A2/A2F/A2OA Tweak Guide

[old_painless 183]

Cheers MAVEN, much appreciated (the ATOC part)

-OP

[MAVEN 1]

Glad I could help. OP :)

UPDATE: Guide optimized. General System Tweak Guide is now a separate and optional section (since it's somewhat outdated and not everyone finds it useful here) I also added some parameters in Parameters section.

Could an admin please rename this thread to A2/A2F/A2OA Tweak Guide or A2:CO Tweak Guide? Thank you in advance.

[[frl]myke 14]

Could an admin please rename this thread to A2/A2F/A2OA Tweak Guide or A2:CO Tweak Guide? Thank you in advance.

Done. ;)

[chrisb 196]

Just a suggestion for anyone running Win7.

In your ‘dll’ folder inside the Arma 2 games folder, remove all the mallocs, I put all mine into a folder inside ‘dll’ and named it ‘originals’, I just usually leave out the one I am using, but I removed that as said for this test. Of course you could remove them to anywhere or do the same/similar, do not delete them, put them somewhere safe.

This allows the game to use the default windows 7 setup, as laid out in the ‘readme’ that BIS supplied inside the ‘dll’ folder (best to read it).

Now I have for some time run the game via the Win7 32bit i.e. ‘Program files’ not ‘Program files (x86) 64bit, only because this gives me better performance and fps.

I ran one of my standard fps test’s with the mallocs supplied ‘removed’, I got an extra fps boost, this was around 10-12fps on the whole, also better than using ‘nedmalloc’ which I have also tested, I usually use the default malloc .

It ran very stable in a small skirmish setup with no real problems. On initial engagement and all firing more or less instantly, I got a sharp decrease in fps, but that soon stabilised and didn’t drop again after, even during heavy engagement, well not below the normal fps drop I would expect, fps remained reasonably high throughout the skirmish and the mission ran smooth.

It would be interesting to see if this method works for others with Win7, or if not, what results it causes. Don’t forget, if this doesn't work for you, you can replace the mallocs, as you found them or as you had originally setup..:)

[MAVEN 1]

Guide updated. G.A.S Memory Fix tweak added. This one is for expert users only, use at your own risk.

Myke;2274397']Done. ;)

Thanks :)

Just a suggestion for anyone running Win7.

In your ‘dll’ folder inside the Arma 2 games folder' date=' remove all the mallocs, I put all mine into a folder inside ‘dll’ and named it ‘originals’, I just usually leave out the one I am using, but I removed that as said for this test. Of course you could remove them to anywhere or do the same/similar, [b']do not delete them[/b], put them somewhere safe.

This allows the game to use the default windows 7 setup, as laid out in the ‘readme’ that BIS supplied inside the ‘dll’ folder (best to read it).

Now I have for some time run the game via the Win7 32bit i.e. ‘Program files’ not ‘Program files (x86) 64bit, only because this gives me better performance and fps.

I ran one of my standard fps test’s with the mallocs supplied ‘removed’, I got an extra fps boost, this was around 10-12fps on the whole, also better than using ‘nedmalloc’ which I have also tested, I usually use the default malloc .

It ran very stable in a small skirmish setup with no real problems. On initial engagement and all firing more or less instantly, I got a sharp decrease in fps, but that soon stabilised and didn’t drop again after, even during heavy engagement, well not below the normal fps drop I would expect, fps remained reasonably high throughout the skirmish and the mission ran smooth.

It would be interesting to see if this method works for others with Win7, or if not, what results it causes. Don’t forget, if this doesn't work for you, you can replace the mallocs, as you found them or as you had originally setup..:)

Nice suggestion. However you can simply use -malloc=system to get same effect without removing any of the dll's at all, regardless are you using XP, Vista, W7 or even W8 (if supported) your method should be used only if this parameter fails. Windows 7 memory allocator is a lot better than Vista's and is even better than XP's, I don't know about W8 though, perhaps W8 uses same memory allocator anyway.

Also worth mentioning is that ArmA 2/OA Beta comes with separate memory allocators from the stable release, you can find this under Expansion/Beta/Dll folder.

[chrisb 196]

I ran the test pure, no beta.

I have run the test with my full usual setup i.e beta with all my mods running and the dll’s removed (internal folder, easier for me) as above, the same result occurs only with slightly less fps boost 5-6 still nice and smooth no problems. I run a lot of mods, so this could be the reason for the lower fps boost, still an increase over usual use.

Now, caution, I have run this test a few times with different setup’s, mainly infantry based, all seemed better. However, I did a test flying, there is a problem for me here for some reason, whereas I thought it might be even better, instead I got a big decrease in fps over heavy terrain (Chernarus), plus alot of stutter too :butbut:, I usually do very well with flying over the same terrain with full vd under the same test, and smooth, but this proved very unsuccessful, I was using a Micro-Jet (BD5-J), so if your into flying a lot , this whole thing may not be a good idea, but worth a try perhaps, may work for you. I will try with armour (not that I do tank battles much, mainly do infantry with small armour/air presence), will see how it goes..

