Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[NeMeSiS 11]

Or, you know, BIS could get some extensive work going on this to fix the problem once and for all. :p

Honestly, everyone who played earlier versions and expected to performance to increase like 50% (or even more) is completely delusional. It was clear from the start that that was never going to happen. If you get like 30FPS or more at this point you should decide if that it enough, if it isn't you should leave, if you are able to live with it then it is time to turn off your FPS counter and just enjoy the game. :)

In any case, there is not much you can do, all options have been explored, and there isnt anything more to gain from all the 'magic hacks'. At this point most FPS can be gained from optimized missions, but that is up to individual developers.

Edited November 27, 2013 by NeMeSiS

[Cormega 0]

You would not build a house that is not on a solid foundation and then proceed to decorate it and spend hours doing it up whats the point the house would only fall down sooner or later.

BIS please for god sake do some thing or be honest and say it wont be fixed that way I can move on and uninstall arma 3

This is one of the best takes I've seen on the situation. Why doesn't BI acknowledge the game desperately needs a new engine? I've been a fan of this game since OFP and it's lacking the most important element of any game every made and thats: FUN. Arma simply isn't fun. Everyone will hate on me for this next statement, but I was at a buddy's house the other night and hes was playing BF4 and sure the game is overly sensationalized movie effect bullshit, but you know what else it was? Fun! We had a blast!

[TSAndrey 1]

This is one of the best takes I've seen on the situation. Why doesn't BI acknowledge the game desperately needs a new engine? I've been a fan of this game since OFP and it's lacking the most important element of any game every made and thats: FUN. Arma simply isn't fun. Everyone will hate on me for this next statement, but I was at a buddy's house the other night and hes was playing BF4 and sure the game is overly sensationalized movie effect bullshit, but you know what else it was? Fun! We had a blast!

Then why did you buy the game? A3 is unoptimized sure, but how does that relate to fun? This thread is about unoptimization, not fun. If you don't find A3 fun, why did you buy it?

[mobile_medic 43]

it's not fun if it's largely unplayable due to poor optimization. I bought it b/c I saw them advertising a "brand new engine" and got fooled into thinking they had finally addressed the #1, longest standing issue with the series that has kept me from enjoying being able to enjoy this game.

You would not build a house that is not on a solid foundation and then proceed to decorate it and spend hours doing it up whats the point the house would only fall down sooner or later.

Yes, I like to use the analogy of this game being a paper mansion.

I'm the kind of person who is more than willing to sit through delays for games to not have to be rushed, etc, etc. But, for all of the delays on Arma 3, I don't see what we've gotten in return. We got less content, a delayed campaign that isn't even coop-able, old AI issues that they only started to address in a visible and meaningful way a few months prior to release, and the same old engine with the same game breaking performance issues that Arma 2 had.

Claims from the CEO that the alpha and beta helped them to prioritize their development, yet they still avoid talking about this issue like the plague (save the occasional, [in my opinion] pointless, sarcastic, and/or condescending remarks from dwarden).

It is a shame, b/c I recognize the hard work that went into this game, but it is all for naught for me, b/c the game remains largely unplayable having been built on an engine (or having some fundamental problem) that is incapable of supporting its needs. I would play this game constantly. Instead, after every patch, I am just reminded that they will never truly address this issue, and my frustration gets refreshed.

[MavericK96 0]

Honestly, everyone who played earlier versions and expected to performance to increase like 50% (or even more) is completely delusional. It was clear from the start that that was never going to happen. If you get like 30FPS or more at this point you should decide if that it enough, if it isn't you should leave, if you are able to live with it then it is time to turn off your FPS counter and just enjoy the game. :)

In any case, there is not much you can do, all options have been explored, and there isnt anything more to gain from all the 'magic hacks'. At this point most FPS can be gained from optimized missions, but that is up to individual developers.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were a BIS developer and knew for a fact that there isn't anything left to do to gain performance. My bad. :rolleyes:

Then why did you buy the game? A3 is unoptimized sure, but how does that relate to fun? This thread is about unoptimization, not fun. If you don't find A3 fun, why did you buy it?

If I'm regularly getting 20-25 FPS, I'd say it has a pretty huge impact on my overall enjoyment of the game.

