To all the ranters read this.

[EvilDutchrebel]

I'm seeing a lot of screaming and complaining, first off is it wrong to complain? no its most defenitly not.
But you've got to learn the difference between user made content and the game itself.
If someone totaly ♥♥♥♥♥ up a mod is it the fault of the developer? no its not.
If someone totaly ♥♥♥♥♥ up scenario's for multiplayer is it the fault of the developer? no its not.

I understand that you guys have problems, but I don't understand that you clearly do not have the intellegence to see the difference between the core game and user made content.

Lately I see posts on how people scream about low FPS on Altis Life or Wasteland, let me try to explain a bit (I don't know everything about it) if someone activates hundreds of poor written scripts at the same time, you will lag your ass off, the developer didn't write most of the scrips they use in Altis Life or Wasteland and the developers of those gamemodes probably have amazing rigs that can run those scripts like a dream, and they don't get paid to make those gamemodes so why would they us all their time to make it work perfectly on your pc?

If you can run the campaign on ultra with a stable 60 FPS you've got a good rig but if you can't play the multiplayer user made missions and mods with a stable 60 FPS don't blame the game, blame the users who made it.

I know I'm going to be called a fan boy and that my head is up the developers asses, but lets be civil and make this into a good discussion, please don't act like kids and scream, explain to me in detail why I'm wrong so we all can learn :)
I've got my trust in you guys.

[ShadowPhoen1x]

I think it's best to add that:

- If you have performance issues with the game running well, go to the troubleshooting section of the forum.
- If you have found a bug with the game, one that is reproducable, submit it to the bugs section of the forum.

Look to see if anybody has had similar issues in either forum section and if they have resolved them. If not, let people know whats happening. There are plenty of people in the community willing to help you!

Please keep in mind to deactivate all mods before writing ANYTHING. If you have issues with the games performance, deactivate ALL the mods that you have added and see if the problem still persists. DO NOT submit a bug report when you have a dozen mods activated at the same time either. Excessive scripting in mods, especially alpha/beta mods, needlessly gobbles up system resources and can create funny behaviour within the game, especially MP games.

And if you want to complain about the game in an uncivilised fashion, don't bother. Your issue will most likely not be resolved because you're too hostile and everyone who responded will forget about it overnight. As the old saying goes: "An angry person opens their mouth and shuts their eyes"

[B✪✪tsy]

It's not just the poor or huge amount of scripts. It's also the fact that ArmA 3 can't handle AI on the map (very well). Why do you think the campaign consists of spawning AI (small amounts) and are devided into small sections/missions... to hide the poor AI handling on the map. In ArmA2 I could have easily 200+ AI running around on the map, in ArmA3 with 100+ AI (with the pathfinding) it already noticably drops the performance.

[Theo Hardmeier]

Originally posted by B00tsy:

It's not just the poor or huge amount of scripts. It's also the fact that ArmA 3 can't handle AI on the map (very well). Why do you think the campaign consists of spawning AI (small amounts) and are devided into small sections/missions... to hide the poor AI handling on the map. In ArmA2 I could have easily 200+ AI running around on the map, in ArmA3 with 100+ AI (with the pathfinding) it already noticably drops the performance.

Yep, and the more they try to enhance the AI the worse I think it will get. (Making them smarter ect ect)
Unless they sprinkle some fairy dust on its code I dont think AI's affect on performance is gonna get better.

[B✪✪tsy]

For me thats the only real downside of ArmA really. Having the biggest map ever, yet you can't place AI on it or only spawned on 1 location with a few AI leaving the rest of the map empty and deserted. Persistent AI mapwide is a no go.

I have a couple of airforce missions with mapwide AI (almost zero scripts) and people complain why they have low fps, it's purely the AI causing it.

[Hash]

Use the ai wisely, Arma always getting ♥♥♥♥ for its bad ai but a think its superb, you can dump ai down on any map custom or offcial and they act and react like soldiers before adding any extra scripts and theres mods that improve on that.

I had a bad habbit of dumping a load of ai on map for a mission but learnt less is better if set up well, not tackled a3 editor yet but a2 i used a tool called world in conflict tool and combined with
UPSMON script for a fairly good ai full map (big bloody maps lets not forget) that i used for massive patrols, anyone now if WICT on A3?

[Dj Otacon]

Absolutely agree with the OP.

