wormeaten

Q6600 2.4, HD 6870, 4GB RAM, same benchmark mission and same setup which give me best fps I could get from my rig. with -nologs I got 33 FPS average and without 31 not much but improvement. Notice also that improvement happened only when camera is set up in distance watching some action,gain cca 5 FPS, when it is close to the action or in movement no gain of FPS.

I have an intel q6600 2.4 GHz, 4 GB DDR 2 RAM and HD 6870 and have similar FPS even little better only difference is CPU and GPU usage. My is 10 to 20% higher. Other differences on my much older and les powerful rig it is noticeable difference between ultra and standard settings what is normal according to differences in hardware power. They should have 3 to 5 time better performance than I have. New better hardware don't garantie performance game should have and like it is in other titles. All this facts prow that only problem is Game cod it self nothing else. On WalkerDown rig is what everybody recommended but as we can see even the newest Graphic Card like GTX 780 which by performance could be compared with Titan. ArmA should fly not moving like dieing animal. I'm very curious what they will answer to ric, if they will answer at all because they constantly bared head in the sand and trying to cover up this problem with constant ignoring.

Yes I made some mistakes and apologize about it. True is it is 12 years old engine not 20. Looks it is in the end C++ based engine even some information could find on internet it was made in VB. SQF is also what confusing because it is used with VB as well. Something known is sqf is one core oriented could be part of the problem. OK I'm wrong finally get some facts so we are in good way clear this mess once for all. Problem still exist and we could not ignoring it but now we know it is not CPU/GPU problem or 20 years old VB engine. I'm apologizing again for some wrong informations but I'm glad I did it if this finally start to moving things in right direction. Don't be afraid of criticism if its push right way in good intentions. MadDogX do right stuff and check it out with devs before answer it. That is what good moderator should do and he deserve This is most important problem in ArmA in general existing from A2 and now is increase even more. Don't ignore it let be constructive and face it together. ArmA community is well known in great support to devs and opposite. Devs don't be afraid and give us some tusk to do for you like gathering information with benchmarks or something. My suggestion for start is to start one big thread which will not be closed until will be really solved it, Moderators should close or remove all similar threads to this one and devs should make one benchmark mission with forcing same conditions so we could send results with our specifications to compare results. I think this is good for start to finally get in fight with this problem. If I need to provoke you again to get some results I don't care you can be mad on me but I will do it again if its needed to push you in right direction. Let's roll our slews and get working.

Exactly it is not about CPU power at all. There is no facts about CPU. You misleading people and turn this discussion into intel vs AMD CPU. BTW I have intel and never have AMD CPU in my life. You newer answer if intel is such superior why Planetside have same bad performance in newest intel CPU after he listening people like you and switch AMD for intel? Answer it. Point here is what ever CPU is used it is 50% and if you go to upgrade with new CPU or GPU usage of your hardware is even lower it is sometime lower than 30%. If you don't know nothing about the code or mutithreading than stop lecturing people and misleading them. Here I just want that BIS finally tell us the truth about this issue. ArmA is great game especially with open therein etc but imagine how much better will be if it is optimized and use at least 75% of your hardware to perform. Do I ask too much? Problem is ArmA is made in Visual Basic who it is not optimized for muticore processors and multithreading. And that's a fact. Actually ArmA working amazingly good for engine made in Visual Basic but who else using Visual Basic today for making high end gamea? Nobody. Multicore processors are already about 10 years in use and will be even more with more and more cores on it. It is not new technology any more and it is the way how CPU will advance and increase performance. If you not go with the stream you will down.

