Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[tamernator 1]

Do you even know what Alpha means?

If you dont want to support the Games Development than dont buy the Alpha. You only had to wait till the final Version is released, than you can read some reviews and buy it or not.

Guys like you are really annoying. You totally misunderstood the sense of such an Alpha-Release.

Yes i know what Alpha means, it means test to eliminate bugs....yes BUGS , not using more than 1 core is not bug ! Devs made it that way and it supposed to use only 1 core.

Now conclusion:

Alpha = a test for eliminating BUGS

Not using multi threads = NO BUG

BUG = its when something works not like supposed to work.

[Razorman 10]

heh, how old is your CPU that you're still thinking in terms of front-side-bus speeds? :D

He He, you know jack about rigs & need to research before you post nonsense.

[tet5uo 4]

He He, you know jack about rigs & need to research before you post nonsense.

I don't think so. I am not the one who said "CPU speed changes your RAM speed." That hasn't been true for years.

So why are you getting all hostile and making yourself look dumb?

You really think Front Side Bus even exists anymore?

[Vixente 10]

Stop this BS about Arma 3 or 2 being only 1 core capable. It's a pathetic fallacy.

Arma 3 as Arma 2, are multithreaded applications. It's the OS kernel who balances that load of threads of any process between the available cores.

I used the Performance Monitor Tool that comes with Windows to check how many threads Arma 3 is using. And it's using a lot of them. Between 30 and 40 at any given time. You can't argue that this game/engine it's not multithreaded. Period.

The underlying problem must be other, they know it, they'll fix it. Period.

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/9622/a3threads.jpg (498 kB)

PS: Before anyone comes complaining, i was on the desktop the moment i hit 'PrtScr', so arma3 process was barely using CPU because Windows kernel decided so.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Vixente

[tierprot 2]

Last patch improved mine perfomance in MP (Wasteland), so it never drops below 40 fps (when im inside of the land and sea cant bee seen - otherwise it drops to 20+ fps (moreover i can stand on the shore and look only at the sea it will be 30 fps no matter if its near or medium or insane view range)), i would say its 50+ in average (depends on where are u looking at). It must be said that in contrast to the previous patch increasing of view drops fps dramatically (in near it 50+ average, when u looking at far situated objects, and 30+ average in medium also when u looking at far situated objects). Moreover for now usage of 1st core is about 80% in peaks, other cores about 30 (when near) to contrast of previous pacth with~50%.

Config - i5 3570k overclocked 4,2;Asus gtx 670 Direct CII overcloced

PS: Sorry for my English.

PS: Settings - Ultra. Posteffects not enabled.

[MaverickFerran 1]

Here`s the Threat, where the changes of developer updates are posted, because somebody asked:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149636-Development-branch-changelog

I don't think so. I am not the one who said "CPU speed changes your RAM speed." That hasn't been true for years.

So why are you getting all hostile and making yourself look dumb?

You really think Front Side Bus even exists anymore?

Well the Last Generation Socket 775 CPUs (Yorkfield), were released in 2008 and they were quite good until about 2 years later.

These times RAM-Speed was connected to the Front-Side Bus and also the CPU-Speed was controlled by the FSB.

There are still lot of people, who are using such CPUs, so it was not completely false what he said.

But newer generation Intel CPUs are independent from Ram-Speed.

This will maybe change this year when Haswell comes out, because than the Base Core Clock is back. But this is different than FSB, we will see, how those CPUs really work when they are out.

Anyway, this is not the topic of this Threat.

[aop 1]

Stop this BS about Arma 3 or 2 being only 1 core capable. It's a pathetic fallacy.

Arma 3 as Arma 2, are multithreaded applications. It's the OS kernel who balances that load of threads of any process between the available cores.

I used the Performance Monitor Tool that comes with Windows to check how many threads Arma 3 is using. And it's using a lot of them. Between 30 and 40 at any given time. You can't argue that this game/engine it's not multithreaded. Period.

