WalkerDown

Many of us have answered this question many times. For a certain type of videogamers is much important to run the game at a minimum number of fps (I won't go deeply into the reason, it's not a placebo effect, having your game, especially an FPS running at *minimum* 60fps (to not talk about those running with 120hz monitors) makes a big difference. These persons usually have spent much money for their setups, to be sure to cope with the modern games demand, and when the juice isn't enough, they just upgrade their hardware. With ArmA3 this isn't possible, the game doesn't "scale", so you're stuck with low fps (yes, for me 35fps is on the low side, i'm not used of playing at 35fps with a hardware capable of doing 3 times that speed), no matter what gfx settings you use or what hardware you have. The user is "trapped" into this situation without any solution (no upgrade, no sets, no tips.. nothing will help), hence the frustration and the "post flooding": we have tolerate this situation by years (it's the same situation of previous titles, and the problem is well known by your company), we just have finished our patience and "exploded".

And you can't go above those average fps, neither if you overclock your CPU to 5ghz and you if you install 3 Titans... because the engine is crap. So you're stuck with 40 fps with a hardware capable of doing 150fps... what a shame.

Your CPU is used by its 30% .. and your GPU as well.. drivers won't help to improve anything.

You don't really a degree to do a simple test: - Turn ALL the options to minimum; - Set your resolution to 800x600; - Go on 50 different servers with tenth users aboard (just to exclude the possibility to hit a bad server.. or eventually install a server yourself); ...with ANY game, lowering all the sets at that level (making it almost unplayable) you'll end to have HUNDREDS of fps with a fair setup... well I did the same with 3.8ghz CPU and TWO 780 (beside the SSD, 24GB of RAM.. and the whole package)... do you want to know how much my fps have changed? I'm ashamed to post the result... but im sure you guessed it.

Ah.. initially I tought the same.. the only way to have better FPS would have been to increase the clock speed (due to the old engine based on 2 cores..), but it's not going to work, I've tried with 1.5ghz variation and the fps changed only slightly. In other words there's nothing you can do... neither crazy overclocking will helps.

The problem isn't either the number of cores used... but the fact that the engine is not capable of using them efficiently, most of your PC power is sitting there doing nothing. So having a $600 setup or a $6000 setup doesn't make any difference: the first will do XX fps with his hardware used by 80%, the second will have almost the same fps but with its hardware used by 10%. Look at this in example: http://i.imgur.com/ITum6XU.png A GTX780 (one of the most powerful gfx cards on the market) is doing almost the same fps of a gtx 570 (that is less than half power). You don't notice this behavior in most modern games (even if bad optimized, they scales on powerful hardware), but it's very common for very old games, and this is the reason of why you're having bad performance with your good setup: the game engine is old, designed around old hardware.

Only recently we had this on their wesite FAQ (note the word "beta" and not "alpha" to justify the fact that we aren't talking about "months ago"): Does the Arma 3 Beta represent final game quality? No, all content in the Beta is subject to further change and polish as we proceed towards release. Furthermore, the full game will have a lot more actual content in the form of a campaign, scenarios, multiplayer, weapons, vehicles and of course the full Altis environment. ...but only now you can see this: When will the campaign be released? The campaign will be made available as FREE DLC episodes to everyone who owns Arma 3. The first episode (Survive) is scheduled for release within 4 weeks after launch on September 12. Episodes 2 (Adapt) and 3 (Win) will be released in the months thereafter. ...this is: trick the user (who pre-ordered before they made that decision public).

You can't even do this in A3.. I mean in any other game you can set anything to zero details and see your FPS skyrockets... in A3 even if you set your resolution to 800x600 and no details, you can have 60+ (never goes below 60) fps on any server. And this is wrong on many levels.

It's 100% because it's a game problem.. it's not like if you can play, if you don't care to have higher fps, but the game doesn't scale: you cannot obtain better performance by using a better computer (or by lowering your settings), you're stuck in a bugged engine. This is the problem.. the game can't even do stable 60+ fps.. no matter what hardware you have. Someone with a $1k PC is doing 40fps.. someone else with a $6k PC is doing.. 40fps as well.. and it's not a server problem, it happens on any server. Those ppl have spent money to run games at 120fps on 120hz monitors ... not to being stuck with 40fps, it's 2013 .. wake up!

It's the opposite, for many ppl 20-30fps are enough, because their hardware isn't capable of doing more (in other games as well). The problem is having a monster PC but doing the same FPS of a mid-low configuration, this exposes the flaws of the engine: no matter what hardware you have, the game is not capable of taking advantage of it.

You must have missed the previous pages of this thread, the other dozen of similar threads we have on this forum, and the most voted JIRA entry. Surely your game is doing 120fps in the dark of your room. :)

It's even worse than this.. with a demanding a/o not optimized game, you can pump your hardware to the sky (spending crazy money) until you'll reach the desired performances, with A3 you can't. It's not demanding or not optimized: it's bugged (that is something different).

100% of the users are having this problem, because the engine is bugged, it doesn't depend by the users configuration. The only difference is that some people are ok with 20-30 fps (most of them have low spec PC's, or are not get used to play at high fps, or doesn't understand the difference at all...); while others, those that are used to play at 60+ fps and with mid-high ends PCs, have immediately noticed the problem and reported it. In other words, you cannot even build a PC (and a server) on purpose to make this game run at high fps in MP (neither by spending crazy money). Neither BIS can say they didn't noticed the issue, they should have been blind! My assumption is that they doesn't know how to fix the problem, so they decided to "ignore" it and release the game as is.

