Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

[oldbear 390]

@ [FRL]Myke : as a veteran having switch to PC gaming with Operation Flashpoint and an AMD cpu rig, what I see is sad.

In the past, after Arma release, I have played a while at 10/15 FPS with Athlon XP 2000 @ 1,6 Ghz, so I know where are the limits of my own "game playability area". At the moment, I am still doing tests with my 2nd rig "Athlon II x2 250/HD 7770" and I know that I can play and enjoy the game in the 20/30 FPS zone in Single-player and Campaign, but as I build MP missions for my team and often play in MP with main rig " i7 3770 / GTX670OC ", I can make quick comparisons.

Arma 3 is incredibly beautiful with main rig, playable smoothly and always over 30 FPS, that's what I mean by "enjoyable".

[Kemeros 1]

Myke;2571036']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' date=' 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".[/quote']

I think you missed the part where lowering everything to low has no effect on FPS.... I have a GTX 770 now. I used to play with a gtx 460. No difference WHATSOEVER! But i have a Phenom 2 X6 1055T... Thus i am doomed to have bad FPS because AMD was a good deal for gaming at the time. I today regret buying it. Catalyst, bad drivers and Arma 3 have made sure i NEVER buy AMD products again. They are left out to dry too often.

But hey... i should be happy right? I've just seen they added a FPS profiler to analyse the MP part of the game. Now why did they wait until now to do this is a complete mystery to me... MP and modding is the bread and butter of this game, it's what keeps the game alive and make it sell years after launch. They also chose to add this right before their holiday break. So we should start seeing MAYBE some changes in what... a few months? 6 months? A year? I dunno... I don't feel any sense of urgency towards this so it's hard to tell. All the new features are awesome. I like the workshop and the new tools... But what do they do for me if i can't play over 15 FPS? By the time i know an enemy is in front of me... I'm dead...

[[frl]myke 14]

I think you missed the part where lowering everything to low has no effect on FPS....

And there starts the problem: this is not true for me and for a lot of other players. When i set everything to low, my FPS will skyrocket through the ceiling. Raising settings one by one will bring down FPS to a point where i have to decide if i prefer 5 FPS more or 500m viewdistance more. It's called balancing. I know my rig can't play it on Ultra settings, i don't even try it.

But hey... i should be happy right?

No, you shouldn't. You should track down the issues and be open for all advices even if some of them could mean that you ("you" meant generally, not personally you) fucked it up. Simply said, i see often cases like "Game runs like s**t" - "Try updating GPU drivers" - "Oh, runs perfectly now". I don't say that all cases can be solved that easily and no doubt that the engine itself needs improvement too. But i'm quite sure a lot of problems would be solved in no time if some people would be willing to accept that it might be possible that somethings wrong on their side and not in the game engine (only). Too often people think they are perfect, they never make mistakes and their PC is the best in the World so ArmA 3 should run with 150FPS at least.

I've just seen they added a FPS profiler to analyse the MP part of the game.

Well, it came up as soon the first user made a really helpful thread and not only "*whine* A3 wont run on my 5 year old midrange PC on Ultra with 120FPS". Just then a Dev jumped in. At least for me it feels like this.

[ratszo 17]

I think you missed the part where lowering everything to low has no effect on FPS.... I have a GTX 770 now. I used to play with a gtx 460. No difference WHATSOEVER! But i have a Phenom 2 X6 1055T... Thus i am doomed to have bad FPS because AMD was a good deal for gaming at the time. I today regret buying it. Catalyst, bad drivers and Arma 3 have made sure i NEVER buy AMD products again. They are left out to dry too often.

But hey... i should be happy right? I've just seen they added a FPS profiler to analyse the MP part of the game. Now why did they wait until now to do this is a complete mystery to me... MP and modding is the bread and butter of this game, it's what keeps the game alive and make it sell years after launch. They also chose to add this right before their holiday break. So we should start seeing MAYBE some changes in what... a few months? 6 months? A year? I dunno... I don't feel any sense of urgency towards this so it's hard to tell. All the new features are awesome. I like the workshop and the new tools... But what do they do for me if i can't play over 15 FPS? By the time i know an enemy is in front of me... I'm dead...

