Why I will never buy any of your games ever again.

[das attorney 857]

@Infiltrator_2k Are you playing the game on the same PC that is running the DS?

[orcinus 121]

MD, I'm aware of how much stress the Ai put on the CPU which is why I've always implemented the Simulation Manager Module, or created spawn scripts. I've created and hosted numerous missions on my old X58 board and played on the same machine and even that had a better FPS than I'm getting now. No matter what MP mission I play I can't get more than 20'ish FPS. As already mentioned my friend who has an inferior build to me gets over double the FPS than me on Invade and Annex. He gets around 50FPS, and that's on my bloody dedicated server!

I spent close to £2,000 on my tower alone to play Arma 3 and I'm getting 20FPS??? Do you honestly blame me for being frustrated and angry? People can forget about the blaming custom missions and people's rigs, I have proved beyond doubt that Arma 3 is broken. A mere 30FPS on Infantry Showcase with an 4.1Ghz overclocked i7 5820K and GTX 780ti?????

Like I said, my friend gets over 50FPS playing on 'my' dedicated server that's hosting the latest version of Invade and Annex when I only get 20FPS :/

Infiltrator, I have an i7-3770K on an Asus P8Z77 mobo OC'd to 4.2 GHz, 8GB 1600MHz Corsair Vengeance Red, & a Gigabyted HD7950 at stock. I get 40 - 50 FPS on that showcase with various mods running (asr_ai3 or bcombat, JSRS, etc.); only drops to 30-ish if there's a lots of action at some points (varies between runs) so I don't understand why your simliar if not better rig is not running better. What are your settings? What do you get with the Altis benchmark mission?

[windies 11]

@Infiltrator_2k Are you playing the game on the same PC that is running the DS?

Pretty sure he said it was two different systems over LAN.

[infiltrator_2k 29]

[

@Infiltrator_2k Are you playing the game on the same PC that is running the DS?

No, I'm playing on my gaming rig missions hosted on my dedicated server which of course is doing the number crunching, which is why I'm baffled how my mate who has an inferior rig is getting 50+FPS on the same mission.

Infiltrator, I have an i7-3770K on an Asus P8Z77 mobo OC'd to 4.2 GHz, 8GB 1600MHz Corsair Vengeance Red, & a Gigabyted HD7950 at stock. I get 40 - 50 FPS on that showcase with various mods running (asr_ai3 or bcombat, JSRS, etc.); only drops to 30-ish if there's a lots of action at some points (varies between runs) so I don't understand why your simliar if not better rig is not running better. What are your settings? What do you get with the Altis benchmark mission?

I've not done the Altis benchmark yet, but no matter what video settings I use it's still low FPS. I just tried standard on MP and only got 23-24FPS. Single player is much different. I just tested the Infantry Showcase again and Ultra I'll get 30FPS, and High I'll get 50+FPS.

Pretty sure he said it was two different systems over LAN.

Correct. When joining the hosted mission on my dedicated server regardless if it's LAN or WAN I get 20FPS so I reckon it's definitely caused by over network play.

[artisanal 22]

Did you check if "sampling" is at 100%

[infiltrator_2k 29]

Did you check if "sampling" is at 100%

50% or 200% it doesn't matter I still get 17-20FPS and 11FPS when driving vehicles or flying aircraft.

[artisanal 22]

Yeah there is clearly a big issue with your arma 3 installation ...

Edit : I don't know if there's an official troubleshoot procedure somewhere, could be useful.

[infiltrator_2k 29]

Yeah there is clearly a big issue with your arma 3 installation ...

Edit : I don't know if there's an official troubleshoot procedure somewhere, could be useful.

If people trawl the net they'll find this problem is quite prevalent. Many people have got decent gaming rigs but still have poor FPS which suggests it's some kind of problem with how Arma is interacting with their hardware though a networked connection. Although I'm admittedly angry and frustrated that I'm having this issue given my build, I have IMO given some constructive feedback with the hardware used and dismissed the 'toaster' myth or any other suspected cause.

Although I wouldn't completely rule out another cause, at this moment it definitely seems to be an Arma update issue that's causing this poor performance. The fact not everyone is suffering does suggest it's a specific build's hardware.

