tk1138 10 Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) Now my problem is that my cpu is severely bottle necking my computer (its a amd dual core 3.2 ghz with a geforce gts 450 1gb) obviously the real solution would be to get a new computer which i am planning at the moment however i do not like the prices/technology at the moment so i am waiting for now, Any ways my question is what settings rely on the CPU or the graphics card...much like how i have read that the shadows must be at HIGH otherwise they will be run on the CPU. I am looking for tidbits such as this, if something does not take resources from the CPU then i would like to be able to increase the setting with out any adverse affect on the CPU.... right now i am running the game at mostly normal settings, 1080 resolution (both of them)PP very Low, Vsync disabled, AA disabled, terrain detail low, shadow detail high (cuz i heard that this makes them render through the GPU not the cpu) vis at 2127 also let me add that the sound samples are set to 16, since i know that those are run through the CPU as well... again i want to know which settings i can increase, with out having an effect on the load on the cpu, the thing that really taxes my system is when i add alot of AI... Edited October 16, 2011 by tk1138 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[frl]myke 15 Posted October 16, 2011 IIRC the following settings are tied to CPU: - Viewdistance - Object detail - Terrain Detail - Shadow detail (partially as you already guessed correctly) The matter with shadow detail is, on Normal settings (or lower), algorithms are used that run on the CPU. With settings above Normal, the algorithms can be calculated on the GPU. With this knowledge you can decrease load of a bottlenecking component. I hope this helps you to squeeze a few more FPS out of your system. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tk1138 10 Posted October 17, 2011 Myke;2038664']IIRC the following settings are tied to CPU:- Viewdistance - Object detail - Terrain Detail - Shadow detail (partially as you already guessed correctly) The matter with shadow detail is' date=' on Normal settings (or lower), algorithms are used that run on the CPU. With settings above Normal, the algorithms can be calculated on the GPU. With this knowledge you can decrease load of a bottlenecking component. I hope this helps you to squeeze a few more FPS out of your system.[/quote'] algorithms?? what is this some star trek talk.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mobeus 10 Posted October 17, 2011 Myke;2038664']IIRC the following settings are tied to CPU:- Viewdistance - Object detail - Terrain Detail - Shadow detail (partially as you already guessed correctly) The matter with shadow detail is' date=' on Normal settings (or lower), algorithms are used that run on the CPU. With settings above Normal, the algorithms can be calculated on the GPU. With this knowledge you can decrease load of a bottlenecking component. I hope this helps you to squeeze a few more FPS out of your system.[/quote'] surely ( no not shirly allthough she is nice enough in most cases ) any and all graphics related processing should be allowed to be controlled by the gpu , i cant for the life of me see why shadows should be under cpu , that is painfully rediculous. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maddogx 13 Posted October 17, 2011 surely ( no not shirly allthough she is nice enough in most cases ) any and all graphics related processing should be allowed to be controlled by the gpu , i cant for the life of me see why shadows should be under cpu , that is painfully rediculous. Stencil shadows are CPU intensive. That's just the way it is, and not just in Arma2. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[frl]myke 15 Posted October 17, 2011 My apologies, i didn't programmed the shadow calculations "things" (trying to avoid the term "algorithm") so i'm limited to tell you what i know of it. Thought it would help you in some sort. But as i see, the purpose of this thread was more to rant about how bad the RV engine is programmed. Sorry that i didn't noticed earlier and gave the correct answer from the start: yes, the RV engine is utter shit and should be prohibited immediately until it is significantly updated so it runs flawlessly on 10 year old hardware. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leon86 13 Posted October 17, 2011 add the game to the antivirus exception list if you're running an antivirus, should get you another 10% performance or so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MissionCreep 12 Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) You can't do a whole lot about AI - it is CPU bound. You won't be able to run scenarios with lots and lots of AI (maybe friendly and enemy AI in the hundreds combined). I generally don't find this a problem for 99%+ of the scenarios I play (seem my computer specs below - they are very modest). For better graphics rendering try Kju's Proper mods for OA: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=102678 which uses tweaks to increase view distance , simplified texture and geometric models to speed up rendering. You can pick and choose what mods you want and what you don't want. For ARMA II, Kju's mods greatly improve rendering of Chenarus/Utes vegetation with simplified model add-ons: http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=7252 With simplified models, I would also suggest zyco's LandTex which makes Chearus and Utes look more applealing to the eye http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=6050 Also play around with the in-game Video Options (turn sampling resolution, down view distance, object