I give up - Arma 3 not worth playing because of poor FPS

[kabong 1]

Arma 3 is going back in the box.

I have a spent ton of time reading performance threads, tweaking and messing with settings but nothing produces fluid frame rates without making the game look crappy and the view distance unacceptably short.

I don't think I have a poor system spec:

i7-930 Quad Core CPU (stock 2.8 GHz overclocked to 3.3 GHz)

Asus P6T motherboard

6 GB RAM

Nvidia GTX 760 2GB superclocked video card (v327.23 drivers)

Windows 7 64-bit

Yes my CPU/motherboard/RAM are getting old but I don't have the cash right now to upgrade. I'm also reluctant to overclock any further for fear of burning up a CPU I can't afford to replace.

I've therefore decided I'm not going to spend any more time or money on Arma 3 until BIS fixes it (i.e. drastically improves game performance). I have better things to do than trying to cope with laggy aiming and choppy frame rates.

The really odd thing is that performance actually seemed to be better under the Alpha and Beta than the current build (including the development branch, which I update daily). Shouldn't performance be getting better as BIS refines the code?

Back to Arma 2 for me.

Edit: Minor break through - see post #35 in this thread for details

Edited September 29, 2013 by KaBoNG

[Sheepdog 4]

Ok bye.

In all seriousness, 99% of people do not have "poor FPS" problems in the current build. So it's one of two things, A. your settings, B. your computer.

Half the issues with frame rates at the moment are related to server side problems. The other portion is the fact that people are trying to run this game with max view distance on their old hardware and wondering why they are getting poor FPS. Join ANY of the Sa-matra wasteland servers, or DP wasteland servers, OR better yet, your editor in single player and then tell me if you get poor FPS. If you dont its server side, if you do, adjust your settings.

Try view distance: 1000, and make sure vsync is disabled.

[instagoat 133]

I have shitty fps every time the AI starts to do something. In fact, the problems are pretty much identical to the problems I get with Arma 2 OA, Armed Assault and OFP. Just that with A3, much less AI have the same effect as many AI have in the other games.

So, yeh. There are optimization problems. It is much better than earlier titles, but still not quite there, yet.

[Pac Man 10]

Turn full screen AA off. Turn vsync off. Set VD to a reasonable level, 1-2k. Also let me guess, you either hopped into a packed, unoptimized server running a wasteland or a domination?

[Sheepdog 4]

^^ exactly. If your still having frame rate issues after these suggestions its your PC. Again, try a good server as I can play on 64 person wasteland sa-matra server with around 60-80 frames.

[antoineflemming 14]

Tired of this crap. There are people who have legitimate performance issues with this game who aren't just "running Wasteland" or trying to run the game max. Please stop that crap. Good for you if you run the game great. But stop assuming why people are having issues.

[Sheepdog 4]

antoine, there are two sides to the "tired of this crap" talk. IF some people are not having issues with the game than what is the problem? If its not settings, it has to be something to do with their PC. If that's the case its because its either too old to run it, doesnt have the latest drivers, or again, they are running the settings improperly.

If a lot of people are not having frame rate issues and some are than pretty sure the "legitimate problem" is self explanatory at that point. As far as wasteland, its a constructive suggestion as its a well optimized server to try. 99% of servers up right now run like shit, so if you join them you will have terrible frame rates, that has NOTHING to do with the game.

[RushHour 11]

It´s the game. You can run Crysis smoother then this. People can excuse whatever they want but the fact is the Arma 3 engine is one of the most poorly optimized game engines in all of gaming history.

Still better then A2 though so can´t really complain on my part.

