FPS worse after latest stable update - BIS seriously why_

[windies 11]

Maybe it's better to say the devs have ignored talking about performance rather than the performance itself :)

I'm very pleased with the performace I'm getting atm with my rig, cpu being almost 4 years and the gpu 3 years old, honestly I can't see why a game released a few weeks ago should run well with mid-level hardware from years ago, of course it would be good if it did, but one shouldn't expect it to.

Of course there's room for improvement, quite a lot even, concidering the current hardware utilization.

For one, the game doesn't run good even on newer monster systems. Plenty of people with very capable systems have complained about performance issue's, especially in MP. I also like how you say you're very pleased with performance and then turn around and say there's plenty of room for improvement and even acknowledge one of the problems that has been talked about endlessly on these forums. Of course it's not like double standard rationalizations aren't par for the course around here.

[CaptainObvious 95]

For one, the game doesn't run good even on newer monster systems. Plenty of people with very capable systems have complained about performance issue's, especially in MP. I also like how you say you're very pleased with performance and then turn around and say there's plenty of room for improvement and even acknowledge one of the problems that has been talked about endlessly on these forums. Of course it's not like double standard rationalizations aren't par for the course around here.

For one, my rig is over 3 years old and Arma runs at over 40fps, mostly around 50 from what I've noticed during playing*, should I not be pleased with it then?

Is there a game in the market that doesn't have room for improvement? No idea what your last sentence meant.

*settings High to Ultra, 3000&2000 VD.

[windies 11]

I mean there are plenty of people I've seen both on the forums and people who I play games with on a regular occasion who have issue's with current gen i7's and GTX 680's etc... Hell you actually quoted someone who literally said they have an i7 overclocked and a GTX titan and it only runs "acceptably". Most of the video settings besides SSAO, view distance and object detail don't have any affect on performance. How many times does someone need to say "I've tested with minimal settings and still experience performance issue's" before you get it in your head that it's an actual problem?

I think a large problem stems from the fact that some people are happy with 20 fps just because they choose to accept it as the norm. Kind of in the sense that it's ArmA, we shouldn't expect it to run good so my expectations are lower and therefor I'm content and happy because my lowered expectations are met.

---------- Post added at 01:44 ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 ----------

For one, my rig is over 3 years old and Arma runs at over 40fps, mostly around 50 from what I've noticed during playing*, should I not be pleased with it then?

Is there a game in the market that doesn't have room for improvement? No idea what your last sentence meant.

*settings High to Ultra, 3000&2000 VD.

My rig is like 25 years old and runs ArmA 3 at 250 fps, should I not be pleased with it then?

Ironic that you're named CaptainObvious.

[iceman77 19]

I've a mid range computer (if even that). i5-2500k, gtx560 and 8GB ram. It cost ~750$ well over a year ago. Runs the game smooth as glass if the mission is proper.

[CaptainObvious 95]

My rig is like 25 years old and runs ArmA 3 at 250 fps, should I not be pleased with it then?

Ironic that you're named CaptainObvious.

So my game runs like shit and my expectations are wrong, wow.

http://i.imgur.com/cPpdVIY.gif

[windies 11]

So my game runs like shit and my expectations are wrong, wow.

http://i.imgur.com/cPpdVIY.gif

It may very well run great for you. It doesn't for others though and just because it runs "great" for you doesn't invalidate the claims or the complaints of others. That's the part you can't seem to grasp.

Also saying your rig is 3 years old and runs the game great is completely subjective and vague.

[ratszo 17]

So my game runs like shit and my expectations are wrong, wow.

Na, while you're playing this great game, others would rather whine and troll on the forums.

The 'self-entitlement' is strong in this thread.

Bis has produced a game with near photo-realistic graphics AND open-ended settings.

Welcome to pc gaming --as Old Bear said, "adapt".

It's a new game. Bis is patching up every workday of the week.

CaptainObvious enjoys the game and so do i.

I play "Cliffs of Dover" too --that game, photo-realistic graphics AND open-ended settings, will bring any rig to its knees if rez and setting are pushed.

When a game is 'cutting-edge", the knife cuts both ways.

