Blaaarg

I'm playing in multi with a couple of friends. I got a 7870 (good, but not that good), one guy got *two* titan, another one 3 gtx670 (or 680?) and the last one a 7970 (yeah, i'm the "poor" kid), all with various o/c'ed intel cpu, all tweaks known up to date. We all got the same fps in multiplayer when we're on the same server. :rolleyes: Sure, they can max some settings than i can't but even so, most of the time the settings don't matter, my card *sometime* go up to 70% of use in really good servers with low population... for exemple, i barly loose 1 fps from no AA to AA8x in multi. At the current state of the game, the gpu doesn't really matter.

I got arma2 a few weeks after the release back in... 2009 (?), at this time i had an E5200 / gtx260 and 2go of ram. I decided to upgrade my computer over the next 2 years, in this order : -q6600, 4go of ram -Gtx460, ssd -Motherboard, I5 750, 8go of ram The fps went from terrible to bad, the engine / servers were an issue... there was small optimisation from patch to patch and some fps gain after each upgrade but no miracle solution and i decided to cut the loss, i already had a computer able to run most of the games out there flawlessly even if it wasn't a 2000€ rig. Still, i played this game for 1000h (because it's arma2) 4 years later, arma3. My rig can still handle a lot of games but i started to think about an upgrade for the relase while playing the beta. ArmA3 was released, it run comparativly better than arma2 and it's a clear no-match when it come to graphical quality (or even day1 bugs) but... a couple of friends got really good computers, 3xgtx680, another one just got a gtx780, both got the last I5 haswell clocked at 4.5ghz+ and they barly got better fps than i do. Better quality sure, bigger screens but at the end of the day, they got a rig that cost 4 time the one i got but the fps don't scale up, we all got those "30-40fps on a good server but 20-30 is ok" Upgrading is not going to be a miracle solution. I really hope i'm wrong, but i'm starting to think that for the next 4 years i will have to play arma3 at lowish fps no matter the upgrades.

Atm we are shooting supersonic ammunition with sound suppressor. Sound suppressor make the shot less audible (harder to pinpoint the shooter and less ear damage when shooting indoor w/o protection), but we can still hear the bullet travelling sound. Also, i don't expect supressed 6.5 or 7.62 to be a silent weapon, it just make less noise. ArmA2 had a less than optimal configuration for Sd weapon : most of them were just regular weapon made to shoot supersonic ammo... with a sound suppressor and subsonic ammo. If you look at a 5.56x45 assault rifle (an M16 for ex.) with subsonic ammo, the muzzle velocity is reduced from ~800m/s to ~320m/s with a minimal bullet grain gain, and the weapon loose a *lot* of power in the process. (a subsonic 5.56x45 is 4-5gram bullet @ 320m/s. It's still a bullet but it's far from being the best in the world.) ArmA3 currently get a "realistic" utilisation of sound suppressor with modern assault rifle using supersonic ammo, since 5.56x46, 6.5 grendel or 7.62x51 loose a huge amount of power in subsonic version... but one can still hear the supersonic bullet sound, it just make the shooter harder to pinpoint. As a simulation, ArmA3 need the following possibilities to cover all the ground : -suppressed weapon with supersonic ammunition (less audible than a non-suppressed, minimal to no bullet performance modification ) => current ArmA3 configuration -suppressed weapon with subsonic ammunition (good / exellent global sound reduction but can cause a poor / terrible bullet performance) => ArmA2 configuration -suppressed weapon made to shoot subsonic ammo in the first place (the Vss vintorez is a great exemple : 18 gram subsonic bullet) That said, ArmA2 had an issue / bug with some subsonic caliber dealing *more* damage than their regular, supersonic counterpart (5.56x45 & 5.45x39 had almost the same base damage in sub & supersonic version, but the subsonic ammo had 10 time less airfriction.) tl;dr : You need subsonic ammo with a suppressed weapon in order to achive "stealth kill" but it's currently not available at this stage of the game, i hope the dev will get the things done right :D Sorry for my bad english, thx for reading ^^

Hi Server load affect client fps somehow, it's an old ArmA2 problem. On some server you'll get an fps cap no matter the tweaks, settings... Your computer start to get a bit old... it's a very cpu demanding game and your non-oc'ed Q6600 is probably too weak to run it smooth. I had the same problem with a similar rig in ArmA2, upgrading for an I5 then oc'ing the thing got me a solid fps boost. The game require a few things : 3 core, the more powerful you can get. Avoid Amd cpu since they're really weak in this game, and there is no use of 6-8 core. (Atm the game basically run on 2 core) 1gb of ram (atm, still an alpha) but it probably 4gb when released. (ArmA2 was stuck at 2047, ArmA3 may be large address aware compatible?) Ssd (the game core stream data from your hd. An SSD smooth the game *a lot*)