[TSAndrey 1]

Yeah there is clearly a big issue with your arma 3 installation ...

Edit : I don't know if there's an official troubleshoot procedure somewhere, could be useful.

LOL People need to stop making posts like this (no offense). If he gets low FPS like that in SP, then yes it could be a problem, but MP FPS is unfixable.

[Nexerius 10]

Pretty much why i have stopped playing.

This is not playable at all, and if Project-Reality was still running on A2 i would uninstall A3 in a heartbeat

(Saw it posted earlier. I waited pretty much all the time for Tactical battlefield since A3 release. Barely played it because i get absolutely terrible FPS on it)

[Arma3goodCPUlowFPS 12]

this is what i talked about in my earlier post, how some people trying to defend arma 3: one say that its your rig that its bad (even if the rig is the best and newest one), the other say your installation has a issue (idk how that could lead to FPS problems), the other say the server you play are bad (even when its a server which use barely scripts) etc... its everything and everyones fault but not arma´s engine nor Bohemia Interactive, they are innocent and its not theyr fault.

these people i call fanboys and i do not mean the whole community how some members believe since the majority of the community:

- accept that arma 3 has its problems

- suffer from these FPS problems, no matter what rig, what server etc

and you can see all over this forum that people with different rigs report that they have issues (in MP aswell as in SP). funny how some fanboys (again, i talk about the minority) claim also they have good FPS in SP. ofcourse i have good FPS in SP too, when i place myself in the editor with zero AI and click preview. but whats if there is (large scale) combat and AI action ? then the fanboy is silent.

i love this game, its one of the best out there, but fact is that the game has its issues and these performance problems are one of the worstest out there. no counter strike, no battlefield, no call of duty, no grand theft auto or any other game has the FPS problems than arma 3, arma 2 & dayz. and performance/FPS is the most important thing in a game. in counter strike, in gta, in battlefield etc you can do wayyy less than arma, but they are more enjoyable (atleast for me) because they run smooth but in arma 3 you can do sooooooo much, its unbelivable, you can also add thousands of new terrains yourself and millions of new vehicles, weapons and units without limitation, you can bomb your game full with new content BUT there is the FPS thing (SP & MP) and that FPS problem can destroy EVERYTHING! what brings me all the thousands terrain, new flight model, millions of new vehicles, weapons and units, hundreds of new campaign and missions etc when i have these FPS problems which makes it unenjoyable to use all the stuff ?

FPS can destroy EVERYTHING! it makes a game with millions of weapons, vehicles, units and thousands of terrains total useless. then i prefer few weapons, smaller maps, few vehicles but GOOD FPS than unlimited modding access, thousands of new terrain, millions of vehicles and weapons but BAD FPS!

all i can say to the people who can not accept the problems of the game because they love it and blame everything but not the game nor BI:

[roshnak 41]

this is what i talked about in my earlier post, how some people trying to defend arma 3: one say that its your rig that its bad (even if the rig is the best and newest one), the other say your installation has a issue (idk how that could lead to FPS problems), the other say the server you play are bad (even when its a server which use barely scripts) etc... its everything and everyones fault but not arma´s engine nor Bohemia Interactive, they are innocent and its not theyr fault.

Arma 3 widely acknowledged performance problems, especially regarding modern hardware utilization and multiplayer. I doubt that anyone would deny this. However, all of the things you reference here could certainly be contributing factors or exacerbate the already existing performance problems.

The OP is describing a 90% drop in framerate when going from SP to MP. Are you saying that this is a common occurence?

Edited January 11, 2015 by roshnak

[windies 11]

Arma 3 has well performance problems, especially regarding modern hardware utilization and multiplayer. I doubt that anyone would deny this. However, all of the things you reference here could certainly be contributing factors or exacerbate the already existing performance problems.

The OP is describing a 90% drop in framerate when going from SP to MP. Are you saying that this is a common occurence?

I will say it's a common occurrence for me and a couple people I know, another guy has no issue's whatsoever and guess what his rig is older. The only commonality I can find between people with issue's and people who generally say they don't have issue's is literally the age of their hardware. It seems people with much older systems tend to say it runs good while those with newer systems say it runs poorly. I don't know if this is an issue of perspective, for example people with older hardware expecting it to run like crap and accepting what they can get and people with newer hardware expecting it to run good and it runs like it should on older hardware, or if for some reason the engine takes better advantage of older hardware versus newer hardware for some strange reason.

