Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Instynct

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    70

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Instynct

  2. Posted

    Console games must make your eyes bleed at 30fps.

    May want to see a doctor 'bout that.

    Hence why I own a PC. Once you've played a properly optimized game it's really hard to go back from it. For me anything above 50 fps looks great, but once I dip lower the immersion is killed.

    EG: Try running BF4 at 80fps maxed @ 1440p then going to Arma 3 multiplayer and run at 20-40 fps on any settings.

    I don't expect to be able to play at 80 fps maxed on Arma 3, I expect to get a stable frame rate @ about 50 fps on about Medium in multiplayer.

  3. Posted · Edited by Instynct

    You'd think they would take that €500,000 and put it into the engine, not content. Content is nothing without stable performance.

    Btw if you think 37 fps is smooth, you've probably been playing on an outdated rig your entire life or playing nothing but bohemia's games.

  4. Posted · Edited by Instynct

    Can Bis ever bridge the gap between optimization and certain expectations --when the loudest hue & cry is, "ULTRA or nothing!", "10k VD or rabble, rabble!", "80fps min. or...", 100% cpu/gpu or....", "1960x1420 rez or ...."

    If Bis had released this game with say, 2k VD max, all high setting renamed "ULTRA" --maybe even a sub-routine forcing cpu usage up?

    Would this thread have 238 pages of indignation and outrage?

    I think not.

    Really? Because I don't think I've seen one person complaining about not being able to run on ultra. I've seen many people complaining about performance no matter the graphical setting.

    Myke;2571680']Nope' date=' just yours. On a more serious note, please come back once you've read the full post:

    Seeing your reaction, i guess this quote nails it pretty well:

    But i'm absolutely sure your PC is perfectly well balanced, only the finest components, all drivers up to date and perfectly set up. There is no doubt that just the game engine is crap. Got your point.[/quote']

    When so many people are reporting the same issues for what months now you still think it's system related?

    It's like a doctor telling a patient with cancer to take some pepto bismol.

    It's almost insulting you would insinuate that half the community for this game are computer illiterate.

  5. Posted

    Myke;2571259']And there starts the problem: this is not true for me and for a lot of other players. When i set everything to low' date=' my FPS will skyrocket through the ceiling. Raising settings one by one will bring down FPS to a point where i have to decide if i prefer 5 FPS more or 500m viewdistance more. It's called balancing. I know my rig can't play it on Ultra settings, i don't even try it.

    No, you shouldn't. You should track down the issues and be open for all advices even if some of them could mean that [b']you[/b] ("you" meant generally, not personally you) fucked it up. Simply said, i see often cases like "Game runs like s**t" - "Try updating GPU drivers" - "Oh, runs perfectly now". I don't say that all cases can be solved that easily and no doubt that the engine itself needs improvement too. But i'm quite sure a lot of problems would be solved in no time if some people would be willing to accept that it might be possible that somethings wrong on their side and not in the game engine (only). Too often people think they are perfect, they never make mistakes and their PC is the best in the World so ArmA 3 should run with 150FPS at least.

    Well, it came up as soon the first user made a really helpful thread and not only "*whine* A3 wont run on my 5 year old midrange PC on Ultra with 120FPS". Just then a Dev jumped in. At least for me it feels like this.

    Seriously? At this stage you're still blaming users computers. LOL

  7. Posted

    I find it so funny that everyone gives this game a free pass performance wise because 'the map is huge'. Really??? That is no excuse for such low performance as people are getting with modern pcs. Have you ever heard of something called view distance? It's not like your computer renders the entire map at the same time. Sure the map size should have an impact on performance but not as poorly as the game currently runs in multiplayer.

  8. Posted

    It doesn't matter because it wont help, here:

    1280x800

    No AA

    No SSAA

    No Caustics

    PIP Standard

    2013-12-02 21:25:30 - arma3

    Frames: 6231 - Time: 220766ms - Avg: 28.224 - Min: 9 - Max: 54

    This is not a problem where game is demanding but a problem where game doesn't use my hardware. No change in settings will help except lowering VD to 1000-1500max, that's where bottleneck starts to fade. And we're not talking about massive improvement, even with 1500VD in MP I get horrible performance but somewhat acceptable in SP.

    No worries it's the exact same issue for me and most others. Don't bother trying to mess with settings because they won't make a difference. It's the game engine itself.

  9. Posted

    "Can't get over 40 fps with a 4770k and gtx 780 ti sli. How is this even remotely acceptable?"

