Content without Performance isn't playable.

[ntsarb 10]

Hello,

 

I'm pretty sure there have been endless discussions in the forum about the graphics performance of the Arma 3 game, but it remains important for the developers of the game to realise that some users cannot play at 25-35fps; the juddering is just unbearable.

 

I purchased the game more than a year ago and I had to leave it aside, in good hope that gradually the developers will optimise it and, some day, I'll be able to play it at my monitor's refresh rate (i.e. 60 fps).

 

I've seen no improvement so far. Instead, I'm reading about new content to be released while the game engine remains too slow for me to enjoy the game.

 

Notably, my PC is powered by an i7 5820K, a Titan X 12GB and 32GB DDR4.

 

Reducing the draw distance and visible objects' distance below 1000m does help significantly, but it doesn't look good.

 

So, if someone from Bohemia reads this, please consider that some of your customers can't play a game if it renders below the frame rate of their monitor, i.e. in most cases that's 60 fps.

 

Thank you.

[veles-zv 176]

let me guess you play king of the hill, wasteland, domination, insurgency, dayz, exile?  

[war_lord 934]

There's this amazing FPS improving tweak called "don't play badly scripted missions on shit servers administrated by kids" they you should try. Why is it that every time I see a ludicrously expensive rig, the guy using it knows absolutely nothing about how computer games actually work? It doesn't matter how amazing your PC is if the server is the thing lagging, and Bohemia can't do anything about serverside issues.   

[vashcz 3]

Today patch improved performance average +10 FPS and minimum FPS +5.

[almanzo 144]

 

Notably, my PC is powered by an i7 5820K, a Titan X 12GB and 32GB DDR4.

 

 

Wait, what?!

What kind of servers are you running on dude? I have a old I7 920 oc @ 3,8 ghz and an AMD 7970 with 24 gb ram and I run the game between 30 and 55 fps in multiplayer... Then again, I don't play public servers, and definately not wasteland or anything like it.

 

[delta3242 399]

The trick is to join a realism unit and play on a private server. Or get lucky and find a server with built in view distance settings that can turn the grass off.

[kylania 568]

Today patch improved performance average +10 FPS and minimum FPS +5.

 

Same here, I've gone from hovering around 30 to a solid mid 40.  Then again, the mission I play has recently been refactored over and over to take advantage of new scripting commands, functions and engine based solutions instead of SQF files.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

 "don't play badly scripted missions on shit servers administrated by kids"

 

Where in his post did he mention what scenario/server he plays on, for you to pass a comment on it?

[Mirek 166]

Where in his post did he mention what scenario/server he plays on, for you to pass a comment on it?

With his issue and his Specs? He dont have to mention it. 

[domokun 515]

Actually, I think that part of his performance problem may lie with his specs.

 

OP has a 5820k which despite its high price (MSRP $390) only runs at 3.3 GHz (its expensive because it has 6 cores and CPU multiplier is unlocked)

As we all know, A3 performance is heavily influenced by CPU clock speed:

http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html

 

So I suspect that OP's performance is bottle-necked by his CPU.

Apparently most 5820k will overclock to 4.0 GHz easily, 4.2 prolly, 4.3 maybe and 4.4 unlikely.

Increasing CPU clock by 1 GHz should result in 20-30% increase in framerates.

 

As for "juddering", does OP have his OS and A3 installed on an SSD?

If not, I strongly recommend it.

 

Finally, tweaking A3's Video settings can really help.

So here are my settings:

 

GENERAL

Sampling = 100%

Texture = Ultra (if SSD) > Very High (if HDD)

Objects = High > Standard

Terrain = High > Standard

Shadow = Ultra > Disabled

Particles = Standard

Cloud = Low

PiP = Disabled < Standard

HDR = Standard > Low

Dynamic Lights = Very High

Water Reflections = Very High

 

Overall = 3800 > 3000 > 2700 > 2500 > 2250 > 1800 > 1600

Object = 2100 > 1700 > 1600 > 1500 > 1400 > 1200 > 1100

Shadow = 100 < 200

 

AA & PP

AO = HBAO+ High > Disabled

Caustics = Enabled > Disabled

FSAA = x4 > x2 > Disabled

ATOC = All Trees & Grass > All Trees > Disabled

PPAA = CMAA > Disabled

AF = Ultra

 

With just a i5-3570k @ 4.4 & GTX 970 & SSD I can run most SP missions at 50-70 fps and most MP at 30-50 fps with 2.5k VD and in 1200p.

[teabagginpeople 398]

Hello,

I'm pretty sure there have been endless discussions in the forum about the graphics performance of the Arma 3 game, but it remains important for the developers of the game to realise that some users cannot play at 25-35fps; the juddering is just unbearable. .

You're right there has been endless discussion. Players also need to realise that some of the servers and missions cripple armas already problematic engine fps problems.

