I think we can all agree... optimization

[Innomadic 10]

There's also the issue of possible bottlenecks in your hardware. I know my cpu at stock will bottleneck my gpu (i do plan on upgrading from my q6600 to a new sandy bridge cpu sometime after the new year :D ), and so I just overclock it a little to loosen it up a bit. ArmA2 and a few others run quite smooth afterwards. There was also the issue with Vista and the 30fps cap in ArmA2 that I never did figure out and run Windows 7 now anways. I chalk that one up to Vista just being...Vista. Funny that ArmA2 has a way of exposing slight issues with my PC that requires a bit of fine tuning that I wouldn't have noticed in other games.

Did overclocking your Q6600 make a big enough difference to warrant the endeavor? I too am going to upgrade rather soonish, but instead of A2 being the target its A3. But in the short term, if OC'ing the Q6600 does wonders, then i'll get around to doing it.

My system: Dell Inspiron 530

CPU: Q6600

GPU: GTS 250

RAM: 3.8GB

PSU: 240V AC

I also don't understand this weird defenciveness coming from some Arma fans. "It runs bad but it's so huge and complicated, so live with it!" or "It runs great, just buy a 3000$ PC!". Don't You Guys wana enjoy it with decent FPS without buying a top high-end PC? I believe it's possible, BIS just have to change/modify engine and work a little bit harder on optimization.

It runs great on my hand-me-down system with $200 spent updating the GPU and PSU. All depends on your definition of performance is. To others here they would be unable to cope with it from previous experience. I have also run the figures on my planned PC, and they certainly do NOT add up to $3000, try $1500 or so.

Considering the amount of playtime you get from A2, its worth it.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Innomadic

[Steakslim 1]

Did overclocking your Q6600 make a big enough difference to warrant the endeavor? I too am going to upgrade rather soonish, but instead of A2 being the target its A3. But in the short term, if OC'ing the Q6600 does wonders, then i'll get around to doing it.

My system: Dell Inspiron 530

CPU: Q6600

GPU: GTS 250

RAM: 3.8GB

PSU: 240V AC

.

To answer your first question, yes, since I have a GTX580, my cpu was cramping it's style. At stock mine, and yours most likely, is at 2.4ghz. Due to my house having no AC, I have to worry about temps in midsummer so currently i'm only OC'd to 2.7ghz. In winter I bump it to 3.2ghz. At 2.7ghz, it seems enough to get past the bottleneck with my card while keeping the voltage down (helping with the heat) and having the fsb and my ram in a sync of 400mhz.

My settings in game (from memory) are:

Textures: Very High

Memory: default (i've heard for most this is a better option)

AA: disabled

AF: Forced to x16 in nvidia control panel

Terrain: Very high

Objects: Very High

Shadows: Very High

HDR: Normal (8bit)

Post: Normal

Vsync: On

Resolution 1680x1050

3D resolution: 100% (I'm probably gonna play around with this to see what I can get away with later)

The end result was a smoother stable fps in some of the more cpu heavy moments in the game since my gpu didn't have to wait on my cpu so much. I haven't pushed view distances all that much while at 2.7ghz, usually just stay at about 3km. At 3.2ghz I can push them further if i wish. I imagine a better harddrive would resolve that entirely *cough* ssd *cough*.

As for you, I did a search on your PC. If you still have that 300 watt powersupply, I'd suggest not doing any overclocking, or at least without first knowing how much juice you are drawing right now, especially since you are running a video card and not the integrated graphics and other things that might be drawing power. In fact I kinda recommend getting a new PSU, but that's entirely up to you and your current financial situation. Best question to ask yourself is can you afford to replace your cpu if you kill it in your attempt to overclock it? And are you experiencing any bad performance issues that can't be entirely solved with turning down settings in the game since you're running a mid-range card?

[r3volution 0]

Optimisation would be great.. the fact that I have deliberately built my pc specifically around performance in the Arma engine and it STILL can't reliably push up above 30fps, when just about any other engine runs like greased velvet does somewhat concern me.

I know everyone is very quick to point out that the Arma series is like no other game and rah rah rah, and this is true. No other sandbox engine can do what the Arma engine does, BUT this does not alter the fact that its very poorly optimised. Now there is obviously no such thing as a free lunch but surely there has to be some way of reworking the engine so as to make it more efficient, of course, pushing it to 64 bit would be a good start, but that's for another thread.

Even keeping it in the realm of the 32bit, there have got to be some efficiency gains to be found. Especially given that there are a LOT of sandbox engines out there now, rather than when OFP was being coded.

[Heatseeker 0]

Optimisation is such a vague and strange term, did A2 need "optimisation" or is the game content and some design decisions pushing the game behiond what is.. optimal for it?

Was it ever optimal to make forests with thousands of independant trees (when they worked just fine in OFP)?

Is it optimal to make large towns with full enterable buildings (when most interiors are actually 100% useless)?

Is it optimal to make such high detailed character models and weapons (when you notice a fps hit by placing a single platoon)?

