So that's it then...? Perrformance

[Game__On 10]

Yes, every coop mission with A.I involved will turn into a slideshow after 10 to 20 minutes.

Epic coding .

Also @ Minoza

I'm pretty sure that this game has the exact same problems as Arma 2 , because it IS the exact same game . They've just changed the skins of the vehicles and weapons and that's it.

This game IS arma 2 .

[xXxatrush1987 10]

Yes, every coop mission with A.I involved will turn into a slideshow after 10 to 20 minutes.

Epic coding .

Also @ Minoza

I'm pretty sure that this game has the exact same problems as Arma 2 , because it IS the exact same game . They've just changed the skins of the vehicles and weapons and that's it.

This game IS arma 2 .

runnig benni edition warfare even without dedicated server(which is mental because every heavy mission should run on one) on a much weaker rig(2700k@4.4ghz) with avg35 fps after 3 hours.

rightly coded and it works, so i dont think all coop missions fail, the escape stratis/altis missions running well either.

evolution runs with medium bot count(~120 per town +vehicles/non dedi this time too) at around 30fps.

try running arma 2 maps in arma 3 you(or at least i) get avg 30-50% more fps with the same hardware on chernarus or zargabad.

warfare on sahrani even never goes lower than 100fps^^(server stuck at 50fps)

@ all: yes the eye can detect 120fps+(only movements and only black and white), its just about how trained the brain is.

a fact either is that all arma 3 gamers with an i5 2500k@4ghz+ can host better nd faster(when on same internet connection) than 80% of the multiplayerserver out there.

just the community server(not all) and some exeptions have enough crunching power to run 32+ players and 100bots+@over 15 server fps

[[frl]myke 14]

....because it IS the exact same game . They've just changed the skins of the vehicles and weapons and that's it.

This game IS arma 2 .

Thank you for proving that you know nothing about the game engine, really appreciate it. Be informed that almost every popular game series out there is based on "ancient" engines that are updated/reworked over time. From what i know, ArmA 2 was DX9 not DX11. But of course this can be easily done without major works on the engine.

[lordprimate 159]

if you look threw this thread and look at the dates/year that the posters join'd. You will see a trend...

You will see that the ones that are saying that 20-30 fps is acceptable are people that have been playing arma for over 4 years....

They are literally "BRAIN-WASHED" by Low FPS.. They accept it as law and anyone that questions it is a heretic, a blasphemer.... What a Crock of shit!!!!!! Then there are the comments about how much simulation is going on in Arma, compared to other games. And their right, Absolutely right ... but the point is.. This SHOULDN'T BE...... its been over 5 years since Arma 2 came out. Your all are telling me that in the time that Arma 2 was released and all the patches and updates it went threw, why are they just doing it all over again.. They (BIS) seem to have, not learned a thing about the problems in Arma 2 and are just repeating history.. Based on Arma 3's current state it is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS...

However, again, it has been over 5 years since Arma 2 came out... And you old heads, all honestly "Accept" low fps from Arma.... when its Painfully Obvious to any one that can connect the dots that this game is NOT where it should be. It is a seriously Limited Arma 2 with enhanced visuals, stereo sound, and all the same and new issues that should have been lessons learned from OFP, Arma , Arma 2... With that being said you get comments like," thanks for proving that you know nothing about game engine developement... " Im not saying that A3 is the EXACT SAME engine as A2... its the Problems that are STILL PRESENT.... from A2.. in A3... dont get it twisted, just to try and make your point valid!!!

Please dont get me wrong, "I am an Armaholic", however, I am not brainwashed by low FPS, I dont candy coat, and i dont polish turds..

I have a decent system. However, I can go from Everything "Disabled/Low" to "Ultra" graffix settings and not see any change in my games playability or FPS. I have been stuck around 20 fps since Alpha release.. As a matter of Fact i have actually gotten Worse performance from ARMA 3 since the beta was released... I just suck it up and keep pushing threw.. (Just like the Old heads that accept the poor performance as a trademark of Arma)

Amd 6100 @4.1Ghz Stable

2 x ATI Saphire 7950's in X'fire

360GB SSDrive

16Gb Ddr3 1800Mhz? memory

I had the game AutoDetect and Auto setup my graffix.. Everything was set to "Ultra" by the game itself.. But somehow i get shit performance in SP and MP... I get Shitty Fps, frame skipping, Lag, ETC.

