white

most people. and its developers. same problems from arma 2, vague optimizations and leaving the main problems untouched. its been years and people got frustrated to the point of raging, most, like me, expected more from Arma 3 performancewise, we ask for fundamental engine changes and we get "optimizations" "but dont expect major changes", meaning we wont promise anything, will try to gain some fps, but its too much work to address the engine flaws, and that is what we interpret from it. that makes sense considering a couple fo years ago when Soma said "its too much work and we are not willing". those evasive answers from BIS let this topic become what it did, they could be posting this right now being engaged on the discussion, answering people with proper information and leading it. the biggest discussion i saw a developer participating, about the performance, was on steam when dwarden was talking to a guy named homer simpson, the guy made good arguments about why the engine performed poorly like it did, posted some screenshots showing how the games threads worked and how they bottlenecked, and what happened? that thread ended up closed and moved to the steam discussion garbage. a few days ago i saw a discussion on steam regarding gamespy serverbrowser, and dwarden said something like "its still an alpha, we might use gamespy or not, we might use both gamespy and steam, who knows". my reaction was "dafuq, you developers should know by now what the hell you are going to do with the game". the lack of prior design choices regarding this and those other mentioned issues paint a bad picture overall imho. the games concept is indeed great, but if it launches with the same issues arma 2 has (not using even half the hardware avaiable to run the game better) ill just consider it half-assery all around. and you talk about properly reporting performance issues on this topic. theres nothing else to report about the performance issues, its been covered over and over, dwarden said "of course we are aware" like 50 pages ago, theres like 1200 votes on the bug report. but since they do not engage on the discussion about what causes it and how it could be fixed, we are left to think that either they cant figure out, they dont want to fix it or for some reason they will use it as a big surprise for launch and leave people raging on the forum for the lulz till then. they could close this thread, because its now mainly people trying to figure out whats wrong with the engine, and if BIS wanted, they could simply answer it to end the discussion.

supression works as is if you dont have third view. stick your neck out to try to find your target and risk you life.

will probably run about the same as arma 2, slightly worse, it does for me. stuff going on inside a city = 15-30 fps nothing going on walking in open terrain = 45 fps (arma 2 actually goes to about 80 for me here) an i7 cpu at 4ghz or higher my gain about 10-15fps more over mine. might be worse depending on the server and how many ppl are on. check my sig for my specs.

i have 16gb so yeah it could. but the game uses less than 4gb by limited 32bit design. (acctually ive never seen it use more than 1gb) from time to time i see dozens if not hundreds of mb´s related to windows error reporting logs made for Arma3, those probably are part of all the hd usage while playing. game doesnt crash but they keep being created.

so you guys want a bf3-esque supression on arma 3? is that what im reading? btw, not playing in third person would make you unable to see where shots are coming from, if you want more realism, play without third person.

thats what he just did imho. we all want stuff to be properly made from start, but when we cannot get it, ppl endup makign it themselves outta frustration. and ppl needing to code their own anti hacks says a lot about how well BE works in the first place.

to me the q6600 is the culprit. what cpu do your friends use? also, server performance and the mission impacts a lot in your fps, your friends were on the same server when you were chekcing your fps´s?

even on low the game needs 2 high clocked cores to become somewhat playable 25~ fps theres 3 options in my opinion, overclock your cpu to higher than 3ghz, change the cpu, or wait for bohemia to fix the engine. (spaghetti monster knows when)

the first thing about it is that to me wasnt clear why i had to choose a mo folder, since im used to the defautl directory no matter what launcher ive used before, including six launcher. so i asked myself, mod for what? dif skins for play withsix? that wasnt clear, and also the idea of installing software on an unusuall place bothered me, since ive seen it work in the regular place plenty of time already. i guess i wasnt clear, from the start there were no arma 3 on it, but on the first post on this topic, where i first found out about the existence of this software in particular, i saw some association with the beta version of it and arma 3, so i tried upgrading it to beta on the settings, and that made arma 3 appear. apparently since the settings were already open when i cliked on arma 3 thinking that would launch the game or show me the serverbrowser, it showed me the arma 3 options and some mods/games i didnt have aswell, like carrier command. on the settings that was already open i saw a lot of options that like you said i could ignore, because to me they shouldnt be there in the first place, since to me, they could alter some files in arma i didnt want it to, and because still wasnt seeing the server browser but some mods i didnt want plus some games i didnt have, i just got tired of dealing with the ui. the only applications that ive had to really pay attention and watch tutorials or mess with it before i could understand its ui, that i remember, were 3dsmax/maya/luxology modo. anything else to me usually feels clear and very easy to just jump into and get exatcly what i want from start. and if i want more out of it, and the options are there for me to find out afterwards, even better. thats great! i know you guys have nohing to do with how bad BIS ingame server browser is, i just cant ever stress enough how awfull it is, because they shouldve never used that on arma 3 imho. to me, since it has friendslist, serverbrowser and mod installations, which are 3 different things right there, i call it multipurpose. they kind of go togheter, no problem, somepeople, most people, might like it, ok, but i dont wanna feel forced to use it and have the UI shove it into my face when i dont even want to touch those. im used to launchers with server browsers since gamespy first started, even then i used to prefer the all seeying eye to it when it became avaiable, and that was a long time ago. what kind of information you mean? i didnt say steam wasnt multipurpose, i mentioned it for being simple. when i start it, it shows me a very simple list, either my friends or my games, whatever i chose it to be, and anything else i want i can easily go after, but it doesnt have to shove everything it has in my face, it can, but only if i want it to. and i love the fact that for the most part its been the same since 2003, they just added stuff that i can completely ignore if i want to, since it doesnt show in my main ui. i mentioned dayzcommander, do i find its ui beautifull? not by a longshot, but it uses colours to separate important information. but i find it extremely clear and practical and i find those way more important. it does show a lot of options but are all about the same thing, the server browser which works even without touching it. i know, its for 1 game. but i believe a modular design for a software like playwithsix could make a multigame launcher feel like its more specific to that game and the user needs as simple as they could be. and im also aware that would not be something easily accomplished. anyway thanks for caring about what i had to say and for answering everything thoroughly. i was getting used to devs barely ever posting with those others arma 3 topics.

