ArmA3 performance survey

[chaddlesg 10]

MP specific survey is now available

[[evo] dan 79]

Done the MP one too

[ratszo 17]

MP has got'in alot better lately,

The missions that lagged me last year play fine now.

I've upped my vd, od, object detail, and fxaa since alpha.

Not taking survey --too many non-playing haters on this board.

I'd also like to give credit to the hardworking Modders whom've done so much making their mods playable.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Ratszo

[Ckrauslo 12]

I'm having a problem with this question: What kind of missions do you experience acceptable performance on, if any? Tick all that apply. * ...i didn't marked any because none have a good performance, but i have to mark one? what

[Fushko 59]

Live results for MP survey are going to be interesting :popcornsmilie:

[SPC.Spets 21]

I can play with 25-30 I dont even notice any stuttering or lag, but as soon it drops below 20 its unplayable, also because I always record with Fraps all my MP sessions. without using fraps I have an average of 30-40 sometimes more in MP

[nicolasroger 11]

SpetS: you can capture high quality video without performance hit using other programs then FRAPS. If you have an nvidia card you can use ShadowPlay (you might already have it installed without you knowing it!).

Anyway, they is another thread wich talk specificly about this.

I hope todays update helped performance wise.

[MavericK96 0]

Cool, I replied. I was surprised in the results to see that like 75% of people are happy with SP performance. For me, I have tried the same exact mission in MP versus SP and I think I actually got worse performance in SP...

[chaddlesg 10]

The hardware survey is now closed, but please continue to submit responses to the MP survey.

[chrisb 196]

i think bis will do nothing ^^ the most of the workers by BIS are learned kids from the communtiy no specialistst...

snip...that's the price when you have a team with young learned kids with no big experience - a long development time for little things ^^ see the two jets work over 4 months on it ^^ therefore I do not understand it, why does not spend any money for specialists. but a lot of money for a contest with a winner in the main section for oudside from militäry stuff-in which one is looking for new ideas in day z style - So you yourself have no ideas ....snip...

This I agree with and have heard said, quite often, within our and others groups. It seems that BI may be too keen on using community members to work on the series. Whilst this is good to include work done by your users that can, on the surface, seem of a reasonable quality, this doesn't always follow on, in what should be, a professional work environment, where the product your making is for retail, not amateur mod making. That's not a put down for mod makers, just simple fact. I love using mod/addons, but I can choose whether to use and/or donate to those makers, I bought A3 retail and that should be finished to a high 'professional' quality.

__________

Back on topic, performance is an issue for some in MP, that is clear, but the content needs work as much as the performance. To be honest, performance is always going to be an issue for some, every pc is different, its kept and maintained differently, so the developer can never get it exactly right for everyone concerning the games performance on individual systems.

The content however, can be made to the highest standard for all customers to enjoy, this includes putting the content in that should be there and also making that content work correctly. Performance is an issue, but when many are getting good performance, whereas others with similar, or in some cases, better systems (on paper) are getting bad performance, that may not always be the developers problem.

Our group has a cross section of pc's playing this game, all of us get good performance, with the occasional hiccup, but on the whole A3 runs as well for us as A2 did. In this thread it has been said performance has been bad from OFP and never changed, thats certainly not the case. There were a number of advances in the performance side during the last two years of A2, so to say nothing has been done is wrong, it has improved. A2 ran better than Arma, A3 out of the gate ran as well as A2 at 1.62, for our group certainly, those that had bad performance in A2 and now A3 should be looking at their systems and how they are maintained perhaps. PC gaming requires a dedicated 'good' gaming system imo, always has, not your everyday pc. That system doesn't have to be the most expensive on the planet, simply maintained well, lean and clean with a good gpu.

Content however, as said, should be there and working correctly, to a high standard from the start, after all its a product and its content we're buying. Performance is a much more difficult thing to nail down (almost impossible), for everyone, there are always going to be some players that will not get their game to perform well.

[CaptainObvious 95]

Done, interesting to see the results.

I'm having a problem with this question: What kind of missions do you experience acceptable performance on, if any? Tick all that apply. * ...i didn't marked any because none have a good performance, but i have to mark one? what

No you don't.

[Gattobuono 10]

I think you need at least 40 FPS average to play arma 3 well. Even then the game has stutters. And I don´t think that more powerfull hardware really helps. Just take a look at the trailers BIS makes, every few seconds the game stutters, even on their PCs.

Also I can get nice 55 FPS average in the Editor, but as soon as you add a few AI groups the performance goes down the drain.

Absolutely, 30 fps is not smooth in this game, it's a twitchy 30 fps that kills immersion.

I just find it frustrating to have these beautiful huge islands to play on that are totally useless because with anything more than a handful of AI and a bit of intense firefight action frame rates become horrible ... the game feels so rough, and it kills my interest. I'd rather have a smaller combat area with a more optimised engine, especially for the ai. By now, I know it will never happen though.