I manage to play single player 40-60 fps. And most tomes 35-40+ fps on a variety of different Co op multiplayer missions. At 1440p ultra settings 2k view and on a lesser rig than yours. I7 4770 gtx 970 both at stock.

I join an altis life server and stuttering. Now because I have tested different servers and mission types I don't just generalise armas performance. I think this server is not for me. As this version of the mission is clearly badly put together and also the server its running on not capable.probably a cheap server so the person running it can keep even more donation or monetization money for themselves.

Perhaps take note. Arma itself shouldn't be lumbered entirely with blame. Thankfully it does not. But if Arma only had a handful of official game modes like say battlefield. You'd not see such scale of problems.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

With his issue and his Specs? He dont have to mention it. 

 

An easy solution would be for OP to clarify the scenario/server/time regarding his experience.

 

Event 'unscripted' and 'official' BI ZGM gamemodes can become unplayably laggy if the Zeus curator drops down too many units.

[vashcz 3]

 

GENERAL

Sampling = 100%

Texture = Ultra (if SSD) > Very High (if HDD)

Objects = High > Standard

Terrain = High > Standard

Shadow = Ultra > Disabled

Particles = Standard

Cloud = Low

PiP = Disabled < Standard

HDR = Standard > Low

Dynamic Lights = Very High

Water Reflections = Very High

 

Overall = 3800 > 3000 > 2700 > 2500 > 2250 > 1800 > 1600

Object = 2100 > 1700 > 1600 > 1500 > 1400 > 1200 > 1100

Shadow = 100 < 200

 

AA & PP

AO = HBAO+ High > Disabled

Caustics = Enabled > Disabled

FSAA = x4 > x2 > Disabled

ATOC = All Trees & Grass > All Trees > Disabled

PPAA = CMAA > Disabled

AF = Ultra

 

With just a i5-3570k @ 4.4 & GTX 970 & SSD I can run most SP missions at 50-70 fps and most MP at 30-50 fps with 2.5k VD and in 1200p.

 

 

Oh man. Whatever setting you have, 2100 object distance = 1,8km actual visibility. And if were you playing PvP, guys would took you down with tank and you would know sh*t :-D.

For me 3km is necessary so settings 3,5km. I would like to see maybe a little further because of choppers but.... well Arma and 45% GPU usage(was 35% before this patch).

 

btw I tried SSD when 1.0 A3 came out but it didn´t help. Maybe a little for minimum FPS. Does it REALLY worth today? Can´t I simply force the game to use 10GBs of RAM?

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

let me guess you play king of the hill, wasteland, domination, insurgency, dayz, exile?  

 most of the a3 community plays these gamemodes. there are some who don't and some who did and now don't, but most have.

[xambo 0]

My Rig is :

 

i7-4790K

32GB Ram

250 Sata Hard Disk

Geforce GTX 970 4GB

 

The game runs really smooth with FPS between 30-60.

 

Check out this video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPxevWa8CKk

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

let me guess you play king of the hill, wasteland, domination, insurgency, dayz, exile?  

 

 

Woah Woah, hey now, i play Exile and Wasteland and receive 50-60 FPS depending on the host. It's not the Game mode, it depends on who is running it, and how they're running it. ;)

[Wiki 1558]

And performances without content is nothing :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Guest]

And performances without content is nothing :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

But anyway, devs are aware of it. There was recently a nice improvement in dev-branch which should land in stable soon (if there is no issue with it).

[jw custom 56]

@ntsarb

 

If you can't play ArmA3 with those specs you should sell your computer and buy a console.... really.

[kilrbe3 37]

I love the back and forth nerd fight here.

 

"Don't play Exile, Insurgency, or Wasteland"

 

"Go buy a $500 CPU"

 

"Learn how to play at 30FPS".

 

You kids are cute. Let's not fool ourselves. Any and every ArmA veteran of the series know how bad it is. I don't care how new or old you are to the series, anyone with common sense, a basic understanding of CPU's and usage, can easily see the RV engine, even at RV4 is still complete crap. The engine is tasked to do a lot to enjoy the great things we love about ArmA, that makes ArmA. But in long run, the RV is a disgrace at this stage and in 2016. The Engine is from 1999 IIRC. It's a turd that gets polished every year. But you can only polish and wax and detail so much a car...

 

ARMA has reached its point IMHO that if Dev's don't seriously tackle the CPU problems, then well, least for me, there won't be a ArmA 4 purchase. Having ARMA only uses 2 main cores, and only 60% CPU usage after many years, is now unacceptable. It's turned into a phase of release more DLC/Content, while also do bare min to the engine for improvements. Yes, Apex and 1.60 are 'Visual Updates' but, still not tackling the deep core problem. They do just enough to improve 5% here and there, but not a full on 'lets spend few weeks/months on this'. 