i meant properly installed to be launchable by playwithsix, since it didnt recognize at first, when it did i was trying to figure out how to see if the paths were already done, and if they were right, and upon checking settings i saw options about leting playwithsix update arma 3 to beta or not, etc. to me made no sense letting playwithsix mess with those settings. but i understand how they are usefull for non-steam games. but for what kinds of mods? it install new mods on my documents folder? never seen any software installed there, thats a new approach to me. (usually theres just settings and cfgs files afaik). and ive installed stuff (dayz for one) through dayzcommander inside the steamapps arma 2 folder, gave me no issues. from the get-go i was shown a lot of options for mods next to big icons for arma 2 and dayz, clicked the dayz one and kept showing me mod options to install and that lost me. and didnt find buttons to add new games so i could place arma 3 aswell, then i went to search for updating to beta which showed me arma 3 and gave me those options i mentioned, and since i didnt want it to mess the steam install i didnt touch it. also was showing me games like carrier command which i dont have as options like the mods before it. then i just lost my will to figure this software out, became too much hassle for what i wanted. and i just dont accept that for what should be waaay simpler. usually i can pickup any software and just intuitively use it, this one confused me and made me not bother with it. and i used to use six launcher for arma 2 a while ago, the old style ui was way less confusing than this one that apparently tries to look like an windows 8 metro app. you mean is not that fair. i understand, but thats exactly what i want, an specialized launcher for arma 3 with a decent server browser since arma cant do it by itself. for others games i have steam. perhaps the ui could start off simpler, ask for what to install when first launched, ask for me to verify the most important options, then show its main ui with what i installed and the serverlist for what i installed, with ping priority as default, and branchout with more features as/if needed. that way could do both styles in 1 application. use steam as an example, its simple as fuck on an old icq friends style, be it friends or small games library, and if you want anything else, you can go after it. reinventing wheels most of the time dont work afaik. well thats just 1 opinion and i understand if everyone else disagrees with me. to me installing a multipurpose application to be a launcher for 1 game is overkill and unecessary hassle, i like things simple, and i guess play withsix could be both using a modular approach. to me gamespy is dying out and for a reason, its terrible. well the steam server browser on games that use it, is the same for most, and it just works. every basic needed option is there. favorites, ping, auto-retry, connect to friends on steam. that would be a decade ahead of the ingame gamespy for arma3/arma2 is. natural selection 2 is a new game from a VERY small development team and they didnt think twice about using it (altought they use their own ingame gui for it, which i find worse), and its way superior by default. and even valve fucked up by hiding it on left 4 dead, i always open up the serverbrowser on the console. the game already needs steam with is a third party software, and now we need another third party software because the game fails to have an acceptable browser, and dont use the avaiable steam one. most launchers for arma wouldnt exist if arma had an acceptable server browser to begin with. i understand how playwith six can be very usefull for dealing with different mods and such, but it simply isnt for me. not as is.

just installed it to go around the terrible arma 3 ingame serverlist. specialyl terrible because i need something that can at least favourite servers. why the hell in 2013 a game cant do that only spaghetti lord knows. anyway, play withsix: recognized arma 2 and dayz apparently, showed me a lot of mods and things i have no need for, and i didnt understand why it chose my documents folder as a mod folder. mod for arma? mod for dayz? mod for play withsix? didnt understand how to install arma 3 in it let the upgrade allow betas, then showed me arma 3, not sure if it recognized properly arma 3 on my pc or not, gave a lot of options about upgrading arma 3 to beta or not after it, couldnt understand why since thats steam business and i didnt want 2 things trying to do the same thing, to me thats prone to create issues. thought that registering would give me more options on how to properly install arma 3 or whatnot, nothing changed, just apparently gave me the option to add friends or something. then i gave up and uninstalled it because the ui was giving me a headache. arma 3 is in serious need of a proper server list but this one wasnt the application for me. gonna look for another because gamespy makes me vomit. please bohemia just use steam server browser or someone make an oficial launcher copying dayzcommander or something. cuz its simple and full of options, and works! i understand that play withsix tries to take care of more games, but trying to do it automatically by itself and showing a lot more than i want/would need to on its main screen is just bad design imho. im not new to computers and i found it to be damn confusing.