I use Taw_VD mod and keep everything reasonable.. but hey .. ARMA....

Im sure to get comments about how X-Fire is not optimized for Arma and Ill get better frames if turn off X-Fire... Let me be the first to tell you all, that, that statement is bs. I get double the fps when i run Xfire... Dont even go there, because, I have tested it...

I use and test out different startup parameters, I am also testing out Fred41's memory allocator.. still no real performance increases..

There is also another trend I would like to point out... Most People with AMD processors have performances issues.. While those with Intel chips seem to fair better.. Most of the people that have NO problems with arma have an Intel chip that runs over 4Ghz. etc. but the thing that bothers me most is when people with Slower pieces of machinery have better game performance from Arma 3, then i do... And i bet the same goes for those people with "exotic high end PC's"... And why shouldn't they be... They have a "Next Gen" PC for a Next Gen" game... but somehow it doesn't perform.. There is NO reason a PC with All the bells and whistles, One Bad Ass, Fast, Balls to the wall CPU and the Fastest GPU or 2 of them shouldnt be able to run a higher VD.... I am NOT saying that 10000 VD is reaonable but 5k-6k should be acceptable and get decent performance...

I would like to hear a "rational" explanation as to how it is possible for a fast cpu, a fast gpu, a SolidStateDrive, and fast and abundant memory give slow performance?? No wait i know this... The answer can only be, poor code optimization!

I know as much as i bad mouth Arma 3, I dont play arma 2 anymore.. 3 just looks better. I play everyday, and sometimes hours on end. I just think that, when you settle and accept 20-30 fps as, well, Acceptable. then well thats all you going to get... IF you expect and demand better well the software Co usually catches on and works to that end... But after years of people being complacent with the state of the game.. well you get what you get..

Edited December 2, 2013 by Lordprimate

[[frl]myke 14]

I would like to hear a "rational" explanation as to how it is possible for a fast cpu, a fast gpu, a SolidStateDrive, and fast and abundant memory give slow performance?? No wait i know this... The answer can only be, poor code optimization!

Could you, please, explain me why other people with inferior hardware get better performance than you? If it's the code, then everyone would have the same horrible performance. So what are the variables then? Hmmm.....personal system maintenance? Different hardware driver settings? Different hardware? Surely all of which BI is responsible for...oh, wait.

And no, also the long time player wont state that 20 FPS is acceptable. Some of them turn down viewdistance from 5 km to 4 km and up they go with 40+ FPS. Others do file reports on the bugtracker, providing valuable information about their system and settings, putting BI in the position to track down and (hopefully) fix the issues. And then there's the rest.....

[dnk 13]

LP:

....

X'fire

....

terrible performance

....

This pattern keeps repeating throughout the forums. It was as if exotic hardware setups don't get along well with the engine...

20FPS isn't acceptable, but 35-45 is usually (in just about any game). If I'm playing a fast gamemode like KOTH, I might want 45-60, but I can settle on the lower end. This is true for every game I play: anything over 50FPS is excess, anything under 30 is painful, and somewhere around 45 is "good".

Doesn't take much brainwashing by BI when most video game players have been having "29.95FPS" shoved down their throats for decades by the consoles...

Edited December 2, 2013 by DNK

[tvig0r0us 27]

I usually don't get into these threads much, but I have to admit, I've haven't played Arma 3 seriously for quite some time now because of the poor performance. Yes, I'm able to get a decent frame rate when I'm runninng around in the middle of no where with very few ai and vehicles on the map, but once the action starts my framerate dopps dramatically, usually winding up somewhere around 19 - 25 fps. I don't really think that's acceptable from a i7 3770k rig with a Radeon 6950 since every other game I own, bar none, is as smooth as silk on my machine... Including Arma 2. I've tried every optimization trick I could get my hands on, and I even went out and blew $400 trying to get my rig up to snuff for this game, but this lackluster framerate is all that I got. I'm not even sure why I'm posting in here other than the disgust I feel when you Arma diehard faithfull jump on everyone else that is having problems with the game and isn't satisfied by totally poor performance at a premium price, including a moderator of the forum. I've been playing these arma games for years and the same thing always jumps out at me, bad performance. At least all that money bought me a great playing arma 2.

