infiltrator_2k

I certainly wouldn't dismiss that as there's always a possibility - albeit remote. But there seems to be a general consensus that Arma isn't optimised for newer hardware. I've read it from numerous sources that people with hi-spec builds are getting on average 20FPS. It's just ironic that I was getting better performance on my older rig. I'm naturally disappointed and I regret that after many years of great gameplay on the Arma series I'm now looking to play games to take advantage of the gaming rig, otherwise it's a waste. Despite all of its faults, Arma still has a lot of potential. It's in a class of its own when it comes to infantry. But as I've said in other posts Arma also needs to take on a definitive genre. Given the hard work put into the infantry with regards to realism, I personally believe it should apply across the board so to give Arma the genre of 'combat simulator' oppose to an ambiguous genre of 'tactical shooter'. I am admittedly very opinionated as are many who post their views of this forum. But it sparks debate and everyone gets to have their say and opinions heard. The only trouble is many would like to make the game developed to adhere to their personal liking.

There are indeed "mongs" who complain about performance issue when they're on laggy servers with lots of mods etc... But as I've mentioned in previous posts, I'm hosting a mod free efficient renown reputable mission on a dedicated server. When a friend of mine is getting 50FPS on an inferior system and I'm getting 20FPS on my 'own' dedicated server it speaks volumes. Since the 1.38 update I've noticed 2-3 FPS increase. Although I've also noticed degraded eye-candy when the video settings remain the same.

SandyBandy, Arma's engine isn't any good for new hardware, that's been proven by myself and many others.

Click my spoiler and get the HDD in my system spec. The hard work's already done for you. You won't get any better all round performance than that SSD.

At the end of the day BIS have had their engine so they could have produced everything the consumer wants when premium DLC. They could have created WWII, Vietnam, modern warfare themes and people would have paid for it. I have no idea why Arma has remained in its same stale state it had so much potential.

After the much anticipated 1.38 update that BIS claimed to have "MP server optimizations", cautiously optimistic I ran the update last night and guess what... yep, the game still runs like a pig with an unplayable MP FPS :j: After reading the many posts about Arma's engine I think it's now time for BIS to be honest with its customers and admit that the current Arma III engine has run its course instead of promoting premium DLC for a game that many of us with newer builds will never be able to enjoy and realistically be able to play. IMO BIS are doing nothing but giving its customers false hope that this MP FPS issue will be resolved. Even if BIS manage to squeeze a couple more FPS out of the outdated engine it's not going to give anyone any significant improvement and it's unlikely to be noticed. For even the most optimistic of fansboys, I'm sure they'll acknowledge that if the devs could indeed fix the MP FPS issue it would have been significantly improved with this latest update given that they claim it contained MP server optimization. Asking their customers to report back with results and acknowledging that SP may actually lose a couple of FSP tells me they're trying to squeeze every last ounce out of the outdated engine with counterproductive results. If this game runs like a pig on newer systems I should imagine BIS will be legally required to warn potential buyers, otherwise people would have paid for a product that's not fit for purpose. I only paid £20 for Arma III, but the money I invested in a new rig and server not to mention the hours of time learning to script and creating missions has left me with a bad taste in my mouth. The way I see it is either the devs are incompetent, or the engine has ran its course. Either way, it's BIS' moral and legal obligation to warn potential customers that some may find Arma III unplayable. Perhaps even consider refunds for purchases made within a certain time period. Nevertheless, the game's broken - albeit for some.

That might be because everything's relatively going nice and smoothly for you and your gaming experience.

I've always been utterly convinced that this Arma should have kept the modern day setting. Instead of Altis and bug headed Iranians they should have created a scaled Fallujah map with modern day marines, Navy Seals and SAS units. BIS would have made a fortune in sales and welcomed DLC. Not bug headed Iranian but civilian clothed terrorist. But again, I'm bias as I personally like CQC. Having enemy snipers located on rooftops and suicide bombers amongst seemingly innocent civilians would be an adrenaline kicker. Of course, there's potential for more open combat too in more open environments. The bottom lone is if BIS recreated modern day combat and historical battle scenarios they could do no wrong and I sincerely believe sales would have gone though the roof as IMO every first-person/tactical gamer would want that kind of experience and realism. As gamers we can only imagine what those guys were up against. Simulate that and you have hot cakes for sale.