Look I buy this product so I'm not coming in someone's house to crap. They sell crap to me. And that is my right guaranteed by the low. If they publish minimum and recommended hardware specifications who is completely wrong we deserve to get some answers which I didn't ask until now. Now I'm pissed because not answering, ignoring and covering up this problem. We deserve it honest and straight answer and here is the opportunity for BIS to give us one. What ever truth is. The worst thing they could do is to doing fools of us like they do last 4 years with ArmA 2. What do you suggesting? Is it solution to buy ultra high specs configuration with most expensive GPU which will work with 25% of its possibilities to gain 30fps in MP if this is possible at all?

pr0ph3tSWE why you constantly talking about intel vs AMD? Do you understand what people here writing? Do you know to read at all? the title of this thread is " Poor performance, even after going from a 8120 to a 4670k ". If you don't know 4670k is for intel i5 4670k and what part here you don't understand? I'm sick of this childish smartass who's only argument is like when two child arguing which father is stronger. I'm repeating again there is no discussion which CPU is better. In ArmA 3 both sucks because it is not problem in CPU. GPU sucks as well because it is not problem in GPU the problem is elsewhere. Problem is 20 years old engine made in Visual Basic. Who is using today Visual Basic for high end games coding? Actually it is amazing how good ArmA 3 is working when we know in what they made engine.

Yes this difference is show up in bad optimized engines and proves only real benefit intel over AMD and that is better performance in single thread what is not cause in other better optimized games. That is the fact and prows ArmA 3 is not optimized not intel superiority. i7 is to expensive and don't have any in game advantage over i5 in general. In other games i5 over AMD fx series of CPU have almost the same performances and benchmarks results and differences are in margin of error so it is insignificant. Problem here is not the hardware at all and theme of this thread is not same bad performance on fx 8120 as on i5 4670k. I don't care which CPU is better point is with optimized code on both CPUs game should fly above 60fps. Right now more of 50% system power are not used at all and with this potential it it will be used like is in Bf3 or Crysis 3. If I want to increase performance of ArmA 3 but for increasing performance for 50% I will need increase my hardware performance by 250% and in general what is way below should be. Also benchmarks will show that new hardware will have even lower percentage of used hardware potential what shows that only bottleneck here is game engine nothing else. That's the point not intel or AMD. Who cares.

If you continuing to write such stuff your thread will be proclaimed as solved and be closed like they do with other threads similar content. Problem is not solved, it is existing and such ignoring and constant trying to hide it under the carpet get feeling that ArmA 3 is big scam and BIS is aware of it but trying to cover up. I'm hoping I'm wrong and exaggerate but what else could be problem whit this constant ignoring and covering up this most voted problem of ArmA 3. If someone give me the fact that I'm wrong in my conclusion I'm apologizing in advance and here is opportunity to BIS to finally spoke openly and honestly about this issue to benefit all of us.

I really don't know why people don't put garage doors instead of ordinary entrance doors on Houses? This is no big issue at all and definitely is not worse than it is in other games. There is some mods who fix this issue in realistic way, I think its made by Norrin. This is realistic problem because you could not entering building with raised rifle just like that.

I know exactly what will I get from which hardware and for what price. Here we have example how PlanetSide read lot of bullshit about superiority intel over AMD or opposite. This just prows ingames they about the same doesn't matter is it i7, i5 or fx. There is no bottlenecks at all it is only bad code. ArmA 3 is based on OFP 20 year old engine written in Visual Basic and all ends here. This is it there will be no significant changes in ArmA 3 performance same like they didn't do it in 4 years of ArmA 2.

Finaly someone say whole truth and nothing but the truth. There is no bottleneck's here. Did anybody who was talking about bottlenecking CPU or GPU know what real bottleneck means? Bottle neck could only happened if CPU or GPU reach 100% and opposite is way above it. If CPU is 100% and GPU is 50% than we could talk about CPU is bottleneck because full usage is not good to fill GPU with some data. All those smart asses who was talking about bottlenecks and intel superiority over AMD push PlanetSide to switch from FX8150 to i5 4670k and nothing happened problems are the same. No benefit from new CPU at all. How could you explain this? ArmA 3 unfortunately on my big disappointment still using 20 years old engine from OFP written in Visual Basic with some cosmetic more visual improvements which highly depend on hardware you got. Bis reach the cap with ArmA 2 and now there is no reasonable hardware which will save the day and run ArmA 3 in the dissent performance in MP. BIS didn't fix it in ArmA 2 and will never fix it in ArmA 3 just simply because they go to far with game developing on wrong way and they pass point of return long time ago. And forget about the Java, will not happened in ArmA 3 at all or will be just superficial usage with re encoding to sqf which will made more damage than usage. That is the only facts and truth about ArmA 3. All this good stuff they implement it could not change general evaluation of ArmA 3 as failure.

