Jump to content
k3lt

Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

Recommended Posts

I talked from my experience but its of course not representative.

What kind of performance issues did you have, then, in Arma 2 MP? No comparison needed to Arma 3, I am just interested since I never had any of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
on the other hand no one deny any problems..

I beg to differ. Some people simply blame "sub par PC's" for the low performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What kind of performance issues did you have, then, in Arma 2 MP? No comparison needed to Arma 3, I am just interested since I never had any of those.
never had more than 25-30fps in arma2 mp instead of arma3 I have 35 fps minimum. But thats very very subjective because different modes etc etc. My impression (subjective!) is that mp in arma3 have a little bit better minimum fps in the whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
never had more than 25-30fps in arma2 mp instead of arma3 I have 35 fps minimum. But thats very very subjective because different modes etc etc. My impression (subjective!) is that mp in arma3 have a little bit better minimum fps in the whole.

35 fps MINIMUM ?

What system do you have ? Because quite frankly, and sorry if that sounds offensive, but I don't believe you. You might have 35 fps on average, but minimum ? NO! WAY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
never had more than 25-30fps in arma2 mp instead of arma3 I have 35 fps minimum. But thats very very subjective because different modes etc etc. My impression (subjective!) is that mp in arma3 have a little bit better minimum fps in the whole.

I have to say that I think you're the only person I know claiming that ArmA 3 has better MP performance than ArmA 2. I and many others find it to be the inverse of that.

---------- Post added at 12:51 ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 ----------

35 fps MINIMUM ?

What system do you have ? Because quite frankly, and sorry if that sounds offensive, but I don't believe you. You might have 35 fps on average, but minimum ? NO! WAY!

^ Also this. I don't believe you either but just don't feel like arguing strawmen at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
never had more than 25-30fps in arma2 mp instead of arma3 I have 35 fps minimum.

35 FPS? MINIMUM? I find it very hard to believe that. I would believe if you said "around 35 fps most of the time", but there are most definitely missions that I get down to 15 FPS, on a pretty decent system (i5-3570K, GeForce 660 Ti). And for no other reason than the AI. I once had a mission I had to scrap because it wouldn't work. It had around 100 AI in total, and would drop down to around 12 FPS at worst with literally no scripting going on. Remove the AI, and things got up to 40-50. Note it was AI on the server, still it had a completely devastating impact on the client.

I *do* call that a severe MP issue.

But thats very very subjective because different modes etc etc. My impression (subjective!) is that mp in arma3 have a little bit better minimum fps in the whole.

Well how to argue with such a vague statement? "I have the impression that water isn't as wet as it used to be" is a similar vein. I do agree that for me, the FPS on e.g. Chernarus is generally the same or even sometimes better on Arma 3 than it was on Arma 2. In single player, with nothing else on the map. However, that doesn't have anything to do with multiplayer performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 fps MINIMUM ?

What system do you have ? Because quite frankly, and sorry if that sounds offensive, but I don't believe you. You might have 35 fps on average, but minimum ? NO! WAY!

In arma2-mp I only played missions/on servers with highest fps, so mostly PvP or with small amount of ai, same selective behavior in arma3-mp so my comparison have some "limitations". Currently I am playing on EUTW Servers (25p v 25p Altis-map) and have 35 minimum fps on full servers and only in fully destroyed cities with lots of players in it 30fps minimum. I don´t say all is ok in mp I wanted only denie that ALL gets worsed in a3-mp compared to a2-mp. Thats a difference. I only give my impressions in opposition to people like "windies" with their overshooting self-opinionated-at-all-costs behavior.

@Alwarren

thats true, arma3 have massive problems with ai, more than arma2. And yes, my statement is a little bit vague because I compared particular impressions. But thats only shocking for people only seeing black and white.

Edited by JumpingHubert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In arma2-mp I only played missions/on servers with highest fps, so mostly PvP or with small amount of ai, same selective behavior in arma3-mp so my comparison have some "limitations". Currently I am playing on EUTW Servers (25p v 25p Altis-map) and have 35 minimum fps on full servers and only in fully destroyed cities with lots of players in it 30fps minimum. I don´t say all is ok in mp I wanted only denie that ALL gets worsed in a3-mp compared to a2-mp. Thats a difference.