I made my own bechmark with the usual patrolling scripts.

Using the old version of the UPS script (jun 2013) you loss 5-10 fps on a mission (coop) using latest version of the upsmon (jun 2014) the loss is only of 2-4 fps.

This is only a example of actual scripting vs an old script.

More and more mission are poorly implemented using a pletora of scripts with people with no deep knowledge of good programming.

Right the problem remains not only in the hardware (dedicated server with 100+ players) also on a mission that need severe code reworking.

[Pèpè Silvia]

...Then you add combat with tons of units, particles/effects, bullets (with ballistics modeled for each one), scripts, and "active" AI - you can expect some serious slowdowns

What I don't get tho is why AI are still "active" even when they're dead. I found that even when every AI is dead, FPS will stay the same until the bodies are cleared from the map. Not sure why they don't just go "null" if they die

But I agree, the game gets a bad rap for being ahead of it's time. No other game even attemps to model the sheer volume that Arma does, and it's only gonna keep dropping FPS as they improve/add more.

Then you have the people complaining about how it will never be finished and yet they want BIS to add all these new features...BIS can't please everyone, or the game will NEVER be "finished"

IMO, I think sooo many people love to hate this game because it's SO close to what THEY want, yet it misses just a little bit and that makes them mad.

[Dj Otacon]

All the Arma games are ahead of this time.

[=MS=Scout]

they need to put the complains in the right Forum and not in the general discussions Forum.
But , there again there's alot that can't read.. It'll never change.

[=MS=Scout]

And i still believe everyone has beat this Dead Horse long enough. FPS this, FPS that.... you just can't please everyone on this planet.....hahahaha.. I heard their coming out with a real good book called Arma 3 FPS improvement for Dummies.. for $ 1

[blood sugar]

The only thing i know is that when i run a program reading my CPU Core load while gaming, this is what it looks like:

Core 1: 30-70% Load
Core 2: 30-55%
Core 3: 30-55%
Core 4: 25-45%

GPU Load: 25-65% (This is me running at High)

And i'm at around 20-30 fps in bigger cities, shouldn't Arma 3 technically use up to 80-90% of all my cores to give me more FPS?

[Manwith Noname]

Originally posted by =MS=Scout:

FPS this, FPS that.... you just can't please everyone on this planet.....hahahaha..

To be fair, if this game ran at a constant 60FPS on ULTRA with 12KM view distance on a reasonable spec machine, I think that would please a lot more people.

Granted, there is something to be said about how much the game would have to be "dumbed down" to achieve that but, to say there are no problems with the core game and that everyone with a complaint has no concept of what is actually going on would be false.

[Pèpè Silvia]

Originally posted by blood sugar:

The only thing i know is that when i run a program reading my CPU Core load while gaming, this is what it looks like:

Core 1: 30-70% Load
Core 2: 30-55%
Core 3: 30-55%
Core 4: 25-45%

GPU Load: 25-65% (This is me running at High)

And i'm at around 20-30 fps in bigger cities, shouldn't Arma 3 technically use up to 80-90% of all my cores to give me more FPS?

Because it's saturating your first core, and the threads/commands that use the other 3 cores have to wait for the instructions from the first. That's why you will mostly see gains with more GHz instead of more cores.

[blood sugar]

Alright, good thing i'm getting a new cooler/water system, i'll do before and after tests to see how much it improved.

[yottavader]

Blood Sugar;
ArmA can use up to 31 cores in theory, but with most scenes the gain above 4 cores is small and above 8 cores unmeasurable. (the reason an i5, i7, and 6 core E, run ArmA about the same).
The explanation is Amdahl's law - only parts of the application is using all cores.
So ArmA will in total, uses the CPU power equal of about 2 cores.
ArmA uses one main core... always have, always will. This is communist simulation code from the 80s. Handed down from game to game to game.
B.I. just re-packages it, and makes millions of euros / dollars every few years.(Same turd, new candy sprinkles).
Ponder the law of diminishing returns on the CPU. Over Clocking (OC) your CPU will bring the best frame rate per second (FPS) improvement.
I am currently running a water radiator cooled i5K OC at 4.7 GHz. with a 7970 GPU.
ArmA is, what it is... nothing more. B.I. will have to re-code from the gound up for any major improvements or release a new game engine for things to change. (That is not going to happen, see line 9 )
All the best,