stang725

You guys have me excited with all the comments, looking forward to seeing what all the hype is about after work today... Gave it the 100th vote for MANW... :)

I have somewhat similar CPU.. 4770k. Here is what works for me, your mileage may vary :) I max out every setting except for no shadows (a lot of people don't play with them enabled and using them is just disadvantage for you at that point) and low clouds. Draw is 1600/1200/50 (higher settings will make you CPU-limited on most maps). I don't use vsync, but I also have 144hz panel and can get >70fps on decent servers. 1. I would try to get at least a 4.3 - 4.4 OC going, if you have a decent aftermarket cooler (I have ran 4.3 for almost a year, no issues. 2. What is your mem speed? I would opt for 2133 with best timings you can achieve with good stability. 3. 6GB seems strange, typo? You have two 3GB sticks? What is model of kit? 4. D/L GPU Shark and let it run in the background while running the Altis 0.6 benchmark scenario. It will catch max GPU usage + mem usage(alt-tab out to see instant vram usage, as it only captures max GPU utilization over time), what are you getting with your current settings, what do you get with settings I mentioned? I would need to see GPU shark results and what your FPS results are for this benchmark. Maybe you need GPU upgrade, but probably not with high-settings vs. Ultra. Key is to see >90% utilization of your GPU to even begin to talk about needing an upgrade in that dept. for >90%, you would need to see that in benchmark and for maps/servers that you commonly play. Consistent <80% simply means you are limited by either server-side issues or CPU/Mem bandwidth and latency. I spent a lot of time in Single Player and editor to find best settings for my build (so at least when I get bad FPS now I know its either server-side issues or simply too much AI) My specs (with my settings I get 74-76fps on Altis benchmark w/ shadows set to Ultra as well, clouds still low) 4770k @ 4.3 8GB 2133 2x 770 SLI 4GB (I get 2.3-2.8GB of usage with max settings @ 1080p) 256GB Samsung SSD 750w P/S

I have been trying to elicit a BI response to what is and isn't possible in terms of an improvement in terms of overall AI scaling. Not much luck... Someone, somewhere at BI knows exactly what is and isn't possible for improving AI... they just aren't being given a pass to engage the community on the level required to really explain things. Once you acknowledge there is a "real" problem, there is no longer plausible deniability that the statement that AI works "good enough" is kind of BS. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?183822-Would-you-donate-to-a-bounty-to-expedite-fixing-some-major-in-game-issues-via-a-Patch

This all goes back to what is and what isn't possible with the current engine. No one outside of the core developers can intelligently talk about what can and can't happen for 64-bit, improved AI scaling, or any other issue that might prevent full utilization of 2014 PC hardware. Hell, I would donate to a pool of money to just get a senior BI developer or manager pulled away for one day to host a solid Reddit session or some type of interactive blog where the core limitations of the current engine could be openly discussed with the community. Just tell me its not happening and to wait for Arma 4 OR a (high-end 14nm i7xxxx + DDR4 +......) Until people hear something definitive, they are just going to complain that they can get 100+ FPS on AAA games and 30fps on ARMA 3. Why would anyone not be a tad PO'd that their $2k+ gaming rig is not be able to play this game at a constant 60fps. I guess its a balance of features vs. FPS... is the current balance acceptable? Will the balance shift through better implementation of code over time or do I need to wait a couple years for 14nm to mature to buy my way out of the issue? No matter what your opinion on the subject of bounties that started this thread, there is a very real reason that the FPS/Performance thread has 438k views and 3600 replies: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS

It would be nice if a BI developer could actually lay out what is and isn't possible with the current engine in terms of fixes for AI performance issues and some of the other hot button issues. I assume there is a senior software engineer at BI that knows what needs to be done in terms of scale of the project and what resources would likely be required to drive it to completion, assuming its even possible. I would gladly be the first guy in line to put up money on a kickstarter or Patreon for a drastic improvement in AI-related performance and logic (BI should offer to match 1:1 for donations or bounty offers. I think I would stop short of getting behind the idea of giving the contest prize back to BI for a fix... too many modders have spent countless hours on projects... But yeah, @BI... why not just get permission from whoever to be able to candidly speak about what we can expect from you guys for core fixes to the game. Helos, Karts, improved ballistics, firing from vehicles, sling-loading all much appreciated, but this game at its core should be more robust than it is when it comes to AI simulation. Why not let the community offer a bounty to get some movement behind some major fixes that simply appear like they are being ignored while you guys focus on revenue-generating DLC. If you guys can offer up that large of a sum of prize money for MANW, surely a 1:1 match for a bounty to fix 1 or 2 community selected issues that are vetted as able to be patched or reworked by the BI developers is not out of the question.

