Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[Insanatrix 0]

I don't think we're going to see any ArmA 3 improvements in drivers until at minimum Beta release.

I think DnA said they were working with Nvidia and other partners even now. That was how they got some quick fixes and optimizations for PhysX. We probably won't see any big improvements though until release though.

[stk2008 14]

great news this was posted on the arma3 bug tracker

Hey guys, sorry for the lack of info on progress here. We are well aware of the

performance issues and it's a great help having feedback from so many people

with different HW specs.

We have identified several areas with not exactly ideal performance and we are

working on optimizing them. Smooth gameplay is a high priority for us (as well

as for you) and we are focusing on it more and more the closer we get to beta

and release.

Sorry for a little vague reply but it's too soon to give specific results.

Please have some patience :).

Its just great to know they aint forgot us :)

[fred41 42]

...

Sorry for a little vague reply but it's too soon to give specific results.

Please have some patience :).

...

... better late then never and thanks for pay attention ... :)

[root 1]

great news this was posted on the arma3 bug tracker

Hey guys, sorry for the lack of info on progress here. We are well aware of the

performance issues and it's a great help having feedback from so many people

with different HW specs.

We have identified several areas with not exactly ideal performance and we are

working on optimizing them. Smooth gameplay is a high priority for us (as well

as for you) and we are focusing on it more and more the closer we get to beta

and release.

Sorry for a little vague reply but it's too soon to give specific results.

Please have some patience :).

Its just great to know they aint forgot us :)

We shall see.

[mobile_medic 43]

It is good to see them post something in the bug tracker, at least.

[jumpinghubert 49]

Probably not, but they fixed the FXAA in this driver, which was not working correctly in 320.00:

[sLI][GeForce GTX Titan][ArmA III]: There is corruption in the game when FXAA is enabled.[1279518]

fxaa with GTX570 and win7.64bit isn´t working at all since first arma3-alpha with all drivers till now. I will try the new beta.

[pauliesss 2]

I have GTX Titan and the FXAA was working for me but then they released the 320.00(I think, not 100% sure) it was broken. Now it is working fine again with 320.14.

[guusert 1]

Lol Whut? Why would he have to do that? He's just a gamer and he's right.

[white 1]

great news this was posted on the arma3 bug tracker

Hey guys, sorry for the lack of info on progress here. We are well aware of the

performance issues and it's a great help having feedback from so many people

with different HW specs.

We have identified several areas with not exactly ideal performance and we are

working on optimizing them. Smooth gameplay is a high priority for us (as well

as for you) and we are focusing on it more and more the closer we get to beta

and release.

Sorry for a little vague reply but it's too soon to give specific results.

Please have some patience :).

Its just great to know they aint forgot us :)

very vague imho. "not ideal" means they dont recognize anything as being bad or wrong, and i take it as "not much will change."

Edited May 14, 2013 by white

[bangtail 0]

I have GTX Titan and the FXAA was working for me but then they released the 320.00(I think, not 100% sure) it was broken. Now it is working fine again with 320.14.

FXAA was broken in 320.00 (It may have been specific to Titan SLI) - I reported it on another forum and ManuelG did acknowledge it and I guess they fixed it as it is no longer an issue in 320.14 :D

[wasabi 1]

I just played the infrantry showcase for the first time again since it was released and to my own suprise i do see a quite huge improvement.. But in the villages it is still very very choppy and there is no difference there in fps on low, medium or high... My cputin is at 42C at that point and my GPU with a custom cooler at 45(lol) i think there is still much more room for imrovement here but so far i wanted to give the devs heads up :)

[MavericK96 0]

very vague imho. "not ideal" means they dont recognize anything as being bad or wrong, and i take it as "not much will change."

Really? First sentence he says "we are well aware of the performance issues". I really don't know what more you want.

[froggyluv 2136]

Really? First sentence he says "we are well aware of the performance issues". I really don't know what more you want.

[white 1]

Really? First sentence he says "we are well aware of the performance issues". I really don't know what more you want.

and then they proceed to say that "it is not ideal", and that´s the same as saying, "its great but not perfect". well no game is perfect, which means they might aswell change nothing. and thats why its pretty damn vague.

i was going to excuse you for not understanding english properly (since the forum has people from all over) but then i realized you were from the US, so you have no excuse.

[max power 21]

and then they proceed to say that "it is not ideal", and that´s the same as saying, "its great but not perfect". well no game is perfect, which means they might aswell change nothing. and thats why its pretty damn vague.

i was going to excuse you for not understanding english properly (since the forum has people from all over) but then i realized you were from the US, so you have no excuse.

I think Maverick has interpreted the statement perfectly. The quote says they acknowledge the issue, that our feedback is valuable, that performance issues are high priority, and that they are working on them.

