DATE AND PRICE FOR "60 FPS DLC UPGRADE ULTIMATE EDITION" PLEASE

[Angel]

Zzz

[stburr91]

Good luck with that.

Cue the fanboys that come in and tell everybody what amazing fps they get.

[Angel]

Sure

[Niall]

Originally posted by stburr91:

Good luck with that.

Cue the fanboys that come in and tell everybody what amazing fps they get.

It's relative. I mean compared to the previous games you do get high frames lol

[Knocks (I BUY MICS)]

Just from what I've seen, a high-end PC on a 128 player server and I believe a 1440p monitor will get ~110-120 fps on average with setting on high for most and low for a few taxing ones, such as environment quality (which still looks great). Operator Drewski has a few videos on Arma reforger lately and you can see his frames in the corner. Entering a scoped view with 3d scopes (can be pretty taxing, PiP scopes always is), he would drop to ~95 frames during gunfights. Seems pretty reasonable considering the scope of the game and the amount of details the game has to consider at any given moment, especially on serves that are almost 3 times bigger than official servers. This is also on a server with a TON of mods for new weapons, sounds, vehicles, etc.

Sure, he has a top-tier PC, but the fact that those frames are POSSIBLE at all (unlike in Arma 3 where a single-core was used and you get screwed no matter what) means that, in a few years, most players PC will be running this game just fine. I agree the game doesn't run nearly as well as something like CoD or Battlefield, but this game has a dramatic amount of simulations going on that those other games do not.

I have an i7-10700, RTX 3070ti, and 32GB DDR4 RAM. I play on an ultrawide 3440 x 1440p monitor. On official servers and lightly modded serves up to 96 players, I average about 70 fps. This is with a mix of high and low settings. Big gunfights can drop be to 55 frames sometimes but it's usually above 60 fps. My PC would be considered mid range I believe and my monitor is above average pixel count so for that, I think it's running as expected. Not amazing, but doable.

[CalicoJack]

Originally posted by Niall:

It's relative. I mean compared to the previous games you do get high frames lol

100 players KOTH in Arma3 compared to any PvP mode in Reforger tells me the complete opposite of what you said. And there is A LOT going on in KOTH, especially with more than 60 players on the server.
Reforger cant even handle half of what Arma3 does (max players, max bot count, weapon physics, etc. etc...) before it breaks down into constant crashes, lag, awful framerates and stutters.

[stburr91]

Originally posted by Niall:

Originally posted by stburr91:

Good luck with that.

Cue the fanboys that come in and tell everybody what amazing fps they get.

It's relative. I mean compared to the previous games you do get high frames lol

Yes, but the two game are not really comparable, Arma 3 has much more going on drawing on the PC's resources.

[Knocks (I BUY MICS)]

Originally posted by CalicoJack:

Originally posted by Niall:

It's relative. I mean compared to the previous games you do get high frames lol

100 players KOTH in Arma3 compared to any PvP mode in Reforger tells me the complete opposite of what you said. And there is A LOT going on in KOTH, especially with more than 60 players on the server.
Reforger cant even handle half of what Arma3 does (max players, max bot count, weapon physics, etc. etc...) before it breaks down into constant crashes, lag, awful framerates and stutters.

Objectively incorrect. Like, demonstrably false. 90 players KOTH reforger servers play at like 70-80 fps on the rig I desribed above at a high resolution where I'm GPU bottlenecked. Server stability has been actually really good since I bought it two weeks ago. You're literally just talking out of your ass or your PC is simply not modern enough to run this game. Doesn't even need to be high end. The Enfusion engine uses multicore rendering and inarguably runs better and handles more process than the engine used to run Arma 3.

[CalicoJack]

Originally posted by stburr91:

Originally posted by Niall:

It's relative. I mean compared to the previous games you do get high frames lol

Yes, but the two game are not really comparable, Arma 3 has much more going on drawing on the PC's resources.

Bingo!

__________________________

Originally posted by Knocks:

Objectively incorrect. Like, demonstrably false.

Please demonstrate Reforger KOTH with 100+ players using variations of planes, helictopters, cars and tanks in action on a map as big as Altis. With the amount of weapons and gear, clothes and gadgets available in Arma3, with the much more refined weapons and damage system of Arma3.

Thanks.

[Knocks (I BUY MICS)]

Originally posted by CalicoJack:

Originally posted by stburr91:

Yes, but the two game are not really comparable, Arma 3 has much more going on drawing on the PC's resources.

Bingo!

It always funny to watch people who know literally nothing about how CPU and GPU process, or game engines for that matter, work. They confirm each others incorrect opinions and it just makes me shake my head lol.
If you were to take default Arma 3 and compare it to default Arma Reforger, Reforger runs MUCH better by utilizing more of the PCs hardware and has a more efficient engine capable of doing more things.
If you were to put similar mods (texture replacements, gun models, sounds, etc) on both games, Reforger will still run better. Objectively. It cannot be argued by any sane person that understands anything about the two engines.
If Arma 3 has "more going on", it's because you're playing on a server that has more mods enabled. That's it. And if you put too many mods on any game or server, it affects performance.

