Sneakson

AMD does worse in ARMA than Intel. Also how many fps you want is subjective and how many you need for optimal playability depends on the game and in ARMA there's a lot less precisions shooting than most other shooters. More is always better but not always necessary. Not that it matters much but you're wrong. The human eye can't only see 24 fps ever.

The Sims is a simulator... However I would argue that a game is not a military simulator unless it is actually used by the military or it is accurate enough for a soldier to train in. ARMA3 is definitely not a good training simulator for infantry. Doesn’t accurately simulate cold, heat, wetness, stamina, health is very basic and so on. And even more definitely ARMA3 cannot be used as an instructional tool to help you learn how to fly or command any of the different vehicles included. The most accurate flight simulators on the other hand can and are used by actual pilots. But there are other increments of simulations. Various vehicle simulators have been around since at least the early 90s and back then they were only meant to place you in a certain situation and simulate it as accurately as possible. Nowadays I would say there are simulators that don't simulate everything in as great detail as it possible and then there are those that do. ARMA3 definitely doesn't simulate everything in the greatest possible detail while I would argue the world-leading flight sims certainly do.

Don't be a douche. In order for anyone to hear you out and take you seriously you have to show evidence for everything you say in case of a disagreement and if you’re not going to then you may as well stay off the internet because it’s quite meaningless to write on the internet if no one is going to take you seriously anyways. It’s not well known in the entire PC gaming community that FXAA destroys image quality either. I’ve been online gaming and communicating for 10 years never having heard of this and I urge you to give us a single source saying so. Currently it’s two screenshots directly from ARMA3 versus your Wikipedia article that doesn’t say FXAA destroys image quality anywhere. FXAA clearly makes the image sharper above.

Hi, I believe this started when I cleared my keybindings and did them over however I've looked in NAME.ARMA3PROFILE and it seems "commandforward" and all of those are bound to the exact same keys as walking. Still when I am the commander of a vehicle with AI drivers clicking WASD doesn’t make my guy go “Move forward!†and nothing at all happens when I try to command the AI to move anywhere. What am I doing wrong?

I don't understand what those logs are saying at all. Where is your performance benchmark showing you have higher fps now than before? Seems to me that you have 8GB memory, ARMA uses 2GB and something else where using 1GB then you freed that up using Game Booster that shuts down unnecessary stuff... you still had 5GB memory free though. Shouldn't make a difference.

If all he's doing in that video is only preparation for the memory allocator then ok. I have not tried it. But I have tried Game Booster (not recently) and tested NVidia settings (extensively and recently) and they do nothing, other than NVidia anisotropic and that optimisation-something setting that I believe made some marginal differences. I have actually never tried any startup parameters but I've heard from so, so many users that they do absolutely nothing and that some startup parameters users write aren't even correctly written so couldn't do anything. Defragging memory sounds like BS. Unfortunately this isn't Crysis and we can't manually customize our graphics settings which is something that sure would help a lot. I’d love to play with high object and terrain detail settings but no grass or parallax for one thing.

We can't solve anything. Only complain and hope for the devs to work on it. The video you linked to is bullshit. I skipped through it and saw Game Booster, NVidia settings and startup parameters that all are bullshit and do absolutely 0. You also missed this one: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147391-Will-my-PC-run-Arma3-What-CPU-GPU-to-get-What-settings-What-System-Specifications (133k views) That's where most settings discussions have taken place which is all we really can do now. That thread and this one shows me that we believe it is 50x more important to discuss performance than look at some guide written a year ago. Because we all already know everything about the settings and there's nothing else we can do there.

What Greenfist said. Star Swarm is (I'm assuming) not an actual video game, only benchmark software made to work something similar to a game. However unless the results in a synthetic benchmark are the same as actual games, it’s useless.