There's not much of a setting, besides view distance, I can max in ArmA 2 and no amount of sane AI that will drop me down to below the 15 or so minimum FPS I get in MP in ArmA 3. What you are basically saying is that you're "comparison have some "limitation"" means that you're comparison is biased because you're using selective behavior to get the best performance rather than comparing apples to apples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What you are basically saying is that you're "comparison have some "limitation"" means that you're comparison is biased because you're using selective behavior to get the best performance rather than comparing apples to apples.
please add this: I compare arma2-mp 2 years ago with current arma3-mp. I hope you are able to make a less subjective comparison, a truely apple to apple comparison?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thats true, arma3 have massive problems with ai, more than arma2. And yes, my statement is a little bit vague because I compared particular impressions. But thats only shocking for people only seeing black and white.

I am putting those exact impressions in question. You admit that there are massive AI problems, but then deny them by saying your FPS are fine? That's not vague, that is contradiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In arma2-mp I only played missions/on servers with highest fps, so mostly PvP or with small amount of ai, same selective behavior in arma3-mp so my comparison have some "limitations".

That's putting it mildly... in essence, you say you didn't play anything with AI in Arma 2, but still claim that it was worse than in Arma 3 ? Is that right ?

Currently I am playing on EUTW Servers (25p v 25p Altis-map) and have 35 minimum fps on full servers and only in fully destroyed cities with lots of players in it 30fps minimum.

Oh, see, you go down to 30 fps now.. you know, minimum is the minimum frame rate you get at any time, not at times that you select.

Besides, you basically say you play on a PvP server, while Windies claims that the AI is the problem. So, you claim the AI is NOT a problem (since you claim you have good frame rates) while at the same time admitting that you mainly play on PvP server in both Arma 2 and Arma 3.

So, please tell me, how can you then claim that all the talk about AI being a problem in MP is false while you don't even have experience in that matter ?

I don´t say all is ok in mp I wanted only denie that ALL gets worsed in a3-mp compared to a2-mp. Thats a difference. I only give my impressions in opposition to people like "windies" with their overshooting self-opinionated-at-all-costs behavior.

NO ONE claims that ALL gets worse. You are claiming ALL got better. which is false. So, seeing that your claim is not founded in ANY real data or observation, I wonder who is self-opinionated .

It is exactly this kind of denial that I absolutely hate and find to be totally destructive. Yes, there are good parts and bad parts about both Arma 2 and Arma 3 MP. But to claim that everything got better is not doing the game any favor, especially if you are, like you "admitted" yourself, not even capable of drawing any conclusions based on the fact that you mainly play PvP.

If you want to say "PvP performance got better on Arma 3", fine, that might be, I have no idea because I never play PvP (although the one time I played Wasteland was, quite honestly, a lagfest with 9 fps, but that might be wastelands fault, too). I mainly play vs AI, and let me tell you, there IS an issue with AI in MP. Not only the number of AI, but also the environment the AI is placed in.

For example, we had one mission that turned out to be unplayable (Alwarren was making it). Then, as a last resort, he moved everything to another locaiton, even ADDING AI in the process, and the speed went up by 30 %, just be moving to a different location.

So bottom line: There IS a problem, and denying it won't fix it. Yeah, I know, complaining doesn't fix it either, but at least raises the awareness for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I know, complaining doesn't fix it either, but at least raises the awareness for it.

Wrong. Providing reproductive data and constructive critics will raise awareness. Complaining will just be ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myke;2679854']Wrong. Providing reproductive data and constructive critics will raise awareness. Complaining will just be ignored.

How much more reproductive can you get than "Play the game with AI in a multiplayer server and observe the difference between the exact same scenario in SP"? Look at it like this, there's 300+ pages in this thread alone of ample reproductive data mixed with constructive complaints and general useless bitching and fighting. In general an empty map in SP has more FPS than an empty map in multiplayer. Everything added to it is simply just that, additions that cause problems. Fix the root cause first which is Multiplayer itself and then focus on the other stuff.

With that said, optimizing and fixing AI routines for instance, Can still improve performance, but they aren't a direct cause of Multiplayer but of themselves. One does not == the other. At this point in time though, having provided ample enough data for the developers to at least have a good head start in fixing the problem as far as consumers are concerned, the only thing we can do is complain and hope that the voice is loud enough to instigate some type of hopefully positive response on the issue and therefor the complaints and criticism are certainly valid.

Customer complaints should never be ignored because no matter how trivial you might think the complaint is, there is generally still some level of substance and valid criticism to the complaint. Another reason why you really should stay out of this topic and stop inflaming it with your narrow and naive opinions and points of view. I mean this without malice as well. Why inflame the situation for the sake of voicing your own opinion when you've even admitted that there are problems, but you are satisfied with those problems I.E. performance is bad, but your happy with what you get. It's far below any generally acceptable standard and any conceived industry standard.

Edited by Windies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stuff

Could you please stop taking my posts out of context to prove your point? Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myke;2679984']Could you please stop taking my posts out of context to prove your point? Thank you.

