Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[MavericK96 0]

keep in mind, it is _my_ opinion that it would be too difficult and time consuming - I am not speaking on their behalf of course :)

No, I know, I was referencing what a dev actually said (or something very similar) in the ticket for this issue in ArmA 2 some years back. I can understand it being too late to do a major overhaul on the ArmA 2 engine in 2012 or whatever, but for ArmA 3 it seems there was ample time to work on this, both in Alpha and before it was even announced. If the answer comes back that it is "too time consuming/difficult" to do now in ArmA 3, I think we can expect it's never going to happen...

[tonschuh 3]

Myke;2680317']True but...

Can we agree that we both have the same ArmA 3? Now please' date=' explain me why i have 50-60 FPS in SP. Explain me please. According to you this isn't possible. It might be related to the fact that i don't try to play on ultra but this is a extremely wild speculation. Now please, go ahead, explain my good FPS, i'm really interested to know.[/quote']

I get with your high-settings + VD = 3200 / 3800 around the same amount of fps at the beginning of the campaign, but I throw a bit more hardware at the game:

Click

But the gameplay still doesn't look smooth and it doesn't make a difference if I turn VSync on / off / adaptive on. I wonder how someone can enjoy the game, as I get motion-sickness from that unsmooth graphics.

It's not related to my SLI-Setup, as I had the same issue with a Single-GTX670-OC-2GB.

I couldn't check-out the actual mp-performance, as there were hardly any dev-build-servers, but I got the same amount of fps on an empty TDM-Stadium-Map.

[jumpinghubert 48]

As long as we have no official benchmarks reflecting typical scenarios (heavy ai and/or scripted scenarios and little ones) there will be such misunderstanding like above.

[Lagatron 10]

Last patch had no improvements for multiplayer that I've noticed. Still massive desync and low fps. Seriously... and there are STILL moderators on this forum saying it's our hardware's fault. What a joke. Bohemia will be hurtin when no one wants to buy their next game.

[St. Jimmy 272]

... Seriously... and there are STILL moderators on this forum saying it's our hardware's fault. What a joke.

They are providing tips and tweaks how to get better performance.

People are playing with over 1,6K object view distance, object detail higher than normal, PiP enabled and some AI and expect constant 60fps and full utilizations. There are flaws but you can compensate.

[Furret 0]

Last patch had no improvements for multiplayer that I've noticed. Still massive desync and low fps. Seriously... and there are STILL moderators on this forum saying it's our hardware's fault. What a joke. Bohemia will be hurtin when no one wants to buy their next game.

There were some significant MP improvements, the problem is a bug was introduced that kills a server when people start shooting guns.

[[frl]myke 14]

Last patch had no improvements for multiplayer that I've noticed. Still massive desync and low fps. Seriously... and there are STILL moderators on this forum saying it's our hardware's fault. What a joke. Bohemia will be hurtin when no one wants to buy their next game.

Nope, what i say is that hardware might be one of several causes for low FPS, not excluding the game itself. Besides that, i'm quite busy hunting duplicate accounts from banned members...oh....

[mobile_medic 43]

Myke;2682747']Nope' date=' what i say is that hardware might be one of several causes for low FPS, not excluding the game itself.[/quote']

hmm... so, what did you mean when you said this, then?

Myke;2678764']Question remains: either it's the game faults or the players fault.

The two statements seem rather contradictory.

[[frl]myke 14]

hmm... so, what did you mean when you said this, then?

The two statements seem rather contradictory.

I'm sorry, i'm only responsible for what i write, not for what you understand.

...one of several causes...

which includes the player as one possible cause.

Contradiction eliminated?

[mobile_medic 43]

No, it doesn't. It is exactly what I pointed out as being contradictory to one of your previous posts where you stated (as a *fact* claim, I might add, since you failed to present it as your *opinion*) that it is *either* the game's fault *OR* the player's fault... which, pretty clearly suggests that it is one or the other, and not some possible combination. Those two separate posts clearly seem to contradict one another... which is what I asked you to clarify. You failed to do so. You only further highlighted the contradiction between the two posts.

