dnk

Thanks for the help. Reinstalling my GPU drivers fixed it.

EDIT: Fixed. Reinstalled graphics card drivers. 32-bit works fine. ===================================================================== == C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Arma 3\Arma3.exe == "C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Arma 3\Arma3.exe" -noSplash -mod= Original output filename: Arma3Retail_DX11 Exe timestamp: 2017/03/16 10:46:12 Current time: 2017/03/17 18:21:58 Type: Public Build: Stable Version: 1.68.140908 Allocator: C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Arma 3\Dll\tbb4malloc_bi.dll PhysMem: 7.9 GiB, VirtMem : 4.0 GiB, AvailPhys : 5.1 GiB, AvailVirt : 3.8 GiB, AvailPage : 12 GiB =====================================================================

I've noticed I get this A LOT due to vehicles getting destroyed. I was in a town with several vehicles burning, getting the customary 5FPS or so, then they all disappeared suddenly and 40FPS+. Other times, a sudden crash/wreck will kick off the bug. And then there's times it just happens because I've been on too long.

No, your CPU is crap, which is probably the most important component for Arma. Everything else is fine if not overkill. Also, nothing can run A3 well if you're playing with over 60 people on a server. Just a heads up, you'll get a slideshow on a big/cheap server. Also stop bumping years-old threads because you want attention.

Yes, I would hope they would do that. On the other hand, the current system at least mirrors PVP, in that you can see anyone in any terrain regardless of camo because of how broken concealment past 50m is in this game.

Beaten to death indeed, yet for some reason we keep having to play with these same AI... It's an MP game now. It's really hard to claim this is a worthwhile SP game or even COOP. There's good communities for sure, but the opponents are ridiculous and unreal. As someone who likes to play against BALANCED AI, it's quite depressing. It's just not really an option in this game. All the mission makers seem unable to choose realistic settings for the AI, so we're left with laser-accurate instant-reaction killbots.

Well, this is why you need to do research ahead of time --on your own-- and actually know what you're doing before you do it. You basically wasted $50-100 now on that board. Every board manufacturer will clearly state what socket the board is made for on their website. The chip manufacturers will clearly say on their websites what processors fit what sockets. The benchmarking sites (particularly cpubenchmark.net) will let you know how these processors compare in performance (but also google specific game titles since not all utilize a given part the same *cough arma*). Again, if you're building your own computers for gaming, you need to learn about all this stuff first. What you're doing is like trying to fix a car's engine without knowing what a cam or crankshaft is... it doesn't end well. Find some enthusiast sites (anandtech, hardocp, tomshardware, etc) read relevant articles, lurk relevant forums, eventually post questions about what you've read, and once you're ready to actually buy the parts, first post a "check my new build" on said forums and get user feedback. A lot of users are idiot kids, so keep in mind a lot of the information isn't exactly trustworthy on those forums, but the big post count older members usually know their stuff and are probably in IT if not engineers. Anyway, all that should take you a few months, but the knowledge gained will be worthwhile if you plan on doing this sort of thing long-term. Otherwise just buy prebuilt systems and save yourself the trouble if you can't bother to inform yourself. A bit more advice for you regarding Arma and gaming: go with Intel. Since you're upgrading, get a Haswell, Broadwell, or Skylake. I think a 4770 or 4570 would be a good price-performance compromise for the sort of system you're building, and will probably be good enough to keep past your next GPU/RAM upgrade. Note that Broadwell only supports lower voltage RAM so it probably isn't compatible with yours, and Skylake only supports DDR4, which also won't be compatible with yours, so unless you plan to upgrade your RAM with your CPU you should stick with Haswell (the 4770 or 4570 are both that). If those two chips are a bit too expensive, just find a cheaper Haswell. I would guess a new Skylake build is too expensive for you, since it's *just* rolling out, and Broadwell is a pretty skippable generation, hence going with a bit older but still good Haswell is not a bad idea. Here are some actual A3-specific comparisons I saw in /General: Note that your current processor is a lot worse than the lowest one on that list. This website also has an A3 comparison (below Crysis): http://www.hardware.fr/articles/940-15/cpu-jeux-3d-crysis-3-arma-iii.html Depending on how much you want to spend, you could possibly double your FPS since your current CPU is so garbage.

Well, to answer that you should look up what socket your motherboard has, then look up all the CPUs that fit that socket, then compare them using the website linked to above in this thread where the guy compared CPUs. If you're going to have a custom built PC you should understand how to build one. Start learning and get to researching. All the answers are out there, fairly easily found via your search engine of choice. Hint: you're going to need a new motherboard too, as I said above. This is all quite a large investment for one game. If your other games are running fine then maybe just stick to those. I mean, I get crap FPS on Arma (some missions at least), but since I get decent FPS on every other game I play, I just deal with it instead of spending $500 chasing a 10FPS bump here.

As mentioned above, BECTI has decent teamplay (sometimes, it's pub after all) and a bit of structure to it. It's not so much infantry based as combined arms and AI management based, but if you're not looking for pure intense infantry combat it's good. If you are, KOTH (infantry only) can't be beat.

Yes, that processor is not remotely suitable for Arma. You will need a new motherboard and CPU to get playable framerates most likely. I have an i5 3350P, and it is really too slow for this game, yet that model is still 30-50% faster than yours. As an example of a "good" CPU, an Intel i7 4790K @4.4GHz is getting like 250% performance of your 6500. I would say that if you want to play Arma, an i5-7 Sandy Bridge is bare minimum, with an i5-7 Haswell+ being recommended. Typically, over 3.5GHz turbo since single threaded performance is key. Ignoring Arma, that's a really lopsided computer build anyway. You have a decent new GPU with a totally obsolete CPU and moderate RAM (assuming it's 1600/C9 or so). I'm not sure what game it's designed for (BF4?) but you really would want a new processor anyway. A good balance with the CPU would be something like an i5 4570 or i7 4770. All that said, I can't tell you what framerates you'll get without knowing what missions/servers you play and with what settings. I mean, I get around 23FPS on a full KOTH server, yet 45-60FPS on a low-AI COOP server. If you want 60FPS+ on the big MP servers, I'm not sure there's a CPU out there that can deliver that with good quality settings: That's an engine "feature" caused by server FPS heavily impacting client FPS.

