64-bit Executables Feedback

[road runner 4344]

8 minutes ago, Drift_91 said:

 

I think he mistyped that or something. Because I agree with him, flying over a town is unplayable. What I experience is 1 or 2 second long stutters/freezes with 0.5 to 3 seconds of solid 30fps+ between. And this is with the 64-bit build reducing my stuttering by like ~70%. With 32-bit I experience that simply zooming in with a 4x optic. Now to be honest I have only played Tanoa with a massive modpack. I guess I'll try flying over a town in vanilla and see what happens.

I have too many mods as well running, also CUP Terrains all of which are resources hogs at times, my point is that 30FPS isn't something that I'd class as unplayable, for me dropping down to a slideshow, and serious lag and < 15 FPS would make it unpleasant, there are plenty of people with GPU's that are between between the Nvidea GTX 960's and 980's, who can only dream of getting a constant > 30FPS  but they average around 20-25, it's not "unplayable" what the end user has to do is trim his game settings to what he can get, not everyone can run as 12000 VD, and everything on ultra, even on the 64 bit exe.

I was getting on my 16GB Ram, GTX 980 and i5 4460 between 35-50 FPS constant on dev branch till they introduced the 64 bit exe, now I'm down at least 20% for some reason, it's maybe a couple of the latest addons and will have to hunt them down and either disable, or accept the hit on FPS, I'd love to get a constant 30-50 FPS again, but it certainly isn't unplayable, even taking a 3rd party chopper for a flight around an empty Georgetown. I can zoom about in one of the MELB's without much impact on FPS's too.

A lot boils down to hyperbolic statements to try and make it sound worse than it is, because the user wants to max everything out, and expects everything to be smoother than a bar of galaxy chocolate, not everyone can afford an 8GB GTX 1080's and i7's

[Drift_91 33]

5 minutes ago, road runner said:

I have too many mods as well running, also CUP Terrains all of which are resources hogs at times, my point is that 30FPS isn't something that I'd class as unplayable, for me dropping down to a slideshow, and serious lag and < 15 FPS would make it unpleasant, there are plenty of people with GPU's that are between between the Nvidea GTX 960's and 980's, who can only dream of getting a constant > 30FPS  but they average around 20-25, it's not "unplayable" what the end user has to do is trim his game settings to what he can get, not everyone can run as 12000 VD, and everything on ultra, even on the 64 bit exe.

I was getting on my 16GB Ram, GTX 980 and i5 4460 between 35-50 FPS constant on dev branch till they introduced the 64 bit exe, now I'm down at least 20% for some reason, it's maybe a couple of the latest addons and will have to hunt them down and either disable, or accept the hit on FPS, I'd love to get a constant 30-50 FPS again, but it certainly isn't unplayable, even taking a 3rd party chopper for a flight around an empty Georgetown. I can zoom about in one of the MELB's without much impact on FPS's too.

A lot boils down to hyperbolic statements to try and make it sound worse than it is, because the user wants to max everything out, and expects everything to be smoother than a bar of galaxy chocolate, not everyone can afford an 8GB GTX 1080's and i7's

From what he said earlier it sounded like he was experiencing something similar to what I've got going on. Not sure if he's over-estimating the fps values or if you're right about hyperbole.

Anyway, I was expecting the 64-bit version to eliminate my stuttering. But I guess my system just doesn't have enough memory for the extra heap space to make a difference.

[road runner 4344]

I have stayed away from the 64 bit, it's costing me again 20% in FPS when I run YAAB mission, it feels smoother, but I lose FPS from average 30, down to 22 with the 64 bit, and that's just the vanilla game.

I took a 3rd party Blackhawk over Georgetown, and it ran just fine, no slide show, average 28-30 FPS, all mods running, I could hover about 10' off the ground and follow the roads, till I sideswiped a building as I was too busy thinking to myself "Fuck this isn't too bad, why are people having serious issues here" and was panning around and drifted into an object, my specs are not great at all.

i5 4460 3.2ghz

16GB RAM

GTX 970 with 4GB RAM

[Drift_91 33]

Alright, what @Ray Solar said about LoD is actually spot on. I just loaded into the editor and while zooming around the map with the editor camera I noticed my stuttering was almost definitely caused by assets switching between LoD levels. I can whip around the airport runway with no problem, but the instant I moved over near a lonesome bush to the side of the runway I got a single small pause in framerate right as the bush loaded in. I then flew the camera over a forest of small trees and noticed a ton of stuttering. I moved quickly over to a building, once again got a single little stutter right as the detail of the building changed. And as Ray said, I find the LoD downgrades far too close to the player/camera. However I wouldn't call it unplayable except when I fly over a town with my modpack installed.

