We need this to be optimized.

[pablo0713 1]

Ok, ok many of you just click in here(?) just to tell me ``Meeeeen, its just an alpha!´´ but i feel the necessity of saying it now. I think (supposing its not) the MOST IMPORTANT thing the devs must be on right now is optimization. Makeing the game PLAYABLE which it isnt the case. I think most of us clearly pass the recommended specs and still cant get 60fps stables. I know there aren't many games like arma out there with this huge maps and a lot of things to be loaded and render but hey! thats not an excuse even more when we hit the lower fps our CPU and GPU are not max working at all, even worst far from that:j:.

Again don't get me wrong iam not here just complaining i love the game and i think its awesome but it from my perspective PERFORMANCE must be on the top of the list right now, when the game is playable then we get to the bugs and stuff. I hope you understand the aim of the post which is to inform the devs that the game has to be first playable after anything and i really look forward not to see an arma 2 oa in terms of optimization in which i think its not that well as many say or think.

:)

[old_painless 182]

On the contrary, it being an alpha means that now is the time to point out problems with optimization/poor performance.

That being said, you need to provide a bit more info (how, when,what) and I don't think that anything above 30fps will be considered poor performance.

[AlphaCentauri 10]

I run it at 15 FPS and I am beyond happy with my framerate. I used to run ARMA 2 at 10!

[pablo0713 1]

On the contrary, it being an alpha means that now is the time to point out problems with optimization/poor performance.

That being said, you need to provide a bit more info (how, when,what) and I don't think that anything above 30fps will be considered poor performance.

i know if i would have something stable above 30 i wouldnt even been here but thats not the case, but yes lack on info is the problem my specs are:

intel core i5 2400 3.1Ghz

HD 7850 1050/5800

8g or ram

How?When?What?

pretty much in any scenario but there are some exceptions but not many, most of the worst fps experiences i suffer where in multiplayer but also in singleplayer there wasn't much more better but still i could enjoy the showcases pretty much.

And a personal note. Maybe its me but i think we shouldnt just approve 30 fps as ``good performance´´ maybe i ask to much for my current specs(?) but i think we should always aim to the 60 stable and no much less

[phil 1]

i think it looks and runs really well, even better than ARMA 2. I have no trouble FRAPSing either.

[adamjm 10]

The game is running extremely well and will only get better from here. I thought I was being a little bit ambitious when the first thing I did in game was crank the settings up to ultra. Nope, it ran smooth as butter. This game is fluid and I think like Arma 2 there will just need to be tweaks discovered to get it running smooth on individual systems. That will take time.

[Salidin 11]

While I do have some issues with it one of which being a very random drop and freeze up in my PC even though my CPU nor GPU is being utilized to its fullest. The game itself runs better then Arma II which I run on max other then PP and I run Arma III on max other then PP and only very high SMAA.

But I understand why this thread is up and fully support it optimization is always needed for any game in any stage of its life.

[pablo0713 1]

Glad to see the community also looks forward to optimization i would love to say that in my pc the games runs great but i cant haha.

Its really early to expect some optimization patch to come out due to the few days its been alpha release but still i will not lose the hope though.

[Brainbug 10]

You mustn't compare this to a normal shooter like BF3 or anything like that. In the ArmA series, a lot more stress is put on the CPU, because a lot more calculations are made. After all it is a military simulation at the core with some game appearance put on it. That means that the game is heavily dependent on raw CPU power, and even the fastest CPU available can be brought to its knees easily. Upgrading the GPU doesn't do much, sure you can run higher AA settings and so on, but you will never get past the FPS that the CPU can deliver. E.g. in Arma2, I upgraded test-wise from a 5850 to a 7870, which is a roughly double as fast card. But my old trusty Phenom II X4 940 held me back, I couldn't squeeze out a single FPS more (and since I'm not playing much else, I returned the 7870). I need a new CPU (and fast RAM is said to help, too) to get more fps, but to get near 60 fps in tough game situations is nearly impossible.

On the other hand, Arma is not a fast-paced shooter where you really need high FPS to get a smooth lag-free feeling. If you are playing with somewhat stable 25 to 30 fps, that is really good enough to do everything.

[Oxsergy 1]

You mustn't compare this to a normal shooter like BF3 or anything like that. In the ArmA series, a lot more stress is put on the CPU, because a lot more calculations are made. After all it is a military simulation at the core with some game appearance put on it. That means that the game is heavily dependent on raw CPU power, and even the fastest CPU available can be brought to its knees easily. Upgrading the GPU doesn't do much, sure you can run higher AA settings and so on, but you will never get past the FPS that the CPU can deliver. E.g. in Arma2, I upgraded test-wise from a 5850 to a 7870, which is a roughly double as fast card. But my old trusty Phenom II X4 940 held me back, I couldn't squeeze out a single FPS more (and since I'm not playing much else, I returned the 7870). I need a new CPU (and fast RAM is said to help, too) to get more fps, but to get near 60 fps in tough game situations is nearly impossible.

On the other hand, Arma is not a fast-paced shooter where you really need high FPS to get a smooth lag-free feeling. If you are playing with somewhat stable 25 to 30 fps, that is really good enough to do everything.

