All this buzz about the performence issue

[Imonars 10]

First of all, I would like to introduce a friendly thread, where people make constructive and valid points.

The performance issue. First of all. The only place where people are having FPS issues is in the MP games, specifically in public MP games. When I first joined a clan and got into their server, I had no FPS issues at all. But, the moment I went into a Public MP game. My fps dropped to 15-20. This made me wonder and eventually convinced me that the issue was server side. Some servers work perfectly, other servers don't. Which is partially true because just today I tried Arma's Public MP for the first time after the release (I was in the beta btw) and when I was talking to my teammates in the chopper I mentioned if they had encountered any fps issue,one of them replied "Nah, FPS drops to 20-30 in MP which is completely playable for me".

When somebody wants to buy a game, they read the reviews; the discussion forums on Steam and the game's official forum (Ofcourse 90% of player don't do that and they head straight to youtube for the gameplay then they buy it). In this case with arma, people who like to play with clans, SP and play with the editor and stuff will be like "oh, the game is totally unplayable then! better not buy it". Just looking at the forum posts and the discussions on steam makes the game sounds like it's not fun, unplayable, and a waste of money. Which is completely wrong. My friends keep telling me they are having a blast playing with the editor, scripting, creating and publishing missions, doing the showcases and competing with the new challenges. Even though 90% of the servers in the public MP have FPS issues, this doesn't mean the SP is unplayable, this doesn't mean that ALL of the MP is unplayable, this also doesn't mean the editor and the Workshop are not fun or unplayable.

Reading through the forum here on bistudio, the developers clearly state that the problem is there. They aren't ignoring it or trying to hide it under the carpet. But the problem is that they are dealing with a tough crowd, full of non-mature people. Trying to ruin the game for us loyal fans because they want games that work on release date. Like this guy I was arguing with who said: "Why not delay the release date?". Ofcourse after arguing with him for 2 pages trying to convince him that delaying a release isn't that easy, since there are tons of stuff that happens before a couple of months from the release date that cannot be delayed for any reason. Plus, that's how Bohemia works. Or this another guy who kept arguing with me that only 30% of his core is being utilized or whatever. Clearly he had no idea what he was talking about like the rest of the 90%, and when I tried to explain to him that even if the game could work on more cores, the problem would still be there because there are problems that need to be fixed and spreading the game on multiple cores isn't the magical solution to all of it. Instead, like the rest of the people from the post. They kept spamming their PC's spec all over the place and saying: "I can handle BF3 at ultra" or "I used to have 100 fps on CoD". Clearly, they are used to MP and skipping campaigns and ANYTHING that relates to SP, which is bad in this case since a LOT of people bought arma for it's Editor and Showcases, and maybe a couple of COOP missions with a clan every one week or so.

The Majority of the people that popped out right after the release date are really immature and impatient. Some of them call you a "Fan boy" for presenting a valuable point that they cannot reply to other than sticking their spec right into your face! Can't handle the MP? GIVE SP A TRY! Try to learn how SQF works, and try to make your own mission. A lot of you are missing a lot just because the multiplayer has bad FPS.

About the content, I agree that Arma 3 has less content than any previous arma game, that's because they went for quality over quantity. As a 3D designer my self. I can completely relate to the pain of creating 3D models, adding textures, doing the animation. Ofcourse that DOESN'T means we should have less content. But I wasn't mad about it, why? Well because of two reasons:

1- They are giving us the entire library of Arma 2. http://www.arma3.com/news/report-in-marek-spanel-ceo#.UjM2yCk9LmG

2- They will give out content for FREE as the time passes.

I just made this post because I can relate to what the developers are dealing with, and as an ARMA fan and player, I trust that BI will make this game better overtime. Another reason is that I want people to look at the issues we are having from a different perspectives and at least try to understand what's going. It's not like the game is going to be left out there unoptimized!

[clydefrog 3]

Well, I'll make the constructive and valid point that all of this has already been said and is already being discussed on here so there is no need for yet another new thread on the subject. There are enough performance threads already where this could be posted.

[dragon01 902]

What we could use is a good, up to date performance settings guide, along with an in-depth explanation on how each setting affects the game. For me, the bottlenecks seem to be CPU (only running a dual core) and, lately, memory (as I have a 32bit system). I'd really like to know how to configure the game to get the most out of it. As an avid sniper, I'm big on high VD, but that can bring the FPS down really quickly.

