- User Since
- Mar 8 2013, 8:25 AM (328 w, 5 d)
May 10 2016
this engine mainly works on 1 core, including AI. some stuff goes onto second core but first core bottlenecks everything.
whoever doubts this, try taking off cores on windows affinity and leaving just 2, those 2 will get proper usage (90&+) and wont change 1 fps ingame.
anyone with an api monitor can check how many cpu threads this game works with.
and any manjor new engine uses 8 cores properly when avaiable (source, udk, cryengine, frostbyte 2 to name a few)
an 8350 is more than enough for any game, unless the game wont use multicores like this one.
same issue is covered here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716
and this is not a chat forum, stop posting to argument about the report that states exactly the behaviour this engine provides.
May 9 2016
ppl are trained to do takedowns in real life, they should be able to ingame aswell, in order to make silent stealth kills.
"ah i already use silencers for that"
then you are a cod player, because silencers dont work like that in real life. yeah it also behaves wrong in arma 2.
silencers take the weapons sound from 160db to 130db, 120 if you have a subsonic ammo. 110-120db is still very loud.
that would be cool
How well can people hit moving target with a rifle from an heli?
i agree, part of any armed training is switching to pistol while walking. civil or military.
the way arma does is is just broken and lazy.
i think it will be good to have female models.
bigots that dont believe in equal rights think otherwise. you should care for humans in general, and if nedded also kill humans in general. you can have underlying prejudice based on emotional attachments but thats not logical.
IF they lack ability in carrying heavy stuff for long distances well, theres nothing stopping females from being a pilot or driver or simply engaging on not so long distances. a life is a life.
BUT, i dont consider it a priority, not by a longshot.
I finally got an answer a couple of days ago on the steam discussion, expected someone to post here or on the forum (where i´m banned)but noone did, and since usage is directly related to how many threads are shared amongst the cores this is the answer for this bug report aswell, so here it is:
btw, people with intel overclocked to higher than 4ghz or amd 8350 with 5ghz shouldnt bother to post here, this issue mainly affects people with similar to oficial recommended specs which would be about half or less the performance you have.
That blog will only serve to make excuses about why they arent going to fix it. Dwarden lied when trying to explain it on the forum for a long time now, i showed his contradictions and asked for answers and he became silent, because he knows he lied.
want me to tell what will be in this blog?
it will show how arma is already multicore and try to explain that no game scales well or uses more than 3 cores. will say that the AI is sincronized between server and all clients and because of this the performance goes down. also that the one AI thread has to sync with the main game thread, making it stop to wait for the AI to sync, bogging everything down. you can observe all of this with an api monitor that shows how the games threads are working. this has been explained on an old discussion thread on steam and proved with screenshots but Dwarden closed it. They are closing all threads on the forum that mention cpu performance and problems with multicore.
first off, games do use multicore well nowdays, especially on source engine, frostbyte, cryengine and udk, they are all working towards better multicore and there are already games that utilizes them very well.
the blame is on the game design, for arma 3? no. for arma 2? no, for the first arma, because they just rehashed the same engine with better graphics for arma 3.
like Rocket said on reddit, ArmA 3 is ArmA 2 with dx11, supports LESS players and LESS AI.
bohemia is shitting on their consumer base, wont fix the design flaws and will only lie about it. thats why they are silent. they want to advertidse that this game has great performance and that it performs better than ArmA 2, which is a lie. All the time there are people creating new topics trying to understand why their machines, that are better than the recommended steam settings, can´t run this game well enough. they are always greeted with "it´s alpha" well, alpha is over, what now. this its too late for fundamental engine changes, check DayZ, rocket has the balls to take the time necessary in order to change the flaws in the arma engine so it becomes acceptable.
and to people that says "all is well for me" with a @5ghz oveclocked ivy bridge intel cpu, wake up, the game should play well on the recommended settings which arent even half the hardware you have.
This issue won´t be fixed, all threads about this on the main forum are closed and i was banned for posting what Dean Hall (rocket dayz) said on reddit, that ArmA 3 can´t even handle AI´s and Players online as well as ArmA 2.
Bohemia doesn´t even give enough shit about its consumers to answer truthfully about this. Voice your opinions on reddit and gaming sites, explain the issue for gaming bloggers.
The excuse is that this is an alpha, well alpha ends in 2 weeks, good luck getting any significant performance gain which would require major alterations on how the engine handles AI´s, online players and simulation syncing or separating threads for proper multicore support.
addressing those last comments
1- the engine is 32 bits, but it uses a large address memory mapper in order to be able to use 4gb. but what i do see in practice is the game using 1gb or less and a lot of streamign from the hd. (this has been heavily discussed on the official forum)
2- the game supports 2gb videoram and no more, and personally i havent seen more than 900mb even on ultra. so i suspect anything more than that is a memory leak. (since overtime for some people it keeps growing and slows down the game)
4- launch parameters like cpucount are done automatically by the engine for a long time now.
5- most of the game threads are stuff like the new clouds and physx threads, most of the game runs in 1 thread in 1 core, thats the core with heavier usage, and the core that gets bottlenecked and bogs down everything else, no matter how many cores you have, no matter what ssd and graphics card.
they will make "optimizations" but separating main parts of the engine into several threads to make use of multicore they will not, they will probably not make it a true 64bits aswell, in the official forum has been stated that they care about legacy 32bits hardware being able to run it. which to me is crap.
all of this applies/applied to arma 2. you can find discussion topics about this same issues from 2-3 years ago on the forum.
basically, dont expect major changes for launch, they would need a lot of effort and invest more into the game for that, and i doubt they will.
quoting Suma, a lead bohemia developer from a post made 2 years ago about the same issues on arma´s 2 performance: "its too hard and we are not willing".
As shown by "homer simpson" on the steam discussion on the topic "horrible optimization" by using an api monitor,
most of arma 3 is handled by 1 thread including the IA, that means, 1 core.
thats the bottleneck and the reason the rest of the cpu is underutilized.
Amd x6 1075T (Thuban) @3600mhz watercooled (never goes past 46 degrees)
nvidia 660ti 2gb oc windforce (doesnt go above 45 degress on this game)
ssd agility 3 120gb
creative xfi titanium
win 8 pro x64
cpu max 35%
gpu max 45%
heli mission, 25fps at start, 18-22fps on air.
multiplayer with 20 people, at spawn fps drops below 10.
singleplayer on forest goes 50+ fps.
like ive reported, from mine and others, ive never seen more than 2 core usage based on % of total.
the reason for this is the game being mostly single core, they can optimize it to gain some performance but you would only see drastic performance improvements if they rewrote the core to properly support multicore cpus.