And, considering that you have spent the last several days pretty aggressively (in my view) trying to lump those making performance claims into a demographic of people who either expect 150fps, or who want to run Arma on ultra with insufficient hardware... dropping in a couple of days later and saying "one of several causes" doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your previous *claims* without additional clarification. Not that it matters... This thread is one big cluster-f***... as it seems the powers that be would like it to remain, considering their lack of contribution to this thread, guidance, request for specific feedback, failure to attempt to separate hardware and user related issues away from "LOW CPU" discussion, etc, etc, etc.

But, hey... always nice to see a moderator dropping in with condescending/sarcastic remarks...

I'm sorry, i'm only responsible for what i write, not for what you understand.

If you don't speak clearly, you don't get to pass off blame on the reader in an attempt to absolve yourself of responsibility for what you write, either. A bit under-handed in my opinion.

I wonder how quickly you would have infracted a member here for saying that to you...

Edited May 4, 2014 by Mobile_Medic

[k0rd 3]

Myke;2682867']I'm sorry' date=' i'm only responsible for what i write, not for what you understand.

which includes the player as one possible cause.

Contradiction eliminated?[/quote']

I think he was confused by your use of the word "either", which implies that it can't be both the engine, mission maker, and player's hardware at the same time (which of course, it is a combination of in most cases)

[edit] sorry - we must have been typing at the same time :)

[[frl]myke 14]

Fact: i've seen countless players complaining on this forum that A3 (and previously A2) runs with insufficent FPS on their PC.

Fact: after closer investigation it turned out that those players tried to play on Ultra settings with ridiculous high viewdistance on a mediocre outdated laptop.

Fact: after turning down their expectations a bit (it doesn't look that bad on normal settings) they were able to play and actually enjoy the game (unless their hardware is definately not capable).

Fact: there are people out there, right now, playing and enjoying the game. Odd enough as some in here say that this is strictly impossible, the game is unplayable.

Also fact: i'm really only responsible for what i write, not what people understand. This includes this statement.

:EDITH:

I wonder how quickly you would have infracted a member here for saying that to you...

Care to elaborate? Don't know what you mean (no joke, a bit lost here, seriously).

[opendome 91]

I have

AMD FX 8350

Nvidia GT 660

8 gb G-Skill RAM

Samsung EVO 840 SSD

and Ive always been looking to get decent/stable FPS instead of high detail and I usually play with VD of about 1000 m and have everything turned off that can be off and most other options adjusted according to http://day0.com.au/forum/arma/638-arma-3-performance-tweaks-and-settings-guide for maximum performance but I still get medicore-poor FPS in many cases (goes down to 15-20 fps in towns especially if there are any OPFOR located in them) and my hardware is barely utilized (usually around 20-25% of CPU and 40% of GPU). Ive also taken my computer into a computer shop to make sure nothing was wrong with my hardware or software and they said everythings working perfectly, Ive also performed benchmarks so I know it's not my hardware. I think one of the biggest things is taht switching setting types (low, medium, high) has little effect on FPS. Im just saying this because I think it's unfair to group everyone who has performance issues with those who max out settings, if I could get Arma 3 to run at an even 30-40 fps but look like Arma 2 i'd be a happy camper, just my opinion

Edited May 4, 2014 by Opendome

[windies 11]

Myke;2682909']Fact: i've seen countless players complaining on this forum that A3 (and previously A2) runs with insufficent FPS on their PC.

Fact: after closer investigation it turned out that those players tried to play on Ultra settings with ridiculous high viewdistance on a mediocre outdated laptop.

Fact: after turning down their expectations a bit (it doesn't look that bad on normal settings) they were able to play and actually enjoy the game (unless their hardware is definately not capable).

Fact: there are people out there' date=' right now, playing and enjoying the game. Odd enough as some in here say that this is strictly impossible, the game is unplayable.

Also fact: i'm really only responsible for what i write, not what people understand. This includes this statement.