The Phenom II X6 1055T @ 2.8GHz does turbo 3.3ghz. Are you pegging 3.3ghz in game?

[Kemeros 1]

Myke;2571259']And there starts the problem: this is not true for me and for a lot of other players. When i set everything to low' date=' my FPS will skyrocket through the ceiling. Raising settings one by one will bring down FPS to a point where i have to decide if i prefer 5 FPS more or 500m viewdistance more. It's called balancing. I know my rig can't play it on Ultra settings, i don't even try it.

No, you shouldn't. You should track down the issues and be open for all advices even if some of them could mean that [b']you[/b] ("you" meant generally, not personally you) fucked it up. Simply said, i see often cases like "Game runs like s**t" - "Try updating GPU drivers" - "Oh, runs perfectly now". I don't say that all cases can be solved that easily and no doubt that the engine itself needs improvement too. But i'm quite sure a lot of problems would be solved in no time if some people would be willing to accept that it might be possible that somethings wrong on their side and not in the game engine (only). Too often people think they are perfect, they never make mistakes and their PC is the best in the World so ArmA 3 should run with 150FPS at least.

Well, it came up as soon the first user made a really helpful thread and not only "*whine* A3 wont run on my 5 year old midrange PC on Ultra with 120FPS". Just then a Dev jumped in. At least for me it feels like this.

The CPU and board are 3 years old, not 5. They came out in Q2 2010. I would not be "whining" as you call it if my PC was 5 years old, i never keep a PC for longer than 3/4 years depending on the situation and how bad an upgrade is necessary. Been assembling PCs since i was 15 years old. I'm 28. I've been a PC gamer all these years and can tell easily when my PC is too old and needs to be changed. I did consider if the problem could be on my side(Updating my drivers is always the first step i take when weird problems occur). It "kinda" is if you consider having an AMD cpu being a problem on my side. My CPU is the obvious culprit but it should still be able to run any games around 50 FPS with the current GPU i have. It does with all the recent games(PS2, Batman arkham origins with physyx and all other settings maxed out, etc).

It's easy to tell the problem is on A3's side simply because A2 barely runs better on my PC. I'm of course only talking about MP. Single player works kinda ok. It goes all over the place from 25 to 50 fps, sometimes 60.

But hey, by the time Bohemia finds the trouble causing this, i'll have upgraded to a Haswell-E with a new board with DDR4(About time woo!). Assuming they don't delay the launch. The bump from a phenom 2 to a i7 or i5 is pretty remarkable when i look at the benchmarks. We're talking between 20 and 50 FPS increase in some places. A 4770k is literally twice the power of my 1055t. So yeah i can accept my CPU is not enough to run the game at ultra or even high. But when medium and low gives me the same result. o0 It would be easier to blame my PC if i couldn't run Batman Arkham origins at everything maxed out with 50 FPS. No it's not as big as A3 obviously and it doesn't have as much stuff to render but it's as pretty and has a lot of physics stuff in it. I never liked to compare games because i know it can be unfair but there is something clearly wrong when you upgrade your GPU and you don't get a single FPS more lol. Can't wait to change my damn CPU.

@Ratszo: I never bothered. I overclocked the cpu at 4GHz to test and it didn't do much besides a few FPS. And it made the PC unstable of course heh. But then i've never been very good at overclocking. Never had a good reason to bother learning how to do it properly. Upgrading is less hassle and gives a bigger result most of the time.

Anyway. I hope they can still find ways to make the game run better. Otherwise i won't be playing for a couple more months, maybe more if DDR4 is delayed. What's the point of upgrading to older tech?

[ratszo 17]

Yeah, hear ya.

I once did a cheap socket upgrade replacing a socket 939 +3000 venice, with a discounted +4000 sandy.

+4000 sandy --last of the great amd single-cores.

