Performance Improvement Multiplayer: from 15 to 30 fps

[ProbeEtPylon 1]

Edit: I was wrong. Although the performance did increase, it was not because of my tweaks but because of the sever on which I tested the fps.

Hello guys,

Multiplayer games were, regardless of ingame options, unplayable before tweaking the settings. After following the advice in these forums, the fps increased from around 15 to 30. Even (the optimimized one) wasteland is playable now. (I compared the fps on the same servers during tweaking)

- I set the following launch options: -nologs -nosplash -cpucount=4 -exthreads=5 -nofilepatching -nopause -maxmem=4096 -high -noBenchmark -world=empty

- I disabled Core parking via the ParkControl tool. (http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php)

- disabling all eye-candy of Windows 8.

- I downloaded the newest PhysiX drivers.

- Tweaking GPU_MaxFramesAhead and GPU_DetectedFramesAhead did NOT help.

Hopefully, my post will be helpful for some of you. The point is that, although some people here claim the opposite, tweaking the settings DOES help to improve the performance; at least in my case.

My computer:

Mainboard : GigaByte GA-870A-USB3

Memory : 4GB DIMM DDR3

Processor : AMD Phenom II X4 955 Processor (4C 3.5GHz, 2GHz IMC, 4x 512kB L2, 6MB L3)

RAM : 2 x Kingston 9905403-153A00LF 2GB DIMM DDR3 PC3-10700U DDR3-1334 (9-9-9-25 4-34-10-5)

Graphics: AMD Radeon HD 6800 Series (1120SP 14C 900MHz, 1GB DDR5 4.2GHz 256-bit)

My Arma.cfg settings:

steamLanguage="English";

language="English";

forcedAdapterId=-1;

detectedAdapterId=0;

detectedAdapterVendorId=4098;

detectedAdapterDeviceId=26424;

detectedAdapterSubSysId=822285954;

detectedAdapterRevision=0;

detectedAdapterBenchmark=102;

displayMode=0;

winX=16;

winY=32;

winWidth=1024;

winHeight=768;

winDefWidth=1024;

winDefHeight=768;

fullScreenWidth=1680;

fullScreenHeight=1050;

refresh=60;

renderWidth=1680;

renderHeight=1050;

multiSampleCount=4;

multiSampleQuality=0;

particlesQuality=2;

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=100;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=4;

HDRPrecision=16;

vsync=0;

AToC=15;

cloudsQuality=2;

pipQuality=0;

dynamicLightsQuality=2;

PPAA=4;

ppSSAO=2;

ppCaustics=1;

serverLongitude=54;

serverLatitude=-2;

ppBloom=0;

ppRotBlur=0;

ppRadialBlur=0;

ppDOF=0;

Edit: Certain servers and maps (life e.g.) still do not run properly. Tweaking the settings is of course no magic cure :(

Edited September 17, 2013 by ProbeEtPylon

[-Noodles- 2]

Thanks for the info m8, my settings are almost all like yours. I'll tweak the missing ones according to yours and give it a try. Specially the Eye-candy part on windows :)

Here are my humble specs.

• 
  [li]Intel Core 2 Duo 6320 @ 1.86GHz[/li]
  [li]6GB Kingston DDR2 800MHz[/li]
  [li]ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB[/li]
  [li]Creative Labs SoundBlaster X-Fi[/li]
  

With this machine I am currently getting between 25 to 30 fps on singleplayer, however once I enter a server the FPS drops down to 5/10fps with odd freezes. I do know that my CPU is a big bottleneck here, however most of the times i can see the CPU at 100% and the GPU at a miserable 40%.

[Instynct 1]

You are just seeing performance changes based on the server you're joining.... I don't see why people can't understand that no amount of tweaking is going to fix the issue, it's a core engine flaw with arma 3 and the devs ignored it all through beta stages because it would require rewriting parts of the engine (All they ever wanted was your money)

[Gera_CCT 12]

Sorry to drop some water in your beer, but this is called a "Placebo Effect".

Right now, there is no settings or tweak that solve the FPS problem in MP.

[t4nk83 10]

Just tried this, it doesn't work.

Specs:

i7-3820 @ 4.0Ghz

16GB 1600Mhz DDR3 CL 9

256GB SSD (Crucial M4)

Gigabyte GTX 680 2GB 256bit

Windows 8.1 Professional x64

I get anywhere from 20 - 50fps. Kinda of screwy, glad I only paid 24.99 for the game.

