guusert

Lol Whut? Why would he have to do that? He's just a gamer and he's right.

They did a good job on that?! FFFFUUUUUU I can't believe how people can say they did a good job optimizing this game. This game should run twice as fast as it runs now. It runs so bad that they could've just done away with the graphics settings, since it doesn't change a damn thing to your performance. I want my damn money back when this game comes out. I can't believe how this is legal. People who should be able to run ArmA 2 based on the system requirements can't run it and Bohemia doesn't get punished? They can even do it again with this game. I'm so mad.

You are retarded. Just don't reply anymore. You are embarrassing yourself. My friend did of course check if the Mac version was available. He downloaded it on the Mac OS version of Origin so you'd expect it to be a Mac game anyway. It said it was available for Mac OS in the requirements.

I don't need to study ArmA. When the makers of a game themselves say I can run a game with my system (system requirements) I will be able to, or I will get my money back. A friend of mine bought SimCity for freaking $80 for his Mac PC. So after downloading the game it appeared to be a .exe file. Apparently the Mac version isn't even made yet!!! You think he should study about how retarded EA is before buying a game? I don't think so? Why do you think I made this post in the first place? Why do you think this thread is here? This game IS for me. I should at least be able to run it at 30 FPS. Bohemia just has to get their lazy asses to work or they need to employ other devs/let them do a cursus. Whatever they might have to do, like this it's unacceptable. I have better than the recommended system specs and I can't even run this game on LOW settings at more than 15 FPS! I don't see myself getting 30 FPS since they don't give a shit about performance and ArmA 2 has this problem too. Stop saying that we need to upgrade our rigs. This is not necessary. I'm not going to adapt to this situation. This is not my problem. It's Bohemia's. You are a really silly person if you can't understand that.

Yeah, games are generally less optimized for AMD CPU's, but most games don't even use the CPU that much. And if they do, they do it well. An AMD CPU is good enough for games too. You don't buy a good CPU for gaming. It just shoudn't bottleneck your GPU too much. Games shouldn't be less optimized for AMD, but that's not really a problem for me. The problem is that this game IS UBER-POORLY OPTIMIZED for my AMD CPU! My mother's laptop (2.6 Ghz i5-3230m+GT 645M) runs the game twice as good as my PC (Phenom II X4 955+GTX 460).

Why shouldn't people with 6 and 8 cores be allowed to discuss this and people with 2 or 4 cores can?

You just take that? You don't know these people. He's lying or he had the same CPU utilization before the update. Same performance as before and 0% performance increase when changing video settings which depend on GPU. I don't know what kind of update it is, but it's clearly not a performance update. They should be focussing 100% on performance right now. Priority number 1! You buy a game to play it. You can make an awesome game, but if people can't play it, what's the purpose of it?

It doesn't even come close to 100%, 50% max. Yeah, Bohemia is doing a very good job in losing it's community. How can you be this ignorant?! After the huge amount of complaints about this problem in ArmA 2 they still have the balls to use the 12-year old engine. It's freaking 2013. Games don't run at 40 FPS, Low settings on uber gaming rigs. One thing is sure. I am not going to buy another Bohemia game! Even if the engine is improved, I'm still not going to do that. They don't deserve my money. I have a better system than required and I run the MP at 15 FPS. I don't think they can improve it so much that I can't play it at 30 FPS without making use of my cores and my GPU. And no way they are going to improve the engine lol They have our money.

Ok, blame it on the marketing. They want to easily make money. Whatever you like. It's still unacceptable. No. No.

You got to be fucking kidding me. At least 75% of the ArmA 3 owners, if not 90% is having this terrible FPS. And everyone is having this utilization issue. Though AMD owners seem to get totally screwed. My mother's laptop runs this better than my PC -.- Even 2x better. The lappy has an i5-3230M and a GT 645M and runs the game at Low or Ultra at 30 FPS. . That hardware is worse than my PC's. I have a Phenom II X4 955 (OC'd from 3.2 to 3.8 Ghz) and a GTX 460. I run this game at Low or Ultra at 15 FPS. Looks like Bohemia hates AMD.

And this game is definitely not for most people who like to play a game without incredible lag. In this game it doesn't even matter what videocard you have. A GTX 460 or a GTX Titan, it doesn't matter. It's all about the processor. It's absurd. EDIT: And to froggyluv: You think they did a good job with that lol Have you even driven a car yet?

Why The F should we have made that? We are no devs. We don't get paid. Do you think we should fix this? What kind of sick person are you? Is this what the gaming industry is going to be like? The consumers, people who have no knowledge about how to creat a game like this have to finish the game? And no, it's far from ridiculous to call them lazy. After knowing about this huge problem in ArmA 2 they haven't even admitted that the CPU utilization problem exists. This game could be something. But now it's nothing. Almost no one can play this fine. And still they continue like nothing is going on, screwing everyone. I seriously hate these devs. The fact that it doesn't even matter which videocard you have is ridiculous. Games depend on videocards! Not processors!

