Why is Arma 3's performance so bad?

[Barbecue Tech Tips 0]

I see 15 to 60 fps depending what's going on at 4k.

[ozzbik 71]

On 5-3-2017 at 7:09 AM, _Haywire_ said:

hi guys im have some performance issues of my own im running:

• OS: Windows 10 Home 64-bit
• CPU: Intel Core i5 6600 @ 3.30GHz Skylake 14nm Technology
• GPU: 4095MB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (EVGA)
• RAM: 16.0GB Dual-Channel Unknown @ 1067MHz
• Mobo: Gigabyte Technology Co. Ltd. B150M-D3H-CF (U3E1)
• HHD: 1863GB Seagate ST2000DX001-1NS164 (SATA)

and im only getting 9 - 15 fps on a blank altis mission with my settings on standard with some thing on high and view distance 1500.

if anyone knows whats wrong or how i can bump my fps up to 30+ let me know.

(i was able to get 40 - 50 fps on version 1.62 of arma on a pretty full out mission at high settings)

Do you have any mods loaded? Arma3 has a large dependency on CPU single-core speed (the higher the clock-speed the better)

Try using a higher view distance to see if the FR goes up or down and always set shadow quality higher than low (otherwise it will use your CPU instead of GPU).

Could you post your settings perhaps (it will give insight as to what might be done)?

 

 

 

 

[redarmy 422]

Arma3 has pretty good performance these days...

 

(i74790k 3.2 GHZ/650ti boost)  High graphics,3000 view 2200 obj distance.

 

there are alot of factors to consider...simply saying 'this game runs like garbage" is a laughable comment.

 

First and foremost,Mods are not designed by BIS,they contain textures/polygons etc designed by a third party who sometimes do not take into account the level of detail of Vanilla assets and try to match them,and they are entitled to,its their creation.If someone creates and models an AK,simply looking in game at ultra settings close up to that weapon will cause FPS to drop.

Good example,RHS(i use as i love it,but performance i get with those units isnt great) Place 8 INDIVIDUAL US or RUS units on an empty map,side by side,now look at them and watch the FPS get cut almost in half(depending on yr GPU/CPU)  Now with vanilla....60 FPS here with vsync.

 

Included in the EDEN editor is absolutely EVERYTHING you need to create a large,combined arms mission with upwards of 100 AI PER SIDE including vehicles,placed objects etc..

its really up to HOW THE MISSION IS DESIGNED.

 

within the editor,you have modules like enable dynamic simulation(which disables simulation on groups/units or objects until players/enemy are with YOUR predifined range)the HIDE/SHOW module(quite similar,and also hides visibly the AI units/groups objetcs) which can DRASTICALLY save performance by more or less removing said entities untill they are needed.( again,smart mission creation is needed here to get full effects)   its basically like a cache system that works,garaunteed,out of the box. Try it....put down 300 Tanks,preview and watch your FPS drop to 2! then try again with all those tanks within a trigger that is set to hide them...viola!! 60 FPS( if thats what you normally got on an empty map)

 

we now have a decent unit/vehicle garbage collection system in built into Arma's 3D editor.Everytime a unit is killed it is viewed as an inventory object on the map,so cleaning them up is essential.Smart mission design should ALWAYS include this.

 

AI IN COMBAT....here is where it gets tricky,this is where Arma's FPS can dip...100 AI walking around to WP's wont hurt FPS,but if they all get into combat(even combat mode) ALOOOOT of computing is done in terms of AI pathing(moving to cover) target designation by sqaud leaders,ballistics,bullet penetration,armour values etc etc... A good way to keep a mission running smooth is ensure this doesnt happen.Missions pacing is crucial to good performance,as groups die,and get deleted,new groups appear at the front.

If you MUST have a lot of AI engaging each other in a scenario at the same time,consider creating one squad of 30,instead of 6 squads of 5,this will help ease the CPU usage.

 

There are alot of tips out there to help with performance in ARMA3,the best i could give besides the above,is to play as close to Vanilla as possible,and be very careful about what scripts are running and how often they run.If you cannot get Arma3 at a solid framerate,stop playing user made missions,create your own so YOU can tailor it to the kind of performance that best suits your own hardware.

 

This game has come a long way since Alpha,BIS have done a great job with performance,especially since Eden update.

Its no secret that Arma is beefy,and ritely so,just look at all it includes within the engine,BIS give us the tools to tailor it,in that light you can achieve the performance desired.

 

 

[EDcase 87]

There is a very simple test to see the difference between CPU and GPU capability of your machine. (Roughly)

 

Go into editor and place your character anywhere then check fps.  This shows the maximum performance your graphics card (GPU) can handle. 

Try adding AI groups and check fps while increasing their numbers.

 

FPS will start to drop as more assets are in the mission because CPU handles AI and all other game logic.  When the CPU is overloaded it will reduce your fps no matter what your graphics are set to.

Well made missions will only spawn enemy AI around the player and remove obsolete clutter regularly.

 

Mods may have data that is not optimised or scripts that can affect performance.

 

The other consideration is when playing online your bandwidth and server load can affect fps or cause lag/stuttering.

 

 

 

[krycek 349]

Depends how many AI units are involved. It does actually have crap performance when using too many AI units. For any "big" battle involving 200-300 AI's (for all sides) I get 20-24fps. It seems after you pass a certain amount of AIs the game limits me to that fps and it doesn't matter if I add another 50 or 100 AI units. This is on my desktop 4790K (I keep it at 4.4ghz) and on my laptop I7 7700HQ.

I'm pretty sure this is because of the ancient engine Arma uses, growing up with this series this was pretty much constant. I do seem to remember that A2 had a slightly better performance, had 2-3 missions where I went over 400 AI's.

You might have a better framerate if you were using garbage collector module or something like that but I want to see the remains of a battle be it burning vehicles or dead bodies.

[EDcase 87]

@krycek: I think ARMA1-2 may have coped better with more AI, its probably because they had less 'brains' 

 

To all who complain about ARMA performance:

While it may be true that its not the best optimised, show me any other game with the scope of ARMA that can have 300 soldiers running, driving, flying around fighting to survive 

[ProfTournesol 956]

None.

[krycek 349]

1 hour ago, EDcase said:

@krycek: I think ARMA1-2 may have coped better with more AI, its probably because they had less 'brains' 

 

If we're talking about infantry I agree, they know a few more tricks, better reactions in interiors and compared to A2 a big step forward. If we're talking about driving and other crap they're sharper as a sack of bricks.

[EDcase 87]

13 hours ago, krycek said:

 

If we're talking about infantry I agree, they know a few more tricks, better reactions in interiors and compared to A2 a big step forward. If we're talking about driving and other crap they're sharper as a sack of bricks.

True but I think coding for driving is more difficult than on foot since there is variable speed and geometric manoeuvring limits for example.

Something must have gone wrong with the algorithms as its been updated.

I can imagine it must be a nightmare to debug since the situations it has to deal with are so varied.

After all, even some humans can't drive properly in city streets 

[barccy 53]

I use settings similar to those recommended here. I rarely drop below 50s. Usually only in big cities like minihattan with skyscrapers filled with dozens of enemies none grouped together.
I have Intel core I7 6700k(4core, 4.0ghz), GTX 980Ti, 32gb RAM.