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
This is a problem basically as old as arma III itself.
https://youtu.be/GktBSZcglFk
I wouldn't just go from one tutorial though. Check out a few.
This is partly true. The bulk of the work is done on a single thread yes, but it does autodetect if you have multiple threads available and assign some of the work to those other threads. You can also force this on (or off) in the launcher if you're concerned it's not enabled.
AFAIK it only includes File Operations, Texture Loading and Geometry Loading for their own dedicated threads.
Other operations in the game are likely multithreaded in some way but not too a significant enough degree to increase performance much. This is why they made the new Enfusion engine which handles it much better supposedly. It'll be years though before that's relevant to a new mainline Arma game sadly.
Arma III is multithreaded, but limited to a small number (32) of threads. It also uses up to four cores, but no more than four.
Arma III is not graphically demanding and will use much older video cards. It still uses the same graphics engine that it was released with a decade ago.
Arma III is a memory hog. It will gladly consume as much memory as you can feed it. The minimum requirements for Arma III is 8 GB, and while it will function with that amount of memory, it will not be an enjoyable experience. You need a minimum of a 16 GB to make the game playable at 60 FPS (assuming you never fly), and more would be even better.
Arma III will take full advantage of an Intel i5, but lack the ability to use the i7 and i9 capabilities (since neither CPU existed in 2013). So upgrading to a faster more powerful CPU will not improve Arma III's performance, other than the speed improvement you gain from the clock speed.
Adding more memory will improve your FPS far more than improving your graphics card. Arma III works just fine with any old GTX video cards, and adding a high-end video card will not improve Arma III's performance.
Arma III will only use a portion of what you have. The primary issue in your case is memory. With 16 GB you have what I consider to be the minimum amount.
First, you should be aware that every mod that you have active and load with Arma III consumes RAM. So the more mods you load, the less RAM you will have for the game.
Your system is way over-powered for Arma III, except for the RAM. With 16 GB of RAM you should be able to set your video options Overall Quality to Ultra, with visibility:
- Overall = 2,500 meters;
- Object = 1,250 meters;
- Shadow = 100 meters;
- PIP = 1,250 meters.
That should give you between 60 and 90 FPS, providing you stay out of fast moving aircraft.16GB is more than enough, memory speed might affect your performance but as long as you're above 2500MHz you'll be fine on a game this old.
OP - The reason your performance is terrible is because you're running on Extreme. These settings were not originally part of the possible options to select precisely because they're too performance heavy for normal gameplay. The options with the little performance symbol next to them are for cinematic purposes or very high end rigs not general play, especially not with many players/AI running around. My CPU is only a year old i7 and I still can't get away with extreme settings and get over 60FPS with an actual battle going on.
You can get away with extreme textures and Very-High Shadows as long as your shadow distance is under 250 or so. Otherwise keep the extreme settings off, they have diminishing returns in quality gain vs performance. As the previous person said you want your view distances to be reasonable too, between 2500-4000m as otherwise you're forcing your CPU to handle all that extra distance for no real reason.