So that's it then...? Perrformance

[carlostex 38]

I run this game in minimal settings, 1600 view distance, no shadows, pretty much every thing on low, with a Core 2 Duo @3.6GHz and a Radeon 4850. No SSD. I can enjoy the game with FPS between 20 - 40 FPS and the game is pretty playable, except on high poly towns and loads of AI. Then FPS can go as low as 15.

But if someone with a 4770, GTX 780 SLI and probably a SSD can't enjoy this game i suggest he/she writes his/her own Real Virtuality engine, preferably in assembler, and stop complaining about the game. Maybe it stops the flurry of idiotic comments about bad code too.

[tvig0r0us 27]

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 Sadly i don't know the reason since obviously i can't check every users PC for bloatware, viruses, outdated drivers and whatever problem could possibly exist.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']

I didn't say the problem is all the game, but you can't seriously be implying that it's all everyone else's computer either. I really resent the fact that your entire post is predicated on the transference of the problem off of the game and onto the users as though none of us know how to build or maintain a system. I wouldn't be as animated about this if this problem was present in most of the games, or even a few of the games I run on my system, but as I state previously it's exclusive to this game. Furthermore, your suggestion that I should send my system to you is riddled with arrogance and delivered with indignation which I frankly have no appreciation for. Your imagined authority on the subject doesn't run anywhere outside of your own experience with the game, which you made clear in your post is the only thing about it that you "do know". With that it's apparent that neither this game, or this company is going to earn any more of my business and if there are more people out there that feel the way I do (after this conversation), which I'm certain there are, BIS is clearly going the way of Code Masters... we all know where that ends.

[ratszo 17]

But I didn't, he took it out of context obviously....

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.

Regarding context, does an unattributed sig quote require annotation for context?

Would you prefer i attribute the quote to you and hot-link the page so readers can judge context?

I will with your permission.

Regarding "....don't expect me to reply to you anymore." Reference: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS/page234

Where you ask me:

If it's not too much of a hassle, can you post your complete specs (OS as well) and do a bench (FRAPS is ok) at campaign start, heli ride to be more precise? If you could show/tell me your in game settings as well that would be great! We could then compare those with my results on previous page.

So after dl'ing fraps, running benchmarks, compiling specs & setting at your request, i still wait for a reply from you a week later.

Were you trolling me then?

[iceman77 18]

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

It's a two way street though. What do you know about the games code? Can you point out where /what / which 'code' is at fault even? All this talk about the game engine code... and yet the vast majority of the community know nothing about it. Myself included. All's I do know is this:

- I've a mid range machine (barely)

- I can play MP just fine

- I know which servers and missions to steer clear of (just because a mission is trendy or "cool" or "hip" to play, doesn't mean it's optimized, quite the opposite, in that they (big fancy missions) usually bog servers and clients down with so many scripts)

- There seems to be this sense of entitlement coming from people with exotic PCs. In that, if they can't run Arma just like they do every other game, then it's automatically Arma's fault.

[Tyl3r99 41]

It's a two way street though. What do you know about the games code? Can you point out where /what / which 'code' is at fault even? All this talk about the game engine code... and yet the vast majority of the community know nothing about it. Myself included. All's I do know is this:

- I've a mid range machine (barely)

- I can play MP just fine

- I know which servers and missions to steer clear of (just because a mission is trendy or "cool" or "hip" to play, doesn't mean it's optimized, quite the opposite, in that they (big fancy missions) usually bog servers and clients down with so many scripts)

- There seems to be this sense of entitlement coming from people with exotic PCs. In that, if they can't run Arma just like they do every other game, then it's automatically Arma's fault.

nail on the head there my friend... well done :)

[windies 11]

It's a two way street though. What do you know about the games code? Can you point out where /what / which 'code' is at fault even? All this talk about the game engine code... and yet the vast majority of the community know nothing about it. Myself included. All's I do know is this:

- I've a mid range machine (barely)

- I can play MP just fine

- I know which servers and missions to steer clear of

- There seems to be this sense of entitlement coming from people with exotic PCs. In that, if they can't run Arma just like they do every other game, then it's automatically Arma's fault.

Since I don't have the source sitting in front of me, I know very little though I can infer a some from various issue's. I also never tried to shove the blunt of the problem on to one side either like Myke did by saying that it's obviously the end users machine and he's 100% sure of that.

