Double your FPS

[ramius86 13]

Is there an x64 memaloc for arma 3 out?

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA_2:_Custom_Memory_Allocator

"Since Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead build 85869 (1.60 beta) it is possible to provide custom memory allocators for the game.

The memory allocator is a very important component, which significantly affects both performance an stability of the game.

The purpose of this customization is to allow the allocator to be developed independently on the application,

allowing both Bohemia Interactive and community to fix bugs and improve performance without having to modify the core game files. "

you can try this http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?163640-Arma3-and-the-LARGEADDRESSAWARE-flag-(memory-allocation-gt-2GB)

[niktator 10]

you can try this http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?163640-Arma3-and-the-LARGEADDRESSAWARE-flag-(memory-allocation-gt-2GB)

Hi

I tried -malloc=tbbmalloc and benched using altis benchmark. No difference (+/- 1-2 fps) for me. tried with 2 computers, both running win7 pro 64 with latest beta gfx drivers:

i7 4770 @ 4,6ghz

16gb 2400 cl9 ram

2x 660 TI OC SLI

HW raid10

mbp 17" i7 2,5ghz

16gb ram

HD 6770M

512gb ssd

so sad, sounded prommising.

[nikiforos 450]

Once again people please sto wasting you time to try to fix the problem that lies in the game engine. I have seen so many different "solutions" and in the end none works except for some "lucky" people.

[jumpinghubert 49]

there are a couple of working tips and tweaks. The one gives 2fps, the other 1fps, the next 3 extra fps. For example overclocking, coreparking/idling cores, disabling realtime antivir check, disabling things like SSAO (ingame), reduce 12000m visibility to a human value, put gamefolder on ssd... . Lots of small effects. But your right, the main problem is the engine and its cpu-centric behavior. On the other hand there are tons of postings from people with performance issues but tried ZERO tweaks&tips.

Niktator, runs arma3 on ssd on your faster system above?

[niktator 10]

Niktator, runs arma3 on ssd on your faster system above?

No, the desktop got 6x SAS 15K drives. giving more mb/s then the mac book pro ssd - so its faster since access times do not really count when playing arma3.

[mamasan8 11]

there are a couple of working tips and tweaks. The one gives 2fps, the other 1fps, the next 3 extra fps. For example overclocking, coreparking/idling cores, disabling realtime antivir check, disabling things like SSAO (ingame), reduce 12000m visibility to a human value, put gamefolder on ssd... . Lots of small effects. But your right, the main problem is the engine and its cpu-centric behavior. On the other hand there are tons of postings from people with performance issues but tried ZERO tweaks&tips.

Niktator, runs arma3 on ssd on your faster system above?

Thats true, for singleplayer. In MP, nothing works except maybe draw distance.

Antivirus/Firewall, I don't use them. I benched with both turned on, running 3dmark11. I lost 300 points. I then overclocked CPU from 3.2 Ghz to 3.8 Ghz and GPU memory + core was overclocked by 200 Mhz each. Those netted me 300 points extra. Now, AV+FW...thats a performance decrease I do not accept. Might not sound like a big deal but when I got 4500 points on stock clocks and no AV+FW it is kind of a big deal, to me. Would be different if I had gotten 30 000 points and lost 300. But when AV+FW looses me almost 10% performance in a benchmark, not OK.

Router has FW, Antivirus never once managed to stop viruses from entering my computer. Maybe some lame scripts on a webpage but the real viruses go right thru.

Edited October 24, 2013 by mamasan8

[RGN_07 10]

After trying in-game configuring, cfg tweaking or via launch options in Steam, driver updating, game boosting apps, etc. i noticed minimal fps changes such as 3-5 + or _. It really comes down to one's computer. I tested setting everything to the barest minimum (all low) vs my desired settings and there was a slight 4-5 fps improvement, there's no 30% or 50% fps spike let alone "double." I know my rig is a 2-yr-old dinosaur- 560GTX ti and Phenom II quad core 3.2ghz cpu. I can play on "standard" mostly with an occasional "high" and these will only give 21-34 fps range on sp. (34 is even hard to maintain unless i look at the sky). But hey, i'll take what the game gives given my comp but am always open to try new things for a good gaming experience.

[bvrettski 10]

double your fps

...play some other game released this year...

This ^^^^^ lol

They can't fix it or wont at this stage. My guess is that they have lost any window to capture new long term fans / players. Those of us dedicated to the game will stick with it for 4 years while they try to finish the game.

