Content without Performance isn't playable.

[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.

[HKFlash 9]

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. 

 

Your arrogance is not helping you neither is your ignorance. BI is already developing a new engine, code named Enfusion.

[jw custom 56]

"Go buy a $500 CPU" ... not my kind of advice for most of the Arma3 players, but for a player spending all those bucks on an "i7 5820K/Titan X 12GB/32GB DDR4" based rig ... why not?

 

:D  i like it :D

[kilrbe3 37]

Your arrogance is not helping you neither is your ignorance. BI is already developing a new engine, code named Enfusion.

Your arrogance is not helping you, neither is your ignorance.

 

Enfusion isn't being made for A3 or ported to A3. So A4. So unless real changes and performance shows, and BI adpats Enf to ArmA series, is still yet to be known. For now at least.

 

Please, be more of a rude boy next time. I love throwing things back in people's faces ;) 

 

Go buy a beer and relax.

[oldbear 390]

Trying to educate "nekulturny" brats ... a lifetime job B)

 

We're also developing using an ageing engine and tool-set. Real Virtuality still does certain things better than the newest versions of popular alternatives out there, but we're not oblivious to its short-comings (which is why a new Enfusion engine is in development).

Source :  https://arma3.com/news/report-in-joris-jan-van-t-land-project#.V1cmVL5SFl3

We will continue to look for optimization opportunities across the board, but it would not be realistic to expect a 'magic bullet' leap forward in Arma 3's lifetime. That also goes for a potential DirectX 12 implementation. After a lengthy initial investigation, we've concluded that this is far more complex than it may seem. It has been decided that our company will first tackle this in the new Enfusion engine, as its rendering pipeline is more compatible. Afterwards we'll still evaluate porting it back (or using the knowledge we'll have gained) for Arma 3. This does mean quite definitely that no DX12 implementation will be part of the platform update that is to accompany the Apex release.

Source :  https://dev.arma3.com/post/sitrep-00151
 

[I give up 152]

Honestly, the performance is not a issue (or issues).

The issue  is some guy that made a trip to a game studio and now he see himself  as the master guru of the sound and consequently the sound of A3 is totally destroyed.

The issue is some guy that probably lost is glasses in some war, and now he cant see how the things should look, in matter of graphics.

[HKFlash 9]

Your arrogance is not helping you, neither is your ignorance.

 

Enfusion isn't being made for A3 or ported to A3. So A4. So unless real changes and performance shows, and BI adpats Enf to ArmA series, is still yet to be known. For now at least.

 

Please, be more of a rude boy next time. I love throwing things back in people's faces ;)

 

Go buy a beer and relax.

 

Sure BI will change A3 engine after releasing the game just for you. They even have a record of that right?

 

Your words touched my heart and mind to the point I don't need a beer to relax. But thanks for the suggestion.

 

Also, if you love throwing things back at people's faces you won't stay around for long.  :)

[R0adki11 3949]

Ok that's enough, any more flame-baiting or throwing insults at each other will result in users having their forum access suspended. 

[req 10]

I have a pretty damn good rig and even I get some performance issues here and there...

[chrisb 196]

 

 

 

 

@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...

 

 

 

 

Test pics from some time back.

 

http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l538/triopalite/A3/arma3_2015_05_16_15_52_33_724_zps0rsiz0bl.jpg

http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l538/triopalite/A3/arma3_2015_05_16_15_54_56_794_zps9djto2hs.jpg

http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l538/triopalite/A3/arma3_2015_05_16_15_57_30_078_zpsicgvnxjj.jpg

http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l538/triopalite/A3/arma3_2015_05_16_11_00_03_000_zps9s8oyyw1.jpg

http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l538/triopalite/A3/arma3_2015_05_16_10_00_22_836_zpsucrsgbbz.jpg

http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l538/triopalite/A3/arma3_2015_05_16_10_00_37_735_zpswikdvbox.jpg

http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l538/triopalite/A3/arma3_2015_05_16_10_02_58_473_zpscvqjgcxo.jpg

[skidmatic 1]

Haven't all the ARMA games been bad when it comes to performance?

[Vigil Vindex 64]

Still waiting on an official benchmark like in A2. I think it's interesting BIS was confident enough to have benchmark in previous games but not in A3. And how many years has Dwarden been pushing out performance binaries now? What is the results of these performance binaries? Are they in the stable branch yet or are we still testing? I think a benchmark would help give us a consistent test to gain insight to how useful the performance binaries are and how to move forward.

[CANADAVE 14]

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.

 

So I can play arma 3 today for the cost of 10 year old hardware?   I don't need expensive new hardware?   I'm just confirming before I start to build my son a machine .   I don't know the point of this thread  but are you saying this is a bad thing?   Seems awesome for me and by bank account!  thanks for the tip!

[oldbear 390]

@ windsortheater : "So I can play arma 3 today for the cost of 10 year old hardware?" ... in fact, based on my own experience, it's not really the case.

 

You don't need expensive hardware in order to play Arma3, but game experience is better with brand new hardware for many reasons.