[road runner 4344]

22 minutes ago, Drift_91 said:

Alright, what @Ray Solar said about LoD is actually spot on. I just loaded into the editor and while zooming around the map with the editor camera I noticed my stuttering was almost definitely caused by assets switching between LoD levels. I can whip around the airport runway with no problem, but the instant I moved over near a lonesome bush to the side of the runway I got a single small pause in framerate right as the bush loaded in. I then flew the camera over a forest of small trees and noticed a ton of stuttering. I moved quickly over to a building, once again got a single little stutter right as the detail of the building changed. And as Ray said, I find the LoD downgrades far too close to the player/camera. However I wouldn't call it unplayable except when I fly over a town with my modpack installed.

Yes, the LOD switching has been an issue since APEX release, and I agree with what he says there, but the rest is pretty Hyperbolic when he says it's unplayable, as I said <15-20 FPS and freezing in my eyes counts as unplayable, I just placed 10 RHS RG33 groups inside Georgetown and flew the chopper, I think I lost about 3-5 FPS from the map being empty.but was still a constant 25 FPS which is smooth enough to fly the chopper, be able to rotate round using rudder pedals without any serious stuttering, land, take off, fly between buildings, hover above the main High Rises..for me personally, I can't make a claim it's unplayable on 25-30 FPS, as I'm still able to fly the chopper, which is a complex enough model, without stuttering, or serious pauses in the game. I'd say that if you're getting 30-50 FPS constant, you're actually living the dream!!

 

 

On looking at your specs, you do realise that you're running pretty much the lower end of the scale RAM and Graphics card wise which is quite possibly a reason you have more of a stuttering issue than myself?

 

I was running with 7000 view distance and 5000 object and shadow at 200, and I was getting 25-30 FPS more or less constant
I dropped it down to 4000 and 2000 and 100, and grabbed another 5-7 FPS
Nothing on ultra anymore, the textures on very high, the rest high, or very high, I've had to play around with my settings a bit after he 64 bit update was introduced, to try and claw back the lost FPS, and that's WITH the mod packs, I have a feeling I need to delete a few Maps to be honest.

[Drift_91 33]

5 minutes ago, road runner said:

Yes, the LOD switching has been an issue since APEX release, and I agree with what he says there, but the rest is pretty Hyperbolic when he says it's unplayable, as I said <15-20 FPS and freezing in my eyes counts as unplayable, I just placed 10 RHS RG33 groups inside Georgetown and flew the chopper, I think I lost about 3-5 FPS from the map being empty.but was still a constant 25 FPS which is smooth enough to fly the chopper, be able to rotate round using rudder pedals without any serious stuttering, land, take off, fly between buildings, hover above the main High Rises..for me personally, I can't make a claim it's unplayable on 25-30 FPS, as I'm still able to fly the chopper, which is a complex enough model, without stuttering, or serious pauses in the game. I'd say that if you're getting 30-50 FPS constant, you're actually living the dream!!

 

 

On looking at your specs, you do realise that you're running pretty much the lower end of the scale RAM and Graphics card wise which is quite possibly a reason you have more of a stuttering issue than myself?

Ah, you noticed I kinda copied your signature. I just tested flying around in vanilla. Oddly enough I get 30fps hovering over Tuvanaka and 60 at higher altitude with high settings. I still need to test Georgetown. Is the 22fps in YAAB with or without mods?

[road runner 4344]

2 minutes ago, Drift_91 said:

Ah, you noticed I kinda copied your signature. I just tested flying around in vanilla. Oddly enough I get 30fps hovering over Tuvanaka and 60 at higher altitude with high settings. I still need to test Georgetown. Is the 22fps in YAAB with or without mods?

With mods, I'd love to get the performance that Ray's getting to be honest, that's why I can't understand why he feels 30-50 FPS is unplayable ????

[Dwarden 1124]

FYI: pagefile swap is must for A3 to operate properly, both 32 and 64 bit , no/too small swap = unforseen consequences ....

[road runner 4344]

7 minutes ago, dwarden said:

FYI: pagefile swap is must for A3 to operate properly, both 32 and 64 bit , no/too small swap = unforseen consequences ....

I have windows do mine automatically at 4022  GB or something like that, I also run the game through Arma3sync and not through the steam launcher, I wonder if this also has a significant impact on performance?

