sephis

Another point to add to this is that SLI works as it should only if you play on 4K resolution. I made a post in the Nvidia forum asking what the issue was and someone posted a screenshot of it working fine but he was playing in 4K. Changed my res to that and suddenly started getting 90%+ usage on both cards. The only problem of course being that the frame rate was now the same as 1080p with a single card :(

Hi, For some reason I've come across a weird problem in ARMA 3. When I have SLI disabled I get 99% GPU usage and, with SLI enabled, the cards run at 45-50% usage each BUT when I have SLI enabled and I look at the floor, both cards go to 99% usage. Can anyone think of why that might be? I also get 99% usage on both cards on the main menu with the island rendered in the background. I originally thought SLI wasn't working because it isn't yet supported but it looks like it is ...just not working properly. I've posted a video to show I'm not making it up... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrl_YqlQQKo&feature=youtu.be Any help would be much appreciated. My PC specs are i5 4670 @ 4.4ghz 8GB DDR 1600Mhz 2x GTX680's 250GB Samsung SSD

God I'm so f*cking fed up with people blaming CPU botlenecks. With every single hardware config, when people can't figure out what the problem is, just blame it on a cpu bottelneck. There is nothing wrong with my set up and SLI works great in every other game that uses it. There has to be something else causing the issue. It would be nice if someone from Bohemia commented. What's the point of having a suppport forum if they're not going to respond to issues.

I've tried change using the second card for physx but again, there is no change to performance whatsoever :-( Change compatibility bits to what? Have you tried out the new drivers yet? I'm away for a few days so have to wait until Monday to try them out.

Yeah this is what happened with... Forced Single GPU http://imageshack.us/a/img713/3127/9cgv.png (2437 kB) SLI Enabled http://imageshack.us/a/img827/5184/zwqz.png (2481 kB)

You mean the flickering? If so yeah I do get that also unfortunately.

I bought the game on day one and have been patiently waiting for the it to be optimised but it is still completely unplayable for the most part when I try to play online. My rig is an i7 860 @3.6ghz, 8GB DDR3 1600, 2x GTX680's SLI and the game is installed on my SSD drive. SP runs reasonably well but whenever I try to play online I seem to be lucky to get 30fps when I'm in the more built up areas of the game or if there is any action on screen (explosions, lot of vehicles). When I'm at the airfield or the local towns I get 15-18fps. On 2 680's? Seriously? I'm only playing the game on high-ish settings too. I've tried lowering a load of settings but it barely makes a difference. If I disable my 2nd 680 there is literally no difference whatsoever. Is this ever going to be fixed? or just optimisation in general? This is especially a concern considering you are now talking about releasing the BETA which is a near finished version of the game.

I have the new chip clocked at 4ghz (going to try for 4.5). Yes it's a fresh install but I did a fresh install just before with the 860.

Well, just put it to the ultra preset and turned the view distance to 2k and my frame rate is nearly double. Shame it cost me £300 to gewt the game running smoothly but I guess it was about time to upgrade anyway :-) EDIT: I just tested with and without SLI and there is no difference whatsoever so THAT issue still remains unfortunately. At least the game is now playable.

Just got my i5 4670 and MSI Z87-G45 installed. Updating now everything now. Will be interesting to see if those bashing the CPU were right.

Thanks chaps. Appreciate everyone's feedback. I have been thinking about upgrading anyway recently as my 860 is extremely unstable with any overclock above 3.6ghz. The i5 4670 seems to perform better than the 3770k in ARMA 2: OA http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/41/IMG0041507.png

Thank you all for your feedback. Regardless of the terrible optimization, maybe it is time to upgrade my old i7 860. I will be seriously f*cked off though if I upgrade and all of your bottleneck theories turn out to be a load of crap ;-) So then, what would people reccomend as a CPU/MOBO combo for this? Ideally I don't want to spend more than £350 Was thinking about these... i5 4670k http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-472-IN MSI Z87-G45 http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-235-MS

@RuecanOnRails: Funnily enough I have just done a clean wipe of windows and installed an SSD which is what ARMA 3 was installed to. I haven't noticed a blind bit of difference though apart from slightly better loading speeds. I'll say it again one more time as people seem to be having a bit of trouble understanding this. I was not saying that because game B runs well then ARMA should. There are a number of people saying that it's because my cpu/mobo is old or it's bottlenecking my GPU's so I was just making the point that every other game I own run flawlessly on their max settings. As I also pointed out; changing the settings barely makes any difference. This is ULTRA config with full AA, long distance etc http://imageshack.us/a/img24/1325/arma32013060701270446.jpg (370 kB) 26fps This is the default setting for STANDARD http://imageshack.us/a/img855/2666/arma32013060701271886.jpg (287 kB) 32fps I've spent hours going through and trying out these different launch parameters as well which haven't helped either. ARMA 2 & Arrowhead (more so) run great though. Like I said, it runs great at those settings with SSAA turned off. Never saw it go below 40fps (average 50-60) apart from during the finale. The benchmark results were were a poor reflection of how the game runs as it's an extremely intensive demonstration in terms of how much is rendered in the scene. Anyway, like you say, lets agree to disagree.