You do know that 6 and 8 cores CPUs are worse than 4 cores CPUs atm? Intel has 4 cores CPUs and they are they are way better than AMDs 6 cores and 8 cores CPUs. Even if applications use 6 or 8 cores, Intel CPUs still beat AMD's. I cannot stand the fact that my mother's laptop (i5-3230m @2.6 Ghz +GT 645) can run the multiplayer at 30-35 FPS because it's CPU has 2 cores and I can only run it at 13-17 FPS because my PC's CPU has 4 cores (Phenom II X4 955 @3.8 Ghz+GTX 460). Btw. the laptop runs W8 and the PC W7. This is not our problem. This is Bohemia's problem. We have hardware capable of running the game well, but it is not being used. This problem barely exists in other games. Normally, if they are heavy on the CPU, they'll make good use of the CPU.

Some of the engine problems blablabla... The only big problem here is the CPU utilization. These devs... they won't fix it. This is not going to be ok. If you update the graphics of the engine you also have to update the utilization so the hardware keeps up with the graphics otherwise it's simply not working. Who says A must also say B. I had a discussion about this on another forum too. This guy Psychopomp explains things really well. Psychopomp: "There is no excuse to be releasing a game without the support for multiple cores. Even in early alpha it cannot be accepted. When developing a game, you have an idea in mind. You want that idea to become a reality, you know what you need, you know what resources and manpower you would need to acquire and achieve that idea. The guys at Crytek use multiple cores for a reason, they didn't start thinking that one core would've been enough for their massive game, nor should Bohemia Interactive. If the problem persists, then the guys at Bohemia should be ashamed for a reason. Poor planning and execution if it isn't fixed one way or another in the future. Anyway, I wanted to make a clear point. You have a certain process that you need to do when developing a game, anything really. That process is important, because it will make your project something great, or nothing. You may not forget anything of great importance, and the most basics in the engine should be there from the beginning. There is no reason to go back to the roots and change things if they had planned it perfectly. The only reason would be if the engine can be improved even more, and that the previous one wasn't lacking. Because if it was lacking, why the hell would you make an alpha version and put it for sale. The nerve to release an alpha game on steam whilst it is not ready is an even more disgusting idea. The game isn't finished in the slightest and can undergo massive changes in the progress. The company is just hogging up money to show results to their business partners to increase profit. The game can change whenever they want, because it is an alpha afterall. Consumers might get screwed over and the company will receive no financial damage due to preorders." (guusert: )I like to add myself: In this case, the alpha is like a preorder which you can't cancel. You can't play the game (horrible FPS), but it's not a preorder. Another post from him: "It's not really the issue about them fixing it or not, well, it is though. But from a realistic point of view, why would they create an alpha version of the game which only allows the usage of one CPU? It does not make sense to begin with. And the fact that Arma 2 also had this issue, assuming that what Guusert said is true, is a disturbing yet realistic problem. The game might face some hardships if it isn't solved properly. Now, as already mentioned, it is a problem. But I am not going to tell you how bad it is. Most games that were released in the alpha state were able to run multiple cores, assuming that the game needed the usage of multiple. Arma 3 is the type of game which requires the cores, it is a normality to allow the usage of multiple ones in your game. A company cannot decide to release an alpha version of their game, allowing only the usage of one core when the game needs more than one. It is only acceptable if the game has such low requirements that it should not have any problems, thus not affecting the game. It's a given though that Arma 3 can be played on one core, but the more cores you have, the slower one core (probably) will get. From my understanding, you cannot just allow the usage of multiple cores just at the snap of your fingers when you already have large parts of the game developed. Most certainly not with massive games. Even for alpha games it is unacceptable that do not 'allow' more than one core for increased performance / FPS. It will only cause them more trouble adding these features later, after the alpha. It is only natural to do the basics before you decide to really show the game. But I guess consumers friendly games are not in our world anymore. Just marketing plans, numbers, financial wealth and a whole lot of disappointment. But the problem can be fixed. There is no doubt about it. We just need to wait and see if the company behind Arma 3 is balls enough to not do it."

People with i7s shouldn't have any problem running games on any video settings. People with i7s and good videocards never have problems running games which are CPU intensive. This 12-year old engine destroys the game.

Double Tap: "Bohemia Interactive, what you need to do, so that things don't get out of hand and you don't suffer massive negative PR and refund requests en masse, is to 1) acknowledge the problem and 2) let us know that the problem will be fixed. Silence on this matter suggests that it will not be fixed. It does not inspire confidence in you." Don't try to fool us by saying it are the servers. Why would you? To give us faith? ArmA 2 has the same CPU problem. A server with 30 ping can't possibly half my FPS. A server shouldn't even touch my FPS. I also have the same FPS in the SP, so no more lies please. We all know what the problem is here.

