We need this to be optimized.

[minimalaco 30]

i have gtx 690 and i7 7770 and I have low fps. :(

[DShKM 18]

Check my sig for my specs. I'm running at what I would say is an acceptable level of performance. I average mostly around 40-45 FPS with dips to the low 30s. Optimizations could definitely be done, but it seems like the levels of performance problems are different based certain rigs. Some people are running fine and others aren't. Bohemia will simply have to sort this all out, once again, it's an Alpha, just wait and see.

[Sparrow 10]

Also remember we still dont have proper dedicated servers, just client hosted ones. Avoid using multiplayer as reference for performance.

[4 IN 1 0]

Actually being alpha normally means that the dev want to make sure basic function are add and running smoothly, general optimization is what beta stage are for where the things needed to be add have been added, this is when the time most suitable to optimizate.

Telling devs to heavily optimizate the game in alpha where there is still tons of things to be change/add generally means that you don't know shit about software development.8

[k3lt 3]

Actually being alpha normally means that the dev want to make sure basic function are add and running smoothly, general optimization is what beta stage are for where the things needed to be add have been added, this is when the time most suitable to optimizate.

Telling devs to heavily optimizate the game in alpha where there is still tons of things to be change/add generally means that you don't know shit about software development.8

So what are you saying is we shouldn't be mentioning abysmal performance issues just because it's Alpha and is not a time for optimizations? ...

What about other bugs, following your logic we shouldn't be mentioning about them either? I mean it's Alpha after all and things are meant to be bugged / unfinished.

Yeah...

Tapatalked.

Edited March 7, 2013 by k3lt

[4 IN 1 0]

What do you think when I say about things being "added and running smoothly?"

Again, as far as optimization goes there should only be minor ones while alpha stage is still on going, things are subjected to be changed /added/fixed making huge optimization for the sake of optimization rather pointless.

[pablo0713 1]

I know many things are being replace/added/fixed but iam talking of an main engine optimization because its not new to the arma series this problem and they dont seem to give it enough importance in previous games aleast not enough in my perspective. i know its to early to talk about this but i think its was needed to be said so after we pass alpha and beta stage we just dont get the same game with a few bug fixes more wapons and vehicles

[Guest]

You can all rest assured knowing that by the time A3 is released stability, performance, optimization and all other aspects will be significantly improved upon the Alpha.

And once released, continue to expect things to improve fairly significantly as patches and updaets come out.

It has been the same since Flashpoint and will not change. BIS always look to improve their product and they will definitely deliver something very special by the time A3 goes gold.

Regards.

[Conure 10]

The problem with these conversersations is that a lot of us were used to the days of PC gaming with a good PC = 60fps.

People come along and say "it runs just fine" then going on to say "I'm getting 35-40fps on ultra".

If you're only getting 35-40 fps on ultra, lower your settings because your FPS is laughably low.

I honestly have no idea how these people perceive the world, must be the same lot that say 30 fps is the highest the eye can see, completely unable to determine any difference between 30 and 60 fps...

I agree OP - for those of us not satisfied with a glorified slide slow, this game needs optimising.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Conure

[scaramoosh 10]

670SLI 980 I7 = 20-40FPS

Just not good enough after hearing how it was going to be running much better than ARMA 2 and it isn't. Graphical settings don't impact it and I refuse to believe my CPU is holding it back.

[k3lt 3]

670SLI 980 I7 = 20-40FPS

Just not good enough after hearing how it was going to be running much better than ARMA 2 and it isn't. Graphical settings don't impact it and I refuse to believe my CPU is holding it back.

Then start to believe, because there are people with latest gen. i5's / i7's with same issues - http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716&nbn=57#bugnotes

;)

[scaramoosh 10]

At that point it's a poor engine problem, rather than a hardware issue. When you get games that look as good as Crysis 3 or BF3 running at 60+FPS on lesser hardware that struggles to run this game.... something is wrong. It is an alpha, however it just makes me worried after all the talk they give. Makes me worried when this game is CPU heavy and others have gone GPU heavy too.

