Arma 3. Have they improved how it runs yet?
- Thread starter MatTheCat
- Start date
You didn't even watch the entire video if you think his sole argument is that it's an open world sandbox. His opening point is that at what point is your own fault for making the game run bad? You should really read up on how ARMA has a lot more physics calculations and AI processing (if you have AI) compared to just any other game. It's surprising how much it has, to the point you think it's too much but they're going for simulation. That's what it is!
But again, I'm not going to say it's perfect either - of course it has issues.
You can't do the scale of cooperative missions you could in A2 in A3, no matter how good the server, mission or offloading AI to headless client is at the moment.
But to say it runs like crap? I'd argue it depends how you're trying to play, what settings?, what mods? how many people? Is this mission realistic in it's approach to performance?
As he said, a community weapon pack with 100(or was it 120?) people screen dropped the fps to 12-13, with the stock weapons it rose to 45-50fps. It's NOT the game's fault, it's the fault of the person who made the weapons so detailed, or the user trying to use that mod at such a large quantity of players.
I have played arma pretty much every week since 2009, (1/2/3) and through all the PC's I have had since then I'll say that 3 is pushing higher than tech will allow than A2 did for it's time.
That's not to say I don't get 50-70 fps in 80+ player pvp matches. ([email protected]/970/16GB mem/SSD/1440p) I even record gameplay which drops my fps by a good 10 and it's still decent.
It also depends on terrain and yeah, the official arma one's have always been quite intensive andf the community ones run much lighter.
I don't think you should ignore him when he makes a valid point about realistic goals, he even mentions where the game falls over.
Can other games like BF4 handle 120 players in pvp? Let's not ignore it doesn't have AI with those amounts of players.
Single player i get 60+ fps but soon as i go onto multiplayer (usually coop) the fps drops down to 20-30 but its playable as it's not fast action
Not bad, make sure you have vsync off because if it goes under 60 it will halve, unless you use newer vsync technology.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,773
- Location
- La France
Really? He's one of their most scathing critics, despite being on their books as a consultant.
See his video on the Action Menu as a prime example.
You can waste time learning it the bad way, then be equally as much of a "stupid noob" and then have to force yourself to forget it all and RE learn it properly.
Or you can just learn it properly first
Yeah.....but if I don't even know what all the buttons do???
Took ages last night just trying to properly control the choppers (in the VR training)
It does indeed! And I am still only in single player...hrmmmm?
I play a lot of Wasteland and normally find a Su-Matra based server the best for frames. I generally tend to get between 50 and 90 fps (rig in sig) with a forced Arma2 CF profile.
It feels a bit smoother now than it did when launched but you still get lots of glitches when jets fly over and there are sudden large explosions.
I put it down to the "feel" of the game and love it to bits.
It feels a bit smoother now than it did when launched but you still get lots of glitches when jets fly over and there are sudden large explosions.
I put it down to the "feel" of the game and love it to bits.
SP should be worse, your PC is doing all the AI calculations instead of the server.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,773
- Location
- La France
Anyone who compares Battlefield to Arma needs to hand their PC back to the shop & get a new hobby
Harsh, but fair.
Having a single map over 400km2 compared with BF4 where maps are at the absolute largest... 2km2? at a stretch.
And then slap onto that the fact everyone runs with a view distance of at least 3k normally, and some play up to about 10km view distance, with i think 12 being the most you can see....
Then all the objects, AI, players, weapons, vehicles, explosions, animations, wildlife, Then on top of all that you can increase the amounts of that 100 fold with mods. Radio mods, medical systems, graphical enhancements, sound too.
some mods do some extremely complex conversion stuff and that all must be simulated. You've got all the wind and terrain effects too, everyone has stamina and weight calculations.
There is SO much going on in arma. Don't get me wrong, i'd love some serious server side multi threading to be brought forward but it takes time. It also doesn't cost £80 for the full package which is nice and it isnt rendered redundant after 2 years.
ArmA is first and foremost a sim, like DCS, or FSX or IRacing and things like that.
If you set your visuals right, pick your mods carefully, manage your servers and set them up well and your mission makers know the limitations and build good missions. You get the full experience.
With its sudden rise in popularity thanks to DayZ mod, arma2 and then 3 have had a huge influx of rookies. This is wonderful for the most part but it means there is now 10x the server providers who just dont understand ArmA, there are 1000x the mission makers who are only just now beginning to really understand the engine, limitations and scope of what can and cant be done and we've had to put up with a lot of poorly executed servers.
If you've been playing the arma series for a good 5 years or more, you'll realise just how far this game has come!
And then slap onto that the fact everyone runs with a view distance of at least 3k normally, and some play up to about 10km view distance, with i think 12 being the most you can see....
Then all the objects, AI, players, weapons, vehicles, explosions, animations, wildlife, Then on top of all that you can increase the amounts of that 100 fold with mods. Radio mods, medical systems, graphical enhancements, sound too.
some mods do some extremely complex conversion stuff and that all must be simulated. You've got all the wind and terrain effects too, everyone has stamina and weight calculations.
There is SO much going on in arma. Don't get me wrong, i'd love some serious server side multi threading to be brought forward but it takes time. It also doesn't cost £80 for the full package which is nice and it isnt rendered redundant after 2 years.
ArmA is first and foremost a sim, like DCS, or FSX or IRacing and things like that.
If you set your visuals right, pick your mods carefully, manage your servers and set them up well and your mission makers know the limitations and build good missions. You get the full experience.
With its sudden rise in popularity thanks to DayZ mod, arma2 and then 3 have had a huge influx of rookies. This is wonderful for the most part but it means there is now 10x the server providers who just dont understand ArmA, there are 1000x the mission makers who are only just now beginning to really understand the engine, limitations and scope of what can and cant be done and we've had to put up with a lot of poorly executed servers.
If you've been playing the arma series for a good 5 years or more, you'll realise just how far this game has come!
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,345
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
Anyone who compares Battlefield to Arma needs to hand their PC back to the shop & get a new hobby
Base BF but the PR mod for BF made it more sensible anyone who played that might like Arma gameplay. ALso depends on the mission a lot, the server and rules they keep. Ive played some scenarios where we just spawn into Jets in the sky and have a dogfight, whats not to like
Have they altered helicopter handling recently