Yet another ARMA2 Unplayable due to performance thread

[Ace1102 10]

Yeah Hi,

I have tried EVERYTHING i've read on these forums and nothing is working, EVERYTHING!@

Im at the end of my rope here, feel free to flame me for making yet another thread but it has to happen...

Changing GFX settings in game no longer makes ANY difference to frame rate, I get a maximum of 10 fps in the benchmark no matter what I do, I've even dropped all settings and resolution to minimum and still 9fps, which is 1fps lower then the result with GFX on HIGH and 1920x1080 res.

The game is obviously very poorly optimized... VERY VERY POORLY...

I've tried every trick in the book, the most promising seemed to be changing the .exe to CRYSIS.EXE which (With the use of GameClaw) showed that all 4 GPU's were working, although only to a maximum of 14% utilization, which did drop the CPU utilization to 50-60% (Otherwise it would max at 80%)

See Specs below, I don't think I have to tell you that my PC specs shit all over the required specs, yet the game is still 100% UNPLAYABLE...

PC SPECS;

CPU - Core2Quad Q6600 (Overclocked to 3.2ghz x 4)

GPU - 2 x GTX295 in Quad SLi (Sli Appears to be working in game)

RAM - 8gb DDR2 1066mhz (Corsair Dominator 5-5-5-15 Timing)

HDD - 2 x Triple RAID 0 Arrays

Mobo - ASUS Striker Extreme - 680i SLi

PSU - OCZ 1010w - SLi Ready

So there you have it, Put me down as yet another unsatisfied customer, Im glad I bought this game when it was cheap on special, but I still feel as though I've been ripped off, I've purchased a game that is not suitable for release, terrific...

Any help would be greatly appreciated, Im about | | that close to deleting the game, not shelving it to wait for a fix, DELETING IT...

Thanks in advance...

-Ace

[WackyIraqi 0]

Have you checked what exactly is your bottleneck? Monitor your GPU usage/temps. Same with CPU usage and Memory usage.

Also, your HDD setup is odd to me. Why do you have dual triple raid 0 arrays? This seems like it could cause some problems. Its apparent to me that you aren't exactly limited on the money, so invest in a fast read/write SSD and your performance should skyrocket :)

[(AEF)Swordsman 10]

+1 to the above. HDD is key for ArmA performance :)

[Ace1102 10]

I wasn't limited on the money when I built this PC 5-6 years ago, but now I have a house and stuff I can't justify the expense, the missus would shoot me :p

RAID 0 was the fastest thing at the time so thats what I went with, and I have a total of 4.5 TB of HDD space, hence the unusual setup, no other software has issue with it, this is the most trouble I've had trying to get a game to work.

Also, I cannot seem to identify any bottleneck, there seems to be a glass ceiling to the performance of the game, CPU sits around the 60% utilization and the GPU's sit around 14% nothing is being maxed out, it just doesn't work :confused:

It may be worth mentioning that I get the exact same performance in the game when I am on 10,000 meter view distance as compared to 500 meters...

EDIT:

ARMA 2 Lives entirely on a single RAID Array, along with all my other steam games, I did this to optimize the speed of loading games.

One RAID Array for OS, and One purely for games...

EDIT X2:

I have just tested again using 'Force 4-GPU Alternate Frame Rendering' and sat and watched for awhile, The temps of GFX Card #1 actually started to drop from 65 degrees to ~55, inline with GFX card #2 which was always sitting around the 56 degree mark.

CPU temp stable @ 55 degrees the whole time.

---------- Post added at 01:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 PM ----------

Contents of my ARMA2.CFG ;

language="English";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=100000;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Resolution_W=1920;

Resolution_H=1080;

refresh=60;

winX=16;

winY=32;

winW=1294;

winH=970;

winDefW=800;

winDefH=600;

Render_W=1920;

Render_H=1080;

FSAA=2;

postFX=2;

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=5;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=80;

HDRPrecision=8;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=939524096;

nonlocalVRAM=2147483647;

Windowed=0;

Can anyone see anything in that which may be causing some grief?

'GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=80;' - I have seen no mention of in anyone elses ARMA2.cfg threads, not sure what that does?

---------- Post added at 01:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:26 PM ----------

I just had another thought reading through some other threads again, the only thing that I haven't tried is disabling PhysX, and that is only because I cannot seem to find a way to do that, there is no option in the Nvidia Control panel to disable PhysX, I know there USED to be, but since about 185.xx drivers that seems to have dissapeared.

I only have the option to select which GPU will be dedicated to PhysX (Or set to CPU), playing with these settings I am able to change my setup to Tri-SLi with 1GPU dedicated to PhysX, or leave it on Auto-Select, which runs it as Quad-SLi with 1 GPU dedicated to PhysX... The option to disable it completely is no longer there?

Also, GTX 295's are only a DirectX10 card, but when you get 2 of them strapped together, it seems to detect and run as DirectX11, I always found that strange but couldn't explain it...

Edited May 15, 2011 by Ace1102
New information

[Beagle 684]

Is this performance issue in SP or MP?