[pablo0713 1]

As richiespeed13 said we pretty much have to wait to release to see the game improves in terms of framerates, it looks like its imposible to ask for it now(?) so i guess i will have some faiths in the devs and this project, i really hope they dont forget about this important issue and ont let down a lot of people that have this problem.

Thank you everyone for your comments

[Tvrdi 11]

At that point it's a poor engine problem, rather than a hardware issue. When you get games that look as good as Crysis 3 or BF3 running at 60+FPS on lesser hardware that struggles to run this game.... something is wrong. It is an alpha, however it just makes me worried after all the talk they give. Makes me worried when this game is CPU heavy and others have gone GPU heavy too.

You realize ARMA3 has 50X bigger maps and more realistic physics, calculations, effects, etc... its a simulator and BF3 just a shooter with 2-3 blocks...

[nimrod123 11]

The problem with these conversersations is that a lot of us were used to the days of PC gaming with a good PC = 60fps.

People come along and say "it runs just fine" then going on to say "I'm getting 35-40fps on ultra".

If you're only getting 35-40 fps on ultra, lower your settings because your FPS is laughably low.

I honestly have no idea how these people perceive the world, must be the same lot that say 30 fps is the highest the eye can see, completely unable to determine any difference between 30 and 60 fps...

I agree OP - for those of us not satisfied with a glorified slide slow, this game needs optimising.

its not a game yet, its a bloody alpha, and a really polished one at that.

its even playable, with AI, and all the text in it. most alpha's have no playability, and no AI at this stage (or one that only works on script)

most QA leads i have been under make it clear that the only preformence issues in alpha you report are either CTD causing, or ones that make feature testing impossible. since you can interact in the game and play and fight well enough frame rate is not a issue

[Minoza 11]

Most of you fail to understand that problem exists and was confirmed by devs even prior to Arma 3 Alpha (in Arma 2), feedback ticket exist as well, it's up to devs now, they never fixed it in Arma 2, hopefully they will for Arma 3.

This isn't just about bad performance but about bad performance no matter what settings you use on PCs that exceed recommended specs by far.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716&nbn=57#bugnotes

Just give summary and description a careful read, you will notice what an actual problem is. Then check these out, for Arma 2, same problem:

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/59932

Then read last comment:

Well, this is not a bug but a limitation of the engine and its implementation. Often the AI, which ties directly into graphics performance and can't be singled out from the overall engine - in turn also brakes down the graphics - is guilty for that. Also, particle systems such as smoke and complex vegetation are other sources for bad FPS. It's been discussed in quite some "Performance breakdown" tickets before (you can filter here in CIT on those). The combination of those three main factors are the reason why you have a such bad overall performance.

Yes it is bad, but no it won't (can't) be fixed in OA according to repeated statements of Suma, BI's lead programmer.

Is it a bit more clear now?

Edited March 7, 2013 by Minoza

[white 1]

Most of you fail to understand that problem exists and was confirmed by devs even prior to Arma 3 Alpha (in Arma 2), feedback ticket exist as well, it's up to devs now, they never fixed it in Arma 2, hopefully they will for Arma 3.

This isn't just about bad performance but about bad performance no matter what settings you use on PCs that exceed recommended specs by far.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716&nbn=57#bugnotes

Just give summary and description a careful read, you will notice what an actual problem is. Then check these out, for Arma 2, same problem:

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/59932

Then read last comment:

Is it a bit more clear now?

i agree with almost everything, but your quote states that the game is somewhat also gpu intensive, which it isnt. the bottleneck is entirely on the cpu side, and arma 3 seems to run on the same code that handled that on arma 2.

on arma 2 whenever i upgraded the videocard i could get higher graphics quality but with the same stuck bad fps that was cpu bound to 1-2 cores.

and i agree, they should be aware that people are complaining about the same thing on arma 3 by now, and its up to them, but i would like an honest statement about if they plan or not to fix this.

[AussieStig 10]

Most of you fail to understand that problem exists and was confirmed by devs even prior to Arma 3 Alpha (in Arma 2), feedback ticket exist as well, it's up to devs now, they never fixed it in Arma 2, hopefully they will for Arma 3.