instead of you having to do their jobs for free they should hire you to do it and make a proper game from start, and it being the default for everyone. i understand doing mods for creating new content that someone wants to see ingame, but for fixing the game? thats doing someone elses job for free imho. that said, you did JSRS? great job man.

noone can be sure, but theres a chance, i agree. afaik they can remain with this engine and how it works for as long theres a fan base big enough defending what they do no matter what, and buying everything despite running it with terrible fps (and ive seen a lot of those "25 fps for arma is enough"). but i guess how the game fares on launch might persuade even those if its not good enough. and im sure that since the game is now mainstream reviewers wont be so forgiving if it does not perform with an a acceptable playability. even so, it will remain a step behind the industry, since games for 8 core consoles are already being developed and will start to be released late this year alongside arma 3. people compare a lot the cpu usage between arma 3 and bf3, but come to think of it, should be compared to bf4 since both will launch around the same time.

and thats about to end, since both major consoles that will launch this year will be 8 core with similar to pc architecture. 8 core is now the standard for game development. but i forgot, developers should work based on previous old generations and about to be dead architectures and not the trend/future of the entire industry. hell even my cellphone is quadcore. and i dont expect my six core to run better than a quad core (\altought i shoudl, it does in games like bf3), but i would be fine if the game used 4 cores (my previous post has a screenshot with running mostly just 1 core in the 8 core cpu, and that russian review also complains about the game not using more than 2 cores), but i expect it to run better than a dual core. do i really have to post for the third time the screenshots that prove my statement?

the ones that become barely or unplayable due to fps and arent multithdreaded, specially nowdays, are the exception. i have no problem with a game not being multithreaded, as long it performs well with mid-high not-overclocked rigs. but when it doesnt, ppl keep saying that its because its a mil sim and its cpu intensive and to me thats a lie, it just uses the equivalent of 2 cores while the first core bottlenecks everything because of 1 big thread, yeah its intensive, in 1 core. that shows bad design choices and poor execution. and i agree, that happens, but those are the exception. http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/ARMA%20III%20Alpha/test/arma%203%20proz%20amd.jpg (120 kB) im not a long time programmer to know about code/game design, but i know a few and asked them, and still even when they dont know each other, their answers were the same about what the game does and how it performs: "bad design" & "bad coding", "dont expect much". sure it could be fixed with enough effort, but since only vague "optimizations" are announced im not sure they will. and here comes bf4 a decade ahead graphicswise and will probably run with at least twice the minimum fps that arma 2 has. and im done about this issue, ive posted enough about it. if the game launches broken like this ill fight for my money back. and in the rare chance they do fix it, ill buy at least 5 more copies for my friends. (amongst the ones i told not to buy the game as it is now, and they didnt)

so how did the op get that 20-30 fps increase? anyone got around to that?

usually less than 1gb for me, and less than 1gb video aswell.

very nice, great job. thats helps a lot into stardardizing the way people test their fps to post here. mine: http://imgur.com/oCMcdct my ingame options: http://i.imgur.com/4TvDyFx.png pip off, post on standard, aniso ultra and aa 2x + atoc trees+grass. my specs are below on my sig.

thanks for the initiative good enough scenarios i think, gj. my bench: http://imgur.com/oCMcdct

hope it will be a high % so overclocked 4ghz+ processors wont be the only ones with semi-acceptable framerates. optimizations in general are expected obviously.

im impressed with how you can replicate the same scenario in the middle of an online game with multiple players doing their own random things and probably different time of day, n order to test your fps properly and to draw such an objective and precise conclusions from. im facinated.

just took this. exactly the same as day 1. same usage, same fps. 2k view distance. to me, when/if they release an update that deals with performance, i believe theyll be very clear about it.

ive posted a link with a series os cpu´s benchmarked in arma 3. whats your take on it?

i would say u need a better cpu and a good watercooler to clock it as high as you can. 2400mhz+ memory would also help some. http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/ARMA%20III%20Alpha/test/arma%203%20proz%20h.jpg (124 kB) http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/arma-iii-alpha-test-gpu/testovaya-chast.html +1 to the ssd (velociraptor is very slow compared) +1 to nvidia in hope they will let ppl use their gpu for physx like most games do.

since ive read the whole topic, i do follow my advice, genius.