[[frl]myke 14]

The CPU and board are 3 years old, not 5. They came out in Q2 2010. I would not be "whining" as you call it if my PC was 5 years old, i never keep a PC for longer than 3/4 years depending on the situation and how bad an upgrade is necessary. Been assembling PCs since i was 15 years old. I'm 28. I've been a PC gamer all these years and can tell easily when my PC is too old and needs to be changed. I did consider if the problem could be on my side(Updating my drivers is always the first step i take when weird problems occur). It "kinda" is if you consider having an AMD cpu being a problem on my side. My CPU is the obvious culprit but it should still be able to run any games around 50 FPS with the current GPU i have. It does with all the recent games(PS2, Batman arkham origins with physyx and all other settings maxed out, etc).

It's easy to tell the problem is on A3's side simply because A2 barely runs better on my PC. I'm of course only talking about MP. Single player works kinda ok. It goes all over the place from 25 to 50 fps, sometimes 60.

But hey, by the time Bohemia finds the trouble causing this, i'll have upgraded to a Haswell-E with a new board with DDR4(About time woo!). Assuming they don't delay the launch. The bump from a phenom 2 to a i7 or i5 is pretty remarkable when i look at the benchmarks. We're talking between 20 and 50 FPS increase in some places. A 4770k is literally twice the power of my 1055t. So yeah i can accept my CPU is not enough to run the game at ultra or even high. But when medium and low gives me the same result. o0 It would be easier to blame my PC if i couldn't run Batman Arkham origins at everything maxed out with 50 FPS. No it's not as big as A3 obviously and it doesn't have as much stuff to render but it's as pretty and has a lot of physics stuff in it. I never liked to compare games because i know it can be unfair but there is something clearly wrong when you upgrade your GPU and you don't get a single FPS more lol. Can't wait to change my damn CPU.

@Ratszo: I never bothered. I overclocked the cpu at 4GHz to test and it didn't do much besides a few FPS. And it made the PC unstable of course heh. But then i've never been very good at overclocking. Never had a good reason to bother learning how to do it properly. Upgrading is less hassle and gives a bigger result most of the time.

Anyway. I hope they can still find ways to make the game run better. Otherwise i won't be playing for a couple more months, maybe more if DDR4 is delayed. What's the point of upgrading to older tech?

I should have been more clear: this wasn't adressed to you personally, apologies for that.

[Kemeros 1]

Myke;2571344']I should have been more clear: this wasn't adressed to you personally' date=' apologies for that.[/quote']

No worries. I don't blame you. I know where you come from and your comment is true in many many cases. I played Starbound beta last night and saw reports of bad performance in the game. Yet i didn't get a single lag myself. Time will tell if the problem is on the game side or people's computer. I'm guessing it's their PC since it's a freaking 2D game lol but i don't know what their rig was so it's hard to judge.

The difference here is that i took a lot more time analyzing people's comments and what rig they had. It's obvious people with a AMD CPU are more prone to having this problem. Not all of them but many. Then i saw others with old Intel Core 2 CPUs hoping to get good performance. So yeah, some people should look at their PC first.

In my case well it's just a question on circumstances. At the time, the price of an Intel CPU was twice the amount you paid for a Phenom 2 for very similar performances. It was hard to justify paying more. Then 6 months later the Sandy bridges came out. -_- Those were expensive too but man did they have better performance. In fact, AMD hasn't been able to keep up since then. Their GPUs are fine,as in the hardware is powerful enough, not driver wise though. But their CPUs are not worth mentionning anymore. They also focused on their APUs which are well... meh. They're good enough to watch blue-rays and play candy crush and 5 years old games.

Speaking of AMD, i wonder if Bohemia will try to implement Mantle. I wonder how much work it is to use it. Probably a lot.

Enough babbling. There ain't much more i can add to this conversation before going in circles. I will have to wait and see some more.

[mobile_medic 43]

And there starts the problem: this is not true for me and for a lot of other players. When i set everything to low, my FPS will skyrocket through the ceiling. Raising settings one by one will bring down FPS to a point where i have to decide if i prefer 5 FPS more or 500m viewdistance more. It's called balancing. I know my rig can't play it on Ultra settings, i don't even try it.