Given the current problems with Arma's engine regarding the performance issues, I've recently been looking around to see what other games there are out there. I've played LOMAC in the past and was in awe at its immersion and that was several years ago. Only today did I discover how much DCS World has evolved. OK it's primarily a flight simulator, but nevertheless it's also a sandbox. But what struck me was how games such as DCS definitively comes under a genre. Sure, Arma 3 comes under 'tactical shooter, but given its content is seems to be 'neither this or that'. Tactical shooter? The ACE mod clearly modified Arma 2 where it could be classed as more of a combat simulator given its attention to detail with ballistic trajectory and recoil etc. However, today's Arma seems to be cleverly designed and marketed to appeal to the masses, but it also seems to be lacking in both realism and fun factor. What I'm trying to say is it disappoints people who'd like more realism, but it also disappoints people who want more fire-power action. Why? 'Because it's neither this or that'. It's neither a simulator nor a fun-factor first-person shooter. I know I'm going to get a right roasting over saying this and I know it's been debated a million times before, but I really do believe BIS should have stuck with the present wartime theme, as well as focusing on the realism more to give players the immersion of being in today's combat role and in the correct environment; it would have been what it said on the tin. But Arma today seems to be set out to please all when it can't realistically do that. Of course, there will be some who find the balance right, but pressing the 'Q' button to start up an aircraft kind of puts things into perspective. That's Battlefield, but the flying isn't. Some addons IMO can add to the confusion. No doubt many will disagree but I'm just expressing an opinion and my perception of today's Arma.

There's was a big outcry because they've never carried a kit laden bergen, webbing and rifle before. Not to mentioned the bloody heavy army issue helmets. People want to carry an arsenal of weapons and explosives to destroy a small country and wonder why they can't run across the terrain like Superman :D You have to give credit to BIS for fatigue system. As long as we're on the level playing field with the Ai I can see nothing wrong with the realism.

Agreed, BIS have taken a different route with Arma 3 and look at all the idiots it's attracted :/ ex- battlefield caffeine fuelled snotty nose kids injecting scripts and using hacks. Unless you're playing on a clan server nowadays you'll get a bunch of retards joining a game team killing or using air as their own little game. The fact BEC was coded just illustrates how BIS' middle-ground creation has attracted the wrong kind of players with the wrong mentality. IMO BIS have sold out on the original Arma fans by leaning more towards the arcade gameplay. As I mentioned before, pressing 'Q' to initiate the start-up of a multimillion dollar aircraft is Battlefield territory. The fact scripts and server rules have been created to stop idiots flying air just illustrates how unrealistic some elements of Arma is. Don't get me wrong, infantry is pretty good. In fact I'd say it's pretty immersive. But IMO BIS need to stop worrying about deterring players from making Arma too complicated. If someone wants to fly a multi-billion dollar aircraft make the lazy f00ker spend five minutes learning the start up procedure. Players will spend five minutes travelling back to part of the map where they died but not a few moments flicking several switches? I don't know if the helicopter DLC has any level of difficulty of starting the aircraft, but if I was to pay for it I'd at least want that. I know there's a story behind the Karts addon, but I have to tell you, when I saw BIS had added go-karts to Arma my heart sank. I haven't played Zeus so I can't be too critical and I'm sure it's fun and makes games more dynamic, but I really did wish BIS had focused more on existing content and fixing the engine and ironing out the bugs before simply adding another feature. Of course playing god in a game will attract new blood and more revenue, but I stand to what I initially said and that's IMO at least, Arma is neither one or the other. If BIS are going to create a realistic infantry experience then they need to follow that on with other elements of the game to give it a definitive genre. IMO Arma has lost its way and I think it's ironic that DayZ will out sell the Arma series. IMO it's better to cater for a smaller loyal audience who are prepared to pay for DLC in the long run than a larger audience that will eventually dwindle away and migrate to other games. I'm obviously bias, but playing A2's BAF on the Morning Dew mission was by far the best and most immersive Arma gaming experience I've had with the series. As for ACE... simply awesome :)

Unfortunately I've now got to say goodbye to Arma after many years of enjoyment and many hours of creating mission and gameplay. As previous posts have stated, Arma needs a major engine overhaul. I'm not going to bore you and bang on about it, but when you build a high-performance gaming rig that costs a shed load of money and get 11-20FPS it's a no-brainer what BIS have to do. I don't know if it's true, but if Arma doesn't utilise multicore processors it needs to be scrapped if the current engine cannot be modified to support multicore. I've put a lot of money and time into Arma what with creating missions, learning to code and maintaining a dedicated server, but if I can't enjoy playing the game myself unfortunately it's time to move on. BTW, I had a bash on DCS World last night and was blown away - not just by the immersion, but at the level of detail, not to mention the performance. With that said, I'm also prepared to pay £30 for a highly detailed model of aircraft because of the attention to detail and realism of the aircraft. I do after all get what it says on the tin and it's clearly what it says it is and that's a Digital Combat Simulator.

I doubt very much that the overwhelming majority of those who voted "A good idea" have issues with Arma serious enough to render MP unplayable... Although of course they'll always be a martyr.

