Losing interest in the game - terrible performance with (mid) high end rig.

[A. GrayFOX 10]

I was really happy when A3 came out. Little by little my hype dissapeared.

i can accept 30 fps, man, i wish i had 30 fps as a minimum. What i cant accept is playing the 15-25 fps range no matter the settings.

the only playable mode right now is Sa-Matra´s Wasteland, 35 fps minimum, 45 average, 70 maximum, everything on ultra view distance on 2000. that is the only thing i enjoy every now and then but it gets old very quickly.

I am waiting for nvidia´s new drivers, maybe they will help i dont know. But i cant play like that anymore, so im going to fall back a little, leave the game and come back when the performance is comfortable.

I know this is all about the money, people are buying better videocards with this mediocre (performance-wise) launch. But, please, make me love ARMA III, do something about the low frames, I KNOW YOU CAN.

My setup:

I72600k @ 4.2 ghz. (more than enough horsepower believe me).

Nvidia GTX 670 (high performance in any other game)

8gb @1866

Corsair Force GT 128GB SSD.

Also my system is always running out of memory while playing Arma III, when the game is only using 1.6gb at maximum, dont know why.

[Harbinger2456 10]

Its called trying to put modern lighting, textures and graphics in an engine over 15 years old. We may just have to wait for someone to come up with a modern engine with this scale. RealTime Immersive comes to mind.

Also my system is always running out of memory while playing Arma III, when the game is only using 1.6gb at maximum, dont know why.

I see this happening in my machine as well. You can use FRAPS to watch your FPS slowly start to decline. It looks to me like some kind of memory leak.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Harbinger2456

[nik21 1]

It's due to the outdated server-client architecture... and therefore because of bad servers/ bad mission scripting.

[roshnak 41]

Its called trying to put modern lighting, textures and graphics in an engine over 15 years old.

Hey, now! Let's not exaggerate. It's only 12-13 years old.

[Harbinger2456 10]

Oh, my bad. That's like mistaking a 120 year old woman for being 130.:o

[Pac Man 10]

Oh, my bad. That's like mistaking a 120 year old woman for being 130.:o

If you hate Arma3 so much why are you on the Arma3 forums so much? I've not seen one constructive post from you. It's all bitching & moaning. Here's a simple fact: We can't force BIS to do any immediate fixes. Go play another game. Go play Arma2. Or w/e else you like to play. Leave the Arma3 forums. Come back at a later date to check for the improvements you seek. Stop wasting your time on a game you dislike. Thanks.

kind Regards,

Pac Man

[Harbinger2456 10]

Oh, I just love the Fanboys on this forum. If they had their way, there would be nobody left here but fanboys. That would be what, a whole 20 people? And if you want to talk about constructive posts, I've seen nothing from you but fanboy shit that would make a nun blush.

Its obvious to tell who the paid fanboy "defenders of the BIS" are.

[calin_banc 19]

Its called trying to put modern lighting, textures and graphics in an engine over 15 years old. We may just have to wait for someone to come up with a modern engine with this scale. RealTime Immersive comes to mind.

I see this happening in my machine as well. You can use FRAPS to watch your FPS slowly start to decline. It looks to me like some kind of memory leak.

That game is based on Cry Engine, Cry Engine that was first used in Far Cry, way back in 2004. You could say this one is an "old" engine as well -

.

Crytek however, I think has an entire team working on that engine alone, so no wonder they are so far off compared to ArmA. Anyway, most of us would be glad if we could see those MP improvements we expect so much.

Regarding performance degradation over time, doesn't it come back after a while? I'm asking because the game keeps using more and more vRAM up until 2,3-2,4GB+ and then it drops suddenly just to go back up and then down again. This may be a problem on 2GB vRAM cards or lower.

