*Petition for performance optimization patch!*

[Kaxii 11]

/Sign, I just want them to "Nerf" trees with their epic FPS drops!

[dnk 13]

/Sign, I just want them to "Nerf" trees with their epic FPS drops!

Yeah, this is the only real FPS issue I have that's clearly caused by the engine/art. Trees just don't scale performance-wise like all other parts of the engine. I can turn everything to its lowest setting and get 40-50 FPS, but if there's a forest - bam, 20FPS or lower. The low-LOD models don't look that demanding either, so I don't get it.

[almanzo 144]

I wonder too :) Petition is a good idea, let's send cookies too, I'm sure devs will like it.

I would love to send you cookies, however, I am pretty sure they go stale before they reach you, as I live in Norway. It's pretty funny how some people seem to overlook the small title and your thumbnail both stating "BI dev".

Creds for bothering to reply to this, you deserve that cookie!

[defk0n_NL 2]

Surely it must be our fault, servers can impact FPS in the first place.

I am not trying to blame people running servers at all. Its just the way scripting works. A scripting interpreter is pretty much one big ass loop.

Sadly you cant just take a program and turn it into multicore applications. if it was not specifically built for it.

And besides that maintaining multi-core code costs 10x more money then single core code. Its extremely complex and you need several magicians and a child sacrifice in order for it to work. (im not talking about multi threading which is still blocking code).

The best way to write multicore applications in this day and age would be having a message queue like Erlang (language used in banking, Goldman Sachs etc).

ZeroMQ comes to mind

wishful thinking to the max.

[Dwarden 1125]

to OP: optimizations're worked on ...

A wild Dwarden appears...

i heard i'm lurky in shadows ... but you can't see me ...

[Johnson11B2P 3]

You are probably playing on Life or Domination server which costs the server a lot of Frames to run the mission. Find some groups out there that play with headless client and I promise you your experience on multiplayer will get better. Granted if they have a good mission maker who knows what they're doing.

[MavericK96 0]

It seems to be a deeper issue than just throwing out a few optimizations in a patch, unfortunately.

[Kerc Kasha 102]

It seems to be a deeper issue than just throwing out a few optimizations in a patch, unfortunately.

optimization by definition is a deeper issue.

it's not them literally flicking a switch and suddenly 60 fps for everyone.

The reason FPS is low is due to the amount of draw calls required for the amount of detail put into arma 3, it overloads the CPU which means the GPU is sitting around waiting for said draw calls to catch up before it can do anything leading to the low fps.

It takes a shit load of work from both programmers and asset makers and in some cases will lead to lower quality of scenes. Don't compare things like BF4 to Arma as battlefield needs to run on consoles shitty amount of ram so it will never reach anywhere near the same amount of drawcalls without hitting that ram limit

[jiltedjock 10]

Suppose the game isn't really optimized/designed for people with highly exotic top-end hardware? It seems the vast majority of performance complaints come from this crowd, while the budget gaming crowd has far fewer issues. I have a $400 rig, and the game plays as expected most of the time (unless there's lots of trees).

People with budget rigs rarely complain about poor performance as they expect it, so you have noticed that much. But the rest of your post is nonsense.

Unless you have an actual example of something in Arma that runs better on, say, a 2.4Ghz CPU compared to a 4.8Ghz because BIS designed it that way? But you don't.

[Game__On 10]

SIGNED

I should not be playing with 25 fps with an i3770K at 4,5 ghz, and TWO gtx 680's .

Oh, and a samsung SSD

COME ON THIS IS ENFURIATINGGGGGGG

[ratszo 17]

Depends ..., if the high-end user will only run the game at MAX resolution, MAX view, ULTRA setting, my low-end rig might best them in a benchmark.

Bis doesn't have anything to do with it, safe for allowing ultra settings.

Some people believe strongly they are entitled to run max/ultra settings because of the sticker on the front of their case.

[Harzach 2517]

Depends ..., if the high-end user will only run the game at MAX resolution, MAX view, ULTRA setting, my low-end rig might best them in a benchmark.

Bis doesn't have anything to do with it, safe for allowing ultra settings.

Some people believe strongly they are entitled to run max/ultra settings because of the sticker on the front of their case.

Exactly. Those with older machines complain less because they are using realistic settings. Those with new state-of-the-art machines tend to crank everything up to the highest settings. My OK rig does fine in I&A and Domi with relatively high settings and 3-5K view distance when driving/flying and 1-1.5K when on foot.

[[frl]myke 14]

Flamebaiting (and responses based on it) removed, infractions handed where required. Now back to a more civil tone please.

[St. Jimmy 272]

Promised? Really?

Yes some kind of blog was promised. Still wondering is it coming or not.

[ratszo 17]

Yes some kind of blog was promised. Still wondering is it coming or not.

Yeah, was thinking it might be a translation mix-up? I can see..., 'intend to'..., or, 'desire to',,,or even. 'really really want to'.