[MavericK96 0]

and then they proceed to say that "it is not ideal", and that´s the same as saying, "its great but not perfect". well no game is perfect, which means they might aswell change nothing. and thats why its pretty damn vague.

i was going to excuse you for not understanding english properly (since the forum has people from all over) but then i realized you were from the US, so you have no excuse.

In the very first part of your post you claim that "not ideal" = "great but not perfect", and then go on to criticize my understanding of English?

EDIT: Let me go on to explain so this doesn't come off as too antagonistic. Typically the phrase "not ideal" is used to characterize something as flawed. The way you are interpreting it is that it means that it is like, 99 out of 100 percent perfect. That is the incorrect way to interpret that phrase. I don't think anyone has ever used the phrase "not ideal" to describe something they thought was excellent.

I am all about this issue, I was one of the first people to cry out about it, but...you are not doing it or yourself any justice with these posts, man.

Edited May 15, 2013 by MavericK96

[white 1]

In the very first part of your post you claim that "not ideal" = "great but not perfect", and then go on to criticize my understanding of English?

EDIT: Let me go on to explain so this doesn't come off as too antagonistic. Typically the phrase "not ideal" is used to characterize something as flawed. The way you are interpreting it is that it means that it is like, 99 out of 100 percent perfect. That is the incorrect way to interpret that phrase. I don't think anyone has ever used the phrase "not ideal" to describe something they thought was excellent.

I am all about this issue, I was one of the first people to cry out about it, but...you are not doing it or yourself any justice with these posts, man.

ideal:

i·de·al (-dl, -dl)

n.

1. A conception of something in its absolute perfection.

2. One that is regarded as a standard or model of perfection or excellence.

3. An ultimate object of endeavor; a goal.

4. An honorable or worthy principle or aim.

adj.

1.

a. Of, relating to, or embodying an ideal.

b. Conforming to an ultimate form or standard of perfection or excellence.

2. Considered the best of its kind.

3. Completely or highly satisfactory: The location of the new house is ideal.

4.

a. Existing only in the mind; imaginary.

b. Lacking practicality or the possibility of realization.

5. Of, relating to, or consisting of ideas or mental images.

6. Philosophy

a. Existing as an archetype or pattern, especially as a Platonic idea or perception.

b. Of or relating to idealism.

So yeah, its falls perfectly inside my interpretation of it, making it all completely vague. any game could fall into what they stated, and someone can draw anything from it, positive or negative as i did. I´ve seen plently of people using not ideal for things that were fine or good but not perfect, that´s your problem, you take your perception and want to use it as a rule, unfortunately reality works the other way around.

I think Maverick has interpreted the statement perfectly. The quote says they acknowledge the issue, that our feedback is valuable, that performance issues are high priority, and that they are working on them.

like i just said: "and someone can draw anything from it." and that´s, with no surprise whatsoever from my part, what you chose to take from it.

Yet they define the performance simply as not ideal, when in fact for a whole lot of people it´s simply broken, especially when using the recommended hardware on steam, and with that, meaning exactly what i said. I´m also curious about why Dwarden lied, since i´ve quoted him twice and he doesn´t answer as to where this topics issue was stated on a sitrep or spotrep.

Edited May 15, 2013 by white

[Insanatrix 0]

I agree with Maverick. Not to come off as hostile, I have been very adamant and outspoken about this issue, but your posts tend to come off as nitpicking of words and semantics and very hostile overall.

I'm very pessimistic of what they can do with the current engine. I know there are aspects of it that need to be rewritten to take advantage of multi-threading and parallel processing, things like scripting that make up an extremely large portion of the game and how it runs from the audio down to the AI behavior routines. So any little bit that they can give us performance wise, I'm content with. I'm fairly confident that they don't want the performance to be a dog, but I'm also fairly confident that there is only so much that they can do given their time frame as well as engine limitations. I'm all for pushing for better, but I'm also not trying to demean them as developers.

[white 1]

I agree with Maverick. Not to come off as hostile, I have been very adamant and outspoken about this issue, but your posts tend to come off as nitpicking of words and semantics and very hostile overall.

I'm very pessimistic of what they can do with the current engine. I know there are aspects of it that need to be rewritten to take advantage of multi-threading and parallel processing, things like scripting that make up an extremely large portion of the game and how it runs from the audio down to the AI behavior routines. So any little bit that they can give us performance wise, I'm content with. I'm fairly confident that they don't want the performance to be a dog, but I'm also fairly confident that there is only so much that they can do given their time frame as well as engine limitations. I'm all for pushing for better, but I'm also not trying to demean them as developers.

