Will this game EVER get optimized?

[Ibrahim]

Doesn't Bohemia feel ashamed of releasing such a popular and such an utterly unoptimized game?

This game runs like a lazy turtle on my PC. Yes, i'm getting 29-35 FPS on;
R9 270X 2GB
I5 3470 3.0 GHZ
8GB Ram
I run literally every game on Ultra settings with AA off. And i get stable 50-80 frames per second.
How's this acceptable to you? Do you feel satisfied with the current state and performance of your game, Bohemia?

I'm not hating, i'm just frustrated that i can't play this game.

[TheKingOfBabylon]

You most certainly can play this game at 30-35 FPS or any game for that matter. 30 FPS has pretty much always been considered perfectly playable standard. Why would BI feel ashamed that they made a very successful game with generally stable performance? Also it doesnt matter what you get in other games since there is no game that compares to Arma.

Not hating just using common sense..

[Ibrahim]

How's 30 fps acceptable on a PC EXCLUSIVE game, huh? And no, i'm not comfortable with 30 fps, and that's a very poor justification of you. It's Bohemia's faulty and super out-dated engine.

You guys better optimize your game.

[ChocomintCA]

I don't think they can optimize their game without rebuilding the entire engine or something.
Until then it'll always be unoptimized and there will always be white knights defending the devs with poor excuses.

Also
>30 fps
>playable
Get a load of this ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ pleb.

[Oxymoron]

The 30 FPS is part of many things, for one the incredible drawing distance the game has..
Compare to CoD or other shooters, ArmA is by far a lot bigger game in terms of maps.
If you were looking for run & gun games, this is the wrong game, while i agree with you to some point that the game isn't fully optimized, i've never experienced any crashes or freezes, so the game at least is playable and stable..
Now mind you, this is a sim, deployed as a game..
Also to comment on what you actually wrote, 30 FPS is fully playable..
As a matter of fact, the eyes percieves about 24 FPS, mind you, this is not entirely correct since there is big difference on how we as human beings percieve things and how things are displayed electronically

[ChocomintCA]

Originally posted by Oxymoron:

The 30 FPS is part of many things, for one the incredible drawing distance the game has..
Compare to CoD or other shooters, ArmA is by far a lot bigger game in terms of maps.
If you were looking for run & gun games, this is the wrong game, while i agree with you to some point that the game isn't fully optimized, i've never experienced any crashes or freezes, so the game at least is playable and stable..
Now mind you, this is a sim, deployed as a game..
Also to comment on what you actually wrote, 30 FPS is fully playable..
As a matter of fact, the eyes percieves about 24 FPS, mind you, this is not entirely correct since there is big difference on how we as human beings percieve things and how things are displayed electronically

Draw distance? You mean the thing I had to crank down to get a playable frame rate?
60 fps is infinitely superior and should be the standard for games. I don't see how you're trying to justify a sluggish 30 fps in Arma with your "silky smooth cinematic 24 fps human eyes".
Whether it's true or not the bottom line is 30 fps is unacceptable especially for a PC developer.

[TheKingOfBabylon]

Originally posted by DorkKnightRises:

How's 30 fps acceptable on a PC EXCLUSIVE game, huh? And no, i'm not comfortable with 30 fps, and that's a very poor justification of you. It's Bohemia's faulty and super out-dated engine.

You guys better optimize your game.

Doesnt matter what your comfortable with, that has no bearing on whats considered acceptable and what isnt. General Consensus is that 30 FPS (Displayed electronically) is perfectly fine and easy to most people to enjoy therfore it is the perfectly acceptable if a game (Doesnt matter what system) runs at 30 FPS. You come accross as a entitled brat so im done with this worthless thread.

[90's PogChamp!]