Buying Arma is really like signing up for a 4 year beta program. The game is only "finished" when they quit working on it and announce that they are moving on to Arma 4/5/6. Then we can all get excited, hope for something better this time, give them our money,do it all over again..and go through the same frustrating process...poor performance, incomplete game, no content, buggy, crashing etc.

Maybe thats the real game here.....see if you can tolerate the process of trying to play a game that's 60-70% done/working. LOL

Edited November 5, 2013 by Bvrettski

[EDcase 87]

SP runs VERY well so MP is the problem but the people complaining about poor fps are probably in Wasteland or some other mission with lots of scripts which are probably not well implemented.

I play Domination and have 30-40 fps no matter how many players there are.

[nikiforos 450]

I created a mission with 70 AIs close to a village (can't remember the name I'm at work) and the lowest FPS I get is 48. Now this is fine really no complaints. But when I put a vehicle or two the FPS hit is quite huge. Why does vehicles have such a huge impact on the performance? It's sad because it limits the experience.

SP runs VERY well so MP is the problem but the people complaining about poor fps are probably in Wasteland or some other mission with lots of scripts which are probably not well implemented.

I play Domination and have 30-40 fps no matter how many players there are.

So are you happy playing with 30-40 FPS? I mean ok above 40 is ok for me but anything below that I rather prefer no to play.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Nikiforos

[EDcase 87]

I created a mission with 70 AIs close to a village (can't remember the name I'm at work) and the lowest FPS I get is 48. Now this is fine really no complaints. But when I put a vehicle or two the FPS hit is quite huge. Why does vehicles have such a huge impact on the performance? It's sad because it limits the experience.

Thats interesting a probaly worth a post in the bug tracker.

Don't forget that the AI activity is also very imprtant.

Lots of AI doing nothing will have less hit on fps than a smaller group in combat (or driving).

Their 'thinking' is what takes CPU power....

[nikiforos 450]

Yes I know that the AI calculation is what destroys the FPS in the game. In an empty Altis map I get over 100 FPS on many places. So the main issue or focus should be to optimize the calculation of AI activity.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Nikiforos

[Ramjali 10]

I get around 40-50 fps in SP but 12-14 in multiplayer. anyone know hoe to fix this?

[Furret 0]

I get around 40-50 fps in SP but 12-14 in multiplayer. anyone know hoe to fix this?

• Play on a different server
  
• make the mission the server runs less script intensive
  
• add faster hardware to the server
  

[jgbtl292 0]

So are you happy playing with 30-40 FPS? I mean ok above 40 is ok for me but anything below that I rather prefer no to play.

what have the marketing kings make with your brains ..... your human eye cant see more than 25-28 frame in the second .....

30 or 40 or 60 or 1000 fps is for your eye the same ;)

same thing off the super new over hd - is hard one the edge what your eye ad your brain can make. 10 000 x 8000 pixels in the future or on a super cam with 12megapixel is absolutely a marketing shit. your eye cant more see than 4000x4000 pixel per pic

holy world your goes very fast deeper and deeper .....

Edited November 11, 2013 by JgBtl292

[Tyl3r99 41]

what have the marketing kings make with your brains ..... your human eye cant see more than 25-28 frame in the second .....

30 or 40 or 60 or 1000 fps is for your eye the same ;)

same thing off the super new over hd - is hard one the edge what your eye ad your brain can make. 10 000 x 8000 pixels in the future or on a super cam with 12megapixel is absolutely a marketing shit. your eye cant more see than 4000x4000 pixel per pic

holy world your goes very fast deeper and deeper .....

very true... but its a whole different story when people start competing...

ooo i got 60fps (only sees at 27-28fps)

whatever man im playing at 40fps (sees at 27-28)

the only thing thats a pain is "LAG" or "STUTTER"

if they sort that then no problems

[Tjocka 10]

That's not correct.

It's a german article, but there is also a video linked. There you can see the differenz. To see the differenz look at the left or right side, not at the car!!

http://www.pcgames.de/F1-2013-PC-257655/News/Fluessiges-Spielen-FPS-Unterschiede-in-der-Video-Analyse-1092855/

If you turn arround in the game, the FPS have an big effect, if it looks smoth or not.

[xXxatrush1987 10]

That's not correct.

