Jump to content
k3lt

Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

Recommended Posts

There is quite a contrast between the usual avoidance, denial, etc that takes place here with regards to performance discussion, and the way the DayZ dev team discuss performance issues, and the short-comings of the engine.

Can't tell you the number of posts I've read of people defending sqf here.

Just read a "Status Report" on the DayZ site, that discusses how inadequate sqf really is:

None of this will probably end up meaning anything for A3, but the openness and honesty with which the DayZ team discusses such issues is appreciated... and a welcome change from the "status quo" on the Bohemia forums.

Because it's a new IP and doesn't have the community that ArmA does. It would be kind of hard to say "Hey guys, developing DayZ is just too hard and we're unwilling to do some things" to a community still in Alpha. The problems DayZ has currently are the same problems ArmA has, exacerbated because of the large player counts. Really has nothing to do with it being in Alpha or developmental stages really, it's simply the engines inability to scale to the demands of what you're actually trying to do with it.

Works here though because, simply put, you have a community willing to deal with it more or less and still buy your game. I imagine if BI actually feared the uproar from this community as much as they probably do from the DayZ community you would see much more transparency when it comes to ArmA. Most of the core ArmA community are content developers more or less, I would go so far as to say that 75% of the community has or does develop content for the game in some fashion, whether it be missions or scripts or addons or whatever.

Honestly I would go so far as to say that if the game ran at 5 FPS and constantly desync'd to the point you couldn't play it, this community would still accept it for the most part as long as you could still script and design missions and addons and mods and such. I have honestly ran into people in this community that quite frankly would take the fact that they can mod the game over the fact that they can play the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I almost always test with bohemia made missions, using vanilla.

But, diverting blame is a popular tactic around these parts.

Here's to hoping DX12 (whenever they get around to it) gives enough of a boost to make the game playable *most* of the time. I suspect it will help a lot b/c it seems draw calls have been a big part of the problem. Taking that load of the main core, at the very least, should help to free it up for more jobs.

I'm pretty sure, if Arma gets DX12 support, it will be exclusive for the standalone expansion to milk the community again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I would go so far as to say that if the game ran at 5 FPS and constantly desync'd to the point you couldn't play it, this community would still accept it for the most part as long as you could still script and design missions and addons and mods and such. I have honestly ran into people in this community that quite frankly would take the fact that they can mod the game over the fact that they can play the game.

I cannot agree more. I couldn't say anything to hit the nail harder than this. I've read countless steam reviews about the game being perfect, "11/10: will play at 5fps again.".

I feel the developers see these reviews where 5 fps is "clearly" acceptable. They in turn look at "us" like we're being childish and acting like liberals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot agree more. I couldn't say anything to hit the nail harder than this. I've read countless steam reviews about the game being perfect, "11/10: will play at 5fps again.".

I feel the developers see these reviews where 5 fps is "clearly" acceptable. They in turn look at "us" like we're being childish and acting like liberals.

I totally agree too, and my hopes are slim when I read comments like this "PC Perspective: While ArmA 3 is a very beautiful game, it still does not seem very well optimized. What are your plans to improve the performance on both client-side and server-side?

VAN ‘T LAND: Unfortunately, things are not as simple as saying the game is optimized or not. There are many factors that can influence performance beyond our control. It's a pitfall of our platform's freedom. By allowing modding, user-made (MP) scenarios, and full control over settings, we make it possible for people to potentially break their game. We could limit this in a way other games have, such as restricting video settings or limiting modding, but have no wish to do so at all. What we can and will do is improve our presentation of vanilla versus modded game versions, so that users are more aware of what is going on.

Of course, that does not mean we cannot work on optimization, and we continuously do so, such as with the better use of multi-threading for servers and many miscellaneous engine improvements. We're working with the major hardware manufacturers, who analyze our code and offer tips on optimizations or new technologies. Finally, we need to be careful with low-level changes as they can very easily break the game."

are you kidding me? *Faceplam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's comical to me is that end game, their own content, easily "breaks" the game yet I doubt they see it as such. They still seem to want to blame it on mods and the fact their game is moddable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience so far is that the framerate in Arma 3 does not only rely on the hardware but also on the latency. If i have a high ping > 150 > 100 i get like 20-30 fps out of my gtx 770 [at] 2560 x 1080. If it is lower i get up to 70 fps out of it. Depends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My experience so far is that the framerate in Arma 3 does not only rely on the hardware but also on the latency. If i have a high ping > 150 > 100 i get like 20-30 fps out of my gtx 770 [at] 2560 x 1080. If it is lower i get up to 70 fps out of it. Depends.

