Arma 3 BETA multiplayer FPS drop

[drewtx 10]

Hey guys, i know this might sound like the 3 thousandth low fps thread but i tried to search for a solution to this problem and i only came up with the fixes for arma 3 alpha. So heres the deal.....

Running the game in singleplayer or editor i get around 25-30fps on very high settings, which is cool by me, totally playable, now when i play in mulitplayer (tried many different servers) i get a solid 12-15 fps on the same settings, which really irritating. Even if i change the settings to Low the fps doesnt change.

My Computer specs are

AMD phenom II x4 940 processor 3.01ghz

4gb memory (ram)

Asus Geforce GTX 660 (non-ti)

2Gb Gddr5 memory

when the game is running my CPU usage is around 47%, GPU usage is around 45%.

So if anyone can help a brother out please do! If im leaving any information out that would be helpful let me know so i can get it for you. Thanks!

[Sneakson 1]

You tried searching but decided just to ignore the sticky at the very top of this thread list named this:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS

You have a decent computer but there’s nothing you can do.

I would lower my settings somewhat though because I think you can get a higher framerate.

[jurrasstoil 10]

Got almost exactly the same system. (945 instead of 940 and 8gigs intstead of 4).

There is no solution.

Welcome to the RV engine.

[windies 11]

I have a 965 overclocked to 3.9ghz and I get the same performance as well. Lowering your settings will help in Single Player, but for whatever reason in multiplayer I can't get over 15-20 fps no matter how long I drop the settings, even object view distance doesn't affect it.

[Sneakson 1]

You guys should check out my settings.

Got almost exactly the same system. (945 instead of 940 and 8gigs intstead of 4).

There is no solution.

Welcome to the RV engine.

What do you mean? A 5-year non-overclocked CPU and 2-year low-end graphics card strength-wise can only run a game in 40-60+ fps on standard-ish settings in a brand new game and you’re surprised?

Welcome to PC gaming, you must be new here.

Newer systems have no issues running it.

[jurrasstoil 10]

1. a GTX 660 is midrange. it's on par with the 7850/7870.

2. I can run the game just fine in SP with 40-60 fps. The problem here is that in MP, 99% of the time you won't even make it to 15 fps.

3. A thread with the same problem for A2 has been going on for 4 years now, with people having god awful fps, despite having powerful machines (eg. OC'd 3570ks with a 7950). This is a problem that has been with the RV engine since the beginning of the RV engine.

4. Check the Low FPS sticky, or the tickets #716 and #1264. People with powerful machine have the same problem.

5. Don't be so f***ing condescending.

Edited August 16, 2013 by jurrasstoil

[windies 11]

You guys should check out my settings.

What do you mean? A 5-year non-overclocked CPU and 2-year low-end graphics card strength-wise can only run a game in 40-60+ fps on standard-ish settings in a brand new game and you’re surprised?

Welcome to PC gaming, you must be new here.

Newer systems have no issues running it.

Explain to me why I can hit 40-60 fps in SP content but when I go into any server online I can't get over 15 fps no matter what my settings are. I can drop my settings down so I get 100fps in SP and I can join a server and still get 15 fps. Again, explain to me how this is my system and not the software....

[cofi0276 1]

Explain to me why I can hit 40-60 fps in SP content but when I go into any server online I can't get over 15 fps no matter what my settings are. I can drop my settings down so I get 100fps in SP and I can join a server and still get 15 fps. Again, explain to me how this is my system and not the software....

Dont worry its not your pc, the problem with Arma games is that when a players throws a grenade on other side of the map 20km away from you, your cpu has to calculate all that stuff. This game engine is designed like a strategy game and not a massive FPS, thats the problem.

[jurrasstoil 10]

Dont worry its not your pc, the problem with Arma games is that when a players throws a grenade on other side of the map 20km away from you, your cpu has to calculate all that stuff. This game engine is designed like a strategy game and not a massive FPS, thats the problem.

If only it would. I can get my CPU usage to about 70-80% in the editor, but as soon as I go into a showcase or MP it goes down to 40-50% at best on any core. It's not like one core is hammering away at 90-100% while the others idle, they are all maxing out at 50%, some even lower.