Bitch please -.- I am wasting my time typing this. Just because you are a rich fag and you only care about yourself, doesn't mean you should say the devs should ignore the problem and screw anyone who has a moderate CPU. It doesn't run well. Why do you think this huge thread is here in the first place? " all of them have used this game engine & variants of it since 2001, this game engine was developed originally as a mil sim for training in rl warfare." Unrelevant information. I have no idea what you are aiming for. And who exactly is saying "my 4....ghz only get 30fps"? You'd say that the devs would make use of your engine since this game is so CPU dependant. But they're doing it wrong. Or remove the birds and disable pretty much everything that is CPU dependant, so it's not like an ArmA game anymore? Make it CoD lol Those tweaks you are talking about barely make any difference, if any. These devs are not ok. Even two of them have been in jail for making photo's of a military base in Greece (how stupid...). Yeah, brilliant unplayable game!

Seems legit. They keep hiding. I'm going to get my money back. Biggest game rip off ever. You should be responding as fast as possible. Your community is going mad. This is the main priority. Drop everything you're working on right now and fix this first. Take your time. Even though you were going to release this in 2012 lol This is going to be your downfall if you don't do something about this.

I hope they actually realize that like this the game is unplayable for most people. They have to fix it.

I'm talking about quad-core CPU's, not 6 or 8 cores. And even if I'm wrong the CPU is still being utilized way too bad. Way worse than any shooter I've played since years ago. It's ridiculous how bad. To the point where even people with GTX Titans can run it just at 30 FPS. I think I'm going to leave this thread and hope they're going to do something about this poor performance.

There's no discussion about what the main problem is. It's the CPU utilization. Because the CPU isn't properly utilized it will bottleneck the GPU. If you have a good videocard it will use about 30% of what it has to offer. It's not like we're making things up. These things are not an issue in modern shooters, not even F2P shooters. No, normally your CPU is being utilized 90%-100%. Maybe there is more hardware not being utilized well, but this is way more important than all other utilization.

Leon86, I'd like to see a PC with an AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz run the multiplayer at 30 FPS. Link please... I don't believe you. Almost 100,000 views isn't enough? Anyway, if this is true, that's awesome. I would totally forgive BIS and buy their games in the future IF they'll keep the engine up-to-date.

1. Look at what the user white said. You totally miss the point. The problem is that they use a nasty marketing trick. I fell for because I have a better system than required. First they make sure they have your money and then you'll figure out that the hardware utilization sucks and you're fucked. They don't want you to figure it out before you buy the game. If this was a free alpha like every other game I wouldn't have wasted my money. 2. THIS IS NOT AN ALPHA ISSUE, LIKE SAID OVER A FUCKING HUNDRED TIMES!!! And they still haven't said they are going to fix the CPU utilization. 3. Because it doesn't matter. Read my post again. 4. If you can run Tomb Raider on Ultra settings at 40 FPS that means your GFX is not the problem here. My GFX should be able to run this game at Ultra at at least 30 FPS when used 100%. Is it that hard to understand? 5. Whatever, just a typo. I meant 2500. The required and recommended system specs are always the same on every site. They copy what the devs say it is. It's the same on this official ArmA 3 site. We don't have to change our settings. We certainly don't have to buy an expensive CPU. BIS has to change this. We don't have to do anything.

I couldn't find any post from an admin saying the CPU utilization will be fixed and I'm not going to search through this mess. BIS, I'm going to ask my money back if this game won't properly make use of my 4 cores when this game comes out. I can't play the game like this and my rig is better than you recommended us. I have a Phenom II X4 955 (overclocked from 3.2Ghz to 3.8Ghz). The recommended processor is an X4 940 (stock speed ofc). I should be able to run the game at High settings+drawing distance set to the point where the landscape looks good. Instead I am getting 15 FPS at LOW settings. This is not acceptable. I won't accept it. Ok, it's still alpha, but I'm just saying that it should run well when it gets released. Buying an alpha game is pretty bizzare (just as bizarre as pre-ordering a game), but I did it because it costs only €25 and I have better hardware than recommended. I Currently it doesn't matter which videocard you have since it's getting bottlenecked like shit. I have a videocard that can run Tomb Raider at 40 FPS on Ultra settings. 10 Years of quad core industry and still this engine doesn't make use of my 3 other cores. I was like: "HAHAHA! Are you kidding me -.- Gaming industry these days..." when I found out. Why didn't you change the engine before you made ArmA 3? I mean, you did know that this was going to happen. You improve the graphics and shit, the game asks more of your CPU, it still uses just as little of what your CPU has to offer in ArmA 2 and the result is that you get horrible FPS, even with an i5-2600 and GTX680 Slis (23 FPS). 77 PAGES!!! And number 1 problem in your feedback tracker. You have to fix it. Ok my post is getting long now. This is more or less what I wanted to say. EDIT: http://alpha.arma3.com/known-issues So if you're smart you'll put the exact problem ("CPU utilization") in that list and fix this, so people will still buy your games in the future. I'm not going to buy EA Games anymore. I won't buy your games anymore if you don't fix this. You don't want people to do that, right? You don't want to be like EA, do you?

For now, Play withSIX is the way to go. It isn't great yet, but it's still alpha and the fact that it supports ArmA 3 already is good.