The underlying problem must be other, they know it, they'll fix it. Period.

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/9622/a3threads.jpg (498 kB)

PS: Before anyone comes complaining, i was on the desktop the moment i hit 'PrtScr', so arma3 process was barely using CPU because Windows kernel decided so.

It could use a thousand threads but it wouldn't matter if one of them was bottlenecking the entire engine and every other thread was waiting that one thread all the time.

[white 1]

Stop this BS about Arma 3 or 2 being only 1 core capable. It's a pathetic fallacy.

Arma 3 as Arma 2, are multithreaded applications. It's the OS kernel who balances that load of threads of any process between the available cores.

I used the Performance Monitor Tool that comes with Windows to check how many threads Arma 3 is using. And it's using a lot of them. Between 30 and 40 at any given time. You can't argue that this game/engine it's not multithreaded. Period.

The underlying problem must be other, they know it, they'll fix it. Period.

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/9622/a3threads.jpg (498 kB)

PS: Before anyone comes complaining, i was on the desktop the moment i hit 'PrtScr', so arma3 process was barely using CPU because Windows kernel decided so.

sigh

use an api monitor and now tell me what those threads do. most of them are the new implemented clouds and physx (lots of threads for both, and they werent there on arma 2). theres 1 main thread that takes care of the game/ai/sync and thats on the first core, theres also a thread for textures. again, which means, most of it runs on the first core, some runs on the second core, and some crap (clouds) is able to use some other cores (but dont really need to because the game runs with the exact same performance on dual cores as it does with 6-8 cores avaiable, why? the first core cant handle dealing with that big thread. and all threads, even clouds, have to wait to sync with the thread on the first core, and thats shown in an api monitor. since the game gets stuck because of the first core, and dont take advantage of more than 2 cores because anything more than that is clouds and physix (which runs fine also in the second core with the current performance), we state that the game dont use/take advantage of more than 2 cores in practice, which means its not a proper multicore game. yeah the engine recognizes all cores, can even spill some crap into them, but for no real gain.

the whole "arma is a mil sim and its cpu intensive" is a lie when considering the current multicore architecture of cpus, the fact is, it doenst use current cpus as it should. it was designed that way a long time ago in a galaxy far away (couldnt bring myself to finish that sentence earlier). and it might not be changed ever.

and do yourself a favor and read the whole topic before posting, since this was already discussed at length. and to me the pathetic thing here is your attempt to sound intelligent.

Edited March 23, 2013 by white

[Vixente 10]

sigh

use an api monitor and now tell me what those threads do. most of them are the new implemented clouds and physx (lots of threads for both, and they werent there on arma 2). theres 1 main thread that takes care of the game/ai/sync and thats on the first core, theres also a thread for textures. again, which means, most of it runs on the first core, some runs on the second core, and some crap (clouds) is able to use some other cores (but dont really need to because the game runs with the exact same performance on dual cores as it does with 6-8 cores avaiable, why? the first core cant handle dealing with that big thread. and all threads, even clouds, have to wait to sync with the thread on the first core, and thats shown in an api monitor. since the game gets stuck because of the first core, and dont take advantage of more than 2 cores because anything more than that is clouds and physix (which runs fine also in the second core with the current performance), we state that the game dont use/take advantage of more than 2 cores in practice, which means its not a proper multicore game. yeah the engine recognizes all cores, can even spill some crap into them, but for no real gain.

the whole "arma is a mil sim and its cpu intensive" is a lie when considering the current multicore architecture of cpus, the fact is, it doenst use current cpus as it should. it was designed that way a long time ago in a galaxy far away (couldnt bring myself to finish that sentence earlier). and it might not be changed ever.

and do yourself a favor and read the whole topic before posting, since this was already discussed at length. and to me the pathetic thing here is your attempt to sound intelligent.

