windies

I will give this a try. Also as a warning, if you change the name of this to TBB4Malloc_bi.dll to replace the one currently in the directory, it will be rewritten every game update with the one supplied from BI, thanks to Steam auto update and integrity verification. So I suggest that you just use the command line to specify this one rather than trying to replace the current TBB4Malloc_bi.dll and use it that way.

Until they fix the multiplayer performance it's not much of a choice really.

Just tested mine and it's working fine, 44 fps with Vsync enabled. Check your ArmA3.cfg to make sure the value wasn't changed maybe?

Especially considering that most of the issue's with CPU utilization in the RV engine have to do with the AI and scripting. which has nothing to do with DirectX at all.

It's been the issue since the beginning of the Alpha, although I think it has more to do with the FSM behaviors than it does from pathfinding. Put 100 AI down and give them all aware or combat full speed waypoints and watch your FPS drop, then switch them all to careless behavior and watch as your FPS is affected but not nearly as bad. Careless behavior disables or skips some of the FSM Behavior routines which alleviates some of the problem.

It's like every iteration of the game, the performance constraints get tighter and tighter. I wonder how much of that is really the fault of mission makers, or if it's something that truly only BI can address. In ArmA I could have huge 100+ AI missions and it would run fine on a good period high spec machine. I also participated in scheduled pvp missions of 120+ players. There were some issue's here and there and the launch was rough, but I never saw terrible terrible performance issue's. ArmA 2 we started seeing the problems surfacing with lower AI capacity and player capacity in multiplayer. Now we have ArmA 3 and I feel like it's just completely constricting. You can't play with more than 10 players or 20-30 AI without the game engine shitting itself basically. I support anything to help, I just don't see how tools for identifying performance problems are going to help if they just end up telling you that it's the engine at fault and not your mission, or rather your mission with 20 AI is too "Resource Intensive" for the engine.

I agree as long as all of those strengths/weaknesses are modeled properly.

Trust me, he's not.

I upvoted this. Kju, do you think that the performance issue's we see come from poor mission making, or is it a deeper engine issue? I can see how limiting the amount of active assets at a given time and the amount of scripts running at a given time can help to increase overall mission performance. What I don't see is how we can work around the limitations of the engine as far as AI, Objects and Scripting is concerned when trying to make a proper mission, especially larger scale coop missions.

What do you mean? He had it set to system managed which means it just uses large 16gb pagefile no matter your ram or settings. It proved nothing other than it booted up with a 16gb page file. It didn't disprove that there's not a memory leak with ArmA 3.

I've been on these forums since 2006, thanks to the hacking that happened I had to make a new account because my old one was tied to an ISP email that doesn't exist anymore. Like Gossamer said, you're incorrect.

Two people beat me to it but basically if you complained from screenshots, people would bitch you out about how the game isn't out and it's all Work in Progress....

I honestly don't see how they are higher quality than A2 for example...

I wouldn't fool with it much, there's easier ways to measure the pagefile and memory usage of a program. I would set your pagefile to a static size, like 5623mb for minimum and 5623mb for maximum. If you wanted to measure pagefile growth, you would set the minimum to like 16mb and the maximum to 16384mb and then windows would dynamically size it up as needed. If it actually managed to hit 16384mb while playing ArmA 3 under those conditions then yeah I would say there's a memory leak.

I just picked up a new SSD and put ArmA 3 on it and still have stuttering issue's and the load times are practically the same even though everything else seems to load much much faster. The only thing it did fix was the ground texture loading, it's still there and noticeable as well but it's not as bad as with my mechanical drive. I'm actually a bit put off that the load times are literally the same between my mechanical drive and my SSD.