That doesn't make sense?

Latency shouldn't affect fps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...you would see much more transparency when it comes to ArmA.

I would say that compared to other sim/game developers BIS is very transparent as is. I mean - public bug tracker, daily dev builds with change logs, 100's OPREP's/SPOTREP's/SITREP's/TECHREP's, employe introductions, public roadmap and active dev's on the forum.

What more do you wan't?

Compare BIS with Eagle Designs (maker of the DCS series) way of doing it and you understand what I mean. I like the DCS series alot but their way of customer support/transparency have looong way to go even if they been improving a tiny tiny bit the past ~2 years - now sending out a sporadic newsletter!

/KC

Edited by KeyCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say that compared to other sim/game developers BIS is very transparent as is. I mean - public bug tracker, daily dev builds with change logs, 100's OPREP's/SPOTREP's/SITREP's/TECHREP's, employe introductions, public roadmap and active dev's on the forum.

What more do you wan't?

Compare BIS with Eagle Design (maker of the DCS series) way of doing it and you understand what I mean. I like the DCS series alot but their way of customer support/transparency have looong way to go even if they been improving a tiny tiny bit the past ~2 years - now sending out a sporadic newsletter!

/KC

Most of the problems they aren't transparent about. Blaming performance on mods as a scapegoat as one example. I admit their PR is way better than Eagle Dynamics, which honestly isn't saying much as ED's PR is pretty bad but has gotten better, but that tends to be all it is. You see more transparency out of DayZ for example and I think it has to do with even just a little competition versus the practically no competition and seeded community of ArmA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of the problems they aren't transparent about. Blaming performance on mods as a scapegoat as one example.

Where are they blaming mods only, any links?

In several OPREP's I have read that they are fully aware of the performance issue (mainly in MP) and they are trying to improve things (read the dev build change logs). Maybe they aren't making the giant leaps as you/me would like but they are actively working on it and I'm sure they are doing their best trying to find solutions to the problems without breaking anything.

I can guarantee BIS are the ones among us who most want A3 to run at good FPS since it's their work/pride and interest as a business!

I can also guarantee that some of you will write me off as a "fan boy" but it doesn't make the above untrue.

/KC

Edited by KeyCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where are they blaming mods only, any links?

In several OPREP's I have read that they are fully aware of the performance issue (mainly in MP) and they are trying to improve things (read the dev build change logs). Maybe they aren't making the giant leaps as you/me would like but they are actively working on it and I'm sure they are doing their best trying to find solutions to the problems without breaking anything.

I can guarantee BIS are the ones among us who most want A3 to run at good FPS since it's their work/pride and interest as a business!

I can also guarantee that some of you will write me off as a "fan boy" but it doesn't make the above untrue.

/KC

VAN ‘T LAND: Unfortunately, things are not as simple as saying the game is optimized or not. There are many factors that can influence performance beyond our control. It's a pitfall of our platform's freedom. By allowing modding, user-made (MP) scenarios, and full control over settings, we make it possible for people to potentially break their game. We could limit this in a way other games have, such as restricting video settings or limiting modding, but have no wish to do so at all. What we can and will do is improve our presentation of vanilla versus modded game versions, so that users are more aware of what is going on.

Of course, that does not mean we cannot work on optimization, and we continuously do so, such as with the better use of multi-threading for servers and many miscellaneous engine improvements. We're working with the major hardware manufacturers, who analyze our code and offer tips on optimizations or new technologies. Finally, we need to be careful with low-level changes as they can very easily break the game."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not happy with the performance too. But what´s the sense to repeat OVER YEARS the same demands with an increasing proportion of polemic up to a pseudoreligious manner? Whats about the option and draw the only conclusion?

I played the game at last 1 year ago because I want to play with lots of ai and thats not possible with moderate framerates on my "machine". Maybe I start playing in a couple of months the only mp mode that works: PvP.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where are they blaming mods only, any links?

In several OPREP's I have read that they are fully aware of the performance issue (mainly in MP) and they are trying to improve things (read the dev build change logs). Maybe they aren't making the giant leaps as you/me would like but they are actively working on it and I'm sure they are doing their best trying to find solutions to the problems without breaking anything.

