Why isn't it running good?

[SAYSteez 10]

Set yout game up in windowed mode, leave task manager up, run a heavily populated AI mission, let us see those screenshots of your "cpu" usage. At this point memory usage doesn't matter, the game uses max available for 32bit!

Wait it's a 32 bit program? Who's idea was that? And do you have a mission in mind?

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

Try with the campaigns or the built in "Diplomacy" mission.

[SAYSteez 10]

Try with the campaigns or the built in "Diplomacy" mission.

I tried the village life one since I couldn't find the one you were talking about but this one has people walking around and this is what I got http://img814.imageshack.us/img814/4010/wtfjv.png BTW what I don't understand is how the hell is it using 70% of my CPU in windows mode but fullscreen it uses 1 core at 90%+? theres no way it drops the CPU when I minimize since task manager pops up so fast...

Edited April 29, 2011 by SAYSteez

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

What is the point of a desktop if you dont use it? :rolleyes:

Also, there is absolutely no reason to not use the very latest version.

i use it, spam it with edited screenshots and text files, then i clean it up into my documents when im done ... :p

Edited April 29, 2011 by [DirTyDeeDs]-Ziggy-

[SAYSteez 10]

bump!

[Tankbuster 1733]

You bumped this thread an hour after the previous post? *sigh*

Is this going to turn into one of the many threads where a new users comes in, complaining their POS PC won't play the game at a million FPS, then turns abusive when everyone, quite rightly, tells them their PC isn't up to the job?

[SAYSteez 10]

You bumped this thread an hour after the previous post? *sigh*

Is this going to turn into one of the many threads where a new users comes in, complaining their POS PC won't play the game at a million FPS, then turns abusive when everyone, quite rightly, tells them their PC isn't up to the job?

LOL POS PC! A million FPS! Complaining! Troll harder please

[[frl]myke 14]

Your PC is giving the performance which can be expected based on the hardware. You might not understand the reasons (to be honest, i'm sure you wouldn't) but that's how it is.

Besides that, at first you come in complaining about a non-patched game where everyone knows (and not only related to ArmA 2, goes for every game out there) that trying with the latest patches first before goin into a supportforum for "help".

Then bumping the thread twice unnededly (also the forum rules state it isn't allowed anyway).

And finally, complaining about that it is a 32bit app, which clearly shows you have no idea about programming.

Probably you expect the game loading all your cores at 100% aswell as your GPU and filling your RAM up to the max. Get some basics on programming, especially about multithreading and the difficulties of it, then you might come back and discuss about.

Until then, clean up your PC, kill unneeded tasks, defrag your Harddrive and make sure you have the latest drivers for all of your hardware.

[Tankbuster 1733]

If it helps, until quite recently, I was playing this game with an 8800 GTX which is mostly the same as yours, but my CPU was more powerful than yours. I too was getting 30 FPS at native res, but I found that quite playable.

It's been said before, but this game is not a bunny hopping smartbomb fest. It doesn't really need any more than 30 FPS unless you're in a fast jet below tree top height.

As regards optimisation given your PC specs, you got most of your answers in the second post. Turn off AA and PP. View distance is more dependent on the CPU, not the GPU, so keep that below 3000m.

At the end of the day, your GPU was top range 4 years ago, your CPU too. Unless you can replace them both, you're going to have to optimise and live with what you get.

[SAYSteez 10]

Myke;1907882']Your PC is giving the performance which can be expected based on the hardware. You might not understand the reasons (to be honest' date=' i'm sure you wouldn't) but that's how it is.

Besides that, at first you come in complaining about a non-patched game where everyone knows (and not only related to ArmA 2, goes for every game out there) that trying with the latest patches first before goin into a supportforum for "help".

Then bumping the thread twice unnededly (also the forum rules state it isn't allowed anyway).

And finally, complaining about that it is a 32bit app, which clearly shows you have no idea about programming.

Probably you expect the game loading all your cores at 100% aswell as your GPU and filling your RAM up to the max. Get some basics on programming, especially about multithreading and the difficulties of it, then you might come back and discuss about.

Until then, clean up your PC, kill unneeded tasks, defrag your Harddrive and make sure you have the latest drivers for [b']all[/b] of your hardware.

1. I did try the game out with the latest version before I reinstalled it but I didn't try the level I was playing with and I didn't bench the FPS.

2. Yea I'm complaning about a 32bit app! I'm sure I would get about 5 fps or so if it used over 3GB of RAM because it's loading all that land and all of those objects which would give me about 30fps steady.