[ratszo 17]

Honestly, everyone who played earlier versions and expected to performance to increase like 50% (or even more) is completely delusional. It was clear from the start that that was never going to happen. If you get like 30FPS or more at this point you should decide if that it enough, if it isn't you should leave, if you are able to live with it then it is time to turn off your FPS counter and just enjoy the game. :)

In any case, there is not much you can do, all options have been explored, and there isnt anything more to gain from all the 'magic hacks'. At this point most FPS can be gained from optimized missions, but that is up to individual developers.

"But at 1920x1060 rez, 3000m VD, and ultra/high setting i only get 35fps --BIS, fix your game!"

[/sarcasm]

[mobile_medic 43]

More like... I can go to areas of an empty map with no AI or anything, in the editor, and still get sub-30, and even sub-20 fps, even if I turn everything down, and put view distance to 500, b/c the game can't even handle 500m worth of a city without bottlenecking and crapping out our gpu usage.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Sorry, I didn't realize you were a BIS developer and knew for a fact that there isn't anything left to do to gain performance. My bad. :rolleyes:

There is nothing left to do to get more performance on our end. BI can optimize things, but if a lot of people seem to be waiting until the performance gets 'fixed', and i am just telling you that that will never happen. A 10% performance increase is a realistic exception of what may happen, if that is not enough you might as well stop waiting completely.

EDIT: Well, except for cases where something is obviously broken, which i guess is the case for Mobile_Medic, but that sounds so broken that it belongs in troubleshooting anyway. ;)

[windies 11]

There is nothing left to do to get more performance on our end. BI can optimize things, but if a lot of people seem to be waiting until the performance gets 'fixed', and i am just telling you that that will never happen. A 10% performance increase is a realistic exception of what may happen, if that is not enough you might as well stop waiting completely.

EDIT: Well, except for cases where something is obviously broken, which i guess is the case for Mobile_Medic, but that sounds so broken that it belongs in troubleshooting anyway. ;)

Sounds more like an outdated engine that a development company continually uses to push out software on that has a myriad of well known problems that they ignore and that you for some reason feel the need to excuse.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Sounds more like an outdated engine that a development company continually uses to push out software on that has a myriad of well known problems that they ignore and that you for some reason feel the need to excuse.

I am not defending BI, i am just saying that anyone who is waiting for a large performance increase is wasting his time since it will never happen.

[ratszo 17]

More like... I can go to areas of an empty map with no AI or anything, in the editor, and still get sub-30, and even sub-20 fps, even if I turn everything down, and put view distance to 500, b/c the game can't even handle 500m worth of a city without bottlenecking and crapping out our gpu usage.

Yeah, i can't replicate that in Kavala walking from the castle to the hospital. Need to push VD out to 10000 and object out to 5000m to see low low 30s. 3000m. VD seemed optimal in the 45-55fps range.

And that's with a gts 450.

Not tyring to pull your chain but for bis to fix something it needs to be readily replicatable across systems.

I use 'bob's armory' for bench-marking --spawn in at 20-22 frames w/1600 VD. Great place to tweak setting:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?162385-SP-MP-Bobs-Armory-on-Altis&highlight=bobs

[windies 11]

I am not defending BI, i am just saying that anyone who is waiting for a large performance increase is wasting his time since it will never happen.

I didn't say that you were defending them. Excusing it though as if it's simply OK because nothing is going to change doesn't accomplish anything though.

[Minoza 11]

Yeah, i can't replicate that in Kavala walking from the castle to the hospital. Need to push VD out to 10000 and object out to 5000m to see low low 30s. 3000m. VD seemed optimal in the 45-55fps range.

And that's with a gts 450.

Not tyring to pull your chain but for bis to fix something it needs to be readily replicatable across systems.

I use 'bob's armory' for bench-marking --spawn in at 20-22 frames w/1600 VD. Great place to tweak setting:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?162385-SP-MP-Bobs-Armory-on-Altis&highlight=bobs

If it's not too much of a hassle, can you post your complete specs (OS as well) and do a bench (FRAPS is ok) at campaign start, heli ride to be more precise? If you could show/tell me your in game settings as well that would be great! We could then compare those with my results on previous page.