I can guarantee BIS are the ones among us who most want A3 to run at good FPS since it's their work/pride and interest as a business!

I can also guarantee that some of you will write me off as a "fan boy" but it doesn't make the above untrue.

/KC

As Opendome posted, it's statements like that that honestly make it sound like they blame mods as the "root" cause of performance problems. There have been other instances where they have basically said the same thing.

I don't doubt that they want to improve things, or even work to improve things. What I doubt is how far they are willing to go to improve things. Honestly I don't think they are willing to go very far at all. The problem ultimately is this, IF they weren't shortsighted enough to foresee the issue's the engine has on current hardware and with scaling to the content demand of it's own developers let alone mod makers, then they either didn't deem it important enough which is stupid TBH and I highly doubt or they don't feel that it can be fixed which makes most of their comments disingenuous to a degree and the whole "Mods are a central part of performance problems" mentality a huge scapegoat and also kind of bites the hand that feeds. That's the general problem I have with where ArmA is headed and where it's at right now and honestly it's the same problem everyone else has irregardless of personal attitude or reflection towards the problem or issue.

The really stupid part, we all agree there's a problem, we just sit and bitch back and forth about perspective on the problem like somehow your perspective or my perspective is going to fix it. Truthfully all I really want from a perspective standpoint is to at least try to force some change. I'm not trying to fix the problem with my words or my posts but at least trying to create some pressure on the devs letting them know it's not OK to just leave things be because we're on the 4th iteration and these are problems that have existed since the 1st.

No offense to you, but I truthfully think BI cares little about how well the game runs, or it would probably run better in the first place TBH. While I think they want to improve things I think bottom line is that they care that it runs, but as far as running well I don't think they honestly care. It's not like the issue's are new or anything and it's not like they're unfixable. They could easily focus on them and could have easily focused on them before. Instead they say things are too hard. I think the bigger issue's to them are filling the game with content and fostering mods and 3rd part content on their platform. One will make them more money whereas fixing the problems will not make them any. Look at where the focus was with the "Make ArmA not War" contest, content creation. It's about selling more copies and establishing a larger player base and ultimately larger customer base. They want the next DayZ and the money that comes along with it and I've said that for a long time. It's business and if this doesn't highlight to you that BI is a business and not some indie dev or your friendly neighborhood dev who is full of rainbows and good will then frankly you're probably jaded or biased to a large degree. Sarcasm aside I dunno a better way to put it.

Also I think there's some lack of individualization concerning the devs when you kind of lump them together and say "BI". It's not like I think they're inherently evil or anything. I think most "Devs" care how the game functions. When I say BI or even the "devs" I mean the corporate mentality of BI itself, not the individual developers per se and in essence so does pretty much everyone else as the individual or even group focus of developers means nothing compared to the focus of the company as a whole. You could have 100 devs who want the game to run epic and are willing to do whatever it takes, but if the company ethos is to focus on content and ignore performance problems you're forced to do just that.

---------- Post added at 05:42 ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 ----------

I am not happy with the performance too. But what´s the sense to repeat OVER YEARS the same demands with an increasing proportion of polemic up to a pseudoreligious manner? Whats about the option and draw the only conclusion?

I played the game at last 1 year ago because I want to play with lots of ai and thats not possible with moderate framerates on my "machine". Maybe I start playing in a couple of months the only mp mode that works: PvP.....

Not everyone shares your herp derp attitude. Get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see performance improvements and optisatioms to take full advantage of modern hardware are given priority fur the coming big Dlc. I'm a big fan of Arma and the way bis deal with the community but feel that modernising important parts of the engine are needed. And I'll willing pay a fair price fur the effort that it would entail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As Opendome posted, it's statements like that that honestly make it sound like they blame mods as the "root" cause of performance problems. There have been other instances where they have basically said the same thing.

I think you guys are miss reading Van't Land's comment? To me he says that some mods can be one of the reasons to the performance problem (if you decide to use them) but as we all know the performance problem also exist in stock A3 so I can not understand how you read it as he blame the performance issue solely on the mods but maybe I'm miss reading you???