3. I wasn't expecting anything I was just saying the game could've been way more optimized.

4. I don't need to learn anything about programs, all I need to know is why they would depend on the GPU almost 90% of the time for such a huge game.

[maddogx 13]

Once you've patched the game to 1.59, you will want to turn off AToC for a performance boost.

Look in "My Documents" for an Arma2 folder and open up the Arma2OA.cfg file. Inside there should be a line saying:

AToC=7

change it to:

AToC=0

That should give you some extra FPS.

[KR303 10]

There is also a couple of little tweaks they have not mentioned that made a big difference for me.

Not exactly a massive fps increase, but a much more stable and improved overall performance!!

In your documents folder/Arma 2 folder....open your arma2oa.config in notepad.

Change ATOC=7 to ATOC=0

Change Maxprerenderedframes = 3 to =8

save and close

Then go into your nvidia control panel and for arma 2

set your maxprerenderedframes to 8

also force v-sync 'off'

This i read on these forums and made a massive diffference to my stability and performance!

As for what to do next; upgrade and think about using a RAM Disk to load the games .pbo files via shell link to get the most from all of your RAM. You want at least 8gig in your machine for that though [4gig for a RAM Disk]

Check the forums out!

Edited April 29, 2011 by KR303

[NeMeSiS 11]

Change Maxprerenderedframes = 3 to =8

Dont you get horrible mouselag?

[metalcraze 290]

I'm sure I would get about 5 fps or so if it used over 3GB of RAM

You wouldn't. RAM doesn't work like that.

I wasn't expecting anything I was just saying the game could've been way more optimized.

Dude, this is a PC game. With PC-level scale and PC level requirements. Your PC is older than the game itself (and I mean 2009)

Obviously for a bigger scale than a corridor with 5-7 bots at once (aka the console ports for 6 years old hardware that PC market is full of) you need a better PC.

Saying that my PC is far from top notch either as you can see in my sig and I get 30+ FPS on vegetation-filled Chernarus, let alone something as empty as Takistan with its deserts with mid-to-high settings (apart from PP which is set to v.low)

I don't need to learn anything about programs, all I need to know is why they would depend on the GPU almost 90% of the time for such a huge game.

Actually ArmA2 is more CPU dependable but your videocard is easily the culprit here.

[KR303 10]

Dont you get horrible mouselag?

Not for me. I have read that some people do and so set theirs to =1

But i also read to change to =8 by alot of people too

=1 For me is worse performance noticeably

See what ever works for him

[[frl]myke 14]

To 2:

Did you ever noticed that ArmA 2 is using the 2GB Ram it is allowed to use? Did you ever asked yourself why it doesn't? Could it be it just doesn't require 2GB Ram? You would even get less FPS (although barely noticable) due to the raised management overhead caused by 64 bit.

To 3:

To actually really know that the game could have been way more optimized you would need to have programming knowledge and the source code. The former i just can guess that you don't have but on the later i'm almost sure you don't have it.

Beyond that, anything else is just wishful thinking (which a lot of people do in here, me included).

To 3:

Excellent attitude...

I don't need to learn anything about programs

all I need to know is why they would depend on the GPU almost 90% of the time for such a huge game

If you want to know why a game depends on this or on that, IMHO you should at least know how programming works and where the tricky parts are and why.

But at least for the latest question i can give you a answer: because your GPU is sub-par measured by nowadays hardware. Deal with it.

[-)rStrangelove 0]

Myke;1907193']Hmm...afaik as soon the game doesn't have the focus (alt + tab'ed out of it) the game halts and nothing is calculated anymore. At least at my side it does this. So starting the game and then alt + tab'in to the desktop shows exactly...nothing.

Dunno if it was posted already here' date=' but you can use

[b']-noPause[/b]

in the startup link to make the game go on while alt-tabbin.

[mosh 0]

You bumped this thread an hour after the previous post? *sigh*

Is this going to turn into one of the many threads where a new users comes in, complaining their POS PC won't play the game at a million FPS, then turns abusive when everyone, quite rightly, tells them their PC isn't up to the job?

Myke;1907882']Your PC is giving the performance which can be expected based on the hardware. You might not understand the reasons (to be honest' date=' i'm sure you wouldn't) but that's how it is.

Besides that, at first you come in complaining about a non-patched game where everyone knows (and not only related to ArmA 2, goes for every game out there) that trying with the latest patches first before goin into a supportforum for "help".

Then bumping the thread twice unnededly (also the forum rules state it isn't allowed anyway).

And finally, complaining about that it is a 32bit app, which clearly shows you have no idea about programming.

