Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[xendance 3]

Wait.

Did I understand that right, or didn't I get the point?!

Did he just said that Arma is a single-player game?!

Yes. Did you know that single and multiplayer aren't mutually exclusive?

[fred41 42]

Observed while flying near kavala, with intentionally high view/object distance (3000/3000).

Note, that not the GPU nor the CPU was overloaded here, but the GPU memory seems to reach a critical limit periodical, as shown in the picture bellow.

It seems a video memory overload situation, causes drastical recovery actions here (to free some GPU memory).

The falling edges in the GPU memory allocation graph, are identical with the "stutters" in game.

To verify, you can use process explorer (sysinternals/microsoft), double click on arma3.exe process and select tab "GPU Graph", graph "Dedicated GPU memory".

Greets,

Fred41

Edited September 19, 2013 by Fred41

[t4nk83 10]

Observed while flying near kavala, with intentionally high view/object distance (3000/3000).

Note, that not the GPU nor the CPU was overloaded here, but the GPU memory seems to reach a critical limit periodical, as shown in the picture bellow.

It seems a video memory overload situation, causes drastical recovery actions here (to free some GPU memory).

The falling edges in the GPU memory allocation graph, are identical with the "stutters" in game.

To verify, you can use process explorer (sysinternals/microsoft), double click on arma3.exe process and select tab "GPU Graph", graph "Dedicated GPU memory".

Greets,

Fred41

http://i44.tinypic.com/14dovw2.png

I can see the memory drop offs, but is that a 2gb card? if so it never hits your actual dedicated ceiling, that would indicate something on the software side (driver or application), would it not?

[fred41 42]

... thats what i think, it is a software problem.

The "jump" in the graph occurs in the same moment, as the short "screen freeze" (500ms - 1000ms).

The allocation increase before the collaps, is ether caused by a memory leak (buffers not released) or it is just a pure software algorithm (not smooth enough).

I can see the memory drop offs, but is that a 2gb card? if so it never hits your actual dedicated ceiling, that would indicate something on the software side (driver or application), would it not?

[ric 1]

Observed while flying near kavala, with intentionally high view/object distance (3000/3000).

Note, that not the GPU nor the CPU was overloaded here, but the GPU memory seems to reach a critical limit periodical, as shown in the picture bellow.

It seems a video memory overload situation, causes drastical recovery actions here (to free some GPU memory).

The falling edges in the GPU memory allocation graph, are identical with the "stutters" in game.

To verify, you can use process explorer (sysinternals/microsoft), double click on arma3.exe process and select tab "GPU Graph", graph "Dedicated GPU memory".

Greets,

Fred41

http://i44.tinypic.com/14dovw2.png

do you get the exact same behavior if you set lower and higher view/object?

[fred41 42]

... basically the same pattern, yes.

It is just streched in time with lower wiew distance, means less frequently stutters.

But you can observe, exactly the same pattern with lower or higher viewsettings.

You can easily verify with process explorer: http://technet.microsoft.com/de-de/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx

do you get the exact same behavior if you set lower and higher view/object?

[Jimieus 1]

Remembers ARMA 3 > Checks forums to see if FPS issue resolved > Forgets about ARMA 3 again.

:bye:

[David77 10]

it's called PLACEBO

No it's called I unparked my fucking cores. So atleast I use 2 cores now... It wasn't a placebo effect. The other things don't work. It's w/e. I tried a bunch of things and one worked. I posted what I tried. hence why i said "you may want to try". I never said they were facts. So why don't you "stop the bullshit" instead?

Edited September 20, 2013 by David77

[gagagu 21]

Hi,

a friend and me tested the game since alpha (with own dedicated server).

I've tested the game on many PC's (e.g. Intel Core I7, 8GB Ram, NVidia 660 gtx, windows 7 and 8). I got nearly 30-40 fps depending on graphic settings. In multiplayer depending on server (my own or other) and mission between 8-15 fps.

This game is good, but unplayable yet in multiplayer!

I dont know what BI QA is doing but they could not really tested the multiplayer part, or they used tree NVidia Titans in Sli, Big Servers and 10GB Lan for testing.

I think BI released the game too early because they are afraid of the release of BF4 next month.

Every day i'm reading the development change log and i'm get really "angry" by what i'm seeing there. They fix all the stupid sh*** nobody interested in, instead of fixing the main problems of the game.

* no campain

* not playable in multiplayer

* no linux server

* no 64 bit

* shadows not working with AA

* small amount of vehicles

It's a cheek to publish this !!!!!

