So that's it then...? Perrformance

[Instynct 1]

This game is as far optimized as it will get I'm guessing. I've been waiting months for a stable framerate resolution. Haven't seen any major improvements in fps since alpha. All of my friends quit playing this game because multiplayer performance is so poor and now I have too. Can't get over 40 fps with a 4770k and gtx 780 ti sli. How is this even remotely acceptable? I guess because the game has no real competition it's okay for it to be practically unplayable from performance. BIS already knew their engine needed major attention in arma 2 so why did they completely ignore the core performance issues that still exist in arma 3. They knew 90% of their players bought the game to play online. Was this just a cash grab on bohemia's end? And don't even bother posting these 'placebo' fixes in this thread.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Instynct

[CaptainObvious 95]

Have you done anything to improve your fps?

[dnk 13]

Another "SLI" exotic high-end system with serious issues... hmmm...

What do you consider acceptable framerate, OP?

[iceman77 18]

Another "SLI" exotic high-end system with serious issues... hmmm...

What do you consider acceptable framerate, OP?

I've noticed this too. Seems very "high end" systems have these problems. I can't help but wonder... just because people have this crazy hardware, do they feel entitled to be able to run the game on max settings? IE; 10k+ VD, 200% SS / max AA etc etc. This is the only conclusion I can come to, since very rarely, do I see people with mid ranged machines complaining. It seems all or nothing for alot that have these exotic machines.. "I quit if i can't run the game on these ridiculous settings". Then ofcourse, they usually back that up with "I can run l337 sniper headshot game @ 5000 fps!"

@ The OP: A stable 40fps is good.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Iceman77

[oldbear 390]

I am wondering if it's the "60 FPS or death" syndrome or a "All 100% Full On" manifestation.

On one side, Arma3 as previous Arma* games is featuring unplayable settings such as "Ultra", "Visibility" 12 000m, Sampling "200%", on the other, it can be difficult to understand that with a rather good rig such as my "i7-3770 / GTX670OC / 8 GB/ Dedicated Arma3 SSD" I am glad to play on "Ultra", Visibility 2000 m @45/60 FPS in SP on Stratis and "Ultra", Visibility 2000 m @30 FPS in MP on Altis on rather intense APC/MBT battle.

I have no problem with the game limitations because I am an OFP/Arma veteran and I adapt to enjoy what I have got. The freedom offered by the game itself and the terrains is at a cost . TANSTAAFL !

[dnk 13]

[ninja'd] They also might not think 40 is good (I've had arguments over that before here). The high-end crowd typically thinks 60 is a bit weak... 120FPS , which is the ultimate goal, almost certainly isn't achievable by the engine since I'm not sure there's a CPU around that could do it. ~5GHz Haswell might get there, just.

I can get CPU-bound quick even with an age-old GTS250 and an i5 3350P (far better relative to the GPU).

Edited November 29, 2013 by DNK

[oldbear 390]

I will suggest a look at ARMA III Video Card Performance and IQ Review by [H]ard|OCP.

Of course this review is based on high end rig and is having a Single Player orientation, nevertheless it's said "... We found most video cards are playable with smooth animation when averaging between 45 and 50 FPS. There are a few instances where slightly lower framerates were playable, but require certain video settings in order to be considered thus. Therefore, for this game, our goal an average above 40-45 FPS."

But as I have already stated elsewhere, my main concern is about low end rigs, those just meeting "Minimum" official specifications for I think that for them, MP is unreachable and I am wondering about how Campaign [part 2] can be playable on Altis.

Edited November 29, 2013 by OldBear

[ratszo 17]

Judging by the OPs previous posts, he's not looking for solutions nor advice.

[TSAndrey 1]

OP is talking about MP performance. And there is no excuse for poor MP performance other than BI poor coding.

[ratszo 17]

OP is talking about MP performance. And there is no excuse for poor MP performance other than BI poor coding.

Wow..., thanks for taking the time to post.

How's the axe-grinding going?

[NeuroFunker 11]

OP is talking about MP performance. And there is no excuse for poor MP performance other than BI poor coding.

so, what "poor coding" on world are you talking about, when we from a3rc.com community playing weekly games with 100 players smooth and lagfree?