Just google the mem kit, most will OC to 2133 if you relax timings :) Just keep in mind that if you get enough AI going in SP or a slow MP server... there isn't much your GPU can do to give you great FPS. I would also maybe pick up a cheaper monitor until the prices slide a little for that Asus monitor... it just came out and will be significantly cheaper come Jan-Feb as more G-sync panels come out. If you are worried about $, if not enjoy it....

I agree with a lot of the posts about the very real concern for setting a precedent for it being acceptable to ship broken games (I guess I was thinking there was already a precedent in the industry for shipping broken games; BF4, Sim City... to name a few). I still think I would pay for a major AI upgrade (call it DLC, call it an expansion, call it whatever....). I would also say I could care less about Karts/Helos/shooting from vehicles/sling loading/ect.... when I can't even get >30fps on the game with a $2k+ gaming rig when running a scenario with a lot of AI. I guess I have never come to terms with having these huge maps and not being able to actually populate them with functional AI. I mean its marketed as a MILSIM and it can't even properly simulate large-scale AI battles without being brought to its knees because everything is being ran on one core/thread. Why am I being offered kart racing or more Helos as conciliation prize? People make it sound like its too much to ask for the developers to actually fix their game before moving on to adding features? DLC generates revenue, patches do not.... plain and simple. I would rather be paying for DLC that makes the game better, not for features that are being tacked on to a game that has some fairly severe underlying issues with the core game play. Either way, I will play the game... I just wish everyone at BI on the ARMA team was focused on fixing bugs and not on DLC... but again, they are a for-profit company, not a community of modders working on the game in their spare time.

Just curious about the level of support to create a "bounty" for BI to fix some of the major in-game issues (a poll to pick biggest issues?) (obviously some items aren't going to be fixed with the current engine, but there are some items that are fixable with enough resources behind them) I was just thinking about this the other day as I was contemplating dropping ~$330 on a new 4790k to get a few more FPS (currently have a 4770k). I almost feel like I would be open to donating to a bounty for hotfixes to be fast-tracked by BI.... Is there any kind of precedent for this, would a major studio even consider this? It would have to be a legit escrow, where payment is only delivered if that fix is actually implemented.... I'm not sure what I would pay for truly multi-threaded AI... or moving some of the calc to the GPU.. but it would be >$20. Basically, it doesn't seem like some of the major in-game issues are going to be fixed w/o a dramatic change in course... money talks, anonymous forum posts do not carry the same voice unfortunately. Thoughts?

All great choices, I would opt for faster memory (2133) or if those sticks can OC that is fine. Go with Samsung 256GB 840 or 850 pro.... the EVO uses cheaper flash memory with less durability (Samsung has best flash memory FAB process by far) *I work for Samsung, so maybe I'm biased but numbers don't lie... they are fast enough to almost max out the SATA interface. 256GB will be much faster than the 1xxGB SSDs That monitor is ridiculously nice, but expensive (I have the Asus 24" 1080p panel @ 144hz) I love it to the point I ditched my Samsung 32" 1440p panel for it. I would say 750w for P/S, to allow no issues for 2x SLI for another 970 down the road.... If you didn't have the mechanical drives, maybe 650w? I run 4770k @ 4.4 8GB Corsair Dominator Plat 1866 (OC 2133) 840 pro 256GB 2x 770 SLI 4GB (see about 2.3GB of vram usage at max settings w/ draw of 1600/1200/100)* I use low draw to avoid some CPU bottle-necking 750w ASUS VG248QE (I would love to get some feedback on the 1440p 27" 144hz panel for ARMA3... I think I would have to sell my Rift DK2 to get my wife to cut a check for the rest of that $799) :(

Yeah, its a large chunk of change because you will need a new board, but this game really needs a 4770k or 4790k to shine... even then it can be brought to its knees by enough AI instances... I can go from 80+ fps on Stratis MP to less than 20 fps on SP Stratis w/ a lot of AI. I use max settings w/ 1600/1200/100 draw. Consider draw distance reduction as first step to reduce CPU overhead. I went from from 770 SLI getting 60% core utilization to >90% with those draw distance settings... It will take time to find what works best for you.... Max single core CPU performance, mem speed / latency, fast SSD, and a pretty high-end graphics card are needed to really enjoy this game on max settings and even then your single-core performance will likely be your bottleneck. Its best (and not easy) to find that sweet spot where you are close to maxing out your CPU and GPU cores to get best FPS. Obviously, its a dynamic target and it moves as AI instances increase or decrease. Its not hard to find the sweet spot for MP, its SP scenarios that are more difficult to tune for. Get 78fps from the Stratis benchmark on max settings w/ draws mentioned above 1080p 144hz 4770k @ 4.3 8GB 2133 2x 770 SLI 4GB SSD

