iLLcAtTiViSsiMo

Only Arma 3 does this. I exit the game. All seems well but then all of a sudden I can't click on my task bar and any open windows don't respond to my clicks. I have to CNTL-ALT-DEL and after about 5-10 seconfs all is well. Wtf? Any one come across this yet? I'm running windows 7 64-bit Some notes: -tried verify game cache from steam -I no longer see the cloud sync progress upon exit -I do a LOT of graphics tweaking while in game -had a strange one time occurance where the keyboard was inop and ok after a system reboot. -had a mod called dead nation that launched out of game with it's own launcher. It had similar funky qualities and just made my rig act wierd at times. Needless to say, I ended up scrapping it. Maybe it messed up some Arma game files that I'm not knowledgable enough to notice? I'm ready to try a fresh install but want to wait and see if there are some answers first. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

After 2 loooong weeks of tweaking this game to death I FINALLY got it to work perfectly. The truth is that it's not all the developers fault. It's half them and half windows. After using -nolongs, -maxMem=2047 and the .cfg file tweak, I gained a substantial increase in performance, but had a long way to go. It appears the problem was with my hardware. Apparently, my quad core cpu was only being HALF used in general. I checked in task manager and sure as balls half my cores were parked! So after doing some googling, I found out how to "unpark" ALL of my cores. I went through the process, rebooted, kept my fingers crossed, and success followed. (I know it worked because I can see each and every core being utilized and charted in task manager and they were no longer labeled as "parked") Once I successfully put my cpu in full force, I simply added the -cpuCount=4 and -exThread=7 to the launch options and BAM! I'm running MAX settings on everything incuding the furthest draw distances possible! Running between 40-60 FPS on a public server I used to only get 25-30. EDIT: I am an idiot. There were server draw distance settings overriding my in game settings, I think. I can still run draw distances over 3000, though. For whatever reason, even though I've unparked my cpu cores, I didn't notice a difference until I used the -cpuCount=4 and -exThreads=7 launch parameters. That's it. Done. The worst part is I've been using half my cpu ALL this time with all of my software. My Rig: Windows 7 64-bit i7-3820 @ 3.6 GHz 8 gigs ram gtx 660 ti 1440x900 resolution monitor @ 75 Hz. I can't write a formal guide for unparking cpu cores as there are many types of cpus and operating systems. So just google away. Once you successfully unpark all of your cores and verify it, just use the tricks that are in the sticky: -noLogs, -maxMem=(see sticky guide), cpuCount=(see sticky guide), exThread=(see sticky guide) arma3.cfg file: change GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1000 to GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1 DISABLE VSYNC for maximum FPS. So there you have it. Do some leg work and get it done. CAUTION: PERFORM ANY OF THESE TWEAKS AT YOUR OWN RISK. IF YOU TRULY DON'T HAVE A CLUE AS TO WHAT YOU ARE DOING, THEN DO NOT ATTEMPT THEM Note: I've already posted this in another thread, but decided to create my own.

I'm running the game with an i7 quad, 8 gigs of ram and a 660 ti and most of the time when I exit the game I get the windows message stating my computer is running slow and I should switch to basic color scheme. I'm no computer wiz, but I thought my specs were more than enough and yet my OS tells me I'm short on resources? WTF? Also, ANYTIME I play multiplayer, after I exit the game, taskbar and windows become unresponsive. I hit cntr-alt-delete, click once, cancel out and everything fixes itself. Is this also possibly a memory issue? This all started after I opted in and then opted out of the dev build. It was also right around the time when I installed this terrible mod called Dead Nation (has it's own frikkin' launcher and everything). What I've done so far with no results: 1) verified game cache files through steam for Arma 3 2) cleared steam cache folder 3) uninstalled Arma 3, including manually deleting any leftover files (mods etc) and reinstalled. 4) shut down webroot antivirus 5) opted in and out of beta again 6) scratched my head in deep thought I'm starting to think 8 gigs ram is NOT enough. Is it possible Arma 3 detects good hardware and treats it as such even though 8 gigs is not enough? I feel like the game is using way more memory than it should allow. Isn't 2 gigs the max, though? Current tweaks include: 1) -nologs 2).cfg file: changed gpu max frames ahead to 1 and triple buffer to 1 (I use v-sync and it really helps) 3) manually disabled core parking via registry (power options don't seem to work) Note: Same issues with or without the tweaks. Also, I've disable core parking on two other rigs, a laptop and a PC (with basically the same inner workings), and none of them have any of these issues pop up. note: I still have the issues with or without the tweaks and my backround processes are using less than 1.5 gigs of resources.

