FPS worse after latest stable update - BIS seriously why_

[Drakenof 11]

Daily and friendly reminder :

This game is the culprint. Not your hardware. Don't bash your heads against a wall trying to optimize something that can't be optimized.

[ratszo 17]

Daily and friendly reminder :

This game is the culprint. Not your hardware. Don't bash your heads against a wall trying to optimize something that can't be optimized.

: post removed[edit]

Sorry Drakenof, it was an off-colour comment, apologies.

[edit] scroll down to see the comment --this was during the "December War" to rid this forum of a serial troll infestion.

Forum's been better since.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Ratszo
: post removed[edit]

[bruhmis 10]

my logic? what the **** are you babbling about.

you are comeing in here and claiming that the game on your pc has a 300% decrease in performance over the last updates without providing a single evidence.

no performance logs etc. you are just making up random number.

I said roughly 300%. if you want to do the math for 60+ fps max settings - 50 FPS and lower on the lowest possible settings the game will allow then by all means, have at it, but 300% isn't too far off. the game doesn't touch my hardware when it updates. there is no involvement whatsoever with my hardware when the game downloads a new build, and even if there was that would still be the game's fault. this is the 4th time this has happened and every time I have to spend hour after hour for days at a time just trying to get the game I paid for to work. every time I've fixed it, it's just been from a combination of deleting/replacing things and various other tedious troubleshooting. so no, it's nothing to do with hardware, which was already obvious. I paid BIS and they shouldn't be breaking the product I bought and leaving me to figure out what they've done.

---------- Post added at 16:55 ---------- Previous post was at 16:52 ----------

Fair enough.

For troubleshooting, try some easy thing to do:

-"Verify cache" thru Steam.

-A full defrag. and restart.

Also can look at the Feedback tracker to add a bug report or make a new report:

I've verified and completely reinstalled to no avail. I'll resort to the bug tracker when I've exhausted all resources in terms of troubleshooting, though I doubt any submission I make will actually be reviewed.

[bruhmis 10]

@ Bruhmis : I am wondering about this so called "module" :

It seems that it is the cause of the issues. I have no such an item in my rig and once the game is updated by Steam it works on the spot.

you must have the collector's edition of steam then

[jw custom 56]

you must have the collector's edition of steam then

Supporter edition +15 fps :)

You not on supporter edition?

Seriously, i have never really noticed any performance drop/gain between updates.

[bruhmis 10]

Supporter edition +15 fps :)

You not on supporter edition?

Seriously, i have never really noticed any performance drop/gain between updates.

yeah, if it was happening for everybody then obviously everyone would be aware of it by now. I don't know what it is that's causing it in my case but I also don't have the resources or knowledge to figure out what it is. I'm hoping either a dev or someone with experience can point me in the right direction because otherwise I can literally never play the game again.

[Drakenof 11]

Who pissed in your cornflakes, Sunshine?

Bohemia Interactive.

[mobile_medic 43]

From my perspective, as someone who has spent more than two years reading and trying every possible tweak, suggestion, setting, etc in Arma 2, and now Arma 3 over multiple iterations of hardware (as well as corroborated it with other players and friends), it becomes increasingly tiresome to always hear "what are your settings, you probably just need to tweak?", or "if that's not it, it's probably your hardware", etc, etc be parroted as the most common responses to performance related issues. I also think the whole "bad mission scripting" is another stock response that (while certainly not completely irrelevant) in my opinion acts as a diversion for the underlying root issue more often than should be acceptable. Especially, since pretty much all of my testing is done in an empty editor, or in bohemia made missions.

So, some of us find it tiresome having to post our specs over and over, and be told the same things that we've already read and tried ad nauseum over the years.

There is a simple observable fact that this game doesn't seem to utilize more than 2 cores worth of CPU, but it apparently *needs* to. Either that, or there is some terrible bug in the code that has gone unnoticed all these years (though, the former, seems the more likely scenario, here). The only difference nowadays is that it spreads the usage out across all 8 of my threads, but it is still not using any more than 2 threads worth collectively, so the end result on performance is null.

