WalkerDown

First thing you do when OC .. is to disable any boost and throttling. Btw it's not about OC that I were discussing, but about the fact that someone believes that this game is "ghz dependent" (more clock speed you have more fps you obtain), this is only true if you have a low-end CPU but after a certain speed you won't get any other fps, you only obtain to have a less and lesser used CPU. This is why I said that whenever configuration I've tested, I've had almost the same fps.. no matter what, from a single 570, passing by a SLI, arriving to a 780, and by applying 1Ghz CPU clock speed variation and by changing any possible game option (even by lowering the resolution to a laughable size would change the fps). This is the reason of why this thread has 149 pages, and the online jira has thousands reports... it's not a "user mistake" it's a problem of the game.

Lol after several years will still discussing this... nor that you need to be a scientist to add an autostart! If you browser the server list 80% of the servers have no mission loaded and a wrong user-limit (server defined but different than the ones defined in the mission) ...and that's because there's not an easy solution to this problem. If there's any dev reading this.. stop whatever you're doing, and look if may loose 10 minutes of your precious time to find a solution... and nope, we don't want it today, after all we're waiting by 5 YEARS !

It's not different.. I have an intel, I've tried to change the clock from 3.0ghz to 3.8ghz .. it's barely used and my FPS didn't changed, I've also tried different video cards (one 570, two 570 and now with a 780) the fps barely changed. I've also played with settings (from min to everything on max) .. nothing changed. Everyone is experiencing this problem.. and there's nothing you can do because the engine is damn old (we had this problem from the first arma title). The fact is that when you mention it there's always some fanboy to tell that you're lying (like we did not purchased the game like anyone else), and in the worst scenario the thread will closed. I lost my hopes to be honest...

If the +25% shown here is translated the same way into MP, then it's a great news, if this is only about SP/Editor... then I wouldn't care much: the game runs sweet in SP, all the troubles starts when you join a online server.

Sorry guys, but 25 is s*it .. i'm aiming for 60+ fps (and never drop about it) .. anything lower that this is not acceptable for top-end configurations, the problem atm is: no matter what configuration you have, there's no way to obtain such result online, even with a 5ghz CPU and 3 titans. There's even ppl that are used to play @120hz ... and you're talking about "I run smooth at 25fps" .. lol.. I think you don't know what 60 and 120fps is.

Single 570, then two 570 SLI, then a 780, tried in combination with a 3.2ghz CPU and 3.8ghz CPU, at various screen resolution (up to 1600p) and with various gfx settings (from anything to min to everything almost maxed out). I've tried tenth of different online servers, including mine (I own three), barely noticed any fps variation, and it's incredible if you look at the different specs and all the other variables I've mixed in this months. I would have noticed that a core speed increasing would have ended into some more FPS (because of the engine problem with multi-core CPUs) .. but nothing ... the fps overall remained low: you start with some high fps (in the range of 85s).. then they start to oscillate (with 20 fps or lower), stuttering all over the place. I've read ppl talking about: low specs, cpu core speed, bad servers... anything, but none have proven to run this game "smoothly".

Tried battle of stratis 64 (no AI) .. it won't start, after joining it sits there with a blank screen (no slots list).

I think you missed the point, this: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716

In the past 5 years you mean? They could have redone the engine from scratch 2 times. What they can do today? Probably nothing at this point... be prepped to the horde of ppl complaining about it (today we have the excuse of the "beta", when it'll be released there won't be any excuse). But they can finally wake up to solve it, eventually for A4, so we won't have another 1000 threads like this in the future ArmA4 forum... after 3 titles and some expansions they might finally figured that a problem exists.

Does it works for the beta? (it seems the vehicles won't spawn)

There's no "CPU bottleneck" (that is when your CPU is not powerful enough.. bla bla bla), changing your CPU won't change anything. It's a game problem: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716 ...maybe a day they'll solve it. Let's hope.

While saying the CPU is not powerful enough while it's being used by only 30% is even worse.

All the vehicles in arma (including the helicopters and airplanes) have been much simplified (or call them "arcade"), I don't think there would be any solution: (most of) the user base wouldn't like anything else. Who's used to play sims like DCS would be in the even to have a flight model like the UH1 in ArmA3, but I already see all those kids screaming "it's too hard to fly!!!" all around. So no, we'll never have anything "simulative" in Arma, unfortunately.

Most of the complaints (at least from me), are not directly linked to the "usage", but because of the very poor FPS overall.. it's 2013, I've a 780 and a 3.8ghz CPU .. why I can't have some stable 60 fps in this game? At no resolution (I've a 1600p monitor... but I've tried to lower the resolution down to 1080p with no difference). Then there's really something wrong here... the game is noticeable jerky for me, i'm not used to play with this low fps. I would accept this situation if I've had a very poor PC.. but I'm using a "fair" setup. I hope it will run good for the release, but honestly my hope isn't so high.

