ARMA 3

[MajorChipHazard]

so I just picked up ARMA 3 on the steam sale.

 

Immediately I cranked the settings, to see just how poorly optimized the games engine is.

I was getting anywhere from 20 to 50 FPS while My EVGA GeForce GTX 980 superclocked video card hovered around 60% usage.

 

Anybody have a personal guide or something for how to get the settings just right so I have the game looking really good but not playing at nearly console-like frame rates?

I've looked some up myself but alot of them just suggested turning the settings down.  However even on low I get below 50 FPS consistently, which is ridonculous.

[KingDaddyDaniel]

I've been told that ARMA 3 is heavily CPU orientated and that your graphics card isn't the problem (definitely not in your case)

Unfortuneately the only way to get the game to run better is to lower your settings until you are comfortable with it sorry pal, I was equally disappointed in DayZ

[Shroomster]

draw distance matters the most in Arma 3. Try lowering that.

[DeViLzzz]

I played this game today and it seemed like some sort of motion blur like setting or something made it a bit annoying to play.  Still I can't say the game didn't run well for me and I cranked it up on an i5 2500k and a GTX 670 and neither are overclocked.  The only annoying thing I found was that the controls were buggy.  They did not work properly all the time.  They also complicate the simplest things with that game.

[Notree]

so I just picked up ARMA 3 on the steam sale.

 

Immediately I cranked the settings, to see just how poorly optimized the games engine is.

I was getting anywhere from 20 to 50 FPS while My EVGA GeForce GTX 980 superclocked video card hovered around 60% usage.

 

Anybody have a personal guide or something for how to get the settings just right so I have the game looking really good but not playing at nearly console-like frame rates?

I've looked some up myself but alot of them just suggested turning the settings down.  However even on low I get below 50 FPS consistently, which is ridonculous.

Its just a poorly optimized game. I love the game but it just doesnt take advantage of hardware like it should. It was a problem with arma 2 and still with arma 3.

[RuecanOnRails]

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/238896-is-arma-3-poorly-optimized/?p=3279774

 

 

Arma is an interesting title. Where high fidelity military sim meets mainstream gaming.

 

It's not so much that the game is poorly optimized, it's about how many things it's simulating and the order certain calculations must be made prior to a frame being drawn. From the large explosion infront of you, to individual rounds fired from yours and every other player/ai weapon, to a rabbit wandering on the other side of the map. Everything is calculated and simulated in a seamless instance across the entire map.

 

Configuring a good setup requires a lot of manual tweaks through configuation files, launch parameters, and ingame settings to find a balance that you're happy to play with. The common low, medium, high, ultra presets don't apply to arma the same way as other games.

 

You can follow some guides on performance such as this one http://forums.whatthefrag.net/topic/81-arma-3virtuality%E2%84%A2-4-engine-performance-tweaks-and-settings-guide-by-terminus/

Outside of settings, overclock your cpu, install the game on an ssd, close all background programs (clean restart if possible), have lots of available ram, and a large pagefile (also on ssd). There is a lot of content streaming from the game files along with heavy use of memory allocates which eat through ram and pagefile if you allow them.

 

 

Here's a visual example of what happens every time you fire your gun. A script is being used to visually track terminal ballistics, path, and penetration.

 

 

[Kunzite]

Unfortunately there is not much you can do to fix it. I've been waiting for a fix from years (or at least it feels like it).

[Shroomster]

Unfortunately there is not much you can do to fix it. I've been waiting for a fix from years (or at least it feels like it).

 

it feels like their logic is why fix it when we can launch it broken and still make all the moneys.

[The Crazed Child]

What is your scaling set at? 100% is default. 

 

I run a 280X and a stock 2600 non-K, I get 50-60FPS on high settings consistently. Let me just say that it's a heap more optimised than it was in early alpha.

[BloodWithIce]

Arma 3 runs like crap on basically anything so deal with it.
It's a cpu intensive game

[Almercenary]

Basically Arma engine is both CPU and GPU bound. So although you might have a titan 980 superoverdouble clocked water cooled GPU, and a mediocre CPU, it will take a performace hit. The only way to truly make it run best on your PC is play around with the settings for 1/2 an hour or so. There is a reason it has an FPS counter on the video settings screen...

[ComradeHX]

so I just picked up ARMA 3 on the steam sale.

 

Immediately I cranked the settings, to see just how poorly optimized the games engine is.

I was getting anywhere from 20 to 50 FPS while My EVGA GeForce GTX 980 superclocked video card hovered around 60% usage.

 

Anybody have a personal guide or something for how to get the settings just right so I have the game looking really good but not playing at nearly console-like frame rates?

I've looked some up myself but alot of them just suggested turning the settings down.  However even on low I get below 50 FPS consistently, which is ridonculous.

I get similar result on Pentium G3258 at 4.7ghz and R9 280x.

 

It's CPU-bound for sure.

[MajorChipHazard]

I've been told that ARMA 3 is heavily CPU orientated and that your graphics card isn't the problem (definitely not in your case)

Unfortuneately the only way to get the game to run better is to lower your settings until you are comfortable with it sorry pal, I was equally disappointed in DayZ

I lowered them all the way down to as low as they would go, until the game looked like claymation.  Still didn't get even consistent 50 FPS.

 

What is your scaling set at? 100% is default. 

 

I run a 280X and a stock 2600 non-K, I get 50-60FPS on high settings consistently. Let me just say that it's a heap more optimised than it was in early alpha.

I left my scaling at 100%.  I assumed my GTX 980 SC with 4GB of Vram would be at least able to handle that...

 

Arma 3 runs like crap on basically anything so deal with it.

It's a cpu intensive game

So basically my i5 4670K overclocked to 4.4GHz isn't good enough? lol.  I didn't pay that much attention to my CPU usage while playing.  But when I get home I'll check again and get some solid numbers for reference. I know it wasn't that high though.

 

Basically Arma engine is both CPU and GPU bound. So although you might have a titan 980 superoverdouble clocked water cooled GPU, and a mediocre CPU, it will take a performace hit. The only way to truly make it run best on your PC is play around with the settings for 1/2 an hour or so. There is a reason it has an FPS counter on the video settings screen...

I wouldn't consider a 4670K @ 4.4GHz a "mediocre" CPU... would you?