Will Arma 3 be better optimized

[vhenom]

As in will the game run better in multiplayer to resolve the frames issues every1 gets in higher player co-op servers.

It's kinda hard to explain what I mean but the example im going is a 64 player bf3 multiplayer match the frames stay relatively the same as a 32 player but in Arma 2 a 32 player and a 50 player are drastically different in the fps.

[maionaze]

You cant compare a BF3 MP session with a ArmA Mp session. BF 3 doesn't even have AI, the ArmA engine has to keep track of a whole heap of things. On that note it is expected of BI to improve the net-code so that we have a smoother experience out of the box. A lot of the solutions brought by the ArmA 2 beta patches are integrated in ArmA 3 so, in theory, we should see an improvement.

[vhenom]

You cant compare a BF3 MP session with a ArmA Mp session. BF 3 doesn't even have AI, the ArmA engine has to keep track of a whole heap of things. On that note it is expected of BI to improve the net-code so that we have a smoother experience out of the box. A lot of the solutions brought by the ArmA 2 beta patches are integrated in ArmA 3 so, in theory, we should see an improvement.

Has BI released any specs on how much improvement people should see? or are we gunna have to wait for alpha


can i get these beta patches for arma 2 oa and are they net-code fixes?

[Steakslim]

beta patches are readily available to everyone, see the Beta Patch section of the forum for more info.

[-=Grunt=-]

I believe he means this issue that everyone seems to get...

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthrea...age-on-MP-only

[MavericK96]

I'd like to see:

1) 100% (or close to it) CPU/GPU usage if necessary (instead of low usage and low FPS as we've seen numerous times)
2) 64-bit native executable (which leads to...)
3) More RAM utilization

Definitely room for improvement over A2 / OA. Can't say I'm extremely disappointed in A2 / OA performance as-is, but my hardware is barely being tapped most of the time and I still get FPS drops into the teens on occasion.

[Chortles]

What MavericK96 said -- I definitely wouldn't mind spreading out the load instead of it being concentrated on one component excessively, but I'm going to speculate that we're going to have to wait for the community alpha to find out, and my understanding is that the community alpha is for testing gameplay more than performance.

[GossamerSolid]

I don't think the 64-bit executable will be coming any time soon. I swear I've seen multiple times that BIS doesn't see the exact need for a 64-bit executable. Also I've never seen ArmA use above 1.5gb of ram, so 64-bit wouldn't help anything as it's not even using the limit of 32-bit yet.

[sapped]

I don't think the 64-bit executable will be coming any time soon. I swear I've seen multiple times that BIS doesn't see the exact need for a 64-bit executable. Also I've never seen ArmA use above 1.5gb of ram, so 64-bit wouldn't help anything as it's not even using the limit of 32-bit yet.

ArmA 2's executable is already 64-bit, it's the game engine which can't handle more than 2047mb of RAM for some other reason

[PuFu]

ArmA 2's executable is already 64-bit, it's the game engine which can't handle more than 2047mb of RAM for some other reason

Good god.
A2 binary is NOT 64bit. A2 binary is LAA though (or at least OA one), not that it matters much in terms of ram usage (LAA - up to 3gb for 32 bit systems, up to 4gb of 64bit ones)

That said, for a game that has the amount of textures and models that needs to be streamed to use just 1.5gb of ram, instead streaming everything right of the HDD...well, i would have done it differently...