Yeah, just to chime in: the scrollwheel action menu is garbage and needs to be redone, and it should've been redone by now. Door open needs to be a separate key, eject needs to actually work as a separate key, weapon selection shouldn't be in it (nor should open door once the key is set up), and really no action that actually has a key assigned should be in the menu. Doors shouldn't be openable if you don't have your cursor over their space (not the physical door, since it's hard to look at when opened, but rather the opening itself), and they need to increase the distance it works at for a lot of doors. The reason the game got complicated is because the mass of multiplayer users wanted it that way and gravitated towards these servers. The game has been designed as a highly moddable sandbox, and for some odd reason everyone's playing heavily modified sandbox missions... I find the complaining about KOTH particularly funny, because aside from the kiosks (dear God, the kiosks!), it's extremely simple: have the most people in a zone. The kiosks aren't really complicated either. Ranking up is a standard aspect of nearly every MP shooter for the last 5-10 years. Dude's yelling at clouds to get off his lawn.

I think it's pretty well established that Arma's bottleneck is most definitely the CPU's single threaded performance, with simplified front ends (ie shared across cores) causing further issues most likely. I think this has been established since late beta, basically as soon as we realized its "multithreaded/core" support was still getting caught up on this as before (though it's still an improvement, but not enough to overcome the increased performance demands). I'm not sure there's much to be done there short of a DX12-esque miracle cure for draw calls or a total rewrite of the engine (or new engine). I have an SSD. I performed a lot of tests between it and a 7200RPM drive (posted somewhere on the forum). There was next to no actual FPS gain, though it did cut out a LOT of microstutters (and a few macro ones) as well as, imo, "fixing" a lot of crashes (game stalls for 2sec, but unlike before doesn't CTD). The only reason my RAM upgrade improved performance was that (contrary to my prior beliefs) Arma needed more than 4GB on the system to run smoothly. It wasn't a huge difference anyway (in performance or speeds, just size).

That's all and good, but it needs to be executed right. The current execution makes me feel like it should've stayed on dev branch for another 6 months, rather than be thrown out while still clearly in an alpha state. I mean, how did the QC guys feel this system was remotely ready for prime time on the main branch? The issues are massive and glaring. This is why we have the dev branch...There's a saying in video production, to paraphrase, "bad video can be forgiven, bad audio will ruin a project". Well, Arma's video has been low-FPS and stuttery since time immemorial, but at least the audio was mostly acceptable, albeit simplistic. I don't find the game playable anymore - the two issues together are too much for me to enjoy playing, I just get a headache. Now, I'll have to wait for multiple patches until I can return to MP, because they rushed out this major overhaul with an apparent minimal amount of testing/balancing done? Two steps forward, two steps backwards. As always.

It's as high as it goes without hurting my ears, as it was before. It also doesn't change the fact that I can't echolocate worth a damn now and the gunfights sound like really loud MIDI tap-offs. I also used A3 pre-update as a comparison. I could also use any of the sound mods like JSRS or ACE from A2/3. Or any other FPS game ever made. This is painfully bad by any standard. It doesn't even stack up with BF1942...I know, I know, "WIP". But everything just doesn't work well right now, and it needs to be discussed. I don't want to get stuck with this for months (or forever) because "dynamic range is gud". If it ruins the soundscape, it's not. Realism forsaking all else is not a good gaming recipe. Increasing dynamic range here just means reducing all other sounds to being almost unhearable with anything other than a static non-combat scene. I don't enjoy that, and I find it unplayable, and that's coming from someone who's otherwise put up with the weak soundscape in this series for almost a decade now. Anyway, it's more involved than just "gunshots are too loud"... And say what you will about BF4's dynamic range being unrealistic, the game sounds great, allows for great echolocation, has great environmental sound, has great EAX-type alterations, has great gunshot tails, and has amazing audio samples. You can quibble about whether the gunshots should be a bit louder, but overall it's an excellent soundscape that should be emulated rather than ignored because of the kneejerk BF4 hate around these forums. The issues: - I get an odd very short bass thumping at the very end of tails, so if I do a 5-round burst, there's a 5-thump about 4sec after I fire - footsteps and player sounds (incl reloading) are hard to hear even at close ranges (even without gunfire, and yes my audio is turned up fairly high) - basically only 1 audio sample per sound makes things sound very repetitive - different weapons' levels are all different, even though they should be fairly similar - suppressors are extremely OP, they're silencers effectively now - sonic cracks sound like someone tapping a ruler on a snare drum or something - the sonic cracks are cutting out the actual firing sounds it seems, meaning even without the OP silencers I'm mostly hearing cracks when in the front 120-degrees of the weapon - the bass! constant heavy thumping thumping, especially for MX series rifles - way overdone bass at a very low frequency, hurts my head! - most of the audio samples just sound simplified and monotonic, MIDI-like - because the gunshots are so loud (DYNAMIC RANGE!!!) they basically clip any other sound in their same range

My audio settings are fine and worked on A3 before the update and work on BF4 currently. There's not much to get mixed up. Say what you will about the realism of BF4 effects, at least I know where they're coming from.