Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Multiply this by a factor of over 9000 if you have an AMD processor.
If Arma was coded in a superior C++ engine, we could be seeing the 100 FPS baseline being a 2500k and not a 6950X.
If anyone wants better FPS, try the profiling build Dwarden posted.
CautionSpecialProfilingAndTestingBranchArma3
Input the above code into your betas tab and give it a go, my FPS went from 80 to 120 with it.
Seems like this guy read my guide on "how to raid the 'hood" for his PC.
If the scripts are taking the performance down, you're using them wrong or trying to make engine do something it's not built to do natively. This is what that external scripting, Intercept, was made for - to run incredibly intensive scripts no one would even dare to try doing with SQF. Replacing the SQF in some existing mission already running with somewhat playable fps with C code wouldn't improve performance noticeably. The Intercept was more like meant to expand the scripting to more massive and complex solutions we haven't even seen before.
For example, you could replicate the KOTH's horrendous fps by simply placing 50 players fighting in a small area. And you wouldn't have to add a single line of SQF.
KOTH devs even tried something like it some time ago. They moved all the scripts from the client to the server, and fps didn't change at all.
You probably heard about how SQF is performing poorly from the Dayz developers or its community. But that only applies for what Dayz is trying to do, which is making completely new functionalities for their game. Simply making and compiling more and more specific SQF commands for their purposes was inefficient, so they created a new scripting layer much closer to the engine so to speak, exposing more of its hard-coded core to scripting. They're essentially making the game with scripts and not so much with the core engine like Arma.
this guy ...frustration is all I feel.
you see this stuff devs?
does this make you laugh or you go "lets make 10 more dlc's and sell, make money from these brain-dead idiots!" I bet the latter.
"Intercept bypasses SQF entirely, allowing native C++ plugins to seamlessly interact with the game engine. In essense, Intercept allows for expansions of the game engine, calling internal functionality of the engine which is exposed to SQF via functions."
Therefore, Intercept is in fact C++, and theoretically, coding something in "Intercept" would theoretically outperform an SQF-coded counterpart.
Arma's performance issue is unique, there aren't any other AAA first-person-shooters out there with optimization this rough. A whole load of people have to stay away from urban areas because of the performance penalty, and I'm not talking about KOTH, I'm talking about missions with some AI like BMR Insurgency, Overthrow, and Liberation. Go look at a more modern solution, such as the engine for GTA V. Similar if not greater AI counts, the AI is more intelligent and responsive, and the game can run on an eleven-year-old Playstation 3 at a reasonably stable 30 FPS. Sure, the graphics are far inferior, but graphics aren't the thing holding Arma III back, the coding is.
Loads of people are getting sub-30 frames per second in cities nowhere near the size, detail, and population of Los Santos. Something has to give and developing Argo and DayZ standalone isn't the way. I've said it before elsewhere, Bohemia absolutely needs to cut off the side dishes and spend the time fixing their main course.
If you're dying for FPS, try Dwarden's profiling builds. They perform substantially better and yet the optimizations are never released to the main branch. Input this into your betas tab for Arma III to unlock it: CautionSpecialProfilingAndTestingBranchArma3
If this is supposed to be an open platform, then the players should not need $1,000 dollar CPUs like mine to get playable FPS in a modded forest that has this thing called grass. Taunus is held back, as well as so many other maps. Even Altis is penalized for its size. Go look at Malden, people are complaining about the terrible FPS in the built-up areas. Sahrani and Takistan get excellent framerates, because they are maps the engine is designed to actually handle. Low detail, small textures, strategic placement of structures and foliage. Only placing details where they count is what they did with Takistan and Sahrani, and failed to do with Altis and Malden.
Sahrani is far more dynamic and varied than Altis. It has forests, snowy mountains, a desert, and plains in one map. Altis is just a bland albeit massive island that doesn't need to be as big as it is.
They need to optimize the heck out of the engine, or get a new one. Either way, they need all hands on deck. Optimizing the game is not a one-man job, and there is no "magic switch" or "silver bullet".
why?
as a simple example i will give you this: gta doesnt have any weapon ballistics. those bullets you fire in gta, is just some sprite being drawn on your screen. you fire a pistol or machine gun or sniper rifle, they all have some accuracy randomization and nothing else. they probably dont even render after certain distance as well.
in arma you got ballistics for all weapons. I dont want to stress it but its pretty complex stuff and comparing that alone with gta, is just wrong. there is a difference emptying a clip on gta and on arma, at gta those bullets are just some 2d effects and they hit somewhere they draw some other effect. in arma all bulelts have their calculation on clients machine. they act according to ballistics which the weapon they fired from. they dont disappear after a while. They drop, ricochet, etc.
you fly a helicopter like you fly teletubbies weekend special in gta. arma have some good physics for air vehicles, weight, wind, and all sorts of other stuff like engine mechanics, look up to autorotation at arma for example and you will see what I mean.
those awesome engines you mention, even unreal engine (latest) cannot draw a war so vast like arma does. you cant take off with a jet from 12km away and come at a fighting area then drop some gbu's on laser designated targets on the ground for example, in multiplayer environment.
in games like battlefield, you cap a zone, and thats it, that zone stops being rendered. players cannot go back there as well, spawn area gets moved, if you want to go back game will tell you to "NO! leaving fighting zone soldier" but it should say "this is waht we could do to maintain performance with this crappy playstation dude, now go back and play in the zone or game will kill you".
the problem is players. people got used to this "boxed" thinking pattern and they want fast-food like ready-meal for them to consume, as a gamemode. yes developing something in arma needs SQF but its just a language devs put there for modders to use and do what they want, its not the actual language game developed on... and there are many ways to approach coding, you are blaming arma for some crappy scenario made by a noob with full of errors and loops eating up CPU cycles. Game is fine, if you know how to work with sqf that is also fine, check out the official arma scenarios like combat patrol or what was that, intel capture stuff, they are top notch in terms of performance because people who know how to code created them.
when it comes to dayz, rocket was smart. he saw that this engine cannot become that rpg/fps hybrid he wanted and then he left. simple as that. what do you think they will openly come up and say "alright people we are giving your money back, we cant make this rpg with this engine, mod for arma2 was the peak and we cant top it off again, maybe some cosmetic stuff and all but, that was it" ? no
people need to learn how to deal with editor, change their approach to this game. arma is not for pre - defined gamemodes. there is a reason why devs actually put a coding language for modding, there is a reason for 3d editor. they want people to make their own scenarios. put their own rules. decide what they like and do it themselves.
for performance, I blame ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ intel. the cartel, intel, holding back technology and dripfeeding it since c2quad times, and thats like 10 years. if there were no DDR2 to DDR3 to DDR4, cpu itself is like didn't even got any better, they have been releasing same stuff each 6 months and milking people off. Unless you know how to overclock a cpu, and have proper hardware for it, you can't play arma. Now arma3 released on 2013, sorry early access. now think about it, if there were any real LEAP in terms of performance with cpu's, that would be obvious right? but there isn't , and arma 3 is just not the only thing to blame here. cartel politics on cpu's and intel mass cartel is to blame.