Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[wormeaten 0]

OK just answer me one question.

If I'm wrong why the my nonsense is supported by AMD and Nvidia and they spend time and money to develop tools for that like Nvidia inspector or Radeon pro?

Just answer me why or they talking nonsense and are stupid to do that.

I don't want to lead useless debates with always know better and must be right even if this means to completely twisted someones words and some details put it out of contents.

Concept is proven not just by me in multiple games.

All this what I say I was just prove by 6 hour of playing TacBF on server with my friends. Limit on 30fps give me exactly same performance more than 80% of the time. From time to time was some performance drops well known by smoke effects or explosions but was not drop below 24 and and GPU was fast recover and raise it up to 30 again. R9 290 is famous by very high working temperature could work normally up to 95C. My GPU was working below 80C all the time when without is always above 90C.

This is my last post and testimonial about this issue so if you wan to try what I was saying you don't have nothing to lose. I was testing allot of different setups with old rig but new one give me instant satisfaction.

So is it possible to play on ultra? Yes.

Do I need too expensive components? No.

GPU is in range of 350-600$ (AMD - r9 280x, r9 290 and r9 290x, Nvidia - 770 and 780)

My problems with performance is solved and that was only my concern do I will have problems with new hardware and where is the limit.

I read lots of post where people with better GPU and CPU I have right now having problems what scare me to invest 1500$ without results and now after I do it I'm finally happy with ArmA 3.

Do someone want to trust in my experience and observation I don't care for me personally this thread is closed and solved.

So on this thread wormeaten is over and out.

[windies 11]

Since our eye's don't "generate" images but rather view the world around us, it would be hard to measure their FPS since FPS is a measurement of something generated over time.

Also where are NVIDIA and AMD spending money and time on tools to limit game FPS to the "Eye's natural 24 FPS"?

[mobile_medic 43]

If I'm wrong why the my nonsense is supported by AMD and Nvidia and they spend time and money to develop tools for that like Nvidia inspector or Radeon pro?

No one said you were wrong about perceiving a smoother experience by limiting your fps, just that you are wrong about the human eye not being able to see beyond 24fps. The two things are not related in any way, shape, or form. If you have wild fluctuations in performance, it is understandable that you might experience a smoother overall experience by limiting your fps to a set maximum. But, it is partly *because* you can perceive more than 24fps with your eye, that you even notice the difference in the first place. If you have temperature or power considerations, limiting your fps might be a valid consideration.

p.s. I have tried limiting my fps with A3. It doesn't help with my issue, b/c my issue is too much time spent below 30fps (due to the game/engine as far as I can tell) in the first place. All limiting my fps does is keep me at 30 and below, rather than 40, 50, or 60 and below. I spend enough time below 30. I don't need to limit my fps to experience that :)

I'm glad you have acceptable performance. Some of us wish we could say the same.

And, you are definitely correct that investing a bunch of money for the sake of Arma is (in my opinion) a waste of dollars. It is one thing that makes my chest hurt... seeing so many people suggesting high end hardware, knowing (from my own experience) that Arma isn't going to take proper advantage of it. If you meet the required specifications... judging from performance in non-bottlenecking areas of the game, you *should* be fine. Once you reach a certain point, throwing more hardware at the problem is not going to resolve the problem, b/c the problem is not a lack of hardware. It is only (in my opinion) an issue that can be resolved by the developers.

But, just b/c you (or anyone else) gets acceptable performance does not mean this thread is closed and solved for everyone else. It just means you can go on and enjoy the game, instead of wasting your time posting here about what fps the human eye is or is not capable of perceiving :)

Limiting fps has *nothing* to do with what fps your eye can or cannot perceive. That is the point folks were trying to make. Your eye can perceive far beyond 24fps motion. Well, at least the average human eye can.

[[frl]myke 14]

Okay, let me clear this up once for all and now everyone goes back to topic (which isn't what FPS are considered fluid for the human eye).

Both sides are correct.

Shocking, isn't it? For the human eye, verything above 24FPS is considered fluid animation. That's a simple physical fact. But there's another significant point to consider: shutter speeds. The human eye and also cameras have some sort of shutter speed (probably named differently for eyes but i'm no scientist, so apologies for that) which have the effect that moving objects aren't sharp but blurred, also known as motion blur:

That's not how computer graphics works. The renderer takes a snapshot of all objects that are visible on the screen at that moment where it has to render the next frame. These positions are static, movement isn't taken into consideration. If you now would compare two frames with movement in it, you will notice that there is important visual information missing. Maybe this animation will visualize it better:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Figure-Animation2.gif (>100kb)

Both animations run with the same FPS but the left includes motion blur and seems to be more fluid. So also those saying it needs significantly more FPS than 24 are right too.