This isn't just about bad performance but about bad performance no matter what settings you use on PCs that exceed recommended specs by far.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716&nbn=57#bugnotes

Just give summary and description a careful read, you will notice what an actual problem is. Then check these out, for Arma 2, same problem:

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/59932

Then read last comment:

Is it a bit more clear now?

If I'm not mistaken, the reason they didn't fix it for Arma 2 was because "It was too difficult to fix, and would take a lot of money to fix". After the millions they recently made off dayz, I don't want to hear shit from BIS about the lack of money they have.

BIS better address this issue. The year is 2013, every other game company, even the ones that have tiny budgets in comparison to arma 3, still manage to have 10x better optimization than Arma 3.

[dmarkwick 261]

BIS better address this issue. The year is 2013, every other game company, even the ones that have tiny budgets in comparison to arma 3, still manage to have 10x better optimization than Arma 3.

Optimisation is a magic word :) people can throw it around like it means something, while knowing not much about the issues.

The reason other games can have "better optimisation" by an arbitrary factor of 10 is that there is about 10x less going on. Arbitrarily speaking. ArmA is not a player-centric game, while almost every other game is.

That's not to say that improvements can't or won't be made, but simply using the word "optimisation" doesn't really mean anything.

[dannynickelov 1]

It's terrible... I have a Intel Core I5-3470, Nvidia Geforce GTX560 and 8 GB of Ram... i can't even play on Medium...

[k3lt 3]

Optimisation is a magic word :) people can throw it around like it means something, while knowing not much about the issues.

The reason other games can have "better optimisation" by an arbitrary factor of 10 is that there is about 10x less going on. Arbitrarily speaking. ArmA is not a player-centric game, while almost every other game is.

That's not to say that improvements can't or won't be made, but simply using the word "optimisation" doesn't really mean anything.

Does it really matter what word you gonna use? Call it optimization, tweaking or improvement.. it doesn't matter, people just expect better performance and you can call it whatever you like.

[dmarkwick 261]

Does it really matter what word you gonna use? Call it optimization, tweaking or improvement.. it doesn't matter, people just expect better performance and you can call it whatever you like.

I suppose it doesn't matter what word you use given that they all are fairly meaningless :) it just amounts to saying "make it faster...." :)

Saying that X game is more optimised because it runs faster is meaningless. X game is not doing the things ArmA is. Anyway, I guess I dragged it into OT territory :) it's just a little bugbear of mine that "optimisation" is always the answer to anybody's performance problems.

[AussieStig 10]

Optimisation is a magic word :) people can throw it around like it means something, while knowing not much about the issues.

The reason other games can have "better optimisation" by an arbitrary factor of 10 is that there is about 10x less going on. Arbitrarily speaking. ArmA is not a player-centric game, while almost every other game is.

That's not to say that improvements can't or won't be made, but simply using the word "optimisation" doesn't really mean anything.

I use the word optimization for lack of a better word, sorry if I made your day so much worse.

Arma 2 was atleast stable to play in multiplayer. There was little difference between playing offline and online, now it's the difference between being able to play on high graphics at a stable frame rate, and having to change your graphics to everything low in order to maintain 30 fps in multiplayer, in a gamemode without AI. It'd be excuseable with 500 ai, but there is no AI in TDM, Wasteland, or base capturing. There is nothing special going on, nothing that should be dropping my system from 90fps to 30fps.

[x3kj 1247]

people say it's running smooth, but i can also play on Utes in Arma2 pretty smooth with my old rig.

Comparing Chernarus with Stratis is not really usefull.

[pablo0713 1]

I suppose it doesn't matter what word you use given that they all are fairly meaningless :) it just amounts to saying "make it faster...." :)

Saying that X game is more optimised because it runs faster is meaningless. X game is not doing the things ArmA is. Anyway, I guess I dragged it into OT territory :) it's just a little bugbear of mine that "optimisation" is always the answer to anybody's performance problems.

You are right, theres not game out there like arma with to much information to be processed but thats not excuse for this performance, what i mean is, whats the point of making a game that almost nobody can run on a stable frame rate? just sayin`