[ric 1]

Newer systems have no issues running it.

thats kinda misleading sneakerson...there are "newer" lower end systems that have trouble with this game...the only ones i know of (or so they say) Are people with over $600 CPU's and video cards.

[Sneakson 1]

thats kinda misleading sneakerson...there are "newer" lower end systems that have trouble with this game...the only ones i know of (or so they say) Are people with over $600 CPU's and video cards.

Well that's why people should buy Intel not AMD then :x

[drewtx 10]

You tried searching but decided just to ignore the sticky at the very top of this thread list named this:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS

You have a decent computer but there’s nothing you can do.

I would lower my settings somewhat though because I think you can get a higher framerate.

Ok quit being a doushe blast, no need to be a keyboard badass. You must have ignored the part in my comment were i stated ''i searched and the only results i found were for ARMA 3 ALPHA''. Which pertains to that thread you posted. Now is there some point in that thread that states there are the same issues for the beta??, Maybe....but im not going to read through 163 pages to find it, i will gladly be the lazy guy and just make a new post asking about my direct problem. Cuts through the bullshit ;).

[mobile_medic 43]

I have an intel @ 3.9ghz and a gtx 780. still have problems running this game.

[*LK1* 10]

do you realize that the rv engine is not a completely new engine as the devs claims...its just an update of the previous, with all the old lacks and limitations of the previous. the problems you are facing guys are same that we had in ofp, more than 10 years ago. enjoy. love it or leave it, or play it and hate it at the same time. there's no other choice, sadly. waiting for arma 5-6 or 8 probably wont change anything since BIS its lovely stuck with his engine, which works good (i would say decent) for some things and is terrible for the rest.

[Sneakson 1]

Ok quit being a doushe blast, no need to be a keyboard badass. You must have ignored the part in my comment were i stated ''i searched and the only results i found were for ARMA 3 ALPHA''. Which pertains to that thread you posted. Now is there some point in that thread that states there are the same issues for the beta??, Maybe....but im not going to read through 163 pages to find it, i will gladly be the lazy guy and just make a new post asking about my direct problem. Cuts through the bullshit ;).

Doesn't say it's an exclusively alpha thread anywhere... all subforums here had their names changed from Alpha to Beta without changing any content as you probably know to all alpha threads are now beta threads.

Also people still use it so it’s obvious it discusses the beta since noone is still playing the alpha, I'd assume.

[ric 1]

do you realize that the rv engine is not a completely new engine as the devs claims...its just an update of the previous, with all the old lacks and limitations of the previous. the problems you are facing guys are same that we had in ofp, more than 10 years ago. enjoy. love it or leave it, or play it and hate it at the same time. there's no other choice, sadly. waiting for arma 5-6 or 8 probably wont change anything since BIS its lovely stuck with his engine, which works good (i would say decent) for some things and is terrible for the rest.

the guy was banned for this??? the problem with this engine has been discussed ad infinitum but he gets banned for it.....

---------- Post added at 14:42 ---------- Previous post was at 14:40 ----------

@sneakson do you know which video configs are CPU intensive vs GPU?

[comp_uter15776 1]

the guy was banned for this??? the problem with this engine has been discussed ad infinitum but he gets banned for it.....

---------- Post added at 14:42 ---------- Previous post was at 14:40 ----------

@sneakson do you know which video configs are CPU intensive vs GPU?

That may have been a temporary ban based on his infraction score. Idk.

[Sneakson 1]

the guy was banned for this??? the problem with this engine has been discussed ad infinitum but he gets banned for it.....

---------- Post added at 14:42 ---------- Previous post was at 14:40 ----------

@sneakson do you know which video configs are CPU intensive vs GPU?

It says infractions 1/3 (5) so it looks like he probably complains about it a lot.

Anyways measuring CPU-intensity versus GPU-intensity is difficult.

But I guess they do it by measuring CPU and GPU activity and changing between a strong CPU and weak GPU then weaker CPU and stronger GPU until they strike some sort of balance when both are working at about 100%...

I hear bottleneckig is hardly even an issue nowadays anyways so I wouldn’t really support the notion of extra CPU-intensive games anyways.