I never really had an issue with single player or wasteland servers honestly. Just saw a HUGE increase in FPS on my favorite servers. No stutters, no scope lag or anything. I started a steam discussion and a few others seem to feel that FPS was much better after the patch. Others claim it did nothing. I read the changelog and don't really understand why it helped me in particular, but I'm certain it did. I've never had this game run the way it did last night.

Ummm...did anyone elses framerate skyrocket after the last patch? My games is running incredibly well in MP with default ultra settings and view distances of 3800. 3200 and 200. Whatever BIS did, me likes it.

I don't want to pretend to be as technically savy as you guys or even intrude on the convo too much. But, isn't there a way to input a v-ram "flush" command in the console? I briefly read it in one of the "guides" I've come across but can't remember where. Sent from my iPhone

amen, bruh. love nvidia. dislike geforce experience. its buggy s hell and under optimizes my games. i completely removed once it didnt play nice with arma 3. the game is such a mixed bag of cpu/gpu that i dont even understand how geforce experience can properly optimize it in the first place. Sent from my iPhone

I can play single player on ultra settings with no framerate loss/stutters whatsoever. Its a well known fact that the game actually under utilizes cpu/gpu in multiplayer for some reason, which I've witnessed myself via resource monitor and nvidia inspector. These finite tweaks are only necessary for online play. Sent from my iPhone

Exactly. I'm not praising BF4 in the least. Visually I was expecting something spectacular with BF4, but it honestly doesn't even touch Arma 3. It's just frustrating that after finally finding the best miltiary shooter ever, I have to deal with crap framerates in the area I play it the most, multiplayer. There are no tweaks that can fix this game engines problems. I visit forums every day in hopes to discover some type of closure to the performance issues by the devs. I've recieved replies from them in the steam forums but very rarely and most of the time they make me feel like I'm annoying them. It's amazing I continue to play it at all with how they react to fans in the forums. You can feel their frustrations all too clearly but without resolve.

Downloaded BF4 cause I got sick of performance issues with Arma 3. Boy was I disappointed. BF4 isn't half the game Arma 3 is. In BF4 I feel like an idiot running around with a gun with aircrafts crashing all over the place. Nothing compares to the Arma experience. I will, however, state that I am able to run BF4 on max settings without a hiccup. Have you seen the recommended specs for that game? What's my point? Arma 3 has the ulitimate military shooter experience over any other military shooter out there. BIS, PLEASE say something about the performance issues and your plans if any. We just want the games we enjoy to run well on our rigs and I truly believe you would have a MUCH larger fan base if your game would simply utilize hardware as flawlessly as your competitors, no matter how big their names are. You guys have one hell of a franchise here, let the difficult learning curve scare newcomers such as myself away, not the framerate. In all honesty, even if you told us that there is absolutely no way to fix the performance issues, I would respect that even more than being left in the dark and participating in all of these apparently useless threads (even created a few =/) I would gladly contiue to play Arma 3 even if that was the closure to the the performance issue I've been waiting for.

Ultra everything in SP with v-sync gives me a solid framerate. It's the MP. Certain servers pin me at 28fps no matter what I do with the settings. The only thing that seems to help even slightly on public servers is setting the in-server distance settings options to something really low like 600-800. People fail to realize that in most cases it's not the hardware, but issues pertaining to game engine and/or multiplayer servers. I've tried EVERY tweak in the book and the tweaks only seem to work for SP. TBH, it's as if certain servers have a built in frame limiter as if to even out the playing field. windows 7-64bit i7 quad @ 3.6 8 gigs ram 660ti This setup easily runs SP on ultra. I'm just hoping official servers come out some day where the framerate issues may be less game breaking. At least it's not a twitch shooter where a solid 60 fps is a must. I can tolerate 25-30 FPS in Arma's style of play for the most part.

Upped my virtual memory. Didn't improve the game but at least I'm now able to use aero AND play arma 3 without my OS yelling at me =)

Well, I upped my virtual memory (which was set below the recommended settings for some reason) and it didnt do squat. whatever. i give up. just gonna keep settings maxed out and deal with the crap framerates on some servers. didnt BI say something about official servers at some point? I can always give BF4 a shot =P Sent from my iPhone

I don't have the time to read all 225 pages of this thread, but has anyone tried messing with virtual memory allocations in windows? Disable, change values etc? I've been getting a "your computer is running slow" message lately after exiting arma 3. I switched to windows basic from aero and the messages stopped and I even gained a substantial increase in all around game performance. I've noticed, as I've seen posted in this thread, that my RAM usage is always less than 45% while running arma 3. Given these two observations I would assume that arma is using virtual memory moreso than my 8 available gigs of ram? Strange. Gonna run some tests later. I'm late as hell to this thread, so don't be mad at me if I'm stating what's already been posted.

So I should set min/max to same value?