[ProbeEtPylon 1]

Sorry to drop some water in your beer, but this is called a "Placebo Effect".

Right now, there is no settings or tweak that solve the FPS problem in MP.

I tested the fps differences on the same server, with the same map and the same amount of players (32). On that server it did help to improve the performance. It's true, however, that this is no cure-all. For instance, the life-servers wont improve a tiny bit, not matter what I try.

Edited September 17, 2013 by ProbeEtPylon

[bhaz 0]

The -high param is a myth, if you want to change the CPU priority of Arma it needs to be done manually through task manager, or launching the game with a batch file / command line using the Windows command "start /HIGH".

Ref: Dwarden's post here. :)

[Trauma.au 10]

Gave parkcontrol a go, no gain what so ever in Arma3mark.

[windies 11]

I tested the fps differences on the same server, with the same map and the same amount of players (32). On that server it did help to improve the performance. It's true, however, that this is no cure-all. For instance, the life-servers wont improve a tiny bit, not matter what I try.

In the time it took you to restart ArmA that server could have changed missions, cleaned up assets on the map and dropped or gained any amount of players. Also most of your tweaks are mostly irrelevant as half of them do nothing and most of them are set by default. the CFG stuff is irrelevant aside from the rendered frames ahead tweak as most of it is set via the internal config options.

[verstand3n 13]

I advice you to test in the editor. Place yourself somewhere on the map (start with stratis) and get to higher grounds to check the settings.

From that you can try putting units down. I get decent fps (35-50) in BI's showcase missions. So it is in general possible to make the game playable.

But I agree with you guys that not all user made content seems doable for a3. Especially the heavy scripted armory scenarios.

Think the DEV's should put up a guide what option is heavy on gpu and what is heavy on cpu and how to test it. Either in editor or maybe make a benchmark mission.

Maruk has already pointed out a few tips in the "nvidia driver thread" in Arma 3 General. These helped me.

I have a very similar system to yours. will post my settings for you to compare when i am at home tonight.

[Dwarden 1125]

why use -exThreads=5 ? instead of -exThreads=7, you disable the thread for texture operations

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma2:_Startup_Parameters#exThreads

note: i just realized you posted about MP improvements , lol that can be just by switching from bad to good server

(more optimized missions, faster CPU on server, less players/AI etc)

[Minoza 11]

That's what I found funniest in those performance improvement threads where people give instructions on how to improve processing without even knowing what does what.

[ProbeEtPylon 1]

Guys, I was wrong. I apologize for raising false hopes. After reading your objections, I installed Arma3Mark and tested both configurations (1. time with all my suggested tweaks enabled, 2. time all disabled)

1. Run of Arma3Mark: 38fps

2. Run: 39fps

...

However, there was a significant performance increase on the server that I mentioned. Both times there was the same amount of players (31) and the same map (this CTI map which nearly every server uses atm).

What could have been the reasons for that? Maybe the mentioned cleaning of the assets / a restart of the map between my testing?

why use -exThreads=5 ? instead of -exThreads=7, you disable the thread for texture operations

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/A...ters#exThreads

note: i just realized you posted about MP improvements , lol that can be just by switching from bad to good server

(more optimized missions, faster CPU on server, less players/AI etc)

Omg, omg, omg, omg! I feel so honoured. I just got a reply from a Developer! Its like the second or third time this happens in my entire gaming career! Oh please, do my a favour and reply again. This time, explain to me why you are advertising your game with system requirements that may be true for singleplayer but not for multiplayer, which is the heart of the game.

Edited September 17, 2013 by ProbeEtPylon

[NeuroFunker 11]

Maybe BIS should update arma 3 FAQ, i see a lot of people, judging the games performance, by playing MP, or saying: diz geim suxzorz, bcause in SP i have 100 fps, and in multiplayer i have 10 fps! If it's hard for them to figure out, when you have bad fps online and good in singleplayer, that is because the server is simply bad?

[antoineflemming 14]

Maybe BIS should update arma 3 FAQ, i see a lot of people, judging the games performance, by playing MP, or saying: diz geim suxzorz, bcause in SP i have 100 fps, and in multiplayer i have 10 fps! If it's hard for them to figure out, when you have bad fps online and good in singleplayer, that is because the server is simply bad?