But, 'promise to'? --What if he crossed his fingers behind his back?

If true, "Promise" would be a very poor choise of words.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Ratszo
If true,

[Harzach 2517]

Yeah, was thinking it might be a translation mix-up?

Yeah, pretty rare to see devs make any promises (and who could blame them). More likely it was "something we're looking into" or "something we hope to implement".

[eXpouk 10]

I do notice that during SP my GPU usage is 99% but when playing MP it drops to 60-70% and so my fps drops... Very strange.

[CaptainObvious 95]

SIGNED

I should not be playing with 25 fps with an i3770K at 4,5 ghz, and TWO gtx 680's .

Oh, and a samsung SSD

COME ON THIS IS ENFURIATINGGGGGGG

I'm playing with 40+ fps with a 2500K @ 4.7GHz and a 570GTX, Arma installed on an SSD.

I do notice that during SP my GPU usage is 99% but when playing MP it drops to 60-70% and so my fps drops... Very strange.

What is the processor load respectively?

[dnk 13]

SIGNED

I should not be playing with 25 fps with an i3770K at 4,5 ghz, and TWO gtx 680's .

Oh, and a samsung SSD

1. An SSD will have 0 impact on FPS.

2. Another SLI rig... hmmm...

3. When and how are you playing at 25 FPS? SP or MP? With what settings? How many AI? What mission?

Unless you have an actual example of something in Arma that runs better on, say, a 2.4Ghz CPU compared to a 4.8Ghz because BIS designed it that way? But you don't.

I do not really understand your response.

[NeuroFunker 11]

anyway, we got enough trubleshooting threads, i guess we already figured out, petition is useless here and devs kinda replied about that too.

[Game__On 10]

I'm playing with 40+ fps with a 2500K @ 4.7GHz and a 570GTX, Arma installed on an SSD.

Oh really ?

In the editor in the desert @ 800x600 res ?

Cool , cool.

But what about multiplayer bro ? Domination coop for instance . Anything with a little A.I present.

@ DNK

Yes, SSD should have an impact on performance in THIS game, because for some reason this piece of software is unable to actually use your RAM for what it's supposed for, and seems to draw EVERYTHING from the hard drive.

Arma 3 says : "Whoops, got to give that house some textures ... hmm now where did i put those ... ah screw it i'll just take 5 seconds to find it on the harddrive > PLOP SCREECH CRANK, there we go" . (3 second lag)

Just like it was in Arma 2 . But then again, this game essentially IS arma 2 . Except with new skins for vehicles and weapons.

This game is like a skin-mod for Arma 2 , really nothing more.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Game__On

[lordprimate 159]

1. An SSD will have 0 impact on FPS.

this comment made my laugh... So Hard... really you are honestly going to state that SSD gives ZERO performance increase during gameplay, over an HDD... Having, not to long ago, swapped from a HDD to an SSD, I can honestly say you are Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! ............. Wrong! The game is consistently accessing my SSD... That made my laugh soo hard!! When i did the change I notice a quantifiable difference in gameplay and FPS... but hey ... what do i know other then, Actually Experiencing it...

[dnk 13]

@LP

Just reporting what's been said on the forums a good bit before. People have tested with RAM disks and SSDs. Never heard of them offering real performance gains until now.

Then I see in another thread that you, LP, have an odd rig and serious, unusual performance issues. Might be that whatever's causing those is causing the SSD to have an unusual effect.

Perhaps "0" is a bit strong, but 5% would seem high for FPS. The game loads in models and textures when they're available, and nothing until then (or lower-res cached ones). HDD speed correlates with pop-in delay. I'm sure there are a few odd instances when the engine gets held up on the HDD when there's a sudden big new scene to render (those 500ms lag spikes, perhaps), but that's a very small %age of gameplay. But, hey, it's helped you so good for you then. Hope the rest of your issues get fixed. Might want to try going solo with the GPU for a change to see if that helps.

@Game_On

One of the big issues is the lack of 64-bit support. Other than that, the game seems to use RAM fine. What specifically should it be doing better, or why isn't it doing it right?

[das attorney 858]

Arma 3 says : "Whoops, got to give that house some textures ... hmm now where did i put those ... ah screw it i'll just take 5 seconds to find it on the harddrive > PLOP SCREECH CRANK, there we go" .

That made me spit out my coffee!

[CaptainObvious 95]

Oh really ?

In the editor in the desert @ 800x600 res ?

Cool , cool.

But what about multiplayer bro ? Domination coop for instance . Anything with a little A.I present.

Haven't tried that resolution, quite surprisingly I use 1920x1080.

That 40+ FPS is in multiplayer, bro, depending on the server and the mission my FPS varies from ~30 to 60 fps, mostly it's around 50.

Altis Benchmark mission gave me an average of 47 FPS.

Edited December 2, 2013 by CaptainObvious
typo