I don't doubt that they want to improve things, or even work to improve things. What I doubt is how far they are willing to go to improve things. Honestly I don't think they are willing to go very far at all. The problem ultimately is this, IF they weren't shortsighted enough to foresee the issue's the engine has on current hardware and with scaling to the content demand of it's own developers let alone mod makers, then they either didn't deem it important enough which is stupid TBH and I highly doubt or they don't feel that it can be fixed which makes most of their comments disingenuous to a degree and the whole "Mods are a central part of performance problems" mentality a huge scapegoat and also kind of bites the hand that feeds. That's the general problem I have with where ArmA is headed and where it's at right now and honestly it's the same problem everyone else has irregardless of personal attitude or reflection towards the problem or issue.

See below about "Business 101".

The really stupid part, we all agree there's a problem, we just sit and bitch back and forth about perspective on the problem like somehow your perspective or my perspective is going to fix it. Truthfully all I really want from a perspective standpoint is to at least try to force some change. I'm not trying to fix the problem with my words or my posts but at least trying to create some pressure on the devs letting them know it's not OK to just leave things be because we're on the 4th iteration and these are problems that have existed since the 1st.

This doesn't make sense??? You are contradicting yourself.

No offense to you, but I truthfully think BI cares little about how well the game runs, or it would probably run better in the first place TBH. While I think they want to improve things I think bottom line is that they care that it runs, but as far as running well I don't think they honestly care. It's not like the issue's are new or anything and it's not like they're unfixable. They could easily focus on them and could have easily focused on them before. Instead they say things are too hard.

No offense taken and I think this topic are quite interesting and worth discussing :)

There are probably many reasons why things are as they are with A3 and one of the reasons could be something like this. IIRC OFP/A1/A2 was all developed by a smaller team and one of the main developers was Suma himself. He is one of the co-founders of BIS and also the original creator of the engine that he continued to developed for ~10+ years (or maybe still do in some way or another???).

Observing the posts by developers in the Development Branch I have not seen Suma posting anything about A3 development in various topics so I'm guessing he's not as actively involved in the development of A3 as he was with all the previous titles and the reason why he isn't more involved we don't know. Could be health related (hope not) or anything else.

This means they have had to hire new developers and since they most likely have never seen the ArmA engine code before and even if they are skilled programmers they have to learn the engine from scratch and considering the massive scope of A3 I can only guess there are many many lines of code and learning/grasping all that while also working on the code and implement new features etc. takes long time, possibly many years.

I'm not an game developer but have some experience in programming and know how hard it can be. Heck, to me it's even hard to go back to 500-1000 lines of code I wrote a few months ago and even worse to continue/fix someone else code but maybe I'm just getting old - LOL! If you don't believe me I suggest you try some scripting or ask another programer.

So let's just agree to disagree. No one other than BIS know the reason to the performance issue we are all just guessing and assuming - me included - but in reality we have no clue how easy or hard it is to solve the problems, if it's impossible or not or why BIS are prioritising the way they do!

However customer feedback (good and bad) is a good thing and we know that BIS appreciates it (more so than some other companies out there).

I think the bigger issue's to them are filling the game with content and fostering mods and 3rd part content on their platform. One will make them more money whereas fixing the problems will not make them any.

If that's the case why are they still spending resources on actively developing and improving the engine??? Doesn't make sense...

Look at where the focus was with the "Make ArmA not War" contest, content creation. It's about selling more copies and establishing a larger player base and ultimately larger customer base.

Personally I see it as "advertising". Good or bad way to spend money I don't know but 100% guaranteed the goal is to sell more copies and at the same time give something back to our hard working modders but guess what...

More copies sold = more money and that means more man hours assigned to fix/improve the code etc. as well as expanding the company - it's common business in our free market economy.

When I say BI or even the "devs" I mean the corporate mentality of BI itself, not the individual developers per se and in essence so does pretty much everyone else as the individual or even group focus of developers means nothing compared to the focus of the company as a whole.

You could have 100 devs who want the game to run epic and are willing to do whatever it takes, but if the company ethos is to focus on content and ignore performance problems you're forced to do just that.

As I said above it's in BIS - as a company - own interest to make a product that performs good and have as low amount of problems/bugs as possible but the required man hours to make that a reality have to be balanced with the companies economical resources - this is business 101.

Sorry for sliding of the original topic and my long rant but again it's an interesting topic. I understand that most of the younger people doesn't have the experience - yet! - on business economy so I can somewhat understand some of them say BIS should do this and that and/or be very negative - all the above IMHO of course!

Are BIS perfect in all aspects? Probably not but very few things are...

