Arma III is very laggy

[iWoundPwn 10]

My specs are

AMD Phenom II clocked @ 3.6Ghz

Radeon HD 5800 Series GPU

8GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM

I can play on servers that don't have that much people but when I join a server with like 40+ people it's very laggy even on the lowest settings, help!

[Blew 1]

The game is laggy because your hardware can't handle it. Either get new hardware or deal with dat lag.

[white 1]

The game is laggy because your hardware can't handle it. Either get new hardware or deal with dat lag.

he has recommended specs, so it should.

[teejayd 1]

The game is laggy because your hardware can't handle it. Either get new hardware or deal with dat lag.

Either be helpful, or do not reply, his specs are well within the recommended specs.

[antoineflemming 14]

My specs are

AMD Phenom II clocked @ 3.6Ghz

Radeon HD 5800 Series GPU

8GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM

I can play on servers that don't have that much people but when I join a server with like 40+ people it's very laggy even on the lowest settings, help!

It's the server, mission, or both most likely that's causing the problem. Not much you can do on your end. Make sure your view distance is low, make sure terrain detail is on standard, make sure post-processing is turned off. Turn off anti-aliasing, and v-sync. In your startup command line, type -malloc=system. I'd also add -cpucount=2 and see if it runs better. I can't explain why, but my PC (specs in signature) run better when I've got that in there. Per my specs, it should be cpuCount=4, but cpuCount=2 runs better for me. Hope this helps.

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

If you're lagging online, its' because the server is no good.

Also he should be able to get pretty darn good performance with that system as it's essentially exactly what I had prior to my upgrade to the 3770k. I was able to get 90+ fps with that same rig, with certain settings. Namely view distance lowered and everything set to Standard except for textures which I use ultra. That will yield really good FPS and still good graphics.

[iWoundPwn 10]

Alright I will try the settings you guys recommended thanks for all the lovely responses, my computer can handle BF3 on Ultra no problem, probably need to optimize the game more.

[incontrovertible 13]

I have a fairly comprehensive guide to tweaking ArmA 3 in this thread.

[gossamersolid 155]

Alright I will try the settings you guys recommended thanks for all the lovely responses, my computer can handle BF3 on Ultra no problem, probably need to optimize the game more.

Battlefield 3, the game with 0 non-scripted AI and small maps with a short view distance. It better run good considering that.

[ephant 10]

Battlefield 3, the game with 0 non-scripted AI and small maps with a short view distance. It better run good considering that.

BF3 has big maps (of course not Arma-big) and a long view distance. Even a 64 player battle with lots of explosions and phsyic based stuff runs better than a very small and empty editor map in Arma 3, so please stop using those arguments.

[ProfTournesol 956]

BF3 has big maps (of course not Arma-big) and a long view distance. Even a 64 player battle with lots of explosions and phsyic based stuff runs better than a very small and empty editor map in Arma 3, so please stop using those arguments.

But BF3 is out, ArmA3 isn't.

[metalcraze 290]

a long view distance

500m with sprite 2d trees isn't "long".

But see a post above mine.

[ephant 10]

But BF3 is out, ArmA3 isn't.

Can't wait to quote this when the game is out.

edit: Nevermind... Let's compare it with BF4 then.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Can't wait to quote this when the game is out.

edit: Nevermind... Let's compare it with BF4 then.

Great, then i hope you'll compare everyting, not only the FPS.

[EvilPraetorian 1]

You're not the only one who gets very low FPS ( hovers around 20fps with dips into single figures at times ) despite my system being above recommended.

[ephant 10]

Great, then i hope you'll compare everyting, not only the FPS.

Why should I? This thread is about the performance. See you when both games are out.

[Jex 1]

Why should I? This thread is about the performance. See you when both games are out.

BF3 has 500m view distance compared to 2000m or more in Arma, doesn't have AI, nor a real body attached to you, probably worse models in flight and ballistics and is in Beta. When BF series scopes out to 10km view distances with maps over 225 sq km, then we might be able to offer some comparison but then it still won't be using a whole core just to process it's AI (or lack of).,

[metalcraze 290]

There are no ballistics in BF3, only hitscan. Ballistics do need more CPU, something consoles won't be able to provide.

It also looks worse. Compared to crystal clear colours of A3 BF3's milky-dirt lighting to cover up low-quality models makes me want to puke.