[Drift_91 33]

3 minutes ago, road runner said:

With mods, I'd love to get the performance that Ray's getting to be honest, that's why I can't understand why he feels 30-50 FPS is unplayable ????

I think because of the stuttering. Once again, I'm not sure what exactly he's experiencing but it seemed at first he was getting bad stuttering.

 

I only seem to experience problems with my modpack installed. Hovering in Georgetown with no mods I get around 30 to 50 frames. Over an open fielded area I nearly reached 70 fps. Soaring over Georgetown at 270km/h only caused negligible stuttering while if I had my modpack installed I wouldn't even be able to pull up to avoid hitting the mountain behind the city.

12 minutes ago, dwarden said:

FYI: pagefile swap is must for A3 to operate properly, both 32 and 64 bit , no/too small swap = unforseen consequences ....

What would you advise? Just let windows take care of it? I personally set mine manually to the same setting windows set originally but with the starting and maximum size set the same to prevent fragmentation. Also, is it necessary when you have like 32GB of memory?

[jcae2798 132]

36 minutes ago, dwarden said:

FYI: pagefile swap is must for A3 to operate properly, both 32 and 64 bit , no/too small swap = unforseen consequences ....

 

Thanks for sharing, but to be clear for all those looking at this:

1. For those who have multiple drives, is it OK to allow system managed size on multiple drives?  Maybe even some drives enabled while others not?  For example drives C, D,E, were C is disabled,, but D+E have it set to managed by system?

2. My system is recommending 9080mb, and allowing 19456mb across all drives that its enabled for.  Is this a good size, setup?  Or would a custom setting be ideal?

3. I assume when you say "pagefile SWAP" there isn't any additional settings to enable the "Swap" feature?  By having it turned on for at least one drive, this is what you are referring to?

[Drift_91 33]

@road runner Just came across this video coincidentally in the related videos on YouTube. I was told by a friend that DDR3 already outpaced demand and DDR4 was pointless so I never even thought it could be my RAM's clock speed. Completely explains all my problems and why I always found Arma 3 didn't fully utilize my GPU or CPU.

Edit: Video is a load of crap.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Drift_91

[Ray Solar 22]

I understand that many play games on pc's at under 60 fps, many are fine with that. I understand that the cost of pc's means we cant all afford a nasa super computer but the reality is that 60fps is the minimum norm for pc gaming. If the pc you have struggles getting 60fps on other games then really Arma is never going to be viable in your pc.

 

The issues are that when the game drops from 130fps down to 35fps on Tanoa without any AI on the map then there is something not right with the engine.

 

i am using a gsync monitor so when i get these high fps drops it is very noticble. It doesnt take a full squad of AI to bring the game to a slide show. A couple of heli on Tanoa does it.

I do find such low fps unplayable and the hitches and broken lods now which are all over the screen on the landscape are unacceptable. Even on the parts of the landscapes where i get very high fps the constant lod switching of trees, grass, rocks and buildings makes it look like an alpha game or a early tech demo.

 

The game did not have such bad lod switching before. Yes grass had issuesveven back in arma 2 but never like this.

 

This is the only game I have that does not stay above 75fps im usually up in the 100's

 

30fps is not ok for a pc game if people are ok playing like that then that is their right but game makers should not be ok with leaving it like that. Tanoa needs fixing and the lod system needs fixing as I can not beleive Apex was released and Tanoa without a working lod system. Why is any more DLC being developed if the engine is not at a state to use it?

 

i used to play arma 2 alot and had great online games with decent fps and no rubber banding after they fixed it. I dont play online at all on arma 3 due to the poor performance on any server.

[road runner 4344]

Quote

This is the only game I have that does not stay above 75fps im usually up in the 100's

I'm VERY interested to see your settings where you're achieving this, there was another poster not so long ago made similar claims, but never backed it up with visual specs.

As I said, I'm on the low end, and 30 FPS for me is very playable, maybe once I can afford an i7 and GTX 1080, I might feel differently when I can run everything on ultra settings and still get 50+ FPS

[Drift_91 33]

One thing I never quite did understand is why Arma 3 likes to run below 60fps on high end gaming systems. Ray uses a g-sync monitor so I can only assume he's got a beefy GPU. Also, although it makes sense on my system due to the memory issue, why does Arma like to run at like half the FPS other games do on the same system? The graphics are nice but they're really not as spectacular as other games that run faster.