[suprememodder 11]

actually, the performance issues are everywhere, single player, mp. it's to do with poor optimization of the altis map and ai. i remember they did something to improve the stuttering on altis but then removed it at launch.

[no use for a name 0]

object distance and terrain detail also have big impacts on CPU (at least for me)

edit: back to the OP: For me, Arma is Arma, there's nothing else like it and I still have fun with it in it's current state. I play both SP and MP, and as long as it's not some giant every faction running around the whole island with 5000AI, it runs decent; and it's fun

I always get more playtime out of this series than any other game I've bought; even more than the GTA series and TES/Fallout games.

I get the most enjoyment/replayability out of Arma titles than any other game because missions will play out different every time (plus mods, new content, etc.). With every other game, they always play the same. In Arma I can play the same mission as a rifleman, AT soldier, or tank (or even the same unit over and over); and it will be different every time

Even with the performance issues I would have still gladly paid $60 because I know BIS will continue to improve it, and I will get many hours from it

This is all just IMO, of course

Edited September 17, 2013 by No Use For A Name

[KyleK29 1]

actually, the performance issues are everywhere, single player, mp. it's to do with poor optimization of the altis map and ai. i remember they did something to improve the stuttering on altis but then removed it at launch.

This. I have many issues with the Altis map on singleplayer that I do not have with the Stratis map.

[no use for a name 0]

oh and it is a shame to see the dev's get shit on in all the forums; they're obviously working on the issues, and trying to figure out ways to improve the game.

Here's the key: Example - What good is it to spend 1000 man-hours to do something that will maybe add a slight performance increase? Especially when there's TONS of other things they could work on/fix instead i.e. bugs that have been there since OFP, or the new content that people keep crying about, etc.

There just is no logic in that from a business standpoint. They will do all they can do (within reason) to improve the game, it's that simple.

If you don't like that policy, then go play any other AAA title and HOPE that they fix the problems; much less have discussion's with the dev's and not some PR guy!

Again, it's just the way I see it

[RushHour 11]

It´s not just MP. Sure some servers are fine, some are bad but put a load of crap that you can´t even see on the map and it will be brought to it´s knees anyways.

You would have thought going from dev to a stable version would be better, only thing i noticed was MP experience got worse. First time i´ve experienced that.

[nerdwing 13]

I understand what you're saying OP, but saying the only place where FPS issues are present are MP games isnt true in my experience. I'm having huge fluctuations in both SP and MP, with CPU activity that would suggest either the game isnt using the available resources properly, or 50% in Resource Manager's CPU chart is as high as it registers :P

I've had FPS drops to single digits in the Dynamic Campaign user-made mission (which is a fantastic mission, I just wish I could fully enjoy it), and most Invade and Annex missions dont pass 20 FPS. While alot of the community may be impatient, I can totally understand their anger given that my comparatively feeble PC is performing in the area of that which they spent many more hundreds of dollars on, and that which performs magnificently outside ArmA.

[antoineflemming 14]

First of all, I would like to introduce a friendly thread, where people make constructive and valid points.

The performance issue. First of all. The only place where people are having FPS issues is in the MP games, specifically in public MP games. When I first joined a clan and got into their server, I had no FPS issues at all. But, the moment I went into a Public MP game. My fps dropped to 15-20. This made me wonder and eventually convinced me that the issue was server side. Some servers work perfectly, other servers don't. Which is partially true because just today I tried Arma's Public MP for the first time after the release (I was in the beta btw) and when I was talking to my teammates in the chopper I mentioned if they had encountered any fps issue,one of them replied "Nah, FPS drops to 20-30 in MP which is completely playable for me".

....

I just made this post because I can relate to what the developers are dealing with, and as an ARMA fan and player, I trust that BI will make this game better overtime. Another reason is that I want people to look at the issues we are having from a different perspectives and at least try to understand what's going. It's not like the game is going to be left out there unoptimized!

First, you're wrong. Performance issues are NOT only happening in MP games. Just because you have no performance issues does not mean that everyone else who says they are, are lying or are immature. You want people to look at the issues from a different perspective, but yet you can't understand the performance issues from the perspective of those who are having them. So your post is far from friendly or constructive.