__

Regards the G.A.S thing, don’t go there, as Maven say’s in the OP, unless your really sure. The possible small increase in performance may not be worth the risk, if your not completely sure of these things. I’m not, so it will not be something I would do.

I myself will not tamper with anything behind windows, just what’s in front, tweaking your system i.e. keeping it lean, clean and running light, is all fairly easy using the applications mentioned in the OP (even then ask if your not sure).

Regards tweaking anything, only do something you yourself can undo, always back yourself up when testing new ideas out, don’t get rid of anything you had pre test, keep it safe or if need be write settings down that you started with, until your happy with your new results after the test, and not until you have fully tested your new results over a period of time, few weeks or more.

Tweaking the actual arma game is mainly about configs settings or in-game settings, these are all fairly straight forward, but ask if your not sure, someone on this forum will always help, don’t expect that a test done by someone else, will automatically work for you, even if you have the same system, its about much more than that, each system is used differently by the owner, what may work for me may not for you, and likewise..

Tweaking is fun, when you get the game to run better, its a great feeling, but stay safely backed up when your doing it. Likewise with your system, ‘do it’, only if you know you can ‘undo it’…;).

[MAVEN 1]

Excellent advice there Chris :)

About the tests, can you tell me did you use any memory allocator or Windows one? Because, from personal experience, Windows memory allocator finds it harder to manage faster memory allocations. In terrains like Chernarus it's possible to get stutter like you did since WIndows memory allocator can't keep up with the amount of requests A2/A2OA executable makes. This should be however resolved with faster RAM memory and specially dual or quad core CPU. Chernarus has a lot of objects, it can lag even on highest of gaming systems if all settings are cranked up to the highest.

[chrisb 196]

Yes using the windows one, perhaps then that is why its not good with flying, too much to cope with, I have to say it was low level flying, so pretty heavy going. I know the default bi tbb3 works o.k. and also ned, as I don’t usually have any problems running the same test, mainly always default.

Its interesting that the results on the ground with infantry are better than default malloc or others bi ones supplied, but in the air it’s a lot worse than the supplied ones. Suppose I could always change for mission types, don’t know if its worth it, I get good performance as it is really, at default..

Still, testing is interesting, it’s the only way to find out.:).

How would I implement 'Hoard', step by step please..:D, does it go into the dll folder as a replacement or somewhere else ? also as I play the game from 32bit win7 I assume it would be the 32bit hoard I use ? also placing the libhoard and winhoard obj file and lib file, do these go with the others ?, if it does go into that folder would it simply start ?

[MAVEN 1]

Good to hear it works for you!

Windows memory allocators are made with stability in mind, thus on the ground you don't have a lot of object switching unlike while flying, so there's the difference.

To get Hoard executed with A2/A2OA copy winhoard.dll to dll directory and execute it from -malloc=winhoard parameter in shortcuts. You can download the allocator from official Hoard website (32 and 64 bit versions). However, even though I tested it myself, there's no guarantee whatsoever, so use at your own risk. Also note that Suma (BI dev) put a comment in this thread about it:

- winhoard.dll cannot be used in its default state, as it does not conform to our allocator interface. Someone would have to make a derived project first and plug the hoard into the interface the game expectes. When you use winhoard.dll, you actually get a default allocator instead (same as without -malloc option). It is therefore strange your reported results are different for winhoard and tbb4malloc_bi.

Which might be true, however after I set a number of questions regarding this (Hoard) and other tweaks there were no replies. I am puzzled myself how could tbb4malloc_bi (default A2 memory allocator) show differences from Hoard if tbb4malloc_bi is executed when using Hoard is attempted.

[domokun 515]

Maven: if you haven't already, you might want to check-out this post:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?85124-ArmA2-OA-%28low%29-performance-issues&p=2081466#post2081466

As it contains a few tips that could be useful in your guide.

[MAVEN 1]

Maven: if you haven't already, you might want to check-out this post:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?85124-ArmA2-OA-%28low%29-performance-issues&p=2081466#post2081466

As it contains a few tips that could be useful in your guide.

Thanks, I'm already following that thread since I started this discussion. Most of people's issues listed there are because:

1. Their system is messed up (read littered with apps/games)

2. Outdated drivers.

3. Improperly installed mods or even games in some cases.

4. Lack of knowledge about using computers.

5. Poor internet connection/optimization.

6. Low system specifications, in some cases this isn't a problem actually but the person having all those issues has his/her pc filled up with tons of applications that run all the time and suck connection traffic, system performance and resources to a point gaming is impossible.

