13 years on from Operation Flashpoint and Bohemia still haven't built an optimized engine.

[The Hoff]

I have been a lover of the Arma series since the flashpoint days and they are amazing games. Flashpoint was a performance hog (despite having a high spec PC at the time) and when Arma 1 came out I had high hopes that it would run better. Again It didn't run too well as it was a single CPU core game. When Arma 2 appeared on the scene later, I upgraded my system again as the quad core era was now here and I hoped for a more optimized game. Years later, even high spec PC's cannot run this title at 60fps constantly with moderate action on screen without cranking down some settings. Now it is 3rd time around for the Arma series and I thought Bohemia would finally optimize this game to run on modern machines. I sold my i7 920 CPU and my HD 7970 and I built a new system just for this game - i7 4770k CPU (4.6ghz) a factory overclocked GTX 780 ti, 16 gig 2133mhz Ram and 3 SSD drives. With all the bells and whistles my system cost well over £2,000. Now I only game at 1080p so my hardware for this resolution is MASSIVELY overkill. I use vsync because I can't stand tearing or stutter. All my games (nearly 300 on steam) run buttery smooth without an ounce of stutter and not one drops below the vsynced 60fps, ever (Inc Crysis 3 and BF4).

Now on to Arma 3, my old i7 920 CPU and HD 7970 was no slouch and with some settings turned down I could hold 60fps constantly (single player) until I got into a fight with several AI and then my fps would plummet, that was the reason I built a new system.

On to my new system (i7 4770k CPU (4.6ghz) a factory overclocked GTX 780 ti, 16 gig 2133mhz Ram and an SSD) even with all the latest Arma 3 performance tweaks, Arma 3 doesn't run that much better than my old system. Granted, I can increase the graphic settings higher and get a solid 60fps when there isn't much on screen (single player again) but once I get into a bit of a firefight with the AI, the framerate drops below 60fps. I could drop the graphical settings lower but you don't have to drop the settings much before it starts to look horrible.
I don't believe a top end GPU helps this game in the slightest as it is CPU dependent but if you cannot get a game to run at all times at 60fps at a low resolution of 1080p in the year 2014 with a £2,000 system then they need to start downscaling these games entirely.
I know I don't speak for everyone and some are content with 30-40 fps in Arma games which is great, but I am sensitive to all stuttering and demand a solid 60fps as minimum in all my games.
For over 10 years Bohemia have been plagued with people screaming at them for an OPTIMIZED ENGINE but it has never happened.
I really do love the Arma series but I probably won't return to Arma 3 until I buy a G-SYNC monitor (more Expense) as that seems to be the only solution to stutter when I am dropping below 60fps.

[Conure]

I'm the same - can't enjoy the game at lower than about 50fps. It feels too separated from reality for me at that fps. Flight sims etc are fine from about 30fps, but for a game like Arma I need a minimum of 50.

[Manwith Noname]

Do we all want Arma to run better? Yes.

Is it likely to happen without some severe sacrifices to what we are able to do and experience within it? I'm going to guess not.

It's the same with most "simulation" based games. Microsoft Flight Sims always ran like turd on what was current hardware. The majority of the racing sims I have owned, ran like turd on what was current hardware.

[B✪✪tsy]

" but I am sensitive to all stuttering and demand a solid 60fps as minimum in all my games. "

There is your problem. Your own expectations. Expecting that ArmA is just like all the other 300 games in your library.

[Dj Otacon]

A set of plausible lies do not stop being lies.

Today I can get 60 "fps" in "Arma 2" simply by adjusting the distance of vision. That is so because the games 60 "fps" constants are small and miserable.

In a game where you have 250 kim2 extension you can not adjust the view to 25 km2 because there is no computer that can move this amount of terrain.

That is happening in all games of this size (see "PS2").

But telling the truth is not important. The important thing is to tell lies to make people believe that the game is abandoned, has no vehicles, or his bugs are not fixed.

[SaLaĐiN]

Originally posted by Dj Otacon:

A set of plausible lies do not stop being lies.

Today I can get 60 "fps" in "Arma 2" simply by adjusting the distance of vision. That is so because the games 60 "fps" constants are small and miserable.

In a game where you have 250 kim2 extension you can not adjust the view to 25 km2 because there is no computer that can move this amount of terrain.

That is happening in all games of this size (see "PS2").

But telling the truth is not important. The important thing is to tell lies to make people believe that the game is abandoned, has no vehicles, or his bugs are not fixed.

There are over 1000 people and over 100 vehicles fighting on a single server in PS2. So really, stop comparing. We are in a situation that Arma 3 servers even with top hw cant handle 64 players without lags, desynchs and low fps.

[Dj Otacon]

There are over 1000 people and over 100 vehicles fighting on a single server in PS2. So really, stop comparing. We are in a situation that Arma 3 servers even with top hw cant handle 64 players without lags, desynchs and low fps.

Complete false.

There's a horrible lag and the game don't support 2 cores cpu. On the battles that I play there's only 64 player to max at the same time.

The game use a insible cell system to separate players and after one year after his launch... now they has starting to make tunning and tweaks.

[SaLaĐiN]

Yop, 100 vs 100 battles which I played were just my imagination.