No one is trying to sound intelligent but yourself and a few others. I've only stated that this games are multithreaded (it's a fact) not how they are designed. Thread synchronization comes naturally with multithreading, that's not new or bad. (Only when there is a lot of overhead sync) But the one who decides the balance of the cores it's the SO. There is no sense in doing it other way. The -exthreads parameter is pretty descriptive about all this, also -cpucount (affinity) sets depending how many cores it detects. Both were implemented and automated a lot of (A2) betas ago.

Also, i have been reading this thread. But had to post the moment someone started to post and quote BS about the game only using 1 core.

TLDR: The problem it's not that bad, people's whining is exaggerated. They will improve the engine as they've been doing it for years.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Vixente

[white 1]

No one is trying to sound intelligent but yourself and a few others. I've only stated that this games are multithreaded (it's a fact) not how they are designed. Thread synchronization comes naturally with multithreading, that's not new or bad. (Only when there is a lot of overhead sync) But the one who decides the balance of the cores it's the SO. There is no sense in doing it other way. The -exthreads parameter is pretty descriptive about all this, also -cpucount (affinity) sets depending how many cores it detects. Both were implemented and automated a lot of (A2) betas ago.

Also, i have been reading this thread. But had to post the moment someone started to post and quote BS about the game only using 1 core.

TLDR: The problem it's not that bad, people's whining is exaggerated. They will improve the engine as they've been doing it for years.

not it doesnt come naturally, a lot of games use asynchronous multithreading for a lot of things. saying that the dozens extra threads for clouds makes the engine have proper multithread to make use of multicores is retarded, if the game runs most of it in 1 threads in 1 core, and that slows down the entire game making the gpu idle, what is the conclusion taken from it? and i dont argue that launch parameters are useless.

what has been proven is that the first core bottlenecks everything else, and turning off 4 cores in a six core cpu has no effect whatsoever in performance. if you havent gotten there yet in this topic, keep reading.

to this day we have the same performance issues in arma2, people with 3960 and titan experience the same, having the same issues with horrible minimum fps (lower than 20). but yeah, a lot of people consider 20-30 fps "fine for arma". well to me those ppl are blind.

and btw, in case you also havent gotten there yet, dwarden on this topic said: "of course we are aware of this issue".

and i agree, it might take a few more years for this to be addressed, because it havent so far, in years. go to the arma 2 forum, ull find topics on the exact same issue, dated 2009.

and since you think theres nothing wrong and ppl are just whining, vote it down: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716

Edited March 23, 2013 by white

[Vixente 10]

not it doesnt come naturally, a lot of games use asynchronous multithreading for a lot of things.

A parallel thread must not access memory that is being used by another thread. So it's natural for the programmer to put locks and callbacks to operations that need access to certain shared memory.

saying that the dozens extra threads for clouds makes the engine have proper multithread to make use of multicores is retarded.

What is retarded is wanting a mission with 1000 AI running at 30 FPS just because you own Intel's top CPU... /facepalm

Also i've only seen a few threads about clouds or PhysX stuff... about 4 or 5.

if the game runs most of it in 1 threads in 1 core, and that slows down the entire game making the gpu idle, what is the conclusion taken from it?

I'd say that it is the main thread.

what has been proven is that the first core bottlenecks everything else, and turning off 4 cores in a six core cpu has no effect whatsoever in performance. if you havent gotten there yet in this topic, keep reading.

How do you prove that the first thread (not core) is bottlenecking? because it's using 70%-90% cpu time? Have you seen what that thread is doing? Do you have the source code? It probably is the main loop and apart from other things i've been capable of seeing that is the one capturing keystrokes and mouse movement using the type of tool you commented. (just for curiosity) Some other threads get about 40% usage and a few ones peak to top sometimes. Yes it should be more because the logical thing to think is that more usage, more FPS. But it may be limited by other factors that we don't know.

to this day we have the same performance issues in arma2, people with 3960 and titan experience the same, having the same issues with horrible minimum fps (lower than 20). but yeah, a lot of people consider 20-30 fps "fine for arma". well to me those ppl are blind.