[dnk 13]

I'm pretty sure 227 pages, most voted feedback ticket, a problem in every A3 review, and more posts about it on the internet are not a "minority"...

Reviews from alpha/beta/early release and page count and complaint threads, awesome proof. The claim that "everyone's having issues" needs to be supported, by the way. That's how logic works. I don't have to support anything - I say it's not the case. Your side is arguing for something, provide evidence, solid evidence, not hand waving about thread posts and feedback votes. Hundreds of thousands of people bought this game, if just 0.5% have issues, it's going to spawn a 200-page thread if just 15% go on to whine about their issues on the forum. Obviously some have issues. They're vocal about it, understandably (though rarely constructively). Methinks you don't quite understand how that can skew your perspective of the actual preponderance of the issue...

I don't doubt there are some MP issues, mind you (if this thread was just about MP, it escaped me, given how little info the many complainers are posting about their issues - mostly just huffing and redface and threatening and other such negativity).

I've seen dozens/hundreds of people posting their specs. And almost no dev response. I remember being promised an optimization dev blog 5 months ago, where is that now?

Other people, yes. People in this thread, not really. And the devs have responded on many occasions. How much of a dev response is enough for you, by the way? 1 post/day? 1 post/week? 5 posts/issue? They do respond, and in the same thread, in the same week, people complain that they don't respond, right after they responded. What do you gain, anyway? "We're working on it" is about all they can say until they fix the problem, then they state what it was in the devblog/SPOTREPs/etc. They obviously have people working on it. They tell the community through SPOT/SITREPS about this constantly.

So... really, what do you all want exactly?

Also, just because you and your fellows keep posting 50x a day about your problems doesn't mean the devs are obligated to post a proportionate amount of times to respond. This may be their primary concern, but there are clearly also like 50 other things they need to spend time on. They can't keep everyone fully up to date on everything every week AND do their jobs.

[TSAndrey 1]

Reviews from alpha/beta/early release and page count and complaint threads, awesome proof. The claim that "everyone's having issues" needs to be supported, by the way. That's how logic works. I don't have to support anything - I say it's not the case. Your side is arguing for something, provide evidence, solid evidence, not hand waving about thread posts and feedback votes. Hundreds of thousands of people bought this game, if just 0.5% have issues, it's going to spawn a 200-page thread if just 15% go on to whine about their issues on the forum. Obviously some have issues. They're vocal about it, understandably (though rarely constructively). Methinks you don't quite understand how that can skew your perspective of the actual preponderance of the issue...

So, if you go into MP, you will have the exact same FPS as in SP on all servers? No server ever lowers your FPS? You never get FPS drops? I find that hard to believe...

Also, 200 pages and a the most voted feedback ticket can't be shrugged off as a "minority". That's a very large percentage considering that's just 200 pages on this forum. Go look at the A3 community hub, reviews and etc. and you will see how many people are complaining about performance.

I don't see a reason for your sudden BI defence. None here is saying this game sucks or is insulting BI, people just want answers.

[CaptainObvious 95]

It may very well run great for you. It doesn't for others though and just because it runs "great" for you doesn't invalidate the claims or the complaints of others. That's the part you can't seem to grasp.

I've never said everyone's game is running fine, to me it seems the only one right now invalidating others' claims is you.

Also saying your rig is 3 years old and runs the game great is completely subjective and vague.

The rig is old, 3 years is next to eternity in computer hardware and that's not subjective, invalidate this:

Game settings:

Altis Benchmark by Helo, avg.FPS 47

Stratis Benchmark by Helo, avg.FPS 46

Hardware:

The game looks stunning and runs very well, even better in real playing situation where you're not flying all over the place at high speeds.

Now, I think I'm gonna go and enjoy a couple of sessions of smooth Arma goodness :yay:

[nikiforos 450]

I really don't get it why people that experience good performance try to prove all the people complaining wrong.

If you guys are happy with what you got then I'm happy for you but you should also try to accept that not everyone is happy.

[CaptainObvious 95]

I really don't get it why people that experience good performance try to prove all the people complaining wrong.

If you guys are happy with what you got then I'm happy for you but you should also try to accept that not everyone is happy.