Sure this has been explained elsewhere, but why is that? Is it simply because of the scripts and such that are running and are CPU-intensive, or because BI designed it that way (which I think I've read somewhere else on this forum)?

[sgthunter 1]

just a random question...

does the hard drive actually matter when it comes to game performance? I have an SSD that has the OS on it... and everything else is on an old external drive. Should I move steam on to the SSD? :O

[ProbeEtPylon 1]

just a random question...

does the hard drive actually matter when it comes to game performance? I have an SSD that has the OS on it... and everything else is on an old external drive. Should I move steam on to the SSD? :O

You can tell Steam where you want to install a particular game. So there is no need to move your complete Steam library. Just reinstall Arma on your SSD.

I don't know whether the SSD will increase the overall performance of the game, but it certainly will decrease popping up textures, so reinstalling is worth the trouble either way.

[NeuroFunker 11]

Sure this has been explained elsewhere, but why is that? Is it simply because of the scripts and such that are running and are CPU-intensive, or because BI designed it that way (which I think I've read somewhere else on this forum)?

probably not without it, but many missions and servers, are not optimized, or very poor. Strangely, i was able to play on quite smooth servers, but i must admit, it was really hard to fimd them.

[thr0tt 12]

just a random question...

does the hard drive actually matter when it comes to game performance? I have an SSD that has the OS on it... and everything else is on an old external drive. Should I move steam on to the SSD? :O

For sp then the texture load will be faster on an ssd something I just installed and have is and this game only installed on it, its not a silver bullet but it does help with the stutters. MP you are in the lap of the gods, I do find however if you Join the mp and idle a bit then you may see better fps while your client catches up with server and also away from spawn points / bases etc.

Find steam mover, simplest way to move your game to wherever you need it as it creates a junction in win7 assuming that's your os.

[tremanarch 6]

its not a SP <-> MP thing.. you can play those "MP" missions also in SP mode and have the same bad fps, mainly cause those missions are badly written...

[Tulkor 10]

sorry to drop some water in your beer, but this is called a "placebo effect".

Right now, there is no settings or tweak that solve the fps problem in mp.

^ this

[antoineflemming 14]

probably not without it, but many missions and servers, are not optimized, or very poor. Strangely, i was able to play on quite smooth servers, but i must admit, it was really hard to fimd them.

Is it just finding a needle in a haystack? Any way to tell without actually joining the server?

[gagagu 21]

- I set the following launch options: -nologs -nosplash -cpucount=4 -exthreads=5 -nofilepatching -nopause -maxmem=4096 -high -noBenchmark -world=empty

- I disabled Core parking via the ParkControl tool. (http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php)

- disabling all eye-candy of Windows 8.

- I downloaded the newest PhysiX drivers.

- Tweaking GPU_MaxFramesAhead and GPU_DetectedFramesAhead did NOT help.

All these things must be done automatically by game not by me. I've played a lot of games and i've never heared that i have to tweak my system or commandline options to make a game playable.

[tonygrunt 10]

All these things must be done automatically by game not by me. I've played a lot of games and i've never heared that i have to tweak my system or commandline options to make a game playable.

What are you complaining about? There is nothing in the quoted post that the game isn't already automatically doing or is a personal preference option.

- I set the following launch options: -nologs -nosplash -cpucount=4 -exthreads=5 -nofilepatching -nopause -maxmem=4096 -high

-nosplash, -nofilepatching, -nopause, -world if they affect game performance it's only as a side effect and it's up to you to use them if you want what they change.

-cpucount, -exthreads, -maxmem are detected automatically and are there if you want to try something other than the detected values. Used for troubleshooting.

-nologs, -noBenchmark used for troubleshooting, -nologs might help if your disk is thrashing from writing a lot of errors.

-high does not exist

- I disabled Core parking via the ParkControl tool.

That's an OS function, if you think you need it complain to your OS and CPU companies for support.

- disabling all eye-candy of Windows 8.

Personal preference.

- I downloaded the newest PhysiX drivers.

Not used not needed.

- Tweaking GPU_MaxFramesAhead and GPU_DetectedFramesAhead did NOT help.

Automatically detected used for troubleshooting.

[gagagu 21]

Hi,

when the game is detecting it automatically then everything is fine.

Greetings