I'll never deny that this game needs optimization. Or even redesign. What you cannot say or argue about is that this game only uses one core because it's not true. But the one with the 3960 probably it's the same dude that comes to Arma, sets it all quality to the higher extrem (specailly draw distance... 10km) and see 60 FPS. Duh!

and btw, in case you also havent gotten there yet, dwarden on this topic said: "of course we are aware of this issue".

I've read that, why are you always assuming i don't read this forum or thread? I've said in my last post that they know what the problem is and that they'll fix it, or at least improve it.

and i agree, it might take a few more years for this to be addressed, because it havent so far, in years. go to the arma 2 forum, ull find topics on the exact same issue, dated 2009.

I know, i've been here about that long.

and since you think theres nothing wrong and ppl are just whining, vote it down: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716

Your words, not mine. I've only meant that it's playable to an extent with a good server (computer & bandwith) on the other side and with common sense. Yes i'll say it again... it's an alpha.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Vixente

[daze23 1]

a mission with 1000 AI running

strawman

[Vixente 10]

strawman

Proof: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS&p=2350877&viewfull=1#post2350877

[daze23 1]

Proof: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS&p=2350877&viewfull=1#post2350877

that was just a sarcastic exageration. he's saying he doesn't care about cpu/gpu usage as long as the game's running well

[gammadust 12]

^^

(...) Arma 2 ran like shit when I first got it and now I can load up to 1000 AI in missions and run smooth as silk, 64bit be damned. Give them feedback & time and it will be optimized but please, enough with the histrionics.

my emphasis

[white 1]

How do you prove that the first thread (not core) is bottlenecking? because it's using 70%-90% cpu time? Have you seen what that thread is doing? Do you have the source code? It probably is the main loop and apart from other things i've been capable of seeing that is the one capturing keystrokes and mouse movement using the type of tool you commented. (just for curiosity) Some other threads get about 40% usage and a few ones peak to top sometimes. Yes it should be more because the logical thing to think is that more usage, more FPS. But it may be limited by other factors that we don't know.

like ive said, api monitor, you can see how the specific threads work with it.

ive talked to a few long time programmers about how one would address this, most of them said, probably rewriting the code to make a separate thread for each AI. but like soma said when answering about the poor performance in arma 2 a couple of years back, i gather bohemias stance woulndt be much different now: "its too hard and we are not willing".

but yes, there are other factors, dwarven stated himself that they found some misterious "troublesome code". doesnt exclude my previous statements since he also stated that bad multithread performance is a valid argument. all in this same topic.

as long they find a way to get 30 fps minimum on better than recommended machines, ill be fine with it. and ill remain hopefull they will be able to. even when theyre very evasive and suspicious about it.

after u read this topic, read this one: http://steamcommunity.com/app/107410/discussions/0/864961721676462825/#p1

someone explains in better detail and with screenshots what ive said.

now go troll someone else.

Edited March 23, 2013 by white

[panicx72 1]

Is the engine going to get optimized at all?

ARMA2 still needs tweaks, and even then it's not running smoothly.

I place my money on it's gonna take a upset community until the developers realise they need to do something =)

[dnk 13]

@white

30FPS minimum in what settings and missions?

I can manage that with a 3.3GHz 4x CPU and moderate settings. I'm actually fairly amazed at how well the game runs on my system, given I get ~40FPS in A2:CO-ACE2 with similar setups. Really, the game is a good improvement, and I've had only a 25% reduction in performance. Kudos to the devs!

Regarding the multicore usage, well I would say about 40% of the processing is done on 1 core, with the other 60% spread out on the other three. Perhaps it's closer to 50-50; I haven't bothered to be exact in my findings. Either way, that stuff being sent to the other cores isn't exactly insignificant. That's pretty multicore, and just because it's clouds and physx doesn't make it less important than AI or other engine components. It's still processing being offloaded onto other cores that otherwise would have to compete for the first core's resources.