So what does it mean, how many FPS are definately required? I guess you all agree that we are not the same. Each of us has a different perception on what is considered fluid. For me, playing ArmA 3 with 25FPS is absolutely no problem. Someone else would get headache and needs 50+FPS. So there is simply no answer who's right or wrong. You are right as long you speak for yourself. You're wrong if you state everyone else must agree with your point of view.

So, that's it, discussion is over.

[mobile_medic 43]

I know we are terribly off-topic, but I must disagree. The human eye has no equivalent of a "shutter" short of closing your eyes (or a framerate, for that matter). There is not an equivalent with regards to how the human eye works. On a motion camera, the shutter speed represents a period of time that the sensor (or frame of film) is receiving *no* light during every single frame of exposure. i.e. a 180 degree shutter (common) means no light is getting to the "eye" for half of every frame. The eyes are closed, so to speak. The image is not being exposed for that duration of the frame. The human eye takes a continuous input of light, focuses it, processes it with rods and cones, converts it into electrical signals that are then passed on to the brain, which converts them into images.

A motion camera receives light only for set intervals depending on frame rate and shutter speed. If you are shooting at 1fps (with 180 degree shutter), that means that for every other half a second the "lights are off", if you will. Nothing is being exposed for that duration of the frame (equivalent of a 1/2 shutter speed). If you are shooting 24fps, a 180 degree shutter is the equivalent of a 1/48th. That means that you are alternating between light exposing the frame, and nothing exposing the frame every 1/48th of a second. And, so on. That is sort of where motion blur comes from (the length of the exposure in stills imaging, or the length of the exposure as a combination of shutter speed and/or frame rate in motion imaging). So, contrast that information with what the amount of motion blur might be with a 180 degree shutter at 1fps vs. 24fps, or 100fps. The higher the frame rate, the less the motion blur, b/c 180 out of 360 (= half a frame) is less time of the image not being exposed when you are shooting at 100fps. It would be 1/200th of a second in this case. If you want less motion blur, you shoot at with a faster shutter speed, (narrower shutter angle) which requires more light. Shooting at a lower shutter speed (larger shutter angle, i.e. 240 degrees) requires less light, but increases motion blur at every step along the way. 180 degrees (or 1/48th in digital speak @ 24fps) is pretty standard. If you want the sharper "Saving Private Ryan" look, you would shoot at a faster shutter speed (at the cost of light gathering ability)... for math's sake, let's say it was a 90 degree shutter. At 24fps, that means only 1/4 of every frame is *not* being exposed (or, every other 1/96th of a second). This reduces motion blur (but also requires more light, if we're talking in cameranese). Of course, this depends partially on whether we are talking about stills or motion cameras, what frame rate we are shooting at, and other factors, but I hope that makes a bit of sense, at least.

In the human eye, what you describe as "motion blur" has more to do with lack of focus on a particular moving object, in my estimation. There is no equivalent to a shutter in the human eye. We receive a constant stream of light (short of blinking). Likewise, video games don't inherently have motion blur (unless as a post processing option that can be added for effect... which, I don't like in games, btw) b/c they don't display images like a motion camera records them (with a shutter). Turning on a motion blur effect in a game can help mask the lack of frame rate (though it does nothing for controls), b/c we most definitely can tell the difference between a ballerina spinning at 20fps and one spinning at 60fps in a rendered environment. :) That is not represented as motion blur in a video game, though. The lack of motion blur actually makes the lack of smoothness of lower fps motion more apparent to our eye in a video game. on film, the motion blur helps to mask this lack of smoothness somewhat.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Mobile_Medic

[[frl]myke 14]

Just in case it got missed:

So, that's it, discussion is over.

[Vigil Vindex 64]

I would like to know what BIS think of Oculus Rift support for Arma, especially the fact that the people making Oculus say we will need smooth 60fps for each eye. I don't see Arma ever supporting Oculus, based on the lack of resolution to the issues in this thread.

Source: http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/01/11/oculus-rift-developer-on-required-system-specs-potential-new-functionality/

[windies 11]

Myke;2578035']Just in case it got missed:

Well played good sir.

