How to avoid GPU underclock in multiplayer?

[WalkerDown 1]

Of course not, but you'll have at least barely playable fps.

"barely playable"? I'm not used to "barely play" a game, I do not even consider anything that isn't capable to run at MINIMUM 60 fps ( I mean it has NEVER and EVER have to drop below that).. but ideally 120fps (@120hz) would be welcomed. It's 2013 ... if I wanted to play a game at 25fps I would stuck with my ATARI2600.

---------- Post added at 12:19 ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 ----------

wrong:

No, I'm not.

play on servers not hosted by total retards and you will get high fps with decend hardware

There's no way to run this game in multiplayer at stable 60 fps (never go below 60 fps)... if not even more. It's not hardware fault, or server fault, it's game fault.

PPl talks about "decent fps", like they are scared to mention the number... :) ...so you're doing 60+ (never go below 60) fps on a 64plrs server? Show me... I guess I'll have to wait for a while....

---------- Post added at 12:26 ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 ----------

Like others have mentioned, if you join a server and your FPS are low...find a different server. Your FPS are directly linked to the server FPS, and there are many people out there who host missions and have no idea how to properly implement those missions.

It is only a myth.. there's no such server that will let run your game at high FPS (60+ fps). People are repeating this, but none have proven it... it is a self persuasion to not admit that this game is not capable of running at high FPS like other modern games, no matter what's your hardware.

And don't get me wrong: i'm NOT complaining about the hardware demand, but about the fact that is IMPOSSIBLE to increase your fps, even if you buy $10k in hardware .. there's no other game where this happens (even those bad optimized ones).

[jurrasstoil 10]

"barely playable"? I'm not used to "barely play" a game, I do not even consider anything that isn't capable to run at MINIMUM 60 fps ( I mean it has NEVER and EVER have to drop below that).. but ideally 120fps (@120hz) would be welcomed. It's 2013 ... if I wanted to play a game at 25fps I would stuck with my ATARI2600.

Like i said: semantics.

I wasn't arguing that the current state of the engine and its performance is anywhere close to tolerable, but rather that there is a CPU bottleneck that is created by the engine and that a faster CPU (high singlecore performance) can improve fps. I'm not saying "Y'all should buy new rigs!" at all tho.

[Sparrow 10]

play on servers not hosted by total retards and you will get high fps with decend hardware, the core2duo mentioned cant get a toast toasted in multiplayer, if just a slightly amount off ai is present(sync,etc).

if the server is hosted with headless client(like shacktactical and many other arma communities do when playing missions with high amount ai, watch shacktactical vids to get a feeling how high fps can get even with 1k ai on the field with 40+ real players)

You mentioned shacktactical as an example of high fps in MP, just a quote from dslyecxi from one of his videos: "Arma 3 performs very poorly in multiplayer on the Altis terrain. It's just not fun to play right now in ST MP at playercounts even as "low" as 50-60 people. We'll need to see some performance improvements before we really start playing it seriously."

So yeah, MP performance have not only not improved, it is even worse than in Arma 2.

[WalkerDown 1]

Like i said: semantics.

I was replying to who said that the poor fps was due to the servers poor performance... it's not.

I wasn't arguing that the current state of the engine and its performance is anywhere close to tolerable, but rather that there is a CPU bottleneck that is created by the engine and that a faster CPU (high singlecore performance) can improve fps. I'm not saying "Y'all should buy new rigs!" at all tho.

Neither having a 10ghz CPU would help... because neither a single core is used properly. In any other game (even if bad optimized), to having better FPS, I can just buy a better CPU and a better GPU or eventually I can set my gfx sets to minimum (I already having a 4ghz CPU and a 780 I know I don't need a new rig of course)... with ArmA3 you can't do anything.. coz the game is flawed... and there's still ppl defending this situation, talking about "decent fps" or "cpu bottleneck" or "poor servers performance" ...there's nothing like this, but only a old, flawed game engine.

[spanishsurfer 58]

Well, the game runs at a steady 30-40fps on multiplayer and I'm happy with that. Other FPS may run at 50-100fps but not one of them compares to the scale of Arma.

[jumpinghubert 49]

walkerdown, whats the problem to understand that both is true: there is a problem with the engine AND there is a cpu-bottleneck? You can verify the cpu-bottlenecking in every second you are in front of your arma3-PC. To repeat over and over there is no correlation between cpu-clock and performance is completely nonsense. To overclock the cpu is a workaround but not a solution.

I bet you have an AMD cpu...:p

[maddogx 13]

...there's nothing like this, but only a old, flawed game engine.

The engine may be old and flawed, but that has nothing to do with this; the FPS issue in ARMA3 multiplayer is not a legacy problem. It is perfectly possible to play missions with 100 players in ARMA2, and even if the server framerate dips below 10fps, the client framerate remains stable. In missions with lots of AI, the client framerate in MP can even be better than in single player. Consider the DayZ mod which runs with 50+ players and hundreds of AI. (Which aren't even the simplified AI coming in DayZ standalone.)