If you compare a perfectly monocore process to a perfectly quadcore one and place this in the middle, it's about 40% of perfectly quadcore, 24% of 6-core, and 18% of 8-core. I'm not sure why they'd need to optimize/code a game for 6- and 8-core CPUs, though, when 4-core is pretty much the standard and required specs.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/

6- and 8- core CPUs just aren't popular. 90% of Steam users are on 2- and 4- core computers. Why should BIS care about the top -literally- 3% of users?

---

Note that I agree that the devs should be making it more multicore, and agree that the AI routines should be individually threaded and able to be placed onto other cores. I'm just disagreeing with what I see as hyperbole because (your) superdupercuttingedge 8 core wasn't what the devs designed this game for. People with moderate rigs are going to get acceptable performance, and that's the vast bulk of their clientele. I'm sure A4, or perhaps an expansion, will work on full multicore handling for 6/8 cores once that actually becomes a commonality in the marketplace. Right now, it's an extreme fringe, and a smaller development studio can't really cater to it. These guys don't have Crytek budgets, and they can't release top-end software and rewrite the engine every 3 years from scratch. They have to balance their resources, and likely sorting out the AI, adding new features, and updating the graphics are all far more important than satisfying elite gamers' high end purchases.

If this is an apologia or excuse-making, so be it. I'm tired of hearing people with $1500 rigs bemoaning the fact that BIS can't keep up with the trends of $60/100M budget games. I'm sure there's much that can be done (and with luck WILL) before the release to improve performance, especially for MP, but if the game maxes out at 50FPS for the best rigs and plays at 40FPS for midrange rigs, I think the devs will be happy since 90% of their customers will also be happy with that (the silent majority, as it were). I'll sure be happy with that.

Edited March 24, 2013 by DNK

[alquemist 10]

This worked for me and increased my fps by 15. Thought i shared it with you guys.

I take no credit for this found it on another website. Hope it helps Enjoy.

Arma 3 CPU Optimization

1. Go to Steam Library

2. Go to "Arma 3" Right Click then select "Properties"

3. Select "Set Launch Options"

4. Copy and paste the correct launch command line below to what your system is setup for and click "OK".

For AMD CPU users:

AMD Dual Core with 4GB System Ram:

"-noSplash -cpuCount=2 -high"

AMD Quad Core with 4GB Ram:

"-noSplash -cpuCount=4 -high"

AMD Six Core with 4GB Ram:

"-noSplash -cpuCount=6 -high"

AMD Eight Core with 4GB Ram:

"-noSplash -cpuCount=8 -high"

______________________________________________

If your running more than 8GB Ram then apply this to the end of the launch line:

"-maxMem=8192"

This will allow your game to utilize 8GB system Ram instead of 4GB.

______________________________________________

Intel CPU:

For Hyperthreaded CPU's such as a Quad Core you will apply this:

-cpuCount=8

This will enable your Hyperthreads on your CPU so your CPU will act as an eight core when running Arma 3.

If you are running a Hyperthreaded Six Core then:

-cpuCount=12

If you are running a Hyperthreaded Eight Core or Eight Core Xeon then apply this:

-cpuCount=16

If you are running just a non Hyperthreaded CPU such as a Quad Core then select "4" instead of "8" same for a Dual Core you will select "2" instead of "4".

All AMD CPU's are NOT Hyperthreaded so Hyperthreaded options is highly not recommended as this can cause system failure or damage.

I will not be responible for system failure and damage if you choose to select more cores then you have on your command line!

-high:

makes your operating system prioritize services and processes to run your game better but this can cause system failure and instability if you dont have a good running system. If you Overclock this can cause system instability.

-noSplash:

disables startup videos and advertisements.

-cpuCount=#:

enables extra CPU cores and Hyperthreads.

-maxMem=#:

when set to "6144" (6GB) and up lets your game use more system Ram then 4GB.

