP. I bought it for large scale warfare with large amounts of players AS CLAIMED. So show us this large player capacity you claim, or remove this claimed feature from the game and quit advertising it as such. As it stands, this is purely a COOP military simulator much how Arma 2 was at the beginning, but that was okay because it did not claim to be anything more. Do not release a COOP game and claim it is also a large cap warfare simulator as well. It is false advertisement and straight up LYING.

This would be a grand idea, the only downside i would see if the different hardware players have on their PC's, effecting individual performance

That's not really an issue.

No one will complain, if the game is performing the same way on comparable hardware and no one will complain either, if you get an acceptable performance with a system for ~750-1000 bucks, because then it should still perform acceptable on a much more expensive system.

The problem seems to be, that player's and dev's have a complete different view on, what is an acceptable performance.

I fully support the idea behind this proposal.

:ok:

I agree theres 6 work mates itching to play this on mp, its 90 percent unplayable and before anyone starts yeah were all on good rigs shame really.

I think this is a great idea and it surprises me that BI don't have official server's for their gamer's/fan's(?).. one or two surely would not hurt and it could help everybody long term as well... simple idea's are always the best this get's my thumb's up. Could we not add a poll to the thread?

sign me up

Agree.

i would love such a server without AI

There would be no point then. Anyone can run large TvT maps. As this is a performance challenge / proposition, there would have to be Ai =)

I'd love to add a poll but didnt see that option. Maybe a moderator can help us out?

Spread the word guys. Post it on your community forums, steam etc. I know its got little chance of drawing BI's attention but who knows....maybe they will see the benefit in it as well if they are really into putting out a quality product for us to play.

bis hosting severs? LOL! This has been discussed in the past: NOT gonna happen, not as a benchmark tool, and certainly not as a common thing

we need 2 benchmark, i suppose everyone know why ?

this one, maybe a little bit closer from real action

And a new one , with narrow fov, to contemplate vegetation , empty of anything else ... and some traveling too of course.

bis hosting severs? LOL! This has been discussed in the past: NOT gonna happen, not as a benchmark tool, and certainly not as a common thing

No wonder they dont know the issues with the game and how poorly it performs. No real world testing. Thats why this course of action was suggested...

Thanks for your support.

No wonder they dont know the issues with the game and how poorly it performs. No real world testing. Thats why this course of action was suggested...

Thanks for your support.

As always with new people on these forums, you take real answers that doesn't fit with your view on things very personal, which is not the case. Even in testing phases, for a game released with an editor and very few single player scenarios, you can bet BI knew this would be MP focused. That said, in order to see the limitation in MP (letting aside the possible poor scripts and issues), all they had to do is start a dedicated server on LAN and get 4-12 ppl on. It is not black magic, nor does it require BIS to host servers all over the globe, don't you agree?

all they had to do is start a dedicated server on LAN and get 4-12 ppl on. It is not black magic, nor does it require BIS to host servers all over the globe, don't you agree?

Nope. They clearly didn't do it during alpha or beta...or maybe they did and just decided to release it anyways. *shrug*

Its been a known issue back to Arma 2 (or maybe even earlier). There has been a lot of finger pointing at server setup, mission design, scripting, individual computer performance and yes game code optimization. 4-12 people isnt going to illustrate the full nature of the problem because its probably a combination of all of those things I just listed. BI playing on LAN at their studio isn't going to show them all of what we see, every day, on the pub servers.

So I suggested a server size that reflects what BI says is possible (And thats the game we were sold and want to play). Hosting servers across several large areas accounts for player distance to server, variations in player setups, and the optimized mission of their choice covers the aspect of properly coding a mission. I dont care if its even something as mindless as TDM with a few AI running around.

I'm not asking them to host servers for us to game on for the rest of our days. I'm asking them to let us help them fix it. If they were serious about addressing the problem they wouldn't need more than 2-3 months of feedback/play.

As to taking it personally...rubbish. You read to much into my posts. LOL

I just want to play the game BI promised....and I want to to see BI succeed....so they bring even better games out in the near future.

I would love to be able to do 2 benchmarks, side by side on the same PC, with different graphical settings in each one. I know it wouldn't be as legit as a single benchmark, but still, it would be interesting to have 2 monitors with FPS meters up, one on low, other on ultra, and just see the difference. Maybe even from 2 install locations as well.

I would like to see how this idea folds out. So sign me up!