I proved it by doing the runs several times and comparing results lol... already said this. If you measure 60 seconds of Showcase: Combined Arms, then do it again you and the AI won’t do the exact same thing unless you’ve scripted everything however if your measurements both end up on 42 fps then all things considered it is likely that it doesn’t matter SIGNIFICANTLY if you turn a few milliseconds later or walk some degrees in the wrong direction. Everything you do in a video game doesn’t severely affect your framerates. In one direction there’s a bunch of trees but in the other direction there’s also a bunch of trees and the game does AI calculations no matter if they’re on screen or not. In some cases such as if you’re on a completely empty map and looking straight into the sky or into the ground you can usually affect framerates a lot but that didn’t happen in my testing. Framerates are only measured once every second anyways. So I did Combined Arms twice, got 42 fps average both times and that tells me that maybe my execution doesn’t affect framerates significantly. Out of experience I’m assuming that this is true and that the framerates didn’t vary wildly and by chance happened to end up on 42 every time. Naturally everything that happens differently will affect things slightly differently compared to a scripted mission however that doesn’t mean it’s significant. If you do things differently and the average framerates end up the same within 1 fps then you can consider it insignificant. Even in synthetic benchmarks there is a certain variation if you do a test several times, often. In the computer world exact tests are possible however in the outside world they are not. In neither world are exact tests necessary though because of statistics that let us determine the odds that something was caused by chance in our imperfect testing. In the outside world 95% is a common certainty that scientific experiments try to achieve. In my testing here I didn’t do anything as accurate based on experience. I could test the Combined Arms mission again since I did so few tests on each driver and maybe there would be a 1-2 fps difference in that one mission of all the missions but I don’t really care because the claim we’ve been hearing from a lot of users that they’re suddenly experiencing 10% more everywhere has been falsified on my machine anyways. It’s not worth the trouble for everyone to go update their drivers manually. And yes, I didn't really mean the driver is bullshit for what it does to other games. I only believe it fails to bring any improvement to ARMA.

Why doesn't it make sense to compare two runs executed in different ways if I proved that exact execution doesn't matter? Yes, I am certain I played the showcases identically enough to make the conclusion that the driver didn't help because the scenarios in question play out basically the same every time, because I proved they did. I've never said anything about the driver doesn't helping with CPU overhead. Just doesn't do any good to ARMA framerates. First of all non-linear is what I meant, not exponential. If that makes more sense to you. Anyways in my original quote: "Even if the drivers did anything 145 to 160 fps is a very small difference comparable to 58 vs 60 fps or 30 vs 29.5 fps." What I mean is that the visual differences between the framerates mentioned are as described above. In other words the visual difference between 26.9 to 30 fps is much greater than the visual difference between 145 and 160 fps is. 145 to 160 fps is a very small upgrade on the user end. Next is what the update did to performance. You believe that everyone would be able to draw frames 10% quicker. I believe everyone would be able to draw frames x milliseconds quicker, a constant value. Unfortunately this may not have an answer as we're generalising quite a lot here but my statement about 145 to 160 being a small visual difference (and smaller than 30 vs 26.9) still holds. Edit: everything would had been a lot easier if Grillob had benchmarked a bit more performance heavy situations too lol.

ARMA is vast and varied however it doesn’t have simulator detail. It would be cool if several simulator companies could team up and create one central simulator. In DCS A-10C ejecting from your aircraft means the game is over basically. I’m not even sure if you can turn your head around as infantry. Only walk forward, back or turn left and right. No strafing. In ARMA you can drop out of an aircraft over Altis, touch down on the ground and be amazed at how damn slow it is moving around down on the ground compared to up in the air. Besides everything both on ground and in air is excellent quality. Mid-range textures are a bit shitty but overall the scope of ARMA is really amazing. Scope doesn’t really mean it’s realistic though.