[Instynct 1]

Console games must make your eyes bleed at 30fps.

May want to see a doctor 'bout that.

Hence why I own a PC. Once you've played a properly optimized game it's really hard to go back from it. For me anything above 50 fps looks great, but once I dip lower the immersion is killed.

EG: Try running BF4 at 80fps maxed @ 1440p then going to Arma 3 multiplayer and run at 20-40 fps on any settings.

I don't expect to be able to play at 80 fps maxed on Arma 3, I expect to get a stable frame rate @ about 50 fps on about Medium in multiplayer.

[oldbear 390]

Once you have played a realistic FPS such as Arma* games, it's hard to play some fancy FPS such as B.... or C.... . For me anything over 20 FpS looks OK but when I am set in a laboratory maze made for rats, the immersion is killed even at 50 FpS.

I am glad to play Arma 3 @ 25 FPS in SP on Athlon II x 2 250/HD7770 [90% CPU usage+90% GPU usage] but not so glad I can't play it over 15 FPS in MP

I am glad to play Arma 3 @ 45 FPS in SP on i7 3770/GTX670OC [80% CPU usage on onecore-45% CPU usage on 3 others + 60%GPU usage] and still glad in MP over 35FPS [80% CPU usage on onecore-20% CPU usage on 3 others + 60%GPU usage].

I expect to be able to play Arma3 over 30 FPS everywhere in SP and MP on Stratis and Altis as well. There is still work to be done to enhance server management and MP performances, but as it is, from my point of view, Arma 3 is playable and quite enjoyable on a rig just a bit over official Recommended specs.

[pablo0713 1]

Hahahahahahaha , oh please dont mind me for a bit hahahahaha. Ive been since alpha and We all have been promise optimization but now what? you are telling us fuck yourselfs 25FPS are good go play it if you like it leave it if you dont? Iam sorry if i sound mad here but that is just maddnes. Its been a while for all i know you can put the stupid content contest where the sun dosent get you and the campaing too. FIX THE GAME. how many times its has to be said? FIX THE GAME, the game is broke it performs horrible and you know it what is sad is seeing no real concern about the topic is not even on know problems on the web and lets dont even talk about the recommended SPcs on the weeb which are a total joke.

To sum up just FIX THE GAME for gods sake.

[nikiforos 450]

pablo0713 you forgot to say FIX THE GAME :)

[oldbear 390]

@ pablo0713 : I am sorry for you not enjoying yourself, but some people just enjoy what they get even if it's far for being perfect.

Have you try to play Arma3 with an Athlon II x2 250 based rig? It's incredible I can play Arma3 on SP with such a low end CPU and it's quite enjoyable for the game is still a beauty. As I am unable to play Arma3 in MP, I have written a short review about it because I think that the fact that a rig built along Minimum specs can't run the game in MP must be known.

But I still enjoy playing Arma3 on my 2 PCs !

Of course , I do prefer playing Arma3 @ 50 FPS on "Ultra" on my main rig, as I have done tonight on an ambush training mission I designed for my Clan.

[mobile_medic 43]

@ pablo0713 : I am sorry for you not enjoying yourself, but some people just enjoy what they get even if it's far for being perfect.

There is one small problem with that. We didn't "get" it. It wasn't given to us. We are paying customers, and Bohemia is a for-profit company that looks to make a return from their customers.

Since there is no competition, I recognize that there is a group of people who are willing to buy whatever Bohemia sells them, and feel "lucky". And, if Bohemia feels that customer base is sustainable, while ignoring the portion of their customer base that has attempted to highlight the fps killing utilization issue for years, more power to them, I guess. But, I expect such a business strategy will not prove fruitful in the long-term.

That portion of the player base like me who have bought from them more than once, and who have struggled and struggled to achieve even a reasonably playable experience... some of us are closing our wallets. If there isn't competition, that doesn't mean I need to continue to throw money at them just b/c they are the only game in town. That is part of the problem with why this issue has persisted for this many years, in my opinion. And, some of us have been fooled more than once. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has run into this issue with more than one of their games now, and who will do the same.

Plus, I believe competition will be coming. Once it does, the amount of people willing to buy whatever bohemia throws at them will shrink, and the (reasonable) baseline expectation of what the average customer expects will rise.

[jumpinghubert 49]

.. I believe competition will be coming.

I don´t believe it but i hope so.