This issue was introduced in A3.

[WalkerDown 1]

The engine may be old and flawed, but that has nothing to do with this; the FPS issue in ARMA3 multiplayer is not a legacy problem. It is perfectly possible to play missions with 100 players in ARMA2, and even if the server framerate dips below 10fps, the client framerate remains stable. In missions with lots of AI, the client framerate in MP can even be better than in single player. Consider the DayZ mod which runs with 50+ players and hundreds of AI. (Which aren't even the simplified AI coming in DayZ standalone.)

This issue was introduced in A3.

It's because A3 has been designed around an old engine... so yes, the problem we had with A2 are amplified today with A3. The hardware has evolved and transformed, the prices have dropped and so the users have more powerful PC's and setup, they wants to use that they have paid for, but the engine is not designed to take advantage of this new hardware.

In my opinion the problem isn't "new" (introduced with A3), it's just the consequence of trying to adapt something old to the new scenario... it's like patching things, not a definitive solution.

Btw this is a sterile discussion... there's nothing we (or they) can do.. the engine won't change now (it's too late).. so let's hope in the future (my first hopes is that DayZ would eventually works better than this... by just disabling the zombies).

[fabio_chavez 103]

The engine may be old and flawed, but that has nothing to do with this; the FPS issue in ARMA3 multiplayer is not a legacy problem. It is perfectly possible to play missions with 100 players in ARMA2, and even if the server framerate dips below 10fps, the client framerate remains stable. In missions with lots of AI, the client framerate in MP can even be better than in single player. Consider the DayZ mod which runs with 50+ players and hundreds of AI. (Which aren't even the simplified AI coming in DayZ standalone.)

This issue was introduced in A3.

i get it, before arma2 1.6 the netcode had mega issues with warping, after that, it was possible to play with large amounts of players, i remember 50vs50 player rounds (no AI) and lots of assets that where completely fluid.

So can you be more specific on what changed with arma3, what exactly is the problem with multiplayer fps? why wherent they able to fix that during the alpha/beta? do you have information about how the issue is going to be adressed by BIS?

[maddogx 13]

i get it, before arma2 1.6 the netcode had mega issues with warping, after that, it was possible to play with large amounts of players, i remember 50vs50 player rounds (no AI) and lots of assets that where completely fluid.

So can you be more specific on what changed with arma3, what exactly is the problem with multiplayer fps? why wherent they able to fix that during the alpha/beta? do you have information about how the issue is going to be adressed by BIS?

I'm not a BI employee, so I'm not privy to that kind of information. What I do know is that they're aware of the MP performance issues and looking for ways to easily reproduce them (without having to get 30+ people together to play Wasteland).

Basically, they're after simple repro missions that cause performance problems in MP. (Example.)

[fabio_chavez 103]

apparently bad missions and low fps due to large quanititys of players are seperate issues, and afaik one can experience very bad fps on any mission?

anyway, the problem remains for month now and they havent been able to fix it, i certainly doubt that either the lack of horrbile missions available or getting a server full of volunteers could have been a hurdle.

But thank you for the information, i wished they gave more information about this issue.

[ryaneu 10]

Did BI only become aware of the MP performance issues through feedback by the users?

It seems that they did not do any QA testing but instead relied heavily on users to report any issues to them.

[Vigil Vindex 64]

I have to wonder what BIS does in terms of testing if they are unable to reproduce the problems with performance that are being reported so widespread on the forums. Don't they try to make large scale co-op missions or do they know it's impossible and only the community tries to make them. If the problem is with poor scripting perhaps BIS can release an exemplary large scale co-op mission to teach us how to do it properly.

[jsmuk 13]

Did BI only become aware of the MP performance issues through feedback by the users?

It seems that they did not do any QA testing but instead relied heavily on users to report any issues to them.

That is kind of the point of an alpha/beta? It isn't just a way for people to get early access to a game..

[jurrasstoil 10]

That is kind of the point of an alpha/beta? It isn't just a way for people to get early access to a game..

Well, it's the same engine as Arma 2, which had the same problem. They can't be surprised that the very problem that plagued Arma 2, carried over to A3 if they didn't fix it. Just because you slap a new number behind the game name and the engine name doesn't mean that everything is improved all of the sudden.

[jsmuk 13]

Well, it's the same engine as Arma 2, which had the same problem. They can't be surprised that the very problem that plagued Arma 2, carried over to A3 if they didn't fix it. Just because you slap a new number behind the game name and the engine name doesn't mean that everything is improved all of the sudden.

I was just thinking after I made my post, this issue always crops up over the internet in MP. It is entirely possible that it doesn't happen in a LAN situation, making it hard for BI to reproduce it.

Just some idle speculation, I am equally amazed at the fact this has always been an issue going back as far as I can remember. Admittedly in ArmA 2 the issue was a lot less prominent.