[ratszo 17]

If it's not too much of a hassle, can you post your complete specs (OS as well) and do a bench (FRAPS is ok) at campaign start, heli ride to be more precise? If you could show/tell me your in game settings as well that would be great! We could then compare those with my results on previous page.

Ok, the helo cut-scene:

2013-11-27 22:25:49 - arma3

Frames: 10102 - Time: 213440ms - Avg: 47.329 - Min: 28 - Max: 62

Intel® Core i5 CPU 650 @ 3.20GHz

Core Speed 3458.4 MHz

Memory Size 7 GBytes

Channels Dual, (Symmetric)

Memory Frequency 665.1 MHz (4:20)

NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450

Core clock 879.0 MHz

Shader clock 1758.0 MHz

Memory clock 1804.0 MHz

displayMode=0;

winX=16;

winY=32;

winWidth=1024;

winHeight=768;

winDefWidth=1024;

winDefHeight=768;

fullScreenWidth=1024;

fullScreenHeight=768;

refresh=75;

renderWidth=1024;

renderHeight=768;

multiSampleCount=8;

multiSampleQuality=0;

particlesQuality=2;

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=1;

HDRPrecision=16;

vsync=0;

AToC=0;

cloudsQuality=0;

pipQuality=0;

dynamicLightsQuality=0;

PPAA=0;

ppSSAO=0;

ppCaustics=0;

steamLanguage="English";

tripleBuffering=1;

class ModLauncherList

{

};

serverLongitude=-64.483299;

serverLatitude=48.833302;

ppBloom=0;

ppRotBlur=0;

ppRadialBlur=0;

ppDOF=0;

AA 8x

Nvidia CP:

AF 16x

AA 32xCSAA

VD 1000

OD 800

win7

[edit]

Same run at 3000m. VD and 1750m. OD:

2013-11-27 23:53:04 - arma3

Frames: 6684 - Time: 210196ms - Avg: 31.799 - Min: 23 - Max: 44

Edited November 28, 2013 by Ratszo
3000m. VD run

[kklownboy 43]

Ok, ...

refresh=75;

...

vsync=0;

...

tripleBuffering=1;

...

Well now... Tribuff only works with Vsync on.As you can see by the big difference between the min and high FPS.

Using 32xAA... I like that. Do you have the NV CP 3D setting for AA set to "Override any application setting" ? I didnt think In game AA and NV CP settings worked together?

Yeah a GTS 450 sucks balls, but you seem to have your Laptop playable with no IQ or anything going on @ 1024/768. What is that 15in?

---------- Post added at 22:07 ---------- Previous post was at 22:02 ----------

I didn't say that you were defending them. Excusing it though as if it's simply OK because nothing is going to change doesn't accomplish anything though.

As is complaining about it? MP will get better whether we post or not. But I think playing is better than bitching about it, do you even play? Though I do understand, a good post of frustration can help the mind. But noise is just noise.

[ratszo 17]

Well now... Tribuff only works with Vsync on.As you can see by the big difference between the min and high FPS.

Using 32xAA... I like that. Do you have the NV CP 3D setting for AA set to "Override any application setting" ? I didnt think In game AA and NV CP settings worked together?

Yeah a GTS 450 sucks balls, but you seem to have your Laptop playable with no IQ or anything going on @ 1024/768. What is that 15in?

....

Normally i run nvidia half-refresh rate so t-buff on. "Override any application setting", yep or adaptive, no diff.

Not a laptop, 24" monitor. Runs cool.

The 450 i've had up to 950mhz on 1.11v. stable. So some headroom there.

Main thing is not to push the rez.

[stk2008 14]

yet another update an naff all on optimization.

im sure i will get yet another warning about this but im fed up now.

why do you think im pissed BIS? because i love arma/ofp but i cant even play this game its terribly optimized well should i say not even optimized in the slightest.

every one this is arma 2 all over again THIS WILL NOT BE FIXED

we will hear from a dev one day in the future and the response will be

"sorry we can fix it its a limitation of the engine"

so so pissed off about this now dedicated fan since ofp and bis just ignore the biggest thread and ug tracker issue why because they have no way of fixing it.

awaits ban :( after 15 or so years of dedicating my gamin life to bis

[nikiforos 450]

stk2008 I feel you mate I feel exactly the same here. The only reason most people "complain" is because they love the game and they are just sad because the can't it.

