Also, flying the airplane on Altis results in less than 5 fps when airborne.

Just so everyone realizes I do like this game, and I'm honest.

I have seen a marked improvement in both performance and resource utilization in the beta on the dev branch. I am now seeing 70-100% GPU utilization (the lowest is still on the helicopter demo for some reason thus far), and a large improvement in framerates and consistency, 50-70 FPS average right now while I play with settings. There are still some places which bog it down, I will add to this ticket as I find them. Previously I was averaging 20-40 FPS, with spikes of 10-80 FPS.

System specs:
i7-2600K @ 4.4 GHz
16 GB DDR3 @ 1600 MHz
MSI GTX680 OC 4GB @ 1200 Mhz boost clock (still not seeing this in game for some reason, I peak at 1189 Mhz)

So yeah, good job developers. Just next time give us a little information on what you're doing, and maybe don't go around deleting posts looking for commentary on a serious issue.

Nobody has called anybody any names, but Bohemia continues their silence, and to silence the loudest in dissent. I see my post was deleted. That's a fantastic way to start a reasonable exchange.

Very poor form, BI.

BI continues to close every thread even tangentially related to this issue.

When will we get an actual official comment on this issue, with some specificity about progress or expected improvement timelines? Every other issue is greeted with an abundance of interest by devs, but this one keeps them very quiet, and it is perplexing looking at its size and history to this point.

What I referenced to was in no way out of context, and if BI would give us just a little bit more information then this wouldn't be up to inference.

To me, the lack of updates, and the continued narrowing of avenues for communication is a strong indicator that either they somehow cannot replicate the issue, or it is so deeply seeded that it will not likely be fixed. If this is not the case, it really is the time for BI to say something. It was time weeks ago. I have bought virtually every product BI has made, and all entries in the Arma series, and this issue has been present in all of them, however it is much more obvious with all the modern lighting and PP effects they are using now.

BI, I am sure I am not alone in wondering whether this can even be fixed. It's time to let us in on what you are doing about it. No improvement whatsoever has been had on my end since release, and this is by far (as has been noted repeatedly) the most upvoted and commented upon issue in Arma history. It is time to step up to the plate and do something to restore consumer confidence, or people like myself will stop taking you seriously.

I don't see how pointing out that the avenues of receiving information about the largest issue the game has are being closed is uncivilized. I don't think that BI had to close that thread, after all, moderators should be moderating, not blindly closing threads because they have let the conversation stray off topic. BI has closed literally every avenue of discussion for this issue except this one, I think that is extremely unprofessional, and does not bode well for a resolution. If BI would like to refute my claim, I would be very happy, but so far all they have done is keep mum.

I don't think that was terribly uncivilized, but feel free to correct me.

Oh, and for the record, again:

i7-2600K @ 4.5 GHz
16 GB DDR3 @ 1600 MHz
MSI Nvidia GTX680 4GB OC @ 1202 MHz boost clock (which it never sees in this game...)

I get 70-90 FPS on an empty map by myself with NO AI. As soon as any AI show up, the resource utilization and FPS take a asymptotic drop off, with FPS below 30 with more than 40 AI present, and resource utilization in the 30% range on CPU and GPU (mostly on one thread at that, most are idle at this point).

This is a major issue BI, it is time to let us know what you are doing about it. Describing the situation as "not ideal" does not begin to address the issue of software which is clearly not capable of utilizing modern multi-core architecture, which it absolutely needs to be (and it's not like my core clocks are low anyway).

And now they've closed the thread in the forums with no updates or further information.

You're not making me feel like I've made sound investment BI. That comes off as quite shady.

That would make more sense if there were any indication that these reports were taken seriously. Closing them with no explanation, no reasoning, and not mentioning one of the most reported bugs in any sitrep or even acknowledging that problem exists creates more than a spectre of doubt. I know I am not alone in that feeling.

I am extremely disappointed that the Devs seem to be attempting to hide/close all other tickets related to this one, including ones posted a full day in advance, such as mine: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=465

If this behavior does not change, I will be requesting a refund/disputing charges with my credit card company. This is a major issue, BI, and it needs to be publicly acknowledged and rectified, not silenced.

i7-2600k @ 4.2 GHz
MSI Z77 Mpower
16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
MSI GTX 680 OC 4GB Boost Clock: 1.2 GHz (only achieved in menu, game runs at 849 or less)

Game uses less than 50% of core 1, and less than 30% of any other. Frames will be initially 115+ FPS in menu with 90+% load, drops to minimal load and 30 FPS or less in SP/MP outside of editor. VRAM usage starts at ~2GB with textures maxed, and will climb to 3GB or more with further deteriorating performance.

Sort of ludicrous that I can run pretty much anything at 60+ FPS at 1440p, and this runs horribly with any settings.

Edit: I should add, I have post processing off, and no AA other than FXAA on ultra, most other settings as high as they can go. No noticeable performance change with any of them. View distance set at 3k, no noticeable gain below that, and anything higher yields less cpu/gpu usage.

I do not have this issue with Arma 2. I can play at full resolution with no post processing or AA (dislike them) at 60+ FPS with appropriate GPU/CPU load (or at least what I assume is appropriate, still less than 60% at all times, but excellent performance).

Incredibly unprofessional.

I am a paying customer, and I will reopen my one ticket as I see fit. This does not speak well for the management of this alpha. Never have I seen this issue in any public/private alpha addressed so poorly. You continue to close my ticket with no explanation, no information. No information was sought from me, there's no clear indication of what information should be provided with a ticket. Merely the direction to another largely ignored huge ticket, one which has not yet been acknowledged publicly, and daily my performance gets on average worse.

Not to mention that the "duplicate" thread involves AMD chipsets and AMD videocars. I have neither. Considering the different sources of drivers, and different hardware configurations, perhaps it would be prudent to thoroughly investigate the issue.

Then where do I seek my refund?

Excuse me? Once again, I reported this issue a full day before the other thread. If this is the way reported bugs will be handled by the team, then perhaps I should request a refund right now.

Very disappointed in the response to this issue.

Using the latest development build with the new shadows forces the GPU to stay in boost clock, yielding some performance increase. GPU/CPU load rarely exceeds 40% and never 50% however, and CPU usage seems to be down even further less than 45% of core one, and less than 15% of any other. FPS is up probably 10-15% though, right around 30FPS, enough to have fun with the game now.

This is bizzare, but trending better, I suppose. Keep up the good work BI!

Uh, considering I posted this a full day earlier, I fail to see how it's a "duplicate"?

And nowhere did I say I expect it to run at 60+ FPS, I said that I expect it to make reasonable usage of hardware well above even recommended specs, and to run at an acceptable framerate, and I fully expect BI to do something about it, that is the purpose of an Alpha. I don't think that's unreasonable, and I don't see the need to start this debate in a bug report.

After a few more days of playing with settings, I have managed to increase the framerate slightly. However, the game appears to have a video memory leak, as the used amount of VRAM will slowly rise from ~2GB at 2560x1440 to 3.5+ GB in an hour or so, rendering the game largely unplayable with less than 15 fps.

I am also using less than 50% on core 1, and way less than that on all others. No usage on HT.

They are. I should also add that this issue happens at all resolutions, though the framerate is slightly (1-5 fps at lower res) higher, from 640x480 to 2560x1440. Raising the draw distance to maximum increased resource usage slightly and caused a slight increase in performance.

That information is incorrect. Vsync is perfectly capable of functioning below your monitors refresh rate, and does with every application. I also do not have this issue with Vsync in Arma 3.