[KrIxXuS 10]

Hi KaBoNG, i have my old i7 920 set to 3.8...its been like this for over two year's and until recently ran on air no problems..... you have a great system so sure it's frustrating when the game you want to play does not respond well to your expensive hardware... there are other thing's you can try to tweak windows etc which i'm sure your probably aware of. We could go through a list of thing's on teamspeak if you wanted some help... i've only learnt through trial and error(lots!) and patience... most games i just switch on and have no issues with but the ArmA series has always been the same with regard's to tweaking pretty much after every patch in my case but these game's are better than anything i've played so worth it(imo). Also what ram are you using... as i have 6gb of ddr3 (1333) gathering dust here for free if its needed.

[tonschuh 3]

Ok bye.

In all seriousness, 99% of people do not have "poor FPS" problems in the current build. So it's one of two things, A. your settings, B. your computer.

Half the issues with frame rates at the moment are related to server side problems. The other portion is the fact that people are trying to run this game with max view distance on their old hardware and wondering why they are getting poor FPS. Join ANY of the Sa-matra wasteland servers, or DP wasteland servers, OR better yet, your editor in single player and then tell me if you get poor FPS. If you dont its server side, if you do, adjust your settings.

Try view distance: 1000, and make sure vsync is disabled.

I start to believe that all this people are just fan-boy's or don't tell us the truth or are just happy to play a game with very low fps and a choppy game-play, because the game does not only run in MP badly, it's the same in SP.

Multiple Benchmark-Run's are showing, that the game performance didn't improve for quite a long time: Click

Old / cheap hardware / wrong settings are the main reason for it ? Seriously ? Not even the SP-Part is running smooth, not even with >50fps ...

I hold it like the OP and will only re-run the benchmarks from time to time, but I don't believe that there will be any major performance improvements anytime soon, if it will improve at all.

:j:

[toxicsludge 12]

Hi KaBoNG, i have my old i7 920 set to 3.8...its been like this for over two year's and until recently ran on air no problems..... you have a great system so sure it's frustrating when the game you want to play does not respond well to your expensive hardware... there are other thing's you can try to tweak windows etc which i'm sure your probably aware of. We could go through a list of thing's on teamspeak if you wanted some help... i've only learnt through trial and error(lots!) and patience... most games i just switch on and have no issues with but the ArmA series has always been the same with regard's to tweaking pretty much after every patch in my case but these game's are better than anything i've played so worth it(imo). Also what ram are you using... as i have 6gb of ddr3 (1333) gathering dust here for free if its needed.

You my friend, are a very nice person.

[CJoke 11]

i use a

a way older Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, it is a 2.4GHz but overclocked to 3GHz

6GB DDR2 Dualchannel

RadeonHD7800

game on SSD-Drive

Arma3GrafixSettings set to standard at all,

PiP disabled,

ViewDistance 1600m,

FullAA: disabled,

PPAA: SMAAUltra

and no lowFPS at all... (dev-branch)

SP in kavala with a few ai and vehicles ~25FPS = imho playable

SP countryside with 40+ ai-enemies/animals/vehicles ~30FPS

for me it is enough fps to not upgrade the hardware.

with a pc like this you can't get 50+ FPS in kavala or even play every available mission on steam.

A scripted sp-mission with flexible and counted script-spawned enemies, script-deleted deadbodys and dynamic created/deleted triggers is way better then a mission with 75+ editor placed enemies/vehicles and even more triggers&gamelogics, because they eat your FPS while they waiting for you. all enemies should have a killed-event with a 'enablesimulation false' command, and all those things etc.

with standard grafix and good made missions, there is no problem to use a old pc for arma 3.

and the MP-lowFPS problem is made serverside... just don't join servers with 80+ people online...

[stevoau 6]

Optimization isn't really the problem here - it is just an outdated engine that isn't coded properly to modern hardware.

Hopefully, if there is an ArmA 4, BI will ditch the RV engine and start again with something that...works properly with modern hardware, instead of updating the 12ish year old RV engine.

[Tankbuster 1733]

Unhelpful comment snipped//

In all seriousness, 99% of people do not have "poor FPS" problems in the current build. So it's one of two things, A. your settings, B. your computer.