I will elaborate some. No, player interaction does not make measurements useless. Contrary to what you seem to believe everything mustn’t happen in the exact same every time. In some cases it would be ideal however not always and it is actually never necessary. If you do a test manually several times and you have the same result every time then you can assume that your interaction does not significantly affect the test values. Measuring a test with the maximum amount of AI that ARMA supports would be useless since the framerates would be very low and when framerates are low it takes a big change for us to see any difference and besides the AI would do different things every time based on chance and that could cause quite significant differences in comparison to the small differences any driver would. All in all I believe it would be very difficult to determine any small driver differences using such a scenario. It would be too uncertain. I’m not sure what my CPU load in an empty map is. JumpingHubert, please consider the fact that fps is an exponential and not a linear scale… d’oh. I’m also not a fan of any benchmark scenarios because in my testing I’ve seen massive fps differences in benchmarks but then I’ve started Showcase: Infantry or something such and there’s been no difference at all. Makes me believe there’s a significant difference between the benchmark and common gameplay. It was the Altis ARMABench or whatever and it zooms around the island a lot which probably isn’t similar to any true gameplay situations unless maybe when you’re flying around a lot. Currently I don’t have a lot of time to play ARMA but in a few months I should have time and by then I’ll try a lot more missions and search for some good “average†CPU-usage missions that may be a bit heavier than the showcases that I use because they’re convenient. Single card yes. If Guru3D says this is golden for high-end SLI then sure. However you still only got a quite small difference. Also mostly all users don't have multi 780 Tis.

Hey. Why not upgrade to the latest 4670K? With that and the other upgrades you can check out my signature. All max except view/object distance around 3200 and object/terrain detail standard/high at about 40-60 fps something. That’s in a small singleplayer mission though. Showcase: Infantry basically. Some of the other showcases are 10 worse and with more and more AI you’re eventually going down to 10-20 fps. Multiplayer is very different depending on a lot of things such as server or mission though. I believe it will be a good upgrade in all games… actually check out my signature. I had a comparable CPU, same graphics card and same memories and now I have a 4770K (=4670K) with a 770 (slightly stronger than the 760 and completely worth it if you can afford it, cost-efficiency wise) and 16GB 1600 MHz memories (=8GB, the extra 8GB do nothing AFAIK). Anyways that’s a good upgrade at a good cost assuming a motherboard is included in the cost. You’re going to need a new motherboard for the new CPU naturally.

Well: 1) 145 vs 160 is a quite small difference. 2) If he didn't do the test more than once there's a good chance the difference was only due to exactly chance. 3) If it's chance then the drivers didn't do anything. 4) Even if the drivers did anything 145 to 160 fps is a very small difference comparable to 58 vs 60 fps or 30 vs 29.5 fps. 5) If he's only using a monitor less than 144 Hz he's going to notice even less of the difference in practice. Bullshit ;) Only because there's a difference in other games and synthetic benchmarks doesn't mean there has to be any difference in ARMA. The Combined Arms showcase has enough AIs (20? 30?) to cause significant slowdown (all the way down to about 20-30 fps a lot of the time) and didn't show any significant improvement. Hundreds of AI fighting would be untestable. Thank you Captain. Indeed. I do empty map tests to see if there's any difference what so ever because when there is it usually shows up in an empty editor even when it doesn't in the showcases. Well I did do the helo showcase... happy? I'm sufficiently convinced that this driver update that doesn't claim to do anything about ARMA3 doesn't do anything about ARMA3.

The ARMA3 AI nearly always kills you in one shot and that's how it's always been. On the other hand you usually have to shoot the AI like 4 times before they die and they can even take a bullet with basically any weapon straight in the brain and then walk away. It's an AI/health issue.

With that said ARMA is more realistic than any other military shooter game and especially ARMA2 with a few mods.

ARMA is only 10% simulator. Infantry body movement is done well which usually makes critics’ jaws drop however gun handling, inventory management and especially health are all weakly done and vehicles completely unrealistic. Basically ARMA has a lot of word of mouth going for it so you usually say it’s a simulator without even thinking about it but if you do think about it then there’s a lot to question about it really. ARMA does stand out in a sea of other games that don’t even have stamina or discrete magazines however on the other hand it still has a worthless health system and doesn’t even count the bullet in the chamber that even Battlefield does. Basically what ARMA TRIES to do is be a simulator and it's easy to imagine it is but in reality it's far from complete. The best thing about ARMA in the end is that it has an editor and mod support is contrast to Battlefield and Call of Duty. It’s a game for the players and not something that will suck your soul dry.