I love this game but i'm a small step away from to throw in into trash.

Edited September 20, 2013 by gagagu

[Greenfist 1863]

You honestly think it's the same guys working on models/configs and CPU optimization? I highly doubt it.

- Campaign: incoming

- playable in multiplayer at least for some people in some missions. I have i5 @ 2,8GHz & 3GB ram, played last night Invade & Annex with 20 people @ 35-50 fps.

performance in getting better every day; last time with yesterdays patch which made my game a lot smoother. It's by no means great but getting better.

- 64 bit will never come, cause what's the use?

- more vehicles are on the way.

Nowadays publishing a game doesn't mean the same thing as it used to. Release date is just a point in time when the game gets a bit more press coverage, unlike before when it meant developers can just watch money roll in and move on to making their next game. Especially with Arma series, since it's more of an engine than a conventional "game"; it keeps growing and maturing for the next 2-3 years. Hell, before A3 alpha the 4-year old A2 still got patches almost weekly.

No, I'm not defending BI nor saying everything is ok.

[blackpixxel 53]

Hi all,

as everyone knows you get a low framerate in MP even if you can run SP missions at stable 50-70 FPS on higher setting.

If i change the video settings in SP i see a direct impact on my framerate, but if i change them during a multiplayer session absolutely nothing will change. I always get 15-25 FPS there, it was the same in Arma 2.

That means that the multiplayer performance is affected by something else. The other performance-killer in this game is the AI-calculation. Many AI troops in the SP will have a heavy FPS hit. There are many AI's on MP, but they should be all calculated by the server.

Here is my question: Could it be true that my CPU is calculating the AI on MP without that this calculation will be used for anything? The CPU would have to do this work for the 20-40 AI's, depending on the mission. In SP such a number of artificial enemys would also result in such a low framerate, because the CPU would bottleneck the GFX.

This would also explain why we get good FPS on MP scenarios without AI.

[KrIxXuS 10]

Hi all, really amazes me how many people are having 'issues' with performance, we have always been very lucky to have Bohemia listen to the problems and issues within the game. The patches they provide generally speaking are pretty good. I think the real issues here are with multiple pc users having their own custom setup... I use a first generation i7 and multiplayer is more than acceptable after tweaking config/game settings/ pc etc.. There is more than enough information out there if people really have the time and want to customise their setup to run ArmA 3 at a respectable level. I play the HIA,3 servers regular as possible, these guys do a great job optimising their server and for the first time in years I'm happy to play ArmA and see the old crowds returning from ArmA 1 days.

In game and steam name...

[sONAF]Blueâ„¢

See you all on the battlefield! ;)

[Wicked513 10]

OK im really ticked off. I get around 20 fps no matter what i do. Ive tried tweaking the cpu. gpu, and the launch settings.

My system rig....

FX-6300 6core @4.0

8gigs of crucible ballistics 1600

EVGA GTX 660 2gb superclocked

an everything else shouldnt really matter..

Ive tried just about everything. Ive met some people in-game with the same rig or almost the same an they get better FPS my one friend gets around 50fps on high an everything is the same but the GPU which is an amd radeon hd 6970 1gb. Im about sick of this crap. I spent way too much money trying to run arma 3 at a decent fps but yet it never changes.

[flyingspatula 10]

Here is a small paragraph from a great little article about what is wrong with Arma 3 as well as Arma 2. It really irks me BI did not care enough or under estimated how significant a performance issue it would be for a much bigger map.

Another cause of performance loss is with high vehicle / unit counts, unit counts is straight up units (AI or Player). No matter where a ‘vehicle’ or ‘unit’ is in the worldspace you are rendering their model. The biggest issue is once the object its self is farther then your Object rendering value (Video Settings) it switches from GPU rendering to CPU render (Why is it doing that?!). This also explains why we have low GPU utilization and high CPU utilization. Now the funny part is that when you set your Object rendering to 500 (the lowest) your CPU begins to clear up which the funny part about it is apparently from a Developer it was said that they know about the issue and there isn’t anything they can do. I personally like to call bullshit on that because you created the engine and you should be able to fix problems like that.

http://www.iamtonic.co/17092013/why-is-arma-3-performance-shit/

I have tested this myself even before reading this, and came across the same conclusion. If BI can not fix this issue, then I will formally request a refund as the website claims 60 vs 60 scenarios are possible but the game can not even perform stable at 60 players or small COOP. Arma 2 did not claim a vast player experience as it was specifically launched as a COOP simulator. Arma 3 is not. It specifically states a 120 player experience. It is not as much a server problem anymore, than it is BI's problem for not fixing a major rendering flaw in the engine and being lazy.