Now this is an honest question, no laughing or pointing fingers or anything, what have you done to get the game running well and what hardware you have?

I ask because a friend of mine has somewhat similar system to mine, but his windows is filled with bloatware and overall his installs are a mess, no idea if he's ever cleaned the drivers for example when upgrading them, stuff like that, he doesn't get nearly as good performance as I do.

[xXxatrush1987 10]

Now this is an honest question, no laughing or pointing fingers or anything, what have you done to get the game running well and what hardware you have?

I ask because a friend of mine has somewhat similar system to mine, but his windows is filled with bloatware and overall his installs are a mess, no idea if he's ever cleaned the drivers for example when upgrading them, stuff like that, he doesn't get nearly as good performance as I do.

most of the people in this thread just missjudge bad multiplayer mission code with poor game performance. so they just complain hard to release stress i guess^^.

to everyone with poor singleplayer performance: i would help to disguise the bottlenecks or whatever breaks the game down(script bugs by bis in some of their missions, etc). but if you read all that bullshit here, people complaining about performance with hardware barely able to respond to the bios(but console port XY runs on ultra!!11!!*rage*) or playing usermissions by guys with great fantasy and ideas, but no single clue of scripting will make 80% of the posts.

lately i feared i would be on the complaining side, as i gave away my hd7970/hd7970ghz/r9 280x(depends on what bios i use)to a friend which gfx card struggles with X-Rebirth, and using my old gtx 560 again. but guess what: antialiasing and ssao tuned down/off and it just runs the same, even on my server with warfare and 47 other nerds, the gtx gives a constant 45-60fps.

now i really think most guys with performance probs are just as smart as my morning toast.

[MavericK96 0]

The rig is old, 3 years is next to eternity in computer hardware and that's not subjective, invalidate this:

:

You turned down or outright disabled quite a few settings to achieve that performance, though. If I wanted to turn everything way down, sure, I could squeeze out a bit more performance. As is, having to do that to even get 40-50 FPS is not really acceptable, IMO.

The real issue, and this has been the issue since ArmA 2 and before, is that not all of the CPU and GPU horsepower are being utilized. It has nothing to do with settings, it's an engine limitation/issue that has persisted.

[iceman77 19]

When you complain about the terrible performance, please include the scenarios (missions) where the issue is present. And not just a claim .. "all of them!!" as this would only validate that your rig is poorly optimized or has some other problem. IE; Are you playing Joe Smoes small coop / SP mission and this is happening? Or are you playing domination or wasteland? On what server? Is the servers .cfg set up properly for the given scenario? (how would you know?). What's your log files look like? Are they huge? Is the mission spamming your rpt with errors?

Also please include your video settings. I think it's a bunch of bullshit to lay all of the blame on BIS. It's funny, because I know exactly what servers / missions to stay away from so that they don't cause major performance issues on my computer. If i stay away from those, then all if fine and dandy. I can't expect to play a ginormous mission full of objects / Ai, that isn't optimized, and have great performance. That has nothing to do with BI.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Iceman77

[CaptainObvious 95]

You turned down or outright disabled quite a few settings to achieve that performance, though. If I wanted to turn everything way down, sure, I could squeeze out a bit more performance. As is, having to do that to even get 40-50 FPS is not really acceptable, IMO.

What the actual fuck? Of course I turn things down to gain fps, this is a pc game, ffs. :mad:

The game is hands down the best looking shooter on the market, even with my wow so much disable settings.

Geez!

The real issue, and this has been the issue since ArmA 2 and before, is that not all of the CPU and GPU horsepower are being utilized. It has nothing to do with settings, it's an engine limitation/issue that has persisted.

Read my posts again, especially #104 in this thread.

Over and out :icon_evil:

[MavericK96 0]

What the actual fuck? Of course I turn things down to gain fps, this is a pc game, ffs. :mad:

The game is hands down the best looking shooter on the market, even with my wow so much disable settings.

http://img2u.info/ckgni/i/gc2cd0ccf.jpg

Geez!

Whoa...settle down. Many of us have powerful rigs that we spent a lot of time and money on, and when we're getting like 50% or less utilization of that hardware, it's hard to accept having to turn down half the options just to get 40-50 FPS. That, to me, and apparently many others, is not "fine" performance. If you're happy with that, good for you, but don't come in here and claim that the game runs great and that performance hasn't declined for anyone.