There will always be something to complain about.. but it helps when you know what you are complaining about.

[Innomadic 10]

As for you, I did a search on your PC. If you still have that 300 watt powersupply, I'd suggest not doing any overclocking, or at least without first knowing how much juice you are drawing right now, especially since you are running a video card and not the integrated graphics and other things that might be drawing power. In fact I kinda recommend getting a new PSU, but that's entirely up to you and your current financial situation. Best question to ask yourself is can you afford to replace your cpu if you kill it in your attempt to overclock it? And are you experiencing any bad performance issues that can't be entirely solved with turning down settings in the game since you're running a mid-range card?

I have an 800W PSU (although quality issues are starting to arise...), power is no problem. My issue is actually getting the right DOS to overclock (since the dell stuff doesn't seem to have anything related, though its old tech, update is necessary) and sorting out cooling, since the 530 box ain't big in terms of size and tech regarding the fans.

But yeah i've been tuning the in game settings for ages just to find decent frames when things get heavy, and nothing works, which is why a boost in CPU speed would be VERY welcome.

[metalcraze 290]

Was it ever optimal to make forests with thousands of independant trees (when they worked just fine in OFP)?

Yes. I completely disliked indestructible forests in OFP.

Is it optimal to make large towns with full enterable buildings (when most interiors are actually 100% useless)?

BIS didn't make AI use them so pretty much no.

Is it optimal to make such high detailed character models and weapons (when you notice a fps hit by placing a single platoon)?

FPS hit is due to AI scripts not because of models.

[hotshot0101 0]

i would like much optimization please.

[Steakslim 1]

I have an 800W PSU (although quality issues are starting to arise...), power is no problem. My issue is actually getting the right DOS to overclock (since the dell stuff doesn't seem to have anything related, though its old tech, update is necessary) and sorting out cooling, since the 530 box ain't big in terms of size and tech regarding the fans.

But yeah i've been tuning the in game settings for ages just to find decent frames when things get heavy, and nothing works, which is why a boost in CPU speed would be VERY welcome.

Depending on the bios that came with that Dell, and bare with me i'm reading up on this for you as i'm typing, you may not have the option to overclock, or if you do, it's very limited. I'm reading right now that it's highly unlikely that you will be able to since it seems dell not only limits the quality of their motherboards with things that makes overclocking even reasonably safe and possible, they cut out the settings necessary in the BIOS to do so as well to prevent someone from trying what you are wanting to attempt. Everything is proprietary and locked down it seems. Apparently even replacing the motherboard is out of the question due to it's layout being different compared normal retail ATX boards, they use in their towers some BTX model that isn't the same. In other worlds you will have a hard time finding a mobo that'll fit on the motherboard tray in your tower properly. Even if it's a ATX board with a similar chipset, it's size will be to the ATX standards and will not match up with the spacers you mount the board onto the tray with within your Dell tower.

I kinda feel bad reading this lol. I stayed away from Dell and other makers for so long i forgot that this would be an issue with them. Another reason I build my own, and I imagine it will be so for you when you do finally get around to upgrading.

[Primarch 10]

Buy a new computer, or go play OFP or ArmA 2.

[Heatseeker 0]

Yes. I completely disliked indestructible forests in OFP.

I disliked the bad performance and horrible looking lod's of the chernarus trees more than the indestructible forest..

[Innomadic 10]

Depending on the bios that came with that Dell, and bare with me i'm reading up on this for you as i'm typing, you may not have the option to overclock, or if you do, it's very limited. I'm reading right now that it's highly unlikely that you will be able to since it seems dell not only limits the quality of their motherboards with things that makes overclocking even reasonably safe and possible, they cut out the settings necessary in the BIOS to do so as well to prevent someone from trying what you are wanting to attempt. Everything is proprietary and locked down it seems. Apparently even replacing the motherboard is out of the question due to it's layout being different compared normal retail ATX boards, they use in their towers some BTX model that isn't the same. In other worlds you will have a hard time finding a mobo that'll fit on the motherboard tray in your tower properly. Even if it's a ATX board with a similar chipset, it's size will be to the ATX standards and will not match up with the spacers you mount the board onto the tray with within your Dell tower.

I kinda feel bad reading this lol. I stayed away from Dell and other makers for so long i forgot that this would be an issue with them. Another reason I build my own, and I imagine it will be so for you when you do finally get around to upgrading.

As i said, its a hand-me-down so i had no choice in the manufacturer. I'll see what the new BIOS does. Apparently i got the most updated version....LAAAAAAAME i hate dell with a passion now...

Edited May 29, 2011 by Innomadic

[Tom1 10]

Support for quad and hex cores and lots of threads (up to 8?).

[PuFu 4600]

why only 8 threads? i have 12 on my cpu, and know lads with 2x6cores with 24 threads..;)

[Tom1 10]

I didnt know you could get more :p

I reckon BIS should keep it completely up to date with top of the line hardware. Sandy bridge and bulldozer CPUs are coming out soon, hopefully support for them will be in arma 3.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Sandy Bridge is already out, bro.