Probably you expect the game loading all your cores at 100% aswell as your GPU and filling your RAM up to the max. Get some basics on programming, especially about multithreading and the difficulties of it, then you might come back and discuss about.

Until then, clean up your PC, kill unneeded tasks, defrag your Harddrive and make sure you have the latest drivers for [b']all[/b] of your hardware.

So, you come here asking for advice... and some of the most helpful people on this forum answer you, all basically saying the same thing, and yet you want to disagree with their answers and place blame somewhere else.

So what did you exactly want to hear? That outdated shit runs a modern game good? Sorry, not here...

[SAYSteez 10]

So, you come here asking for advice... and some of the most helpful people on this forum answer you, all basically saying the same thing, and yet you want to disagree with their answers and place blame somewhere else.

So what did you exactly want to hear? That outdated shit runs a modern game good? Sorry, not here...

Disagree? Are you even reading?

---------- Post added at 11:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 AM ----------

If it helps, until quite recently, I was playing this game with an 8800 GTX which is mostly the same as yours, but my CPU was more powerful than yours. I too was getting 30 FPS at native res, but I found that quite playable.

It's been said before, but this game is not a bunny hopping smartbomb fest. It doesn't really need any more than 30 FPS unless you're in a fast jet below tree top height.

As regards optimisation given your PC specs, you got most of your answers in the second post. Turn off AA and PP. View distance is more dependent on the CPU, not the GPU, so keep that below 3000m.

At the end of the day, your GPU was top range 4 years ago, your CPU too. Unless you can replace them both, you're going to have to optimise and live with what you get.

You were getting 30 fps steady probably I'm getting 25 fps through 35 if I'm looking close to the sky, and I can't reach 30 fps if I tried on any map while looking straight, and this CPU really isn't that bad as you're making it out to be! back in 09 the 955BE @ 3.8 with DDR2 RAM beat the i7 920 with DDR3 sure it's not an i7 clocked at 4.0 but seriously theres no need for that right now and also I am getting the MSI GTX 460 Hawk but after seeing my 9800GTX+ run all the other new games at 50 fps + I would've thought ArmA2 could've done just a little better... :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 11:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 AM ----------

Myke;1907907']To 2:

Did you ever noticed that ArmA 2 is using the 2GB Ram it is allowed to use? Did you ever asked yourself why it doesn't? Could it be it just doesn't require 2GB Ram? You would even get less FPS (although barely noticable) due to the raised management overhead caused by 64 bit.

To 3:

To actually really know that the game could have been way more optimized you would need to have programming knowledge and the source code. The former i just can guess that you don't have but on the later i'm almost sure you don't have it.

Beyond that' date=' anything else is just wishful thinking (which a lot of people do in here, me included).

To 3:

Excellent attitude...

If you want to know why a game depends on this or on that, IMHO you should at least know how programming works and where the tricky parts are and why.

But at least for the latest question i can give you a answer: because your GPU is sub-par measured by nowadays hardware. Deal with it.[/quote']

I like your attitude against this like I came out and said oh !$%# all of your answers since the game is not working haha! I was just starting a simple forum on the subject but clearly you can't stand it :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 11:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 AM ----------

There is also a couple of little tweaks they have not mentioned that made a big difference for me.

Not exactly a massive fps increase, but a much more stable and improved overall performance!!

In your documents folder/Arma 2 folder....open your arma2oa.config in notepad.

Change ATOC=7 to ATOC=0

Change Maxprerenderedframes = 3 to =8

save and close

Then go into your nvidia control panel and for arma 2

set your maxprerenderedframes to 8

also force v-sync 'off'

This i read on these forums and made a massive diffference to my stability and performance!

As for what to do next; upgrade and think about using a RAM Disk to load the games .pbo files via shell link to get the most from all of your RAM. You want at least 8gig in your machine for that though [4gig for a RAM Disk]

Check the forums out!

That did give me some FPS... Thanks

[Tankbuster 1733]

Certainly this game isn't cutting edge and it's not without it's faults, but you have to know, we get posts like yours every month, ney, week. So maybe you'll forgive us if we're a little jaded in our replies.

New users rock up, quoting system specs that are really quite out of date, some of them even try to run this game on 3 year old laptops, and then they get upset when they don't get the answers they expect.

You (and I'm speaking generally, not directly at you) can't compare this game to other FPS games, the engine is very different so all the old rules are out. You need a lot of CPU grunt in this game plus fast HDD. GPU power is not quite as important as you might think.

