FPS problem.

[jaysmizzle 3]

BIS, you're pathetic. You could have fixed these performance issues long ago but apparently you just don't give a damn. I hope some other company makes a game similar to ARMA and takes all of your loyal fans. You don't deserve them.

[ric 1]

I feel your pain on the low FPS. In Alpha I had great smooth FPS. Now most servers give me around 20-25 FPS. I have to find those 'High FPS" servers to play at all. As for single player some missions aren't a problem, but others lag like hell.

My specs:

CPU: Intel core i5 2500K 3.3ghz

RAM: 8gb DDR3 1600

GPU: ATI Radeon HD 4850 (I know this is where my problem most likely is) I plan on getting a GTX 650Ti soon as I believe that should be enough.

I just feel like Beta is kind of more messed up than Alpha was. I mean the same problems exist with more added to it.

do you self a favor and just spend the extra the $20 and get a 660 :) as for your FPS i was on a DOM server tonight and with setting on very high and 1920x1080 on the DEV/BETA was getting 30-50 FPS it dipped down to 20 on occasion but was very playable overall...much to mu surprise :) I have started making videos of different scenarios recording FPS to give a cross section of settings vs hardware vs servers and types of missions they are running....hopefully it will be rready in a few weeks :)

p.s look at my sig , we have the same CPU , you should try over clocking it :)

---------- Post added at 03:36 ---------- Previous post was at 03:30 ----------

BIS, you're pathetic. You could have fixed these performance issues long ago but apparently you just don't give a damn. I hope some other company makes a game similar to ARMA and takes all of your loyal fans. You don't deserve them.

im with ya...il get the torches and pitch forks :) I am not going to say that you are wrong in feeling the way you do but I will say that as of tonight i have seen a marked improvement :) however what they listed as "minimum " requirements is ludicrous :( why don't you tell us what your system specs are and then maybe we can rob peter to pay paul and get you into a playable state :)

[JarmenKeLL 0]

I was JUST about to post about the FPS problems. Im always getting around 20-30 fps(lower than 20 in action) in multiplayer. Actually Singleplayer is not any different much than multiplayer. Keeps flowing around 30 FPS in SP. Its just beta i know but every arma game had optimising issues. But still im waiting for the full version to be optimised. I am playing at ultra settings with 8x aa 16xaf. My pc specs;

AMD FX 8350 X8 4.0GHz

Geforce GTX670 4gb

16gb DDR3 1600MHz Ram

Windows 7 64bit OS

Also does ARMA supporting multi-core? How many cores the game using right now? And if not supporting multi-core, will it be in the future?

[Planetside 1]

BIS, you're pathetic. You could have fixed these performance issues long ago but apparently you just don't give a damn. I hope some other company makes a game similar to ARMA and takes all of your loyal fans. You don't deserve them.

I bet the average Czech can't even afford a PC capable of running ArmA 3.

[jaysmizzle 3]

im with ya...il get the torches and pitch forks :) I am not going to say that you are wrong in feeling the way you do but I will say that as of tonight i have seen a marked improvement :) however what they listed as "minimum " requirements is ludicrous :( why don't you tell us what your system specs are and then maybe we can rob peter to pay paul and get you into a playable state :)

i7-3770 3.4 ghz quad core, 16 gb ram, 560TI. I'll be upgrading the video card soon but it's not going to make much of a difference in ARMA unfortunately. I can't upgrade my processor unless I overclock it. There's nothing more I can do to make this game run any better. It's infuriating and this comes from someone who LOVES ARMA - or at least really wants to but just can't because of the terrible performance. And I hate knowing that it doesn't even try to utilize the full potential of my PC!

Guess I'll just spend my time playing Battlefield. BF4 can't come soon enough.

[Lord_of_War_CZ 1]

I bet the average Czech can't even afford a PC capable of running ArmA 3.

I live in block of flats in Prague meaning people here can be considered "average Czechs" if not bellow-average and still all my friends can make ARMA 3 run on their laptops/rigs.

I upgraded to i7 4770, gtx 770, ssd 256 and 16gb ram and run all ultra with only ATOC turned off with visibility 2700/1600 (overall/objects) with 30-70 fps in MP.