Second, you say they won't leave the game unoptimized, yet if you're saying that the current game is unoptimized, then you'd have to admit that this is the same state of Arma 2. So be a little more understanding of people who have been dealing with this for the past few titles. Sure, BIS is working on it, but it's disheartening when the issue is brushed off as "engine limitation" instead of "engine problem that we are improving".

Third, there are plenty of other threads about performance, and performance problems are being noted, especially in the Low FPS thread in the Troubleshooting subforum. What is not constructive and what we don't need is people brushing off the performance issues of others. Because that gets us nowhere. Good for you that you have no FPS issues, but understand that there are PLENTY of those who do.

[Imonars 10]

Just because you have no performance issues does not mean that everyone else who says they are, are lying or are immature.

I made sure during the post to NOT include the word "All" or "everyone". I made sure to say MOST or the MAJORITY of them. Some of them understand the situation and other just refuse to even listen.

Second, you say they won't leave the game unoptimized, yet if you're saying that the current game is unoptimized, then you'd have to admit that this is the same state of Arma 2. So be a little more understanding of people who have been dealing with this for the past few titles. Sure, BIS is working on it, but it's disheartening when the issue is brushed off as "engine limitation" instead of "engine problem that we are improving".

When Arma 2 was first released it had performence issues, and "those" issues were fixed. I don't remember anyone having FPS issues last year when I was playing arma, that's because BI did they had to do and fixed it! But what I meant in my original post is that Arma 2 had different kinds of issues, not specifically related to this one, and THOSE issues in arma 2 DIDN'T make the game unplayable or boring!

As for your last point, I know that plenty of people have FPS issues and I'm NOT denying it in anyway, I'm just directing them towards different objectives that this game has to offer until the MP is fixed!

[antoineflemming 14]

I made sure during the post to NOT include the word "All" or "everyone". I made sure to say MOST or the MAJORITY of them. Some of them understand the situation and other just refuse to even listen.

When Arma 2 was first released it had performance issues, and "those" issues were fixed. I don't remember anyone having FPS issues last year when I was playing arma, that's because BI did they had to do and fixed it! But what I meant in my original post is that Arma 2 had different kinds of issues, not specifically related to this one, and THOSE issues in arma 2 DIDN'T make the game unplayable or boring!

As for your last point, I know that plenty of people have FPS issues and I'm NOT denying it in anyway, I'm just directing them towards different objectives that this game has to offer until the MP is fixed!

Are you really in a position to say most or majority though? About Arma 2: Arma 2 still has performance issues though, they aren't "fixed". Why? It's the same engine (RV4 is RV3 with better PhysX, water simulation, shaders, animations, sounds, trees, and clouds, and that's pretty much it). Once again, your experience of having no FPS problems is not the determining factor of whether anyone had/has performance problems. Great, the game ran fine for you as does Arma 3. But that does not mean that there aren't people who are having issues.

Certainly, Arma 3 like Arma 2 is playable and fun. But playable/fun and "performance issues" are not mutually exclusive. At 10-20 FPS, the game is "playable" - you can move the character, you can shoot, etc. And that can still be fun. But that doesn't negate the engine limitations (that BIS needs to aggressively work to fix, hope they are). Certainly there are those who are saying that Wasteland doesn't run right. But that's not the majority IMO. It's certainly worse in MP, but it's still pretty bad in SP too, at least for me. And bad to me doesn't mean 15 FPS. Bad to me is when like 20 AI shooting drops FPS from 40 to 18FPS.

For your last point, well, again, it's not just MP. So, while your intent is helpful as to refocus their attention away from MP, it doesn't help those who are having problems outside of MP.

[juicehead 10]

Questions on the dreaded performance issue...

As I understand it, ARMA3 is basically a reworked version of ARMA2? Same engine, etc?

From what I understand, this means the game, once again utilizes the CPU rather than the GPU?

What I do not understand is why (with how powerful GPUs are getting) companies keep doing this. I realize that ARMA3 is way more in depth than BF3, but with my setup, FPS never drops below 100 in BF3.

As I am not a programmer, my main question is this....

What are the chances that BI would go back and optimize this game for GPUs?... or is the "cat already out of the bag" and it would only happen for ARMA4.