C. Playing a mission that runs loads of stuff on the client.

[RuecanOnRails 10]

Poor frames or not. I'm more than happy to play a game of such scale and exquisite feature set at low fps.

The issue is not the performance/optimization as much as it is the ability to change absolutely *everything* in terms of settings and configs. Most people are used to the "plug-n-play" and rely on hard presets such as normal, high, ultra. Arma 3 does not fit into that category of plug-n-play, you have to sit there and meticulously go through every possible config option to find what works for you. There is no one size fits all, a playable config for some might not be playable for others. You really need to spend hours finding your suitable config and stop watching an irrelevant FPS counter.

Go beyond the in-game video settings and go to the config files in profile directory.

[smokedog3para 365]

@ruecan

Why should we have to spend hours tweaking to get something playable, many people have far better specs than are recommended and a great amount of money spent, but still ends up poor fps and stuttering, textures not loading, lod popping.

I just upgraded from I7950 to a 3770k and its still bad at times on the dev build even in single player, I don't even go mulitplayer as when we have its utterly unplayable yesterdays update made me go in slow motion when walking or running I had to speed up time to get it back to normal it happened 7-8 times in just 1 mission no reason for it.

when this happens it kills it for me http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/903260606710205109/646988EFB74675159FB34949E1BA1250E2DFEFE9/

Ive had devbuilds were I can max out settings, view and object to max and played fine after release its got a whole lot worse one day it goes fine in sp next update it reverts to being crap again its a rollercoaster ride im getting sick of and like the op just can't see it being playable for a good while yet but hey we still have arma2 to keep busy with

[RuecanOnRails 10]

@smoke,

Why?, because we are given the tools to do so. Unlike other games we actually get to control our personal experience with the game. There are very few options/settings/configs that you cannot change in order to fine tune the your optimal playability. Do not fall into the group of people who set it to normal, high, ultra then complain. I think it would be best for Arma 3 to remove the presets all together and instead have tutorial style mission where you go through and make changes to settings.

Choice and customization is a privilege we are privy to in the Arma series.

perhaps when Arma 2 gets full integration/ported into Arma 3 people can enjoy the same performance they're used to running those assets and just ignore the Arma 3 terrain and assets that "cause issues".

A lot of poor performance threads directly correlate to comparing both fps and presets to various games. Such as the common one "I run BF3 on Ultra with 120fps, But can only run Arma 3 Ultra at 40 FPS, something must be wrong" Other than trying to explain the way Arma works, they are usually a lost cause and won't hear any of it. I'm not saying the OP is one of these people.

I also grew up with games that at the time would occasionally push the limits of current hardware and require purchasing new hardware just to play a new game. In some cases even a generation or two of new hardware was needed just to get it up to playable levels. IMHO, modern games have fallen into a rut with a generalization that anything can run them. They should not be "playable" on an average gaming grade 2+ year old hardware, let alone 5 years with settings beyond the low/medium settings. Even struggle with such low settings.

I'm currently on a 3770k clocked at 4.8gh, crossfire 7970's at 1175/1725, an SSD, and ramdisk to help load some arma pbo's quicker. I have little to no issues unless I find a server running substandard hardware, high latency, or just running a poorly made mission. Even though my hardware is more than decent, I'm always looking for the next upgrade. Unfortunately Intel haswell line-up was a flop, I'm anxious to see the new AMD GPU though.

Besides all that, the screen shot you posted shouldn't happen regardless of performance or settings. That's a bug and not related to the thread. I agree that's unplayable when textures just disappears, if it's repeatable post it on the feedback tracker.

Of course the game got worse performance wise on launch when going from DEV build to release. The Dev build was a few weeks a head of the final release. Changes made prior to launch were rolled back, they are still being added back in. This was done due to the cut off date for a finished product. If you had better performance (I think everyone did) the day before release on the DEV build, be patient. Those optimizations still are slowly making it back into the current dev builds.