How am I taking them out of context? Please do tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Varanon

yes there IS still a big problem with ai in arma3-mp (and sp). All good so far? Its problematic to come to conclusions comparing arma2-mp and arma3-mp. At last because arma2-mp maybe took advantage of the malloc-related progress of arma3-mp.

Myke;2679854'] Providing reproductive data and constructive critics will raise awareness. Complaining will just be ignored.
Thanks for the right words. I think we need some kind of mp-benchmark-tool to be aware of progress or step backs in the current arma3 developement :) Edited by JumpingHubert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, AI is still not "clever enough" to rearm on an Ammobox when u give the order (example SpecialWeapons NATO) they run a circle and reports "Negative"

Only when 1 crate is next to an AI and no object, rock, tree or something other is near the Ammobox, first then the AI can "success" the hard mission rearming.

Unbeliveable that this kind of AI (Artifical Idiots ?) needs so much CPU-Power. They cant even drive a road over 500-1000meters without losing a wheel or wreck a whole tank on a straight road.

"Expert" AI Settings:

1iej8i.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How am I taking them out of context? Please do tell.
Yeah, I know, complaining doesn't fix it either, but at least raises the awareness for it.
Wrong. Providing reproductive data and constructive critics will raise awareness. Complaining will just be ignored.

The point is: complaining doesn't help, proper bug reporting does. Just putted it in the right words. It's not rocket science, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myke;2680064']The point is: complaining doesn't help' date=' proper bug reporting does. Just putted it in the right words. It's not rocket science, really.[/quote']

And after that point is reached, where proper data and reproductive steps have been given, it's up to the developers to do something about it. Hence all the complaining and the validity of the complaints. He's right in that complaining does raise awareness, it also puts pressure on the developers to focus on specific area's of trouble. Since we have any kind of a lack of competition, read Suma's remarks Here about when he was scared of the original Codemasters Operation Flashpoint release to get an idea of how pressure can be a good thing as well as a bad thing depending on how you handle it, the only pressure we can exert on BI to fix things is through complaints. So when you say complaints will be ignored, You're basically saying that customers will be ignored, users will be ignored because plenty of criticism and complaints contain constructive and even steps to reproduce issue's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of arguing, could anyone provide some feedback on the latest patch 1.18? I am not able to check myself :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Performance seems the same or slightly worse.

Can confirm that. I buried my hope to see a frames per second increasement few weeks ago. I think some users which says 30-35fps is enough its cause they usual didnt see more frames (no bash, no offense) for their eyes the movement with 30 fps is fluid.

For me it starts to be fluid when have "constantly" 45-60 fps, if not its like a dia-show sometimes^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can confirm that. I buried my hope to see a frames per second increasement few weeks ago. I think some users which says 30-35fps is enough its cause they usual didnt see more frames (no bash, no offense) for their eyes the movement with 30 fps is fluid.

For me it starts to be fluid when have "constantly" 45-60 fps, if not its like a dia-show sometimes^^

Hmmm....i still wonder why i get 50-60FPS on Altis....probably my game is broken since everyone says that more than 30FPS is just impossible (yes, talking about SP).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It´s senseless to write, to every Low frames posting you have an answer, thats why this Game never will be optimized, a ton of users write about problems due the Performance (of course not since yesterday, or since 3 months - yes since Alpha/Beta Stage till now) but there is always a person which seems riding on a rainbow coming from the anus which leads to Candy Mountain (not much of these "Yay, runs great peoples" exist)

Discussions like this were part in Arma2 - Performance is still like sh*t and the support has ended for A2 as far i know.

And Arma3 will walk the same way , ton of reports due sh*t performance, fixes - none. I am excited how it will end someday when Arma3 ends support, how much will be done then to clearly gain performance (clearly = minimum 10fps more in my opinion)

Who knows, maybe u´re lucky and Arma runs great on your Rainbowed System, but only take an hour or two and google it how many Customers with real good Rigs have framesissues in Arma2&3.

And dont tell me it´s CPU-based and stuff like that... Sure it is, but only a Dev could optimize in this way that the Users would gain frames and not the "bottleneck-CPUs"

Cpu´s are mostly fast enough,looks like the Gameengine is not.

(Sorry for bad English,when i am tired i lost some words somewhere ^^)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also a lot of people don't come to this forum and probably don't realize it exists, and they're having issue's. Look at the Steam forums and it's a mess of people having issue's with the game and funny enough it's the same people from this forum over there telling them that everything is great, it's just a tactical shooter and performance is fine and blah blah blah etc... It's the same demographic over there saying everything is fine, but it's an entirely different demographic saying they are having issue's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×