/KC

Edited by KeyCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not everyone shares your herp derp attitude. Get over it.
said the religious fanatic..:j:

@KeyCat

To discuss with windies is a waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you guys are miss reading Van't Land's comment? To me he says that some mods can be one of the reasons to the performance problem (if you decide to use them) but as we all know the performance problem also exist in stock A3 so I can not understand how you read it as he blame the performance issue solely on the mods but maybe I'm miss reading you???

/KC

Because it's a direct response to optimization or improving their engine. It's not reading too much into it it's simply what he says. Maybe it's more about what you read into it?

This doesn't make sense??? You are contradicting yourself.

What do you mean? Because I say arguing about our viewpoints when we both want the same thing ultimately is a bit redundant? Sure I mean we can go back and forth about how a indifferent attitude is so much better than a forceful attitude towards change but it's ultimately pointless. My response is more aimed at someone like JumpingHubert, someone who can't understand that people differ from him.

If that's the case why are they still spending resources on actively developing and improving the engine??? Doesn't make sense...

They improve it generally for mods/modders and things they can script or add on, it seems like very few low level changes are honestly done. I think they are afraid of breaking things, but honestly that's not really an excuse.

As I said above it's in BIS - as a company - own interest to make a product that performs good and have as low amount of problems/bugs as possible but the required man hours to make that a reality have to be balanced with the companies economical resources - this is business 101.

Sorry for sliding of the original topic and my long rant but again it's an interesting topic. I understand that most of the younger people doesn't have the experience - yet! - on business economy so I can somewhat understand some of them say BIS should do this and that and/or be very negative - all the above IMHO of course!

Are BIS perfect in all aspects? Probably not but very few things are...

So they can't afford to upkeep their engine properly in your eyes but they can afford to shell out 500,000 euro's to modders? Riiiiiiiight....... too young to understand the logic there......... Maybe just not naive or biased enough? Seriously most of your post is borne out of your viewpoint of " It's hard to be a developer/programmer". Hard to objectively discuss with bias.

It's not about them being perfect, just about priorities.

---------- Post added at 14:10 ---------- Previous post was at 14:09 ----------

said the religious fanatic..:j:

@KeyCat

To discuss with windies is a waste of time.

Flamebait much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an game developer but have some experience in programming and know how hard it can be. Heck, to me it's even hard to go back to 500-1000 lines of code I wrote a few months ago and even worse to continue/fix someone else code but maybe I'm just getting old - LOL! If you don't believe me I suggest you try some scripting or ask another programer.

So let's just agree to disagree. No one other than BIS know the reason to the performance issue we are all just guessing and assuming - me included - but in reality we have no clue how easy or hard it is to solve the problems, if it's impossible or not or why BIS are prioritizing the way they do!

I am not a game developer, but I do develop mobile/web apps for a large "for profit" company. If one of our products is broken or we receive a customer complaint, you better believe I am not leaving the office until that is fixed. I have pulled several all nighters fixing code. Part of providing a service to our clients is making sure they get what they paid for. I've been forced to roll out a new framework if we find the current one is lacking or exposes security issues. I cannot take years to deploy something like that--it needs to be done in hours.

Arma3 is not a free service, and their netcode/code is broken. Even if they hold 100% of the niche market currently, the second something similar comes along, they're done. They're customer base has been eroding because of their business mentality.

However customer feedback (good and bad) is a good thing and we know that BIS appreciates it (more so than some other companies out there).

I'm going to disagree, fully. They appreciate the feedback on the extra "features" that they worked so hard on. I'm not sure how long you have been playing the franchise, but gathering data from the start, this is extremely apparent. Various parts of the game are sickening. Since day one, a player will still glitch out and die inside a building. I can see this happening for a flight simulator, but it is unacceptable for an infantry combat sim.

If that's the case why are they still spending resources on actively developing and improving the engine??? Doesn't make sense...

If they are spending resources, they are spending quarters at the vending machine. Compiling all of the optimization change logs, what has really changed? MP still desyncs, frame rate has been fixed at 2X FPS on most populated PvP servers. Players jump across the screen at various times or locations. It is impossible to truly have a useable game unless you are playing with less than 20 players on a P. Most of the changes have been bug fixes from "features" they have implemented that have broken the game. Smoke, server crashes from players sitting inside a destroyed building, etc.

More copies sold = more money and that means more man hours assigned to fix/improve the code etc. as well as expanding the company - it's common business in our free market economy.