[maturin 12]

When complaining about FPS be sure to give full disclosure. That way if you're one of those lowly beings that thinks 30-40fps is unplayable, we can ignore you.

[hbk 0]

When complaining about FPS be sure to give full disclosure. That way if you're one of those lowly beings that thinks 30-40fps is unplayable, we can ignore you.

I for one would love to play Arma 3 at rock solid 60 fps. And heck I think it's event possible if I lower a lot of detail sliders.

But with reasonable video settings ? Not gonna happen. Arma just isn't a 60fps shooter.

And I'm fine with that, as long as there is no visible stuttering (which is being improved as we speak and will be improved in the future).

[maturin 12]

Even BF3 isn't a 60fps shooter on the 360.

[Brain 12]

Tired of the crap, too.

My neighbor got this rig:

i7 4770k, GTX660TI (SLI), 16GB DDR3 RAM, 250GB SSD on which A3 is located on

He plays with 50-60 FPS on the editor. 40 FPS on MP if its TVT or Humans only. 20-22 when COOP or TVT-Co.

With this kind of rig, you should be able to play ArmA with reasonable frames on really high graphic settings. Without the "hurr durr, turn off everything which make this game look good and play in heavy fog".

Seriously, it's poorly optimized.

[AndrewsRG 22]

I have been playing the arma series for a while now and I will never give up!

Give me the lag, give me the bugs, give me the dysync, give me the kicks, but most of all give me the ARMA. I played arma 2 on a 200k custom desert for a year :)

In 2yrs (like arma2) I will be able to max out the game - For now it is what it is.

[MavericK96 0]

In all seriousness, 99% of people do not have "poor FPS" problems in the current build. So it's one of two things, A. your settings, B. your computer.

Are you kidding? 99% of people don't have issues? Take a look at the plethora of threads on here citing performance issues.

To the OP: Have you tried overclocking more? I've had my old i7 920 for years running at 3.8~4.0 GHz...I imagine the 930 should overclock similarly? Raw CPU speed is what this game craves because the multi-threading/multi-core optimization is so poor at the moment (and has been since ArmA 2 launch, but...yeah.).

[stk2008 14]

Yep ARMA 3 is a total $uck Fest

Should have been fixed way before release they cant tell us they never knew about it due to arma 2 having the same issue.

They even turned around and said they could not fix the FPS issue due to limitations in the arma 2 engine and seeing as arma 3 is arma 2 all be it with extra features then WTF where they thinking.

I know I know but come on you lot.

Look back at many of my posts in the arma 2 forum you will see me do nothing but praise BIS but now....huh now im pissed.

As for the campaign thats coming out BIS dont bother whats the point most of us cant play the bloody game at a decent FPS any way.

All these cool tanks,choppers,guns stop adding it there is no point untill you fix the god damn engine this game runs on.

I am sorry but i used to love BIS but im worried arma 3 was just a cash in to fund Dayz if I am right that is a bad bad move arma series made Dayz possbile in the first place so if I am right way to piss of your dedicated fans from the last 12+ years :(.

All that aside BIS please prove me wrong fix the engine get it to run like it should and make me eat my words.....I want BIS to prove me wrong I want them to make arma 3 as it should be i love the series since OFP.

Its come to a point where I see arma updating in me steam window and think ah what content they adding now...another gun,tank,chopper....makes no odds to me cant be assed to fly,pilot it at stupid FPS.

BTW the computer is not a monster but its way way above average recommended specs.

I all so know there is still loyal fans (like I once was but so so want to be again) that will flame me for this post but come on get your heads out of your ass and see the issue here please :(.

I think the reason I am more upset is because I want arma to succeed and there for BIS.

Arma was my whole life on the computer I loved it and still want to again but I cant.

[pils 49]

try singleplayer.

if the FPS are ok in singleplayer and suck in multiplayer, it's the server and not you.

choose a better server or play a different map. perfomance-enhancing fixes are coming soon.