I also have far from an exotic PC, and the only real big complaint I have is with the MP performance and issue's. What I am tired of is this bullshit arguing and blatant fanboying that goes on. Let's all be condescending assholes simply because we don't have issue's and we love BI and treat everyone with a contradicting opinion or problem like shit.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Windies

[iceman77 18]

... I am tired of is this bullshit arguing and blatant fanboying that goes on. Let's all be condescending assholes simply because we don't have issue's and we love BI and treat everyone with a contradicting opinion or problem like shit ... far from an exotic PC

I'm tired of all of the complaints being directed at the wrong people is all. You just basically said your pc is shit and still wanna hang in there with the old "Arma - bad code - bad MP performance" stuff. :rolleyes: Then ofcourse, an angry reply isn't nothing with out the word "fanboy" or "hater" in there somewhere.

What's your favorite MP mission / scenario to play Windies? What do you play most?

[tvig0r0us 27]

It's a two way street though. What do you know about the games code? Can you point out where /what / which 'code' is at fault even? All this talk about the game engine code... and yet the vast majority of the community know nothing about it. Myself included. All's I do know is this:

- I've a mid range machine (barely)

- I can play MP just fine

- I know which servers and missions to steer clear of (just because a mission is trendy or "cool" or "hip" to play, doesn't mean it's optimized, quite the opposite, in that they (big fancy missions) usually bog servers and clients down with so many scripts)

- There seems to be this sense of entitlement coming from people with exotic PCs. In that, if they can't run Arma just like they do every other game, then it's automatically Arma's fault.

Minimum system requirements

•OS: Windows Vista SP2, Windows 7 SP1

•PROCESSOR: Intel Dual-Core 2.4 GHz, AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz

•GRAPHICS: NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT, ATI Radeon HD 3830, Intel HD Graphics 4000

•GPU MEMORY: 512 MB

•DirectX: 10

•RAM: 2 GB

•HARD DRIVE: 15 GB free space

•HARD DRIVE: (ALPHA) 10 GB free space

•AUDIO: DirectX® compatible on-board

•OTHER: Internet connection and free Steam account to activate

Recommended system requirements

•OS: Windows Vista SP2, Windows 7 SP1

•PROCESSOR: Intel Core i5-2300, AMD Phenom II X4 940

•GRAPHICS: Nvidia GeForce GTX 560, AMD Radeon HD 7750

•GPU: MEMORY 1 GB

•DirectX: 11

•RAM: 4 GB

•HARD DRIVE: 25 GB free space

•HARD DRIVE: (ALPHA) 20 GB free space

•AUDIO: DirectX® compatible soundcard

•OTHER: Internet connection and free Steam account to activate

My system:

Intel i7 3770k

Radeon 6950 2Gig

16 Gig crucial ram

2 gig WD HD

1.5 gig WD HD

I didn't publish their specs, they did. I paid an additional $400 so that I could get my system up to their specs. I'd say my $90 makes me entitled to what I paid for as far as the games go and 20fps amidst a little bit of combat just isn't cutting it. I wasn't under the impression when I got the game that it was supposed to be a glorified version of google earth. I thought I was going to be able to put some soldiers on the map and have a big fight.

[iceman77 18]

My system:

Intel i7 3770k

Radeon 6950 2Gig

16 Gig crucial ram

2 gig WD HD

1.5 gig WD HD

I didn't publish their specs, they did. I paid an additional $400 so that I could get my system up to their specs. I'd say my $90 makes me entitled to what I paid for as far as the games go and 20fps amidst a little bit of combat just isn't cutting it. I wasn't under the impression when I got the game that it was supposed to be a glorified version of google earth. I thought I was going to be able to put some soldiers on the map and have a big fight.

Dang. 20fps with all of that hardware... with only a "little" bit of combat. So, basically, it's 100% the games fault contradictory of what you just told Myke? So, you throw a few units / AI on the map, invite some buddies in there, and it's just a giant lag fest? That's really hard to believe.

I didn't say the problem is all the game ...

[windies 11]

I'm tired of all of the complaints being directed at the wrong people is all. You just basically said your pc is shit and still wanna hang in there with the old "Arma - bad code - bad MP performance" stuff. :rolleyes: Then ofcourse, an angry reply isn't nothing with out the word "fanboy" or "hater" in there somewhere.

