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

[Arma3goodCPUlowFPS 12]

here for my fellow fanboys, a meme for you:

Edited January 12, 2015 by Arma3goodCPUlowFPS

[roshnak 41]

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.

You can't just say this stuff like it's a given. It's not. A "simulation game" isn't necessarily more taxing than any other game. What is going on in Arma (other than AI) that you think is so much more demanding or complex than any other game? And what does it have to do with people getting worse performance in MP than in SP?

here for my fellow fanboys, a meme for you:

http://i.imgur.com/rjLHqTO.jpg

If you're going to keep posting this stuff you should probably have a better understanding of both how Arma and other multiplayer games work. You keep bringing up RAM and servers that aren't running a lot of scripts.

Since Arma isn't a 64-bit application, it doesn't matter if you have 8, 16, or 48 GB of RAM. It won't use it.

Poorly optimized missions are not the only factor that could cause a server to run poorly. Bad servers are a universal aspect of online video games. Servers are often misconfigured or running on overloaded machines. A server running an extremely light mission might still be a bad server that runs poorly.

Edited January 12, 2015 by roshnak

[infiltrator_2k 29]

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

No matter what settings I use the game's MP frame rate sucks. My CPU is an i7 5820K @4.1Ghz, my card a GTX 780ti, the HDD is an OCZ Vector 150 SSD, my ram Corsair Vengeance 2800Mhz DDR4 and so on.... I custom built my rig for the best performance and bang for my buck. Even when I put setting to 'high' the FPS is totally pathetic! Arma is broken now everyone needs to accept that!! No amount of tweaking is going to improve my performance. Only an update that makes the relevant modifications to the game's engine is ever going to improve my performance.

[Arma3goodCPUlowFPS 12]

You can't just say this stuff like it's a given. It's not. A "simulation game" isn't necessarily more taxing than any other game. What is going on in Arma (other than AI) that you think is so much more demanding or complex than any other game? And what does it have to do with people getting worse performance in MP than in SP?

If you're going to keep posting this stuff you should probably have a better understanding of both how Arma and other multiplayer games work. You keep bringing up RAM and servers that aren't running a lot of scripts.

Since Arma isn't a 64-bit application, it doesn't matter if you have 8, 16, or 48 GB of RAM. It won't use it.

Poorly optimized missions are not the only factor that could cause a server to run poorly. Bad servers are a universal aspect of online video games. Servers are often misconfigured or running on overloaded machines. A server running an extremely light mission might still be a bad server that runs poorly.

we talk about MP aswell as SP in my picture, just look at the first pic again

[TiborasaurusRex 11]

@Bez: you're lagging, dude? no offense but you must be running a crappy PC lol XD with all due respect, ain't no doubt about it...

[Llano 11]

@Bez: you're lagging, dude? no offense but you must be running a crappy PC lol XD with all due respect, ain't no doubt about it...

How do you even figure that out?

Some clearification:

LAG LAG LAG, nothing helps. (-EDIT- a better term would be extremely low fps, not lag)

[roshnak 41]

@Bez: you're lagging, dude? no offense but you must be running a crappy PC lol XD with all due respect, ain't no doubt about it...

This is not a particularly well informed thing to say when talking about a game series that has notorious performance problems.

[ProfTournesol 956]

This is not a particularly well informed thing to say when talking about a game series that has notorious performance problems.

True.

[vran. 13]

You can't just say this stuff like it's a given. It's not. A "simulation game" isn't necessarily more taxing than any other game. What is going on in Arma (other than AI) that you think is so much more demanding or complex than any other game? And what does it have to do with people getting worse performance in MP than in SP?

Well you answered the question yourself - the AI in the game is a real performance killer, but so are large maps with lots of objects on them. Add to that advanced physic simulation, dynamic weather changes, large view distance and various scripts and you bring down performance on every system. It wouldn't be really fair to compare the game to some other open world games out there which have a lot more primitive AI and such. The CPU utilization and MP performance issues were debated and it was mostly agreed that they'd have to be improved upon.

[St. Jimmy 272]

here for my fellow fanboys, a meme for you:

http://i.imgur.com/rjLHqTO.jpg

Let's have some fun :D

Edited January 13, 2015 by St. Jimmy

[Arma3goodCPUlowFPS 12]

Let's have some fun :D

i wont mind if you edit my meme pic - no problem for me

i wont mind if you post your edited meme here - no problem

but faking a quote? i mean seriously ? this shows how fanboys behave when they are out of arguments.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Arma3goodCPUlowFPS

[roshnak 41]

Well you answered the question yourself - the AI in the game is a real performance killer, but so are large maps with lots of objects on them. Add to that advanced physic simulation, dynamic weather changes, large view distance and various scripts and you bring down performance on every system. It wouldn't be really fair to compare the game to some other open world games out there which have a lot more primitive AI and such. The CPU utilization and MP performance issues were debated and it was mostly agreed that they'd have to be improved upon.