Have BI always been in the same situation they are now, behind on development as far as they are right now and as strapped for money as they are right now which they allude to in some statements like "This game almost didn't come to be" etc...? I'm not denying the fact that they support their titles. What I'm saying is, realistically how long or much can they support ArmA 3 without needing additional funding? Also how much can they get done when they are as far behind on development as they are right now? These are valid questions and concerns that don't lend well to the reality that BI can just infinitely support something without some sort of catch. A lot depends on how successful the game is at launch, which doesn't look promising unless you are seriously vested into the franchise like most of the forum users on here are. No campaign, recycled content throughout the factions, poor performance and optimization issue's, poor multi-player performance like bad desync issue's and lag on stable sub 100 ping servers, countless bugs and issue's ranging from game play to stability. This is why many question BI's gung ho attitude towards launching without a bit more polish and content. Because while some of you might not care, you might have a bias towards BI or towards the ArmA franchise and love what they do no matter what they do, the majority do not and will judge the game based on the game and not who developed it. What most people on these forums seem to focus on is that one or two of their pet peeves or issue's may have been addressed or promised to be addressed, but overall the quality and content is much lower than previous ArmA releases. As far as supporting ArmA after release, I have no doubt they will try to, but realistically how much can they get done before ArmA 4 needs to be made or ArmA 3 Operation Arrowhead 2? This is where the concern stems from and this is what many of us are most concerned about.

So what happens when no cool stuff comes because something stalled their development? It's a plausible eventuality right? Promises can be broken, either voluntarily or involuntarily. I think what people want to voice is that this is not the right way to do it. We're going beyond the normal "BI launch buggyness" and going into an even lower substandard of quality and content. You can't fault people for not liking regression of content and quality. Hinging your bet on an ever changeable promise as though it's a absolute outcome is foolish. You can't take a promise about the future as an absolute, because if you could we wouldn't be sitting here arguing about missing/recycled/C&P'd content and feature's now would we?

Honestly I would hope so unless there were major engine changes that would prevent the two from working together.

So what happens if BI decide to do something like Operation Arrowhead? A standalone expansion, not a DLC, that provides all of the feature's and content that should have been in ArmA 3? I can honestly see that happening half a year from now depending on how their launch goes. A lot of you seem to think that development isn't dynamic and that what happened with the last title, I.E. all of the support it received, will magically happen with this product. I see a product that almost didn't make it to release, that's plagued with problems and setbacks and there is no way that they are going to be able to provide long term support for a $60 title when the majority bought it for $32. They are going to have to raise some more money along the way to support it.

I agree with you on the aspects of Altis and the urban type environments. They really did a good job with it. Also if you drive along the main highway from the northeast all the way down to Kavala, it's extremely scenic and beautiful. There were parts where I literally felt like I was driving in the country near here and up in the north US during the summer when I got to the more mountainous area's. The only reason I agree in some way about Altis being kind of a wasteland is that outside of those towns, it really does feel kind of empty. I'm sure that's how the actual island does feel however. I feel in some ways they could have tried to spruce up the rural area's with some forests or shrubbery in some ways. I also kind of agree with you about ACE, it's a great mod and it serves it's purpose, but it's not the end all be all of ArmA. I've always found that it's a trade off, There's a lot of good stuff in it and there's a lot of bloat that while some might want, like the hardcore tactical clans and such, others don't. It's easier though to become a big conglomerate and work on one all inclusive mod than it is to split off and try to make 100 different mods and then try to have all of those mods work together with one another without any issue's.

Definitely agree with the OP. This kills the whole Quality over Quantity mantra for me because Quality isn't just how pretty the model is but also the aesthetics behind it. The vehicles and even the weapons systems really lack any individuality and every time you see one it just drives it home. There are definitely some great improvements in ArmA 3, but this is just a very low point for it.

Why is criticism considered Rage? The generalized attitude on these forums is that BI can do no wrong, so therefor any criticism towards them must be "RAGE!" no matter the facts behind said criticism. It's reaching a level of epic stupidity at this point.

They state that an exception is on a pre-purchase when the game has not officially been released. So you can still get a refund until the 12th.

Make sure you do a restart first before you test it. Windows will dynamically size the pagefile up in size, but it will never decrease the pagefile unless you either restart or reconfigure the pagefile.