• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

ArmA 3 Performance Thread

F

FreakinSyco

Member
The one thing I'm really hoping for performance wise is that CrossFire actually gives some performance benefit. Unlike currently in ARMA2.
 
L

Legato.Reborn-

Member
BadTaste105 said:
Well, that RAMDisk software I linked is incredibly easy to use. I created a 4GB RAMDisk using NTFS and benchmarked it. Pretty good results.

I'll create a Youtube tutorial for ArmA 3.

A6RkCGi.jpg
Click to expand...

Awesome!

+ question for the thread: Who is going supporter edition?
 
D

Dr. Light

Member
Sethos said:
What kind of broken PC do you have? My ArmA 2 runs 60FPS locked at maxed out settings, 2560x1600, SMAA Medium and 4k view distance. I've been able to maintain that for the last 3 builds.
Click to expand...

4k view distance? I always play with the maximum 10k. The view distance and massive scale is the whole reason to play the game. I have 3x 7970 but I can only play with one because it's so CPU bottlenecked, especially since I just use the game to create crazy scenarios in the editor. Running with Crossfire just lowers the framerate 90% of the time.
 
S

Sethos

Banned
Dr. Light said:
4k view distance? I always play with the maximum 10k. The view distance and massive scale is the whole reason to play the game. I have 3x 7970 but I can only play with one because it's so CPU bottlenecked, especially since I just use the game to create crazy scenarios in the editor. Running with Crossfire just lowers the framerate 90% of the time.
Click to expand...

You're complaining about performance and running 10k view distance? ...

And this is why people are fucking crying "OMG bad performance" left and right, when they have no idea how to set up their games.

10k is not a view distance you pick, ever, if you want decent performance. That's purely a "Setting that goes beyond current hardware" setting, nothing more.
 
B

BadTaste

Member
Ran Echelon said:
Looks like you're running it at 1800? Maybe triple channel helps too.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. No matter anyway, your RAMDisk speeds probably stomp most SSD speeds anyway. What sequential read/write speeds did you get?

Dr. Light said:
4k view distance? I always play with the maximum 10k. The view distance and massive scale is the whole reason to play the game. I have 3x 7970 but I can only play with one because it's so CPU bottlenecked, especially since I just use the game to create crazy scenarios in the editor. Running with Crossfire just lowers the framerate 90% of the time.
Click to expand...

Dafuq
 
R

Ran Echelon

Neo Member
BadTaste105 said:
That makes sense. No matter anyway, your RAMDisk speeds probably stomp most SSD speeds anyway. What sequential read/write speeds did you get?
Click to expand...

I had another go (this time with cpu overclocked) and it's not so far behind.



Anyone have any idea how big the alpha install will be?
 
Spat_triate

Spat_triate

Member
Dr. Light said:
4k view distance? I always play with the maximum 10k. The view distance and massive scale is the whole reason to play the game. I have 3x 7970 but I can only play with one because it's so CPU bottlenecked, especially since I just use the game to create crazy scenarios in the editor. Running with Crossfire just lowers the framerate 90% of the time.
Click to expand...

Other than flying at high altitudes (which is pointless with only 225 sq km), why in the world would you need to see 10 km?

You may have a beastly machine, but you're still asking too much of it.
 
D

Dr. Light

Member
Sethos said:
You're complaining about performance and running 10k view distance? ...

And this is why people are fucking crying "OMG bad performance" left and right, when they have no idea how to set up their games.

10k is not a view distance you pick, ever, if you want decent performance. That's purely a "Setting that goes beyond current hardware" setting, nothing more.
Click to expand...

...Really? The game did come out almost 4 years ago.

Arma 2 always struck me as a game that was very unoptimized with it's huge environments and seeming lack of LOD. But the scale is amazing, you can get shot by enemies that are literally the size of pixels. It's the consummate PC experience, the type of scope and complexity you never see on consoles.

Are you saying that I can lower the view distance without significantly affecting the game?
 
S

Sethos

Banned
Dr. Light said:
...Really? The game did come out almost 4 years ago.

Arma 2 always struck me as a game that was very unoptimized with it's huge environments and seeming lack of LOD. But the scale is amazing, you can get shot by enemies that are literally the size of pixels. It's the consummate PC experience, the type of scope and complexity you never see on consoles.

Are you saying that I can lower the view distance without significantly affecting the game?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter when it came out, 10k view distance in a game like this that is so dependant on the CPU to render buildings, objects etc. is impossible for ANY CPU, now and in 4 years again. 10k view distance is not a view distance you use for normal play, at all.

You are more than capable of being effective at around 4k, which also means you can have texture details at Very High. In my clan sessions, I've never had the need, wish or been required to engage anything at over 4km. It's next to impossible to hit anything and firing at that range with most weaponry just exposes you and there's so much distance compensation at play you have little chance of hitting your target, shot gets weaker and the angle makes for poor penetration.

The RV engine does have optimization issues but people are blowing it so catastrophically out of proportion and are not taking into account what the engine actually does. A sandbox 'world' made for military simulation which means you can't just despawn / not render and position enemy units everywhere on the map like most engines. Your PC needs to keep track of every single AI, object and vehicle as a stray bullet, an artillery shell, a random tank shot should be able to effect people across the map. It needs to draw a lot of enemies and objects within a small radius as a lot is going in, it needs to take a lot of things into account.