Unless MSI Afterburner is trolling me.. then I'm not. You sir should read the forum rules (notice: I'm replying to this message only because of the original message, trying to ignore your personal attack). /reported

Btw that usage in A3 is "fake" ... try to run a old build and you'll notice a 40% usage but almost the same fps ...in fact for the rest of the "cycles" the GPU is doing basically nothing. That % things has been introduced because of user complaints: "my GPU is barely used..." .. so now they see 99% and they believes it's really fully used (while in fact it is not). I did this test (same gfx settings, map, but slight different engine for obvious reason, online): With core i7 950 @3.2ghz - Old build (0.5.102) with a single GTX 570: 45 fps / usage: 55%; - Old build (0.5.102) with a SLI GTX 570: 47 fps / usage: 55%; - Old build (0.5.102) with a GTX 780: 50 fps / usage: 40%; Then I run the current build (0.6.106) with a single GTX 570, then again SLI and then with a GTX 780 .. and guess what? I've got almost the same FPS, but the GPU usage went up to 90% in all those cases for no reason. The CPU is barely used by 35% overall .. whenever a couple of core are used for about 60%, then for a definitive test i set it to 3.8ghz ... nothing changed: same FPS and low CPU usage, while the GPU remained at 90% but with no fps change. I did not tested the BETA yet, i'll do when it'll be released on the stable branch.

I've read that .. but I don't understand what it means, does it means that we wouldn't have *for sure* the OR support at release? If so .. this is a very sad news.

It's June 22nd, we're moving to beta apparently, why there's no official words about the Oculus Rift native support?

There must be a new definition of "beta" .. what's next? We will call "beta" the GDD before we even write the first line of code? :) Whenever any developer seems to assign a different meaning to the word "beta", a beta is contents complete, so i'm not sure what's about this beta thing with missing contents? Doesn't make much sense.

Money are made by numbers nowadays (see BF3 and COD). From a company perspective (earning), they would spend more time into external 3d modeling, so they can claim to have: zillion vehicles into he game.. no matter if they are just boxes with wheels, the average BF3 player won't understand the difference ì. This is where ArmA is aiming... dangerously near to BF3 and COD (who doesn't like money? :) ).

Oculus Rift will have 6dof tracking in the retail version (and probably if there will be a v2 kit, you'll find the 6dof there already), it's a matter of $15 and the board is ready to have a 6dof sensor installed, there won't be any reason of not installing it. TrackIR is crap if used with the rift because it will highly limit your head movement, if you want to have a 6dof experience with the current devkit I suggest you to use a razer hydra and the modded opentrack driver.

He (like anyone here) bought the game at its current stage of development. Btw that's a off topic argument, we're discussing about the poor engine performance due to the fact that the engine is not capable of using properly the resources (especially the modern CPUs). This is a old argument anyway, and anyone unfortunately knows it already, I were suggesting the OP to not to upgrade anything, because it's not a problem of his setup but a problem of the game itself (since even with a top hi-end 6-corse CPU accompanied to a couple of titans, the game does not run smooth as it should be), so it could be more convenient to wait for a fix (if there will ever be one...), a fix to this issue I mean: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716 ...that has 1491 votes already.

False, he bought the game in its early access, accepting the "Steam Early Access" program, he did not pre-ordered anything, neither the current alpha is a bonus, the current alpha is exactly what he bought: a game in its early stage that is evolving. You can find this exact question on the FAQ: Q: Is this the same as pre-purchasing a game? R: No. Early Access is a full purchase of a playable game. By purchasing, you gain immediate access to download and play the game in its current form and as it evolves up and through 'release'. True. ---------- Post added at 17:16 ---------- Previous post was at 17:10 ---------- I wouldn't upgrade anything.. instead I would downgrade (!) ... it's probably that a old CPU pushed at very crazy clock would performs better in A3 than a top-end modern CPUs. :) Recently I've pushed my i7 950 to 4ghz and now i'm using a gtx 780 ... and guess what? I do the same scandalous low FPS (with an average of 35 fps @1600p that is crazy low if you consider that I do around 90 fps in any modern game..). I would suggest you to wait for the game optimization (if there'll be any in the future).

Yes, when you'll wake up please read the first row here: http://feedback.arma3.com/plugin.php?page=Vote/list_bugs ...especially the number of votes. ;)

It's a known bug, your video card is not used completely, neither your CPU, so it won't make any difference if you lower the gfx settings. More details here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716 ...it'll be solved? We don't know, it has not been solved in the latest 5 years (it affects any previous arma title so far).