:EDITH:

Care to elaborate? Don't know what you mean (no joke, a bit lost here, seriously).[/quote']

Fact: Because of your previously stated facts, you assume that is the default case for everyone with problems.

You're also responsible for understanding what it is you write. It's not our fault if we read it right and you don't even understand what you're writing. You literally say, It's either the player, or the game and it's pretty clear which way you lean so I would say it's you who needs to understand what you write before you start writing it.

Even beside that point, the only thing you've done in this thread is inflame members and inflame the situation. You really do need to remove yourself from this thread and topics about these issue's because you're doing nothing but inflaming people with legitimate problems by stereotyping and harassing people with no real recourse but to pressure the devs into fixing things because providing bug reports and fixes has yielded very little to no change thus far.

[mobile_medic 43]

Myke;2682909']Fact: i've seen countless players complaining on this forum that A3 (and previously A2) runs with insufficent FPS on their PC.

It is certainly a fact that this is your observation. Personally' date=' I agree with this observation (as a matter of informed opinion). Though, this really is not evidence of anything, other than your own observations.

Fact: after closer investigation it turned out that those players tried to play on Ultra settings with ridiculous high viewdistance on a mediocre outdated laptop.

This is suggesting that *every* player who "complained" on this forum (or, at least every one you have "seen") that A3 (and A2) runs with insufficient FPS was a laptop user attempting to play the game maxed out with ridiculous view distance.

This is not a fact.

I am sure you would agree with that. If not, I can say, this is certainly not the case for myself, so... again, not a fact. It is also my opinion that this statement is highly misleading to the average reader when they see a mod essentially say "I've seen countless players complain about low FPS, and it turned out that they were all laptop users trying to play with everything maxed out." Even if you don't mean to claim this explicitly, the conclusion is clearly implicit in your choice of words.

Even if it were true, it is an observational anecdote of one person, at best. (One that, in my opinion, risks being especially misleading to customers, when the person presenting it as "Fact" is wearing a badge that places them in a position of authority). It is evidence of nothing.

Fact: after turning down their expectations a bit (it doesn't look that bad on normal settings) they were able to play and actually enjoy the game (unless their hardware is definately not capable).

This is an extension of the above. Also, not a fact. And, you are also implicitly (if not explicitly) suggesting that incapable hardware is "definitely" the cause for those who are not able to enjoy this game.

Fact: there are people out there, right now, playing and enjoying the game. Odd enough as some in here say that this is strictly impossible, the game is unplayable.

I certainly wouldn't dispute that, and I never have... "some people say"... Well, I never have. This kind of straw-manning seems to be a popular thing to do here, though. Who is some? Most? a little? 2? 20? 90%? "Some people say"... urggg... A tired, overused fallacy (in my opinion) that is generally used when disguising opinions as facts (intentionally or unintentionally).

Also fact: i'm really only responsible for what i write, not what people understand. This includes this statement.

Only if you don't give a shit whether or not you are being understood. It seems reasonable that you would *want* to be understood and would take (reasonable) care to ensure this. When someone points out a perceived contradiction in your statements, this would seem doubly reasonable before you dismiss their ability to understand you (which is what I suggested was condescending/sarcastic in my previous post. I hope, upon reflection, it is pretty obvious why I would perceive it as such, given the context).

When you layer in the fact that you are helping to manage (and represent) an international community where language barriers should be an additional consideration, I find it concerning that your "go-to" response would basically be to attempt to absolve yourself from any responsibility for what you say, or how you are understood (within reason, of course).

Care to elaborate? Don't know what you mean (no joke, a bit lost here, seriously).

See above. And, past experience.

[k0rd 3]

I would dare say that people that are playing and enjoying the game are likely not the same type of people that would complain about not getting great FPS.

I also play and enjoy the game, but I can forget about getting over 30fps on a populated multiplayer mission.

[MavericK96 0]

I would dare say that people that are playing and enjoying the game are likely not the same type of people that would complain about not getting great FPS.