ATM, as said previously on this thread, I am testing a Pentium G4500/GTX 750Ti based rig, the gaming experience is rather good far better that the one I had with Core2Duo E6600/HD 4870 [10 years old unplayable config].

 

Of course, you can use old hardware, but not obsolete one. Today I will say that the minimum you must look at in the oldies in order to "play" Arma3 is an Intel i5-2500, a not so old CPU [5 years] but efficient enough.

 

From my point of view, the choice in the GPU area is limited by DX12 compatibility/drivers obsolescence and  guided by the fact -still to be proven- that "Visual Update" is pulling harder on this part of the hardware, my own advice is not to go under the HD 7870/GTX 660 level.

[kocrachon 2]

We need evidence and benchmarks to diagnose the issue, regardless of all of the arguments here. He says he has poor performance and displayed specs. We need a good 2 minute recording of him doing simple things like idling, running, running and shooting, and surrounded by targets. If we see all of this in a single player environment and no issues, we can blame Multiplayer. But without any benchmarks or evidence, theres not much support to be provided. 

[empleat 1]

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.   

It is not true, that it is only serversided.

I have intel 3770 with geforce 780.

Arma is using max 50% of gpu and 30% of cpu.

And there aren't any good servers for tdm and even battleroyale.

60fps is minimum for good gameplay.

Game engine is bottlenecking cpu hard.

[jw custom 56]

60fps is minimum for good gameplay.

 

LOL...

 

30fps+ and ArmA is awesome.

 

...and to those with high end computers complaining about performance issues... atleast set SAMPLING at max 100% before crying here <_<

[calin_banc 19]

Why 30+ when 24 is more cinematic? 

[oldbear 390]

@ empleat : yes you are right, it's not only server side.

It's mainly related to CPU performances.

You must be advised that your "old" i7-3770 despite it's great qualities is not the best CPU for playing [i known I had one in my ex-gaming rig now my "dev" one].

What may be your reactions if I was saying that I am not getting high FPS level with an i3-6320?

But now, performances wise, the ex vice-king is more or less on par with this brand new i3.

Playing Arma3 with this i3, you will get a load over 60% on the 4 threads and a nice FPS level in the 30/40 FPS range.

[oldbear 390]

@ calin_blanc : [Fr Mod on] ne te lance pas dans ce débat de cette façon, en plus ce n'est pas un bon argument[Fr Mod off]

 

Playing Arma*, you don't need a very high level of FPS.

During a mission on MP or on SP as well, you can see  wide variation in the FPS level due to action/environment/FX.

Arma3 is a "slow" game best play in Team with a tactical mind, here the mindless running/jumping is left to rabbits.

Never going under 20 FPS, even a few seconds, is the right thing to look at.

[calin_banc 19]

@oldbear,

 

you could play tactical if the AI were better suited for that and even then you need good, steady fps. I was ironic about the 24fps, since some see movies as proof that low fps is fine.

 

Low input lag, predictable experience is what you need when you do an action that requires finesse and shooting at someone is definitely such an action. I can play an RPG no problem at 30fps, if it doesn't involve precise moving or aiming, just clicking in a certain direction, but not here. 

 

With that said, I do appreciate that the latest build (on dev branch) does show a nice boost. It's not where it should be and it still doesn't use the available resources as it should, but at least it runs better.

[Arkensor 96]

To express my point of view, I just will say that I start overclocking my pc this afternoon.

 

On ~ 230 players active on our server, in kavalla where many things happen and alot of people are present I get around 60-70 FPS - On Altis

Same amount of players, but far out in the slat lake or other less populated ares I get up to 90 fps - On Altis

 

Now on Tanoa IN SINGLEPLAYER / EDITOR my fps do not rise above 53 fps, at no given time.

If this framerate would be constant in MP that would be fine, but witgh 200+ players in MP the frames will drop from ~50 to ~35/30, which is close not not playable.

 

There are too much objects on the map. Every 50 meters a garbage can, man road signs, and a railway which is not usable in any way which alone makes alot of obejcts ...

 

BI need to either reduce the detail amount, that is still looks good, and is playable, or needs to give everyone a 1500$ 5,X ghz cpu with custom water cooling, to run Tanoa the same way they do run Altis right now.

 

All FPS test were made with the same grafics, under the same hardware and software settings. 

 

My pc is build for arma, and the fact that is runs that amount of players in MP with ultra grafics etc, should proove this. Now how can that kind of pc not handle Tanoa?

 

@BI did you internal QA people even test Tanoa on medium and week pcs? What framerate do you as developers consider playable and "good". Are there any plans to get more performace out of the map?

 

 

Thank you for reading

 

 

Regards Arkensor

[chortles 263]

Any advice for settings if I'm on a i5-3570K (not OC'd, Hyper 212+) and 660 Ti?

[Mirek 166]

Why 30+ when 24 is more cinematic? 

I have some  fluctuations in my FPS. Normaly i run 50+  sometimes even 60+ i drop to 45 in cities and sometimes below 25 in heavier fights. I only notice it when i look at the FPS counter. Never noticed it before i enabled the counter. So i gues there is no visible difference.