GPU usage begins to go down when this limit of what the game can/will use of our cpu is reached. It causes fps to plummet anywhere from mildly to drastically. In empty rural areas, I've seen full GPU usage with beyond 60 fps on maxed out settings. On the other extreme, I've seen frame rates and gpu usage in the teens at 720p with everything turned down to the minimum when the game's utilization capacity is reached (which, for me, is in a lot of places/situations... including multiple Bohemia made showcase missions).

A hardware limitation would create an almost opposite result with usage spiking in more demanding areas (rather than plummeting) but still not being able to keep up (and fps suffering as a result).

Of course, not everyone posting about issues represents the entire player base. Likewise, not everyone posting about this issue represents the full demographic of people suffering from it. It's not like it hasn't been talked about for years or anything, though. In Arma 2, it ended when one of them finally said they are not willing to spend the time to fix it (though, that was in the more specific context of MP performance, IIRC). They surely know exactly what the problem is. They just don't seem to want to come out and say it directly, or clue us in as to what kind of improvement we should expect given the limitations imposed by the engine they built the game on. This is out of character for a company that is generally very communicative about other issues, and actively supports their games.

While, settings suggestions/tweaks, efficient mission design, meeting hardware specifications, etc, etc. all play a role in performance, and should all be troubleshooted first if someone has issues, they (in my opinion) serve as an excuse far too often. They provide cover for the underlying issue, far too often. They are allowed to provide cover b/c of the lack of definitive feedback/input/progress from Bohemia amidst the sea of misinformation. I'd be lying if I said it didn't make me wonder if this is partly intentional/welcomed by Bohemia as a result. Particularly when coupled with the CEO stating that alpha/beta helped them prioritize what was most important in their development process, but pretty much the most we've gotten out of all of the sitreps and spotreps with regards to this issue is... antivirus, ssd, and defrag... and, an old sticky in case you have thousands of people in your steam friends list :/

Individual performance issues could be from a wide range of things, this is true. I just think the emphasis placed on them by the community at large provides too much cover for the root issue. For my own performance issues, after Arma 2, Arma 3, lots and lots of testing and tweaking, 3 generations of hardware, and good old fashioned deductive reasoning and research, I'm convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the problem is not on my end, and is due to an inherent limitation in the game, or the engine upon which it was built.

If they would be more clear and say something honest and definitive one way or another about the issue, I for one would give them a lot more breathing room...

Edited December 13, 2013 by Mobile_Medic

[jw custom 56]

From my perspective, as someone who has spent more than two years reading and trying every possible tweak, suggestion, setting, etc in Arma 2, and now Arma 3 over multiple iterations of hardware (as well as corroborated it with other players and friends), it becomes increasingly tiresome to always hear "what are your settings, you probably just need to tweak?", or "if that's not it, it's probably your hardware", etc, etc be parroted as the most common responses to performance related issues. I also think the whole "bad mission scripting" is another stock response that (while certainly not completely irrelevant) in my opinion acts as a diversion for the underlying root issue more often than should be acceptable. Especially, since pretty much all of my testing is done in an empty editor, or in bohemia made missions.

Questions like "what are your specs and settings" are necessary to determine if complains like "my bf3 is running like 90 fps, i would expect atleast 81 in arma because bf3 is huge", "omg my 770 3gb oc +97734343 can't even have 100 units in the 15th smallest city on altis.... this sucks, what should i post on facebook???" is really valid...

[bruhmis 10]

Questions like "what are your specs and settings" are necessary to determine if complains like "my bf3 is running like 90 fps, i would expect atleast 81 in arma because bf3 is huge", "omg my 770 3gb oc +97734343 can't even have 100 units in the 15th smallest city on altis.... this sucks, what should i post on facebook???" is really valid...

yeah but people bring up specs when they couldn't be less relevant. I made a thread a while back about an update to the game causing crashes and unstable performance. the result was a thread full of people thoroughly convinced that my CPU was to blame for a game update changing something.

[jw custom 56]

yeah but people bring up specs when they couldn't be less relevant. I made a thread a while back about an update to the game causing crashes and unstable performance. the result was a thread full of people thoroughly convinced that my CPU was to blame for a game update changing something.

No doubt about that, there is many unjustified hardware blames around here but when you see people with higher specs than yourself claiming the game is unplayable then you start wonder....