No matter what settings I use the game's MP frame rate sucks. My CPU is an i7 5820K @4.1Ghz, my card a GTX 780ti, the HDD is an OCZ Vector 150 SSD, my ram Corsair Vengeance 2800Mhz DDR4 and so on.... I custom built my rig for the best performance and bang for my buck. Even when I put setting to 'high' the FPS is totally pathetic! Arma is broken now everyone needs to accept that!! No amount of tweaking is going to improve my performance. Only an update that makes the relevant modifications to the game's engine is ever going to improve my performance.

There's no doubt about it, it does seem to be people with newer and more powerful systems that are having the performance issues, and it's the reason why so many people are so angry. If it was caused by people's hardware being outdated then fair enough. But when people like myself go out and spend a fortune and build a gaming rig specifically to play Arma and you're performance is turns out to be worst than the PC you've just upgraded from it's inevitably going to cause anger and frustration. Should have I said I built my gaming rig??.... That must be it! That's why my rig is performing poorly! It's not Arma, it's because I built it! Here's my 'not so old' toaster that get's an amazing and whooping '11FPS' in vehicles MP.

BEC was the best thing I used on my server. Team killers get banned too.

I take it you've read this sticky and its threads to try to resolve your issue? http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?145530-Globally-banned-by-BattlEye-See-this

If people trawl the net they'll find this problem is quite prevalent. Many people have got decent gaming rigs but still have poor FPS which suggests it's some kind of problem with how Arma is interacting with their hardware though a networked connection. Although I'm admittedly angry and frustrated that I'm having this issue given my build, I have IMO given some constructive feedback with the hardware used and dismissed the 'toaster' myth or any other suspected cause. Although I wouldn't completely rule out another cause, at this moment it definitely seems to be an Arma update issue that's causing this poor performance. The fact not everyone is suffering does suggest it's a specific build's hardware.

50% or 200% it doesn't matter I still get 17-20FPS and 11FPS when driving vehicles or flying aircraft.

[ No, I'm playing on my gaming rig missions hosted on my dedicated server which of course is doing the number crunching, which is why I'm baffled how my mate who has an inferior rig is getting 50+FPS on the same mission. I've not done the Altis benchmark yet, but no matter what video settings I use it's still low FPS. I just tried standard on MP and only got 23-24FPS. Single player is much different. I just tested the Infantry Showcase again and Ultra I'll get 30FPS, and High I'll get 50+FPS. Correct. When joining the hosted mission on my dedicated server regardless if it's LAN or WAN I get 20FPS so I reckon it's definitely caused by over network play.

MD, I'm aware of how much stress the Ai put on the CPU which is why I've always implemented the Simulation Manager Module, or created spawn scripts. I've created and hosted numerous missions on my old X58 board and played on the same machine and even that had a better FPS than I'm getting now. No matter what MP mission I play I can't get more than 20'ish FPS. As already mentioned my friend who has an inferior build to me gets over double the FPS than me on Invade and Annex. He gets around 50FPS, and that's on my bloody dedicated server! I spent close to £2,000 on my tower alone to play Arma 3 and I'm getting 20FPS??? Do you honestly blame me for being frustrated and angry? People can forget about the blaming custom missions and people's rigs, I have proved beyond doubt that Arma 3 is broken. A mere 30FPS on Infantry Showcase with an 4.1Ghz overclocked i7 5820K and GTX 780ti????? Like I said, my friend gets over 50FPS playing on 'my' dedicated server that's hosting the latest version of Invade and Annex when I only get 20FPS :/

I've already stated that I'm playing on my 'own' dedicated server, the hosted mission and elaborated on both the server and gaming rigs specs. Even on SP Infantry Showcase I'm only getting 30FPS. That is messed up. Both my server and gaming rig have the latest updates, bios, drivers etc... I'm not hosting any viruses or malware either. It's just ironic that a friend who has an inferior spec can get 50FPS on 'my' dedicated server. Even if I play the mission LAN I still only get 20FPS. I tried reverting to older drivers but still no difference. I've optimised the card too. Even on high settings the FPS is 20'ish. Something is seriously broken on Arma 3

Lol no :) I was referring to evolution but in a non-biological sense. Not everything has to be a living organism to evolve chap.

I don't know how DayZ plays as I've not got it neither will I ever purchase it. Zombies aren't my thing. But if the DayZ devs are building from the ground up a new engine it will be better than Arma 3's unless it's an exception to the rule of evolution.

No you're right, although it is based on Arma's engine - albeit parts of A2's and A3's. It seems the DayZ devs are creating a superior engine to Arma's. Although of course they'd never admit that. Take the improved dynamic lighting for example. If the DayZ engine proves successful then I reckon it's only a matter of time before Arma uses a custom variant of it IMO. Although already I sense that BIS might plan to use it on Arma 4 and leave Arma 3 in its current state. New game news sales. It would be pretty ironic if it was DayZ's development that eventually makes the Arma series better. I think we all better get use to the premium DLC because that's here to stay.