BF3 amazing next-gen detail:

If BF3 and ArmA3 were similar games they could've been compared performance wise. But they have nothing in common apart from being shooters except A3's scale is a lot bigger without 2D trees.

Edited April 30, 2013 by metalcraze

[ephant 10]

BF3 has 500m view distance compared to 2000m or more in Arma, doesn't have AI, nor a real body attached to you, probably worse models in flight and ballistics and is in Beta. When BF series scopes out to 10km view distances with maps over 225 sq km, then we might be able to offer some comparison but then it still won't be using a whole core just to process it's AI (or lack of).,

When you start the game with -world=empty and don't get much better fps than heavy battles in BF3, then there's something obviously wrong.

There are no ballistics in BF3, only hitscan. Ballistics do need more CPU, something consoles won't be able to provide.

It also looks worse. Compared to crystal clear colours of A3 BF3's milky-dirt lighting to cover up low-quality models makes me want to puke.

BF3 amazing next-gen detail:

If BF3 and ArmA3 were similar games they could've been compared performance wise. But they have nothing in common apart from being shooters except A3's scale is a lot bigger without 2D trees.

Funny because (the extremly ugly current gen) BF3 has ballistics. Of course not as hardcore as Arma with Ace.

And yeah, you really high LoD trees in areas which can't be accessed normally. I really hope to see a detailed destruction system in Arma 4. :j:

[Harzach 2516]

I'll just mention that BF3 was a shit sandwich in alpha. A3 is miles ahead already.

[daze23 1]

I'll just mention that BF3 was a shit sandwich in alpha. A3 is miles ahead already.

you were part of the BF3 alpha?

[Harzach 2516]

you were part of the BF3 alpha?

Yup. Dark days.

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

BF3 has 500m view distance compared to 2000m or more in Arma, doesn't have AI, nor a real body attached to you, probably worse models in flight and ballistics and is in Beta. When BF series scopes out to 10km view distances with maps over 225 sq km, then we might be able to offer some comparison but then it still won't be using a whole core just to process it's AI (or lack of).,

This is extremely false.

My record headshot range in BF3 right now is approx 1300m. I can see much further than that, but it's near impossible to make a shot at anything farther than that.

Max visible range in BF3 is like 5000m... most of the map outside of the infantry boundaries is pretty simple terrain, with sprite trees yes. But then again the only way to get playable framerates in Arma 3 at that view distance level is to also have object quality set to be sprites as well.

Fact is, Arma 3 is completely bottlenecked by poor multithreading that even on a 3770k pushing 5Ghz, the game is still bottlenecking tier 1 graphics cards. There's no other way around the fact.

And yes, I agree to the guy who said he'll be sure to quote the post saying the games not out yet. It's not going to change by launch, if they could change it they would have years ago. This is the way it is.

There are no ballistics in BF3, only hitscan. Ballistics do need more CPU, something consoles won't be able to provide.

Also completely false. There's physical bullets that travel from your weapon after you fire. They are affected by gravity and each weapon and accessory loadout has impacts on the velocity and impact of the bullet. No it's not as complex as Arma's bullet physics, but it's still not hitscan as you put it. Hitscan is what Call of Duty has where essentially every gun in the game is a laser cannon where the bullet instantly hits where you click. BF3 simply isn't like that.

I get it. Arma is superior to BF3 and I agree, I cannot play other FPS games anymore as Arma simple ruined them for me lol but to hate on BF3 because it does performance right, just isn't fair. Not for nothing Arma 3 is a 2013, possibly 2014 release game. The fact that their engine is still so CPU bound and not properly taking advantage of realistically more than 2 cores, is rather saddening.

Edited April 30, 2013 by DaRkL3AD3R

[ProfTournesol 956]

And yes, I agree to the guy who said he'll be sure to quote the post saying the games not out yet. It's not going to change by launch, if they could change it they would have years ago. This is the way it is.

The fact is that ArmA2 performance was greatly improved since its release throughout numerous patches. That's the way it is.

[Droikka 1]

Hint: Frostbite 2.0 is far better in rendering capabilities than Real Virtuality 4. The only thing this game has going for it, is the AI. The Pathfinding and the cloud system are purchased middleware that fit any engine you design.

http://dice.se/publications/terrain-rendering-in-frostbite-using-procedural-shader-splatting/

Seriously, get educated.

On the other hand, this is not the proper place to discuss about it, metalcraze.