This is scary. I want to buy new rig and no one can actually give me real advice what to buy. Terrible.

I don't know what to say. I'm shocked. Thank you guys for support on this. Unfortunately this is more talk about moderators and BIS than me on breaking the rules. "Give the man power to see who he really is." No need to go in further debate on this because is pointless just live it on this. This thread is dead until Stalker send some news by him self and we are not allowed to discuss about it at all. :(

Any progress news on this Stalker?

Yes, Thank you man I even understand some of that Russian text. Yes maybe we should think about to set it up inside mission that way. I was even think about to reduce it even mor to 1600/1000m to be more comparable with BF3 performance. In Bf2 distance is shorter.

I got Q6600 quad intel cpu OC on 3Ghz, 4Gb (2x2Gb DDR2 800Mhz), HD 6870 Radeon and I cant set it up for proper PvP gameplay so I decide to upgrade my rig. I planing to upgrade my rig with new MB, CPU and 16Gb RAM plus maybe SSD. Latter I'm planing to upgrade GC to GTX770 when it will release. I don't know should I go AMD FX-8350 or i5 3570K and what is real power difference in ArmA 3 between i5 3570K and i7 3770K? I'm not interested in some theoretic difference in speed zipping file or in Photoshop. This difference is for professionals who have multiple pictures or zip files to encode or compress or hours of video where this difference is worth the money. I'm asking in game real experience is this difference is noticeable? In this video go forward on 7:00 min they clame fx8350 on same GTX670 is twice better than i5 3570K in ArmA 2. Can someone confirm this? And in the end pleas keep some sort of standards in this benchmarks so we could have point of this hardware tests otherwise all this effort you are doing is pointless and useless. To be able to compare hardware and performance we need to establish some sort of standards for example: CPU, Core number and Mhz MB RAM and Mhz GPU ( here should be which model only one GPU, with SLI/CF turned off ) 2xGPU ( this is to compare SLI/CF performance when it is turned on ) That is about hardware. If we do it right that way we could track data how some differences in hardware affect in performance for example if two testers have same MB CPU GPU and RAM but only difference is RAM speed. One is run 16Gb DDR3 on 1333Mhz and other have 16Gb DDR3 on 1866Mhz we could calculate is this difference is significant or not and how much it is. Other condition is to use only game preset and same resolution so this should be: 1920:1080 resolution is mandatory View distance 2600 m mandatory Draw objects 1600 m mandatory game preset Standard (could be also used other game preset like for example Low or Ultra but Standard should be mandatory as middle set up and starting point for compare) This way we will keep some standards to get more precise results which could be really compared and we will get right answers about some hardware. About View Distance and Draw objects distance I put this value as some middle range between low end hardware and high end hardware. This effect on performance allot most people reduce this distance to improve performance. Also comparing with other games like Bf3 or Crysis 3 this is still twice as much this game use it in this game so for better results this is more than good distance which most of the players use. From now on this will be good starting point and standard what we should use in publish our benchmark results. Right now 80% of published results are hard to compare or useless because not good standardisation. I'm appealing on you from now on use this standard as mandatory for benchmark results so we could have better and more precise comparison of results. Thank you very much on using it and understanding.

