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

[Tankbuster 1746]

Do you think it's worthwhile moving the pagefile from an ssd to ram?

[Furret 0]

Do you think it's worthwhile moving the pagefile from an ssd to ram?

From seeing a video about a month ago, it'll make no difference.

---------- Post added at 19:50 ---------- Previous post was at 19:33 ----------

Titans and other massively overpriced piece of graphics hardware are not going to help improve FPS. You can't throw hardware at this problem and expect a linear increase in performance.

The problem with the game is an incredibly complicated issue and it can't be reduced down to something non-technical individuals can really understand. Even technically minded people have issues due to the lack of knowledge of the codebase. It's really still a black box to people outside of BI.

There's so many variable that factor into FPS too, it makes diagnosing issues frustrating at best.

SP or MP, how many players, how many AI, server fps, were people joining at the time, what scripts are being run, server hardware, client settings, server settings. The list goes on.

To reduce the number of potential issues while playing you need to keep the player count below 30 and not utilise all of Altis, which kinda defects the whole point of having such as massive map.

Don't expect a quick fix as these performance issues have existed for literally years. There have been impressive gains of course, compare launch ArmA2 to A2:OA.

I'd really like a nice long detailed monologue on the issue by the engine development team or just Suma, whatever happened to that guy? I've not seen him post on the forum since march.

[nik21 1]

I'd really like a nice long detailed monologue on the issue by the engine development team or just Suma, whatever happened to that guy? I've not seen him post on the forum since march.

Probably working on DayZ only, guess what he's doing? Re-writing the server-client architecture, with network bubble and all that stuff. What Arma 3 should have had from the beginning.

[giorgygr 61]

Guys..watch out on what servers and what missions you are playing.

Even 1 non-properly-optimized script can stole 10+ FPS

Tested with team members 2 missions which afterwards got some "surgery" and the performance difference was night from day.

Lots of missions i see lately -has been built by newcomers in ArmA world that doesn't have (yet) the appropriate knowledge of editor secrets.

The other thing are...servers.

Not properly configured/not enough horsepower =not good results for you with the NASA computer.

Combine this with the script inefficiency and...

[jiltedjock 10]

Do you think it's worthwhile moving the pagefile from an ssd to ram?

If you've got, say, 16GB it's worth it as you can probably spare a couple of GB - 32 Bit apps will still swap under a 64 Bit OS, so they may as well swap in RAM, which is clearly better than swapping to disk, despite what Furret thinks.

I also use PrimoCache (used to be FancyCache). Essentially it adds a RAM cache in front of the disks. http://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/primo-cache/ It's in Beta so free download. If you load Arma, play a mission, close Arma then do it all again, it will be noticeably quicker as the data will be read out of RAM.

For the RAM drive I use http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk . Free download supports drives up to 4GB.

Edited October 6, 2013 by jiltedjock

[mmtaraval 1]

I just upgraded from a 680 to a 780 and frames jumped ~20+, I'm running a i5-2500k, 4.2, ssd drives, I bumped up the AA and some other settings and frames are rock solid. The 680 was pulling 25 at its lowest while the 780 rarely goes below 40, mostly stays well above 60. Even dcs a-10c is smooth as silk, so, I assume the gpu does influence fps.

[nik21 1]

Of course it does, but it depends on your Settings, Sherlock. ;)

[Ranwer135 308]

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.

Same here. I get 30 FPS and im running an Icore7 with Radeon graphics. But the frame rates are smooth even with the cool underwater rays.

By the way, I noticed with the standalone arma 2 it runned smoothly, but with OA it really decreased my FPS?

[Tankbuster 1746]

If you've got, say, 16GB it's worth it as you can probably spare a couple of GB - 32 Bit apps will still swap under a 64 Bit OS, so they may as well swap in RAM, which is clearly better than swapping to disk, despite what Furret thinks.

I also use PrimoCache (used to be FancyCache). Essentially it adds a RAM cache in front of the disks. http://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/primo-cache/ It's in Beta so free download. If you load Arma, play a mission, close Arma then do it all again, it will be noticeably quicker as the data will be read out of RAM.

For the RAM drive I use http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk . Free download supports drives up to 4GB.

It's interesting that you say that. I too used fancycache when I had an HDD, but when I got an SSD, the performance gains became negligible, so I put the pagefile back on the drive. This was some time ago, certainly pre A3.

[jiltedjock 10]

Yes I've got a couple of SSDs and a large HDD, but I still cache all the disks as with 16GB about 50% of the RAM is free for paging and caching.

[SavageCDN 231]

Titans and other massively overpriced piece of graphics hardware are not going to help improve FPS. You can't throw hardware at this problem and expect a linear increase in performance.

The problem with the game is an incredibly complicated issue and it can't be reduced down to something non-technical individuals can really understand. Even technically minded people have issues due to the lack of knowledge of the codebase. It's really still a black box to people outside of BI.

There's so many variable that factor into FPS too, it makes diagnosing issues frustrating at best.

SP or MP, how many players, how many AI, server fps, were people joining at the time, what scripts are being run, server hardware, client settings, server settings. The list goes on.

To reduce the number of potential issues while playing you need to keep the player count below 30 and not utilise all of Altis, which kinda defects the whole point of having such as massive map.

Don't expect a quick fix as these performance issues have existed for literally years. There have been impressive gains of course, compare launch ArmA2 to A2:OA.

I'd really like a nice long detailed monologue on the issue by the engine development team or just Suma, whatever happened to that guy? I've not seen him post on the forum since march.

So.. there is no magical optimize button that BIS can push? :p

+1 excellent post