Because in MP you can have a supercomputer and it dos matter. when the Servers gos gown in fps (5) beyond a point the clients fps goes down practically too even when the system itself could do better.

[Ace1102 10]

I haven't even bothered to try MP yet as I cannot even play SP ... :(

Hell, The FPS in the main screen seems to be capped at 9fps, Im lucky if I have the patience to even get past there

[larsiano 12]

You're CPU is really bottlenecking the SLI setup, have you tried with one card / without SLI enabled? What background programms are you running, like virus scan etc? Do you have the same issue in other games? And what mission are you testing on, hosting a mission you're self will require lots of CPU power and lots of AI (more then 100) will have this as a result. Predet. frames should not be that high, this is my std. setting:

The game runs smooth on a Intel i7 950 + GTX285 + SSD RAID0 and has run just as smooth on my old E8600 CPU system with everything maxed out from day one:

Arma2 has gone from 20 frames /sec to 45 frames a sec after the 1.08 / 1.09 paches

language="English";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=100000;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Resolution_W=1920;

Resolution_H=1200;

refresh=60;

winX=114;

winY=42;

winW=1365;

winH=1024;

winDefW=1365;

winDefH=1024;

Render_W=1920;

Render_H=1200;

FSAA=4;

postFX=5;

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1000;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=3;

HDRPrecision=8;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=1050345472;

nonlocalVRAM=2147483647;

Windowed=0;

vsync=0;

AToC=7;

what you could do is move the .cfg outside its folder while the game is not running and the game will automatically make a new one once started that will be back at the standard settings. Also make sure you have the latest Nvidia driver and sounddrivers, or try the april update of DirX. Hope it helps!

[gossamersolid 155]

yeah for troubleshooting, just try it with one card instead and see how that rolls.

[Ace1102 10]

Was only running the benchmarks, using Benchmark 2 in Campaigns.

I have got the latest Nvidia GFX drivers, Updated my sound card drivers (Have an X-Fi Fatal1ty Titanium) will update DX now and see if that works.

Also, your MaxFramesAhead is set to 1000 ??

And is the AToC setting only for Operation Arrowhead?

Thanks for the reply, will try now and check back here shortly :)

[vohk 10]

Can anyone see anything in that which may be causing some grief?

'GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=80;' - I have seen no mention of in anyone elses ARMA2.cfg threads, not sure what that does?

At the risk of sticking my foot in it, that looks a wee bit odd. If I understand the parameter correctly, it means that the game is detecting that your GPUs are trying to prepare 80 frames ahead of time. That .cfg value is a read only- it detects it at launch according to the BI wiki. I don't know where that config setting is in Nvidia's control panel (I have ATI), but I think you might want to crank that down a little. The general recommendation for Nvidia cards seems to be 0-3 frames ahead.

[metalcraze 290]

80 frames rendered ahead?

I agree - that can definitely bring your system down to its knees. Go into your NVidia control panel and fix it.

I recommend zero as more can cause mouse lag.

[rangerpl 13]

Benchmark 2 is at unplayable single-digit FPS for me as well, this happens because that's an extremely CPU-heavy benchmark. However, during normal play, you will never see your PC getting pushed that far.

My CPU is slightly slower than yours (mostly because of clock speed) but as you can see, my PC is not as good as yours. You will not experience such lag in regular gameplay.

[Ace1102 10]

OK, So I deleted my ARMA2.cfg and let the game make me a new one, I also disabled SLi and ran the benchmark again.

ARMA2.CFG Contents;

language="English";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=93750;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Resolution_W=1920;

Resolution_H=1080;

refresh=60;

winX=16;

winY=32;

winW=800;

winH=600;

winDefW=800;

winDefH=600;

Render_W=1440;

Render_H=900;

FSAA=2;

postFX=1;

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1000;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=3;

HDRPrecision=8;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=911605760;

nonlocalVRAM=2147483647;

Windowed=0;

Look alot like Marsiano's CFG (Minus the AToC Setting which is for Arrowhead?)

The FPS in the splash screen has gone up to ~40 fps so there's a major improvement, but in the benchmark its still stuck at a maximum of 9fps :(

CPU Utilization was back up to ~80% and GPU Utilization showed only 1GPU working but it did not surpass 7% Utilization, AARGH!!

In older games, the trick was to load up the GFX settings to push the load away from CPU and back to GPU, but that doesn't seem to work the same in this game :(

EDIT:

I figured that this particular benchmark is more brutal then most, but I also want to make sure that when I am playing that the game doesn't slow that much, I assume when I do eventually get into the game that this is a fairly standard 'Large' battle, so I would assume that I will be seeing something similar in game?

Edited May 15, 2011 by Ace1102
Reply to previous poster

[rangerpl 13]

What are you getting in Benchmark 1?

Beware: BM2 is NOT a graphics benchmark! It stresses your CPU most of all. Contrary to common logic, in ArmA with a fast GPU and slower CPU, you will need to increase graphics settings to increase performance.