As I said earlier, my last 3 computers have been able to run this game comfortably and while I do agree it's not a game every PC is meant to run, the 'bad performance' moniker is way to overused and I suspect people are either running settings WAY too high, like you or not optimizing the settings correctly - Video Memory comes to mind, as that can have a huge impact on gameplay what setting you use.

ArmA 1 wasn't multi-core ready. It wasn't SLI compatible.

ArmA 2 was multi-core ready and the SLI profile slowly got added.

ArmA 3 has had SLI profiles for a long time, BIS has vowed to optimize it and they have a LOT of knowledge from ArmA 2. I have no doubt in my mind the game's going to run just fine, teething issues with the Alpha sure but not the Crysis 9000 thing people have going on.
 
D

Dr. Light

Member
Sethos said:
Doesn't matter when it came out, 10k view distance in a game like this that is so dependant on the CPU to render buildings, objects etc. is impossible for ANY CPU, now and in 4 years again. 10k view distance is not a view distance you use for normal play, at all.

You are more than capable of being effective at around 4k, which also means you can have texture details at Very High. In my clan sessions, I've never had the need, wish or been required to engage anything at over 4km. It's next to impossible to hit anything and firing at that range with most weaponry just exposes you and there's so much distance compensation at play you have little chance of hitting your target, shot gets weaker and the angle makes for poor penetration.

The RV engine does have optimization issues but people are blowing it so catastrophically out of proportion and are not taking into account what the engine actually does. A sandbox 'world' made for military simulation which means you can't just despawn / not render and position enemy units everywhere on the map like most engines. Your PC needs to keep track of every single AI, object and vehicle as a stray bullet, an artillery shell, a random tank shot should be able to effect people across the map. It needs to draw a lot of enemies and objects within a small radius as a lot is going in, it needs to take a lot of things into account.

As I said earlier, my last 3 computers have been able to run this game comfortably and while I do agree it's not a game every PC is meant to run, the 'bad performance' moniker is way to overused and I suspect people are either running settings WAY too high, like you or not optimizing the settings correctly - Video Memory comes to mind, as that can have a huge impact on gameplay what setting you use.

ArmA 1 wasn't multi-core ready. It wasn't SLI compatible.

ArmA 2 was multi-core ready and the SLI profile slowly got added.

ArmA 3 has had SLI profiles for a long time, BIS has vowed to optimize it and they have a LOT of knowledge from ArmA 2. I have no doubt in my mind the game's going to run just fine, teething issues with the Alpha sure but not the Crysis 9000 thing people have going on.
Click to expand...

I'll try running it at 4k and see what happens...
 
P

Phanatic8390

Member
Sethos said:
Holy hell, look at the amount of stances we got now. This is god sent! I'm nursing a semi.

untitled-1wvoch.gif
Click to expand...

I just saw this and had to rewind and watch again. It's amazing the amount of infantry movement they've added.

Also I saw how great that video looked and then saw that guy's rig and it made me sad
 
C

Chance Hale

Member
Shame it doesn't unlock for another 12 hours but at least that gives me some time to play SimCity (under the assumption amazon sends the codes on time of course)

I've never heard or used ramdisk before so I'll definitely have to look into it in a minute. Thanks for the suggestion.
 
J

jbpaz

Member
Worried about my AMD Phenom II X4 965 and 5770. :(
I want to get it, but I'm scared it won't run well.
 
G

grebby

Member
Man, I really want to get that supporter edition and be in the first 500 haha. It's not a big deal of course but it'd be a nice little touch on top of the whole package. Cannot wait! Just a few hours left. So glad I have the day off tomorrow. Hoping my 2500K and HD6850 will do alright, I may consider an upgrade at some point if performance really becomes an issue.
 
S

Sethos

Banned
grebby said:
Man, I really want to get that supporter edition and be in the first 500 haha. It's not a big deal of course but it'd be a nice little touch on top of the whole package. Cannot wait! Just a few hours left. So glad I have the day off tomorrow. Hoping my 2500K and HD6850 will do alright, I may consider an upgrade at some point if performance really becomes an issue.
Click to expand...

Was my hope too but the BIS store is getting crushed, the hope is slowly fading :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Was 8 CPU cores enough for 9th gen consoles? Strix Halo, the prefect console.
Opinion Analysis 2
62
3K
Tertullian replied
AMD "Strix Halo" Zen 5 Mobile Processor Pictured
Rumor Analysis
38
2K
DaGwaphics replied
Official Statement from Capcom over Dragon's Dogma 2 Release: "We are working on fixes"
News Drama Community
11
3K
Fabieter replied
Silica - FPS/RTS hybrid from Bohemia Interactive (Arma, Dayz) - Out today
Hype
12
1K
dreamstation replied
Persona 3 Reload Fans Slam Expansion Pass as a 'Cash Grab'
News Drama 2
94
4K
SEGAvangelist replied
Top Bottom