Jump to content
k3lt

Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

Recommended Posts

Back in the early days of Arma 2, someone made a video with 1200 AI. .
I wasn´t able to reproduce such a 1200er battle in arma2 with a 3570k @ 4,9GHZ above 3fps. I assume some kind of tweaks to get good performance...disabled ai or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn´t able to reproduce such a 1200er battle in arma2 with a 3570k @ 4,9GHZ above 3fps. I assume some kind of tweaks to get good performance...disabled ai or something like that.

I remember that he said somewhere that he needed to cover the computer with icebags.

His 1500 AI video was the thing that made me buy Arma 2 :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it really does seem to be AI related. I did a test with just 200 or so AI soldiers on Stratis on the airfield (so not even in a town where they may have more pathfinding calcs) and I was getting drops into the 15-20 FPS range. Even turning down View Distance to very low levels did absolutely nothing.

For a reference point, I did a similar thing in ArmA 2 on Utes and it took more than double the amount of AI to start seeing that kind of slowdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn´t able to reproduce such a 1200er battle in arma2 with a 3570k @ 4,9GHZ above 3fps. I assume some kind of tweaks to get good performance...disabled ai or something like that.

And that proves what?

He did overclock heavily. It doesn't matter, because 1200 AI isn't something you would need. But 200 AI isn't that much, and next to impossible to achieve. I had to pull out all kinds of tricks to make my mission playable.I would be happy if 250-300 AI would work, but that's just not possible right now. It was possible in Arma 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AI is the #1 fps killer by far for me. I am really interested in looking into the HC option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
His 1500 AI video was the thing that made me buy Arma 2 :D

Actually, me too. It was the tracers that won me. During my Army time I had seen tracers and was surprised how "slow" a bullet travels in reality. When I saw the same effect in Arma 2, I just had to get it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are missions in the Steam Workshop which reaches easy (last time i played, couple months ago) the 300-500AI´s counter. I wasnt able to aim as 400 Enemys were on the map, had drops to single digits with my system. The mission was "Escape Altis"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Arma2 runs ugly with 1000ai.

-Arma3 runs ugly with 1000ai.

-Arma2 runs little bit better with 300ai than arma3.

There is nothing to misunderstand unless someone allows black and white only :dd:

Edited by JumpingHubert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Arma2 runs ugly with 1000ai.

-Arma3 runs ugly with 1000ai.

-Arma2 runs little bit better with 300ai than arma3.

There is nothing to misunderstand unless someone allows black and white only

You just don't get the point. It doesn't matter if any of the two can reach a 1000 AI. It does matter that Arma 3 cannot reach 200 AI. And Arma 2 doesn't only run "a little bit better" with 300 AI, it runs a LOT better with 300 AI. Enough to make the difference between playable and non-playable. This isn't about black and white. This is about flat-out denial that there is a limit in Arma 3 that is dangerously close to making a big impact. If you start the showcase Gunship for example you will find that there are approximately 150 AI units on the map. In the mission I made, I had 180. That means there is a very thin line between playable and unplayable, and that line is quickly crossed.

I seriously fail to understand all this whitewashing and denying. What do you gain from this? Nothing at all. If people, and BIS; acknowledged there is such a problem and would work on it, we all would get a better game, so it really escapes me why you are so vehemently closing your eyes from the facts that have been confirmed by a lot of people already. I can only say again, I don't want to bash Arma 3 or badmouth it, I want it to improve. What do you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You just don't get the point. It doesn't matter if any of the two can reach a 1000 AI. It does matter that Arma 3 cannot reach 200 AI. And Arma 2 doesn't only run "a little bit better" with 300 AI, it runs a LOT better with 300 AI. Enough to make the difference between playable and non-playable. This isn't about black and white. This is about flat-out denial that there is a limit in Arma 3 that is dangerously close to making a big impact. If you start the showcase Gunship for example you will find that there are approximately 150 AI units on the map. In the mission I made, I had 180. That means there is a very thin line between playable and unplayable, and that line is quickly crossed.

