Dissapointed in the optimization (personal opinion)

[whisper 0]

The game has issues, but not as big as people comparing to other games think it has, because A2 is doing things no other game does, and I'm pretty sure it impacts what can possibly be done FPS-wise.

[maddogx 13]

Yup, the game has issues, but the average forum user can't exactly help you with those, can we? People here are giving you advice on the things you can do to try and work around them. Believe it or not, the game is actually playable when you have set everything up correctly. Admittedly, it does take a lot more tweaking than other games, but fortunately we are here to help you with that.

So please, do yourself (and all of us) a big favor:

1. Make sure Hyperthreading is off / turn it off.

2. Patch the game to 1.07.

3. Post your advanced video settings and resolutions (interface + 3D) so we can help you tweak them.

And I will assure you now, if you don't get at least +20 FPS by the time we're finished, Myke will post some nude pics of himself for your amusement. True story.

[cossack8559 10]

You can't really compare ARMA2 with games like GTA4, for example in GTA4 when that car you see before you turns a corner out of your sight it disappears from the game... where as in ARMA that Tank that has driven off out of sight will continue to fight on until its death or it succeeds.

Exact same thing for Just Cause 2, you can even see some cars spawn/Disappear right in front of you sometimes.. again this never happens in ARMA2.

In games like GTA/Just Cause when you are on one side of the map, the other side is dead... nothing going on what so ever... in ARMA2 this is not the case as you can place some units one the other side of the map when you get there the battle would of already taken place and you will see the aftermath of it all. :)

[[frl]myke 14]

The game has issues and i'm the last who would disagree, but:

This game does have more issues than others in general (look at the forums and complaints accross board) it does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Maybe it takes a rocket scientist to explain that those people who has no problems runnin the game most probably wont be seen here with threads like "WTF? ArmA 2 runs fine on my PC?".

Measured on sold units...well, i'm sure you can do the math.

To "the guys you bought your PC 4 months ago"....they sold you a 4890? Really a good salesman, indeed. Last Gen graphic card, you know. Even more as the HD5770 is comparable in price and performance but is DX11 (future proof?) and probably some more improvements below the surface.

Quoted from Tom's Hardware and apparently they know a thing or two.

Sure they do, about hardware but they know only a little about ArmA 2. They can't know and they're also not supposed to know more about the game, just not their main business.

PPPPS:- Wil patching the game help with the graphics etc? I am running V1.05.

Really sorry but: FPDR

Patching the game to most actual patch is the very first thing if issues are experienced. This goes under "perfect set up PC".

[SPC.Spets 21]

Sometimes a second card gives just 5-10 fps more, than one card. It depends on the game, and I think Arma2 uses more CPU than GPU.

I didnt knew that disabling HT increase the performance, thanks for that tip

[Medel 10]

if you get a 5970 you can max it out on a 1920x1200 screen like me i set my view distance to 3km, you dont really need more than that if your on the ground, if your flying however, set the view distance to 10km and reduce the terrain detail. but i dont really fly that much so i just leave it maxed at 3km view distance.

[Garfield2010 10]

Thanks I will do!!

[WhoCares 0]

There are other options you might consider, like with the respective tools define a RAMdisc (in your case I'd suggest ~2-3GB of your 8GB) and relocating certain resource files to it can significantly improve the data streaming performance.

Same goal but more expensive is using a SSD for ArmA2. I am considering this for my next upgrade (specs see signature). For this and the previous suggestion a search should come up with some related threads.

Usually I would suggest a (mild!) overclock of your CPU, e.g. to something like 3.2-3.5GHz. But as you are obviously not familiar with the BIOS settings I'd discourage you to go that way.

You might try an OC-tool of your mainboard vendor if such a tool is available (=> no messing with the BIOS) - it should be more safe, but still at your own risk... And only if you are sure that your cooling can keep up with the additional heat!

Edited September 13, 2010 by WhoCares

[TimRiceSE 10]

there was an assload of optimization in the 1.07 patch..................................... run it.

[zaira 10]

Some guys just dont realize that there realy isnt game like arma2. In many ways.

There are alot of caluclations at any times, for example you fight, and 20km away from you some AI can fight (your cpu is calculating that). No other game has so much grafic detail rendered at the time...

So n00bs will think about crysis and how great it looks, it does, but engine just aint rendering same distance (ditail is better, but overall number of information rendered at the time is lower than in arma 2).

Many people say metro 2033 looks great, shure it does, but most of the time you have view of 10ns of meters, and how crappy the game runs by just rendering that tunnels and rooms...

You can have hundreds of AI at some time, as far as i know no other game can do that.

