So that's it then...? Perrformance

[iceman77 18]

Finally someone with some sense. Sounds like forums are full of BI fanboys who think 40 fps is good when in reality this game is so stuttery at 40 fps and dips into the 20s very commonly.

As I stated in the thread, I'm talking about MP performance not single player. If MP ran anywhere near like single player I wouldn't be complaining.

You can go away with the fanboy bullshit. A stable 40fps is good in this series (the non stuttering kind:rolleyes:). I don't have problems in Mp, because I know which missions/scenarios/servers to stay away from. It's funny how using that sense you were talking about can keep me away from bad servers and missions to avoid poor performance. Also, as previously stated, there's an overwhelming amount of users with exotic hardware that seem to have these "problems". Why is it always these exotic machines that have said problems? People with that hardware seem to feel entitled to run 15k vd.. with ultra everything, simply because they can get away with it in other games. It's all or nothing (or a whole lot of complaining) with alot of you guys...

Edited November 30, 2013 by Iceman77

[KingScuba 1]

i guess my settings are just correct, since i can get 80 fps, 12000 view distance on a full I+A server

[ratszo 17]

30%, in what? Cats, dogs, tons of coal?

Doesn't matter, it's an 'Appeal to Numbers' to bolster a weak or false arguement.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

My favorite is, "...every player gets connected-automatically steals from me ~2 FPS" --an 'appeal to self-interest' or Avarce that's making the rounds in another thread as we speak.

Giorgy knows his philosophy and his satirical tour-de-farce is great fun.

And isn't it better to laugh at ignorance than dispair?

Thanks again Giorgy for the laugh.

[SnowSky 12]

Short answer is no, AI calculations are server-side. Netcode alone would make that idea unworkable. How would client calculations sync?

Headless client improves server performance BECAUSE AI calculations are no longer run on server.exe but on a separate arma.exe client thread on the same server hardware, 0 ping.

So, server has less ai overhead and ai have less server overhead, separate cycles.

You are both wrong, AI is handled by Servers and Clients.

Your Squad is always locally to you, and normally, units spawned by a script called on your computer, makes them also local to you.

[giorgygr 61]

@Ratszo

@NeuroFunker

I m really happy there are guys out there that realize my most-of-the-times hum0rous/satirical approaches but..

i m still disappointed with the performance in a large PvP gamemode when no obvious extra processing power is needed for AI and stuff..

*I also want to state THERE ARE NO LIES in my previous post-and anyone who needs more explanations regarding "numbers" and "names"..i can be awfully moar "specific"

[tremanarch 6]

in arma ll events are synced. and there fore the server fps has such a hit on the client fps i guess.

in dayZ they want to make smaller sync bubbles - that idea I had 2 years ago aswell.. but i am only a forum pleb..

in games like ps2 there is not so much that has to be snyced>: hitpoints - direction - walking speed.

in arma theres more.. the whole environment - car - open - times - state ..

and even in ps2 the bubbles are really small sometimes (popping players at 800m or so).. but its the modern approach.. star citizen will do it the same style aswell.

Edited November 30, 2013 by tremanarch

[giorgygr 61]

in arma ll events are synced. and there fore the server fps has such a hit on the client fps i guess.

in dayZ they want to make smaller sync bubbles - that idea I had 2 years ago aswell.. but i am only a forum pleb..

^THIS is a constructive post imo

[mihikle 2]

I play ArmA III at a stable 17 fps, and I love it. FPS is not important and should not be, it's the game itself that we love and play.

Also if the server your playing on is bad, then your client FPS is bad. When I recently played on a server from a different provider (I'd set it up in the same way) I saw an fps increase of 5 at least, just because it was a better server rig.

For the record, I have a pentium processor from the dark ages and a GTX 660 - so I can just about run ArmA 1! :D But I have no real problems in MP, if anything I've had an FPS INCREASE since ArmA 2. So your comments about the game not being well optimized etc are totally unfounded, by following the various guides I've boosted my fps by about 6-7. Be sure to remove grass, you gain 4-5 fps from that for no REAL loss. Put viewdistance down to 2000, you really don't need it much more than that unless you are flying, in which case you don't need to render everything in as much detail anyway!

[nikiforos 450]

Although I respect people opinions I can't really understand how someone can be happy with 20 or 30 FPS in the game. You have my respect guys , you are true heroes!!

[ratszo 17]

Although I respect people opinions I can't really understand how someone can be happy with 20 or 30 FPS in the game. You have my respect guys , you are true heroes!!

Nik, have you tried lowering your rez to gain frames? What resolution you running?

[Golden Cow 10]

"Can't get over 40 fps with a 4770k and gtx 780 ti sli. How is this even remotely acceptable?"

"How is this even remotely acceptable?"

o my lawd

You are hilarious man, I love you. Really anything over 40 FPS will be pretty much unnoticeable.