Do not set to higher than 4GB if you dont have at least 8GB. You can set to "8192" (8GB) if you have 12GB+ Ram.

[tet5uo 4]

30 FPS is the target for consoles. It's barely better than a slide-show.

PC games should be aiming for 60.

[dnk 13]

60 on what rigs? What graphical settings? By all means, A3 can be a 60FPS game right now. And let's remember this game isn't coming out for another 6-12-18 months. The average hardware is going to be better by the time it hits its final release, as is the code (even if it's just fixing a few loose ends and light optimization, this combo will get 30-40FPS results).

I mean, I can get up to 45 or so in A3 I think on lowest settings if I wanted to play an ugly game with only a few AI not in Agia. I chose 15-40 as an acceptable compromise between appearance and performance (it's not too much compromise at that). I think most casual players (read: not the gaming elitists complaining on these threads) with casual gaming rigs (not the ones complaining about "under-utilization"), which are sporting mid-level GPUs, 2-4-core 2-3GHz CPUs, and 4-8GB of RAM aren't going to mind picking up a brand new title and getting 30-40FPS. This is the market, not tet5uo's need for superfluid motion.

Looking over Steam's stats again, between a 650ti and 560 is the average card. That's enough for 30-40FPS, or sacrificing quality for 40-60FPS.

The vast majority of gamers don't want to pay a lot for their PCs, as the stats show. Only 20% own high-end GPUs (GTX660+). Only 3% have 6 or 8 cores. Only 12% have 3.3GHz+ CPUs. The only thing people have a lot of is RAM, and guess what? It's the value buy these days. And it makes sense because at least 80% of gamers are value gamers, and even the remaining 20% have a considerable amount that are borderline.

[guusert 1]

60 on what rigs? What graphical settings? By all means, A3 can be a 60FPS game right now. And let's remember this game isn't coming out for another 6-12-18 months. The average hardware is going to be better by the time it hits its final release, as is the code (even if it's just fixing a few loose ends and light optimization, this combo will get 30-40FPS results).

I mean, I can get up to 45 or so in A3 I think on lowest settings if I wanted to play an ugly game with only a few AI not in Agia. I chose 15-40 as an acceptable compromise between appearance and performance (it's not too much compromise at that). I think most casual players (read: not the gaming elitists complaining on these threads) with casual gaming rigs (not the ones complaining about "under-utilization"), which are sporting mid-level GPUs, 2-4-core 2-3GHz CPUs, and 4-8GB of RAM aren't going to mind picking up a brand new title and getting 30-40FPS. This is the market, not tet5uo's need for superfluid motion.

Looking over Steam's stats again, between a 650ti and 560 is the average card. That's enough for 30-40FPS, or sacrificing quality for 40-60FPS.

The vast majority of gamers don't want to pay a lot for their PCs, as the stats show. Only 20% own high-end GPUs (GTX660+). Only 3% have 6 or 8 cores. Only 12% have 3.3GHz+ CPUs. The only thing people have a lot of is RAM, and guess what? It's the value buy these days. And it makes sense because at least 80% of gamers are value gamers, and even the remaining 20% have a considerable amount that are borderline.

You do know that 6 and 8 cores CPUs are worse than 4 cores CPUs atm? Intel has 4 cores CPUs and they are they are way better than AMDs 6 cores and 8 cores CPUs. Even if applications use 6 or 8 cores, Intel CPUs still beat AMD's.

I cannot stand the fact that my mother's laptop (i5-3230m @2.6 Ghz +GT 645) can run the multiplayer at 30-35 FPS because it's CPU has 2 cores and I can only run it at 13-17 FPS because my PC's CPU has 4 cores (Phenom II X4 955 @3.8 Ghz+GTX 460). Btw. the laptop runs W8 and the PC W7.

This is not our problem. This is Bohemia's problem. We have hardware capable of running the game well, but it is not being used. This problem barely exists in other games. Normally, if they are heavy on the CPU, they'll make good use of the CPU.

