ProbeEtPylon

You are right on almost everything. Who says otherwise is a deluded fanboy.

Edit: I was wrong. Although the performance did increase, it was not because of my tweaks but because of the sever on which I tested the fps. Hello guys, Multiplayer games were, regardless of ingame options, unplayable before tweaking the settings. After following the advice in these forums, the fps increased from around 15 to 30. Even (the optimimized one) wasteland is playable now. (I compared the fps on the same servers during tweaking) - I set the following launch options: -nologs -nosplash -cpucount=4 -exthreads=5 -nofilepatching -nopause -maxmem=4096 -high -noBenchmark -world=empty - I disabled Core parking via the ParkControl tool. (http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php) - disabling all eye-candy of Windows 8. - I downloaded the newest PhysiX drivers. - Tweaking GPU_MaxFramesAhead and GPU_DetectedFramesAhead did NOT help. Hopefully, my post will be helpful for some of you. The point is that, although some people here claim the opposite, tweaking the settings DOES help to improve the performance; at least in my case. My computer: Mainboard : GigaByte GA-870A-USB3 Memory : 4GB DIMM DDR3 Processor : AMD Phenom II X4 955 Processor (4C 3.5GHz, 2GHz IMC, 4x 512kB L2, 6MB L3) RAM : 2 x Kingston 9905403-153A00LF 2GB DIMM DDR3 PC3-10700U DDR3-1334 (9-9-9-25 4-34-10-5) Graphics: AMD Radeon HD 6800 Series (1120SP 14C 900MHz, 1GB DDR5 4.2GHz 256-bit) My Arma.cfg settings: steamLanguage="English"; language="English"; forcedAdapterId=-1; detectedAdapterId=0; detectedAdapterVendorId=4098; detectedAdapterDeviceId=26424; detectedAdapterSubSysId=822285954; detectedAdapterRevision=0; detectedAdapterBenchmark=102; displayMode=0; winX=16; winY=32; winWidth=1024; winHeight=768; winDefWidth=1024; winDefHeight=768; fullScreenWidth=1680; fullScreenHeight=1050; refresh=60; renderWidth=1680; renderHeight=1050; multiSampleCount=4; multiSampleQuality=0; particlesQuality=2; GPU_MaxFramesAhead=100; GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=4; HDRPrecision=16; vsync=0; AToC=15; cloudsQuality=2; pipQuality=0; dynamicLightsQuality=2; PPAA=4; ppSSAO=2; ppCaustics=1; serverLongitude=54; serverLatitude=-2; ppBloom=0; ppRotBlur=0; ppRadialBlur=0; ppDOF=0; Edit: Certain servers and maps (life e.g.) still do not run properly. Tweaking the settings is of course no magic cure :(

Thank you. I'm crossing fingers. Meanwhile, I'm going to exterminate peoples in Europa Universalis 4.

I hope you are right. How quick were the developers at fixing the game back then?

You can tell Steam where you want to install a particular game. So there is no need to move your complete Steam library. Just reinstall Arma on your SSD. I don't know whether the SSD will increase the overall performance of the game, but it certainly will decrease popping up textures, so reinstalling is worth the trouble either way.

Guys, I was wrong. I apologize for raising false hopes. After reading your objections, I installed Arma3Mark and tested both configurations (1. time with all my suggested tweaks enabled, 2. time all disabled) 1. Run of Arma3Mark: 38fps 2. Run: 39fps ... However, there was a significant performance increase on the server that I mentioned. Both times there was the same amount of players (31) and the same map (this CTI map which nearly every server uses atm). What could have been the reasons for that? Maybe the mentioned cleaning of the assets / a restart of the map between my testing? Omg, omg, omg, omg! I feel so honoured. I just got a reply from a Developer! Its like the second or third time this happens in my entire gaming career! Oh please, do my a favour and reply again. This time, explain to me why you are advertising your game with system requirements that may be true for singleplayer but not for multiplayer, which is the heart of the game.

I tested the fps differences on the same server, with the same map and the same amount of players (32). On that server it did help to improve the performance. It's true, however, that this is no cure-all. For instance, the life-servers wont improve a tiny bit, not matter what I try.

Did the new Dev Branch patch increase your performance? ... mine is still unplayably low :( Running Arma on a Phenom II 4X 955 @ 3.5Ghz

This software helped me, too. However, using parkcontrol causes a slightly higher cpu temperature in my case. Beware if your cpu allready gets dangerously hot! my cpu: Phenom II X4 955

Thank you guys, I just bought the FX6300, which should might be not optimal for ARMA but better for other games.

Thank you for the advice, Leon. Why do you prefer the 6300 over the 4350? The latter has less cores but more Mhz. Is that not exactly what Arma requires? Is overclocking difficult or even dangerous for my computer? I certainly can follow instructions like "Click button X in window X" or "run BIOS and change Y settings" but nothing above that.

Hello Arma Community, I really want to get into Arma, but my PC seems to be too old: Mainboard : GigaByte GA-870A-USB3 Memory : 4GB DIMM DDR3 Processor : AMD Phenom II X4 955 Processor (4C 3.21GHz, 2GHz IMC, 4x 512kB L2, 6MB L3) RAM : 2 x Kingston 9905403-153A00LF 2GB DIMM DDR3 PC3-10700U DDR3-1334 (9-9-9-25 4-34-10-5) Graphics: AMD Radeon HD 6800 Series (1120SP 14C 900MHz, 1GB DDR5 4.2GHz 256-bit) My processor is apparantly too slow. Do reasonable priced CPUs (max. 100€) have enough power for ARMA? Do I need a new graphic card for High-Ultra settings (with a new processor)? Would ARMA benefit from a SDD? Can I build in a SDD in my computer? Do faster RAM increase the performance? Edit: AMD FX Series FX-4350 <- This one is not too expensive. Is it a good buy for ARMA? The AMD FX Series FX-8350 costs additional 60€. Is it worth the more expensive price?

AMD Phenom II X4 955 Processor 2x Kingston 9905403-153A00LF 2GB AMD Radeon HD 6800 Series 465GB (NTFS) @ WDC WD5000AAKX-001CA0 Windows 8 Professional x64 Game is unplayable on non-blitzkrieg-servers with more than 32 players. Is my computer too slow or is this bad optimization? Battlefiield 3 smoothly runs on high-very high settings with 64 players...