[onlyrazor 11]

How about Ivory Bridge? That's still in the works, right?

[zaira 10]

I have every arma game and expansion.

And with every game you make (since flashpoint), i need to wait 3 years to play it with decent visuals/fps on high end hardware at that time.

Im tyred of this, i didnt finish campaign in arma2, AO, BAF, PMC, becouse i just dont stand the stuttering. And i wait IVY BRIDGE 22nm on soceket R to have enough cpu power to run the game with decent amount of AI and visuals.

I would buy top system today (im engineer anyway and i use CAD/ FEM so i need good system) but even with highest performance system with 50% overclock i cant get good fps. OK, so i need to wait 1 more year like with your other games....

What i want!

1) 64 bit native, and use RAM, design game to utilize 24+ GB of RAM (as it will be normal 4 years ago when the game will be playable), i hate stuttering, and the only way to eliminate this is to use ramdisk.

RAM is cheap and in the future it will be even cheaper, load everything in RAM.

2) Better multicore ( design the game to utilize minimum 4 cores, and run on 16 wich will be normal 4 years ahead).

3) DX 11 native, the whole part of rendering in your engine isnt using modern GPUs to its full potential

Im not trolling, i realy like your games, but you just aint fair to us. Dont realise unfinished/unpolished games.

Im shure that ARMA 3 wont mach my expectations, becouse there realy isnt time for team as small as yours to make new engine or optmize old one an 1 year.

[dale0404 5]

zaira, what are your system specs now?

These are my settings from another thread:

These are my settings:

This is the result from benchmarking (E08):

I have an I5 750 @ 2.67Ghz, GTX 460 1GB GPU, 4 GB of DDR3 RAM.

Edited May 29, 2011 by dale0404

[Westsailor 10]

Then every single FPS guide or link on Google must be wrong...

I only assumed that most people agreed that ArmA 2 runs worse than it should, at least with all the people I've talked to.

Are you kidding me? This is the ONLY game I have that allows me to play at a reasonable frame rate at 1280X800. And with all details/objects/textures/etc. set very high. On 2 year old laptop.

MW2, COD, Crysis 2, etc.? I'm 'pushing the envelope' at 1024X768 with a 'medium' level of detail. If I want real smooth it's gonna be 800X600.

And those scripted games don't even come close to the sandbox (and its level of detail) that Arma 2 has me playing in.

[Innomadic 10]

Are you kidding me? This is the ONLY game I have that allows me to play at a reasonable frame rate at 1280X800. And with all details/objects/textures/etc. set very high. On 2 year old laptop.

MW2, COD, Crysis 2, etc.? I'm 'pushing the envelope' at 1024X768 with a 'medium' level of detail. If I want real smooth it's gonna be 800X600.

And those scripted games don't even come close to the sandbox (and its level of detail) that Arma 2 has me playing in.

Just gonna put it out there that i am 100% opposite to this. It is completely the other way round on my end.

[hotshot0101 0]

totally agree with innomadic

---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------

the game looks good but the graphics can still be better and we don't need to wait for a new processor to come out imo

[zaira 10]

zaira, what are your system specs now?

These are my settings from another thread:

q6600 @ 3,4 GHz 4GB RAM, ati 4850, and i7 920 @4,2 with ati 5970 6GB RAM.

Why are you even asking me and showing me pictures of benchmark 8, like it represents something...?????

Try benchmark 2, or try warfare server, or just try campagin, or playing in elektrozavodsk scenario.

cmon

Game is using only small amount of avalable ram. Streams textures all the time (it is just the way they implemented streamning, becouse limitations in the engine, i guess this amount of ram was considered high when the engine was written), implying hdd stuttering.

How long are you in this forum? Didnt seen RAMDISK title?

Did you ever played with editor and alot of AI?

How many AI is on E8? Is E8 in big city (lot of textures)?

Are you trying to tell me E8 represents ingame performance?

There are tons of arma 2 performance analysis out there on web, on much better systems than ours.

No trolling, just representing my opinion.

Have a nice day, and please dont consider this post as any kind of attack.

[dmarkwick 261]

The BIS devs have made posts suggesting that a move to 64 bit operation won't make any significant improvements to performance.

[NeMeSiS 11]

It's just full mysterious vendettas against certain computers. Most of the people who bitch about having to play at 30fps have more expensive PCs than the people who run it perfectly, it seems.

I am just going to have to agree with this, i am not able to reproduce the complaints of most people who have an unreasonably low FPS.

EDIT: Also, turning of fraps and playing the game instead of worrying that my FPS counter turns red sometimes increased my enjoyment by 400% back with ArmA1.

Edited May 30, 2011 by NeMeSiS

[Zipper5 74]

EDIT: Also, turning of fraps and playing the game instead of worrying that my FPS counter turns red sometimes increased my enjoyment by 400% back with ArmA1.

This. I would forget my computer was pretty much dying trying to play ArmA.

Until it actually died. 4 times. Thank God for warranties.

:p