[SAYSteez 10]

Certainly this game isn't cutting edge and it's not without it's faults, but you have to know, we get posts like yours every month, ney, week. So maybe you'll forgive us if we're a little jaded in our replies.

New users rock up, quoting system specs that are really quite out of date, some of them even try to run this game on 3 year old laptops, and then they get upset when they don't get the answers they expect.

You (and I'm speaking generally, not directly at you) can't compare this game to other FPS games, the engine is very different so all the old rules are out. You need a lot of CPU grunt in this game plus fast HDD. GPU power is not quite as important as you might think.

Well I do know just by looking at the scale of the game it can't load the map off the DVD drive as fast as the HDD so I'm sure that's what's causing part of my slowdown since I read somewhere that this game reads a massive amount from the HDD itself so just having two drives isn't enough.. I know how it is getting answers about laptops and stuff playing any game.. I ask myself the same question as you do I'm sure, which is why do they even ask? But I was just wondering some simple things and now I know this engine isn't anything like any other game. I will be getting the MSI GTX 460 Hawk in a month give or take so I'm sure I'll be able to run this game at 50-60fps since I've seen videos with the same hardware do so.

[maturin 12]

You were getting 30 fps steady probably I'm getting 25 fps through 35 if I'm looking close to the sky,

Dude, the problem is on your end. I have a shitty little dual-core laptop with a 512mb graphics card and I can get 70fps while looking at the sky.

If your system is chugging that much when it doesn't even have to draw anything, there is some messed up component somewhere that's causing you trouble, some ill-advised mix of parts or settings.

[Tankbuster 1733]

I will be getting the MSI GTX 460 Hawk in a month give or take so I'm sure I'll be able to run this game at 50-60fps since I've seen videos with the same hardware do so.

Maybe. Look at my system specs. I average 50 FPS, so I think you'll be very lucky to do the same given your CPU and HDD.

[KEVINMGXP 20]

I'm not sure if i'm doing any good on replying but after some reading.

But this game only uses 517mb of VRAM max at 1080p and 1680x1050 Is the FPS normal or is something wrong?

To my knowledge a game's mini/maxi recuirments are most of the time tested on normal maybe advanced settings and not on the highest settings, if you want to maximise on your system then it will disappoint you whatever you try.

The point is your GPU is like said out of leage with ArmA 2 for nearly four years, i think you can be happy that you can still run it somehow pretty ok. You got tips to improve your performence slightly not like huge but slightly.

Im going to give you a other tip, i saw some screenshots from you. Maybe its time you kill some backlaying programs running in your system tray while you are gaming and not only by klicking it away but actualy kill the program by going in to your system and deactivate it. Seriously you don't need all that shit running, but hey its MS if i can crack a shot at them i will :-p, anyway it will not improve like wow i can run ArmA 2 like hell now but it also might help a little, also openening up your rig and look inside of it, it might help to clean the dust out! And believe me you would be supriced how much dust it takes on daily base when you use your rig intensively. I clean mine every 3 monts. And because of the age of a system a lot of people forget that it will affect performance. I think by this all the advice is given what we where able to give, and as last i want to say related to the fact you say newer games perform better, you also oughta know that Arma II renders a hell of a lot more then a general game that comes out to date ;-)

Overal: if you want better performance, save some money for a better rig or improve your rig if you're board allows it.

Kind regards.

Edited April 29, 2011 by KBourne
Gramma correction and cracked a shot on MS :p

[SAYSteez 10]

I'm not sure if i'm doing any good on replying but after some reading.

To my knowledge a game's mini/maxi recuirments are most of the time tested on normal maybe advanced settings and not on the highest settings, if you want to maximise on your system then it will disappoint you whatever you try.

The point is your GPU is like said out of leage with ArmA 2 for nearly four years, i think you can be happy that you can still run it somehow pretty ok. You got tips to improve your performence slightly not like huge but slightly.

Im going to give you a other tip, i saw some screenshots from you. Maybe its time you kill some backlaying programs running in your system tray while you are gaming and not only by klicking it away but actualy kill the running by going in to your system and deactivate it, it will not improve huge but it also might help a little, also openening up your rig and look inside of it, it might help to clean the dust out! And believe me you would be supriced how much dust it takes on daily base when you use your rig intensively. I clean mine every 3 monts. And because of the age of a system a lot of people forget that it will affect performance. I think by this all the advice is given what we where able to give, and as last i want to say related to the fact you say newer games perform better, you also oughta know that Arma II renders a hell of a lot more then a general game that comes out to date ;-)

Overal: if you want better performance, save some money for a better rig or improve your rig if you're board allows it.

Kind regards.

Thank you sir!