There's nothing to see here. Arma Reforger doesn't run amazing but is factually much better optimized for modern equipment than Arma 3. You can't compare game performance of the games with old equipment either. If you have an old rig, you may get better frames in Arma 3 because its what, a decade old? It's apples to oranges at that point. If you had average pc specs the year Arma 3 came out, and compared that performance to average 2024 PC specs and the performance of Arma Reforger, Reforger wins every time.

[Knocks (I BUY MICS)]

__________________________

Please demonstrate Reforger KOTH with 100+ players using variations of planes, helictopters, cars and tanks in action on a map as big as Altis. With the amount of weapons and gear, clothes and gadgets available in Arma3, with the much more refined weapons and damage system of Arma3.

You can simply watch the hundreds of youtube videos and see for yourself. You have made it clear that you prefer Arma 3 and you clearly have an older spec PC so there's no point in arguing with you. 99% of players, just check Reddit for proof, agree that Reforger (at this point, can't speak for how it was at launch) runs MUCH better than Arma 3. It's just an objective fact.
Operator Drewskis recent video, he was playing the WCS 128 player server on a very large map (Everon) and was hitting ~100 fps pretty much consistently. This is a server with tons of mods, hundreds of custom weapons, attachments, GPS tablet with custom scripts, attack helicopters, custom textures, custom functionality...not to mention much better graphics, lighting, physics, etc. Go watch it for yourself. If you're honest with yourself, you'll see the same level of complexity as Arma 3 with much better graphics and FPS. If you're not honest with yourself, you'll think what you continue to think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KIPa2A2sCg

[CalicoJack]

See for yourself at 18:52 for example, how the framerate goes down to sub 50 fps with just one helicopter getting shot down in the open scenery.
Now imagine having a map like Altis and quite a LOT more action going on at the same time in and around big cities....as is the norm in Arma3 KOTH on Altis.
In conclusion you could not demonstrate anything at all, other than big word salads.
But thanks for the effort.

[Knocks (I BUY MICS)]

Originally posted by CalicoJack:

See for yourself at 18:52 for example, how the framerate goes down to sub 50 fps with just one helicopter getting shot down in the open scenery.
Now imagine having a map like Altis and quite a LOT more action going on at the same time in and around big cities....as is the norm in Arma3 KOTH on Altis.
In conclusion you could not demonstrate anything at all, other than big word salads.
But thanks for the effort.
:kidrose:

lol you act as if Arma 3 doesn't have dips once in a great while (actually, it's all the time). You're being so disingenuous it's palpable. You watch a 30 minute video, find literally 2 seconds where it dips even thought there's other helicopter explosions that don't dip like that in the same video, ignore all the other instances of much higher performance, cherry pick the one thing you think proves your point, then comments back as if you have a legitimate point. There's a reason that even players that hate Reforger admit it runs much better, because it objectively does. Not worth my time, you obviously have your mind made up and you're mind is closed.

[CalicoJack]

Originally posted by Knocks:

You're being so disingenuous it's palpable

No, you are.

I´m still waiting for a demonstration of Reforger KOTH with the same amount of action going on as in Arma3 KOTH on a big map like Altis, with towns and cities that can be flattened by bombing them during gameplay with 100+ players, tanks. planes, helicopters, cars, weaponry, gadgets, weapon ballistics, etc, etc, etc...
Or just see for yourself that all this was, for quite some time, and still is possible in Arma3 (!especially! with todays hardware, contrary to what you have said). while in Reforger we still have to dream about doing all that with the always praised "better performance".....


_______________

Originally posted by Rick James Bish:

-

People, especially newcomers to the series like to ♥♥♥♥ on Arma3 like dumbos jumping the newest meme train they´ve seen, when in reality they have no clue about the game.
This is not necessary.
If one wants to compare the games, then i ask for a fair comparison.


---------------
Btw, i need to check out if this problem has been solved somehow by now.
Maybe i´m lucky. ^^
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxWMrg5RnSc

[Knocks (I BUY MICS)]

I'm not dumping on Arma 3. I played and enjoyed Arma 3. I'm just saying you're not being fair. When Arma 3 launched, common mid-high PC specs were Intel 2-3k series i3-i5 and a GTX 670. With those pieces of equipment, the game ran like absolute dog sh!t. 11 years later with dramatically better equipment, it runs much better.
Now compare reforger with the average mid-high gear that exists in 2023-2024, stuff like i5-11000 series and above and a GTX 3070, Arma Reforger plays much nicer with relative era hardware than Arma 3 did with its relative era hardware. Additionally, it looks MUCH nicer and has a lot of features that Arma 3's engine didn't have. You cant count 11 years worth of mods and call it a fair comparison. So yes, you're being extremely unfair. You say you're asking for a fair comparison but you don't actually want one. Comparing Arma 3 with 11 years of mods to Arma Reforger that launched in 1.0 in the past 6 months or so is totally unfair. Comparing the games at their 1.0 launch with era-specific hardware is the only fair way to do this, and you clearly don't want to do that. If you would have been playing Arma 3 11 years ago with those specs I mentioned above, you would have been very unhappy with the performance. That, or you forgot how bad it was to play.

[CalicoJack]

Good. You are beginning to understand that Arma3 runs better than Reforger.