This everyone agrees on but however the problem that we have is that it doesn't utilize your CPU properly. When I play it never goes above 25% usage of all my CPU cores combined(i7-3740QM). I haven't checked whether it's only running on two cores or whether each core gets only a small percentage of the calculations but either way it is not utilizing all the CPU power it can. When my framerate is being limited by the CPU my GPU usage drops to less than 40% and my framerate usually sits at 20-30 depending on the situation. When I'm in a fairly low AI calculation mission I can get a consistent 60 FPS which is more than satisfactory but missions like the helicopter scenario kill my framerate due to the map full of AI and poor CPU optimization. Just my $0.02.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Oxsergy

[maturin 12]

If you need stable 60fps you should really just leave now.

[pablo0713 1]

why? because i want a game to run well? i just sit on my chair and dont complain? Thats not the way i think this game will get better as a community i dont see the bad thing to ask for a proper performance, that or just change the recommended way up to higher, why? because you get a false perspecive about how the game will run on you. Many of you insist this is imposible but if your game cant get to a decent framerate then clarify it when people buy it. Of curse assuming the performance issues dont get fix during alpha and beta

[Oxsergy 1]

If you need stable 60fps you should really just leave now.

It's not even that. Having an unoptimized simulator limits how much can be done with it. If it more efficiently used your CPU cores that would allow larger simulations with more AI, yes? This in turn would open more possibilities for missions, worlds and the like.

[azz_er 10]

Optimization is probably one of the most difficult tasks that face the devs and its going to take a lot of time before the game is fully optimized. I think the game runs really well right now and it is playable.

Also, your PC specs aren't the greatest so you shouldn't expect 60 fps or even 30 fps stable.

[nimrod123 11]

hate to tell you, optimization is normally the last thing thats done.

alot of people are forgetting this is alpha, this is feature testing, there is no point tuning features that are either not complete, or maybe removed

[entiii 10]

I am a little bit sickened by reading all these comments !

Its not about getting 60 FPS, but about getting the most out of the GPU/CPU what is possible. At this moment, the optimization for this game is really bad. I can hardly play this game and even on low settings I suffer from 20 Frames per second.

I can play ArmA 2 almost maxed out with 30-60 FPS and can hardly play this game on the lowest settings possible ? Ladies and gentlemen, stop fooling around, there is really a lot of work to do !

[pablo0713 1]

Optimization is probably one of the most difficult tasks that face the devs and its going to take a lot of time before the game is fully optimized. I think the game runs really well right now and it is playable.

Also, your PC specs aren't the greatest so you shouldn't expect 60 fps or even 30 fps stable.

your right i dont have a $2000 rig but hey! i pass the recommended specs though as i say before i strongly suggest they change that and put some expensive i7 or something because as you said i cant afford 30 fps stable which is pretty lame isn't it? i mean iam over the recommended and the game is unplayable (and dont tell me that 20 fps are just fine)

Edited March 6, 2013 by pablo0713

[zapat 56]

Lol, I have an E8200 + 4850 and getting 30+ fps with standard settings. With a 5 year old crap. What am I doing wrong? :)

[pablo0713 1]

Probably as being the same engine from previous armas games it does work with old cpus (?????) or maybe is just a lie i would really love to se that on a multiplayer server with 40-50 pepole in it? and some AI

[k3lt 3]

Lol, I have an E8200 + 4850 and getting 30+ fps with standard settings. With a 5 year old crap. What am I doing wrong? :)

Probably you're playing in Editor, or infantry Showcase which are running decently.

Now go and try populated multiplayer server, or even helicopters showcase.

[azz_er 10]

your right i dont have a $2000 rig but hey! i pass the recommended specs though as i say before i strongly suggest they change that and put some expensive i7 or something because as you said i cant afford 30 fps stable which is pretty lame isn't it? i mean iam over the recommended and the game is unplayable (and dont tell me that 20 fps are just fine)

No but we are playing the alpha version of the game so I suggest evaluating the specs when the full game is released. It probably won't be any better in the beta either. As someone said above its usually the last thing that's done.

[colinm9991 20]

AMD FX 8150

20 GB DDR3 RAM

Sapphire 7970 3GB Graphics

Game runs fine on Standard settings, lags on High settings when I look toward a town.

Game somewhat lags on Standard when there are enemy AI or vehicles.

[naizarak 4]

so tired of these people talking about "optimization" like its some sort of magic entity.

im not a game developer. i don't know how "optimization" works. i don't pretend to. i don't make asinine posts like "WE NEED MORE OPTIMIZATION!!111!"

if you can't run the game well then upgrade your computer. the devs aren't going to magically boost your FPS.

[pablo0713 1]

so tired of these people talking about "optimization" like its some sort of magic entity.

im not a game developer. i don't know how "optimization" works. i don't pretend to. i don't make asinine posts like "WE NEED MORE OPTIMIZATION!!111!"

if you can't run the game well then upgrade your computer. the devs aren't going to magically boost your FPS.

Let me tell you a few things. First we all know that is really hard to optimize although we dont know how (kind of funny uh?), second as i said before if the game was using full usage of my cpu and gpu i will probably never start this thread but this is not the case and we all know that is an alpha but with arma 2 either uses 100% of my resources and still after playing a few hours of any CTI match you will notices your fps start to go down due to AI(?) or god knows what. And belive me if the devs give it a little bit of work on it they will ``magically boost my fps´´ but we are all used to the poor perfomance the arma series have thats why the ``common´´ answer to any performance thread is GO BUY YOURSELF A REAL PC!!!1111

[Leon86 13]

I gotta admit I was kind of hoping arma3 would be multithreaded like battlefield 3, being able to use lots oh cores just for rendering terrain.

then agian arma 3 plays pretty smooth even though the cpu is still a bottleneck most of the time, and look pretty nice apart from the godawful medium range terrain textures.