[Minoza 11]

Myke;2568707']...

And no' date=' also the long time player wont state that 20 FPS is acceptable. [b']Some of them turn down viewdistance from 5 km to 4 km and up they go with 40+ FPS[/b]. Others do file reports on the bugtracker, providing valuable information about their system and settings, putting BI in the position to track down and (hopefully) fix the issues. And then there's the rest.....

Would love to see this! I can only dream of hitting 40fps with 4k VD... What's the hardware those people are using and which missions do they play? I'm forced to play on 1500 VD on my 3770K 4.4GHz, 16GB ram, GTX670 rig just to get stable 50's with dips to 40, sometimes a bit below. I'm talking about MP here, given that server itself is not fckin' up my performance. Campaign goes with 2.5k VD and I get decent 40's then... I'm curious, how do people manage to get performance like that? Btw. I tested on both Windows 7 and fresh Windows 8.1 installs, same happens. Same happened to me with other rig, and same happened to me in Arma 2, so I'm really curious about what you say, how to achieve that?

[iceman77 18]

if you look threw this thread and look at the dates/year that the posters join'd. You will see a trend...You will see that the ones that are saying that 20-30 fps is acceptable are people that have been playing arma for over 4 years....

Who said 20 or 30 fps was acceptable? I know I did not. I think you're lying just to get your point across. At that, followed by a gigantic rant. The only times I've EVER went to 20 fps or below were in poorly optimized servers and/or poorly optimized user missions. Funny how after that, I could hop into a good server with an optimized scenario, with more AI, and run smooth as glass. The majority of these performance complaints are directed at the wrong persons.

[ratszo 17]

".... I'm forced to play on 1500 VD on my 3770K 4.4GHz, 16GB ram, GTX670 rig just to get stable 50's with dips to 40...."

And there it is.

[Minoza 11]

".... I'm forced to play on 1500 VD on my 3770K 4.4GHz, 16GB ram, GTX670 rig just to get stable 50's with dips to 40...."

And there it is.

Don't get me wrong. I'd be fine with that if it wasn't for people claiming getting same fps with 3 times that VD on similar or even lower end hardware... I simply wonder how when even SP campaign won't run that good for me on those settings let alone the MP... I was one of the first posters in "Low CPU usage" thread because I was surprised to see this problem persist in Arma 3 after I've been battling it in Arma 2. Changed hardware since then, changed OS but issue remained. I was hoping it would get fixed until beta or release but nothing changed, instead, my performance degraded even further especially with recent patches.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Minoza

[ratszo 17]

Don't get me wrong. I'd be fine with that if it wasn't for people claiming getting same fps with 3 times that VD... I simply wonder how when even SP campaign won't run that good for me on those settings... I was one of the first posters to that "Low CPU usage" thread because I was surprised to see this problem persist in Arma 3 after I've been battling it in Arma 2. Changed hardware since then, changed OS but issue remained.

Maybe they run a lower screen rez than you to push out the view distance?

ps- thx for my new sig.

[iceman77 18]

Even, say, Escape from Stratis?

Nah. He's just another person lying to make their points seem valid.

---------- Post added at 06:50 ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 ----------

Epic coding .

Tell us how. Point out some bad BI code please. I'm not saying there is 0 bad code in Arma3. But since you seem to know BI code through and through... you can enlighten us.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Iceman77

[Minoza 11]

Maybe they run a lower screen rez than you to push out the view distance?

ps- thx for my new sig.

What is it that you find so amusing in my comment?

[tvig0r0us 27]

Myke;2568707']Could you' date=' please, explain me why other people with inferior hardware get better performance than you? If it's the code, then everyone would have the same horrible performance. So what are the variables then? Hmmm.....personal system maintenance? Different hardware driver settings? Different hardware? Surely all of which BI is responsible for...oh, wait.

