***ArmA 3 Thread***

Playing DayZ back in the day, moving it from HDD to SSD went from 30fps~ to 45fps~. So yes, to stop the back and forth arguing it does help atleast in some circumstances, maybe not all.
 
Mr Krugga said:
None of your suggestions solve the main problem with ARMA games, that is, the old Operation Flashpoint engine is still largely CPU-limited (to the point where I can enable/disable 8xMSAA without seeing any significant difference in performance) whilst only using two cores fairly efficiently. They've promised us big changes when it comes to utilisation of resources by the engine (heck, I even remember someone mentioning a new engine before Alpha was out) and yet it's still the same 12 year old Real Virtuality engine, albeit very impressive on the graphical side, it chokes in more intensive scenarios and offers a very dated AI model.

And before any of you mention "herp derp, it's still in beta", well, I don't remember ARMA games ever making a giant leap from Beta to RC, but I'd like to be positively surprised.
Click to expand...

I've still got a 4 year old CPU (i7 920 @4ghz) however have a 680GTX, the game runs perfectly fine for me, not as low as you're getting. I don't know what to say. The biggest performance hit at the end of the day for me in A2OA are the maps played on, Sahrani/Takistan is like a dream, Chernarus can be as good or half as bad, some third party ones (forget the name, there's a new german one) runs horrificly bad for me.

Not one other setting or anything has ever drastically changed my performance from one mission to another, even with 100+ Human Player ontop of the 100s of AI. Well, until someone accidentally spawns a thousand AI in one area of course :p

A2 on release was really bad for me and while as you said they never really got better from beta>RC, at least they kept trying and for me and many others suceeded in doing that. I've learned to accept it's a constantly evolution. Also, you say it's bad optimisation but what exactly are you basing that off, other games like arma? what other games have this much to ask for? :)

I will agree however there's something wrong with MP, in the past generations hosting on your own machine has a huge hit on performance compared to letting the server do it, so playing online was always a boon.
It's backwards now though, extra clients seem to really hamper performance, I await the day we get 100+ in a server and see how it copes.
 
I seem to be getting a solid 30fps+ on VH settings which I'm liking. Dropping to just under 25fps in busy places like some of the Combined Ops mission, so if they optimize it well enough that I can get 30fps anywhere that would do me :)
 
Tibbz2 said:
I seem to be getting a solid 30fps+ on VH settings which I'm liking. Dropping to just under 25fps in busy places like some of the Combined Ops mission, so if they optimize it well enough that I can get 30fps anywhere that would do me :)
Click to expand...

The game is much more enjoyable at a higher framerate, though. Mouse lag isn't as noticeable at 50+ fps.

Playing at 2560x1440, Very High preset, framerate drops to mid-20s in open maps, GPU usage at 70%, CPU obviously not fully utilised. I'm not amused to be honest. Try the helicopter mission for example, GPU usage at 65% at the start, dropping to even 40-45% when in the air.

I moved the game to the SSD, no difference that I can notice.
 
Last edited:
I guess thats down to threading, something is holding it back. Or it might be the server, somehow this game relys on the server far more then most games. To test I have to put the CPU clock on max as it doesnt use all the cores, also turn off HT might help if I remember right :confused:
 
silversurfer said:
I guess thats down to threading, something is holding it back. Or it might be the server, somehow this game relys on the server far more then most games. To test I have to put the CPU clock on max as it doesnt use all the cores, also turn off HT might help if I remember right :confused:
Click to expand...

Unparking cores is more efficient than disabling HyperThreading from my experience. It still doesn't solve the issue at hand. And no, it's not the server, as you can experience it in the single player missions just as well. It all depends on the map and the number of units.
 
Mr Krugga, can you screenshot all your settings, saying very high means nothing to me as I'm not going to change all my settings to see what it defaults to :p

I'm sure there's something off here.
 
Any card will struggle to maintain 60+ fps on this game at that resolution on very high preset. The game is more CPU bound anyway, even high clocked i7's can't do a brilliant job. Some servers are to blame on multiplayer as well. The MBS server I get really good fps on but some other servers run like dog poop.
 
Suarez7 said:
Any card will struggle to maintain 60+ fps on this game at that resolution on very high preset. The game is more CPU bound anyway, even high clocked i7's can't do a brilliant job. Some servers are to blame on multiplayer as well. The MBS server I get really good fps on but some other servers run like dog poop.
Click to expand...

One server will hit 60fps (although I am nowhere near high settings) and others barely hit 15.

Enjoy Wasteland but I usually hit severs with laggy Americans
 
Latest sitrep full of promises for the beta.

No dates mentioned, but plenty of references to 'soon', 'asap', 'priority' etc have been given to releasing battleye, missions on workshop and new content to the dev branch.
 
Uncle_Gravy said:
Anyone getting problems since the beta with Windows running low on memory?

Its getting on my nerves.
Click to expand...

Steam folder > Steam Apps > Common > ARMA 3 folder > Right click on ARMA 3.exe > Properties > Compatibility > Disable desktop composition.

THis will disable Windows Aero when playing 3D games / stop the blooming message.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom