Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
- 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"
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
But , there again there's alot that can't read.. It'll never change.
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?
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.
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,