And no, also the long time player wont state that 20 FPS is acceptable. Some of them turn down viewdistance from 5 km to 4 km and up they go with 40+ FPS. Others do file reports on the bugtracker, providing valuable information about their system and settings, putting BI in the position to track down and (hopefully) fix the issues. And then there's the rest.....[/quote']

Why don't you explain it??? I'm dying to know the answer to this since I spent roughly $400 trying to get my rig in shape to run this game and top dollar for the supporters edition of the game in the hopes that the engine would manifest some performance improvements, only to find that everything leading to the games poor performance is apparently my fault and the fault of all those that contributed funds to its development. By the way, I can turn every setting in the game down, including resolution and only gain about 5 frames. You can call it whining or whatever you want, but for my $90 bucks, I'm going to say something when the product doesn't perform up to snuff despite my every effort to facilitate a proper running environment for it.

[iceman77 18]

What is it that you find so amusing in my comment?

I think because you were complaining about having to turn your VD down to 1500m in order to achieve a stable 50fps.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Iceman77

[[frl]myke 14]

but for my $90 bucks, I'm going to say something when the product doesn't perform up to snuff

You're very welcome to do so.

Why don't you explain it???

Believe me, i would love to explain in detail why it doesn't run as it should on some users. Sadly i don't know the reason since obviously i can't check every users PC for bloatware, viruses, outdated drivers and whatever problem could possibly exist. What i do know, i play custom made coop missions (not made by me, i'm not good at making missions) on servers with 50+ players and enough AI to keep those player quite busy with 40+ FPS and 4000m VD.

If the only problem would be the engine and game, then this would be impossible. Accepting that fact, conclusion says that there is something connected with players PC's that cause this poor performance. I will happily check your system to find out what's wrong. Please send it to me, fees to your discretion.

[ratszo 17]

What is it that you find so amusing in my comment?

Not amusing, no.

I find the quote candid, truthful and given in good faith.

It's sig worthy because it is ..., candid, truthful and given in good faith.

Trouble shooting is often subjective..., the goal-posts shift depending on point of view.

Your quote is a useful subjective benchmark.

[Minoza 11]

I think because you were complaining in a 'poor performance' thread about how you had to turn your VD down to 1500 *gasps* in order to achieve a stable 50 fps.

But I didn't, he took it out of context obviously. Please read my post again and then read one post below yours and you'll get the idea of what I was talking about. As I've said, I'd be perfectly fine with that if it wasn't for people claiming getting better performance on higher settings, that's what's bothering me and I politely asked for info regarding configs and settings used. Couple of guys I know run the game on same settings as I do, with lower end hardware and getting the same framerate, that's what's bothering me as well. When I look at CPU and GPU usage just to see that the stuff is pretty much idling while I'm watching slideshow, than that's what's bothering me as well.

Btw. @Ratszo

You completely missed the point of my post on purpose.

I honestly couldn't care less about random trolls like you taking my comments out of context just to amuse themselves with what they find an amusing sig.

I wish you all the best and don't expect me to reply to you anymore.

[iceman77 18]

But I didn't, he took it out of context obviously. Please read my post again and then read one post below yours and you'll get the idea of what I was talking about. As I've said, I'd be perfectly fine with that if it wasn't for people claiming getting better performance on higher settings, that's what's bothering me and I politely asked for info regarding configs and settings used. Couple of guys I know run the game on same settings as I do, with lower end hardware and getting the same framerate, that's what's bothering me as well. When I look at CPU and GPU usage just to see that the stuff is pretty much idling while I'm watching slideshow, than that's what's bothering me as well.

Gotcha now. All's I read was his quote of you lol. Which I may say was pretty underhanded because he took what you said waaaayy out of context. For whatever reason.. who knows?

Edited December 2, 2013 by Iceman77

[windies 11]

Myke;2568960']You're very welcome to do so.