Edited March 24, 2013 by guusert

[Minoza 11]

This worked for me and increased my fps by 15. Thought i shared it with you guys.

I take no credit for this found it on another website. Hope it helps Enjoy.

Arma 3 CPU Optimization

1. Go to Steam Library

2. Go to "Arma 3" Right Click then select "Properties"

3. Select "Set Launch Options"

4. Copy and paste the correct launch command line below to what your system is setup for and click "OK".

For AMD CPU users:

AMD Dual Core with 4GB System Ram:

"-noSplash -cpuCount=2 -high"

AMD Quad Core with 4GB Ram:

"-noSplash -cpuCount=4 -high"

AMD Six Core with 4GB Ram:

"-noSplash -cpuCount=6 -high"

AMD Eight Core with 4GB Ram:

"-noSplash -cpuCount=8 -high"

______________________________________________

If your running more than 8GB Ram then apply this to the end of the launch line:

"-maxMem=8192"

This will allow your game to utilize 8GB system Ram instead of 4GB.

______________________________________________

Intel CPU:

For Hyperthreaded CPU's such as a Quad Core you will apply this:

-cpuCount=8

This will enable your Hyperthreads on your CPU so your CPU will act as an eight core when running Arma 3.

If you are running a Hyperthreaded Six Core then:

-cpuCount=12

If you are running a Hyperthreaded Eight Core or Eight Core Xeon then apply this:

-cpuCount=16

If you are running just a non Hyperthreaded CPU such as a Quad Core then select "4" instead of "8" same for a Dual Core you will select "2" instead of "4".

All AMD CPU's are NOT Hyperthreaded so Hyperthreaded options is highly not recommended as this can cause system failure or damage.

I will not be responible for system failure and damage if you choose to select more cores then you have on your command line!

-high:

makes your operating system prioritize services and processes to run your game better but this can cause system failure and instability if you dont have a good running system. If you Overclock this can cause system instability.

-noSplash:

disables startup videos and advertisements.

-cpuCount=#:

enables extra CPU cores and Hyperthreads.

-maxMem=#:

when set to "6144" (6GB) and up lets your game use more system Ram then 4GB.

Do not set to higher than 4GB if you dont have at least 8GB. You can set to "8192" (8GB) if you have 12GB+ Ram.

Your post is full of crap and misinformation. Whatever gave you more fps, this wasn't it. Also, you could at least read this thread a bit before posting this crap. Sorry if I sounded rude, but it's the only way to stop spreading this kind of false information. Actually, least you could've done is give this a read:

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma2:_Startup_Parameters

Take memory parameter for example; "256 is hard-coded minimum (anything lower falls backs to 256). 2047 is hard-coded maximum (anything higher falls back to 2047)."

Edited March 24, 2013 by Minoza

[white 1]

@white

30FPS minimum in what settings and missions?

with anything i throw at it. 100 AI, multiplayer with 30 ppl, with tanks, helis, on the shore with explosions and smoke and 3000 view range. again, thats 30 fps minimum. because 30fps isnt enough for smooth gameplay.

you wouldnt get 5 fps with those right now. and if you switched off 2 cores on a quad core you wouldnt lose 1 fps, curiously if you have a quad core you will see 50% cpu usage. thats says a lot about it effectively using more than 2 cores or not. i would be fine if the game made proper use of 4 cores, but right now 1 core is bottlenecked and slows everything down, if you have a good enough gpu settings either on low or ultra wont change anything. but hey, if they manage to get 30 fps minimum (and around 45 average) on the scenario i mentioned using that same 1 core (not separating more threads for at least quad cores, using better ram management by goign 64bits, etc), hell i would love it aswell but i seriously doubt it will happen without more serious changes in the engine, well, unless i wake up in 2016 with 6ghz cpus and gddr5 ram.