This is only true for me when the game is not bottlenecking. If I am in a rural part of the map without AI, lots of objects, etc (the things that induce gpu usage crapping), I can see the difference... But, when the gpu-usage crapping bottleneck occurs, no settings changes make enough of a difference for it to become playable, or worth playing at 5 year old cell phone quality. Bohemia made showcase missions, even empty city in editor. The difference between maxed at 2560x1600 and everything on low @ 720p res is negligible at best in these instances.

If the game could remain at 30 or above (most of the time), I'd be happy... But, playing a small BIS made mission, or flying, etc, etc, etc, etc... I regularly see dips into the 20's or teens fps, and gpu usage going from 90+% down into the teens, 20's, and 30's %. Same exact problem with Arma 2. Same exact problem a few of my friends that (tried to) play together. Same exact problem I've seen a number of people report. Try changing settings at that point, and it still remains unplayable. It is indicative of the game being the problem, and not anyone's hardware, or people with unrealistic expectations (not saying that some people don't try to run on inadequate hw, or that some don't have unrealistic expectations... I'm just saying that is not the root issue here).

The problem is, these occurrences aren't isolated or rare... they are far too common, and induced by what I would consider minimal or moderate scenarios. Can't be blamed on multiplayer, or bad scripting, b/c I've done a ton of testing and eliminated as much of those variables as possible. I am able to reproduce even on an empty map in editor if I am in a city.

I might get 19fps in a bottle-necking spot maxed out with a 3k'ish view distance. I can back everything down to minimal values at that point, and I might see a 3-5fps boost out of it in those situations, at best.

It doesn't take much at all to bring this game to its knees. It seems plain and clear to me that the foundation is not adequate to handle the game they have built on top of it (or, there is some major bug in the code that has gone unnoticed for years).

[MavericK96 0]

Just checked on my CPU/GPU usage during a moderate mission (6-7 AI squads and about 4 vehicles)

Core 1: 75% usage

Core 2: 25% usage

Core 3: 25% usage

Core 4: 25% usage

GPU usage: Never more than 50% or so

Framerate: ~25 FPS >_<

[Instynct 1]

Myke;2571259']And there starts the problem: this is not true for me and for a lot of other players. When i set everything to low' date=' my FPS will skyrocket through the ceiling. Raising settings one by one will bring down FPS to a point where i have to decide if i prefer 5 FPS more or 500m viewdistance more. It's called balancing. I know my rig can't play it on Ultra settings, i don't even try it.

No, you shouldn't. You should track down the issues and be open for all advices even if some of them could mean that [b']you[/b] ("you" meant generally, not personally you) fucked it up. Simply said, i see often cases like "Game runs like s**t" - "Try updating GPU drivers" - "Oh, runs perfectly now". I don't say that all cases can be solved that easily and no doubt that the engine itself needs improvement too. But i'm quite sure a lot of problems would be solved in no time if some people would be willing to accept that it might be possible that somethings wrong on their side and not in the game engine (only). Too often people think they are perfect, they never make mistakes and their PC is the best in the World so ArmA 3 should run with 150FPS at least.

Well, it came up as soon the first user made a really helpful thread and not only "*whine* A3 wont run on my 5 year old midrange PC on Ultra with 120FPS". Just then a Dev jumped in. At least for me it feels like this.

Seriously? At this stage you're still blaming users computers. LOL

[[frl]myke 14]

Seriously? At this stage you're still blaming users computers. LOL

Nope, just yours. On a more serious note, please come back once you've read the full post:

I don't say that all cases can be solved that easily and no doubt that the engine itself needs improvement too.

Seeing your reaction, i guess this quote nails it pretty well:

Too often people think they are perfect, they never make mistakes and their PC is the best in the World so ArmA 3 should run with 150FPS at least.

But i'm absolutely sure your PC is perfectly well balanced, only the finest components, all drivers up to date and perfectly set up. There is no doubt that just the game engine is crap. Got your point.

[MavericK96 0]

Except, you know, when every other game installed on my system runs perfectly fine other than ArmA. Clearly it's a system issue...

[jamsus 11]

If interest someone,

I got a i52500k (not overclocked) + 8 gb ram (KingstonDDR3) + GTX760 (nothing unbelievable), the game was ok before... (25-35 fps with pretty everything at ultra but distance 1500-1900)

Now i'm using an SSD and the game is a completely different game.