I love the new fast & smooth movements. Played more than 1000h in ArmA2, and i wont step back to the old system. It's way better in cqb but more, it open the game to a lot of friends interested in the game but who where unable to adapt at the ArmA2 movements. Bf3 players who want to get serious can adapt to ArmA3 because it's smooth, have nice graphics and run pretty fine for an alpha and it's a good thing. There is no trade here. The world seems to be coherent, i still die in one bullet most of the time, i still feel the need to be in a squad instead of alone in order to complete obj but this time, some "less dedicated friends" (aka non-hardcore arma2 fan) can play with me and enjoy the game. They get killed a lot, they're a bit lost but they already enjoy the game. They already start to change and stop shooting at the first thing they see (because they die and get all the squad killed), in a few weeks they'll be able to join a random coop mission and nothing will tell they're "bf3 players". Smooth game and nice graphics get more players, game core make them change.

Agree. ArmA2 had this problem and ArmA3 deal with the same issue atm. I understand that core utilisation % is only the tip of the iceberg (and that i'm far from being an expert in multithread coding) but... when i disable one core i almost lose no fps, this game basically run on 2+1 core, like ArmA2 did. Don't get me wrong, this Alpha is great and perfs are pretty good at this stage but we could get better perf by using these available core.

Your computer is compatible, it's something else. ArmA do not handle like any other games when it matter of performance. You're cpu limited. Lowering your graphics w/o fps loss mean the cpu is the bottleneck. Lower your view distance to ~3km, this game require a powerful cpu and amd fx do not work that great. (ArmA need a lot of power per core, and there is almost no fps gain after 3 core.) Try this : add "-CpuCount=6" in your target's game shortcut (or in steam, right clic on the game, properties, set launch options) ex : "C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Arma 3\arma3.exe" -CpuCount=6 If i'm not wrong this command still work in arma3 and will force the game to use 6 core.

I5 750 @ 4ghz MSI P55-GD65 Corsair H5O 16go G.Skill Ripjaws Z Series F3-12800 (ramdisk for ArmA2 \o/) Msi 7870 twin frozr Corsair Vx 550w Intel X25-M postville 80go Samsung spinpoint T3 1To The game run great, for an alpha it's pretty impressive. Great job bis!

I can still see lod change but the texture load really fast. It's the armory, no ai / vehicule but it may give you a few answere. Only 4k view distance, full size fraps hit the fps really hard. I'm not really good at making video and can't get a crisp picture. (the shuttering is video encoding related, i don't know how / i'm too lazy to fix that.)

Good ssd have no perf / unstability issue anymore. Here's the SMART of my intel x25-m v2 (postville)... 7600h and still working like the 1st day. No data loss, no perf loss and no tweaks with win7 => plug it and it work. http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/8503/ssdor.jpg The Crucial M4, OCZ Vertex 3 & Intel SSD 510 (and probably the 320, it's more or less an intel x25v2) are fine, the corsair c300 too. If you have to choose, take the cheaper. You won't see any difference outside a bench between the little intel 320 and the big vertex 3.

Thx a lot! A lot of data

Hi, How can i get unit and weapons statistics for arma 2 / A2OA? I googled a lot, search in this forum and ArmA2 wiki but was unable to find it... Something like that (but this one is for ArmA1) : http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=246 I know Igla 9k38 have a better kill probability irl than Strela 9k32 but in game? What's the damage difference between 9M119 (T90), 9M113 (bmp2), Metis, Tow, Javelin? It's not really important but i would like to know the data :D thx! (sorry for my bad english)

For ~600€-in you can upgrade and get a phenom II 955be / gtx460 1go / 2x2go / corsaire vx 550w / GA-MA785GT-UD3H => not the best computer in the world but goods perfs for the price. (We can get that in France and... we're not the best country for cheap computer parts.) Sure, I5/I7 are better but 1156/1366 platform cost a lot more :(

Same here. Single or multiplayer, the game hit a fps cap if these too many AI. I tried to change video settings, tried every single tweaks of this forum, ... not any change. (maybe 1-2 fps maxi). I usually get 25-27 fps on big CTI missions with 32 players. This is not a graphical limitation, without AI i get good fps even with a lot of (empty) vehicule in the field of view. Q6600 @3.5ghz watercooled 4go ddr2 gtx260 x25-M postville 80go (1 week installation, os + game on it) Corsair vx550w Win7 x64