What are your system specs, by the way? I never saw you post them. Hard to compare our performance to yours when we don't even know what you're running.

We'll have to agree to disagree about "best looking shooter on the market". It certainly does a lot more than any other shooter, but games like Metro and Crysis 3 are absolutely more graphically superior...it's not even a question. Don't get me wrong, ArmA 3 looks great, but we have to be honest with ourselves here.

Read my posts again, especially #104 in this thread.

Over and out :icon_evil:

Uhm...okay? So you admit there are performance and optimization/utilization issues, and then in the next breath it's "the game runs fine for me". I guess we have a different definition of "fine".

[CaptainObvious 95]

Whoa...settle down. Many of us have powerful rigs that we spent a lot of time and money on, and when we're getting like 50% or less utilization of that hardware, it's hard to accept having to turn down half the options just to get 40-50 FPS. That, to me, and apparently many others, is not "fine" performance. If you're happy with that, good for you, but don't come in here and claim that the game runs great and that performance hasn't declined for anyone.

What are your system specs, by the way? I never saw you post them. Hard to compare our performance to yours when we don't even know what you're running.

We'll have to agree to disagree about "best looking shooter on the market". It certainly does a lot more than any other shooter, but games like Metro and Crysis 3 are absolutely more graphically superior...it's not even a question. Don't get me wrong, ArmA 3 looks great, but we have to be honest with ourselves here.

I apologize the hostility, I've had a bad day.

You actually quoted the post with my hardware, here, and once again, I'm not saying Arma runs as good as it could(should), but I'm getting a feel that many of the people who have problems with it, either don't know how to properly maintain their system or have unrealistic expectations on how Arma should run in their machine, or both.

About visuals, Crysis and Metro sure are masterpieces of atmospheric scenes and take full advantage of their engines what comes to eye candy, yet Armas realism is the thing that pleases me most of the trio, it's just so real.

Although, when something explodes in Arma I tend to look the other way because yea, yuck.

Uhm...okay? So you admit there are performance and optimization/utilization issues, and then in the next breath it's "the game runs fine for me". I guess we have a different definition of "fine".

Well, the fact that Arma runs around 50fps with my setting sure surprised me, I would've never thought it'd run so good with a rig this old.

I define fine so that the game pleases my eyes and runs smooth enough to be able to aim and shoot properly.

[windies 11]

BI stating that better concurrency is not important is akin to the NSA saying they don't spy on the american public. Just because a company makes a statement in support of their status quo doesn't automatically make it true. Sure it's a bit of a half truth, performance per core is not linear by any means, but it doesn't mean that the RV engine takes advantage of those cores to the fullest capacity.

And to be clear, it's not an issue of load being at 100% across all cores, which for some reason everyone loves to assume that is what people mean, but rather it's about what each core is doing and how concurrent the operations are. 50-50-50-50% usage across all cores would be just as useful as 100-100-100-100% usage across all cores. The fact that load is so unbalanced across, EX. 70-30-25-20% load across 4 cores, simply shows that everything is stuffed into a primary thread on one core, with little bits and pieces threaded out into other cores which in all likelihood probably slows down the main thread even more.

If hardware usage means nothing in the grand scheme of "Performance" why does performance drop in concurrency with usage? Why does a server only using 20% of a core drop to 5 fps, but then a server at 50 fps uses 70% of a core?

Edited November 18, 2013 by Windies

[MavericK96 0]

Why is it, then, that a great deal of games will utilize 4+ cores at 100% (and run much better), if it "doesn't matter"? No offense to BIS, but I don't really buy that argument.

Again, not bashing on ArmA 3, I play regularly, but performance is nowhere near what it should be and we are still stuck with these issues from years past. I just want some confirmation that something is actively being done about it.

It just makes me sad, as a long-time BIS fan, to see this issue go unsolved.

[windies 11]

@ Windies : Ondřej Španěl has written this in November 2009, announcing that "Real Virtuality [engine was] Going Multicore", it's not a pro-domo statement made today!