[Varanon 892]

I made sure during the post to NOT include the word "All" or "everyone". I made sure to say MOST or the MAJORITY of them. Some of them understand the situation and other just refuse to even listen.

You said that the only place people have performance issues is in MP. This is a pretty global statement, and by the way, completely wrong, since I have those performance issues on Altis in single player as well, sometimes, the game stops for seconds. And I'm well within the recommended specs, before you ask.

And looking at your original post, I can see the agend you are pushing. It's just another one of those "The game is great and everyone who says otherwise is an immature whiner" type of threads that the forum is full of (and yeah, there's also a bucketload of threads about "the game is bad and everyone who disagrees is a fanboy" type of threads.

So instead of complaining about being called a fanboy, why not just stop opening new threads about the same old subject that has been discussed to death elsewhere ?

[BL1P 35]

I am going to take it as the OP meant the majority of performance problems are in MP.

This looks like a more constructive thread than the other rants about how BIS have done me wrong all over the forums.

Been playing this series for over a decade now and I know just how much of a difference to fps MP gaming makes in arma.

Its not like other main stream pow pow games.

The performance of a server directly influences the clients performance fps wise. Shouldn't I guess... but Always has done as far as I can remember.

For something that's as system intensive as Arma3 my guess is that you need a Dedicated box (NOT A per slot rental) just for Arma3. and NOT Arma3 and multiple other game instances.

Probably if the server was doing 2 or 3 games but was correctly configured with set cpu affinity`s per game the problem would be less although once you try to run with 50+ players you are going to need to turn of some of the other games on the server.

So all these new people coming in from Zombie land making Dedicated servers on their old zx81 in mums basement and hoping to get 40v40 missions going are causing alot of problems out in the Arma world. (slight exaggeration :) )

So for me I gona say its about the server more than anything else atm.

You will notice that the big Arma community's who have a dedicated following and a server dedicated to Arma ONLY are complaining less than the Zombie kids who have no Idea about the server and client performance relationship in Arma.

Good solution would be to try playing with a large community on a NONE per slot pay server that's dedicated to Arma3.

Although the politics of those community's might drive you crazy.

Edited September 18, 2013 by BL1P

[clydefrog 3]

What are the chances that BI would go back and optimize this game for GPUs?... or is the "cat already out of the bag" and it would only happen for ARMA4.

Zero, and unless they make a new engine for Arma 4 (if there is one) then zero for that too.

But you say "utilizes the CPU rather than the GPU?". It doesn't utilise the CPU rather than the GPU. It uses both, the CPU is more important in Arma but a good graphics card still makes a big difference to performance.

Edited September 18, 2013 by clydefrog

[zorrobyte 30]

Performance issues?

I've been happy as a peach on Arma 2 and 3.. It comes down to CPU speed.

A 2500K @ 5.0GHZ coupled with SSD and a GTX 670 is perfect. I couldn't stand Arma on any slower hardware.

[clydefrog 3]

A 2500K @ 5.0GHZ coupled with SSD and a GTX 670 is perfect. I couldn't stand Arma on any slower hardware.

Is that you in your sig?

By the way, people shouldn't have to massively overclock already good CPU's to get good performance out of this game.

I use a stock 2500k and a GTX570 in Arma 2 CO with everything set to max apart from view distance and post processing and get good framerate including using ACE mods etc. These performance issues are new to Arma 3.

Edited September 18, 2013 by clydefrog

[Iagovar 10]

Another one with same issues in SP.

[LT.INSTG8R 0]

Actually for me this is the first ARMA of 3 I bought all on release that I have actually enjoyed playing and NOT struggled with performance. As you can see in my Sig my rig is relatively "top shelf" and so were my rigs when ARMA and ARMA II came out. I have always run the flagship ATI/AMD card of the generation skipping a few lemons and the best bang for the buck CPU of the day, but I remember just giving up in frustration over the absolute dismal performance and left them to "marinate" This one has been a joy to play out of the box it's only fault is that this one came with very little in the box to play with from the beginning. My SJ mates and I have been playing CTO Occupation on Altis and not had a dull moment or performance issue.

Edit: Forgot too mention my actual performance. With pretty much running the "Very High" preset and a 3K view distance I get 40-60 fps all the time on Altis playing Occupation Totally happy with that when other memebers of SJ with older rigs are running in the teens despite trying my best to help them thru the GFX configs to see if we can get a few extra FPS wherever we could. So I see both sides of the coin.