Guys, I've already been through the whole graphics tweak thing and know my card VERY well. I'm really interested in the virtual memory thing as I truly feel this is where most of my problems lie. The question is, do I increase the max or disable it all together? I've never checked what it was set to since I literally just learned about it today. Can't wait to get out of work and see what it's defaulted at. I have a very good feeling this is somehow linked to the "unresponsive windows" thing I mentioned in my OP. I will check what PC's that don't have this issue are set to and compare them to mine. I have a feeling since my rig is a few years old now it may be set lower. Besides, how else do you explain why switching to windows basic resolved my "your computer is running slow" message?

As of now, I don't see why any gamer would need more than 8 gigs of ram. I have to ask you, do you have ANY problems at all with virtual memory disabled? Your OS is OK with that?

I can't believe it. I switched to windows basic and not only did game performance significantly increase, but I did not get the "your computer is running slow" message at all. Not even once. Looks like I may have to try and increase my virtual memory after all. My resource monitor displayed less than 40-50% memory usage at any given time. My cpu wasn't even breaking a sweat. My gpu was 99%, but I have it set to max performance in nvidia control panel. No kidding, I was on a King of the Hill server with framerates never dipping below 40. I dropped my textures down to "very high" and virtually eliminated almost all scope lag. Hmmm. Let's see if it still works tonight... ---------- Post added at 08:47 ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 ---------- Question. I've searched the net and found varied answers. Windows 7-64bit, 8 gigs ram and SSD. How much virtual memory is safe? I don't want to over do it and start seeing crashes and instability issues.

Great feedback guys. Thank you. It's always good to know you're not alone when it comes to this kind of stuff. It some how adds a type of closure to the issue. I will switch to windows basic and see if it helps at all. If not, the game itself is running as well as Arma 3 is expected to run, so I shouldn't really be complaining. I'll just deal with it if anything. Thanks again everyone.

windows 7 64-bit i7 3.6GHz 8 gigs ram 660 ti I've been having an issue where windows is unresponsive after exiting arma 3. I have to CTL-ALT-DEL to get things to work again. Lately I've been getting the good ol' "your computer is running slow. do you want to switch to a different windows color scheme?" crap. As much as this game under utilizes my hardware, windows is telling me it actually over utilizes it! I monitor everything and can tell you this is B.S. WTF? I play on ultra settings with v-sync enabled. I guess technically, I can't? =/ Funny thing is my girl also runs Arma 3 on her laptop with a slower processor and weaker graphics card and she has no issues (besides the crappy multiplayer low framerate on certain servers of course). I just don't get it.

Reinstalled the game. Reinstalled latest NVidia drivers. Yielded no results. Is there no fix to this!?

This is all ephemera. You are indeed an intelligent and well informed individual in context. You look too deeply into the matter. I practice life in the manner of which you speak when it comes to approaching obstacles with pychological awareness to further reduce the chances of failure. However, to say that a particular race or sex would fail simply because they have been put in some sort of minority setting is insulting and belittling to that particular race and/or sex. Physical cabability is absolutely an issue. To say that women and men are biologically equal is simply a lie and you are either misinformed or just looking for a debate. I'm all for equallity between women and men, but it doesn't mean our physical builds are equal, nor will they ever be and certain adjustments must be made to accomodate both.

I agree with OP. My girl and I game quite a bit and it always kills the experience a little bit when she can't play as a female character. Her reason for disappointment is obvious. As for me, well, it kinda sucks when everytime I look at her in game she's a friggin' dude! Please include female characters, BIS. We would be eternally greatful and the Arma 3 experienced would feel much more immersive for us as a couple. Now, as for the game being a military sim and with woman not in frontline combat in real life, I would just like to add: Doesn't this game take place in the future? BIS could use the futuristic setting as reason to include woman on the battlefield. All that being said, here's some food for thought. I do believe that woman ARE allowed, as of now, to participate in direct combat but never get chosen for what may be obvious reasons such as: 1) If a female's 300 pound buddy goes down, she may be physical unable to carry him to safety or help him off the battlefield. 3) The natural physical limitations of the female body as opposed to men. (in most cases lol) 2) Men would, without a doubt, perform chivalrous acts to save women. In other words, it may be more instinctive to save a female due to deep rooted primitive thought processes buried deep within the brain. This could certainly hinder a clear thought process and lead to bad decisions, trained or not. All in all, this is a fictional game, no matter how much of a simulation it may be and BIS could certainly include females. The only drawback to including woman is that I've played tons of multiplayer games where dudes are using female characters waaay more than I would expect. To each his(or her) own, but I just hope Arma doesn't turn into a battlefield full of estrogen, as that would certainly not be realistic in the least.

Crap. Was hoping no one would say that lol. Thanks for the info, though.