Tankbuster 1733 Posted March 19, 2017 I've seen about 10 GB total in use most of the time since x64. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nikiforos 450 Posted March 19, 2017 4 minutes ago, Tankbuster said: I've seen about 10 GB total in use most of the time since x64. Hm strange, I wonder why I get lower usage. Which Allocator are you using? Check out my launcher settings: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tankbuster 1733 Posted March 19, 2017 I've not changed it from default, mate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teabagginpeople 398 Posted March 19, 2017 I'v no parameter changes. I have 64 bit by default and purposely left everything else unchecked. I7 canyon stock, gtx 970 stock, 12 gig ram, fully ssd. win 10 other rig i7 haswell stock, gtx 1070 12 gig , fully ssd. win 7 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haleks 8206 Posted March 19, 2017 On 17/03/2017 at 11:24 AM, kremator said: I'm using system malloc and I'm getting MUCH higher FPS ingame with the 64bit version. I do have quite a monster PC though. Same here - either that or maybe ticking the large page memory option gave a more stable framerate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maquez 141 Posted March 21, 2017 @Elmor23, ey buddy do you think it will get any better if you spam your problem everywhere in this forum ? do you think anybody will help you when you show a such childish behaviour ? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tankbuster 1733 Posted March 21, 2017 Not content with breaking the rule about posting in non English, you break the rule about posting in bold. I can just imagine community members rushing to help you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maquez 141 Posted March 21, 2017 first there is not only Elmor23 in this world, do you get that ? you spammed five times your so called problem in different threads, this breaks the forum rules may you better read this before you do post anything: https://forums.bistudio.com/guidelines/ there is a famous german term: wie man in den wald ruft so schallt es auch heraus ! I do not have any of your problems with the game you do claim, strange isn'it ? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
celticalliance 31 Posted May 2, 2017 On 17-3-2017 at 2:06 PM, maquez said: you guys should stop may the use of these placebo performance tweaks usual arma3 sets all needed start parameters correct and for best performance, so there is absolut no need to tweak there anything. these settings should only be used to configure some special or uncommon hardware, like 12 core CPU or a GTX 970 where you need to limit the VRAM due stupid memory handling of GPU. leave all settings on default apart of: -nosplash, -enableHT, -hugePages, -noLogs I lost about 3 FPS on my system with 64bit, the problem must be on your side and there is no need to blame the developer who brought us finally 64bit. 64bit: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=818393730 32bit: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=774528690 the difference is maybe I never used any of these placebo performance tweaks second error that most of arma3 users do is setting stupid high viewdistances! using these settings with my hardware and arma 3 runs freaking well: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=773240860 http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=773240727 So, what is your advice to those who did not even change anything like you describe but still have the same drop in frames as other people describe here? Everything you say here does not apply to me at all, so can you comment on that? I can tell you a mission we run 24/7 ran perfectly well with the 32-bit engine, but performance got worse once we started to run 64-bit. My computer can also perfectly well handle the 64-bit engine. I do think though, and I think if you ask around that many people will actually tell you they are aware that no miracles were promised but to have massive frame drops after releasing a 64-bit engine that promised to make frames more stable isn't that the other way around? Doesn't that just mean that this engine is released too soon and not fully tested and optimised? As much as I appreciate your opinion and don't wish to attack it or you personally, I'm kinda fed up with the attitude spread around in many places where people's systems and set ups are blamed for what clearly is an issue with the engine. Don't get me wrong, I like Arma, but it is time that issues are properly recognised and fixed. Instead of them releasing DLC and other stuff they should first fix the engine. Or at least properly test it for release. Just sharing my opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