What's your favorite MP mission / scenario to play Windies? What do you play most?

I didn't say my system was shit, I just said it wasn't exotic by any means. Sadly this is the depth of logic I have come to expect from you thus far.

As for my favorite mission or scenario, I play with a group and they play many many many different types of missions and scenario's.

[Defunkt 431]

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.

With 63 other players? Generally a slide show.

[tvig0r0us 27]

Dang. 20fps with all of that hardware... with only a "little" bit of combat. So, basically, it's 100% the games fault contradictory of what you just told Myke? So, you throw a few units / AI on the map, invite some buddies in there, and it's just a giant lag fest? That's really hard to believe.

I didn't notice any quantitative data in my post other than their specs and my frame rate. Even if its only 50 percent the game it's still too much for my $90. Didn't BIS already acknowledge problems in the engine?? I already know the issues that exist on my system... I want bis to fix the issues in the game.

Edited December 2, 2013 by tvig0r0us

[ratszo 17]

With 63 other players? Generally a slide show.

Without posting specs & setting, Your "slide show" assertion is meaningless.

But i got a hunch you know that.

[NeuroFunker 11]

well th op is obviosly, former cod and bf player, who used to play "i must repeat that billions of times" 1x1km sized maps, with 500m view disatnce. He can't simply figure out, maybe bad maths in school? What 270km² are. He can't figure out, all of the missions and servers, aren't bis official servers, with official missions. Are mostlikely selfbuild pcs, not the most powerful ones, with custom missions, with tons of custom scripts, and aren't mostly well or optimized at all. Yes not knowing all that, can be frustrating, but what can BI do all all this? Forbid server hosting with custom missions, so people won't get frustrated? Allow only hosting for good pc builds? Allow only BIS "mission quality pass" or something? Just yelling "my uber highend pc, has 40 fps" won't help mch. And for 100th time, i'm playing with my clan from a3rc.com comunity, where we are having 100+ players pvp games, without lags and stable performance. I guess, we are having some "special arma 3 build" with +200% performance, 100% 4 core cpu and gpu usage, and -100 pings?

---------- Post added at 20:23 ---------- Previous post was at 20:19 ----------

With 63 other players? Generally a slide show.

And what about fluid 100 players games, i'm playing?

[Minoza 11]

Ok let's go then...

Fresh benchmark done just now at the start of campaign, I'm using those first scenes and helo ride as benchmark. Using mostly autodetect settings with few exceptions (manually lowered AA and removed ATOC, increased shadow render distance). These are the settings:

Pic 1

Pic 2

Pic 3

And these are the bench results:

2013-12-02 20:10:20 - arma3

Frames: 6547 - Time: 230187ms - Avg: 28.442 (<-pretty much what I get all the time) - Min: 8 - Max: 52

Before making any judgements/suggestions please take a look at these:

CPU

GPU

These are screens of CPU and GPU usage, please tell me if you see something odd there, I know I do. Oh and please ignore task manager reporting wrong CPU frequency, it's actual speed during gameplay is 4.4GHz.

Specs:

i7 3770K @4.4GHz

16GB ram

GTX 670

SSD

Windows 8.1 x64

Edited December 2, 2013 by Minoza

[CaptainObvious 95]

^ Disable SSAO and caustics, you won't notice a difference and gain a considerable fps boost, PIP maybe to standard too.

Also I might suggest turning the FSAA to 2x and increasing the AA in Nvidia Control Panel to 16x or 32x CSAA.

[NeuroFunker 11]

^ Disable SSAO and caustics, you won't notice a difference and gain a considerable fps boost, PIP maybe to standard too.

Also I might suggest turning the FSAA to 2x and increasing the AA in Nvidia Control Panel to 16x or 32x CSAA.

if you replace games AA with from nvidia control panel, there no need to set 2x in game i think. Eaither in game or nvidia panel.

[ratszo 17]

.... And for 100th time, i'm playing with my clan from a3rc.com comunity, where we are having 100+ players pvp games, without lags and stable performance. I guess, we are having some "special arma 3 build" with +200% performance, 100% 4 core cpu and gpu usage, and -100 pings?

But that's a Russian server, right?

Everybody know Russian geeks build super computers from broken toasters & discarded cell-phones.

I call "shenanigans"!