I still play the game regularly because I love the game/series. Doesn't stop me from complaining about getting poor FPS because it can really ruin the game experience when you get drops into the teens. It's just a matter of having the hardware to do it but the game itself won't take advantage of it, which is a shame when I can go play a dozen other games which run at a solid 60 FPS and fully utilize my hardware.

I'm not asking for 60 FPS minimum in ArmA (though of course that would be great), but is not dropping below 25 too much to ask?

[k0rd 3]

I still play the game regularly because I love the game/series. Doesn't stop me from complaining about getting poor FPS because it can really ruin the game experience when you get drops into the teens. It's just a matter of having the hardware to do it but the game itself won't take advantage of it, which is a shame when I can go play a dozen other games which run at a solid 60 FPS and fully utilize my hardware.

I'm not asking for 60 FPS minimum in ArmA (though of course that would be great), but is not dropping below 25 too much to ask?

no, it isn't.

my point is - just because there are some people having fun with the game and not complaining, it doesn't mean that there isn't a problem.

[Azza FHI 50]

There isnt a problem if u have a good computer and know how to set it and the game up properly, and dont expect great fps from public servers running 24/7. Cant beleive ppl are still bitching about this stuff.

Heres a brief guide:

Amd cpu = shit

Cpu less than 4ghz= shit

gpu less than 680 = shit

high viewdistance = shit

public servers = shit

Poor pc maintenance = shit

no ssd = shit

Thinking that arma should perform like other AAA titles because ur ignorant = shit

Too many AI in one area = shit

not directed at anyone in particular, but to those still complaining about performance if u follow that guide u might just be surprised...

[k0rd 3]

Thinking that arma should perform like other AAA titles because ur ignorant = shit

Too many AI in one area = shit

They shouldn't advertise large-scale engagements with AI as a feature if you can't do it. Your "guide" includes cutting out core features of the game. No public servers?

SSD doesn't improve FPS in multiplayer, at all- not one single frame per second.

You are right about AMD chips, sort of right about view distance (define "high")

Maintenance is a no-brainer.

Yeah - the game runs great sitting at Stratis Airbase with 1 fireteam of 4 AI - thanks for the tip... but most of us didn't buy the game to run around a gigantic map in single player fighting 2 or 3 AI units.

[[frl]myke 14]

Let's see:

...i've seen countless players complaining...

"Countless" as in "a lot". Does not mean "all" nor does it imply anything else.

it turned out that those players

"those players" referring to the previous statement, forming a more or less defined group of players which have low FPS simply by overestimating the power of their hardware. Not more, not less.

This is suggesting that *every* player who "complained" on this forum (or, at least every one you have "seen") that A3 (and A2) runs with insufficient FPS was a laptop user attempting to play the game maxed out with ridiculous view distance.

Nope, this is not what i was suggesting but nonetheless what you understand. Therefor i'm only responsible for what i write, not what you understand. Quod erat demonstrandum.

It is also my opinion that this statement is highly misleading

Only if you interpret it the way you want it to be and not the way it is meant to be.

Even if it were true, it is an observational anecdote of one person, at best.

Please read (just to name one reference) through the thread "Will my PC run this?" It is full of your so-called "anecdotes".

This is an extension of the above. Also, not a fact.

Seems we have different definitions of the term "fact". For me it is what is been proved. If you're reading more than just this single thread in here, you know it is true.

And, you are also implicitly (if not explicitly) suggesting that incapable hardware is "definitely" the cause for those who are not able to enjoy this game.

Either this or unrealistic expectations. Yes, in a lot of cases. Please take note that i wrote "a lot" and not "all".

This kind of straw-manning seems to be a popular thing to do here, though. Who is some? Most? a little? 2? 20? 90%?

"Some" is a undefined number, used if there is not sufficient data available to give a more accurate number. You might take the effort and check the ingame server browser for a snapshot of playercount. It is definately >0 and since i do enjoy A3 in MP, i'll now simply assume that those players are enjoying it aswell.

Only if you don't give a shit whether or not you are being understood.

I try my best to be understood but i'm well aware that i will always fall short on those who don't want to understand.