I think most people can agree that MP performance takes a "nosedive"(Subjective) for no other reason than it's MP.

[inlesco 233]

this is what i talked about in my earlier post, how some people trying to defend arma 3: one say that its your rig that its bad (even if the rig is the best and newest one), the other say your installation has a issue (idk how that could lead to FPS problems), the other say the server you play are bad (even when its a server which use barely scripts) etc... its everything and everyones fault but not arma´s engine nor Bohemia Interactive, they are innocent and its not theyr fault.

these people i call fanboys and i do not mean the whole community how some members believe since the majority of the community:

- accept that arma 3 has its problems

- suffer from these FPS problems, no matter what rig, what server etc

and you can see all over this forum that people with different rigs report that they have issues (in MP aswell as in SP). funny how some fanboys (again, i talk about the minority) claim also they have good FPS in SP. ofcourse i have good FPS in SP too, when i place myself in the editor with zero AI and click preview. but whats if there is (large scale) combat and AI action ? then the fanboy is silent.

i love this game, its one of the best out there, but fact is that the game has its issues and these performance problems are one of the worstest out there. no counter strike, no battlefield, no call of duty, no grand theft auto or any other game has the FPS problems than arma 3, arma 2 & dayz. and performance/FPS is the most important thing in a game. in counter strike, in gta, in battlefield etc you can do wayyy less than arma, but they are more enjoyable (atleast for me) because they run smooth but in arma 3 you can do sooooooo much, its unbelivable, you can also add thousands of new terrains yourself and millions of new vehicles, weapons and units without limitation, you can bomb your game full with new content BUT there is the FPS thing (SP & MP) and that FPS problem can destroy EVERYTHING! what brings me all the thousands terrain, new flight model, millions of new vehicles, weapons and units, hundreds of new campaign and missions etc when i have these FPS problems which makes it unenjoyable to use all the stuff ?

FPS can destroy EVERYTHING! it makes a game with millions of weapons, vehicles, units and thousands of terrains total useless. then i prefer few weapons, smaller maps, few vehicles but GOOD FPS than unlimited modding access, thousands of new terrain, millions of vehicles and weapons but BAD FPS!

Yes, playability (FPS+gameplay mechanics+movement+difficulty+balancing+etc.) is the main factor for a game, unless your idea and its sole execution captivates a huge audience (Minecraft?). Nowadays, graphics, physics, sound are almost equally important, too.

Running A3 on Ultra, 1440p and expecting ~60 fps in MP? Sounds like a dream to never come true.

Though, A3 has obvious performance, stuttering and LOD switching issues, there are some obsolete ("malicious"?) video settings options that are not explained by devs and make an impact on your FPS. Ie., shadows on "Low" sets the load onto CPU, which is pointless, but wasn't taken care of for some reason.

[infiltrator_2k 29]

I will say it's a common occurrence for me and a couple people I know, another guy has no issue's whatsoever and guess what his rig is older. The only commonality I can find between people with issue's and people who generally say they don't have issue's is literally the age of their hardware. It seems people with much older systems tend to say it runs good while those with newer systems say it runs poorly. I don't know if this is an issue of perspective, for example people with older hardware expecting it to run like crap and accepting what they can get and people with newer hardware expecting it to run good and it runs like it should on older hardware, or if for some reason the engine takes better advantage of older hardware versus newer hardware for some strange reason.

I think most people can agree that MP performance takes a "nosedive"(Subjective) for no other reason than it's MP.

There's no doubt about it, it does seem to be people with newer and more powerful systems that are having the performance issues, and it's the reason why so many people are so angry. If it was caused by people's hardware being outdated then fair enough. But when people like myself go out and spend a fortune and build a gaming rig specifically to play Arma and you're performance is turns out to be worst than the PC you've just upgraded from it's inevitably going to cause anger and frustration.

Should have I said I built my gaming rig??.... That must be it! That's why my rig is performing poorly! It's not Arma, it's because I built it!

Here's my 'not so old' toaster that get's an amazing and whooping '11FPS' in vehicles MP.