Edited September 29, 2013 by calin_banc

[Tankbuster 1733]

I was really happy when A3 came out. Little by little my hype dissapeared.

i can accept 30 fps, man, i wish i had 30 fps as a minimum. What i cant accept is playing the 15-25 fps range no matter the settings.

the only playable mode right now is Sa-Matra´s Wasteland, 35 fps minimum, 45 average, 70 maximum, everything on ultra view distance on 2000. that is the only thing i enjoy every now and then but it gets old very quickly.

I am waiting for nvidia´s new drivers, maybe they will help i dont know. But i cant play like that anymore, so im going to fall back a little, leave the game and come back when the performance is comfortable.

I know this is all about the money, people are buying better videocards with this mediocre (performance-wise) launch. But, please, make me love ARMA III, do something about the low frames, I KNOW YOU CAN.

My setup:

I72600k @ 4.2 ghz. (more than enough horsepower believe me).

Nvidia GTX 670 (high performance in any other game)

8gb @1866

Corsair Force GT 128GB SSD.

Also my system is always running out of memory while playing Arma III, when the game is only using 1.6gb at maximum, dont know why.

Your system is similar to mine, apart from my GTX 470 and I have more memory. I have the same CPU at the same speed, plus an SSD

This game isn't about video cards when you're considering FPS, it's about CPU and draw distance, so you can probably remove that from the equation.

When you say, it's running out of memory - are you letting Windows run the pagefile? It shouldn't run out of memory on your system. Other advice include that which you've probably already had; shut down other programs, especially browsers. What OS are you using? Please don't say Vista. :)

I have to say, BI have 'managed' my FPS expectations well. :) I will happily play on 30 FPS and not really worry until it gets below 25 and with the latest patch, when the game isn't crashing, it's been fine for me. This isn't a get 'five round off and switch to 'zooka while in a power bunny hop' game. Even at low level in a fast jet you don't need more than 30 FPS. If you're admiring the scenery, you're probably missing the bullet heading towards you.

[calin_banc 19]

Low FPS also brings input lag, stutter and so on, which can be annoying and hinder your ability to fight or can give minor headaches or put more strain on the eyes.

[-=Grunt=- 10]

There is no problem with your specs, I currently have an i5 3570K 4.2 Ghz, 8GB RAM and GTX 560 Ti, no SSD. It's the way that the client lags when the server/mission lags which is horrible.

My experience with a mission over different servers:

Server 1 - 20 FPS

Server 2 - 40-50 FPS

Server 3 - 12 FPS

If you can run the game fine in the Editor (I get 40-70 FPS in the editor) then it entirely depends on the server's performance in multiplayer. (And how long it's been up for)

[RushHour 11]

We may just have to wait for someone to come up with a modern engine with this scale. RealTime Immersive comes to mind.

Agreed, the incredible thing is that you can actually download the CryEngine for free today and learn the ins and outs of it before buying a license and start creating a game you can actually sell.

Star Citizen went to kickstarter and has raised something in the order of 20 million right now. I´m pretty sure a group of dedicated game developers can get half of that and produce a very fine game indeed.

[Arrowhead 0]

I've been grinning ear to ear for the past 3 days since I bought this Titan. Not only is the computer fast and Arma 3 runs very nicely on Ultra, but with my custom fan profile it also runs very cool (max 64 degrees under 100% load, Arma 3 doesn't even sweat with Vsync on).

[Tonci87 163]

I've been grinning ear to ear for the past 3 days since I bought this Titan. Not only is the computer fast and Arma 3 runs very nicely on Ultra, but with my custom fan profile it also runs very cool (max 64 degrees under 100% load, Arma 3 doesn't even sweat with Vsync on).

So at what setting and FPS do you run now?

[Harbinger2456 10]

I've been grinning ear to ear for the past 3 days since I bought this Titan. Not only is the computer fast and Arma 3 runs very nicely on Ultra, but with my custom fan profile it also runs very cool (max 64 degrees under 100% load, Arma 3 doesn't even sweat with Vsync on).

