Why Bohemia Why?

[fabio_chavez 103]

playing shooters with 120hz+120fps is delicacy for the soul!

[bad benson 1733]

As I said previously, in high-speed games like racing it's were fps could make a significant difference. Arma is not a high-speed game.

i mean i get that some people celebrate the whole talking a lot over ACRE not doing much playstyle and i kind of get it, each to their own. but wha..what?

arma has modern ground vehicles (as in fast), helos and even jets. i could stop there but even just having to turn your gun quickly in CQB, hell doing anything with urgency, since this is a frikkin game about combat, will require high speed and precision.

again, no hate towards logistics and recon fetishism, though.

i literally stopped playing arma 3 MP (PvP) because of constant stutter epecially in CQB. there's always some shit that has to load, hell i got stutter from the other guy shooting at me in alpha from that retarded gun smoke bug...

to me arma 3 is now a broken transition state to maybe the next arma (sounds familiar?). some day they will nail it, i swear.

Of course more fps is always better. Not sure why this is debated. Although you sometimes go for less fps in exchange for more graphical detail. If you guys didn't care about graphics you'd still be playing OFP... ;)

yes of course. it's a well known fact that FPS get lower and lower with each new game generation. the game of the future will be the mona lisa at 1 FPS at 1024000x680000 resolution. ;)

Edited July 14, 2015 by Bad Benson

[pvt. partz 248]

...@Bad Benson

any chance on a fix for your EM mod. It works sometimes but after playing a while the climb makes you fly into the air. One of my favorite mods especially for urban combat.

PS: Your MidTex still works perfectly!

[Scrub 0]

Arma sped up by at least 20% just by going to a SSD. The I/O bottleneck was killing my framerate.. stupid cheap drives.

[oggoeg 3]

Arma sped up by at least 20% just by going to a SSD. The I/O bottleneck was killing my framerate.. stupid cheap drives.

I can confirm, slow hard drive is bad for Arma. Only GTA V has been worse with a bad drive.

My PC should be running Arma quite stable, but my old hard drive is degrading bad. Frames will now jump from high to very low constantly and sometimes frames freeze even for 30 seconds to a minute.

Friend bought a fast SSD for Arma and said it improved loading times and performance. Thus I'm saving for one too.

Stuttering, fps jumping, LOD popping. slow LOD loading, fps drops when zooming and a lot more are caused by a bad or broken hard drive.

Edited July 15, 2015 by oggoeg

[calin_banc 19]

Arma sped up by at least 20% just by going to a SSD. The I/O bottleneck was killing my framerate.. stupid cheap drives.

Good thing we have all these 64bit systems, lots of RAM, but still streaming directly from HDD. :confused:

Edited July 15, 2015 by calin_banc

[I give up 152]

Good thing we have all these 64bit systems, lots of RAM, but still streaming directly from HDD. :confused:

While SSD is a solution for Arma 3 is not the best solution.

Sure, read/write speed increase to 500 MB/s (RAID 0 800 MB/s) but we still have a high latency and when we compare these speeds and response times with CPU/GPU/RAM performance is like if we had bicycle wheels in a Ferrari engine.

Arma 3 stream directly from HDD and every piece of hardware (CPU/GPU/RAM) have to wait for HDD, with Arma 3 is like the whole system was operating at HDD speed and this is the main cause for CPU/GPU bottleneck.

The best solution (even so not the perfect, but the best) is to set a RAMDISK. We can achieve 3000 MB/s write/read speeds and a much lower latency. Doing this the called is CPU (lack of multi core support) "issue" is highly reduced (cant be "erased" due to DX11 limitations) and for GPU bottleneck the same.

Some time ago I have made a system with these characteristics, to bad I cant find the benchmarks, in particular performance tests with Arma 3.

About 64 bit for Arma 3, there is no need for it. Arma 3 already use (even the executable itself) more than the the 32 bit limit.

In fact I have serious doubts if 64 bit is the best solution for games due to massive adress space.

[DancZer 65]

The best solution ...

Would be, if the utilize the available memory and load as much assets into it as possible. We spend lot of money to have acceptable FPS and sometimes it isn't enough!! I hope BI will could do some refact for the expansion and let us play at 60+ FPS IN MP!!