[roshnak 41]

I will say it's a common occurrence for me and a couple people I know, another guy has no issue's whatsoever and guess what his rig is older. The only commonality I can find between people with issue's and people who generally say they don't have issue's is literally the age of their hardware. It seems people with much older systems tend to say it runs good while those with newer systems say it runs poorly. I don't know if this is an issue of perspective, for example people with older hardware expecting it to run like crap and accepting what they can get and people with newer hardware expecting it to run good and it runs like it should on older hardware, or if for some reason the engine takes better advantage of older hardware versus newer hardware for some strange reason.

I think most people can agree that MP performance takes a "nosedive"(Subjective) for no other reason than it's MP.

First of all, it can't possibly be a problem of perspective or expectations or whatever, since we're talking about a 90% performance loss. No one is conditioned to expect that, regardless of how old their hardware is. If someone were only getting 30 FPS and experienced the same performance drop the OP did, their frame rate would sink to 3 FPS in multiplayer.

Secondly, as someone with newer hardware, I can say that I am not experiencing the same performance loss that the OP is. I definitely get worse performance in MP than in SP, but I'm not dropping to a single digit frame rate at any point.

While it's true that there were a bunch of people who were acting like overly defensive fanboys in the earlier stages of the thread, my point was that it does not seem unreasonable to think that, in the OP's case, there is something going on besides the game just being poorly optimized. If everyone were experiencing a performance loss similar to the OP's in MP, or even close to it, multiplayer would be completely dead. Those frame rates are completely unplayable for even the most low-FPS tolerant players.

[miketim 20]

'11FPS' in vehicles MP.

Dont play wastedtimeland / apple picking sim/ king of lag gamemodes, which are always going to be notoriously laggy and full of desync etc

Turn off PIP when your in vehicles, for me it lags the absolute hell out of me (-10 fps) instantly with PIP enabled.

I have a bad CPU, 2.9 ghz phenom ii x6 and for me that is what brings my perf down.

Also this really isnt a discussion about performance I thought but whatever

[Arma3goodCPUlowFPS 12]

fanboys must stop blaming 90% of the community because they place themself in the editor on stratis and have smooth FPS. everyone must open theyr eyes and face the truth that the engine has a problem and that since 13 years. fact. and then the community should make pressure that we want not only more FPS, but 64bit and multithreading support and no silly workarounds. we are in 2015 now but arma 3 feels like this game is still back in 2001. dwarden said that they want to add 64bit support and its experimental WIP but im afraid that they will abadoned it. we dont want some "oh we optimize this and this until they get this and this performance in MP and SP and then were done" I WANT THAT THE GAME USE ALL MY CORES AND RESOURCES, WE ARE IN 2015 SO ITS TIME THAT WE GET MULTITHREADING AND 64BIT!

i HOPE that more and more people will register in this forum and complain about it, after 13 years, this is the MINIMUM what the devs deserve.

[inlesco 233]

fanboys must stop blaming 90% of the community because they place themself in the editor on stratis and have smooth FPS. everyone must open theyr eyes and face the truth that the engine has a problem and that since 13 years. fact. and then the community should make pressure that we want not only more FPS, but 64bit and multithreading support and no silly workarounds. we are in 2015 now but arma 3 feels like this game is still back in 2001. dwarden said that they want to add 64bit support and its experimental WIP but im afraid that they will abadoned it. we dont want some "oh we optimize this and this until they get this and this performance in MP and SP and then were done" I WANT THAT THE GAME USE ALL MY CORES AND RESOURCES, WE ARE IN 2015 SO ITS TIME THAT WE GET MULTITHREADING AND 64BIT!

i HOPE that more and more people will register in this forum and complain about it, after 13 years, this is the MINIMUM what the devs deserve.

You're not making any sense, unless you:

• Tell me a game dev who's already implemented 64-bit architecture in its engine and did it very well
  
• Show me a game at least equally complex as Arma 3 (simulation systems, AI, ballistics, etc.)
  
