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
This topic has been locked 
The author of this topic has marked a post as the answer to their question.
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
A world in that people would take criticism of their favorite game seriously would be enough already.
I've been through all the troubleshooting and I wrote so before. I invested a good 20 hours in tryintg to fix the perfomnance drops, only to find out it is almost a 80% serevr dependent.
Sorry that I don't like people who tell me to "GF" myself, only because they can't even consider the possibility Arma3 has serious issues Bohemia's revenue should be totally able to fix.
Except the salty fanboys what you are talking of is something that Quake 3 basically offered me in 1998 on a single core 233mhz Pentium II CPU. I could play with up to 16 players on an easy to configure personal dedicated server at home, fast paced without any performance drops whatsoever, without any sypware forced onto my PC, simply giving the password to my friends to ban or kick whoever used autoaim or wallhacks. Stable connections with 64k modems... wonder how that was even possible, but appearently it was. In 2001 I could run matches with 64 people on a home PC with COD1, including vehicles and huge costum maps. (uch, what happened to that franchise...)
1999 Bohemia made their Real Virtuality engine, that had all mentioned Issues back then already. They have now released what? 16 products that use this engine, being on top seller lists again and again. Yet I am being ridiculed because I feel it was totally in their budget to fix drops to 40fps on a i7 4790k when 20 players are involved?
K. Sorry to bother you with my quite basic quality standards.
In the end, when the game does work it is fun and there is nothing like it so people will always come back regardless of any flaws with it. I too wish they'd improve it, which I've been told they are working on for a new/updated engine, so that Arma can become the best it can be.
id Tech engine (Doom, Quake, Call of Duty) from id Software and Real Virtuality engine (ArmA, VBS, Take On Helis) from Bohemia Interactive are two completely different engines.
id Tech is more focused on smaller, corridorish maps and mostly runs arcade-style games, whereas Real Virtuality is focused on large, open maps and is more of a simulator engine.
The original OFP (Cold War Crisis) also ran on a Pentium II class CPU, not terribly good but it did run on it and the Real Virtuality engine was actually made in 1995, powering an Atari computers game called Gravon[en.wikipedia.org].
Your analogy is pretty flawed because you're comparing very different games - why not compare Quake 3 with Quake Champions, the latest Quake game?
You'd probably be surprised that Quake Champions, although still an Early Access game, is often being criticized for "poor netcode", "performance issues", "lack of things that were standard in the past" and similar things.
Also, as games and game engines become more complex, so do the system requirements exponentially rise up, this is nothing new and is expected.
Simulation? Because bullets drop and it manages to calculate the travel of sound? The very simple parameters of fatigue and pay load also don't explain these massive FPS drops as soon as a few more players come in. Sure I see the differences you mention, but I had more fluent, massive and realistic battle situations in Rainbow Six Raven Shield...
Arma doesn't become a simulation because it has headbobing.
As mentioned I played COD:UO back in 2002 with 64 players, huge open maps and ballistic mods on a Athlon 64 with 2 GB of RAM. Sorry, but you are making excuses.
It's been an excuse made for many other different genres. I still play Grand Prix Legends for example, which has about the most realistic driving physics up to date and a very solid net code. Asetto Corsa or Project Cars look nice, but they fail miserably in these two aspects, which are essential for a racing game. Though they have bit more arcardy physic style they fail to get it over the net fluently.
So fails Arma in the essential part of a shooter: being stable and fluent. I do not see what the game does that Arma didn't do years back and why it is so highly linked to the pure number of players, no matter if much is happening or not. My PC does not need to do much calculations, it needs to be fed with parameters.
My concern is pointless anyway. Bohemia is moving on to console gamers, moving their focus away from the Arma franchise and Arma4, if ever, will probably not be released within the upcoming years. They are open to paid mods. We will see where the journey will go. I read myself enough through dozens of threads of people having machines 3 times the price of mine, complaining about the horrible performance of this game.
I have not been explained what these deep simulation calculations are, that arma does there, having basically no physical destruction to buildings, vehicles or vegetation. Vehicles also have a very simple physics model. Player bodies are just a moving hitbox that goes ragdoll if killed. I do not know what the game is doing on my CPU but whatever it is: It seems to be nothing too amazing.
BTW, i love the arma series but im not fanboy enough to give them a positive review.
if arma 4 is better optimized, i will buy it. otherwise, screw BI.
Compared to most military shooters out there today, ArmA 3 is a simulation, yes.
Raven Shield is very different again, it's a CQB shooter, not a massive map mil sim. Ground Branch is it's spiritual successor.
I don't know about CoD, I only played the first one in single-player and I fully lost interest in that franchise after CoD 4. I much prefer Red Orchestra to CoD for MP, as it's a more authentic WW2 experience. Otherwise, OFP (ArmA Cold War Assault nowadays) also could do massive TVT battles, for example 32+ player CTI or CTF modes (it was more CPU-demanding than CoD though).
I did enjoy GPL too, but that's racing sims, not exactly something ArmA is about (although can be modded into).
Interestingly, you mention that both modern car racing sims, Assetto and Cars, aren't that good as GPL when it comes to netcode. You could draw some parallels with some other modern games here and how they do some things worse than old games did back in their haydays.
The root of performance issues with ArmA has been debated multiple times already and it's a general conclusion that it's a combination of different factors, from a very CPU and memory (both, RAM and storage) demanding engine, netcode limitations and badly scripted missions running on potato powered servers, heavy AI and physics calculations, view distance and object count limits, to less-than-perfect optimization for modern hardware.
