Arma 3 Frames Per Second and Fluent Moving ?

[Yett]

Hello Everyone, Thanks for your time for clicking on this thread!

The main thing in Arma 2 which made many of us annoyed was 2 things. One was no matter what PC you had even if you had the best PC on the market, at some point you would be down to 30 Frames Per Second, and the reason for this is Arma 2 is a 32-Bit Application and therefore can only use 2047mb / 2.0gb of ram at one time, of course arma is very big with ram as it has to render a lot of AI and Vehicles at one time. Also the movement especially in Close Quarters was very Non-Fluent for example you could easily get stuck on a door when exiting a building or even get stuck on a small piece of rock when walking around.

With 30 fps and this non-fluent movement in Close Quarters battles it made the game seem all clunky and hard to use.

Now i have searched around but i have not got much more of an answer then "The Netcode is being optimized". I realize that no one can know for sure what Arma 3 is like as they have not played it yet, however does anyone know of anything the developers had said to suggest the direction Arma 3's Optimization and Fluent Movement is going?

To give some example of what i mean;
I have
12gb of DDR3 Ram
2 x Nvida 580 in SLI
i7 processor over-clocked at 4.8ghz x (6 Cores)
2 120gb SSD's

Every single game i play, i will get over 90fps and it would barely go under that. On Arma 2 i can easily get to 30fps and sometimes even 25fps. Ive tried many optimization techniques yet it seems the game just eats a lot of frames, probably due to its ram limit.

So my question is what do you think about the Optimization in Arma 3? Do you think it will be improved? Do you think that we will still get these FPS's? Do you think the fluent movement will be improved?

Thank you all very much for your time!

[NeMeSiS]

So my question is what do you think about the Optimization in Arma 3? Do you think it will be improved? Do you think that we will still get these FPS's?

I very much doubt A3 will run better than A2. Any optimization gains are used for improvements.




Also: Not this shit again....

[djfluffwug]

If anything, I think the game would be harder to run than ArmA 2, like ArmA 2 was compared to Armed Assault

[Yett]

I very much doubt A3 will run better than A2. Any optimization gains are used for improvements.




Also: Not this shit again....

It shocks me they dont do some optimization. I mean i know of some great optimization that modern games are using including, when you are not looking at a texture it will not be displayed, this is also commonly used with AI now, the processor is still processing the AI's movements yet it does not need to be loaded into the ram as its not physically there. Then when the player looks towards the AI the game re-renders the AI before the person looks at the AI. The only problem with this which you can get in some games, is when it re-renders the AI back onto the scene they can sometimes be rendered into the wrong place or get stuck, another problem is that if the game cannot render the AI fast enough you will see them just appear, also another problem with this is that it can link up wrong with the server, but the way to solve that is get the server to render the AI completley on servers. I know this is possible as Cryengine uses it and a few other engines.

However if Arma 3 isnt a 64 bit supported application then that will suck massively, im sure Arma 3 will use more ram with its Advanced AI then Arma 2 so we would see a lot more lag if Arma 3 is limited to 2gb of ram.

---------- Post added at 11:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 AM ----------

If anything, I think the game would be harder to run than ArmA 2, like ArmA 2 was compared to Armed Assault

Actually the main reason Arma 2 was harder to run than Armed Assault was Graphics and CPU. Arma 2 has quite a massive problem with its ram limits at 2GB, and this means no matter what PC your using it would never use the full ram and only 2gb of ram in the game, so this limits me as a gamemode developer what i can actually put into the gamemode without getting a lot of lag for the clients.

[Booster]

Do you think the fluent movement will be improved?

It's an absolute certainty.

[Yett]

It's an absolute certainty.

This is very nice to hear! Thank You! Yet what makes me very concerned is there is no solid evidence to support this statement.

---------- Post added at 11:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 AM ----------

Also i would like to add this is not just me who is curious of this question. Thousands of Arma 2 players have been asking the questions on other forums and youtube and there is no clear answer yet. I believe that we should try to find an answer regarding this relatively big question being only a few months away from the Releasing Dates. So if anyone has anything which can help answer this question we would be extremely happy to read it! Thanks everyone

[solviper]

Wow 30 fps... I wish I had your computer.

[Yett]

Wow 30 fps... I wish I had your computer.

This of course is the problem. Im guessing you were being sarcastic. Yet all other games can run well over 90fps, yet arma lags behind with a low of 30fps even on a debatably "Powerful Gaming PC". I know a lot of people are happy playing arma at 30 - 20 fps however a lot of us are not and it does make a lot of the audience decide to leave Arma or Un-install the game, meaning less people online and meaning this affects all of us directly.

[batto]

Actually the main reason Arma 2 was harder to run than Armed Assault was Graphics and CPU. Arma 2 has quite a massive problem with its ram limits at 2GB, and this means no matter what PC your using it would never use the full ram and only 2gb of ram in the game, so this limits me as a gamemode developer what i can actually put into the gamemode without getting a lot of lag for the clients.

Perhaps You can increase it to 3GB http://superuser.com/questions/28085...ndows-7-32-bit

[Yett]

Perhaps You can increase it to 3GB http://superuser.com/questions/28085...ndows-7-32-bit

Hey thanks for help, however that was regarding booting on a 32 Bit Windows 7 Operating System. As windows will not boot from more than 2GB of memory on 32 bit. I have a 64 bit machine, yet Arma 2 is a 32 bit application which cannot be run in a 64 bit mode meaning for absolutely everyone it will use no more than 2GB of ram!

---------- Post added at 12:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 PM ----------

Update: I was wrong, 32 bit applications can use up to 4GB of ram, however it seems the Arma 2 Developers have decided to cap the actual ram usage of the game for 2GB for some reason im not sure of.