Running out of ideas on how to many this game run smooth on my system at 2560*1600...

[wasserkool 1]

Arma 3 is pretty much the only PC game that I play on a regular basis and I've been an ARMA fan since the operation flashpoint days. My system spec in the signature below and this game runs sub 20FPS when action is hot ie - more than 100 AIs in a mission/map. All my settings are defaulted to high with 5000 M viewdistance which I think is the minimum for a truly inmersive game play. I'v read pretty much every tweaking guides out there without avail :(

For example, one of my favorite Steam Workshop title is Surrounded where you and a few squad of AIs defend camp maxwell against 3 waves of attackers. It is alot of close quarter combat and it is not playable at all.

[roshnak 41]

That's a really high resolution. Also, what is your object view distance set to?

[wasserkool 1]

That's a really high resolution. Also, what is your object view distance set to?

I can't do much about the resolution as that is the native res for 30 inch monitors. Maybe 5000M viewdistance is simply too much? The last option would be to upgrade to R9 290X but it does not guarantee the game will not choke during heavy firefights with lots of AIs.

[Kerc Kasha 102]

I can't do much about the resolution as that is the native res for 30 inch monitors. Maybe 5000M viewdistance is simply too much? The last option would be to upgrade to R9 290X but it does not guarantee the game will not choke during heavy firefights with lots of AIs.

5km is way too much unless you're flying.

[blackpixxel 53]

For me it doesnt matter which resolution I use in Arma, that should be simply GPU-dependend. The FPS-hit of a large object-draw-distance is much more important.

[incontrovertible 13]

Jeez that 5000m view distance is what's doing it. Unless you are doing a lot of fast flying, aka jets, you don't need any where near that much. I would recommend putting down at 1600m as that is enough for infantry combat, getting a 290x will not help nearly as much as you would imagine in fact performance would be similar to your current crossfire.

Edited February 15, 2014 by incontrovertible

[xendance 3]

Jeez that 5000m view distance is what's doing it. Unless you are doing a lot of fast flying, aka jets, you don't need any where near that much. I would recommend putting down at 1600m as that is enough for infantry combat, getting a 290x will not help nearly as much as you would imagine in fact performance would be similar to your current crossfire.

5 km is doable, as long as you keep object distance down. I'm playing at 4000 meter view distance + 2000 meter object distance and I'm skimming along at 60 fps with my i7 2600k and gtx 570.

And 1600 meters just looks ugly as hell and it isn't adequate at all.

[b0s 18]

Yes sadly Arma III is not able to maintain even 20fps when 2+ groups start firing. I still have little hope that it gets better with patches.

Turn down view distance to ~2500. With HD7970 crossfire you can crank up all other graphics settings... it doesnt matter.

I cant really tell what causes this low framerate when the fanciest CPUs cant run this game. There seems to be no occlusion culling and these non-visible objects strain the CPU somehow (I know object draw is GPU) plus AI calculation is single threaded.

[Furret 0]

Look at the troubleshooting subforum and set viewdistance to < 2k

[lerun 10]

I run at 2560x1600 with viewD 3800, get around 30 - 60 fps depending on amount of action.

My GPU (7990) is only running at 63% usage so there is a lot to gain there.

My CPU is 4770k at 4.5Gh, have tried running it with 7 and 4 threads without it making a big difference.

It is a beautiful game, to bad I cant get it consistent FPS :/

Have tested changing view and object from 3800 / 1800 to 2000 / 500 without seeing any difference in FPS (20 - 28).

This is a mission in town with a bunch of AI's running around.

Edited February 16, 2014 by lerun