[oldbear 390]

@ Mobile_Medic : you just hit the point here, that's the main difference between us. You are a "customer" and I am a gamer.

I will add a veteran gamer, because since Pong, I have played hundred of games on dozens of different computers.

I am still playing many games from War of Warplanes to Rome II :Total War.

What I am saying about Arma* is that this game is different, no other game is giving the player the same feeling of freedom ... and freedom came at a price.

Trying to adopt the customer point of view, a difficult task for me, I will say that this price was quite low when I try to compare it to other games such as Call of ..., Battle .... taking dust on the shelves of my den after 6 months.

I will state again that I am playing Arma3 in SP every day for hours, in MP nearly every day and that on my main rig, of course a gamer one, Arma3 is playable and enjoyable as well as it is.

Edited December 17, 2013 by OldBear

[mobile_medic 43]

For some of us it isn't playable, is the point. Some of Bohemia's own showcase missions get down into the teens fps for me. That is unacceptable. Especially, since it's not a new problem.

[oldbear 390]

@ Mobile_Medic : if you are playing on a rig matching the official "Minimum" Specs or in the range between "Minimum" and "Recommended" I agree there is a problem from the "consumer" point of view because Multi-Player is at risk of being unplayable.

Some warning must be written somewhere on the virtual label.

If you are playing on a rig matching "Recommended" specs but featuring an AMD FX* & A-8*/A-10* , playing in SP and MP but unsatisfied by performances, I agree there is a problem from the "consumer" point of view. But you must agree that BIS is not responsible for AMD CPU design choices and marketing ways.

As a "consumer", your responsibility is to get informed about how products works and dismiss all commercial crap.

On paper an AMD Athlon II x4 750K or AMD A10 6800K can seems on par with Intel Core i5 4430, but in game the difference can be huge.

If you are playing on a rig matching "Recommended" specs, featuring an Intel 2***/3***/4*** , playing in SP and MP but unsatisfied by performances, you must admit there is something wrong in your PC.

Edited December 18, 2013 by OldBear

[Minoza 11]

...

If you are playing on a rig matching "Recommended" specs, featuring an Intel 2***/3***/4*** , playing in SP and MP but unsatisfied by performances, you must admit there is something wrong in your PC.

I fit into that last category, where I actually exceed the recommended specs, yet the game runs like crap. No, there is nothing wrong with my PC, you're just pissing people off even more with that kind of approach. We've been through this over and over again, and while BI confirmed twice that problem exists (once in Arma 2, and then again in Arma 3 as well) some still insist that it must be users fault. There's also few great explanations showing how game creates CPU bottleneck (hence the topic title) where it shouldn't.

Just recently I had a debate about it, posted tons of benches, spent my time on what really, I mean what's the point?! People will still claim that it must be users fault, while BI is aware of the issue anyways...

Edited December 18, 2013 by Minoza

[oldbear 390]

@ Minoza : It seems you have not a clear understanding of what I am saying and why ...

My answer is an answer to Mobile_Medic, but I confirm what I am saying in my previous post based upon from my own experience on Arma3 gaming on 4 different configurations and a lot of contacts among my team and on various forums.

I had experience of a clear bottleneck effect on Athlon II x2 250, not so evident on Core 2 Quad 9400, no evidence of bottleneck on i5 2500 an i7 3770.

Some aspects of this issue are hardware related. Trying to understand and correct issues in game played on PC is complex, each one of us is having a different configuration based on choice and ... budget. In that part, every one is having it's own responsibility.

Some aspects of this issue are related to the game, it's engine and the ways it manages AI, destructed objects, Multi-player and so on.

In that part, it's BIS responsibility.

Denying there is an hardware side in this question doesn't help, I am not telling it's anybody fault.

I think it's important to have a wide vision of the subject encompassing all the aspects.

I stated my own point of view, I am not teasing and not making fun of anybody.

[kremator 1065]

Just recently I had a debate about it, posted tons of benches, spent my time on what really, I mean what's the point?! People will still claim that it must be users fault, while BI is aware of the issue anyways...

Hey Minoza (and others having problems),

I feel your pain guys, although I don't suffer from poor FPS. There are improvements that have taken place in a standalone dedi server binary that have been spectacular in terms of FPS. I'm sure these improvements will eventually filter down into the game engine.

For some people I'm sure that there are PC spec issues, but it sounds like the majority have a rig that SHOULD be able to cope.

In the meantime, don't give up hope.