There's really a lot of things to account for here, and the easiest is to be the critic, especially if you haven't ever attempted to make something similar to what you're criticizing.
Constructive criticism can lead to a better product, counter-productive criticism will not.
Also, that "Bohemia Interactive is focusing on console gaming" needs some proof. They're still very much a PC-oriented company. Heck, there wasn't even an ArmA game ever released on consoles, outside of maybe OFP Elite, which is considered part of Codemasters' post-Bohemia OFP series (which, funnily enough, were console-oriented games and seem to be abandoned now).
It's a soldier sandbox.
Just because it is those things doesn't mean that it's clear of all criticisms, and in fact, if anything, for the reasons the OP has described - that ArmA has no real competition - it should be criticized more heavily.
Just because you have stockholme syndrome about your inevitible 20+ FPS drops doesn't mean the rest of us are so tied up, and if you want to continue defending ArmA 3 just because it's ArmA 3, go ahead, really.
The game isn't going to ever improve, though, while you people defend it. Bohemia Interactive doesn't move unless there's a live grenade under their ass, look at the DayZ developer and why he quit. The only thing you're going to do is muddle the issues, so I'm going to ask anyone here a very important question if they want to defend ArmA 3 as if it was perfect and has no flaws, using circular debate tactics and strawmen to try and get around the point:
Do you want the game to improve? If you do, you should call out BIS like the OP does. If not, they will continue doing what they've done, which is be highly complacent, largely idle, and absolutely nothing short of lazy.
How about BI making an XBOX exclusive earlyA title for Xbox one "Vigor"? DAYZ for XBOX? Arma mobile games? YLands is coming for PS4 and XBOX.
They tried it with Carrier on XBOX 360, which flopped though. Appearently, wild guess, they figured out that Survival games made them the most cash, and I'm afraid that's where they are heading. Maybe you are not aware that the latest Jet DLC for ARMA was made by modders, with little effort from Bohemia.
In an episode from Gamestar TV with Christian Fritz Schneider interviewing BI they said, that little to no effort will go into the improvement or development of ARMA. Just look at the change logs of the game... nothing is happening. They are now paying modders for creating new content and sell this as DLC. Basically payed mods "light".
Please come to acknowledge that I also love Arma for all it does right. Yet, to tell me, that I can't critisize it because I can't do better, is really a bad argument. If you buy a car that is absolutely unique on the market in what it can do, but it is total crap and it stops working every third day, uses way too much fuel and turns rusty in every corner, are you accepting your car dealer telling you: "Well, do it better if you can."? You want him to fix it, but instead he is selling you new body mods, making it only heavier and more fuel hungry. Sorry for the analogy... but really?
I did not intend to compare Arma to games that are not like Arma, but to hint towards other devs/publishers who basically sell unripe crap, that worked better 20 years ago, praising their prouduct as "next gen" while they use 20 year old engines that simply can not handle what they try to do with it, only because they want to maximise profits. Lucky for them, they have their army of fanboys who will buy and defend anything they produce...
Yes. I will most likely turn away, like I did from Activision, Ubisoft, EA, Sony, Bethesda and some more... to move to new indie sudios which will slowly turn into the same kind of money milking machines. At least, I must say, they did not release a new Arma each year and simply put a new number on the box.
Thanks! Exactly my point.
Only thing that is true about all of this is that this game needs competition to improve, or some *realistic* feedback from the community. I think I've said that on these discussions here for about quadrillion times.
In spite of the problems the game has, I've managed to get some 200+ hours on Arma 3... Fell in love with the game, but couldn't stay for long because that fps was driving me nuts. Just when I got into the milsim mode with ACE3 and RHS, TF radio, there were brutal drops of FPS in some AI scenarios. I paid a good amount of money and after some time I started feeling like an idiot.
Jesus Christ if there wasn't for mods, I think I'd refund the game the same day.
Vigor is made by another team and uses Unreal Engine 4 and it'll eventually come to PC too.
ArmA mobile games... is that a bad thing?
YLands, more like Mein Kraft: Bohemia Edition, am rite?
BI supporting modders... again, is that a bad thing?
Them making some survival and/or console games doesn't mean they abandoned the ArmA franchise or stopped being a PC-oriented dev.
ArmA II was pretty niche before Day-Z mod hit the scene. While it's true that it somewhat overflooded the existing mil sim communities that existed prior, it also made Bohemia lots of cash, which was also spent to make ArmA 3.
ArmA 3 might not even had happened if it wasn't for the Day-Z mania, they would maybe just make some more ArmA II expansions/DLCs for the decidedly niche mil sim communities that existed in the past.
ArmA 3 becoming a considerable mainstream success with over 3 million copies sold is actually quite an achievement in itself, even if most if it comes from the fact that it's a very moddable game that offers things that other games just don't.
Hardcore mil sims usually never were really popular, if they were, you can be sure there would be more competition on the market.
Also, just so we understand each other, I'm also not a fan of lots of DLC, but it's new content and they make money from it, like pretty much every other company out there nowadays, and the issues with the performance were debated multiple times on these boards and I'm pretty sure BI is aware of it and will work on improving resource utilization in the future, as was already suggested by the "Enfusion" engine for future projects.
Literally the reason %70 or more of us have stuck around xD & by stuck around I mean (Play for a month, Don't play for 2-3 months) rinse & repeat!
Probably has a little influence from the mass of mods
by the way I have 10+ years in ArmAverse, and I am not counting OpF...
^
^
^