I'm not really sure what this means. What is so advanced about Arma's physics simulation? Why should dynamic weather changes be resource intensive? View distances are configurable. Yes, AI in Arma is a performance killer, but that wouldn't explain why people get worse FPS in a KOTH mission than they do in a large single player mission.

I also never compared the AI in Arma to any other game, and actually specifically excluded it from comparison (hence the part of my post that reads "other than AI").

[katipo66 94]

Probably A3 MP is never going to happen how any of us may want it or imagined it, so you just need to get over it and move on.

[roshnak 41]

Probably A3 MP is never going to happen how any of us may want it or imagined it, so you just need to get over it and move on.

Who are you replying to? The OP? Because it sounds like that's exactly what happened.

Also, what do you mean by "how any of us want or imagined it?" I think what everyone wants is a playable frame rate, or to not have degraded performance in multiplayer compared to singleplayer. Are you saying that will never happen?

Edited January 13, 2015 by roshnak

[katipo66 94]

Yes i replied to the OP, again, get over it and move on.

Re: "Am i saying that will never happen"

No, i said probably.

Also, what do you mean by "how any of us want or imagined it?" I think what everyone wants is a playable frame rate, or to not have degraded performance in multiplayer compared to singleplayer. Are you saying that will never happen?

Actually MP has been a big let down for me in a lot of ways, but not so much in terms of performance, but then i haven't played A3 MP for a long time, i went to have a look at the servers and same old story, all mostly password protected, so i just moved on :)

Edited January 13, 2015 by Katipo66

[St. Jimmy 272]

i wont mind if you edit my meme pic - no problem for me

i wont mind if you post your edited meme here - no problem

but faking a quote? i mean seriously ? this shows how fanboys behave when they are out of arguments.

Sorry if I upset you that much. It's just a meme. I edited the post...

But arguments? I didn't see any arguments in that post. All I can say you can get better performance in BIS games but you've to make "sacrifices" and OC the shit out of your rig to get nice results. I don't mean that the bad performance is totally players fault and BIS shouldn't give any better performance. If your meme really was an argument then i7 and GTX 900 series should perform better than 10fps especially if CPU is overclocked unless the server and mission are really crappy.

[Arma3goodCPUlowFPS 12]

Sorry if I upset you that much. It's just a meme. I edited the post...

But arguments? I didn't see any arguments in that post. All I can say you can get better performance in BIS games but you've to make "sacrifices" and OC the shit out of your rig to get nice results. I don't mean that the bad performance is totally players fault and BIS shouldn't give any better performance. If your meme really was an argument then i7 and GTX 900 series should perform better than 10fps especially if CPU is overclocked unless the server and mission are really crappy.

we are not talking about MP only. as i said before: in my meme, its about MP AND SP. i personally care less about MP since im a SP player, and in SP, you can not have a decent battle even witha I7 and GTX (and ofcourse huge amount of RAM) rig. but i support it if BI would fix MP performance too even if i care less about MP, it would make all happy. so tell me brow, when arma 3 does only use max 4 gb of RAM and does not use all of your cores properly, its players fault ? we both know its not players fault. go buy the newest I7 with the newest GTX and the newest RAM and then go into the editor and do not use a single script (to make sure that you wont blame the script) and in the editor, place yourself and a huge amount of AI to have a decent battle, you will see that it gives you the same result as when u try the same but with a lower rig. so in short: the argument is that you have bad FPS in MP aswell as in SP when there is action, no matter if you dont use a single script and what rig and the reason is simple: ArmA 3 doesnt use all of your RAM nor your cores properly. thats a fact nobody can deny as it has been proved thousands of times so there is no point to discuss about it or deny it. BI has to solve it out.

btw since we talk about 64bit and multithreading support:

[Greenfist 1863]

Would 64bit really help with performance? The game could use more than 4GB of RAM, but does it need that?

I'm sure it would alleviate some loading stutters and speeds, but does anyone even have any problems with those?

[froggyluv 2130]

Would 64bit really help with performance? The game could use more than 4GB of RAM, but does it need that?

I'm sure it would alleviate some loading stutters and speeds, but does anyone even have any problems with those?

I really doubt it - it's just pie in the sky thinking.

Ive literally lined up the same exact units with the same exact view distance and settings on the same map on both Arma 3 and VBS2 64 bit and my 16 gigs of ram pipin' to go.