[road runner 4344]

3 minutes ago, Drift_91 said:

One thing I never quite did understand is why Arma 3 likes to run below 60fps on high end gaming systems. Ray uses a g-sync monitor so I can only assume he's got a beefy GPU. Also, although it makes sense on my system due to the memory issue, why does Arma like to run at like half the FPS other games do on the same system? The graphics are nice but they're really not as spectacular as other games that run faster.

one word

Optimisation

 

We're really digressing here, as this issue is an Arma3 issue, and not necessary related to the 64 bit exe, which this thread is about.

Ray has a top range top specs system, so anything less than what he has, he's always going to get better FPS and graphics etc

[NoPOW 59]

39 minutes ago, Drift_91 said:

@road runner Just came across this video coincidentally in the related videos on YouTube. I was told by a friend that DDR3 already outpaced demand and DDR4 was pointless so I never even thought it could be my RAM's clock speed. Completely explains all my problems and why I always found Arma 3 didn't fully utilize my GPU or CPU.

 

I really don't get how this guy's video has to do with anything... If you didn't touch these settings in your BIOS/UEFI the timings will be controlled by SPD, or you could manually activate XMP. But really, if you did underclock your RAM by hand without knowing what you were doing exactly, you shouldn't have been fiddling with these settings in the first place.

Damn, I just hate all these 'magic' FPS-boost vids; they' re nothing more than clickbait....

[Drift_91 33]

1 minute ago, NoPOW said:

 

I really don't get how this guy's video has to do with anything... If you didn't touch these settings in your BIOS/UEFI the timings will be controlled by SPD, or you could manually activate XMP. But really, if you did underclock your RAM by hand without knowing what you were doing exactly, you shouldn't have been fiddling with these settings in the first place.

Damn, I just hate all these 'magic' FPS-boost vids; they' re nothing more than clickbait....

My RAM runs at 666MHz by default; He underclocked his to 800MHz. I was reading the comments though and found that his CAS latency or something was set incorrectly.

[nikiforos 450]

Really not hyped with the 64 executable , 32 is far better at least for now.

 

 

[NoPOW 59]

9 minutes ago, Drift_91 said:

My RAM runs at 666MHz by default; He underclocked his to 800MHz. I was reading the comments though and found that his CAS latency or something was set incorrectly.

You've got DDR3-1600?

[road runner 4344]

5 minutes ago, Drift_91 said:

My RAM runs at 666MHz by default; He underclocked his to 800MHz. I was reading the comments though and found that his CAS latency or something was set incorrectly.

I have DDR3 and mine is running at 798 mhz according to CPU-Z but I'm not too comfortable overclocking anything especially if it's for minimal gains, it's quite obvious that a more powerful CPU and GPU will yield far greater results, it's what to do to make it as smooth and workable, without it looking like OFP !!

64 bit exe does very little for me that I can say it's noticeable over the 32 bit, other than that I lost FPS when I used it, I even had the Graphics card point to the 64 bit, but I just couldn't see any benefits personally, it's fixed a few low FPS issues for some of the guys, for me, the Jury's still out on the 64 bit.

[nikiforos 450]

Huge respect to BI trying to improve things but IMO it would be much better to recognize that this engine reached the limit. Better to focus on Arma 4 engine if they decide to move on in the upcoming years.

[road runner 4344]

3 minutes ago, nikiforos said:

Huge respect to BI trying to improve things but IMO it would be much better to recognize that this engine reached the limit. Better to focus on Arma 4 engine if they decide to move on in the upcoming years.

Perhaps they have and is the reason why some of the things are not going to be fixed, it's a tough call to make, keep chipping away giving a little bit of hope, and doing the best to please everyone, or announce they're stopping support and everyone loses their minds and calls them every name under the sun, they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Some are happy to plod on, but there's others no matter what BIS do, they're not happy.

Catch 22?

[NoPOW 59]

4 minutes ago, nikiforos said:

Huge respect to BI trying to improve things but IMO it would be much better to recognize that this engine reached the limit. Better to focus on Arma 4 engine if they decide to move on in the upcoming years.

I'm speculating here, but I get the feeling that that's exactly what is happening right now; what we are experiencing are the symptoms of a transitory phase.

 

EDIT: road runner beat me to it...

[Drift_91 33]

1 hour ago, NoPOW said:

You've got DDR3-1600?

DDR3-1333 @666GHz 9-9-9

 

Back on topic, I'm pretty sure that BI have the whole 2017-2018 roadmap laid out with more DLCs planned. Hopefully after the 64-bit build gets pushed to stable they'll be able to start doing optimization of some kind though.