Edited September 18, 2013 by LT.INSTG8R

[RushHour 11]

Performance issues?

I've been happy as a peach on Arma 2 and 3.. It comes down to CPU speed.

A 2500K @ 5.0GHZ coupled with SSD and a GTX 670 is perfect. I couldn't stand Arma on any slower hardware.

Oh but it doesn´t. Servers don´t give a flying F about your CPU. You can be using a supercomputer or a potato with electricity running through it. Makes no difference.

[OrLoK 20]

Hello there

Compared to my experiences of previous releases, this one is far more pleasant an experience FPS wise in SP. Im also starting to see issues in MP though which I didnt seem to have before, but as has been said, it could be down to poor hardware/shared boxes on the servers end.

My system is "low end" i7 930 @ 2800, a 450gtx and 12 gig ram and I play happily at 1080 with mods at an acceptable framerate 15-20fps.

Perfect? No. Better than A2's release? Oh yes.

I know YMMV but on the whole im happy AND i know there's more to come.

Rgds

LoK

[NeMeSiS 11]

What I do not understand is why (with how powerful GPUs are getting) companies keep doing this. I realize that ARMA3 is way more in depth than BF3, but with my setup, FPS never drops below 100 in BF3.

It is not something that is done on purpose, but rather something that happens because the game does certain things. ArmA3 has many tasks that can only be done on the CPU (simulation of AI, a bunch of scripts that every mission uses, bullet calculations, etc etc). If you were to remove all those things it would run a lot better, but it would not be ArmA3 anymore.

Even if the game was rewritten from scratch and made exactly like it is now but completely optimized, able to use all cores perfectly etc etc, it would still use the CPU a lot more than other games.

[dwaight 17]

It is not something that is done on purpose, but rather something that happens because the game does certain things. ArmA3 has many tasks that can only be done on the CPU (simulation of AI, a bunch of scripts that every mission uses, bullet calculations, etc etc). If you were to remove all those things it would run a lot better, but it would not be ArmA3 anymore.

Even if the game was rewritten from scratch and made exactly like it is now but completely optimized, able to use all cores perfectly etc etc, it would still use the CPU a lot more than other games.

i can say the same thing for crysis 1

.

[Crierd 24]

When Arma 2 was first released it had performence issues, and "those" issues were fixed. I don't remember anyone having FPS issues last year when I was playing arma, that's because BI did they had to do and fixed it! But what I meant in my original post is that Arma 2 had different kinds of issues, not specifically related to this one, and THOSE issues in arma 2 DIDN'T make the game unplayable or boring!

As for your last point, I know that plenty of people have FPS issues and I'm NOT denying it in anyway, I'm just directing them towards different objectives that this game has to offer until the MP is fixed!

That's not true, at all. Many people still have major performance issues with Arma 2.

I for example, get 8-25 FPS on almost all multiplayer servers because I have ATI and AMD hardware, despite the fact that I have a 1050T 6 core 3.7ghz processor and a 6890 with plenty of ram and an SSD, and I can get 80-100 FPS and max out any game out there. Yet, if I go on an Nvidia and Intel machine, and join the same server, I can get 40-60 FPS. Yes, performance increases were made, but to say that they fixed it is a plain lie, and as you can tell I'm sure, I along with many others doubt the Arma 3 performance issues will be fixed like they need to be if Arma 2 still has its issues.

Questions on the dreaded performance issue...

As I understand it, ARMA3 is basically a reworked version of ARMA2? Same engine, etc?

From what I understand, this means the game, once again utilizes the CPU rather than the GPU?s

What I do not understand is why (with how powerful GPUs are getting) companies keep doing this. I realize that ARMA3 is way more in depth than BF3, but with my setup, FPS never drops below 100 in BF3.

As I am not a programmer, my main question is this....

What are the chances that BI would go back and optimize this game for GPUs?... or is the "cat already out of the bag" and it would only happen for ARMA4.

Seems to me Arma needs a new engine if they continue to run so many tasks on the CPU, and the game utilizes so little of everyone's hardware. The GPUs today are so capable of performing massive calculations, I really don't know why they're not being utilized to their full potential.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Crierd711