168. seems ok

[pvt. partz 248]

This is in no way meant to be bragging it's simply meant to add as a stat. I see numerous topics with people having problems to one degree or another with 168. Single player I have no issues frame rates are great, multiplayer (Exile), no issues averaging 60 to 70 FPS.

[Midnighters 152]

I was averaging at least 75 fps in multiplayer on universally well performing missions. But yeah, I'm more stable around 80 - 90 fps. Plus the snap zoom is super smooth and doesnt cause stutter like beforehand.  Good to see you are seeing similar results 

[pierremgi 4738]

FPS is not the only point someone had to cope with. Even if 64 bit seems an improvement - I can't realize so much because I had to migrate from SSD to HDD - there are always bad points coming along with each new version of Arma.Most of them are not so important, as you can see on troubleshooting forum, like the fact you have to move the right scroll bar to choose an activation type of a trigger in Eden trigger window.

I don't want to speak for the BI's quality team, but 64 bit version came along with:

- UI light problems like the positioning of user HUD displays (for example, you can see difference in weapon HUD positions between player on foot and player in vehicle).

- IMHO, and probably less evident, initialization order and/or scheduler don't have the same consequences on scripts scheduling. I don't say there are bugs on engine or into users scripts. For me, with no computing skill,  It's rather an equilibrium between a bunch of scripts (heavy mods, scenarios, User interface) which could have changed for some CPU management reason. I'm not developer but I remarked plenty of topics relate some behaviors not working anymore. Mine was an artillery barrage which worked fine in 1.66 (from a counted down trigger) and totally disabled as soon as ARMA was updated with 1.68.  No change in scenario/script, no change in doArtilleryFire command. I had to shift my previously working script from trigger to add it as is in initServer.sqf... Other triggers are working fine. That's the reason why I thought 64 bit scheduler + rather  complex command (+ heavy mods CUP LINGOR) can induce some non-firing scripts... perhaps.

 

The fact is i wish to have some understanding for what it seems a lack of backward compatibility but could be probably something else. Good brainstorming for the best of Arma.

[shadowofjohn 0]

4 hours ago, pvt. partz said:

This is in no way meant to be bragging it's simply meant to add as a stat. I see numerous topics with people having problems to one degree or another with 168. Single player I have no issues frame rates are great, multiplayer (Exile), no issues averaging 60 to 70 FPS.

I wish i was you

[pvt. partz 248]

@pierremgi

You make a lot of valid points. We're all aware that each update seems to destroy more things and are more than it does fix. There are also thousands of parameters that can affect the way Arma is able to be played or not played for that matter. IE variations in software and Hardware. I simply wanted to point out that for some of us it does work so then the question becomes, why is that the case? The way I see it Arma has two things that people deal with, 1, issues, 2, problems. Issues, being those things in the game that have been broken since day one and continue to be broken or things that become broken due to updates. Problems are those things that users are having to deal with such as fluctuations in fps crashes and so on. EVERYONE  is dealing with issues only SOME are dealing with problems.