Seriously tho, if you know the server setting, can you PM them to me for my server guy?

[CaptainObvious 95]

if you replace games AA with from nvidia control panel, there no need to set 2x in game i think. Eaither in game or nvidia panel.

Thin objects, such as tv antennas, wire fences and power lines look a lot better if the game AA is set to 2x, of course one can disable it altogether to gain maybe a few frames.

[Minoza 11]

^ Disable SSAO and caustics, you won't notice a difference and gain a considerable fps boost, PIP maybe to standard too.

Also I might suggest turning the FSAA to 2x and increasing the AA in Nvidia Control Panel to 16x or 32x CSAA.

I did as you suggested and ran a bench again, results:

2013-12-02 21:00:12 - arma3

Frames: 5931 - Time: 216344ms - Avg: 27.415 - Min: 6 - Max: 53

For the sakes of testing I didn't turn on the NV AA settings, using ingame FSAA x2 only.

Kind of pointless to turn the GPU intensive settings down when my GPU isn't even utilized, wouldn't you agree? This just proves my point, by lowering GPU intensive settings, GPU just gets even less utilized giving even less fps.

[CaptainObvious 95]

I did as you suggested and ran a bench again, results:

2013-12-02 21:00:12 - arma3

Frames: 5931 - Time: 216344ms - Avg: 27.415 - Min: 6 - Max: 53

Kind of pointless to turn the GPU intensive settings down when my GPU isn't even utilized, wouldn't you agree? This just proves my point, by lowering GPU intensive settings, GPU just gets even less utilized giving even less fps.

Hm, what are you using to measure your fps? I need to try your settings and compare the results to my current settings.

[ratszo 17]

I did as you suggested and ran a bench again, results:

2013-12-02 21:00:12 - arma3

Frames: 5931 - Time: 216344ms - Avg: 27.415 - Min: 6 - Max: 53

For the sakes of testing I didn't turn on the NV AA settings, using ingame FSAA x2 only.

Kind of pointless to turn the GPU intensive settings down when my GPU isn't even utilized, wouldn't you agree? This just proves my point, by lowering GPU intensive settings, GPU just gets even less utilized giving even less fps.

@1920x1200 screen rez --do you even need AF/AA at that rez?

Avg: 27.415 fps...., i'd try lowering screen rez to raise that average.

My benchmark at 1000m. VD:

2013-11-27 22:25:49 - arma3

Frames: 10102 - Time: 213440ms - Avg: 47.329 - Min: 28 - Max: 62

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS/page234

Edited December 2, 2013 by Ratszo
benchmark at 1000m. VD

[Minoza 11]

Hm, what are you using to measure your fps? I need to try your setting and compare the results to my current settings.

I'm using FRAPS. Just take a look at that CPU/GPU graph on the page before, I mean it tells you basically everything. There is a bottleneck engine is creating somewhere, not even one thread of my CPU is fully utilized thus bottlenecked by something in engine and it can't feed the GPU because of that, meaning GPU will idle then as well. I know all this for a long time now but it seems like you guys missed two opportunities when BI acknowledged this issue. One was in Arma 2 when they said they will not fix it because it would take too much work, and second one was in Arma 3 alpha when blog about it was mentioned but that blog never came. This isn't some imaginary problem or user incompetence. It is the engine issue which was apparent in Arma 2 as well. The more horsepower you got the more prominent it becomes, engine simply wont use that power. I guess the only way to explain this to users that don't notice/experience this is to literally show them like this. But I'm getting tired of showing it and explaining it.

[CaptainObvious 95]

@1920x1200 screen rez --do you even need AF/AA at that rez?

Avg: 27.415 fps...., i'd try lowering screen rez to raise that average.

Anything but native resolution tends to look like shit and I don't think resolutions under 4K are enough to hide rough edges.

[Minoza 11]

It doesn't matter because it wont help, here:

1280x800

No AA

No SSAA

No Caustics

PIP Standard

2013-12-02 21:25:30 - arma3

Frames: 6231 - Time: 220766ms - Avg: 28.224 - Min: 9 - Max: 54

This is not a problem where game is demanding but a problem where game doesn't use my hardware. No change in settings will help except lowering VD to 1000-1500max, that's where bottleneck starts to fade. And we're not talking about massive improvement, even with 1500VD in MP I get horrible performance but somewhat acceptable in SP.