 

To most, they have grown use to 20-30FPS when in ArmA. For some having BI optimize engine be a waste. Many are happy with suffering. Everyone has a limit, and for many, it's being reached with ARMA 3's and its continually dropping performance. 

 

In this thread alone, I laugh, absolutely laugh at you people suggesting $500 CPUs... and tell him to OC, hahahahahahahahahaha. When a i5 2500k Sandy Bridge can do the job just fine when OC'd. 

 

A i5 2500k @ 4.2, compared to a i5 2500k @ 4.5Ghz, alone is about 15-20% boost. Going from 3.3 to 4.2, was about a 40% boost. Not this "30% gain from 1Ghz" that some of you claim here...

 

@oldbear,

 

I'm calling 100% bs on those pics or they are doctored. ARMA DOES NOT use 80-100% CPU usage, unless you have other task open in background also using your CPU. ARMA 3 at MAX will use 70% MAX, usually 50-65%. Your CPU clock is almost stock, and you complain, yet don't OC either? Shake my head...

 

 

TL:DR:

 

ARMA 3 performance is a mess. RV engine is a mess. Each patch its band-aid fixes. It's time BI sits down and crunches the RV engine for CPU performance. Don't even get me started on GPU usage. But that goes way deeper than the standard A3 users know of RV engine...

 

BI gets a pass and excused greatly sometimes on these topics, because at end of the day, we all love and adore ARMA, and it gives us endless pleasures. But, everyone has a limit. For some, the limit / line is being crossed now. BI can continue to ignore it too sadly. The sales and hype around A3, and its "Life" missions alone, make sales out the window. Sales to A2 compared to A3 is insane. It went from selling only to Military Enthusiast and Milsim, to DayZ kids, to Life kids now.. Why fix something when 90% of userbase doesn't care and only plays Wasteland, Exile or Breakingpoint? Flashback's of other devs flashing in my eyes.....

 

/love you BI, but its' time you wake up and smell the flowers and give RV engine some love and actually crunch with it for weeks. Esp when you now charging $30 for a DLC, when base game is $9 more..... Yea, it's time you care about Performance more. 

[St. Jimmy 272]

@oldbear,

 

I'm calling 100% bs on those pics or they are doctored. ARMA DOES NOT use 80-100% CPU usage, unless you have other task open in background also using your CPU. ARMA 3 at MAX will use 70% MAX, usually 50-65%. Your CPU clock is almost stock, and you complain, yet don't OC either? Shake my head...

 

It's a dual-core CPU without hyper-threading, not a quad... Dual core can easily go 80-100% in Arma.

[kilrbe3 37]

It's a dual-core CPU without hyper-threading, not a quad... Dual core can easily go 80-100% in Arma.

How sad...

 

just makes it even more sad that a dual core from literally 10 years ago, can beat a quad core of modern day... Gee, let me go pull out my trusty E8400 from 2007 and put it at 4.5Ghz , just to get best out of ARMA! While I suffer in everything else that has moved on with the times and actual has common sense when comes to coding for newer processors! /s

 

how sad BIS, how f'ing sad.

[Mirek 166]

 

 

 

Caution, we have an expert here. :-D

[almanzo 144]

I love the back and forth nerd fight here.

 

"Don't play Exile, Insurgency, or Wasteland"

 

"Go buy a $500 CPU"

 

"Learn how to play at 30FPS".

 

 

To most, they have grown use to 20-30FPS when in ArmA. For some having BI optimize engine be a waste. Many are happy with suffering. Everyone has a limit, and for many, it's being reached with ARMA 3's and its continually dropping performance. 

 

 

Seriously, 20-30 fps is about 10 fps lower than what I get when playing with my community. I did play the armed assault showcase yesterday and occationally dipped below 30 with everything set to highest settings and draw distance and object distance at 3000. When playing with my community though, I typically hit around 37 - 45 fps depending on the map we play on, and that is with a mod set of above 20 mods total.

 

And that is on an I7 920 overclocked at 3,8 ghz, a CPU that is 7 years old now. My GPU is a 7970 and I have 24gb of system memory.

 

[Phantoms 1]

I have a new rig. Skylake i5 6600, M.2 Samsung Pro SSD, 980Ti, 16GB ram, etc. I have a mission I made with several dozen units coming in fighting for control of a church. I had been playing on a 1680x1050 monitor with everything maxed and got great frame rates. A minimum of 40fps and usually much much more. I just upgraded my monitor to a 2k one (2560x1440) and when I bumped up the resolution to match, the fps dropped into the low 20s at times. I found that I have to back off some settings (objects, ect.) to play at this resolution.

 

many times when people compare about frame rates to modern graphic cars, they don't usually mention the much higher resolutions they are playing at. As graphic cards get better, monitors do too and continue to graphic cards to their limits.