Can someone help me with the stutters from large mp battles?

[Qosmius 10]

hi, sry if this is the wrong thread. but i need your help :(

my game runs fine on single player maps and in the editor and in small mp games

but when it comes to maps where it is 20+ it starts to get more and more sluggish the more ppls that join..

i just want to be able to play without dropping down to 15-20 fps

I WILL DO ANYTHING if ppls comes with a suggestion that might help me

i have a 100mb internet connection and i have a solid 10 mbps down speed when downloading and a good 5-6 mbps upspeed

i have a i7-2670 cpu

8gb ram

amd radeon hd7900 series-2gb vram

256gb ssd

win 7 64

[-ghost-tf 12]

Thanks for the tip. :) After I added -maxVRAM=2047 (for GTX760), the game is very smooth again. Only unit spawning/scripts causes some stutters (could be my own fault), but under that FPS feel very good again.

Try this.

[clydefrog 3]

You can try everything people suggest, and it will still run badly when it comes to multiplayer in mine and many other peoples experiences, no matter how good your hardware is.

[fabio_chavez 103]

vote for this feedback tracker:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1264

the sad thing is, the problem is persistent since the alpha but i didnt care too much since i assumed there cant be any other outcome, than to fix the problem before release, since its such a drastic game breaker.

now that we are closing in to the release, i begin to think that bohemia interactive is going to screw us over about this.

[L3TUC3 32]

You didn't join a wasteland server perchance?

[Qosmius 10]

i have tryed several servers..if there are high player count i usually get fps lags...blue1 servers seems to run nice, why isnt every server like that? even if its badly optimised why do we get lags from ppls joining?

[fabio_chavez 103]

im not an expert in this but from what i know the server architecture/netcode would need an overhaul which was pretty clear since day 1 of the alpha but BI did not seem to do anything about it, on top of that badly scripted mission cause an even worse performance... for me it is almost impossible to find a desireable server with halfway decent fps, while in SP i get 30-60 fps...

like i said vote for the feedback tracker and pray:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1264

[Qosmius 10]

ah i found this. http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716

it has nearly 1800 updvotes and 20 downovotes..and it is related to low cpu and gpu performance..

i love how 1800 ppls have voted for better performance but still nothing has happened from bohemias side

[fabio_chavez 103]

atm, with a lot of luck (maybe if the server is hosted by CERN or the NASA) you can have decent infantry only deathmatches with up to 20 players, when it come to that, arma3 is maybe the best pvp milsim in the history of computer games... but if you add another player or KI or a vehicle you end up with 15fps (unless you run the game on the LHD yourself).

[elpresidente 1]

Congrats on finding the 2nd highest ticket in the feedback tracker :p

There where some improvements to the performance trough the alpha/beta (some helped - some not). Perhabs you should have checked the changelogs before you say that BI didn't tried.

I would try to explain why ArmA's performance is as it is, but I'm not qualified to talk about neither can I be bothered.

Use the forum search, there are multiple threads (like this one) about the performance who explain the whole performance thing much better then I could.

Edited September 1, 2013 by ElPresidente

[fabio_chavez 103]

you can read through all changelogs and i promise you will not be able to find any meaningful contribution that adresses the multiplayer performance issue, while they are fully aware of the problem there are almost no (meaningfull) statements from OFFICIAL side, regardless of what you say what people do or do not explain in various forum posts. BIs information policy maybe best described with "concealment" or "dishonesty" in this context.

[elpresidente 1]

Those are strong claims you make.

But perhabs we'll see that performance blogpost soon (that they "promised" us a few weeks (months?) ago).

Anyway, let us not derail the thread and stay on topic!

[fabio_chavez 103]

i really wanted to believe that, but the release is 11 days ahead now and there will be no major changes in the final game that are allready in the devbranch right now.

i dont have the newst CPU and i am going to upgrade it asap anyway but the issue does affect people with much better cpus too, i doubt arma3 will be playable as a large scale pvp milsim (infantry + assets without KI) any time soon, just as arma 2 wasn't playable for a loooong time until 1.6.

Its sad because BI really raised expectations with arma3 and apparently they had the resources to overhaul the netcode for dayZ standalone but not for arma3.

[bad benson 1733]

one reason could be that it's not even really possible to address these issues before the basic frame is final. i mean arma MP performance was always dodgy but i think that some early patches to the final build will maybe start to address this.

[elpresidente 1]

The "overhaul" that DayZ is doing is not what we want for ArmA. I could go into detail now but for now; if ArmA 3 used DayZ's mmo-architecture, it would lower the ability to create mods/scripts greatly - if not even stop it completely.

And for the "resources they had" it only took them more over half a year to change it. ArmA 3 can't take another throw back in development time.

@OP

The one of the biggest performance eating options are view distance, objects and terrain.

Try playing around with those for better performance

[windies 11]

one reason could be that it's not even really possible to address these issues before the basic frame is final. i mean arma MP performance was always dodgy but i think that some early patches to the final build will maybe start to address this.

This is what I'm hoping for at this point. I'm expecting performance to still be "dodgy" at launch time, but I'm hoping that over time they can fix it. I would have liked to have better performance right out of the gate but I guess it is what it is. That still doesn't mean that I'm happy that the same old "release it now fix it later" mentality is still at play.

[.kju 3244]

Vote: Give modders the tools to identify and avoid/solve performance bottlenecks

[cthulhu616 3]

;2486789']Vote: Give modders the tools to identify and avoid/solve performance bottlenecks

sounds good, gonna vote for that, but i'm afraid that this will never come true =/

btt:

My community is hosting several ArmA servers. The loss of performance during a game always was a big problem in ArmA, but it has never been that significant as it is in ArmA 3 Altis. After a Server restart (or maybe mission restart, never tried) game and server run smoothly with 50fps... after some time server fps decreases and with it the performance of nearly all clients (some report problems, some not, which i don't really understand why, but ok).

I'm fiddling with the causes of this frame drop quite for a while now. Is it caused by jip players, by scripts, functions (rather all of them) and how does it influence the server? especially regarding jip players i'm not really sure what server has to do (except syncing variables, world aso)

[Zorg_DK 10]

I've noticed that too - At mission start performance in mp is often good, and then goes down hill after a while. Maybe that just because enemies haven't spawned yet, talking about Invade and annex.