Result: Performance was far exceeded on Arma 3.... Ive mentioned this before but far be it from actual tangible results to interfere with the "...but VBS2 does it!!!!!! Wahhhhh!" tantrums.

[Arma3goodCPUlowFPS 12]

Would 64bit really help with performance? The game could use more than 4GB of RAM, but does it need that?

I'm sure it would alleviate some loading stutters and speeds, but does anyone even have any problems with those?

whats the reason NOT to add 64bit ? even if its only helping in loading stutters and speeds, it should be added. 64bit today is a must and i want that my game use all my resources.

and even if its only a fraction in % of performance increase (dwarden said that 64bit may increase FPS but it would be in fraction of %). we are in 2015 now, but arma 3 still feels like a 2001 game with its outdated engine.

read this theard:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?171644-How-important-is-Ram-to-Arma-3-performance

so i think that 64bit (more ram usage) helps in terms of FPS (be it MP or SP)

but what really would help in terms of FPS (atleast in SP) is multithreading support. yeah let the game use only few cores and not even 100% like current is only good if you like to play alone on altis in editor without a single AI, everyone has good FPS there, but for actually playing this game, it needs to use all of the resources.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Arma3goodCPUlowFPS

[Greenfist 1863]

Dwarden said it would increase fps only a fraction of %? So why waste any resources for something that, as far as I know, would require major engine rewriting?

And it could never happen with Arma 3. They can't suddenly make the 64bit a requirement or maintain 2 different versions of the game.

[Arma3goodCPUlowFPS 12]

Dwarden said it would increase fps only a fraction of %? So why waste any resources for something that, as far as I know, would require major engine rewriting?

And it could never happen with Arma 3. They can't suddenly make the 64bit a requirement or maintain 2 different versions of the game.

for the first part: what are they doing all the times ? right, they try to improve performance by optimize some codes in the sound engine etc which also improve FPS but is mostly not noticeable. they optimize codes/scripts in this and this section which gives you at the end maybe a increase of 2 FPS. so whats the difference between adding 64bit support which increase the FPS only a little bit, and the so called performance increase by optimize this and this which only gives you at the end a boost of 1-3 FPS which disappear again/will be used after new improvements @AI behaviour etc which makes it at the end that you wont see anything from the performance increase ? they always doing optimization which only increase the FPS in fraction of %, so whats the problem with 64bit ? atleast 64bit helps at loading and such things which theyr optimization doesnt.

anyway, if they want to help increase the performance, they should make proper multithreading support instead of these optimizations which can be done later. these optimizations are not fixing the game, but only a workaround and at the end when they are finished with the game, you will see that all these optimizations wont give you what multithreading would give you and the game will be at the end the same in terms of FPS like it is today because these few FPS increase we get with the optimizations, are very fast gone because BI also adds AI updates which require more FPS etc.

so dont expect that the game will run smoother in 5 years when they are finished with arma 3.

multithreading support + optimizations would kick the FPS problems in the a**.

for the second part:

Dwarden said that they are working in 64bit, but its experimental WIP and it can happen that they will abandone it or not.

[das attorney 857]

Dwarden said it would increase fps only a fraction of %? So why waste any resources for something that, as far as I know, would require major engine rewriting?

And it could never happen with Arma 3. They can't suddenly make the 64bit a requirement or maintain 2 different versions of the game.

Hi, not posting to be argumentative, but X-Plane 10 was released as 32 bit and then they added a 64 bit binary later (you can install either/both of them). I can't remember the date, but I definitely bought it and then it was added after.

During development, Austin Meyer (Mr X-Plane) stated he wouldn't need to make a 64 bit binary, but post launch it became apparent it was needed, so he coded it in. I don't see why BIS couldn't support both if they chose.

Obv, Arma isn't X-Plane, but it does share many similarities, (large play areas, streaming terrain etc)

[giallustio 770]

would require major engine rewriting

This would be the best ;)

[Arma3goodCPUlowFPS 12]

Hi, not posting to be argumentative, but X-Plane 10 was released as 32 bit and then they added a 64 bit binary later (you can install either/both of them). I can't remember the date, but I definitely bought it and then it was added after.

During development, Austin Meyer (Mr X-Plane) stated he wouldn't need to make a 64 bit binary, but post launch it became apparent it was needed, so he coded it in. I don't see why BIS couldn't support both if they chose.

Obv, Arma isn't X-Plane, but it does share many similarities, (large play areas, streaming terrain etc)

agree. lets wait if BI has success with 64bit and hope that they will success with it.

Quote by Greenfist:

would require major engine rewriting

THAT was since a long time ago necessary.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Arma3goodCPUlowFPS