Aaah, this is the thread. "NVidia Beta drivers 337.50 (7 April) don't increase ARMA3 framerates. 4770K + 770 w 16GB 1600 MHz on SSD here. Stratis: (empty Stratis hill outside Agia Marina) 322.10: 61 335.00: 61 337.50: 62 Altis: (empty Altis highest hill) 322.10: 65 335.00: 66 337.50: 66 Infantry: (60s) 322.10: 46 335.00: 46 337.50: 46 Helicopters: (60s after takeoff) 322.10: 47-48 335.00: 46 337.50: 48 Combined Arms: (60s after touchdown) 322.10: 42 335.00: 45 337.50: 45-46 Support: (60s of attack) 322.10: 37-38 335.00: 37 337.50: 39 Intro: (60s of campaign intro, heli) 322.10: 36 335.00: 37 337.50: 38 I believe 335 is WHQL? Anyways I did 332.10 tests twice, others once and the intro only once on all drivers. The only significant increase is Combined Arms really... gonna try that again though. Edit: did another CA and it ended up at 45... so 335.00 may have done something but 337.50 probably not. Basically all differences are within 1-3 fps and can be ignored." Wrote that over in the CPU thread yesterday. No you're not gaining something for nothing. Not if you can't show it in tests anyways ;) Assuming Grillob3s testing methodology was correct and he did it at least two times to verify the differences he showed were still only marginal. 145 vs 160 fps mathemathically equals 58 vs 60 fps... not noticable in the slightest. And more importantly probably due to chance. I'll basically want a 10% difference in the 30-60 area before I talking about serious improvements. Synthetic non-ARMA-benchmarks don't matter :)

RAM doesn't matter much and HDD hardly matters at all.

Did you update graphics card drivers? If not punch yourself in the face a while and then try that ;) When something fails always start by updating everything. Mobo bios, mobo drivers, graphics card drivers. If you've reinstalled your entire computer and everything it sounds like you're not updated at all. Either that, heat, or your apparently weak-ass CPU. Maybe checking Task Manager/MSI Afterburner CPU/GPU/Memory/HDD use stats will show something.

NVidia Beta drivers 337.50 (7 April) don't increase ARMA3 framerates. 4770K + 770 w 16GB 1600 MHz on SSD here. Stratis: (empty Stratis hill outside Agia Marina) 322.10: 61 335.00: 61 337.50: 62 Altis: (empty Altis highest hill) 322.10: 65 335.00: 66 337.50: 66 Infantry: (60s) 322.10: 46 335.00: 46 337.50: 46 Helicopters: (60s after takeoff) 322.10: 47-48 335.00: 46 337.50: 48 Combined Arms: (60s after touchdown) 322.10: 42 335.00: 45 337.50: 45-46 Support: (60s of attack) 322.10: 37-38 335.00: 37 337.50: 39 Intro: (60s of campaign intro, heli) 322.10: 36 335.00: 37 337.50: 38 I believe 335 is WHQL? Anyways I did 332.10 tests twice, others once and the intro only once on all drivers. The only significant increase is Combined Arms really... gonna try that again though. Edit: did another CA and it ended up at 45... so 335.00 may have done something but 337.50 probably not. Basically all differences are within 1-3 fps and can be ignored.

A lot of spread on the ideal fps question since the question and its description are two completely different things.

Glad you noticed ;) The tests in this thread are competing to be the worst. Synthetic benchmarks, different ARMA versions... I'm going to give benchmarking the new drivers a go soon.

Hey, ARMA is a great infantry experience that blends accessibility with simulation quite well though other aspects are far from perfect. I’ve been thinking: what other good military simulators are there? Maybe ones that are a bit more specific (ARMA “only does†infantry, vehicle, air and sea combat simultaneously after all) and more simulator-like mainly. It doesn’t matter what they simulate I suppose as long as they’re military… come to think of it I wouldn’t mind a space simulator or something not strictly military either if it’s serious. I’ve already heard of DCS World that seems to be the king of military aircraft simulators.

Hopefully that will get better eventually. Devs are on it.