[SPC.Spets 21]

SpetS: you can capture high quality video without performance hit using other programs then FRAPS. If you have an nvidia card you can use ShadowPlay (you might already have it installed without you knowing it!).

Anyway, they is another thread wich talk specificly about this.

I hope todays update helped performance wise.

I know. I use fraps only because it have an standby recording system, I can stop recording, but it still recording a 60 sec buffer (Hold F9) so I don't lost any interesting footage, and when I have to edit I dont have 3-4 hours and 300GB of uncompressed video every mission. and Shadowplay is only available for the 600 series and above, and I have a 460 :s

[ProfTournesol 956]

This I agree with and have heard said, quite often, within our and others groups. It seems that BI may be too keen on using community members to work on the series. Whilst this is good to include work done by your users that can, on the surface, seem of a reasonable quality, this doesn't always follow on, in what should be, a professional work environment, where the product your making is for retail, not amateur mod making. That's not a put down for mod makers, just simple fact. I love using mod/addons, but I can choose whether to use and/or donate to those makers, I bought A3 retail and that should be finished to a high 'professional' quality..

I'm just amazed that community members can even complain about that.

[MavericK96 0]

Absolutely, 30 fps is not smooth in this game, it's a twitchy 30 fps that kills immersion.

I would be pretty happy if I got 30 FPS consistently in ArmA 3. It's not ideal, but right now I get drops down into the 15-20 FPS range, which is borderline unplayable.

[PublicNemessis 10]

Really liked the survey, well done!

[[evo] dan 79]

I'm just amazed that community members can even complain about that.

To be honest, after the whole ACR thing, I can see his point.

[pooroldspike 129]

If it's of any interest I could only play Arma3 at low settings on my old PC (below), I was able to get about 30FPS but even then the game stuttered a bit-

Processor: Intel® Core 2 Duo CPU E8500 @ 3.16GHz (2 CPUs), ~ 2.8GHz

Memory: 4096 MB RAM

NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 (1024 Mb)

O.S: Win 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601)

But my new PC (below) does much better, I'm getting 60 FPS even on very high settings and it plays smooth as silk-

Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-4670 CPU @ 3.40Ghz (4 CPUs), ~2.4GHz

Memory: 16384 MB RAM

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770

OS: Win 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1 build 7601)

PS- As an experiment, I temporarily put all my vid settings on Low with my new PC, expecting to see frame rates rocket into orbit, but to my surprise they stayed at around 60 FPS!

Is 60 FPS the Arma3 "ceiling" or what?

[nicolasroger 11]

PS- As an experiment, I temporarily put all my vid settings on Low with my new PC, expecting to see frame rates rocket into orbit, but to my surprise they stayed at around 60 FPS!

Is 60 FPS the Arma3 "ceiling" or what?

If you can't go over 60 fps that mean you have enabled a limiter of some sort. Try turning off vsync

[pooroldspike 129]

If you can't go over 60 fps that mean you have enabled a limiter of some sort. Try turning off vsync

Thanks, disabling vsync has doubled my frame rate, I'm now getting over 110 FPS on highish settings!

I'm also experimenting with the help of this useful guide to try to find out what effects the settings with mysterious names have-

http://segmentnext.com/2013/09/16/arma-3-tweaks-guide-graphics-and-performance/

[ratszo 17]

Thanks, disabling vsync has doubled my frame rate, I'm now getting over 110 FPS on highish settings!

I'm also experimenting with the help of this useful guide to try to find out what effects the settings with mysterious names have-

http://segmentnext.com/2013/09/16/arma-3-tweaks-guide-graphics-and-performance/

The point of vsync is to limit 'frame tearing' --a drop from 110 to 70 frames then back up 30 frames will 'tear' the image; hence, frame limiting via vsync.

[pooroldspike 129]

The point of vsync is to limit 'frame tearing' --a drop from 110 to 70 frames then back up 30 frames will 'tear' the image; hence, frame limiting via vsync.

Thanks, a lot of the ingame settings techy jargon is way over my head, i'm just a grunt wargamer (sniffle).

Maybe it's best to just hit the 'Auto-detect' option and let the game automatically choose all the settings for us based on our computer's capabilities?

[Sneakson 1]

Thanks, a lot of the ingame settings techy jargon is way over my head, i'm just a grunt wargamer (sniffle).

Maybe it's best to just hit the 'Auto-detect' option and let the game automatically choose all the settings for us based on our computer's capabilities?

Auto detect doesn't work well... I can't remember what sort of system you have but check out my settings in my signature for some inspiration.

Most settings are free, so they should be turned up even on weak systems. There are only a few settings that actually make much of an fps difference on stronger systems.

[n4ssores 10]

i5 3570k (4.4ghz o/c)

asus gtx 660 top edition 2gb video card,

8gb ddr3 kingston ram,

singleplayer fps 90+ ultra, multiplayer 20-25:(

[DJankovic 401]

singleplayer fps 90+ ultra, multiplayer 20-25:(

I feel you man..same here.. hahah Singleplayer fine but mp.. damn 20+ FPS in cities outside is some 40-50 fps :D