[MavericK96 0]

Yeah, I'm right there with you guys. I'll keep on playing it, but many times the performance is abysmal.

[ratszo 17]

I believe, when you find a game mode, a server, a group of friends..., your settings may be tweaked down --perhaps far lower than your expectations ever intended them to be-- and you will find contentment, joy, brotherhood and an abiding love for the game as i and many others gamers have found.

I believe because a gamer will adapt to any limitation, any nerf, any bar to their desire to play.

To laugh in the face of Lag; To scoff at minor updates..., and pity the players who whine like female dogs in heat, at distant forums far, far away from the din of battle and the glory of pawnage....

We all pity them.

I believe, because we love the game, no matter how uber the GPU, nor lowly the RAM --THIS IS ARMA!

Edited December 5, 2013 by Ratszo

[Zipet 11]

and still no damn luck in improved fps patch -.- im about to give up the hope for a lag free multiplayer gameing exp. or singleplayer exp. hard to maintain 30fps in multiplayer and 60fps in single with evrything on the lowest as possible. dont matter what settings they are on still same crappy fps. low to ultra with view distance at 5000 and obj distance at 2500 laggy and choppy ashell. WTB a probber fps fix patch!

Spec.

Amd 8350 4.6ghz water cooled

16gb 1833 kingston hyberbeastX

gtx 780ti 1100mhz 3gb

psu 850w

128gb ssd

1tb harddrive

windows 7 ultimate 64bit

[Merkury713 10]

So, for individual core clocking for AMD processers, does anyone have any good advice or guides on that? Any experience in it? Because that would probably be a big step to fixing lag. Like if you are using a six core processor, clock core 1 to like 6 ghz, core 2 to like 5 something, 4 to lower, 3 to 4 something, 2 and 1 to like 4.0 ghz.

Everyone with high end systems if you are using an AMD processor, you are screwed. 8350s are the worst, they probably perform just aas well as a 6100 or something. if you are using intel OC your cpu, but get cooling too.

[oldbear 390]

@ Merkury713 : you have said .... "Everyone with high end systems if you are using an AMD processor"...

Let's have a look at this chart from an AMD FX 4350 et FX 6350 test on French Hardware.fr site.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Of course, the test is using Arma 2 : Operation Arrowhead, but it's using only using RV Engine in a previous version and RV4 is probably more demanding than RV3. So what you can get here is all and only about Arma* CPU ranking. There are no AMD FX or A10 processor matching any Intel i5.

The fact is you can't have a high end rig -Arma* wise- if you are using an AMD CPU. Those processors are decent in other games but with RV Engine they are doomed, it's playable but not really enjoyable.This fact is sadly confirmed by reports I am getting on some Arma3 French forums where I am active.

@ Zipet : What I will tell you is the result of this reality, having an AMD CPU, and I will say the FX-8350 is the only one having enough juice, you must look for mid-range performances even with a GTX 780ti. I will add that having a high end GPU with a mid range CPU implies you must set all the Video Quality settings on "Ultra", but drastically reduce "Visibility" to 2000/2500 m.

[[frl]myke 14]

it's playable but not really enjoyable.

Strange enough that i do have a FX-8350 and i really enjoy ArmA 3. Of course not all set to Ultra (probably i'm addicted to the word "normal") but if this is the only way one could "enjoy" ArmA 3, then this might not be a suitable game for this person.

The meaning is, it is down to everyone to decide what is in fact "enjoyable". Some can't play with at least 60FPS while for others it is perfectly fine to have ~30FPS. Both are right.

To the chart: i think it is still valid for A3 and i guess it is still somewhat accurate, at least for the differences between the CPU's. The absolute FPS values may differ though. So while i am a AMD fan, the best CPU's for ArmA 3 are Intel CPU's. But this doesn't mean that AMD CPU's are "unplayable".

[jumpinghubert 49]

the important thing are the min. fps with AI. Would be nice to see this kind of min-fps-cpu-comparison.