Arghh. I'm jealous dude!:o I'm sure just the raw power of that thing can solve a lot of engine problems.

[Azzur33 1]

I know this is all about the money, people are buying better videocards with this mediocre (performance-wise) launch. But, please, make me love ARMA III, do something about the low frames, I KNOW YOU CAN.

Your setup is way better than mine.

I experience lower than 20 fps only if I put few hundred AI units all fighting at the same time in visible distance (4000/2000).

And I have most settings in Ultra.

So I guess you are experiencing low fps (only) in MP. It's not a graphic card issue, so Nvidia won't help much.

[Harbinger2456 10]

I don't think graphics cards have much to do with this game. Its an older engine, and seems to still rely mostly on the CPU. Better GPU's will have some effect, but I think the best thing you can do is overclock your CPU to near exploding.

[RushHour 11]

Yes GPU´s does nothing in the game. Go from Standard to Ultra and i swear to god it changes 2 fps.

Do that in Crysis, a game that actually utilize the GPU power and see if there´s a 2fps difference from standard to ultra. My two GTX 580´s are on vacation at the moment...

[WarfighterOne 10]

ArmA 3 is still the best game out there. I recommend an Intel I7 3000k/4000k series for better performance, lowering the view distance <3000 and putting some settings on standard/high, for a GPU NVIDIA works well with Intel, I recommend a 550 or higher. The game could use some more diverse vehicles and better multiplayer missions, the new ones are weak, but Gamers nowadays are just whiny bitches and complain about every single thing, and not just in ArmA, EVERY game out there.

I'm gonna start blaming the user and hardware, not the game for poor performance.

Edited September 29, 2013 by WarfighterOne

[Harbinger2456 10]

Yes GPU´s does nothing in the game. Go from Standard to Ultra and i swear to god it changes 2 fps.

Do that in Crysis, a game that actually utilize the GPU power and see if there´s a 2fps difference from standard to ultra. My two GTX 580´s are on vacation at the moment...

Yep, I've experienced the same thing. Off to get some Liquid Nitrogen for my CPU. :p

[clydefrog 3]

ArmA 3 is still the best game out there. I recommend an Intel I7 3000k/4000k series for better performance, lowering the view distance <3000 and putting some settings on standard/high, for a GPU NVIDIA works well with Intel, I recommend a 550 or higher. The game could use some more diverse vehicles and better multiplayer missions, the new ones are weak, but Gamers nowadays are just whiny bitches and complain about every single thing, and not just in ArmA, EVERY game out there.

I'm gonna start blaming the user and hardware, not the game for poor performance.

Well people are only concerned with what the company who makes the game recommend, not what you recommend. Unfortunately for them the recommendation from the company is not a good one as it stands, but then again, plenty of people with much higher than recommended specs still have performance issues. Even if they put ridiculous specs like an i7 3930 and a GTX 780 people with that hardware would still be saying the game doesn't run well enough. Basically it's the same as with Arma 2 when it came out where the recommended specs are meaningless and there isn't a computer on the planet that can run it at high frames in multiplayer.

Edited September 29, 2013 by clydefrog

[flowa91 10]

dude...the problem is on the game! I HAVE 2X GTX TITAN OC (2000$) and i got 25 30 fps! game need optimization and more more patch

[Vigil Vindex 64]

What about the new VR headset, Oculus Rift, they are saying we might need 120fps minimum for it to be comfortable. I fear Arma will never be able to get above even 60fps reliably! So no VR action for us /sadface

[A. GrayFOX 10]

Hey, i was able to resolve the "out of memory problem", i established a page file of 8gb (i didn´t have one), and to be fair, the FPS in single player missions is pretty awesome even in ALTIS. STILL, i cant play multiplayer right now do to horrible fps and constant random crashings. i hope performace increases in the near future.

[jiltedjock 10]

Use a ram drive and put a page file on there instead. 2GB should be enough.