[mobile_medic 43]

Nowhere did I claim that such things are not necessary. In fact, quite the opposite. I was merely pointing out that once you get beyond the obvious, such questions provide *too much* cover and too much diversion from the root issue with performance. Especially, once one has already been down that road and back several times and eliminated all reasonable end-user possibilities.

I'd also argue that claims such as the one put forth in your example, are less common than the times they get parroted out, highlighted, and repeated as alleged examples of the problem of people "complaining" about performance. I've seen on more than one occasion people being accused of having unreasonable expectations such as the example you provide even though they never indicated such an expectation. Though, even mentioning another game within this community can sometimes elicit some rather harsh knee-jerk reactions from the more hardcore devotees.

I was once told that my computer sucks and I should just admit it (based on no other information than I claimed poor performance and the other user said he didn't have performance issues, so I *must* have been a liar or had a shitty computer). A dev once posted a proposed solution to stuttering that arose in beta and specifically asked for feedback as to whether it worked or not. I posted that it did not resolve my stuttering issue and was outright dismissed as it being a problem with my computer. Even though the stuttering issue persisted, others reported it, and it became more pronounced when Altis first dropped. (Stutter is better these days, though, as long as fps doesn't get too low.)

One person with unreasonable expectations does not define the group, and you are giving an extreme example, in my opinion. I don't even find evidence to support a claim that the majority having issues have unreasonable expectations. And, I don't think trying to eek out a sustainable 30fps minimum (as in my case) on a machine convincingly exceeding the recommended specs is an unreasonable expectation. If it is, it shouldn't be.

I can reproduce the issue on an empty map, as pointed out. Others have too. But, people like to give extreme examples of the opposition when they don't share the same viewpoint. I couldn't imagine trying to play this game with 100 units. I can barely play it in an empty city as it is.

[Drakenof 11]

@ Drakenof : seeing you start your demo using "insane" Ultra+12 000m video settings makes my day.

What makes my day is people thiking it's actually " my " video.

[mobile_medic 43]

@OldBear. I am sincerely happy that the game seems to run well for you, overall. I wish I could say the same. I am fully aware of the kind of game that Arma is. But, for me, it is not a question of sacrificing visual quality in exchange for play-ability. I exceed the recommended specs quite handily, as mentioned already. Playing the game at cell phone quality, or fully maxed out makes little difference when this issue is occurring. I can get my share of non-playable (sub-30fps) gameplay in some of Bohemia's own showcase missions, and the like. So, no need to go into MP, or play custom user missions for that, which only open my reports up to claims of "bad mission scripting", etc, etc... And, is precisely why I avoid certain situations to remove as many variables as possible.

Arma is single core *ghz* hungry, sure... But, that is only b/c it refuses to eat from the full plate that is a modern processor. To say that Arma is CPU hungry, often carries with it the implication that it requires more than our cpu can give it. I do not believe this to be the case, and it is easy to demonstrate. To say that it is cpu hungry only makes me want to ask, "then why is it programmed to use so little of it?" And, no, a dual-core at 7ghz is not a valid solution to this problem, imo. If Arma is CPU hungry, then why is it eating through a straw? :)

Again, there is an assumption inherent in your post that I have unreasonable expectations, or am unwilling to sacrifice max settings or something in order to eek out a playable experience. This is not the case at all. The problem has been in trying to get a consistently playable experience *at all* (for me, since A2). cell phone resolution or maxed out to the brim makes little difference. An empty city is enough to reproduce the symptoms of this issue on a smaller scale (even with a 500m view distance). Going beyond that only makes it worse, and settings adjustments do little to alleviate it. Been there. done that. over and over.

peace.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

Great.

Now just looking at fire from close/medium proximity crashes my computer.

Can't even walk up to the WY-55 Hellcat helicopter, without the MROT snapping in hal.

BIS, please stop creating bugs.

[jsmuk 13]

Great.

Now just looking at fire from close/medium proximity crashes my computer.

Can't even walk up to the WY-55 Hellcat helicopter, without the MROT snapping in hal.

BIS, please stop creating bugs.

That sounds more like hardware failure than a bug in the game..

[bruhmis 10]

That sounds more like hardware failure than a bug in the game..

gleaming example of how the arma community blames hardware for things it's not even possible for hardware to be involved with.