@white

I can manage that with a 3.3GHz 4x CPU and moderate settings. I'm actually fairly amazed at how well the game runs on my system, given I get ~40FPS in A2:CO-ACE2 with similar setups. Really, the game is a good improvement, and I've had only a 25% reduction in performance. Kudos to the devs!

Regarding the multicore usage, well I would say about 40% of the processing is done on 1 core, with the other 60% spread out on the other three. Perhaps it's closer to 50-50; I haven't bothered to be exact in my findings. Either way, that stuff being sent to the other cores isn't exactly insignificant. That's pretty multicore, and just because it's clouds and physx doesn't make it less important than AI or other engine components. It's still processing being offloaded onto other cores that otherwise would have to compete for the first core's resources.

If you compare a perfectly monocore process to a perfectly quadcore one and place this in the middle, it's about 40% of perfectly quadcore, 24% of 6-core, and 18% of 8-core. I'm not sure why they'd need to optimize/code a game for 6- and 8-core CPUs, though, when 4-core is pretty much the standard and required specs.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/

6- and 8- core CPUs just aren't popular. 90% of Steam users are on 2- and 4- core computers. Why should BIS care about the top -literally- 3% of users?

i agree, the game should run with that 30fps minimum on the recommended system specs to begin with. 30fps like its been said, its console fps, its unacceptable to play with average 25fps like most are. you trust bis will fix this until launch, thats a reasonable assumption, but is also reasonable to think the opposite considering their track record with previous games.

@white

Note that I agree that the devs should be making it more multicore, and agree that the AI routines should be individually threaded and able to be placed onto other cores. I'm just disagreeing with what I see as hyperbole because (your) superdupercuttingedge 8 core wasn't what the devs designed this game for. People with moderate rigs are going to get acceptable performance, and that's the vast bulk of their clientele. I'm sure A4, or perhaps an expansion, will work on full multicore handling for 6/8 cores once that actually becomes a commonality in the marketplace. Right now, it's an extreme fringe, and a smaller development studio can't really cater to it. These guys don't have Crytek budgets, and they can't release top-end software and rewrite the engine every 3 years from scratch. They have to balance their resources, and likely sorting out the AI, adding new features, and updating the graphics are all far more important than satisfying elite gamers' high end purchases.

If this is an apologia or excuse-making, so be it. I'm tired of hearing people with $1500 rigs bemoaning the fact that BIS can't keep up with the trends of $60/100M budget games. I'm sure there's much that can be done (and with luck WILL) before the release to improve performance, especially for MP, but if the game maxes out at 50FPS for the best rigs and plays at 40FPS for midrange rigs, I think the devs will be happy since 90% of their customers will also be happy with that (the silent majority, as it were). I'll sure be happy with that.

its not about putting 50 million dollars into features, or "wasting" 15 million into hiring a studio just for the pre rendered cinematics, its about a couple of great programmers that dont think "stuff is too hard" and focus on updating the engine along the years to current/next gen hardware. thats proper design. and its not the devs fault, thats their boss fault and lack of vision. (well vision enough just to at least keep the engine updated to current specs)

"Unreal Engine 4

On August 18, 2005, Mark Rein, the vice-president of Epic Games, revealed that Unreal Engine 4 had been in development since 2003.[15] Until mid-2008, development was exclusively by Tim Sweeney, technical director and founder of Epic Games.[16] The engine targets the eighth generation of PC hardware and consoles."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Engine

Edited March 24, 2013 by white

[froggyluv 2136]

Self entitled weeping

Anything you can throw at it? Really? You demand 30 fps "Minimum!!!!" at anything you can dream up parameter-wise.....:rolleyes: Tell, me what other high vision dev games allow this -that is, unlimited parameter editor testing while guarenteeing 30 fps "minimum!!!"? Eh? In pre-Beta format no less.

The closest I can think of would be a game called Arma2. Guess they had more ambitious Dev's....

Edited March 24, 2013 by froggyluv