I freakin hate dis game! what am i supposed to do to get good fps?!

[Jewtaro]

seriously! I boguht this game when it was in alpha. Back then I had:

Phenom 955
HD 6850
4 GB RAM DDR3

Showcases were fine and some mutiplayer servers were fine too but the fun ones such as life servers and samarta (is that what its called? bad memory) had bad performance.

Now I just got my completely new computer:

fx 8320
GTX 970
8 GB RAM DDR3

and... Im getting ♥♥♥♥♥♥ 23 fps on king of the hill server... no matter what settings I put it on. I have also made sure that the view distance stuff on the server is also lowest possible... but I still get around 24 even in an area with low population... What should I do? and I dont think others have the same problem, cuz how is it that 80 people are playing on the same server and having fun?

[NZPorterDJ]

Several things stick out immediately.

1) ArmA 3 MP: It's a crap shoot at the best of times. Unfortunately you have no control over the quality of the Mission or Mods or scripts being used on the server, or the quality of the internet connections of the other players. To see the scale of the things out of your control, simply compare the FPS in SP to MP. All those lost FPS are being eaten by the internet and server.

2) AMD CPU. ArmA is still reliant on single-core performance. AMD is not strong in this regard, or at least not as strong as the Intel lines. For tech details see here[linustechtips.com].

And before you go all Intel-fanboy on my arse, I've got an FX-8350 and have similar problems, but I'm also a realist, and the AMD performs worse here.

Also note that BI have done a good job of optimising the code in ArmA, so unfortunately this is probably as good as it gets, unless there is some revolutionary coding that can be applied later.

As to why the other players are still having fun. They, like me, have stopped whining about the lack of FPS and are just playing the game. Just saying...

So waht can you do? Not much, sorry.

1) Find a better optimised server to play on or run your own.

2) Build a better PC to run ArmA on. Unfortunately that means Intel/nVidia, so you might be ideologically opposed to that.

For me, ArmA is the only game I play consistantly, so I'm going for the second option. YMMV.

[Rekkless]

24 frames in king of the hill is pretty good dude.

Anyway, one thing i noticed made quite a difference was running ArmA 3 on a SSD. I got about an extra 5-7 frames just running off an ssd from a normal mechanical hard drive.

[6Day$Aw33k]

intel/nvidia only way 2 go 4 this game and in general,imo

[Fransis]

i have a gtx 980, and i am getting 25 fps..

[Aleks]

Your graphics card doesn't matter, what matters is your CPU I have GTX 660 and Intel I5 3550P and I get 40-50 on med-high on KOTH so pleases stop buying "More Cores" and buy "Efficient Cores"

[Aleks]

By the way if you hate this game stop playing...

[Sobieski12]

AMD Processor... hahahahahaha

[xfiledk]

Running this game on I5-3570K @ 4GHz with GTX660, SSD drive, and ive got no problems with a steady 60 fps on high/med settings. That's with Vsync on!
80-90 fps without Vsync but adds a lot of screen stutter.
And a GTX660 ain't that good.

[Ravenbb]

Its not the game you should hate , its your computer.

[Jewtaro]

Originally posted by Ravenbb:

Its not the game you should hate , its your computer.

...

this game is optimized really poorly... its a fact... but I didnt expect it to perform almost excatly the same as my much older computer that I had before

And also, your not funny and your comment is the most unoriginal comment in the whole game forum commenting history...

[Keeper]

Its the optimization. I get 30-40 fps at times

i7 4790k 4.0 GHz
2x 760 SLI
12 GB ram.

gg games optimization is horrible.

[Magna Farta]

Originally posted by Dixon Cox:

Originally posted by Ravenbb:

Its not the game you should hate , its your computer.

...

this game is optimized really poorly... its a fact... but I didnt expect it to perform almost excatly the same as my much older computer that I had before

Try playing an official singleplayer mission or a GOOD multiplayer server with an optimised mission and lower player/AI count. Or even better, try an official mission on a good server.

You will notice that your framerate is much higher than on poorly optimised 3rd party missions like Life and KOTH.

Also, reconsider your settings. This isn't Battlefield or the newer Crysis games. Arma doesn't limit how far you can push your graphics settings to coincide with current hardware like most games do. You need to find the correct settings for your computer and make compromises to find the right settings for you. The presets are just to give you a general idea.

With your CPU I'd recommend keeping view distance at 3000-4000 if you're flying, 2400 if you're infantry, keep object and terrain detail on high, clouds on ultra, textures ultra, shadows high or above (on standard/low the game uses your CPU instead, so keep it on high+!). Keep object distance at the automatic setting chosen by your view distance. The rest is up to your GPU and preferences. GTX 970 should be able to max AA, and other graphics card dependent settings.

I recommend comparing Arma's performance to other simulators with CPU dependencies (DCS, Rise of Flight, IL2, Steel Beasts etc). Rather than comparing it to games made for the mass market (Battlefield, newer Crysis games etc), all of which are mostly GPU dependent.

I also get frustrated with performance at times, if I've been playing high framerate shooters at 144hz. But if I've been playing other sims I tend not to notice the performance too much.

Considering the amount of geometry, AI, bullet penetration, bullet ricochet, vehicle engines, building destruction, wind, decent helicopter simulation, clouds, large towns with almost all buildings enterable, terrain, physics, wild life etc. All being simulated, even when you're on the other side of the map! I think Bohemia Interactive have done a pretty good job optimising compared to other simulators, without sacrificing too much graphical fidelity.

Remember that performance is constantly improving on DEV branch, and BIS work on their games performance/features for YEARS. I think it was just one or two years ago that Arma:Cold War Crisis (aka Operation Flashpoint) released in 2001 had it's last update.

DX12 could also help, as the developers have been eyeing it and researching if it's feasible to add to Arma.

If I could make a recommendation for you hardware wise, it would be to wait until Intel's Skylake line of processors come out. if it's better than current Intel processors, switch your AMD out for it and you should see a healthy performance boost.

Hope this helped.

[Spud]

your problem is AMD

Arma hammers the CPU and uses only one core, Intel absolutely smashes AMD for single core performance.

[Evil Man Ray]

I get 60 fps on Ultra, only have an i5-4440 and r9 280x