Still can't recommend ARMA to friends because of terrible performance

[jaysmizzle 3]

It's a shame. Such a great game and great ideas and yet they run it on an engine that, performance wise, runs like shit. The Alpha mp actually ran pretty well. The Beta, however, is unplayable at <20 fps.

[dale0404 5]

What are the specs of your machine buddy? And any idea of what specifically is causing you to have low fps?

[jaysmizzle 3]

What are the specs of your machine buddy? And any idea of what specifically is causing you to have low fps?

i7-3770 quad core 3.4 ghz, GTX 560TI. Single player runs fine, mp does not. However, I was just in an mp server that ran much better so maybe it's the servers or the old alpha sripts that they're running that's causing the low fps. Just a guess. I was in several severs though and they all ran poorly except for the last one but even the last one didn't run as well as it should have.

Is no one else having this problem?

[Minoza 11]

What are the specs of your machine buddy? And any idea of what specifically is causing you to have low fps?

Uhm, lets see... server load? I mean, sorry but seriously, are you not aware of the fact that server load is capable of crippling your frame rate? At that point whatever settings you use, it wont get any better.

i7-3770 quad core 3.4 ghz, GTX 560TI. Single player runs fine, mp does not. However, I was just in an mp server that ran much better so maybe it's the servers or the old alpha sripts that they're running that's causing the low fps. Just a guess. I was in several severs though and they all ran poorly except for the last one but even the last one didn't run as well as it should have.

Is no one else having this problem?

We all do, some are just unaware of it.

[dale0404 5]

To answer your question, my performance actually increased going from Alpha to Beta. I do think that the problem with performance is down to the servers that you have played on. If the server architecture is crap then fps will be crap also.

[kylania 567]

My friends and I have a mission we play all the time and it's always liquid smooth. Then we added in a mortar. One guy shelled the town and targets for us for about an hour or two, wrecking the main town. The destroyed buildings caused a HUGE amount of client and server lag. TPS went from 50 to 12 on the server and 60 down to 10 for clients. Turn away from the town? Just fine! Turn back towards the town, ruined FPS. We restarted the mission and things were glorious again.

That was on a server with just 5 people playing. Imagine what happens if you have 50 playing. Server lag can definitely kill client FPS.

As dale said though, beta is way better performing for us out of the box than alpha was. We're still working through all the tweaks so it'll just get better.

[Insanatrix 0]

Beta is actually performing worse for me. A lot of hitching, lower frame rate and a very unsmooth experience, Both in SP and MP. Lots of texture flickering and z-fighting on building walls and surfaces. I don't just go in the editor though and place down a single soldier and say "oh lawd everything's running GREAT!", I actually play missions and such. It seems like there's a soft cap of about 2-3 squads of active AI total before performance takes a massive hit. I was in a server with someone, just me and him walking around with nothing going on and my fps was like 18-19. No it was not Wasteland. Even in SP in some of the showcases I still drop down to 20-22 fps, and missions I make where I'm careful about the amount of active AI I have and I try not to use scripts as much as possible, I still get around the same performance.

We're also still just running around on Stratis, we have no idea how Altis will run. That's gonna be the real test. Not gonna be much fun if Stratis is the lesser of two evils and we're stuck with it because Altis runs like crap.

According to moderators and developers in some of the performance threads, this is the performance we should expect.

[Colonel-ONeill 11]

According to moderators and developers in some of the performance threads, this is the performance we should expect.

is that mean that the final game will have the same problems?

because if yes it is a terrible news! :-(

[jaysmizzle 3]

My friends and I have a mission we play all the time and it's always liquid smooth. Then we added in a mortar. One guy shelled the town and targets for us for about an hour or two, wrecking the main town. The destroyed buildings caused a HUGE amount of client and server lag. TPS went from 50 to 12 on the server and 60 down to 10 for clients. Turn away from the town? Just fine! Turn back towards the town, ruined FPS. We restarted the mission and things were glorious again.

That was on a server with just 5 people playing. Imagine what happens if you have 50 playing. Server lag can definitely kill client FPS.

As dale said though, beta is way better performing for us out of the box than alpha was. We're still working through all the tweaks so it'll just get better.