[hiddengearz 1]

Welcome to PC gaming, you must be new here.

Newer systems have no issues running it.

More like welcome to a 10 year old legacy engine that utilizes two cores. The engine was created for older two core cpu's and untill they rewrite it multicore CPU's will be at a disadvantage, especially AMD's NEW 8 core cpu's. Which i have and have the same problems that all the other older and newer cpu's are having.

[RushHour 11]

Running the game in singleplayer or editor i get around 25-30fps on very high settings, which is cool by me, totally playable,

Wow, if i get less then 40 it´s unplayable to me. Anything over 100 and things start to be smooth for me. (run 120Hz screen)

I have a 965 overclocked to 3.9ghz and I get the same performance as well. Lowering your settings will help in Single Player, but for whatever reason in multiplayer I can't get over 15-20 fps no matter how long I drop the settings, even object view distance doesn't affect it.

Same here, lowest settings or ultra. Makes zero difference in multiplayer. Even view distance a couple of times. Bit strange indeed.

the sheer difference in FPS from SP to MP is something i have never seen before and i´ve been simracing with 60+ guys going wheel to wheel with around a 10fps drop from being alone on track.

Here the difference is in the order of 50fps.

BI if you read this, you should definitely contact iRacing for netcode advise, they are simply the best in the business and it´s definitely a bit of a black art.

They run the same amount of numbers but the difference is racing is much much tougher because you are racing 10cm from the guy in front of you travelling at over 200km/h.

I think they could help out with improving it since you are not a competitor in that sense.

Edited August 18, 2013 by RushHour

[comp_uter15776 1]

Wow, if i get less then 40 it´s unplayable to me. Anything over 100 and things start to be smooth for me. (run 120Hz screen)

Same here, lowest settings or ultra. Makes zero difference in multiplayer. Even view distance a couple of times. Bit strange indeed.

the sheer difference in FPS from SP to MP is something i have never seen before and i´ve been simracing with 60+ guys going wheel to wheel with around a 10fps drop from being alone on track.

Here the difference is in the order of 50fps.

BI if you read this, you should definitely contact iRacing for netcode advise, they are simply the best in the business and it´s definitely a bit of a black art.

They run the same amount of numbers but the difference is racing is much much tougher because you are racing 10cm from the guy in front of you travelling at over 200km/h.

I think they could help out with improving it since you are not a competitor in that sense.

For some reason MP FPS is tied with server FPS too, and even if your server is the best in the business you'll still drop. I have a friend who can just about get 20 FPS on lowest, when he goes MP it's 2.

[PLebre 10]

Hi,

I have this same FPS drop problem on MP. Only with Arma 3, with Arma 2 it is fine, at least on the servers I use to enter with a lot of clients (+40).

As this is a BETA, times to times I fire up my Arma 3 to see if it is fix, but no luck.

Can the problem be on the servers configuration part?

Regards

[RushHour 11]

For some reason MP FPS is tied with server FPS too, and even if your server is the best in the business you'll still drop. I have a friend who can just about get 20 FPS on lowest, when he goes MP it's 2.

I think it should be naturally to some extent but not anywhere near this much. A reduction of 20fps at most in a fully packed server should be the absolute limit, not 80fps drops.

Some servers are better then others though, i had 10fps in the big city in a Stratis life mod. It´s not even considered video at that point.

I´m sure it will get better though, i´ve been hugely impressed with A3 so far and it can really only get better.

[Squirrel 911 0]

I've had to do a reinstall of my PC as my SSD crashed.

Since the reinstall i can't play Arma 3 multiplayer because the FPS is below 15!

PC spec

i7 3770k 4.6ghz

8gb 1600 mhz ram

256 Plextor M5 Pro SSD

GTX 780

So high end machine. Single player is no problem, 60+ fps!

Anyone got a fix for multiplayer?

[fabio_chavez 103]

multiplayer fps is very inconsistent most servers are unplayable for me but it depends, well scripted infantry pvp with few assets is perfectly playable, unfortunately people are crazy for crappy gamemodes with AI or nonsense money systems or wasteland...

i cant wait for a proper well scripted pvp mod