If you are flight sim fan (like me), you would know that with 4.5Ghz gulftown and sli GTX480 you are lucky to have 25FPS (and that is fine) on FSX at some places.

There is nice topic about optimizations, read it.

This game isnt for people that dont have time to read, im sry.

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

the GTX 275 has very similar performance to your card.

I nearly doubled my average benchmark framerate with a computer upgrade including a second card.

I don't claim all SLI or Crossfire setups scale that well.

Arma2 OA benchmarks comparing before and after computer upgrade.

before http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1687556&postcount=35

after http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1698937&postcount=37

;)

It might aid your performance getting the Arrowhead expansion

Edited September 13, 2010 by [DirTyDeeDs]-Ziggy-

[kklownboy 43]

Video is set at very high and the resolution to the highest. If I set it down then it is as if the background starts to blur a little and I cant really see enemies beyond a few hundred metres.

Remember, my issue here is because I really expected the second card to make a difference of some sort. It made none. You can understand my frustrations etc?

your card SHOULD double your Frame Rate.But depends on your resolution of your display. I know this because i have used CF since Chek Arma0.99( it suxed bad back then).

Is your CF connector connected? Does your second card even work? Sometimes on "Pro" MB the second card is just 2Dspeeds or worse not even working. Need a Bios update for that if so.( have had to update every Bios of every MB(many)) to have working CF or SLi.( i am a early adopter)

You can chk the speed , usage of your second card with a few utility's out there.

CF AND HT do not mix well... Your choice?

Default on your Vidram setting.

In game settings can be set to have nice IQ and still have perfomance, your choice.

As for resolution.. well 2 4980s in CF will be nice for 1600/1200 with high settings. 19xx/1xxx is in the lower settings and lower VD.

I have 2 4870X2s in CFX and another box here with 2 49801GBs in CF, tested with all different settings, rez.

depending on the Res, the extra GPUs just give you more Fillters/IQ settings. Ill take that everytime.

PS what Bios are you using? Ati driver package?

[cream-t 10]

not sure if I missed someone elses reply but...

Why are people telling him to disable HT in bios and not adding to start line?

e.g.

"C:\Program Files (x86)\Bohemia Interactive\ArmA 2 Operation Arrowhead\arma2OA.exe" -nosplash -cpucount=4 -exThreads=0

Is it that start line commands do not work?

Been using since day one of OA so not compared HT on. But I am really happy with performance @ 1920x1200 mostly high settings.

Intel i5 750 CPU @ 3.2Ghz

Gigabyte P55M-UD2 MB

4Gb Crucial 1600mhz RAM

XFX 5850 1Gb XXX edition

Corsair Hydro Series H50 CPU cooler

Kingston V Series 64Gb SSD

Samsumg Spinpoint 250Gb HD

Corsair TX 650W

Edited September 13, 2010 by cream-t

[zaira 10]

not sure if I missed someone elses reply but...

Why are people telling him to disable HT in bios and not adding to start line?

e.g.

"C:\Program Files (x86)\Bohemia Interactive\ArmA 2 Operation Arrowhead\arma2OA.exe" -nosplash -cpucount=4 -exThreads=0

Is it that start line commands do not work?

Been using since day one of OA so not compared HT on. But I am really happy with performance @ 1920x1200 mostly high settings.

Intel i5 750 CPU @ 3.2Ghz

Gigabyte P55M-UD2 MB

4Gb Crucial 1600mhz RAM

XFX 5850 1Gb XXX edition

Corsair Hydro Series H50 CPU cooler

Kingston V Series 64Gb SSD

Samsumg Spinpoint 250Gb HD

Corsair TX 650W

Shure it does, but not only arma benefits from HT off. HT is good for some aps, but generaly for gaming it is better off.

[polar bear 10]

Turning off HT might not boost your FPS but it in a lot of games it can reduce stutter.

[meade95 0]

Regarding "resolution" settings within the video options?

What is a good range?

For Interface Resolution and 3D Resolution?? I have my 3D Resolution set to 100% (same as my interface resolution)... is this about right??

I average about 40-42 in Benchmarks.

I'm running a Quadcore Q6600 2.4ghz - 3GB RAM (XP) - With a GT8800 video card 512 RAM...

[xman1 10]

This one is simple. This game is more CPU bound than GPU bound. I could have told you that adding a new Vid card won't help you. If you wanted to test before hand, it is an easy test in that increasing or decreasing your resolution has little effect on FPS.

38 FPS is not bad BTW.

What is killing you is not the graphics, but the number of computed objects. This is why view distance is so important. Longer view distance, the more objects the CPU must keep track of. The only thing that really helps this game is CPU. GPU helps, but is only marginal in what it gives back as a price point.