Well you're clearly not going to believe me no matter what I say or post and so this debate is entirely redundant and, as pure passions stated, out of context. Those drops to 9 happen in a split second and I didn't even notivce them watching the benchmark. The simple fact is that I've played through Metro at the aforementioned settings 3 times and I average at 50-60fps which I consider to be running 'at ease'. if you refuse to accept that well then ....whatever helps you sleep at night squire.

Ugh, I'll try and explain again, I was not comparing ARMA and Metro in ANY WAY. I was merely quashing peoples claims that my hardware was outdated by showing that it can easily handle the most demanding games currently on the market. Also, I said the SP is running reasonably well. Good's a bit of a stretch. I still get huge drops in frame rate when there's a lot going on or it's in a more built up area of the map. It seems that no one can give me a straight answer about when the game was going to be optimised for SLI so I guess I'll just have to sit and wait in the hope that one day I can actually play the game. I'm getting really fed up with people saying to lower the settings. Here's an exaple of how much good that does. This is ULTRA config with full AA, long distance etc http://imageshack.us/a/img24/1325/arma32013060701270446.jpg (370 kB) 26fps This is the default setting for STANDARD http://imageshack.us/a/img855/2666/arma32013060701271886.jpg (287 kB) 32fps So turning all the settings from Ultra to standard/off, disabling AA completely and lowering the view distance gets you 6fps

I'd say it is significant and perfectly within the context of this conversation. The point that many seem to make is that my CPU is too old to be able to try and play this game on higher settings or that it's bottlenecking my GPU's which is why I was demonstrating that those claims are unfounded given that, even the most taxing of games (ie metro LL), run without fault. How is that not "worthy" of this conversation exactly? All I want to know is if there will be any optimisation for SLI or just in general in the near future as, at the moment, the game is completely unplayable for me. If the engine performs so badly with a small island and a limited selection of vehicles then what the hell is going to happen when it has the full map with tanks, jets, attack choppers, hundreds of AI etc?

Admittedly I don't have SSAA enabled as I don't really need to at such a high resolution. With everything else on max (including hardware physx, I average about 55-60fps @ 2560x1440 You can see my fps in these screens http://imageshack.us/a/img18/7180/metroll2013060700323364.jpg http://imageshack.us/a/img89/4402/metroll2013060700340811.jpg http://imageshack.us/a/img38/8912/metroll2013060700345071.jpg EDIT: I also ran the benchmark which is incredibly intensive and takes place during the big finale of the game. It rarely dipped below 30fps with SSAA on @1080p which is hardly a slideshow and I imagine it would be quite playable at these settings for the most part of the game Proof: http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/1107/metroll.jpg

As I said earlier, I have turned the view distance down to under 2000 and have aa on 2x (auto detect put it at 8). Every single game I own (including Battlefield 3, Metro LL, Crysis 3) I can play at 2560x1440 @ max settings with ease. ARMA 3 on high-ish settings in 1080p is unplayable online. Not just in Wasteland but in CTI too which are the only two modes I like to play. However much I love the ARMA series, I shouldn't have to fork out hundreds of pounds for a new processor just for one game just because the devs don't know how to optimise properly. Which quite frankly, is embarrassing for a PC exclusive developer who've been making these games for so long.

It doesn't at all for me. It runs exactly the same, if a bit better, with SLI turned off. Have you actually tried turning it off to compare the difference? Not quite sure what people mean by CPU bottleneck. Is that something my end or a problem with the game? Also does this forum not allow you to post pics? Was going to show my settings but the last post I made with pics is nowhere to be seen.

Care to elaborate? @Byku my view distance is under 2000 EDIT@ BangTail - I did reply but it's awaiting moderation

I've taken part in a lot of Beta's and, the vast majority of the time, they are near as dammit the final product as far as performance is concerned. These are examples of how crap my perfomance is at the moment... http://imageshack.us/a/img32/2475/arma32013060610390106.jpg (500 kB) http://imageshack.us/a/img849/7012/arma32013060610385123.jpg (419 kB) http://imageshack.us/a/img199/4204/arma32013060610440544.jpg (383 kB) http://imageshack.us/a/img812/3406/arma32013060610441384.jpg (392 kB)

Awesome, thanks for the help.

I've only just started using the ingame editor and have developed a slight addiction but there is one thing that bugging me that I can't figure out. Whenever I try and and spawn the destroyer ship, the only thing that appears on the map is a dark green question mark and, when I preview it, the ships just not there. Am I doing something wrong or can you not spawn the ship without downloading extra mods/tools. Any help would be much appreciated.