[Instynct 1]

"Can't get over 40 fps with a 4770k and gtx 780 ti sli. How is this even remotely acceptable?"

"How is this even remotely acceptable?"

o my lawd

You are hilarious man, I love you. Really anything over 40 FPS will be pretty much unnoticeable.

Maybe try doing research before posting something you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Game__On 10]

I play BF3 @ 120 fps , lightboost enabled. (NO motion blur whatsoever, CRT quality)

Then i try this game ... dear god :-(

[barakokula31 10]

and even in ps2 the bubbles are really small sometimes (popping players at 800m or so).. but its the modern approach.. star citizen will do it the same style aswell.

Actually, in Planetside 2 (I assume that's what you're referring to, not Playstation 2 :p), infantry renders at 300 meters, at least that's what pretty much everyone says on the forums.

That's pretty small. In Arma 3 that would be ironsight range.

Try putting your object draw distance to 300 meters, or even 500 meters, I bet you'll get way more than 60 FPS.

[ratszo 17]

Maybe try doing research before posting something you have no idea what you're talking about.

Here comes the obscure German study PROVING the human eye can detect 60fps.

[NeuroFunker 11]

I play BF3 @ 120 fps , lightboost enabled. (NO motion blur whatsoever, CRT quality)

Then i try this game ... dear god :-(

i play BF4 with low setting and its stuttering even then. When arma 3 runs stable on ultra with 3,5k view distance. But ofcourse, arma 3 is really badly optimized. Nothing like having huge maps of 1x1 km size, with 500m view distance compared to armas 3, tiny 270km² map, and "can't see firther then my own nose" 10km view distance...

[barakokula31 10]

i play BF4 with low setting and its stuttering even then. When arma 3 runs stable on ultra with 3,5k view distance. But ofcourse, arma 3 is really badly optimized. Nothing like having huge maps of 1x1 km size, with 500m view distance compared to armas 3, tiny 270km² map, and "can't see firther then my own nose" 10km view distance...

BIS, where's the like button on this forums?

[Minoza 11]

Here comes the obscure German study PROVING the human eye can detect 60fps.

It's about your input vs eye. Your eye alone probably wont notice the difference most of the time, but when your input comes in, your brain can distinguish the difference between 30, 60 and even 120 frames. It's the exact reason why you'll have harder time noticing only 30 fps when playing with joystick on a console (or PC for that matter) where you don't have that sort of input.

i play BF4 with low setting and its stuttering even then. When arma 3 runs stable on ultra with 3,5k view distance. But ofcourse, arma 3 is really badly optimized. Nothing like having huge maps of 1x1 km size, with 500m view distance compared to armas 3, tiny 270km² map, and "can't see firther then my own nose" 10km view distance...

Yeah, people are experiencing problems with BF but we're inclined to think they will fix it because they did fix their previous ones. Let's take a look at Arma 2 though with it's low CPU usage issue which magically appears once again in Arma 3. May I remind you that developers themselves acknowledged that problem in Arma 2 back then and said they wont fix it? Well here we are in Arma 3 with the same problem, and they acknowledged it once again but still nothing changed regarding it.

I'm glad game works fine for you btw., I recently posted a bench with screenshots of settings and my hardware specs in that Low CPU usage thread, feel free to take a look at it... That thread started back in alpha! I was one of the first posters there with info about it. I was surprised just to see this issue moving over to Arma 3, yet here we are... How long has it been now?

Edited December 1, 2013 by Minoza

[dnk 13]

I do agree that in video games you can tell the difference between 30 and 120FPS. That said, the difference between 20 and 40 is a hell of a lot larger than 40 and 120.

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

[barakokula31 10]

To everyone complaining about how BF is better optimized:

Go to Stratis and set your VD and object draw distance to 1000. Tell me what you get.

[Game__On 10]

To everyone complaining about how BF is better optimized:

Go to Stratis and set your VD and object draw distance to 1000. Tell me what you get.

In multiplayer ?

Exactly the same crap .

[barakokula31 10]

In multiplayer ?

Exactly the same crap .

Which mission?

[Game__On 10]

Every coop mission

[jamsus 11]

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/11/18/arma-3-gameplay-video-maxed-settings-at-2560x1440/

:D!

I run with a i5-2500k, 8gb DDR3, GTX 760 and not even an SSD.

I play with Razer booster and some script improvement on game-launch command line.

I keep almost everything on ultra\very high but the distance at 1400-2000, i run 30\40 fps smoothly and the game is very enjoiable.

I don't know on big multiplayer servers how is the situation, due to the high- processor dependant AI i think that you cannot maximize

the game without an heavy-hardware support.

Obviously there are some code\optimization issue, the Video-Card processor usually doesnt work at 100% so probably there are low-level computing that is not delegated to the GPU.

[barakokula31 10]

Every coop mission

Even, say, Escape from Stratis?