Really? How long has Arma been out. How long has it been broken? Maybe in 10 years after they sold enough copies they can get started on fixing their product? This is similar to VW's business mentality. If they become the worlds leading car manufacture, then the will address their cars exploding TSB's. But until they get enough money, you will have to run the risk of death-by-Jetta. They will, however offer a nice flower-power pen that costs $500.

As I said above it's in BIS - as a company - own interest to make a product that performs good and have as low amount of problems/bugs as possible but the required man hours to make that a reality have to be balanced with the companies economical resources - this is business 101.

This is not BIS 101. This is sheep 101, and I will predict DayZ will be using the "Alpha stage is all about adding features, and Beta is fixing" until they have milked the market and the entire operation itself is closed. It's a form of Business 101 that various people fall for.

Are BIS perfect in all aspects? Probably not but very few things are...

But more than few things in the business world are very close to perfect. The business world is harsh and will run stagnant if you aren't pretty close. Each change-log is a slew of tweaked/added textures, sounds and other crap. Nobody cares at this point. I built a new i7/290x/32gb machine specifically for Arma. Not only does the ~20fps on low make it unplayable, I'm probably getting around 10fps due to network sync and then you stack on some constant desync. Investing thousands of hours into MP alone, I am constantly taunted by BI that performance "may" improve. We all have dreams I guess...

Edited by bigsyke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I built a new i7/290x/32gb machine specifically for Arma. Not only does the ~20fps on low make it unplayable, I'm probably getting around 10fps due to network sync and then you stack on some constant desync. Investing thousands of hours into MP alone, I am constantly taunted by BI that performance "may" improve. We all have dreams I guess...

Everytime I see a "I built a custom rig with super spec and ArmA3 doesn't run well" post it makes me chuckle - not in a horrible or nasty way, but in a "WTF?" way. This is because with my system specs (Windows 7 64bit, i5 2500k 3.3GHz, GTX670 4GB, 16GB RAM) I can run ArmA on my TV (via HDMI) at 1080p with average 45+ fps on high-very high settings. I'm not a computer whiz, and I don't practice sorcery (anymore) but to get that performance something must fundamentally be different between our systems. As to what that is, as I mentioned I'm not a computer whiz...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everytime I see a "I built a custom rig with super spec and ArmA3 doesn't run well" post it makes me chuckle - not in a horrible or nasty way, but in a "WTF?" way. This is because with my system specs (Windows 7 64bit, i5 2500k 3.3GHz, GTX670 4GB, 16GB RAM) I can run ArmA on my TV (via HDMI) at 1080p with average 45+ fps on high-very high settings. I'm not a computer whiz, and I don't practice sorcery (anymore) but to get that performance something must fundamentally be different between our systems. As to what that is, as I mentioned I'm not a computer whiz...

It's called Multiplayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's called Multiplayer.

Is it? Because I haven't noticed I've taken that much of an FPS-hit playing MP. That said, I don't play 100 player missions or any of that 'Life'/Epoch/Wasteland/KoTH business, its just old-school co-op with a dozen or so friends (yes, believe it or not I have those) on missions of varying size and complexity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's called Multiplayer.

thats bs

my performance in MP is only marginally worse than it is in SP.

Its so infuriating to see problems hand waved away on these forums with complete bs. "oh its the mods" "oh its MP" "oh its the mission file" "oh i get 60 fps so you're just crap"

What isn't BS is that these so called performance patches have done nothing but make the game run worse when it didnt run great to begin with. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thats bs

my performance in MP is only marginally worse than it is in SP.

Its so infuriating to see problems hand waved away on these forums with complete bs. "oh its the mods" "oh its MP" "oh its the mission file" "oh i get 60 fps so you're just crap"

What isn't BS is that these so called performance patches have done nothing but make the game run worse when it didnt run great to begin with. Cheers.

I think you misunderstood. Jackal326 and other SP sandboxer's claimed he/they lack experience in any of the "common" Arma3 problems. Because the complaints I witness equal at least a 100:1 ratio to his--or the other youths FPS praises, I made the assumption he hasn't yet tried MP in Arma3. Out of sight/Out of mind.

I don't play 100 player missions or any of that 'Life'/Epoch/Wasteland/KoTH business...its just old-school co-op with a dozen or so friends

Well, there you have it. It must be everyone else because you and a dozen or so friends have no problems.

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

×