Just for helping on increasing performace, it runs really smooth.

[R1C0 10]

This is ridiculous!

To get better performance you have to buy an SSD, a CPU and GPU of the (nearly) latest generation ?

Minimum system requirement says: DUAL CORE! 2GB RAM! graphics card @8800GT or HD3830!

For what? For only to be able to start the game in 640x480 on lowest settings but you must be the only one on the server at a position where there are no trees, grass, AI and structures with a view distance of 500m on plain terrain @Stratis?

I feel deceived! :(

[[frl]myke 14]

This is ridiculous!

To get better performance you have to buy an SSD, a CPU and GPU of the (nearly) latest generation ?

Minimum system requirement says: DUAL CORE! 2GB RAM! graphics card @8800GT or HD3830!

For what? For only to be able to start the game in 640x480 on lowest settings but you must be the only one on the server at a position where there are no trees, grass, AI and structures with a view distance of 500m on plain terrain @Stratis?

I feel deceived! :(

That's pretty much what "Minimum system requirements" means. You can play the game but don't expect it to look great. Or what did you thought what it means?

[R1C0 10]

Myke;2571958']Or what did you thought what it means?

I (we?) can not even play properly with much better hardware than a dualcore and a 6 years old GPU ....NOT even at lowest settings!

Or do you want to tell me that ArmA3 will run (can be properly played) with the minimum spec? Yeah' date=' maybe you can play a lil with the courser....in the main menu...at best! *laugh*

But you are a mod in this forum, you should know that ArmA3 is CPU intensive. How can a 2-core handle things if not even a 4-core can handle it (regarding on the fact that the CPU usage is mostly not higher than overall 50%)? And this has nothing to do with "looking great or bad"!

I don't want to be unkind to you but all i read about this issue is "update your computer, buy better hardware.... a.s.o."

No clear answer only a statement in SITREP#37:

One of multiple factors that may affect multiplayer performance are various real-time security applications interfering with BattlEye anti-cheat. We are trying to look into this with companies such as ESET, but meanwhile there are configuration tips that may help you. Our programmers are also still trying to tackle the larger topic of performance in multiplayer compared to singleplayer.

The configuration tips were upvoted by 9 guys ONLY NINE! And BI doing some investigation into this rare issue caused by anti-virus realtime scanner! I can't believe it!

There are servers without BE usage out there and these performance issues are also equally present on these servers!

What does this tell us?

But OK, better than nothing...

chears...

BTW: Hope you can understand what I wrote. (Google Translator )

Edited December 6, 2013 by R1C0

[[frl]myke 14]

BTW: Hope you can understand what I wrote. (Google Translator )

Perfectly, no worries.

Or do you want to tell me that ArmA3 will run (can be properly played) with the minimum spec?

Yes, it can be played. If it is considered "properly" is about to debate. But it can be played.

I (we?) can not even play properly with much better hardware than a dualcore and a 6 years old GPU ....NOT even at lowest settings!

There are multiple possible causes:

1. Your system is not set up properly

2. Your drivers and OS aren't up to date and/or malware/viruses/bloatware are eating up resources

3. The engine doesn't run well with your specific hardware mixture. This should be investigated and the problems should be solved.

...and probably a dozen more.

For points 1 and 2, no one here can help and also it isn't the faule of BI. For point 3, proper reports without insults and whining are the best way to help to resolve the problems.

And BI doing some investigation into this rare issue caused by anti-virus realtime scanner! I can't believe it!

So you can't believe that there are working more than 1 (one) person at BI? You can't believe that someone with AV knowledge investigated possible sideeffects of AV software and posted results to help while another big bunch of devs dig deeper into the source code (which is a bit more than just a dozen lines) to track down possible issues? Seriously?

There are servers without BE usage out there and these performance issues are also equally present on these servers!

There are also servers out ther with BE enabled without any problems. Now how does this fit into your theory?