I seriously fail to understand all this whitewashing and denying. What do you gain from this? Nothing at all. If people, and BIS; acknowledged there is such a problem and would work on it, we all would get a better game, so it really escapes me why you are so vehemently closing your eyes from the facts that have been confirmed by a lot of people already. I can only say again, I don't want to bash Arma 3 or badmouth it, I want it to improve. What do you want?

what you describe covers to 100% my experience. But to prove it with these "1000-ai-video´s" is senseless. To declare it senseless has nothing to do with whitewashing or denying. At the risk of doing like a parrot: we need ai-related benchmarks. Not with 1 ai, not with 1000 ai. A mission comparison a3-a2 and 200ai for example with comparable parameters with reduced graphic settings would be more helpful....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what you describe covers to 100% my experience. But to prove it with these "1000-ai-video´s" is senseless. To declare it senseless has nothing to do with whitewashing or denying. At the risk of doing like a parrot: we need ai-related benchmarks. Not with 1 ai, not with 1000 ai. A mission comparison a3-a2 and 200ai for example with comparable parameters with reduced graphic settings would be more helpful....

Well I had a much worse machine (well, the recommended requirements for A3) when I played Arma 2, and it never had so many issues. I can imagine that things like PhysX etc have an impact on AI performance, although I don't think it is ONLY the AI performance. The 1000 AI is relevant, since it shows that the boundaries of Arma 2 were much higher. In the cases that I described, the graphics had very little impact, you could set them to very low and it would still not perform decently. AI and network are an issue, because the framerate isn't even going to be better if the mission runs on a different machine.

Now, I am not claiming to know what the problem is. I know though that there is one, and that the performance got considerably worse from Arma 2 to Arma 3. That information IS relevant, because it might narrow down the possible causes for the slowdowns. I remember Rocket saying once that Arma 2 can handle much more concurrent players than Arma 3; there must be a reason for that, and it is NOT graphics; running the A3MP maps on Arma 3 generally is at least as fast as Arma 2, probably because of the DirectX 11 API being used.

I do believe that the island size plays a role as well. Altis is simply a really large island, and to be frank, I wish they had made it smaller - a few plains could have easily been cut out in favor of a denser terrain grid (compare Stratis to aAltis) and better frame rates.

But to reiterate, I do think these things have relevance. Because something changed between Arma 2 and Arma 3 (see Rocket's comment); in a lot of cases, it has changed for the better, but not in the case of AI performance and network.

Anyway, make of it whatever you want. I have said my part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree. The island is fkin too big. Arma3 wins in this case 2 medals:

Medal 1: biggest playable map ever

Medal 2: patches over years ago -> 1-5fps gain. Maybe. WOW!

Good Job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the risk of doing like a parrot: we need ai-related benchmarks. Not with 1 ai, not with 1000 ai. A mission comparison a3-a2 and 200ai for example with comparable parameters with reduced graphic settings would be more helpful....

Yeah, so someone make it (I'm not a mission maker so it's not going to be me). Or better yet, BIS make it and then we will all run it and provide feedback.

I really do think this is one of the first steps to addressing the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BIS know there is a problem, why do you think all the missions never had that many AI in the campaign? Why do you think the open ended campaign got cut? Did you try the official BIS Arma 3 servers? I went on and it was running at 4fps, and that's the official server, with I presume a BIS coded mission. If not even the game developers can run a MP server with AI and players over 10 fps then there is a serious problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIS know there is a problem, why do you think all the missions never had that many AI in the campaign? Why do you think the open ended campaign got cut? Did you try the official BIS Arma 3 servers? I went on and it was running at 4fps, and that's the official server, with I presume a BIS coded mission. If not even the game developers can run a MP server with AI and players over 10 fps then there is a serious problem.

Running a server with that kind of frames for such a well known developer is just a shame. And everyday a bunch of people quits playing Arma cause the frames are sh*t. I wonder how long BI will drive this road...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIS know there is a problem, why do you think all the missions never had that many AI in the campaign? Why do you think the open ended campaign got cut? Did you try the official BIS Arma 3 servers? I went on and it was running at 4fps, and that's the official server, with I presume a BIS coded mission. If not even the game developers can run a MP server with AI and players over 10 fps then there is a serious problem.

I'm pretty sure there are no BI missions. Dwarden uses popular missions for his testing servers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you try the official BIS Arma 3 servers? I went on and it was running at 4fps, and that's the official server, with I presume a BIS coded mission. If not even the game developers can run a MP server with AI and players over 10 fps then there is a serious problem.