[I give up 152]

Would be, if the utilize the available memory and load as much assets into it as possible. We spend lot of money to have acceptable FPS and sometimes it isn't enough!! I hope BI will could do some refact for the expansion and let us play at 60+ FPS IN MP!!

May be hard to believe, but RAM load (and usage) and the amount of data cached in pagefile is also linked to GPU memory.

More GPU memory we have, more RAM we get in use and more data we have cached in system pagefile.

At least that's what happens when I have mine triple CrossfireX enabled. And btw, with 3 GPUs I have all my CPU cores working in a balanced way (between 50/70%), this for 4 cores.

Even with 8 cores (with fps capped at 60 by Vsync) all cores work more or less balanced, obviously with less usage. But if we let fps go free, all cores usage will increase and also gpu usage (AND HEAT).

http://i.imgur.com/C11j5V6.jpg

[calin_banc 19]

While SSD is a solution for Arma 3 is not the best solution.

Sure, read/write speed increase to 500 MB/s (RAID 0 800 MB/s) but we still have a high latency and when we compare these speeds and response times with CPU/GPU/RAM performance is like if we had bicycle wheels in a Ferrari engine.

Arma 3 stream directly from HDD and every piece of hardware (CPU/GPU/RAM) have to wait for HDD, with Arma 3 is like the whole system was operating at HDD speed and this is the main cause for CPU/GPU bottleneck.

The best solution (even so not the perfect, but the best) is to set a RAMDISK. We can achieve 3000 MB/s write/read speeds and a much lower latency. Doing this the called is CPU (lack of multi core support) "issue" is highly reduced (cant be "erased" due to DX11 limitations) and for GPU bottleneck the same.

Some time ago I have made a system with these characteristics, to bad I cant find the benchmarks, in particular performance tests with Arma 3.

About 64 bit for Arma 3, there is no need for it. Arma 3 already use (even the executable itself) more than the the 32 bit limit.

In fact I have serious doubts if 64 bit is the best solution for games due to massive adress space.

It's not about the transfer speed, it's about IOPS when it comes to fast access the data, as far as I know. 64 bit is the future, the game should know how to dynamically load into RAM what it needs so it can properly feed the CPU/GPU and any transfer between storage and RAM should be done in the background (like any other game does). It's possible, dx11.2 does it through tilled resources, dx12 does it as well, but I doubt it will be implemented - Bohemia seems to like just bare bone implementation of new technologies.

It's a big scope game that requires some outside the box methods. JC 2 and 3 (just to throw in some quick examples) shows/will show that you can render huge areas without bringing your system to a crawl.

Until Bohemia's next engine hits the market, I really hope the expansion brings something new to the table, or else performance wise, the game is "dead" (as in impossible to keep a steady 60fps no matter the hardware).

Edited July 15, 2015 by calin_banc

[I give up 152]

It is also about access and is about write/read speeds, without a decent write/read speed, access will be always a issue, mainly because Arma 3 places a good amount of data in system pagefile (Hard Drive) and requires a continuous stream from HDD (read/write) before these data can be accessed by the CPU or GPU. In my opinion Hard Drive is the main cause for bottleneck in Arma 3, but is only my opinion based on how Arma 3 operates. Maybe I am wrong.

Not sure if 64 bit is solution, as far I know there are several cons, hardware related.

From the 64 bit games available, we cant say good things.

Also about the relation GPU memory and Ram usage, take a look at the difference in RAM loaded between 2 or 3 GPUs

http://i.imgur.com/dfDzU2q.jpg

Still the cpu (with 4 cores) usage remains scalled, the same for GPU's

Edited July 16, 2015 by Bratwurste

[optix 137]

I aswell highly suggest lowering the render distance to something acceptable. In my case it always gave me 20+ FPS, but like others said having the correct setup is necessary.

[.kju 3245]

I really hope the expansion brings something new to the table, or else performance wise, the game is "dead"

DnA/Joris already said on reddit, that this wont happen. Just small incremental tweaks.

[calin_banc 19]

From the 64 bit games available, we cant say good things.

And why is that?

;2966814']DnA/Joris already said on reddit' date=' that this wont happen. Just small incremental tweaks.[/quote']

Hope dies last.