Yeah, that's something else that bothers me. As soon as shit starts happening the fps drops dramatically. It's pathetic. In BF3 there are many times more explosions and destroyed buildings and general mayhem going on and the fps hardly drops at all. In Planetside 2 there are a couple thousand players on one server with dozens of tanks and aerial vehicles roaming around the map and again, the fps hardly drops at all, but ARMA still can't handle 5 people launching mortar at a town without the fps dropping by more than half! It's unacceptable. ARMA 3 is a better game than BF3 or Planetside 2 but the performance issues are a very unfortunate hinderance to this game. I keep wanting to play this game but I keep going back to BF3 and Planetside 2 because of the much better performance. If they had just fixed these issues with the engine before building a new game with it, I would be telling everyone I know about this game but sadly, I cannot.

[big_t 1]

I must say I'm in the same boat as you. Would love to recommend but the FPS performance is just awful and very inconsistent on multi player: Look one way 58 fps look somewhere else, down to 27 fps.

Is there hope?

[Colonel-ONeill 11]

I must say I'm in the same boat as you. Would love to recommend but the FPS performance is just awful and very inconsistent on multi player: Look one way 58 fps look somewhere else, down to 27 fps.

Is there hope?

There is always hope:) and a bit of a Wiki lol

Thomas Edison said that 46 frames per second was the minimum: "anything less will strain the eye.

From 1927 to 1930, the rate of 24 FPS became standard

Without realistic motion blurring, video games and computer animations do not look as fluid as film, even with a higher frame rate.

A high frame rate still does not guarantee fluid movements, especially on hardware with more than one GPU. This effect is known as micro stuttering.

Aside from frame rate, a separate but related factor unique to interactive applications such as gaming is latency.

Excessive preprocessing can result in a noticeable delay between player commands and computer feedback, even when a full frame rate is maintained, often referred to as input lag.

[Tr51 1]

Yeah, that's something else that bothers me. As soon as shit starts happening the fps drops dramatically. It's pathetic. In BF3 there are many times more explosions and destroyed buildings and general mayhem going on and the fps hardly drops at all. In Planetside 2 there are a couple thousand players on one server with dozens of tanks and aerial vehicles roaming around the map and again, the fps hardly drops at all, but ARMA still can't handle 5 people launching mortar at a town without the fps dropping by more than half! It's unacceptable. ARMA 3 is a better game than BF3 or Planetside 2 but the performance issues are a very unfortunate hinderance to this game. I keep wanting to play this game but I keep going back to BF3 and Planetside 2 because of the much better performance. If they had just fixed these issues with the engine before building a new game with it, I would be telling everyone I know about this game but sadly, I cannot.

Hi,

Dear Friend as I understand, I believe that there is no solution, unfortunately, :(

[MaverickFerran 1]

Yes sadly its still not well optimized.

But i just got my i7 4770S today and was testing Arma3. And i really was amazed. On Standard Settings (Shadows High) with a View Distance of 2000 and Object Detail Distance of 1000 got 50-60 fps on a 40 Players Wasteland Server. Sometimes Drops to 40. And this on my crappy Low-End GPU HD 5770.

Next Week the HD 7950 will be delivered than im doing some real Benchmarks.

[giorgygr 61]

ARMA3 has Looong way to go yet regarding performance.

I should accept this level of performance only in combination with the (upcoming) mega-addon-pack me and our team we would use by then..

[big_t 1]

There is always hope:) and a bit of a Wiki lol

Thomas Edison said that 46 frames per second was the minimum: "anything less will strain the eye.

From 1927 to 1930, the rate of 24 FPS became standard

Without realistic motion blurring, video games and computer animations do not look as fluid as film, even with a higher frame rate.

A high frame rate still does not guarantee fluid movements, especially on hardware with more than one GPU. This effect is known as micro stuttering.

Aside from frame rate, a separate but related factor unique to interactive applications such as gaming is latency.

Excessive preprocessing can result in a noticeable delay between player commands and computer feedback, even when a full frame rate is maintained, often referred to as input lag.

That is interesting. Before getting into PC gaming I always thought that anything above 30fps was pointless until I saw the smoothness of 60fps.

[qbert 10]

I really hope they iron out the performance hitches. The performance for my group and I is pretty bad considering the average set of computer specs in our social circle, thus confirming what the majority of Arma players are saying. The performance is bad enough that it's second place on the feedback tracker thing

http://screencloud.net/img/screenshots/824d8424e7eb9b36ee7fa82cab1a4a43.png

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

That is interesting. Before getting into PC gaming I always thought that anything above 30fps was pointless until I saw the smoothness of 60fps.

you should see what 120hz does :D