Good work. There is space for improvements but I like it so far. :cc:

Even I want to have proper suppression effect in ArmA since A1 days I just now notice this thread and discussion. So in general we need suppression fire effect simply if this game want to be realistic should simulate effects of suppressing fire because it is one of the basic field strategy in real life any way so any ignoring of it is definitely step back in realism. Should be present in game no matter you are playing COOP or PvP. Simply suppressing fire is basic of any teamwork and flanking manoeuvring in real life so those who are against it because of realism is wrong. Sometime in game you could reach more realism in general by implementing some unrealistic features but in conjunction with others features create more realistic feeling in general. As someone who experienced what is suppressing fire is in real life I can tell you real effects. You are simply reacting on reflex only thing what soldier could train, not true trainings but true real combat experience only, is basically better perception are you in cover or not but everyone finding cover without exceptions. Sometime it is look like they don't take cover but it is just illusion they just know direction where from bullets come, or distance and they will stay in cover just how much is needed to stay aware of the situation. Such feeling is not possible to simulate in game yet, At list there is no such advanced software or better say hardware who will be able to handle it. In game people when they under fire not reacting same way as it is in real life simply fact that this is still the game and even if you die you will respawn or play another mission next day you want it or not 99% of players reacting in the way to start shooting back no matter on repercussions because it is game in the end no matter. Check this real video and see what is real humans reaction when you are suppressed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNamKwZxOaE In this video you could exactly see what is happened when individuals overestimates his situation and possibilities. He was crying like pussycat in the end. Don't get me wrong I will to in his situation even more than he is but I will never put my self in this situation. But what ever this video is exactly showing what suppression is and how human react on it. If we want it to ArmA be millsim or just realistic FPS suppressing fire effect is must have only question is how to achieve it to be realistic. Kernriver suggestion is going in good direction. No matter how unrealistic this effect will look like if it force players to take cover under direct fire will be increasing realism in game. So what we got right now implemented in game? Any blurring effect based on PP is out of the question as long we are able to turn it on/off in settings. So number 2 and 3 are already existing in game engine and it is close to real life reaction. Bad aiming and tunnel vision is good reasons for someone to find cover to recover before get back in action.

Thanks m8. That's what I'm looking fore in A3, new models not just retexturing same models over and over without much differences. This is a real work m8. :cool:

My model is look ok but there is some twweks need to be done. I made just one LOD. So I have helmet which disapire from head after approximate 100m. Shadow, I don't have it set up at all so there is no shadow on face or even my characters shadow look like I don't wear helmet at all. Set up armour for some basic protection to made helmet realistic and useful. Could you help me to continuing this good tutorial thread to teach us noobs with some details. ;) Thanks.

It is work for me when I use CBA_A2CO and CBA_A3. Binkowski BTW how is going your USMC 1.2 for A3? I can't wait to see it working in A3 where I could choose helmet and west by my choice. :cool:

Yes. Me too. I use in O2 and in config same way and it is work only if I set in my example "Myaddon\Data\mytexture.paa". (Data is folder inside pbo file and p3d file is in Myaddon folder) To be able to made pbo don't forget to put in your addon folder PBOPREFIX. You will not be able to see textures in O2 or Buldozer but will work in youraddon.pbo. If you want to check your textures in O2 just for testing purpose add full addres from your HDD where you place yourtextures.paa. To work in Buldozer you should use P drive. Now I have other problems and will need help with it. My helmet looks perfect but I made just one LOD and it is desapire from head after 100m. I don't have Shadow so when you look on shadow of your character it showing only shadow of head not helmet. Also there is no shadow from helmet on face. And last need to create armour values for give some protection and made different from wearing helmet and not. Will be good if someone continuing this tutorial thread with further action till we will be able to create completable helmet product from scratch. Thanks.

I have one problem. I was creating new helmet. model is ok made pbo and work on my rig but no textures on other computers. So I placed in pbo folder folder named Data and mytexture.paa file. I also notice in your models p3d you set up "mbg\mbg_old_usarmy\data\mbg_old_ussoldier_boot_co.paa" as path. I was trying to add similar line but no use always not able to download mytextures. what is the criteria to add folders to path of your texture paa file? In your example is mbg\pboname\folderinsidepbo\mytexture.paa In all this storry whot mbg reprezent it and how you get it and why you put it? Thanks.

There is Sara version. Only island. this should work.

PR as well have tunnel entrance as respawn point and could be destroyed. So it is possible to make it as portal as well.