[Dwarden 1125]

for example we are now testing several various server side fixes and changes ... which guess what ... improve performance ...

but until we happy with it ... there isn't much to talk about

Edited December 6, 2013 by Dwarden

[windies 11]

for example we are now testing several various server side fixes and changes ... which guess what ... improve performance ...

but until we happy with it ... there isn't much to talk abut

Just outlining things you think are causing problems and how you want to go about fixing them would at least show that you're on it. It's reached a point where it's like the boy who cried wolf, where you've said you're "on it" so many times with so much time passing that people kinda stop taking you seriously or believing you.

[mobile_medic 43]

for example we are now testing several various server side fixes and changes ... which guess what ... improve performance ...

but until we happy with it ... there isn't much to talk abut

Yes, but what about *this* issue? MP performance is an additional issue with game performance, and certainly can't be improved beyond the limitations that this issue creates for many of your customers (for years now).

Let me just ask a straight up question. What kind of target for performance increase are you guys shooting for with Arma 3 over its current state? 0%, 5%, 20%, 50%? And, what timeline, roughly? Never? in 6 months? Arma 4? Arma 12?

Contrasting the way this issue has been handled by the devs (both in the lack of progress since I've been playing Arma 2, and the lack of meaningful input from the devs on this issue) with the way the devs seem much more proactive and involved about other issues... you guys have already lost me as a future customer. I would have been quite interested in Take on: Mars, and Helicopters, for example... but, no way I'm buying that or any other future product, b/c I only expect to get burned at the end of the day.

I've pretty much given up hope that this game will see any meaningful improvement on this issue that it actually *needs*. Especially considering the fact that it won't even get properly acknowledged... If the dev team more actively discussed the state of this issue (rather than avoided it like the plague), perhaps I could feel a bit more optimistic and patient. But, I believe the answer (eventually) in Arma 2 was something along the lines of "some things are just too expensive and we are not willing to spend the time on them".

But, you do have the money to put up half a million in Euro for a content creation contest, apparently. Just not the foresight to build your game on a foundation that can actually sustain it, and take you screaming into the future, rather than stumbling. There will be competition one day, and I suspect you will be struggling mightily to stay in the game at that point, rather than being way ahead of the curve if you had prioritized your development more appropriately during all of those delays. No campaign? Missing content? etc, etc? If this issue would have seen proper attention, I'd forgive just about anything in terms of delays and lack of release content. At this point, I'm wondering what the heck required year plus delays? We got a prettier paint job, and an overall improved infantry gameplay. Other than that, we still have the same fundamental issues people have been begging you to address for years, less content, and a game that isn't even finished yet.

Along came Arma 3, promoting a "brand new engine". Got my hopes up. Bought 3 copies (2 for my friends). Got fooled again. (shame on me)

For those of us who have done extensive testing, experimenting with various proposed tweaks, etc, etc to try to find a solution on our end... it becomes infinitely frustrating to see a game with such potential have the #1 foundational issue get nothing more than the occasional re-parroting of things like defrag, get an ssd, disable your anti-virus, etc.

---------- Post added at 10:35 ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 ----------

Just outlining things you think are causing problems and how you want to go about fixing them would at least show that you're on it. It's reached a point where it's like the boy who cried wolf, where you've said you're "on it" so many times with so much time passing that people kinda stop taking you seriously or believing you.

+1000

[marcai 1]

I can't help but think that telling AMD/ATI users "sorry you didn't buy from the right side of the computer component competition!" is a pretty bad analysis of the issues that many players suffer from. Whilst I won't deny an Intel chip is better all around, I recently spent £250 on a new motherboard and an AMD Fx 8350 processor for myself to boost performance. Whilst it did suddenly jump from 20fps to an area ranging around 30-60fps, I still find it dropping to 20-30fps whilst flying, sometimes dipping below that. Whilst I can -as already stated- agree that the Intel chip is objectively better, most gamers simply cannot justify forking out over a £1,000 on new computer parts just to sate the needs of one game. This is especially true of people like myself and many others who've bought extra bits of kit specifically to improve Arma gameplay such as TrackIR, pedals, a joystick and extra Arma merchandise.