Some notes:

Don't ever exceed 4km for view distance. It seems to lower the detail if you do in standard ARMA 2, but I think OA will let you do up to 7 km. View distance is also the biggest killer of performance on that entire video page. I find 4 km to be the max with a decent view distance.

Set your AA settings to low, and leave everything else on high, and see if that helps. But with two cards in crossfire, doubt it will help much. AA is the second biggest killer of performance on the entire options screen since it raises the computed resolution many times over (2x, 4x, etc.) to kill the jaggies in view. It also probably has the least affect on view quality. Highly over-rated, but it does look better, so use it if you can. It is almost entirely GPU bound and with two GPU's, I doubt you will see much difference between low and high from a frames per second point of view.

O/C your CPU is the last item. It is the only real thing that will make a significant difference.

Just my two cents.

-X

Edited September 14, 2010 by xman1

[Garfield2010 10]

Hey guys

I disabled Hyperthreading in my Bios and my framerate went from 37 to 42 in the second benchmark test. I have not had time ti play the game again but expect that it will be very playable now. Also XMAN1 thanks for the advice it makes perfect sense.

HTT also makes a difference in my other games. Is it therefore safe to assume that HTT should be disabled if you are a gamer mainly??

PS:- What is HTT's use in any case?

Lastly I understand AA will make a difference. What exactly is Anastrophic filtering (forgive the spelling) and will it also make a difference? (currently set at x 16). Thanks for all the help guys!!

[[frl]myke 14]

Anisotropic Filtering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisotropic_filtering

Should give you an idea what it does.

Some advices on different settings which might be worth to try out (no guarantee though it will boost your perf):

Shadow details: this is something special as the setting defines if shadows are calculated on CPU or GPU (rendering technique). On normal or below, shadows are rendered on CPU, on high and above on GPU. As you have a Crossfire setup, trying high/very high can increase FPS compared to lower settings.

As already being said, viewdistance has the biggest effect on performance. If you don't want to go with lower quality settings, this is the slider to pull more to the left. You might have to experiment with it, sometimes already small changes gives significant increase while the loss of viewdistance is marginal.

Object detail and terrain detail might also help. I guess your system can handle normal settings on both fine, higher settings...well, try it.

Personally, i do prefer disabling AA and raise 3D Resolution instead. IMHO it looks better with almost similar impact on performance. 3D performance does render the image in a higher resolution than your screen resolution which results in some sort of fullscreen AA. As said, worth to try and this is something where a Crossfire could have enough power for.

[ziiip 1]

Having 2 VGAs in the PC is one thing, but the AI is a resource drain, so you need to put your hands on a shiny CPU too.

[Garfield2010 10]

Cool thanks Myke

[maddogx 13]

Myke;1748988']Personally' date=' i do prefer disabling AA and raise 3D Resolution instead. IMHO it looks better with almost similar impact on performance. 3D performance does render the image in a higher resolution than your screen resolution which results in some sort of fullscreen AA. As said, worth to try and this is something where a Crossfire could have enough power for.[/quote']

This is actually an excellent idea. Crossfire and SLI should be great for running a higher 3D resolution. I would try disabling the basic antialiasing and running 200% 3D res instead. Unlike the shader-based AA, it will not cause edge artefacts because it is true supersampled AA.

I guess you could also try using both AA and high 3D res at the same time, but it will probably cause a huge performance loss for very little little gain.

[[frl]myke 14]

Personally i run 3D at 150% with screen resolution 1680x1050 with AA set to very low (not off) which looks fine for me and has good FPS on my HD5870. After all it is more about what one expect and can live with.

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

I compared settings AA off and 3D res 200% versus AA normal and 3D res 100%.

I found that AA normal and 3D res 100% gave better performance with my setup.

I dont have the numbers, but if people are interested I can demonstrate them.

Hey guys

I disabled Hyperthreading in my Bios and my framerate went from 37 to 42 in the second benchmark test. I have not had time ti play the game again but expect that it will be very playable now. Also XMAN1 thanks for the advice it makes perfect sense.

get your facts straight please, no way you get 42 FPS in the second Benchmark. you must mean Benchmark #1.

this is Benchmark #2

A6uNn0xmNYE

Edited September 14, 2010 by [DirTyDeeDs]-Ziggy-

[Garfield2010 10]

Why dont the Bohemia boys dedicate one page in the games manual to tips for guys to optimise their graphics. For instance the Hyper Threading thing. Who the hell thought that could make such a difference?