    "How is this even remotely acceptable?"

    o my lawd

    You are hilarious man, I love you. Really anything over 40 FPS will be pretty much unnoticeable.

    Maybe try doing research before posting something you have no idea what you're talking about.

  10. Posted · Edited by Instynct

    OP is talking about MP performance. And there is no excuse for poor MP performance other than BI poor coding.

    Finally someone with some sense. Sounds like forums are full of BI fanboys who think 40 fps is good when in reality this game is so stuttery at 40 fps and dips into the 20s very commonly.

    As I stated in the thread, I'm talking about MP performance not single player. If MP ran anywhere near like single player I wouldn't be complaining.

  11. Posted · Edited by Instynct

    This game is as far optimized as it will get I'm guessing. I've been waiting months for a stable framerate resolution. Haven't seen any major improvements in fps since alpha. All of my friends quit playing this game because multiplayer performance is so poor and now I have too. Can't get over 40 fps with a 4770k and gtx 780 ti sli. How is this even remotely acceptable? I guess because the game has no real competition it's okay for it to be practically unplayable from performance. BIS already knew their engine needed major attention in arma 2 so why did they completely ignore the core performance issues that still exist in arma 3. They knew 90% of their players bought the game to play online. Was this just a cash grab on bohemia's end? And don't even bother posting these 'placebo' fixes in this thread.

  13. Posted

    Good morning everyone!

    I'm new to the forums, but definitely not new to the ArmA series + mods. I think I have a pretty decent rig and I'm usually able to run things in ULTRA or Very High without an issue. As a matter of fact, most of the games I load up default my system to the highest settings. Everything usually runs pretty smooth with the exception of ArmA 3.

    Side note: I recently reformatted my PC (just felt like doing it) so I have the latest drivers and a fresh clean HDD etc.

    So anyway, not sure if anyone else is having FPS issues, but I get anywhere from 15-23. Below is my RIG setup, any ideas?

    O/S: Windows 7 x64 Ultimate (fully updated)

    Mobo: ASUS Crosshair V Formula - Republic of Gamers

    CPU: AMD FX-8150 - 3.6 GHz O/C'd to 3.8 GHz (8 core processor - all cores unparked)

    GPU: AMD HD Radeon 6150 (a little outdated, but not bad at all!)

    RAM: 16GB (Forgot the brand, either Mushkin or Corsair I believe)

    I can't think of anything else that would be useful, but if I did forget anything, don't hesitate to ask! Thanks in advance all!

    It's not your rigs fault dude, it's the game. SO many people are having this problem including me. The only thing that will make it playable is getting a latest gfx card like 7970 or gtx 780 and maybe a new processor.

    That being said it's not worth upgrading just because one game is shit optimized.

  17. Posted

    I understand everyone would like the game to run smoother, better, best. In reality, there is no spell that could be used, and many days or weeks of hard engineering work lead into neglible performance increase.

    As I read all over again and again posts that seems to say people believe measuring how much of their multicore CPU or GPU is utilized (often by some very generic means) I can only recommend to try to read and understand problems associated with concurency in game engine architecture there is still some good read avaialble here: http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/91-real-virtuality-going-multicore

    So yes, it is correct that main bottleneck is singlethreaded performance of the main thread for Arma series, yet it does not have any simple solution (and I do not think Arma is the only game that fails to really benefit from anything beyond dual core very well). Depedning on scenario complexity, the game can scale well on two cores, to some level to four cores but benefit is less visible. With GPU: I do not know, why you simply do not set the GPU settings higher to get best from your PC? If you have powerful GPU, there are many options you can maximize without getting any real penalty on the CPU side. Generally speaking, rendering distance and even object detail has some serious impact on the CPU as well (also affects simulation), yet most of the other graphical settings are solely or primarily on the GPU side.

    I am not trying to start any flame war and not denying there is not room for optimizations or that it is not important priority, I am mostly tired to read all over again something that just is more myth than reality and that simply uses completely false metrics. All I can do is quote Suma:

    So you let a game be released that has such core fundamental issues? Sounds like a poor decision to me. Are you guys over there hurting that much for money?

  18. Posted

    I saw this coming all the way from closed beta....

    1) Receive HIGH amount of feedback of low utilization and bad performance in beta stages

    2) Ignore the problem until finally posting something like 'We are working on it' months later

    3) Months later when release date comes, still ignore it and release the game like nothing is wrong

    4) Flood of angry buyers

    5) After release developer states the problem is too large and probably won't be solved

    Great development standards there bohemia. All the new vehicles in the world won't help the fact that the game is unplayable for many players in this state.

×