Personally I'm quite happy having my game run around 35-45fps on average and I love playing even if its just for a brief fly around on my own. Unfortunately that is all I get to do at the moment as most of my friends think that if my computer that I near enough built specifically to play Arma can't really run it without constant framerate drops, their computers don't stand a chance. I think this is where the problem lies. Many people on the forum are quick to point the finger and say 'lower your settings to the point that things look terrible' or 'well its your own fault for not bankrupting a small nation to upgrade your rig to play this one game'. The vast majority of gamers won't have the funding or inclination to buy a full set of top-of-the-range Intel and Nvidia gear and liquid nitrogen cooling. It's this vast majority who have come to this thread near enough pleading for an answer and fixes only to be met with "lol your computer sucks, not BIS's problem". The long and short of it is that people not enjoying their product *is* their problem.

I really appreciate all of the input that both users, mods and devs have had to this thread, as it shows that the community as a whole is interested in this issue. Who doesn't want a few more frames, smoother gameplay or prettier visuals? I hope that things are indeed going on behind the scenes to try and improve performance for those who are finding it difficult to enjoy a game they have purchased through no fault of their own. Whilst I personally can play the game after spending hundreds of pounds on new kit (apparently on the wrong hardware for this title, however), I still run into occasional framerate drops, so heaven knows what it must be like for those without the ability to spend as much. Someday I would love to have everyone coming on the forums to complain about the lack of content, griefers and slight realism miscalculations than a huge and unwieldy thread of people unable to play a game that they've passionately supported.

[R1C0 10]

for example we are now testing several various server side fixes and changes ... which guess what ... improve performance ...

but until we happy with it ... there isn't much to talk abut

Hey Dwarden, its good to hear some positive "step forward" like statement from the dev side. Hope these test results fit to your expectations and you can give us customers some more detailed informations. I press my thumb...both! :)

@Myke:

There are also servers out ther with BE enabled without any problems. Now how does this fit into your theory?

My theory? I was not the one who wrote SITREP#37 @INTELLIGENCE section. But I hope I do not get it wrong: If the server doesn't use BE, the client neither?

However hopefully there working more than one person at BI (I still believe it ;) ) but think about how long this issue exists (when was ArmA2 released? 5 years ago?).

But i don't want to blame someone any further. You are right, this helps nobody but it shows that all these customers are dissatisfied and many of them have bought a RELEASE VERSION of ArmA3 (like me!) NOT an Alpha or Beta and NOT a Beta-Tester-Licence. I don't say that ArmA3 Release version should be completely bug free (that would be nice but almost impossible) but this issue here is a SERIOUS PROBLEM which relates to a whole part (maybe, no IT IS the biggest part) of ArmA3!

What is ArmA3 without MultiPlayer?

If I see this thread with almost 2400 replys to this issue (and these 2100 upvotes) from all these users with all these different system configurations AND ALL STICK TO THE SAME ISSUE! Sorry, I could puke! :(

BTW:

3. The engine doesn't run well with your specific hardware mixture. This should be investigated and the problems should be solved.

That implies that ArmA3 could only run well with specific hardware but I can't find any information about it @system requirements! They only say: Intel or AMD DualCore or newer, 2GB RAM or more, 5-6 years old GPU or newer! Think about it!

(Laptops aren't official supported, almost everybody knows that.)

Ok, i'll shut up! :D

I wanna see some news about new improvements as soon as possible. :)

chears and good luck...

[oldbear 390]

@ Windies : you are a funny guy, you say the dev from BIS aren't working, that an opinion. Somebody from BIS tell you they are working on the way server works testing various fixes and changes.

But then you say you want to know what exactly is modified. Of course, you have enough knowledge of RealVirtuality engine to understand and of course criticize the choices been made in these fixes.

The only "proof" is that in the future we will assess server working better ...

[Zipet 11]

for example we are now testing several various server side fixes and changes ... which guess what ... improve performance ...

but until we happy with it ... there isn't much to talk abut

thank you for just shareing that little info that you are doing something to improve fps so my hopes aint all gone yet still hanging in there and hopeing for better gameing exp in multiplayer then the 20 fps