Facts about PS2:

-It is for free
-2000 players limit per continent
-MP runs better than Arma 3

Facts about Arma 3
- it has been over 5 months since released, the game is not still complete.
- Most of assets in the game are just shared by fighting, supporting factions.. In lots of cases only the painting is changed. The "unique" assets, most of them are just ported from Arma 2 or OA with no enhancements and they use old textures, so models looks old and dated. Armoured vehicles share the same interior for passengers, interiors for a gunner, commander, driver not even done.
-MP runs like crap. More players, less fps, more lags, desynchs.
-Physics is just as bad as in Arma 2. Go down a hill by a tank and you can do a salto. Single wooden or stone fence can break a tank or any armoured vehicle, even if you are going 1 KM per hour.
- You can destroy armoured vehicles very easy with hand grenades or even with anti personnel mines / is this Battlefield? waiting for laser guided rpgs/
- the extended armour and armour at all it is just epic, hyper realistic.
- penetration model is just great too, you cant penatrate plastic barrels with some assault rifles and handguns, applies to thin wood too. LOL
- Most of the time, you will survive the direct hit by tank or any armoured vehicles or direct hit by tank cannons, lmgs, mgs etc. LOL
-missing damage model for vehicles like in Arma 2. The actual model is worse than in BF
- missing damage model for humans like in Arma 2. Shot me to legs, hands and I can still run, aim without problems. I can even survive 8 direct hits to body or 3 to a head.


Military simulation kiss my ass. And they sell this for the full AAA price. lol

Then say me something about PS2..

[SharpNoober]

when people play zombiemods fps is not so important factor...

[Dj Otacon]

Originally posted by SaLaDiN:

Yop, 100 vs 100 battles which I played were just my imagination.

You have a great imagination...XDDD 100 vs 100 and 1000 vs 1000 XDDDD....

[Ypulse]

well PS2 is a crap game arma is not

[offroadracer516]

Rofl..Ps2 is an epic game. Runs amazing on my rig. Arma 3 not so much. Game needs alot of work. And LOL at 64 person ps2 servers. What planet are you living on????

[L3TUC3]

Originally posted by SaLaDiN:

Yop, 100 vs 100 battles which I played were just my imagination.

Facts about PS2:

-It is for free
-2000 players limit per continent
-MP runs better than Arma 3

More facts about PS2
- it has been over 5 months since released, the game is not still complete.
- Most of assets in the game are just shared by fighting, supporting factions.. In lots of cases only the painting is changed. The "unique" assets, most of them are just ported from PS1 with no enhancements and they use old textures, so models looks old and dated. Armoured vehicles share the same interior for passengers, interiors for a gunner, commander, driver not even done.
-MP runs like crap. More players, less fps, more lags, desynchs.
-Physics is just as bad as in Arma. Go down a hill by a tank and you can do a salto. Single wooden or stone fence can break a tank or any armoured vehicle.
- You can destroy armoured vehicles very easy with hand grenades or even with anti personnel mines / is this Battlefield? waiting for laser guided rpgs/
- the extended armour and armour at all it is just epic, hyper realistic.
- penetration model is just great too, you cant penatrate anything with assault rifles and handguns, applies to thin wood too. LOL
- Most of the time, you will survive the direct hit by tank or any armoured vehicles or direct hit by tank cannons, lmgs, mgs etc. LOL
-missing damage model for vehicles. The actual model is worse than in BF
- missing damage model for humans like in PS1. Shot me to legs, hands and I can still run, aim without problems. I can even survive 8 direct hits to body or 3 to a head.


Military simulation kiss my ass. And subsrcibe this for the full AAA price. lol

Fixed that for you. Most of your complaints about Arma 3 are true for PS2.

[Dj Otacon]

Originally posted by BigGucciSosa #3Hunna:

Rofl..Ps2 is an epic game. Runs amazing on my rig. Arma 3 not so much. Game needs alot of work. And LOL at 64 person ps2 servers. What planet are you living on????

XDDDD ... LMAO!!!

[Pèpè Silvia]

Why are people comparing an MMO with shorter view/object distances, no AI, No scripts/missions, fewer objects, and poor textures - to Arma 3?. Your comparisons are not valid.

Go play PS2 if you like it, but don't compare both because both are completely different games!!

[The Hoff]

The below post doesn't apply to people who enjoy their games with inconsistent all over the place framerates (20-60fps) -

No CPU or GPU can run Arma 1, 2 or 3 as intended and I have spent a fortune on hardware over the years for the Arma series (my current rig cost a fortune). I have been PC gaming for nearly 20 years and Bohemia Interactive is one of only a few companies that can't make a game to run at acceptable framerates. If you can't obtain a constant 60fps all the time with a MASSIVE RIG then don't develop the game.

The few games that are graphically demanding on current hardware are eventually able to perform well when hardware has improved. With the Arma series this has NEVER been the case.
Operation Flashpoint never performed better the more you improved your hardware.
Arma 1 - Isn't multi threaded so you cannot run 60fps whenever there are several things on screen at once.
Arma 2 - Doesn't utilize quad core CPU's properly either. This title is about 5 years old now and still no one on this planet can run this game at 60fps with high detail and with moderate on screen action. I have tried every mod and tweak on this game and thrown bags of money at it and nothing makes a difference.
Arma 3 - Not much more graphically superior to Arma 2 but same old performance issues, perhaps even worse in my opinion. No modern system can run it as intended and no system will be able to run it at a constant 60fps in 5 years time.

With every future Arma release it will be the same performance problems without ever any changes in sight (this performance problem has been with Bohemia for 13 years now).

And lastly. When Arma 2 was released in 2009, Codemasters released "Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising". Now I know this title was a failure for them and Arma 2 was a better game. But Arma 2 wasn't massively better to look at.
A mod was made for OFDR which opened up the whole Island and improved the AI and increased the amount of vehicles and infantry etc. Even in 2009 I could run this game with this mod at 60fps 100% of the time.

That is just an example that it can be done, but while they use the same engine over and over it will never be achieved. I just wish that Bohemia would break the mould and for once give us gamers such an amazing OPTIMIZED experience that we would gladly spend our money on faster hardware for it.

All the above was based on the single player experience.