He meant server

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've been trying to improve my fps on Arma 3 by changing all my settings from high to low and there seems to be no difference at all

I'm Running an Hd 7970 and R9 280x in crossfire and I still have extremely low frames, the problem persists even when I run just one card so I know it isn't a crossfire problem.

This Fps problem happens in multiplayer and No matter what i only get between 20-27 fps, wither it be on Ultra with everything turned on or on low with everything off and View distance only on 1000. Can anybody please help it is making the game unplayable.

Thanks

Specs

AMD FX-8150 (3.6GHz)

HD 7970/R9 280X

8GB KINGSTON HYPER-X RAm (1866mhz)

Windows 7 64bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I've been trying to improve my fps on Arma 3 by changing all my settings from high to low and there seems to be no difference at all

I'm Running an Hd 7970 and R9 280x in crossfire and I still have extremely low frames, the problem persists even when I run just one card so I know it isn't a crossfire problem.

This Fps problem happens in multiplayer and No matter what i only get between 20-27 fps, wither it be on Ultra with everything turned on or on low with everything off and View distance only on 1000. Can anybody please help it is making the game unplayable.

Thanks

Specs

AMD FX-8150 (3.6GHz)

HD 7970/R9 280X

8GB KINGSTON HYPER-X RAm (1866mhz)

Windows 7 64bit

Have you tried reading some of this thread/the dozens of threads made every week about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Bryny : there are 2 sides in your question

- About no change -FPS wise- from "High" to "Low" : in Arma3, as on previous Arma* games, FPS are a CPU job. In order to get the highest FPS rate, you need the most efficient processor, even if the GPU level matters of course.

A single R9 280x is far from enough to play at the "Ultra" level, any move to set the parameters to "Low" level is counter-productive, of course, you are loosing the quality on screen and the worst part, you are switching some render operations to CPU.

- About the overall FPS rate : as previously said "... to have the highest FPS rate you need the most efficient processor ...", the AMD FX-8150 is not of that kind -Arma3 wise-, there are not much difference between this one and old nice AMD Phenom II x 4 955. From my own point of view the FX-8350 is the only one having enough juice to compete with the Intel i3/i5 playing Arma3 at a high price and using a lot more energy.

Playing in "Ultra", Visibility = 2000m @20/30 FPS in Solo seems a good achievement, on MP you are going to loose 5/10 FPS on a "good" server, I mean a server well managed hosting a well built mission, using fool proof Mods. Meaning you are not playing on fancy Altis-Life servers ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Bryny : there are 2 sides in your question

- About no change -FPS wise- from "High" to "Low" : in Arma3, as on previous Arma* games, FPS are a CPU job. In order to get the highest FPS rate, you need the most efficient processor, even if the GPU level matters of course.

A single R9 280x is far from enough to play at the "Ultra" level, any move to set the parameters to "Low" level is counter-productive, of course, you are loosing the quality on screen and the worst part, you are switching some render operations to CPU.

- About the overall FPS rate : as previously said "... to have the highest FPS rate you need the most efficient processor ...", the AMD FX-8150 is not of that kind -Arma3 wise-, there are not much difference between this one and old nice AMD Phenom II x 4 955. From my own point of view the FX-8350 is the only one having enough juice to compete with the Intel i3/i5 playing Arma3 at a high price and using a lot more energy.

Playing in "Ultra", Visibility = 2000m @20/30 FPS in Solo seems a good achievement, on MP you are going to loose 5/10 FPS on a "good" server, I mean a server well managed hosting a well built mission, using fool proof Mods. Meaning you are not playing on fancy Altis-Life servers ...

Thanks for the help, Since on of my R9 280s is still under warranty i might just take it back for a new motherboard and i7 4770k, is this a good choice for gaming? since I always want to do video editing, will it run Arma 3 a lot better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the help, Since on of my R9 280s is still under warranty i might just take it back for a new motherboard and i7 4770k, is this a good choice for gaming? since I always want to do video editing, will it run Arma 3 a lot better?

Arma3: not so much better how you think..

Video Editing: Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.. have problem... i got around 25 fps in multiplayer not matter settings. Its around 25 on super high and same fps on ultra low. My cartd is gtx 460, procesor ADM phenom II x4 965 (OC 4ghz), 4 gb RAM.

Any suggestions?

Spiro

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

×