Believe me' date=' i would love to explain in detail why it doesn't run as it should on some users. Sadly i don't know the reason since obviously i can't check every users PC for bloatware, viruses, outdated drivers and whatever problem could possibly exist. What i do know, i play custom made coop missions (not made by me, i'm not good at making missions) on servers with 50+ players and enough AI to keep those player quite busy with 40+ FPS and 4000m VD.

If the only problem would be the engine and game, then this would be impossible. Accepting that fact, conclusion says that there is something connected with players PC's that cause this poor performance. I will happily check your system to find out what's wrong. Please send it to me, fees to your discretion.[/quote']

You don't know the reason but you're 100% sure it's not the code or the engine. Moderator logic ftw....

And whats with the hostile attitude towards people with issue's? Wouldn't it be better to help people instead of berating and insinuating they are lying? Or maybe culling the obvious shit posts that are nothing but flame bait and full of personal insults?

Edited December 2, 2013 by Windies

[[frl]myke 14]

You don't know the reason but you're 100% sure it's not the code or the engine. Moderator logic ftw....

It's not only the code.....else everyone would have the same issues. Yep, indeed, it's called "logic". You're welcome.

To countercheck: if the engine is that bad, how come that quite a few players don't have those issues?

[windies 11]

Myke;2568977']It's not only the code.....else everyone would have the same issues. Yep' date=' indeed, it's called "logic". You're welcome.

To countercheck: if the engine is that bad, how come that quite a few players don't have those issues?[/quote']

Because of how the engine interfaces with certain drivers or certain brands of hardware, I.E. Intel or AMD and because of certain code instructions or paths used in compiling the source. Because of individual hardware's architecture and the inability of the developers to actually develop for more than 1 type of hardware, I.E. the $1000 3980X kind which still has issue's with the game. Many different reasons that have nothing to do with the end users responsibility and a lot to do with the developers responsibility. Yep, "Logic".

Also the fact that everyone in here bitching and moaning is using a hodge podge of anecdotal information to compare against more anecdotal data. For example, "I get 60 fps constant with no AI on full high settings on my GT 640 and core i3" versus " I get 20-40 fps on my i7 4770k and GTX 670 with AI running around in multiplayer".

Truly, are you trying to say there is no issue with the game, it's an issue with everyone else? Surely you're not the blind or jaded.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Windies

[CaptainObvious 95]

You don't know the reason but you're 100% sure it's not the code or the engine. Moderator logic ftw....

Well the only difference in a system running the game bad, and a system running the game good is the system itself, there has to be some issues also with the bad performing rigs, otherwise no-one would be running the game ok.

And whats with the hostile attitude towards people with issue's? Wouldn't it be better to help people instead of berating and insinuating they are lying?

I've tried to ask for details and accurate specs from people who have a hard time getting the game running good, either I'm given no info, or being called a liar because surely I can't have a game that runs good because impossible and shit coding and ancient angine and whatnot.

Edited December 2, 2013 by CaptainObvious

[windies 11]

Well the only difference in a system running the game bad, and a system running the game good is the system itself, there has to be some issues with the bad performing rigs, otherwise no-one would be running the game ok.

I've tried to ask for details and accurate specs from people who have a hard time getting the game running good, either I'm given no info, or being called a liar because surely I can't have a game that runs good because impossible and shit coding and ancient angine and whatnot.

Well to be fair, nothing so far has really been very helpful as far as providing an unbiased and sterile "environment" for comparison. From the fact that you have people who would give their kidney to defend BI to the people who would give a kidney to destroy BI and everything in between. Even BI themselves have really done nothing except sticky a 200 page thread about performance issue's that's pretty much useless at this point. No feedback from them on performance, no discussion on performance and proper procedure's to actually help them out in finding the root causes of issue's. That is what is driving the hostile attitude towards BI and you can't blame people for being a bit pissed off when they buy something for $60-90 and it runs badly for them and they try to diagnose the problem themselves and then they get nothing in return from the developer that sold it to them.

I also find that people lie, either to make it seem worse or to bolster their point and make it seem like there's no issue at all. Hell someone was toting about how they got 100 fps on their GT 640 and i3 on high/very high settings and it's obvious BS.