---------- Post added at 12:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 AM ----------

EDIT:

I figured that this particular benchmark is more brutal then most, but I also want to make sure that when I am playing that the game doesn't slow that much, I assume when I do eventually get into the game that this is a fairly standard 'Large' battle, so I would assume that I will be seeing something similar in game?

It's not. There are some large battles, but most of them are hardly that big, most ArmA missions are simulation platoon-level-and-below combat. I've yet to run into a scenario that's as taxing as Benchmark 2. I'm sure somebody's made one but the most common ones are perfectly playable, even on my budget box.

And, as I said earlier, you will need to turn graphics settings up to make your CPU's job easier. Shadows set to high are important, that offloads shadows from your CPU to the GPU.

Also did you install patch 1.09? That'll fix issues as well, the original release version of ArmA was pretty laggy, it only gets better with time.

Edited May 15, 2011 by RangerPL

[Ace1102 10]

I bought the game on STEAM so I could only assume that it auto-updates itself, I'll double check game version next time I start it...

So far tho this is starting to look promising :D

I can see 60fps in the splash screen (Unheard of lol), BM1 gives me Avg 23FPS on current settings, the only thing I changed was AA-low and AF-off, still running 1GPU.

BM1, CPU Utilization stable 70%, GPU utilization 12%.

Some visible image tearing but it looks to be getting close to being playable :)

I noticed the FPS jump to 60fps in BM1 when it was looking around at the sky and tree tops when the chopper flies past, but in the open areas drops to about 14fps.

Keep the ideas coming guys, you're all awesome :D

[rangerpl 13]

Are you running just ArmA2 or also Operation Arrowhead?

And I think you can turn SLI back on, since it wasn't causing your previous problems anyway.

Don't get discouraged if you don't see 40+ FPS consistently, in ARMA, 25-40 FPS is considered a victory. Not because of "poor optimization", but because the game is extremely sophisticated and has to simulate a lot more than your average run-of-the-mill shooter does.

[Ace1102 10]

Just put the gfx settings pretty much on maximum, ran BM1 again for an Avg 20fps, VICTORY!! :P

I think I should be able to play it now with a little tweaking here and there, and with the gfx on max the game looks stunning!!

Still running 1 GPU, that time in the benchmark the CPU Usage hit 93% but the GPU still only 11% utilized...

I have no idea what was causing the shocking performance beforehand, but im pretty much back to the same settings I had and its running atleast 200% better...

I'll try SLi back on now and see if that kills it, maybe there is some issue with Quad-SLi, or perhaps there is some other issue with my particular setup that isn't ideal.

EDIT:

Just ARMA2 at this stage, If I can get it to run right I'll most likely invest in some add-ons :)

Edited May 15, 2011 by Ace1102
Because I Edited It...

[rangerpl 13]

You might want to ditch post-processing effects. They will make you sick, and they cause some lag on their own.

Ditching Anti-Aliasing is what I'd suggest, that's a surefire fix for your graphics lag but it makes the game look like crap.

BM2 is tough on the CPU because it's simulating an assload of projectiles flying through the air all at once.

[Ace1102 10]

Ahh dammit, Quad-SLi Kills it... :(

BM1 back down to avg 8fps, also the sound/music cuts in and out, lots of stuttering...

Looks like I may have found my issue, Either the game doesnt like Quad-SLi or by turning that on, the load shoots back to my CPU causing unplayability :(

I will have to keep tweaking I think...

---------- Post added at 03:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 PM ----------

OK That seems pretty obvious then,

Benchmark 1 Results;

Quad-Sli = 8fps

Tri-Sli = 9fps

Twin-Sli (One card disabled) = 18fps

Single GPU Mode = 23fps

(Doubling GPU Power seems to HALVE Frame rate..)

Game does not like Sli mode, that is using -winxp and -maxmem 2047 start options on the shortcut, also renamed the arma.exe to crysis.exe as per other hints to kickstart the SLi.

Looks like the only way to play is in single GPU mode, which results in the highest avg fps, also the gfx options all set to VERY HIGH (Except AF and AA which are on LOW) running 1920x1080 res (and 3D res) with a 4000 meter view distance.

Lowering the gfx options seems to have no effect on the FPS in the benchmark, setting AA to VERY HIGH will result in the same as quad-sli benchmark (about 8fps avg).

Hopefully this thread can help others in the same situation as me.. Best bet, disable SLi and go from there :(

[rangerpl 13]

Ditch Anti Aliasing then.

[blackmamba 0]

leave vid memory set to default not high or medium or low.....default so windows controls mem not arma2.

newest beta patch has optimized the texture loading..

Changelog :

[80336] Optimized: Reduced frame rate drops caused by texture loading

[79768] New: Mods can be configured using Windows Registry.

[79670] Fixed: AI warping at distance in singleplayer

[79645] New: parameter "angle" for reflectors

http://www.arma2.com/beta-patch.php

runs pretty nice here so far .....

Edited May 15, 2011 by blackmamba