30 frames arent really acceptable, my friend has the exact same card he gets the same frames, he says its not playble, i have a GTX760 and im getting high 40's mid 50's which is fine i guess, but arma games have always "hit" frames hard compared to other games, and especially Dayz, saw a youtuber playing with a monster rig (GTX 690) getting 20 frames in the cities at times, maybe the cpu? i have an i5 4670K 3.4 stock, my friends is worse, a now slightly dated AMD. i would imagine cpu is your problem

[Kingbowie]

30 frames is totally fine xbox 360 and ps3 done it for 10 years so cant be so bad, and u only get 30 fps on crowded or should we say really alive maps which is ok considering the amount thats going on, i think we have a load of rich school boys who have come straight of the cod boat and think that everygame should be 60 fps i never repeat never have any game running over 60 fps adaptavive vertical sync because its apsolutely pointless more heat for no gain

[Kingbowie]

u cant compare playing cod or battlefield to arma u could fit every map them both games have together and have them all on atlis thiunk of that wen ur whinging about ur 60 fps

[Kingbowie]

keep up the great work bohemia and stick to ur guns with the updates, take noyice of the women who cant handle the fatigue

[WombleDieHard]

The OP is right and 30 FPS is toilet for high spec PC machines! Having a top notch PC and suffering the same issues I feel that they should do better with trying to optimize the game better for multiplayer. If Sony can do it for Planetside 2 which has hundreds of players on one server in maps bigger than the ones in Arma then I can't see why the developers can't pull their fingers out of there arses and sort this problem out. FFS it's the 21st century now and the people who keep defending the FPS as being acceptable your wrong plain and simple!

[Hash]

Hell yeah just a complete lack of understanding of how fantastic and capable the engine is, if these eggs stop playing KOTH\WASTE\LIFE they could find the huge potential ARMA has,take half a day and learn the editor and worlds your oyster.

Edit:Also that old and buggy engine just got signed with the US Army for enougher 5 yrs.

[Oxymoron]

Originally posted by ChocomintCA:

Originally posted by Oxymoron:

The 30 FPS is part of many things, for one the incredible drawing distance the game has..
Compare to CoD or other shooters, ArmA is by far a lot bigger game in terms of maps.
If you were looking for run & gun games, this is the wrong game, while i agree with you to some point that the game isn't fully optimized, i've never experienced any crashes or freezes, so the game at least is playable and stable..
Now mind you, this is a sim, deployed as a game..
Also to comment on what you actually wrote, 30 FPS is fully playable..
As a matter of fact, the eyes percieves about 24 FPS, mind you, this is not entirely correct since there is big difference on how we as human beings percieve things and how things are displayed electronically

Draw distance? You mean the thing I had to crank down to get a playable frame rate?
60 fps is infinitely superior and should be the standard for games. I don't see how you're trying to justify a sluggish 30 fps in Arma with your "silky smooth cinematic 24 fps human eyes".
Whether it's true or not the bottom line is 30 fps is unacceptable especially for a PC developer.

Actually more games than you would think are capped to 30 FPS and this goes both for consoles and PC.
Ps 60 FPS is a luxury, 30 FPS is still playable, now when we get under 25 FPS come back to me and we can START to talk about something being unplayable

[Oxymoron]

Originally posted by WombleDieHard:

The OP is right and 30 FPS is toilet for high spec PC machines! Having a top notch PC and suffering the same issues I feel that they should do better with trying to optimize the game better for multiplayer. If Sony can do it for Planetside 2 which has hundreds of players on one server in maps bigger than the ones in Arma then I can't see why the developers can't pull their fingers out of there arses and sort this problem out. FFS it's the 21st century now and the people who keep defending the FPS as being acceptable your wrong plain and simple!

Uhm you do know that ArmA is made to simulate, thus meaning it has far greater physics
To give the most apparent difference between PS2 and ArmA, is that PS2 and many other FPS games use hitscan, meaning when you pull the trigger you hit your target if your crosshair is within the hitbox, this doesnt go for ArmA, as the game, calculates your trajectory, elevation, bullet speed, kind of bullet, distance, weather to see if the bullets hit or not..
Mind you, you also find way more mechanics in Arma than other shooters..
So when you are complaining about the FPS, please do consider the huge machinery behind the beautifull image you are, hopefully, receiving

[Oxymoron]

Originally posted by ChocomintCA:

I don't think they can optimize their game without rebuilding the entire engine or something.
Until then it'll always be unoptimized and there will always be white knights defending the devs with poor excuses.

Also
>30 fps
>playable
Get a load of this ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ pleb.

Wow, look at this internet tough guy, sure has a huge e-peen, now if you don't mind, go back to playing CoD