Kind regards,

Krem

[mobile_medic 43]

@ Mobile_Medic : if you are playing on a rig matching the official "Minimum" Specs or in the range between "Minimum" and "Recommended" I agree there is a problem from the "consumer" point of view because Multi-Player is at risk of being unplayable.

Some warning must be written somewhere on the virtual label.

If you are playing on a rig matching "Recommended" specs but featuring an AMD FX* & A-8*/A-10* , playing in SP and MP but unsatisfied by performances, I agree there is a problem from the "consumer" point of view. But you must agree that BIS is not responsible for AMD CPU design choices and marketing ways.

As a "consumer", your responsibility is to get informed about how products works and dismiss all commercial crap.

On paper an AMD Athlon II x4 750K or AMD A10 6800K can seems on par with Intel Core i5 4430, but in game the difference can be huge.

If you are playing on a rig matching "Recommended" specs, featuring an Intel 2***/3***/4*** , playing in SP and MP but unsatisfied by performances, you must admit there is something wrong in your PC.

I am playing on an Intel rig that exceeds the recommended specs, and there most certainly is not something wrong with my computer. I've had this problem since Arma 2 on 2 different generations of processor, and 3 different generations of GPU. And, I am *not* alone in this. Telling me that b/c my performance issues are not the exact same as yours that it must be my problem is neither logical, nor helpful. Perhaps, instead of excluding the results of other's that don't match up with your own experience, you should include their experience into your overall body of evidence.

I'm not sure what your goal is in coming into a 250 page old thread that is *supposed* to be devoted to the technical issue listed in the title (and is pretty much a continuation of many other hundreds of pages of discussion about this issue dating back before Arma 3 was even a fart in the wind), and trying to convince people that they should either be happy with whatever performance they get out of the game, or that there is a problem with their computer.

If you are ok with performance, with all due respect, go be ok with the performance and enjoy the game. There is nothing to be gained from you coming into *this* thread and trying to convince people that they have a problem with their computer, or that they should be ok with performance. There is very clearly a problem with CPU utilization in this game. It very clearly causes gpu usage to crap out, and very clearly causes moderate to severe fps issues with the game. This issue seems to impact some more and others less, but there is no small amount of people who have explained the exact same issue that I have, both on these forums, and among my real life friends. Telling me I should deal with it, or parroting out the old "oh, well if it doesn't play as well for you as it does for me, then it *has* to be your problem" kind of stuff is neither helpful, nor on topic (speaking of off-topic... cough, cough).

No one is denying that there are hardware and other considerations that need to be considered by the end-user. But, many of us have been there and done that over and over. You aren't telling me anything new. You are in the wrong thread for those suggestions. Likewise, trying to pass of a legitimate issue as hardware related, or just being ungrateful doesn't help either. This thread has a specific title, and it's not "Hey, I'm new, just bought arma for the first time, and am having some performance issues."

Edited December 18, 2013 by Mobile_Medic

[oldbear 390]

@ Mobile_Medic : I am not sure what is your goal coming on these Forums, on a thread about " Low CPU utilization & Low FPS & Low FPS" trying to kick off people trying to understand what is really the issue.

After having conscientiously read again the 2472 posts of the tread, I feel there are many concerns of various origins. So what I have said on my previous post is not off topic.

My point is that I am trying to help people having issues in game to help them adapt in order to have some satisfaction from Arma3.

Some issues in the game are out of our reach, as an example what is related to IA, to objects destruction and servers management.

I had experiences that we can deal/work around most of the issues having an effect on gameplay on a middle/high end rig.

Low FPS is easy to understand but I try to understand what is behind the "Low CPU utilization" statement.

[jumpinghubert 49]

it makes sense to help people with performance issues IF they have wrong settings, configuration, hardware combinations, driver issues etc. To repeat in megamaxima pathetic modus to every one with performance issues "ITS THE GAME!!!!!" helps nothing.

[ratszo 17]

it makes sense to help people with performance issues IF they have wrong settings, configuration, hardware combinations, driver issues etc. To repeat in megamaxima pathetic modus to every one with performance issues "ITS THE GAME!!!!!" helps nothing.

Yep.

Troubleshooting is player helping player. Specs & Setting are the 'meat & potatos' of troubleshooting.

Maybe, "Bis fix your game!!", posts belong in the 'Development' section? Since a Dev might see them there.

---------- Post added at 09:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:57 PM ----------

Tho this thread does have no less than 44 Dev posts. So....