Claimed 60 vs 60 scenarios.

http://i.imgur.com/ALA5jwC.jpg (392 kB)

Edited September 22, 2013 by flyingspatula

[LucidPotato 10]

All of this bullshit just pisses me off. You can have a rig with the recommended specs off of the arma3 website, but you still won't get close to 60 fps because of this bullshit rendering flaw that they apparently "can't fix".

[flyingspatula 10]

Here is the false advertisement in question. Do not let companies continue to lie to customers and tell them features that are not possible. I bought this game in hopes of large scale warfare like Wastelands or other large scale mods and saw the claimed 60 vs 60.

http://i.imgur.com/ALA5jwC.jpg (392 kB)

[antoineflemming 14]

Hi all, really amazes me how many people are having 'issues' with performance, we have always been very lucky to have Bohemia listen to the problems and issues within the game. The patches they provide generally speaking are pretty good. I think the real issues here are with multiple pc users having their own custom setup... I use a first generation i7 and multiplayer is more than acceptable after tweaking config/game settings/ pc etc.. There is more than enough information out there if people really have the time and want to customise their setup to run ArmA 3 at a respectable level. I play the HIA,3 servers regular as possible, these guys do a great job optimising their server and for the first time in years I'm happy to play ArmA and see the old crowds returning from ArmA 1 days.

In game and steam name...

[sONAF]Blueâ„¢

See you all on the battlefield! ;)

^^ Another post of "I don't have any problems with this game so I don't understand why you're having problems. You're having problems because of X, Y, and Z". Seriously, you're in no position to explain why someone is having problems, nor is it right for you to slight others' problems just because you have none.

[flyingspatula 10]

The huge performance flaw with the engine is one thing, but if they do not bring to the table what was promised then I will be encouraging people to report this to the BBB. The fact that a game states to support something but then can not deliver and the developer states "We can not help it, its the engines fault and we can't fix it". Fine, then refund my money. I bought this expecting large scale warfare as advertised. If the argument "it's the server" continues, then BI host a few dedicated servers for a short time and SHOW US this 120 player large scale warfare that you SAY is possible. Show us. That is not too much to ask for. Otherwise refund anyone who bought the game who bought it for the advertised purpose and then remove the false advertisement. This game may still be under development, but when you already declare the main issue unfix-able, what is there left to hope or wait for? The user base of launch Arma 2 is much different than a majority of Arma 3 users, who bought a dedicated server in the hopes of running a high player capacity. Now we are all finding ourselves ripped off due to unplayable servers regardless of the server quality or bandwidth.

Thanks

Edited September 22, 2013 by flyingspatula

[windies 11]

One of the things I'm noticing with ArmA 3 and why I think performance issue's are more pronounced with it than say ArmA2/OA is that at lower FPS, ArmA 3 feels very jerky and very stiff. At 60 fps ArmA 3 feels much better than ArmA 2 for example, but as you start getting lower fps the game feels much more sluggish and stiff and even things like aiming feels like it's skipping.

I find that ArmA 3 at anything under 35-40 fps is borderline unplayable mostly because while I can function, the experience becomes more tedious and annoying trying to make up for issue's like I mentioned above, especially trying to aim precisely when it feels like your iron sights are on a swivel wheel.

[wtornado 0]

The huge performance flaw with the engine is one thing, but if they do not bring to the table what was promised then I will be encouraging people to report this to the BBB. The fact that a game states to support something but then can not deliver and the developer states "We can not help it, its the engines fault and we can't fix it". Fine, then refund my money. I bought this expecting large scale warfare as advertised. If the argument "it's the server" continues, then BI host a few dedicated servers for a short time and SHOW US this 120 player large scale warfare that you SAY is possible. Show us. That is not too much to ask for. Otherwise refund anyone who bought the game who bought it for the advertised purpose and then remove the false advertisement. This game may still be under development, but when you already declare the main issue unfix-able, what is there left to hope or wait for? The user base of launch Arma 2 is much different than a majority of Arma 3 users, who bought a dedicated server in the hopes of running a high player capacity. Now we are all finding ourselves ripped off due to unplayable servers regardless of the server quality or bandwidth.

Thanks

Well put not much to add.