It's a german article, but there is also a video linked. There you can see the differenz. To see the differenz look at the left or right side, not at the car!!

http://www.pcgames.de/F1-2013-PC-257655/News/Fluessiges-Spielen-FPS-Unterschiede-in-der-Video-Analyse-1092855/

If you turn arround in the game, the FPS have an big effect, if it looks smoth or not.

very true, the rod cells in the eye can observe 200fps+, it is just a matter of what your brain makes of it.

simple test is to look 1m left or right of a crt, normally you can see heavy flickering.

on tft the backlight is constantly on so no flickering can be observed, but more displayed fps/hz(120fps on 60hz is still 60hz) smooth the view expierience.

another fact: at 30fps/hz the brain has to work much more and you get tired and lose concentration much faster than on 60fps/hz.

modern lcd tvs use this fact by putting "guessed" pictures between the 50hz standard tv picture(example philips pmr) to "archive" 100hz+, to create a comfortable feeling for the customer.

all in all the 24/27/28fps/hz mythos is just a commercial lie, as the bandwith wasn´t fast enough for a long time to provide more than 25/30real fps(50/60fps interlaced).

[antoineflemming 14]

what have the marketing kings make with your brains ..... your human eye cant see more than 25-28 frame in the second .....

30 or 40 or 60 or 1000 fps is for your eye the same ;)

same thing off the super new over hd - is hard one the edge what your eye ad your brain can make. 10 000 x 8000 pixels in the future or on a super cam with 12megapixel is absolutely a marketing shit. your eye cant more see than 4000x4000 pixel per pic

holy world your goes very fast deeper and deeper .....

Again, this crap is wrong and not true. You can definitely at least tell 60 fps from 50. On an empty map, look up at the sky and move the mouse around. Then look straight and try to do the same. There's a clear difference. And, really, a lot of times, that difference is in either how burry the characters look when they're moving or in how responsive your mouse is. But you are wrong. As I can clearly tell the difference whens something's over 28 FPS. Maybe there's something wrong with your eyes, or maybe you're just used to poor performance in games.

[fred41 42]

... especially while turning the view, it is a big difference between 25 and 50 fps for example ...

Also important is a preferably constant frame rate, to avoid early tiredness.

So, i clearly prefer a stable 50 FPS (vsync on), instead of a changing FPS between, lets say between 40-70.

So while playing, i have always VSYNC on. I intentionally adjusted my video driver/monitor down to 50 FPS (instead of 60) to achieve a more stable FPS.

All performance related arma values are adjusted, so that frame rate don't fall so often below the intended 50 fps.

[jumpinghubert 49]

to discover the difference between 28 and 50 and between for example 50 and 100fps every one with a monitor in front of his eyes can test it. No need for wikipedia or scientific papers. Its like discussing in a forum if its night or day.......look to da window :p

To activate rotary motion blur (my setting is 200%) in arma3 helps a lot to get smooth gameplay with 35fps.

[Tjocka 10]

To activate rotary motion blur (my setting is 200%) in arma3 helps a lot to get smooth gameplay with 35fps.

-sure to activate?

-i don't understand. What says this 200%?

[spanishsurfer 58]

30fps is perfectly playable on Arma...the game is not BF4 or COD and doesn't require that you turn, jump, fire, jump, and turn again every sec.

[St. Jimmy 272]

30fps is perfectly playable on Arma...the game is not BF4 or COD and doesn't require that you turn, jump, fire, jump, and turn again every sec.

This really. I got no problems playing the game with 30fps.

[ratszo 17]

... especially while turning the view, it is a big difference between 25 and 50 fps for example ...

Also important is a preferably constant frame rate, to avoid early tiredness.

So, i clearly prefer a stable 50 FPS (vsync on), instead of a changing FPS between, lets say between 40-70.

So while playing, i have always VSYNC on. I intentionally adjusted my video driver/monitor down to 50 FPS (instead of 60) to achieve a more stable FPS.

All performance related arma values are adjusted, so that frame rate don't fall so often below the intended 50 fps.

I'm a big fan of v-sync=on.

Also like:

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=1;

To me, it ain't about high fps; it's about steady frames in a busy moment..., like a fire-fight.

I find MP very playable --because i'm not screen-tearing from 80 to 10 fps when i'm shooting.

Plus, i'll say a high dpi on mouse with low frames will make it hard to aim. I'm under 500 dpi.