[ric 1]

I was JUST about to post about the FPS problems. Im always getting around 20-30 fps(lower than 20 in action) in multiplayer. Actually Singleplayer is not any different much than multiplayer. Keeps flowing around 30 FPS in SP. Its just beta i know but every arma game had optimising issues. But still im waiting for the full version to be optimised. I am playing at ultra settings with 8x aa 16xaf. My pc specs;

AMD FX 8350 X8 4.0GHz

Geforce GTX670 4gb

16gb DDR3 1600MHz Ram

Windows 7 64bit OS

Also does ARMA supporting multi-core? How many cores the game using right now? And if not supporting multi-core, will it be in the future?

i7-3770 3.4 ghz quad core, 16 gb ram, 560TI. I'll be upgrading the video card soon but it's not going to make much of a difference in ARMA unfortunately. I can't upgrade my processor unless I overclock it. There's nothing more I can do to make this game run any better. It's infuriating and this comes from someone who LOVES ARMA - or at least really wants to but just can't because of the terrible performance. And I hate knowing that it doesn't even try to utilize the full potential of my PC!

Guess I'll just spend my time playing Battlefield. BF4 can't come soon enough.

alright guys i know this is tedious but turn every thing OFF and to lowest settings and play one of the showcases incrementally turning feature on and up till you find the culprit or a happy balance :) BF4?...dont do it mate...dont :)

p.s vysync is acting weird and locking me at 30fps

[tarabas 10]

Most Problems are Server Side, cause in Arma Series Servers can and will limit the FPS. High End Systems are some times useless. Good Server Hardware and Configuration with less Players are a way to get good FPS. Patches to the Server-Client from BIS too..

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

Except it does not change anything in multiplayer /r/shittyadvice

except it does, if you play on a server that doesn't lock view distance. or if you have a cpu that can handle arma properly

[Reuter 1]

Most Problems are Server Side, cause in Arma Series Servers can and will limit the FPS.

It's literally the only engine in the whole world where the server is able to dictate the client's performance. Just ridiculous.

[Masharra 10]

It's literally the only engine in the whole world where the server is able to dictate the client's performance. Just ridiculous.

ummm.. Im reasonably sure he doesnt mean they have a command like (setfps) or anything, but the servers performance and settings can impact the actual users performance.

Also most servers are able to dictate the clients performance. unless I am mistaken.

[Reuter 1]

Also most servers are able to dictate the clients performance. unless I am mistaken.

You are. The client's ability to render the image should be completely decoupled from the server's actual performance. Why would a stressed server interfere with my FPS? It just doesn't make any sense at all.

If a server in let's say Battlefield or IL-2 Sturmovik can't handle the stress, then the only sideeffect on the client would be other players lagging around. The FPS would remain stable as a rock, even on a lagging server.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Reuter

[Insanatrix 0]

alright guys i know this is tedious but turn every thing OFF and to lowest settings and play one of the showcases incrementally turning feature on and up till you find the culprit or a happy balance :) BF4?...dont do it mate...dont :)

p.s vysync is acting weird and locking me at 30fps

That's because V-sync isn't using triple buffering. Would allow for higher fps while using V-sync under 60fps or whatever your monitor's vertical sync is, but would add increased latency.

[ric 1]

That's because V-sync isn't using triple buffering. Would allow for higher fps while using V-sync under 60fps or whatever your monitor's vertical sync is, but would add increased latency.

thnx, i was just reading why that happens, apparently if you over 60fps vsync will lock it at 60 if you under 60 it will lock it at 30, I also read about the triple buffering....more latency is something i don't need ;)

[Planetside 1]

It's literally the only engine in the whole world where the server is able to dictate the client's performance. Just ridiculous.

Men Of War has this problem too. It's so annoying.

[tremanarch 6]

You are. The client's ability to render the image should be completely decoupled from the server's actual performance. Why would a stressed server interfere with my FPS? It just doesn't make any sense at all.

If a server in let's say Battlefield or IL-2 Sturmovik can't handle the stress, then the only sideeffect on the client would be other players lagging around. The FPS would remain stable as a rock, even on a lagging server.

the problem are the single bullets you shoot and others shoot. they must get registered. and maybe with big desync we have several parralel universes :)