[Llano 11]

Hi all, really amazes me how many people are having 'issues' with performance, we have always been very lucky to have Bohemia listen to the problems and issues within the game. The patches they provide generally speaking are pretty good. I think the real issues here are with multiple pc users having their own custom setup... I use a first generation i7 and multiplayer is more than acceptable after tweaking config/game settings/ pc etc.. There is more than enough information out there if people really have the time and want to customise their setup to run ArmA 3 at a respectable level. I play the HIA,3 servers regular as possible, these guys do a great job optimising their server and for the first time in years I'm happy to play ArmA and see the old crowds returning from ArmA 1 days.

In game and steam name...

[sONAF]Blueâ„¢

See you all on the battlefield! ;)

Oh great. Then you can go into a 40 vs 40 multiplayer server and show us your so called "good" fps.

[KrIxXuS 10]

Antoine, seems you have a lot to learn about reading and getting your information correct before slagging off other members. I am allowed to air my views on this game and quite frankly i enjoy it.... i feel sorry for those that have issues as i know how expensive pc kit is these days! So i suggest you wind your neck firmly back in as i am not here to slag people off or be offensive!

As for you zplix i get around high 20's to 50+fps on servers depending on how many players there are....(Generally speaking over 30 on HIA,3) and i never once said 'Good' i said 'more than acceptable' learn to read before you write ;-)

Why you guy's feel the need to be offensive/offended by my comments i have no clue !

[wtornado 0]

Here is inside footage of my game with the settings on low with 90 fps

that is much better than yours Krixxus.The game play is ''more than acceptable''

and very smooth.But the graphic eye candy seems to suffer a bit.

The AI has not improved.

[antoineflemming 14]

Antoine, seems you have a lot to learn about reading and getting your information correct before slagging off other members. I am allowed to air my views on this game and quite frankly i enjoy it.... i feel sorry for those that have issues as i know how expensive pc kit is these days! So i suggest you wind your neck firmly back in as i am not here to slag people off or be offensive!

As for you zplix i get around high 20's to 50+fps on servers depending on how many players there are....(Generally speaking over 30 on HIA,3) and i never once said 'Good' i said 'more than acceptable' learn to read before you write ;-)

Why you guy's feel the need to be offensive/offended by my comments i have no clue !

I am not slagging you off for having good performance. I am not slagging you for enjoying the game. I'm just saying that you should not be so quick to try to explain away someone's issues with the game as if it is they who are doing something wrong. As that is not clear. Because posts like that do not contribute to a solution when you try to ascertain "the real issue", that is to say, what the majority of the problems are. It doesn't help. Sure, you did not mean any harm by your post, but your post doesn't help when you assume what the real issue is. Because you are then making an assumption that you don't know to be fact. You then restrict your possible solution to only a handful of people, and you will inevitably get the response of "well that's not the issue for me". It's no different than coming on here and saying that the "real" issue is that people play on Wasteland too much (yes, that was going on when this thread first started). Clearly, it's not Wasteland that's the issue. But that same kind of generalization of people's performance issues is kinda what you convey when you say the real issue is custom setups.

Not only that, but you do slag off peoples issues by then putting them in quotation marks. The message that you convey with that is that peoples issues aren't really issues, just what they claim to be issues. You slag off others problems by making a generalization that the patches have been good. Well, they've been good to you. You can't say that this is the case for everyone.

So, it's not about whether your intention is to slight people's problems. But, in effect, that is what you are doing by making a sweeping generalization of why people are having issues. And, yes, this always comes from those who have little to no problems with the game. The best thing you can do is to post up your specs and say "X fps is what I get on SP. Y fps is what I get on MP on Z servers". That is helpful. Limiting the cause of issues to custom rigs isn't helpful. Not trying to be offensive to you.

[KrIxXuS 10]

The problem IS (in part) due to custom rig's but not a sole issue as the game does require patching and fixing in certain areas obviously, add to this the fact that all machines are different and ArmA game's in general do require more tweaking and adjusting than most any other game to get just right. I have stated my average fps online and my pc spec's are in my signature. If people are curious as to what i'm running and how i am managing to play the game without any major issues then i am free to try and help those that need it... i have not only adjusted ArmA 3 slightly but my whole pc has been tweaked using various w7 adjustments to optimise performance of my machine in general which has taken many hours to figure out and on top of this there are many other things i do to make my 'custom rig' run how i want it to run including overclocking as it's 4+ years old apart from my card and i do not have endless funds to buy part's as and when i feel like it... i'm not here to slight others remarks or make assumptions as you say.