detail, terrain detail, post-processing, antialiasing etc) until you get something that appeals to your eyes and gives you decent FPS. Have fun optimizing! Edited October 17, 2011 by MissionCreep Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HR4 Elite 10 Posted October 17, 2011 There is always going to be drawbacks with Arma, its vast, AI eat fps, but skirmish type warfare where your using under 100 AI in city combat at once is pretty easy and playable, try using ‘DVD’ mod, auto alters your VD to help FPS… also ‘Sap Clutter’ and as already suggested ‘Landtex’, they all help a little. If your running Win7 drop it down to basic look and try ‘Game Booster 3’ it switches off programs running in the background which also helps a little.. Oh and check if its using your cores pretty evenly, I have a quad core and its really good at spreading the work between the cores, monitor it using AMD overdrive if you have it.. . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tk1138 10 Posted October 18, 2011 (edited) Myke;2039250']My apologies' date=' i didn't programmed the shadow calculations "things" (trying to avoid the term "algorithm") so i'm limited to tell you what i know of it. Thought it would help you in some sort. But as i see, the purpose of this thread was more to rant about how bad the RV engine is programmed. Sorry that i didn't noticed earlier and gave the correct answer from the start: yes, the RV engine is utter shit and should be prohibited immediately until it is significantly updated so it runs flawlessly on 10 year old hardware.[/quote']umm i was simply pulling your leg for using big science words...its the others who are giving the devs crap about making the shadows run on the cpu...i appreciated your quick answer, and it helped me and reinforced what i had read other places... what is an RV engine ?? is that the thing the games run on... also my specs are amd athlon x2 6400 3.2 ghz, nvidia 450 gts w/1gb, ddr2 slow ram 3.2 gb ram ( running 32 bit win XP) the video card is generally running at half or less than half gpu % power, both cores running at max, which angers me.... right now i am preoccupied/obsessed with building a new computer, can get the thoughts of 6 (and maybe even 8) core processors out of my mind...I thoroughly enjoy this game and its probably one of the better games ive played ever, the only short coming is my computer....not the devs, although a little optimizing here and there cant hurt, which im sure they do anyways. Edited October 18, 2011 by tk1138 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[frl]myke 15 Posted October 18, 2011 Sorry, i tend to be too cynic sometimes. My apologies. The RV Engine is indeed the underlying technical structure: it controls the rendering (givin the required data to CPU/GPU), it controls the AI, the scripts...just everything. Technically said: it is the backend of the game while everything you see and can control is the frontend (duh, some more Star Trek talk ;) ) If your graphic cards has some free cycles, you may invest them in some eyecandy like oversampling (setting 3D resolution above 100%) which results in some sort of fullscreen AA. Just experiment with different settings and watch how the GPU load reacts on different settings. With free GPU power you might increase the picture quality without major impact on FPS. About 6 or more cores: ArmA 2 wont benefit from it. On my 4 cores it rarely hit 50% load over all four cores. Although no one knows if ArmA 3 will benefit or not. So it is hard to give a really useful advice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leon86 13 Posted October 18, 2011 Well given the current trends and the fact arma 3 doesnt support dx9 anymore it's very probable it will scale well with cores. arma 2 doesnt scale well over 3 so if you're buying for now a fast quad is the way to go. 2500K is the "ultimate" cpu for arma (that is the 2600K performs 3% better at 50% more cost). when comparing processors you shouln't really look at cores/treads but relevant benchmarks and cost (so also factor in mobo). If you want to compare perfomance in games that multithread well you should wait a week or 2 until battlefield 3 is released. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tk1138 10 Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) Myke;2040151']Sorry' date=' i tend to be too cynic sometimes. My apologies.The RV Engine is indeed the underlying technical structure: it controls the rendering (givin the required data to CPU/GPU), it controls the AI, the scripts...just everything. Technically said: it is the backend of the game while everything you see and can control is the frontend (duh, some more Star Trek talk ;) ) If your graphic cards has some free cycles, you may invest them in some eyecandy like oversampling (setting 3D resolution above 100%) which results in some sort of fullscreen AA. Just experiment with different settings and watch how the GPU load reacts on different settings. With free GPU power you might increase the picture quality without major impact on FPS. About 6 or more cores: ArmA 2 wont benefit from it. On my 4 cores it rarely hit 50% load over all four cores. Although no one knows if ArmA 3 will benefit or not. So it is hard to give a really useful advice.[/quote'] regarding the part about 6 or more cores....im planning ahead, remember arma 3 is comming out in the future...i skimped on the parts for my first build (cuz it was after all my first, and i was young back then) this is what they said back in the day...most programs dont utilize two cores properly let alone four....im kicking my self now for it... Edited October 20, 2011 by tk1138 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