Some people hit the nail on the head and others seem to be out of touch w/ reality for this thread. The root cause of all the FPS complaints is simply that the AI is computed via a single-threaded process (there are other computes going on for this thread as well) and AI calcs have to be made before your CPU can send the required info to the GPU so it can draw the frame... there are a lot of things that happen in series and not parallel in this game. The biggest improvements would come from either making the AI thread multi-threaded so an i7 can process it across 8 threads or to offload some of it to the GPU. As people mentioned GPUs can crunch more than just textures/polygons. Sure you have to code it, but GPUs are orders of magnitudes more powerful than CPUs for number crunching, they just aren't as versatile and require more defined input to provide a desired output. I can go from 90fps+ w/ max settings with draw of 1600/1200/100 FPS on an empty map to <20fps with significant active AI on the map (not even in my FOV). I'm not saying you can't turn up the eye candy and reduce draw distance to be GPU limited in this game, but going max settings and large draw distance w/ any amount of AI and you will be CPU limited.... no mod or quick-fix is going to help you there. 4770k @ 4.4ghz (getting ready to pick up a 4790k just for this game.. hoping for 4.8-5.0 H2O2 OC 8GB 2133 2x SLI 770 4GB SSD

hmm, I use both add-ons and don't have any significant loss of FPS... Arma 3 can use at least 4 cores / 8 threads.. main problem is that AI is a single-threaded (running on 1 core only) and as mentioned above, things are sometimes processed in series and not in parallel in ARMA. So your CPU will often limit the loading of your GPU because its struggling to keep up with what's going on.... can't "draw" AI on screen if your CPU hasn't figured out what the AI is going to do next... kind of thing. As mentioned above as well... this is all about how quickly things are calculated by the CPU and how quickly you are moving stuff between RAM and VRAM as well... so memory speed / latency is also a variable to consider I would pay another $50 for the game if they could multi-thread the AI to take actual advantage of 2+ cores, outside of that you need to wait for Intel to FABOUT a yet to be designed processor that would prob need to double current i7 single-core performance. Intel is worried about performance per watt, not max performance per core... so don't hold your breath.... At this point, hopefully ARMA 4 will get multi-threaded AI because the other two options are not looking like they will pan out. Check out: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

If GPU usage never goes >85%, then you are CPU limited and you will need to either reduce CPU-related settings (draw distance is biggest offender I think). Maybe its possible to find better balance for draw settings than the settings I specified, but I think it will come at a cost to some graphic settings. At some point you, will be simply CPU limited w/ far draw distance. I would recommend playing with an empty map and just a single helo spawned to help find ideal settings for graphics because AI will not be active and limiting you for CPU processing power as much. Then play a scenario using same graphic / draw settings with more AI to see the affect that AI will have on your FPS.

Agree, you need to just play around with your draw settings to determine the sweet spot where you are getting good FPS and actually seeing >80% for GPU usage. From there, you can dial back some GPU-limited settings to get your FPS higher. But just keep in mind at some point you are simply going to by CPU limited like everyone else.

For reference, I get max usage of my SLI GTX 770 using 1600/1200/100 draw settings. (any higher and I am CPU limited) I run i4770 (4.3Ghz OC) w/ 8GB 2133 ram. Overclocking my cards do nothing for FPS. I would recommend you run ALTIS 0.6 benchmark and find settings that give you max FPS with >90% GPU utilization so you know you are maxing out your card and not hitting CPU bottleneck. I can get 76FPS for benchmark with all settings maxed out with those 1600/1200/100 draw settings for your reference. I see you want max distance, you will need a powerful CPU and to turn down a lot of graphic settings to make it playable... If you run into a lot of AI or poor MP server... your FPS are going to be really bad no matter what your system is. I can run AI heavy SP scenarios and bring my FPS from 70-80fps (50-60 player Stratis wasteland MP server) to 20-30fps for a single player map. AI and MP servers are #1 cause of FPS loss, w/ draw distance being #2 in my opinion.... I can't see your benchmark, what is your CPU?