Is the alpha really the antagonist in this situation?

[Chibigoat 1]

Instead of making a post filled with huge amounts of rage and frustration, I'll try to keep it nice and civilized, as if I'm not actually about to freak out at how much bullshit this is. Anyway, it's really annoying not being able to complain about horrible wasteland/multiplayer frames in arma 3 because it's in alpha and everyone says "Are you really complaining about alpha, blah blah, I'm a dumbass", or something along the lines of that. Well, yes I am complaining about alpha, for one reason. I was just on a wasteland server and a chunk of people on there were getting really great frames, 50+ on ultra, etc. And I, like in EVERY. SINGLE. OTHER. SERVER. get 20-30. Most servers are actually 10-20. No, it's not my computer specs. If you insist it's my computer specs, I hope you fall on broken glass (but not for real, because that's my rage talking). I run this on single player perfectly fine, and Battlefield 3 on ultra at 55-60 fps, etc. Keep in mind, I'm not retarded. I know what alpha means and I realize it will cause issues and is an unfinished game. I understand that.. so god damn much.

My only real problem here is, why in the hell are certain special people getting such fantastic frames, when others are getting absolute shit frames? Is it really the alpha's optimization that's causing this? More proof that it's not my computer: 20 frames on low, 20 frames on standard, 20 frames on high, 20 frames on ultra. No, not my computer.

I want to know if I should be looking into ways to solve this stupid ****ing piece of **** issue, or if I just need to wait out the alpha? I don't like the whole wait out the alpha idea for two reasons, one is that there are plenty of people who are not having to wait out the alpha to get great frames, and two, because I lack patience in this situation.

Here's a dancing banana to ease MY pain.

Edit: I always keep my computer up to date. I just recently downloaded the latest beta drivers (because someone said it improved their performance) but it didn't change anything for me. So, that wouldn't be a factor.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Chibigoat

[chrisb 196]

So it runs decently in SP you say. If its only the MP that is a problem, stay off MP until the game is optimised better. Are you in the beta development program in Steam?

I only just found out how to get beta’s through steam for A3, never had to bother before, just downloaded them directly from BIS, still, progress I suppose.:rolleyes:.

What fps are you getting in SP, or just with one ‘you’ in the ‘Editor’ ?

:)

[max power 21]

If you're having a problem with wasteland in particular, it might be worthwhile to discuss it with the wasteland devs. I have found mp to be a little slow but nothing to write home about... well, nothing by arma standards.

I should add that a much better way of communicating your concerns to the devs without making your concerns available for public discussion is to use the issue tracker.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Max Power

[bad benson 1733]

i get low fps and or heavy fps drops in MP too. not in every mission though. but a lot of things just don't work smoothly yet. hell i even get lag from moving mags into my inventory too fast. so yea the reason is that it's an alpha. i know you don't want to hear it and you already know it but that's it.

your problem is that you play on servers that give you bad fps (or MP in general). why do it if it doesn't work properly? i mean you already know the reason. part of the optimization that hasn't been done is to make the game "compatible" with different hardware. i bet the physics and other newly added stuff just needs to be implemented better too. lots of ragdoll animations at the same time also can cause massive stuttering for example.

i suggest you look at more dancing bananas or make a detailed feedback ticket (when does bad fps occur exactly, what hardware do you have exactly) of your issue which might actually help fixing it. expecting smooth multiplayer from an alpha is just stupid. most games still have a lot of issues in MP in beta. the thing is just that a lot of content can be ported quickly over from arma 2 and the community is very active with creating content for the game already. this gives the false impression that the game is done and ready for normal consumption. IT IS NOT! i wish it was too but making a thread like this won't change it. there are even ingame labels that state that it is an alpha and link to the feedback page. what more do people need? the game was this cheap because this is a public alpha test. and you will get the full game. so maybe people should start making detailed feedback using the proper places for that and stop crying. don't buy an alpha if you can't take it. just wait if it makes you that angry. i don't see the problem here.

[daze23 1]

I hope you fall on broken glass

lol

it is frustrating when you've pretty much tried everything, and then someone comes along like "you just have to turn post processing down". or "I get 60+fps... in the infantry showcase"

wasteland fps or gtfo! :D

[Fuse 1]

Sounds exactly like the kind of issues one expects to see in earlier builds. Devs have a relatively limited set of hardware available to them.

Is your performance the same on all MP servers, or just Wasteland?

Keep in mind that your PC's FPS on BF3 is pretty much irrelevant when discussing Arma 3. They are very different games with very different hardware requirements.

[qbert 10]

Have you tried the developement build? I had some pretty sad performance on multiplayer until updating it. Also, more obviously, the View Distance slider is probably your best friend, but you probably already knew that. You can enable the dev build in the "beta" options of your Arma 3 properties.

[Chibigoat 1]

Sounds exactly like the kind of issues one expects to see in earlier builds. Devs have a relatively limited set of hardware available to them.

Is your performance the same on all MP servers, or just Wasteland?

Keep in mind that your PC's FPS on BF3 is pretty much irrelevant when discussing Arma 3. They are very different games with very different hardware requirements.

It's baaasically the same on all servers. The best I've been able to get is maintaining 20-30 frames on that dev build Reddit server. It's still unplayable when it constantly drops below 30. I just threw BF3 up there so some can get a better idea of my specs, and how those are not what's causing the problems. I've yet to try a deathmatch or something in the past few days although the last time I tried one it ran just as bad if not worse. I'll give it a try again when I get home today.

Most servers stay around 20 frames, and usually vary between 15 and 25.

[Fuse 1]

Sorry, my point was that posting your actual specs would be a lot more helpful than your FPS in an aging cross-platform title running a different engine (that, frankly, was never as demanding as people seem to think).

Can you expound on what you mean by "fine" in single-player? What kind of FPS are you getting, in what conditions, and at what settings?

[gossamersolid 155]

Wasteland, unless it has changed recently, spawns in hundreds (if not thousands) of objects from the start of the round, regardless where players are.

Your game has to account for all of these objects, basically.

It's up to wasteland developers to understand what the engine's limitations are and how to work with them.

[deepfried 1]

Post your specs, also monitor your GPU and CPU usage when you get these low frame rates so we can see if there is a bottleneck, many older or lower spec gaming PC's will be heavily bottlenecked by their CPU in Arma3 regardless of what the graphics card is.

Also I highly doubt there are that many people getting decent frame rates on ultra in MP unless they all have £2500 rigs built in the last 12 months, so I'd write that off as bullshit if I were you.

Further, if decent frame rates are your goal use custom graphics settings. Settings like "vsync", "AA" (FXAA should be fine though), all 3 of the Draw distances, and object and terrain detail will have MASSIVE impact on your frame rates, so tinker with them.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Also I highly doubt there are that many people getting decent frame rates on ultra in MP unless they all have £2500 rigs built in the last 12 months, so I'd write that off as bullshit if I were you..

Rekon they would still have issues with MP right now.

Look the Op is kind of right but this being Alpha there is a number of things that can be done. 1. Be patient 2.Use the feedback tracker and fill in the details. 3 If feeling the need to get community feedback post as much info as you can, so system specs and detailed video settings, not just the generalised all 'med' all 'ultra' kind of thing, that realy dosn't say much.

As far as the MP issue is concerned I'd say there is definately a combination of things goin on. But one thing I have noticed after finding some MP games running better than others is its largely dependant on the mission. I think in the rush to get stuff out some mission makers have cut corners (not tested) and a lot of missions are taking too long to clean a lot of the garbage (ie dead bodies etc)