[iceman77 18]

OP is talking about MP performance. And there is no excuse for poor MP performance other than BI poor coding.

With all due respect Andrey, rather than just throwing out statements alone, tell me (us) how the code is poor. Surely making such statements, you can tell us what you're talking about. Provide one or a few example(s) of poor BI code.

I don't think the game's as poorly optimized as some make it out to be. From where I'm looking, I think it's the general mission makers code that needs optimization... all around.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Iceman77

[christianmo 10]

ARMA 3 is GPU heavy thus you powerfull SLi setup wont increase framerate significantly over a single of the same card, assuming its a high end card. Source: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/10/02/arma_iii_video_card_performance_iq_review/3#.Upj438Qz0c5 (look at charts featuring SLi setup)

Also post your damn graphics settings and processor model :mad:

[TSAndrey 1]

With all due respect Andrey, rather than just throwing out statements alone, tell me (us) how the code is poor. Surely making such statements, you can tell us what you're talking about. Provide one or a few example(s) of poor BI code.

I don't think the game's as poorly optimized as some make it out to be. From where I'm looking, I think it's the general mission makers code that needs optimization... all around.

AFAIK All AI calculations on server are done client side, hence why players get poor FPS in MP

[NeuroFunker 11]

ARMA 3 is GPU heavy thus you powerfull SLi setup wont increase framerate significantly over a single of the same card, assuming its a high end card. Source: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/10/02/arma_iii_video_card_performance_iq_review/3#.Upj438Qz0c5 (look at charts featuring SLi setup)

Also post your damn graphics settings and processor model :mad:

gpu heavy? Huh, it's all known otherwise.

---------- Post added at 22:04 ---------- Previous post was at 22:02 ----------

AFAIK All AI calculations on server are done client side, hence why players get poor FPS in MP

so is that much rilevant to wasteland, king of the hill, WoG games and a3rc pvp events?

[ratszo 17]

AFAIK All AI calculations on server are done client side, hence why players get poor FPS in MP

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.

[Gunter Severloh 3948]

Whats wrong with this thread?

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?168337-Multiplayer-not-in-playable-state

[Instynct 1]

OP is talking about MP performance. And there is no excuse for poor MP performance other than BI poor coding.

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.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Instynct

[MissionCreep 12]

I won't rest until I can get at least 240 fps ....

[ratszo 17]

Finally someone with some sense....

Great minds think alike.

[dezkit 28]

This game is as far optimized as it will get I'm guessing. I've been waiting months for a stable framerate resolution. Haven't seen any major improvements in fps since alpha. All of my friends quit playing this game because multiplayer performance is so poor and now I have too. Can't get over 40 fps with a 4770k and gtx 780 ti sli. How is this even remotely acceptable? I guess because the game has no real competition it's okay for it to be practically unplayable from performance. BIS already knew their engine needed major attention in arma 2 so why did they completely ignore the core performance issues that still exist in arma 3. They knew 90% of their players bought the game to play online. Was this just a cash grab on bohemia's end? And don't even bother posting these 'placebo' fixes in this thread.

bitch u got 40 fps i can barely get 19 fps in multiplayer what r u complaining about

[NeuroFunker 11]

Great minds think alike.

ahahah made me laugh

---------- Post added at 02:32 ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 ----------

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.

so you did read my post about 100 players games smooth and lagfree? Who do you call a fanboy by the way?

[giorgygr 61]

This is getting nowhere.

The fact is a HUGE amount of people here (we) expecting at least a 30% better performance. (and i m in a good mood today to give *this number.)

I could buy "all-$hit" about AI calculations..but PvP multiplayer SHOULD HAVE BEEN fluid as water.

YES ..i expect to play with 45-50 FPS on a 60 vs 60 PvP server with my Q6600.

There are another games (*no name here) with 2000 clients per server with comparable in size to ARMA maps/astonishing graphics..and i m playing quite satisfying when HELL is happening around.

In ARMA..every player gets connected-automatically steals from me ~2 FPS

This IS urgent if you want people to stay on ARMA guys.

This IS serious..

[ratszo 17]

Gentlemen, we are in the presence of a Master.

Bravo sir, Bravo!

[NeuroFunker 11]

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