• Read some proof of Arma programmers posting data on performance test and how the number of threads doesn't magically make things run faster / smoother
  
• Read up some "Game programming" articles, familiarize with the inner-workings
  

[eymerich 11]

fanboys must stop blaming 90% of the community because they place themself in the editor on stratis and have smooth FPS. everyone must open theyr eyes and face the truth that the engine has a problem and that since 13 years. fact. and then the community should make pressure that we want not only more FPS, but 64bit and multithreading support and no silly workarounds. we are in 2015 now but arma 3 feels like this game is still back in 2001. dwarden said that they want to add 64bit support and its experimental WIP but im afraid that they will abadoned it. we dont want some "oh we optimize this and this until they get this and this performance in MP and SP and then were done" I WANT THAT THE GAME USE ALL MY CORES AND RESOURCES, WE ARE IN 2015 SO ITS TIME THAT WE GET MULTITHREADING AND 64BIT!

i HOPE that more and more people will register in this forum and complain about it, after 13 years, this is the MINIMUM what the devs deserve.

If may I give a suggestion, what you are asking is not fair.

Better: you can pretend but be carefull because you'll probably be disappointed.

I agree that Fps need to be improved (no idea "how" but I am not a dev so this is not a problem of mine): but at the end, if Bis doesn't bring what I ask the only logical solution for me is to abandon Arma3.

I don't know If Dev are aware of this (at least their C.E.O) but loosing a long trust customer, in economy, needs 5 new more customers to repair the loss.

Arma3 dlc is € 14

Arma3 expansion (i guess) It'll be € 29.00 (just like arrowhead)

The marksman dlc will be (I suppose) 14

A future Dlc (just like Army of czech republic): Let's say € 6\7

Arma4 = 49.00

-------------------------------------------------

Total = € 112 of lost profit of Bis because of me being disappointed.

And I am sad because I think that Arma has a great potentiality and I like it (but I can't bear the Fps drop anymore...)

[roshnak 41]

• Tell me a game dev who's already implemented 64-bit architecture in its engine and did it very well
  

"Did it very well" in what sense? Not worse than 32-bit versions?

DICE's Frostbite 2 is a 64-bit only engine.

Ubisoft's Dunia 2 has 64-bit support, and Far Cry 4 requires a 64-bit OS and recommends 8GB of RAM.

The new Call of Duty game requires a 64-bit OS.

• Show me a game at least equally complex as Arma 3 (simulation systems, AI, ballistics, etc.)
  

This is irrelevant. Added complexity is not a justification for your game running poorly. Do you think that other studios couldn't make extremely complex games that don't run well? Optimization and making sure your game has playable performance is part of making video games. Also, AI is pretty much the only thing in your list that other games don't have. It would be nice if people would stop asserting that Arma is some super in depth simulator just because you can drive cars and bullets aren't hitscan.

• Read some proof of Arma programmers posting data on performance test and how the number of threads doesn't magically make things run faster / smoother
  

Are you saying that fuller CPU utilization would not improve performance?

Edited January 11, 2015 by roshnak

[dav 22]

Assaf. Will you please not leave us. I know you have good reason to but your a good player. What game will you go to next?

[bullhorn 18]

The entire argument of 'Well, look how big ARMA is, of course it'll have bad performance' stands no ground. The game is advertised as a sandbox where 100 players can play online, and hundreds of AI can be spawned on the map - but then you basically tell your customers they can't do what they bought the game for due to bad performance and just tell them something silly like 'stick to singleplayer'.

[vran. 13]

This is irrelevant. Added complexity is not a justification for your game running poorly. Do you think that other studios couldn't make extremely complex games that don't run well? Optimization and making sure your game has playable performance is part of making video games. Also, AI is pretty much the only thing in your list that other games don't have. It would be nice if people would stop asserting that Arma is some super in depth simulator just because you can drive cars and bullets aren't hitscan.

Here's Titan.im, the upcomming competitor with VBS:

Larger scale than ArmA/VBS but you can already notice some heavy frame rate drops. It's never a wise idea to compare a simulation game to an arcade game because of all the things that are being calculated in a simulation game.

[zukov 483]

Here's Titan.im, the upcomming competitor with VBS:

Larger scale than ArmA/VBS but you can already notice some heavy frame rate drops. It's never a wise idea to compare a simulation game to an arcade game because of all the things that are being calculated in a simulation game.

it's a pre pre pre pre pre alpha i guess ;)