Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
twinturbonet

FPS fix?

Recommended Posts

Has there been a patch to fix the FPS issue everyone is having? I heard it had something to do with the server optimizations?

I refuse to play this game until this is fixed, so I come back here from time to time to get an update :)

thanks all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there is a FPS that everyone have?

From when I last posted, yea. It seemed like heavy rigs can only achieve a max of 35 FPS, IF that.

Arma 3 defaults my settings to Ultra, but I only get 18-25 FPS. Which is not playable.

O/S: Windows 7 x64 Ultimate (fully updated)

Mobo: ASUS Crosshair V Formula - Republic of Gamers

CPU: AMD FX-8150 - 3.6 GHz O/C'd to 3.8 GHz (8 core processor - all cores unparked)

GPU: AMD HD Radeon 6950 (a little outdated, but not bad at all!)

RAM: 16GB (Forgot the brand, either Mushkin or Corsair I believe)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you tried turning shadows, FSAA, PPAA & SSAO down or off? SSAO Does absolutely nothing and is worth around ~10fps (for me anyhow) when turned off. Also, turn VD down and object draw distance down. All of these are performance hogs. My 2c. Hope it may help.

Kind Regards,

Iceman77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you tried turning shadows, FSAA, PPAA & SSAO down or off? SSAO Does absolutely nothing and is worth around ~10fps (for me anyhow) when turned off. Also, turn VD down and object draw distance down. All of these are performance hogs. My 2c. Hope it may help.

Kind Regards,

Iceman77

What kind of frame rate are you getting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really depends. I'm keen on warfare, and there are loads of AI & players, I get 30fps+. If I'm in the editor, with little AI, and not 10000 placed objects, I get 70+. That said, I've a mid range machine.

I'd also like to say, not enough emphasis is put on the missions optimization. If units aren't being cached, dead bodies & wrecks are every where, if the mission is throwing so many erros and spamming your rpt. For instance an error within a loop such as a waituntil, will fill up rpt in a hurry. Then it really doesn't matter what kind of hardware you have... in a sense. Any machine will see huge performance degradation.

Edited by Iceman77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arma 3 defaults my settings to Ultra, but I only get 18-25 FPS. Which is not playable.

O/S: Windows 7 x64 Ultimate (fully updated)

Mobo: ASUS Crosshair V Formula - Republic of Gamers

CPU: AMD FX-8150 - 3.6 GHz O/C'd to 3.8 GHz (8 core processor - all cores unparked)

GPU: AMD HD Radeon 6950 (a little outdated, but not bad at all!)

RAM: 16GB (Forgot the brand, either Mushkin or Corsair I believe)

with this mashine you can't get more fps with terrain ulltra, pip on, maxed out vd etc

I think there will be no fix for you, because "you want ultra" is no issue that everyone have.

try overclock to 4,5+, buy a titan and a fast ssd

I get 60fps in empty areas with 3.0Ghz, all settings to standard. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your CPU is great for multi-threaded workloads, but A3 [A2,A1,...] requires raw single-thread muscle, where your CPU is slower than a Celeron G540 (source). There might be some patch in the future optimizing overall A3 performance, but your CPU will still be a bottleneck, comparatively.

Edited by qwertz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:( I guess I'll give A3 another go and if nothing has changed, I'll just have to bite the bullet and attempt to play with low FPS. It's ridiculous because all other games I play are on Ultra or Very High at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:It's ridiculous because all other games I play are on Ultra or Very High at least.

thats make sence, because there is no other game like arma. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your FPS issue is mostly related to the CPU you are using. Arma* games are "CPU dependant".

This AMD FX-8150 is not doing too well in Arma serie, have a look here on these Arma2 reviews :

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/9

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/842-20/jeux-3d-crysis-2-arma-ii-oa.html

The 2nd point is that, now with Arma3, the game is also "GPU demanding" . BIS tends to underestimated the need for a more than average graphic card when they asked for "Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 / AMD Radeon HD 7750" as Recommended Specs. From my point of view, having tested various cards including GS 450, HD 7750, HD 7770, these GTX 560 / HD 7750 are the minimum you must have to have the hope to enjoy playing. Here your "old" HD 6950 is quite enough to play and enjoy the game but the results with Autodetect are perhaps a bit optimistic.

To help you with your FPS issue, I will suggest you to set lower view distances for Overall and Objects in "Visibility" and in "General" set "Terrain" one step down from what is given by the Autodetect. In the AA&PP Section, I will suggest you follow that ... "Therefore, best AA combo in this game, FXAA Ultra + 2X/4X or 8X FSAA and you will get the best texture quality, no blurring, crisp textures, and well anti-aliased objects and vegetation." [source : http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/10/02/arma_iii_video_card_performance_iq_review/]

Edited by Old Bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
with this mashine you can't get more fps with terrain ulltra, pip on, maxed out vd etc

I think there will be no fix for you, because "you want ultra" is no issue that everyone have.

try overclock to 4,5+, buy a titan and a fast ssd

I get 60fps in empty areas with 3.0Ghz, all settings to standard. ;)

overclocking his cpu will help little, buying titan will help if he HAS to play with everything on ultra, but he can play on ultra with cards that are half as expensive, upgrading to i5 or i7 intel cpus will help more and be way cheaper than a titan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's ridiculous because all other games I play are on Ultra or Very High at least.

Ultra or Very High are not some industry standard benchmark graphic settings that are comparable between games- Each game comes with it's own hardware demands and performance and ARMA is very taxing on hardware. Remember also that if all other things are equal, doubling the view distance (a linear value) doesn't just mean twice as much work for the computer, it's a exponential increase in workload.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Battlefieldbully : these benchmarks are interesting but quite out of range IRL !

Do you seriously think I will upgrade my "Athlon II x2 250 / HD 7770" rig with a Titan ?

I will consider the cost as lethal for my budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
those tests are also only accurate in singelplayer sadly

Sadly yes. I won't touch the MP until i get to see more frames and my eyes stop bleeding, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sadly yes. I won't touch the MP until i get to see more frames and my eyes stop bleeding, lol.

im only playing on sa-matra wasteland nowdays, usually around 40-45 fps with drops and spikes ofc, but at least it's playable, imo :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im only playing on sa-matra wasteland nowdays, usually around 40-45 fps with drops and spikes ofc, but at least it's playable, imo :)

That's pretty good actually! Not a big fan of Wasteland tho... There used to be more than few playable domination servers during alpha phase but those are long gone.

That was on Stratis tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×