Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Instynct

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    70

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Instynct

  1. Posted

    As far as performance is concerned, your game has a lot bigger problems than whatever nvidia drivers are being released. But, always nice to have a scapegoat... of course, this would be what you respond to... Wouldn't want you to go and actually contribute actual information about what BIS is doing (or, not doing) to address the long-standing performance issues of the Arma series, or why a new release is *still* incapable of making more efficient use of modern hardware.

    It doesn't matter what nvidia does to improve performance when our GPU is still going to be sitting waiting for our CPU, which is sitting around under-utilized thanks to an engine that still has all the same fundamental problems that a2 had, but with nicer window dressing...

    The problem seems pretty clear. This game was built on a foundation for hardware of the last decade, rather than this one. Aside from the pretty pictures, it certainly performs and behaves like it, anyway. Nothing like having plenty of hardware horsepower sitting idle while the game takes a dump, performance-wise.

    +1 Nice job summed it up perfectly.

  4. Posted

    i agree BIS keep fixing things that should not be a priority at this time.

    As I have said before

    Why build a house on unstable foundation when the house will inevitably fall down sooner or later.

    BIS has been aware of this problem since ARMA2 and yet release ARMA3 with the same issue but this time strapped more stuff on to the engine which struggled before hand :(

    Because they can still sell the house and save money, even though the buyer is angry.

    ---------- Post added at 21:18 ---------- Previous post was at 21:16 ----------

    http://dev.arma3.com/sitrep-00051

    "....Multiplayer optimization attempts are looking optimistic. The server-side algorithm that determines what messages to resend and to which clients, has been optimized and rewritten to use additional CPU cores. Together with a client-side optimization of network message computations, these changes should provide a noticeable boost to framerates in multiplayer sessions. The changes have to be carefully tested but they should be ready for the update after Zeus (1.18). You can already try them out on devbranch...."

    sounds good

    If this is what dwarden has been working on it's already been tested and has very little improvement.

  5. Posted

    Nothing except switching my power settings to High Performance, which made it playable for me.

    The game might not run the best on mid range hardware, but its an impressively immense game and that should be expected. I would rather BIS release a game that its demanding on current hardware and last 2-3 years, then release a new game every Christmas. I think they did a great job with Arma, there is not another game like it IMO. Im happy to play in Standard settings until hardware gets a little cheaper.

    It doesn't run well on any hardware. Midrange, High, Nasa.

  9. Posted

    Maxed? All settings maxed? 100 fps at 1440p doesn't sound bad at all if you're saying all settings are maxed. Then again you've spent 4 times as much on graphics cards as I have.

    Multiplayer is just as bad for everyone probably though.

    Yes... that's single player. Dips to 80-90 in cities.

    I think it's pretty apparent they gave up on multiplayer performance before the game even released.

  12. Posted · Edited by Instynct

    It's pretty apparent that those of you who think 30 fps is 'fine' have never played above 30 fps and lack the hardware for any other game.

    Someone with a $4000 pc should not get lower than 50fps on lowest settings, it's simply unacceptable.

    We will never see 60+ stable fps on multiplayer for this game... proof is in the current performance and amount of time since release. Major lack of progress on BI's end.

  16. Posted

    what about map size? I saw BF sized maps only. Maybe BIs could make similar if they wanted, editing map size utes, pumping it up with lots of details.

    Map size shouldn't mean squat if your engine was built properly unless you're going to have view distance maxed. There should not be major performance changes between a giant map and a small map if view distances are the same. Loading a larger map should only increase memory usage.

  17. Posted · Edited by Instynct

    Frostbite 3 could do this easily. It's so damn optimized. True BF4 has maps no where near this size, but that doesn't mean the engine isn't capable. I'm sure if they had a map the size of Altis it would have performance 100x better then this game.

    Basically any engine that utilizes modern hardware and multi threading would be better then this engine. They could add all the features in the world, but if you don't have stable performance why even bother? Maybe if you're looking for a cash grab.

  18. Posted

    The point is that they don't have to fix it so they won't. People are still buying the game because there's nothing that competes with this game in what most people buy it for... realism. Then we have the clueless moderators and bohemia fanboys on the forums spamming 'it must be a problem with your system'.

  22. Posted

    well, I just ordered my new rig which will be up and running by the weekend.

    main specs:

    4770K

    780s sli

    ssd

    16gb ram

    ill post back with the results and well see if the engine still runs shit

    It will... I have a 4770k with 2x 780 Ti SLI. I get 90 fps everything maxed on a empty server. Then I go to a server with 10+ people on it my framerate is only 40s at server start then drops to 20s when the server has been running for more then 10 minutes.

  23. Posted

    This goes for everyone - if u dont want lag spikes in this game then ull need to have a very strong system with an ssd. System needs to kept clean otherwise it will lag in general ( not just in game)

    My minimum specs (for good performance) would be

    i7 quad core at 4ghz

    Gtx 670 (still pretty weak)

    Ssd

    view distance set to minimum.

    other graphics settings set to high (clouds etc) otherwise the cpu handles them

    If u have anything below these specs then it boggles my mind that u think u deserve more performance. I mean arma is known for being hardware heavy due to the open world game it is. Im not trying to be rude but u are using tech that is 2 or so years old and its not even the flagship for its time.

    Nah... this is false information. No matter what system you have you will have unstable performance on this game @ multiplayer. Unless you think 20 fps in cities is stable.

  24. Posted · Edited by Instynct

    I'm getting 50 fps in agia marina with everything maxed completely... WOW I might start playing this game again. However this probably doesn't mean squat considering there were no other players on the server.

    EDIT

    NVM performance still degrades like crazy, after playing 10 minutes on a server with players fps dropped to 20. Too good to be true.

    RIG: i7 4770k and 2x GTX 780 Ti

  25. Posted

    Still the game runs just as poor as the day it was first released in alpha for me. I cannot get over 50 fps in altis anywhere on the map and I get 20 fps in cities.

    I think it's funny thinking back to alpha when everyone said 'It's alpha optimization will come in beta'. Look at us now, hahahahahah

    BIS basically took our money and decided 'nope' too much work this will have to do.

×