Doesn't really matter when it was said, it's still a half truth statement that tries to shift the blame or fault of the engine away from a glaring issue in their engine which is the poor multithreading performance and concurrency by saying that it's irrelevant. BI is a business and you're a consumer, they're not gonna say "Hey our engine is crap and we have no idea how to fix it" if that actually is the case. What they will say is something along the lines of:

It is important not to lose the sights from the goal, which is the performance increase. All other things are secondary. One example of wrong metrics is a concurrency level. Concurrency level tells us how much are the additional cores used. This factor is very easy to measure (you can do it in default system task manager), and that is probably why many hard core end users and reviewers are interested about it. Often you can see phrases like "Game XXXX is using quad cores very well, because when you watch CPU usage in task manager, you see all cores are running 100 %". It is very easy to create a trivial program which will make "full use of all cores" - all you need to do it to spawn a few threads and make them spin in an infinite loop. Concurrency is not a goal, only a mean. It is required, but not sufficient. Real life scenarios are more intricated then idle loops, but the principle is the same: using CPU does not mean you get any benefit from using it. In many cases the overhead of going "threaded" is so high that even when two cores are running 100 %, the performance improvement is very small, say about 20 % from single core, and the difference between quad and dual is even smaller.

and then hope the naive masses buy it rather than question them on it.

That whole statement is so stupid, it's like saying let's not lose sights on the goal, better fuel economy. Things like piston bore, fuel injection cycles and octane are all secondary. So we should focus on better fuel economy without focusing on HOW we get better fuel economy.

All we should focus on is the performance, not HOW we get that performance right?

You see what they did there? It's called smoke and mirrors. It's also stupid that they say other game engines only get good concurrency by running faux prime loops inside of their engine obviously to get good concurrency usage. "trivial program to run endless loops" = other game engines apparently in BI's eye's.

No really, it doesn't sound like anything is wrong when you read between the lines.... :rolleyes:

Edited November 18, 2013 by Windies

[dnk 13]

So, if you go into MP, you will have the exact same FPS as in SP on all servers? No server ever lowers your FPS? You never get FPS drops? I find that hard to believe...

From that post:

I don't doubt there are some MP issues, mind you (if this thread was just about MP, it escaped me, given how little info the many complainers are posting about their issues - mostly just huffing and redface and threatening and other such negativity).

To reiterate, there are MP issues. They need fixing, but this thread isn't clearly about MP-only issues as far as I can see (which isn't very far, given how opaque many of the complainers have been).

Also, 200 pages and a the most voted feedback ticket can't be shrugged off as a "minority". That's a very large percentage considering that's just 200 pages on this forum. Go look at the A3 community hub, reviews and etc. and you will see how many people are complaining about performance.

It can be called a "minority" still of the entire customer base. Last I checked very, very few customers ever post in the forums, and obviously this is going to be titled towards those who have problems since, you know, people without issues don't typically sit around making threads and celebrating the fact they have "acceptable FPS".

I don't see a reason for your sudden BI defence. None here is saying this game sucks or is insulting BI, people just want answers.

They are all over the forums since the alpha. Maybe I got this thread mixed up with others, but there's this animosity towards the devs/company that's completely uncalled for. Um, like the post above this one...

[windies 11]

NEWSFLASH: Calling someone out on their BS is now considered Animosity, more at 11.

Seriously, how is it animosity to point out the flaw in logic? That's the problem, the only way you can combat valid claims and valid criticism is to rage at them and try to act like it's some sort of conspiracy to destroy BI. If anyone is going to destroy BI, it will be BI themselves. They don't need any help from me nor would I be of any help in that endeavor. Change your name to DM Junior and get it over with.

[R0adki11 3949]

@all please keep things civil in this thread, otherwise punishments will be handed out.

[TSAndrey 1]

It can be called a "minority" still of the entire customer base. Last I checked very, very few customers ever post in the forums, and obviously this is going to be titled towards those who have problems since, you know, people without issues don't typically sit around making threads and celebrating the fact they have "acceptable FPS".

Obviously you don't expect every person with issues to go post about in the forums. If you look at the community hub, reviews, comments, videos, you will see a lot of complaints about performance (especially MP)