Prove it. Give us a server where we can play at 60+ fps (never drop below 60 fps) with 64 players aboard (assuming you have some good hardware). Until then, please do not spread false information: people will loose their time searching for a "magic" server; but more important, it won't help to fix this game.

Right click on the A3 icon and change the path to AA3 exe. Problem solved! :)

It's because A3 has been designed around an old engine... so yes, the problem we had with A2 are amplified today with A3. The hardware has evolved and transformed, the prices have dropped and so the users have more powerful PC's and setup, they wants to use that they have paid for, but the engine is not designed to take advantage of this new hardware. In my opinion the problem isn't "new" (introduced with A3), it's just the consequence of trying to adapt something old to the new scenario... it's like patching things, not a definitive solution. Btw this is a sterile discussion... there's nothing we (or they) can do.. the engine won't change now (it's too late).. so let's hope in the future (my first hopes is that DayZ would eventually works better than this... by just disabling the zombies).

Welcome aboard. I agree.. until DayZ. :)

For me it's like releasing a game advertising its multi-player but then releasing it without... because it will be "added later". Doesn't make sense IMO, why you're going to release it then? You're desperately looking for money? I believe the real reason is that there's really nothing that will come after... this is the game and this will remains. If you see anything else, they will be PAID DLC.

I was replying to who said that the poor fps was due to the servers poor performance... it's not. Neither having a 10ghz CPU would help... because neither a single core is used properly. In any other game (even if bad optimized), to having better FPS, I can just buy a better CPU and a better GPU or eventually I can set my gfx sets to minimum (I already having a 4ghz CPU and a 780 I know I don't need a new rig of course)... with ArmA3 you can't do anything.. coz the game is flawed... and there's still ppl defending this situation, talking about "decent fps" or "cpu bottleneck" or "poor servers performance" ...there's nothing like this, but only a old, flawed game engine.

Sure, one thing: I never said that this game won't be finished.. this all born by replying to who were saying that, even after the launch, the game would be in "beta".. that is false. The game will be gold (with no contents, bugged, whatever.. but gold). ---------- Post added at 14:19 ---------- Previous post was at 14:18 ---------- One thing is bugged (and so patched) .. one thing is beta (knowing that the game is not finished, but deciding to sell it anyway to "cash in").

"barely playable"? I'm not used to "barely play" a game, I do not even consider anything that isn't capable to run at MINIMUM 60 fps ( I mean it has NEVER and EVER have to drop below that).. but ideally 120fps (@120hz) would be welcomed. It's 2013 ... if I wanted to play a game at 25fps I would stuck with my ATARI2600. ---------- Post added at 12:19 ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 ---------- No, I'm not. There's no way to run this game in multiplayer at stable 60 fps (never go below 60 fps)... if not even more. It's not hardware fault, or server fault, it's game fault. PPl talks about "decent fps", like they are scared to mention the number... :) ...so you're doing 60+ (never go below 60) fps on a 64plrs server? Show me... I guess I'll have to wait for a while.... ---------- Post added at 12:26 ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 ---------- It is only a myth.. there's no such server that will let run your game at high FPS (60+ fps). People are repeating this, but none have proven it... it is a self persuasion to not admit that this game is not capable of running at high FPS like other modern games, no matter what's your hardware. And don't get me wrong: i'm NOT complaining about the hardware demand, but about the fact that is IMPOSSIBLE to increase your fps, even if you buy $10k in hardware .. there's no other game where this happens (even those bad optimized ones).

Not on Steam... in fact to avoid any trouble like this, they launched the "Early Access" (that ArmA3 have adopted): you cannot move from alpha/beta to gold/retail by only changing the name, you must provide a finished product. If your product is still in beta, then you stay within the "Early Access" program. It's not that you're going be arrested... :) ...with "legal", I mean that I'm legally entitled to have my money back if you deceive me with false claims (trying to sell your product as finished, while you admit that it still beta).

It's neither GPU or CPU bottleneck, it's engine problem. If you enable your CPU usage as well... you'll notice that your CPU is used by around 30% as well (depending of your clock). There's nothing you can do, even by purchasing the top CPU and 3 titans, you'll never have high (with high I mean 60+) FPS in multiplayer (on any server).

Your thinking is wrong then. I was very optimistic at the start, then I started to smell what were happening... I tried to raise my criticism, but I were replying by the "it's alpha!" horde. Now the "it's alpha" era is finished and the result is under our eyes. I'm not "pessimist", i'm afraid of having loosing the hopes for a game with this such potential, especially after I've dedicated 80% of my playing time to this serie it in the past years (and i'm still running my 2 arma2 servers + 2dayz servers + 3 arma3 servers). It does (some) things better than ArmA2.. but it does many other things worse than it. I would have expected a better product overall, but today it's not... this is why I "suggested" to wait for the next year to see if they makes anything good.

In example WarZ (now survivor story) were sold as a finished product on Steam, but it was not... with all the consequences that we all know. There can't be any "mix" between beta and a finished product (whenever it could bugged or not). So a if we're beta.. we're beta.. if we're gold, we're gold. What will be added or fixed later in the game is another story... but you can't say: "we're selling the game as gold, but in reality we're beta", you're deceiving your customers... this is why I used the word "fraud".