• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

[Game] ArmA 3, for real

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#642
I played the Alpha for a bit and when playing multiplayer the framerates were horrendous on my monster rig. The single player with bots was always silky smooth though. I was a bit perplexed by this.

So .. I checked the Bohemia forums and found out that in-game performance is dependant on how powerful the server is your connected with. I remember trying many servers as well with the exact same dismal performance results.

What a horrible design decision/ networking model by the DEVS. I think I'll stick to PR 1.0 for my military sim/teamwork needs.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#644
Fishsticks said:
I played the Alpha for a bit and when playing multiplayer the framerates were horrendous on my monster rig. The single player with bots was always silky smooth though. I was a bit perplexed by this.

So .. I checked the Bohemia forums and found out that in-game performance is dependant on how powerful the server is your connected with. I remember trying many servers as well with the exact same dismal performance results.

What a horrible design decision/ networking model by the DEVS. I think I'll stick to PR 1.0 for my military sim/teamwork needs.
Click to expand...

Well, good to see I'm not the only one. I have a modest rig, in SP I get around 70-80fps with most stuff on high, but barely 20-22fps on multiplayer
 
Upvote 0
#646
Fishsticks said:
So .. I checked the Bohemia forums and found out that in-game performance is dependant on how powerful the server is your connected with. I remember trying many servers as well with the exact same dismal performance results.
Click to expand...

That explains why changing ANY setting in the config menu didn't seem to have any effect in the game performance during MP
 
Upvote 0
#647
Upvote 0
#648
SiC-Disaster said:
If you guys want some missions to play on Altis, I've made two that are doing quite well on Steam Workshop.
The first is Assault on Charkia: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=173128889http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=173128889
The second is Flashpoint - Ambush, a remake of an OFP:CWC campaign mission which includes all of the original voice acting: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=173761915http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=173761915
Click to expand...

Nice. I really like this steam workshop, so much easier to download these missions. I read that this game won't be shipping with singleplayer campaign, so I guess these community made are the ones I will be playing.


I can't play these. I subscribed on them and I can see them in Arma 3, but when I try to play them I get some "can't edit...." message. Do I need to do something else?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#651
Upvote 0
#652
dev build is an absolutely horrendous experience on invade and annex, as well as a few other missions we tried, on a variety of PC setups.
the island looks nice - as much as you can enjoy it with the current performance.
It will improve greatly ofc upon release. Wont it?

I hear AI vehicle pathing is a problem at the moment as they don't follow roads properly - and will have to be addressed in a later patch apparently.
 
Upvote 0
#653
So I am not the only one with a big performance hit on Atlas. Though that is what happened with ArmA II; the small map in the demo ran nice but by release and with the full size map the performance was far worse. I assume the larger maps = lower performance. So maybe it won't get changed in a patch.

AI vehicle path finding is essentially the same as ArmA II. Hopefully they will improve it this time around, but with the release so close I don't think it will make it.
 
Upvote 0
#654
Altis runs fine for me, I don't have any performance issues really. I was surprised to be honest :p
Chernarus on release ran ok-ish but like complete arse inside Chernogorsk, the major city. Kavala on Altis is almost twice that size maybe and it runs fluidly from most perspectives.

ArmA 2's performance at release was nothing like the performance now though, it has greatly improved. And I expect the same to happen to ArmA 3, though it might not be in a week's time. Still, I am having a good time on the new map.
 
Upvote 0
#655
Hey Sic-Disaster

Do you mind posting your system specs? I haven't downloaded Altis just yet, as I am waiting for official release on 12th September.

I have an i5-4670 @3.2 ghz, MSI 7600 Twin Frozer, 8 gb Ram and I run Arma 2 on ultra with 1600 view distance between 40-60 fps.
Arma 3 runs fine with 40-50 fps on same settings, but many say they have the performance problems on Altis.

Do you experience any major performance drops in cities or with many Ai units?

I am asking you because I saw you are creating missions and was just wondering.
 
Upvote 0
#656
I have an i5 with 2500 mghz, 8 gigs of RAM and two 6900's, but I only run 1 due to many issues with some games when I run them in Crossfire. I think the view distance is set to 3000 meters even.

Performance drops with many AI is always to be expected, because there is no hard limit to the amount of units you can put into a mission. But mission makers can work their way around it by despawning units when you are too far away from them, and spawning them back into the mission when you get closer.
 
Upvote 0
#657
i5 2500k, 8 gigs ram, GTX660 W7 pro and a SB gaming sound card.
Performance is good.

Small missions like the 3 I've played from SiC run without any problems what so ever.

MP has been laggy with performance degrading over time but yesterday
I played on the Sa-Matra dev build Wasteland server and performance was stable with a full player count.
I'm going to check in again just to make sure.

BIS made a wise decision by going the Steam Alpha/Beta route because they have never released a game that worked outadabox.
My guess is that the dev branch will become the beta patch system and hopefully be backward compatible with the official / stable release.
IMHO.
 
Upvote 0
#659
Hey SIC-Disaster and fiftyone. Could you please let me know your fps lows and highs?

I am still wondering what's wrong with my performance. All the single player showcases are running at stable 60 fps (max. that can be shown due to my TV).

Online however, performance is weird to say the least. Around 40 fps with drops to 25 and after some time, anything between 10 fps to 35 fps is possible.

I have also altered my settings a lot but the even more weird thing is that there seems to be no pattern in what is causing what. (I did read many guides and understand when CPU and when GPU is used).

I am running an i5-4670k, 8 gb RAM, MSI GTX 760 Twin Frozr and my settings are everything on high or maxed out, except view distance and shadows. View distance at 2400.

Since I will switch from dev build to retail after the launch later, I will start with altering stuff, such as -nologs and other commands.

Interesting read anyway here: http://steamcommunity.com/app/107410/discussions/0/864973123765924825/

Now I am patient and know about the Arma series problems with handling multiple cores and how performance is always a gamble with BIS.

What bothers me though is that the differences in performance seem to follow no pattern and everything is random. I don't want to waste your time, but has anybody here ever tried Razer Game booster and could give some feedback?
 
Upvote 0
#660
That's because MP FPS is pretty much locked to the server's processing power. If the server's not meaty enough to run a mission (and few are, especially with the larger scope missions), you'll get awful clientside performance.

That's a problem that's plagueing the OFP/ArmA Engine since the very beginning, and IMHO the very reason why I mostly play SP/in the editor.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu