white

Irrelevant, Arma 2 suffers from same issues, and id like to point you out to this bug report 2 years ago, and the answer that was given: dev-heaven.net/issues/6963 "I am sorry to disappoint you, but some things are really too hard and we are not willing to spend the time on them." - Soma - people like you make Bohemia sit in a confortable position and thus not giving a shit about the rest of us that complain about a major issue. FALSE. 'Watch Dogs' is running on a brand new game engine called 'Disrupt' http://www.examiner.com/article/watch-dogs-is-running-on-a-brand-new-game-engine-called-disrupt ---- that said, im fine with it being the same engine, im not fine with the major problems not having been addressed. LIKE MULTICORE WITH PROPER SUPPORT WITH SEVERAL THREADS FOR THE MAIN GAME/AI.

or the game running mostrly in 1 core and bottlenecking everything else that happens in any other core do make then underutilized, because theres too much shit going on in the first core to begin with. solution? takign all the crap in the first core and spreading over to diff cores. iver only ever seen the cores parking when they were doing nothing for a while, and i had never seen cores park on other multithreaded games/software. but like was already posted in this same topic i bet the answer would be something like the answer Soma (lead programmer) gave to a bug report before rejecting it about fps and AI 2 years ago: "I am sorry to disappoint you, but some things are really too hard and we are not willing to spend the time on them." - Soma dev-heaven.net/issues/6963

20-22 fps when alpha came out, 20-22 fps in the test i made 1min ago.

'Watch Dogs' is running on a brand new game engine called 'Disrupt' http://www.examiner.com/article/watch-dogs-is-running-on-a-brand-new-game-engine-called-disrupt 2 seconds google search, i bet i can find more. ----- was taking a look in the arma 2 2010/2011 threads on the same issue and i have to say, considerign how evasive theyve been, i bet bohemia wont do shit about this again, it will remain broken and undertilized, only with half assed optimizations a la arma 2. prove me otherwise.

intel has better per core performance, if the game only uses 1-2 cores, intel wins. the few ones with good fps are usually intel owners overclocking to 4,5ghz+

i guess theyve just been unaware of how game engines evolved in the last decade.

there you go, post #179 ive quoted him right after and argued but got no clear response. api monitors show the game having mainly 1 major thread on 1 bottlenecked core (but lots of physix and cloud threads), and i can easily find a multicore running bf3 on a 64 multiplayer map having 75%+ usage on all cores. so there you go.

so far their reply is that this game is in fact multicore and that multicore usage in games are low. and i call it bullshit because i can prove otherwise, as others already did.

i feel you bro.

it didnt on arma 2, so the "its an alpha" argument is moot. its a core issue on the engine that might or might not be fixed unless enough people ask for it so it has enough weight. its not even on the known issues/sit rep yet despite the 550 bug report votes.

considering this game is cpu bound by bad code limitation, anything to aliviate the processor taking some of the load off of it would be helpfull.

then you found a memory leak, because the engine is limited at 2gb videoram. bistudio wiki: -maxVRAM=<number> Defines Video Memory allocation limit to number (in MegaBytes). Use to resolve e.g. Windows problem: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2026022/en-us?p=1 128 is hard-coded minimum (anything lower falls backs to 128). 2047 is soft-coded maximum , any value over 2GB might result into unforseen consequences! http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma2:_Startup_Parameters yet to hear a dev saying anything about it being higher now, i would like to though, i would appreciate if it was.

it wont, but an intel overclocked to 4,5ghz+ will help a lot.

my fps doesnt change from low to ultra, ive seen my videocard IDLE in this game because of the cpu bottleneck.

software video rendered by the cpu like the old days? ;)

go on steam, right click the game, properties, local files and verify integrity. perhaps some file is damaged.

The huge discussion thread about the issue was closed on steam, very democratic way to shut people up/solve the issue (when most there were just asking for the issue to be placed on the known issues alpha hub). its not like one could moderate it and erase/ban people with over the top comments in order to keep the discussion alive. oh wait. On the other hand shutting people up usually just makes them find other places to voice their opinions, like gaming sites/other known foruns/twitter/facebook, etc. doesnt solve anything. if i were to guess i would think that the topic was left unmoderated as an excuse to close it so it wouldnt stay on the front page all the time like it was, because it was kind of an embarassment, just my opinion. I kind of feel disappointed whenever i see this kind of censorship, wonder how long this thread here will survive.

some guy on steam discussion (here http://steamcommunity.com/app/107410/discussions/0/864961721676462825/ ) used an api monitor to show how most of arma 3 including its AI runs in 1 thread in 1 core, while some stuff like clouds, and physx spread across other cores, but the first core bottlenecks also waiting for them. this game does not uses more than 2 cores total. thats been shown by disabling extra cores and seeing no changes whatsoever in fps, but they get 90%+ usage. and also, people said that the effective way would be each AI to create a new cpu thread that would be spread across avaiable cores but that would also need some core changes in arma code. if thats all true, i hope BIS make some extra effort and do them no matter what. but the thing is that even on games without AI the game gets unplayable fps because of the 1 core/thread limitation. and you are right, the one thing that increases performance is overclocking as high as you can those 2 cores, thus being way better on intel which has superior per core performance.

theres a thread about it, i recommend giving it a read http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS also recommend reporting the issue by voting here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716

reinstall gpu drivers even if you already have latest ones, who knows, try a diff version. also, try -winxp as a launch parameter.

i know, but they "kind" of recognized the problem, of course i would like more specific and clear recognition aswell, but i just think they wont make a statement about it because it will hurt sales. but im hopefull that they will do the right thing because 2 things might happen, a lot of people will ask for their money back before launchif it remains with this problem (at least in my country would be quite easy even if steam gave me any trouble about it, our consumer protection laws are very strict, one of the few things good about my country anyway), and also, a lot of fans of the series will give up on bohemia for the lack of respect to consumers, if they did that. this kind of forum complain is nothing because even though a lot are dissatisfied, we understand the fact that it is an alpha and things can still be done, otherwise so many wouldnt even have voted on the bug report, but if it get closer to launch and remains like this, you probably will start to see a lot of people complaining on facebook and twitter aswell, and thats never good for a company. hell just check EA and Sim City what a disaster thats been since it launched, articles on everygaming site about how awfull its been, i doubt there will ever be a sim city after that again. makes no sense not do address this issue even it it means more cost and some delay to launch. arma 3 has everything to become way bigger than arma 2 ever was and thats all we want.

arma 3 isnt even out yet, not even beta, its alpha, the time to sort out this stuff. dont give up yet, lets hope they can put a few guys to rewrite some of the code to at least for the AI to have more threads and make use of more cores in the next few months. i really hope they do because i would really want to see arma 3 run great. arma 2´s dayz based sales gave them plenty of money to hire an army of coders to do this, its a matter of wanting or not to. ill choose to believe they will want it this time around.

A2 still has issues, the multithread issue was never fixed, and its the same issue we are talking about here. and yes, multiplayer servers do impact negatively BUT that doesnt explain the same happening on singleplayer. and some guy said he placed chernarus on arma 3 and lost 20fps compared to playing it on arma 2 so there you go. "oh but i get high fps" where do you get high fps? looking at a rock in the forest? 50fps with 3 guys next to you on a hill looking at dirt? thats the issue, on a lot of places you get unplayable 10fps with very low cpu/gpu usage, enough for the gpu to IDLE, again, on single player. and that is what this topic is about. like ive said a few times, thats acceptable for an Alpha, yes it is, but its the same issue that plagues previous arma titles since they use the same engine, and their alpha´s are long gone.

ill quote whoever i want damn u. i agree with the need with a benchmark and i think that will happen, even if its on just a mod. but i dont think issues are mission specific, but i guess i agree that its counter productive for people to pots results in different places stating a different range of fps´s, thats mainly why i always ask for people when they state they have high fps looking at a rock on a forest to show a screenshot on a cpu heavy scenario like the heli showcase where a lot of stuff goes on at start. everything else seems too varied to control. and yes, it goes down to BIS choosing to fix this or not, but they keep stating that the game is multicore and multithreaded and that no game can take advantage of all the cores at high usage, and thats just a lie, or theyre oblivious to the issue.

My guess is that it will be the same. maybe less bushes disappearing from afar to aliviate the issue somewhat. its even worst when you set the terrain detail to low because even a bigger area (low-medium distances) becames clear to easily spot anyone, while people on higher settings cant see shit at low-medium distances (which is great and immersive). for what i mentioned the quick solution would be the details be locked high for everyone so at least everyone would be at the same level of fairness.