I respect what you said, and they could come out and be clear about it, but instead they choose to come out as vague as they can be. Not only that, but also giving the impression that the game could already be optimized, like in this interview:

"It’s hard to ultimately say whether or not ARMA 3 in its Alpha state is already ‘optimized’."

http://gamingbolt.com/bohemia-have-no-plans-to-bring-arma-3-on-the-ps4-praises-sony

I take this kind of vague meaningless reply as a disrespect to all the consumers that have the recommended system or above suffering from performance issues. If it won´t change much, then just be clear about it and get it over with. And change the minimum/recommended specs on steam to more current hardware.

Edited May 15, 2013 by white

[Insanatrix 0]

I take that statement to mean that in A3's current state of Alpha, it's hard to say whether or not it's optimized. Meaning that for an Alpha, they may very well consider it optimized since optimization isn't a priority, for a release product however, they may not consider it optimized.

I agree that if they intend for the ArmA series to be ran on something like an i7 3980X at 4.8ghz and a GTX Titan for a playable game and frame rate, they need to specify that in the requirements.

I also agree that they could be more up front about the issue's and have a little more transparency about what's going on behind the scene's to fix the problems. The only difference is in how you word your posts, how you portray yourself and your attitude. You come off as more interested in trashing them as developers than expressing concern in seeing that the issue's are fixed.

[white 1]

how you portray yourself and your attitude. You come off as more interested in trashing them as developers than expressing concern in seeing that the issue's are fixed.

My last paragraph kind of explains why, for short, tired of bullshit.

[mobile_medic 43]

while I can certainly understand the frustration considering the response up to now, and the years that this issue has been going on, I don't think it helps our cause when we get emotional. Stay the course. Keep holding them to their word, voting the bug, and pushing for a product that is fully functional and does not suffer from this terrible under-utilization problem carried over from game to game. Once there is a release product, however, all bets are off. This issue has been going on for far too long, and patience (rightly, imo) should be beginning to wear thin. Given the long history of this issue, a little more communication and official display of import towards this issue from BIS would go a long way in quelling concern as we near release.

[Dwarden 1125]

to someone calling me liar, my suggestion, paddle thru all answers I made in this thread before you accuse again of something, then read

http://alpha.arma3.com/sitrep-00004

http://alpha.arma3.com/sitrep-003

don't get me remind you about your other 'dramas'

[mobile_medic 43]

to someone calling me liar, my suggestion, paddle thru all answers I made in this thread before you accuse again of something, then read

http://alpha.arma3.com/sitrep-00004

http://alpha.arma3.com/sitrep-003

don't get me remind you about your other 'dramas'

With respect, I'd suggest that my previous post goes both ways, as well. While I can certainly understand why we are frustrated, and can relate to your frustration, I don't think it helps anyone this type of thing. Especially, when it is a developer helping perpetuate the spread of 'dramas'.

Also, I would hope you can see it from our perspective a bit. After years of this issue being known and prevalent, and then feeling kicked a little to see the new game with its "brand new engine" with the same problems, those sitreps, while they do passively make mention of the issue, don't really rise to the level of import that a good many of us place on this issue. And, from *this* side of the fence, we can't help but wonder about the level of import that BIS places on it. There are a few forum posts scattered here and there. Now, there is a recognition of it in the bug tracker. But, forgive us for not having a ton of faith at the moment based off of that sparse recognition when it is contrasted with the history of this issue. This issue didn't start when Arma 3 Alpha was released. And, the responses during arma 2 were much like this thread. A lot of misinformation due to a lack of input and action (in my view) from the developers. It never got fixed.

But, my fingers remain crossed, and I really hope you prove us wrong about this particular issue and get it fixed. b/c when there aren't ai around to expose the poor utilization, the game runs fantastically. There really doesn't seem to be any reason why this game needs to run at 20fps on todays machines (and, that's at 720p on low AND 2560x1600 on high before anyone comes and tries to spread some farce about having a shitty machine). Game would be epic, and the hard work that has been put into it would be much more evident, rather than shrouded behind under-utilization issues that make it unplayable.

[white 1]

to someone calling me liar, my suggestion, paddle thru all answers I made in this thread before you accuse again of something, then read

http://alpha.arma3.com/sitrep-00004

http://alpha.arma3.com/sitrep-003

don't get me remind you about your other 'dramas'

Yes i´ve read the entire thread (and i doubt you did, because in a different thread you seemed surprised when a benchmark showed the same exact thing that was shown in this one way before), and all your posts, some of which i replied asking for more information and most went ignored and unanswered by you. And i´ve found nothing related or mentioning the low cpu utilization/poor performance on those links you just posted. So all i said stands.

Please remind me of my other "dramas", i´m all for it if you are going to answer them this time around. I remember in another thread in which i made a few examples of direct questions that could end this charade, but to no surprise, you didn´t bother to answer any. Wouldn´t be surprised if you didn´t even read them.

Edited May 16, 2013 by white
grammar