[DancZer 65]

May be hard to believe, but RAM load (and usage) and the amount of data cached in pagefile is also linked to GPU memory.

More GPU memory we have, more RAM we get in use and more data we have cached in system pagefile.

At least that's what happens when I have mine triple CrossfireX enabled. And btw, with 3 GPUs I have all my CPU cores working in a balanced way (between 50/70%), this for 4 cores.

Even with 8 cores (with fps capped at 60 by Vsync) all cores work more or less balanced, obviously with less usage. But if we let fps go free, all cores usage will increase and also gpu usage (AND HEAT).

http://i.imgur.com/C11j5V6.jpg

Wow! Do you have the fluid 60 in MP too?

[chrisb 196]

I think like everything with this series, you build your gaming world to suit your system. The game will run differently from player to player, mp is always best on private servers I think. Just because whichever group is running it, will know what systems they're aiming at.

Regards 64bit games. I play Space Engineers on their 64bit version and it plays very well. There again I don't know how the 32bit version runs, haven't tried it.

The next instalment (dlc) for A3, will run very similar to how A3 runs now. So if your having problems running the game, then I don't see that changing with next years dlc.

:)

Edited July 16, 2015 by ChrisB

[I give up 152]

And why is that?

How many games you know with a native 64 bit engine?

Sure there are a few that require x64 OS, but they are not 64 bit games, they require x64 OS just for memory to use large address aware and that BIS already did.

Wow! Do you have the fluid 60 in MP too?

Yes I have if I stick to missions properly made, with a limited numbers of players and AI.

If I jump in to lag fests like KotH, Life or even AI based like some Domination/Insurgency (or similar) with tons of AI, scripts and "features", obviously I cant. There is no way for Arma 3 to support all those players and AI. Heck, some servers even run more than 100 slots, insane.

[Jackal326 1181]

Yes I have if I stick to missions properly made, with a limited numbers of players and AI.

If I jump in to lag fests like KotH, Life or even AI based like some Domination/Insurgency (or similar) with tons of AI, scripts and "features", obviously I cant. There is no way for Arma 3 to support all those players and AI. Heck, some servers even run more than 100 slots, insane.

I'm starting to think I was the only sensible one around here, but couldn't agree more with that statement. It always makes me laugh when you see the frequent "My FPS is crap! WTF BI?!" posts which later develop into the poster admitting to trying to run a script heavy/AI riddled monstrosity of a "mission" with 50 other people connected, on a potato.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Jackal326

[calin_banc 19]

How many games you know with a native 64 bit engine?

Sure there are a few that require x64 OS, but they are not 64 bit games, they require x64 OS just for memory to use large address aware and that BIS already did

As long as they work fine, I couldn't care less. ArmA 3 isn't doing fine and the system is using just falls flat.:)

[x3kj 1247]

later develop into the poster admitting to trying to run a script heavy/AI riddled monstrosity of a "mission" with 50 other people connected, on a potato.

besides a dozend of horribly optimized mods... most life mods where thrown together by people who have little clue, i can't imagine that they paid any attention to optimization at all

Even good mods can have optimization problems, where fps tank down by 20 just because you used a certain item...

Let's not to forget the "i turned view distance all to maximum, my PC is new, i get bad fps, fix this shit!" joke.

[austin_medic 109]

Many mods in many games don't run very good. They probably run "ok", but nowhere close to vanillia. Arma is worse than some other games that support mods because for starters its over 10 years old (a lot of the framework on the bottom of the stack is probably close to 15 years old). Even then there is more than one way to do a lot of things, each one varies in efficiency. BIS's stuff runs much better than mods mainly because they have access to the whole thing, all the source code is at their finger tips and they are probably very aware of the most efficient ways to make their items and vehicles and guns so the game will run well with them.

It's impossible for them to be able to make all mods run as good because there is few limits on what the game will accept in terms of models, your gun or soldier could have like 40,000 or 50,000 polygons and the game would take it, though it would run like crap because arma isn't built to use models with that many polygons (wiki states bis's stuff is between 15 and 20k polys).

Even then theres probably other factors in play with the OP's problem. Like if its in MP with other players, its using mods or the mission has been running too long or even if that mission is running on an inadequate server.