When someone points out a perceived contradiction in your statements,

Your perception. Please read previous statement.

to attempt to absolve yourself from any responsibility for what you say,

As already stated, i take full responability for what i write.

See above. And, past experience.

So, when asking for help when i didn't understood something you wrote, this is your helpful answer? Ah, i see.

[5133p39 12]

I must say, this whole problem is really intriguing.

I know about approx. 20 different computers (well, not all of them different, its like 60% are the same, the rest is different), which can run the game with perfectly playable framerates on medium to ultra settings (apart from viewdistance which is usually set between 2-4km), on public servers running missions like Domination, Altis Life, Wasteland, etc.

And that's not counting the "Casual Arma Players" people i usually play with - i dont remember any of them complaining about unplayable FPS (although i admit, maybe i forgot someone).

Until recently, i was even playing the game on a super ancient HW consisting of i5-750 @2.6GHz, 4GB RAM, ATI HD 5970, and i still had playable frames (medium details, 2km objects VD, 2.5km terrain VD).

Now i am not saying there are no issues, nor that the game runs like lightning fast under any circumstances, nor that there is nothing to improve, nor that other ppl are lying, ...its just puzzling.

[TheBigOne_014 16]

I must say, this whole problem is really intriguing.

I know about approx. 20 different computers (well, not all of them different, its like 60% are the same, the rest is different), which can run the game with perfectly playable framerates on medium to ultra settings (apart from viewdistance which is usually set between 2-4km), on public servers running missions like Domination, Altis Life, Wasteland, etc.

Complettly agree with you, but if you read carefully the players who complain the lack of performance, in the majority of the cases don't agree that 25-40 FPS it's an playable framerate, only above 60 FPS, and add the fact they see the CPU running under 60% of it's capacity, they complain,...

[[frl]myke 14]

I must say, this whole problem is really intriguing.

I know about approx. 20 different computers (well, not all of them different, its like 60% are the same, the rest is different), which can run the game with perfectly playable framerates on medium to ultra settings (apart from viewdistance which is usually set between 2-4km), on public servers running missions like Domination, Altis Life, Wasteland, etc.

And that's not counting the "Casual Arma Players" people i usually play with - i dont remember any of them complaining about unplayable FPS (although i admit, maybe i forgot someone).

Until recently, i was even playing the game on a super ancient HW consisting of i5-750 @2.6GHz, 4GB RAM, ATI HD 5970, and i still had playable frames (medium details, 2km objects VD, 2.5km terrain VD).

Now i am not saying there are no issues, nor that the game runs like lightning fast under any circumstances, nor that there is nothing to improve, nor that other ppl are lying, ...its just puzzling.

So much this. :D

I wouldn't complain if BI could squeeze a few FPS more out of the engine so i can set a few settings one notch higher but i know my hardware isn't high end and ArmA 3 still looks stunning with my normal to high settings.

[Polymath820 11]

It seems like me that was have become desensitised and are now looking for justifications for bohemias inability to optimise a game sufficiently that it can actually run at acceptable frame-rates. I mean there are games that do more work than bohemias game does and they are optimised sufficiently to run on quite a wide range of systems. CryEngine, Unreal-Engine, Unity etc. Why can't ArmA 3 actually have acceptable frame-rate that is maintained? We constantly make excuses for ArmA 3 which is poorly optimised and bohemia has fallen into a behavior rut, of pumping out games which are extremely buggy, unstable, and unoptimised, and the statement that "they do something no one else does".

We really need to stop giving excuses to bohemia and get them to fix there crappy engine and game. Because they've been putting it off for nearly 5 years all the way back to operation flashpoint. Stating the game engine is "next gen" nothing about it is even remotely next-gen, bohemia even reduced the graphical fidelity of ArmA 3 dropping to a 16bit HDR rendering compared with ArmA 2's 32bit.

And whats more bohemia recently released a patch, that was supposed to add MP fixes for stability. It is amusing irony the patch they released to improve stability made things much worse.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Polymath820
Shameful Bohemia