While I did note some tips in General System Tweak Guide section that should help resolve some of those, I can't help with lack of knowledge among majority of gamers. The only true way is to read books, or even better, attend classes (or even friend LAN parties) and learn it the proper way.

Nowaday's people buy pc's and expect them to work like spacecrafts, well, that's not going to happen.

[algrab 1]

the article doesn't so far cover the usage of following start parameters:

-cpuCount=

-exThreads=

might be important

[NeuroFunker 11]

might be important, if u want actually LIMIT the game, and tell it should use less cpu's/threads, same goes with -maxMem= setting, all that parameters, are used to maximum by default.

Btw heads up for ur thread maven! And thanks ChrisB, actually game is a lot smoother with system malloc, then bimalloc_4 i used before, also game is looking slightly better now, trees and bushed are more detailed at distance then before. I would recomment every win 7 user, to try system malloc, if your machine is not low end ofcourse.

[MAVEN 1]

Thanks for the suggestions guys. Will add them to the guide along other updates once I get more free time :)

[jiltedjock 10]

I've got a few experiences to contribute from the perspective of a very high end system:

Win 7 64Bit, GTX680 4GB vram, 2500k quad core @ 4.7Ghz, 16GB Ram, 1*500GB HDD, 1*128GB SSD, 1*60GB SSD.

My desired performance is 45FPS stable on Chernarus with a ViewDistance of 5000 and all the other settings maxed (other than shadows which I keep at High), no micro stutters (whether through FPS dips or texture accessing).

Traditional Anti Aliasing is a killer in Arma even on a box like this. More so on Chernarus. For me it is just not worth it. Obviously this means no ATOC. I've found Nvidia's post process FXAA in their newer drivers to be good. This is after many months of using various injectors etc, BI's SMAA etc. I now use the Nvidia FXAA exclusively in Arma.

Consider pegging the framerate. I would rather have 45FPS constant than switching between 60FPS and 35FPS. SSD for the install (or at least the PBOs) is definitely worth doing. I have some RAM set aside as a Ramdrive and have a page file on this - all my apps are 32 Bit.

If you have a quad core, create a dedicated server on your PC and build your missions to be played as multiplayer with you as the only player. This will offload the mission AI to the cores that your Arma client doesn't use. This one change will give you better client performance than nearly every other tweak I have tried over the years.

Edited January 16, 2013 by jiltedjock

[MAVEN 1]

I've got a few experiences to contribute from the perspective of a very high end system:

Win 7 64Bit, GTX680 4GB vram, 2500k quad core @ 4.7Ghz, 16GB Ram

My desired performance is 45FPS stable on Chernarus with a ViewDistance of 5000 and all the other settings maxed (other than shadows which I keep at High).

Traditional Anti Aliasing is a killer in Arma even on a box like this. More so on Chernarus. For me it is just not worth it. Obviously this means no ATOC. I've found Nvidia's post process FXAA in their newer drivers to be good. This is after many months of using various injectors etc, BI's SMAA etc. I now use the Nvidia FXAA exclusively in Arma.

Consider pegging the framerate. I would rather have 45FPS constant than switching between 60FPS and 35FPS.

If you have a quad core, create a dedicated server on your PC and build your missions to be played as multiplayer with you as the only player. This will offload the mission AI to the cores that your Arma client doesn't use. This one change will give you better client performance than nearly every other tweak.

Surprised you don't get 60+ frames (unless vsync is on) on your system. Nice tips.

I particularly liked this one:

If you have a quad core, create a dedicated server on your PC and build your missions to be played as multiplayer with you as the only player. This will offload the mission AI to the cores that your Arma client doesn't use. This one change will give you better client performance than nearly every other tweak.

Can you clarify it a bit more, with some step-by-step instructions? I'd like to add it to server optimization section of the guide.

[jiltedjock 10]

Surprised you don't get 60+ frames (unless vsync is on) on your system.

Arma is CPU limited. Monitor is 60Hz so I use Vsync. I would get 60FPS constant on Takistan etc but Chernarus will peak and trough, so I prefer to limit it to smooth it out.

Re the dedicated server, there are many guides on these forums to setting it up, and on the BI Wiki.

Edited January 16, 2013 by jiltedjock

[xenofei 1]

Is Maven actually banned? Who will update the post now?

[seba1976 98]

Is Maven actually banned? Who will update the post now?

I hope not.

The use of -maxvram doesn't make sense to me. Why would I want to tell the engine not to use all the GPU ram that it can get? And what would I notice exactly if I do? I have an old 512 card, and I've tried on Cherna with and without the parameter, and I fail to notice any difference. -maxvram=256 do the same for me than no parameter. Despite of me not making sense of telling the engine to use half my available vram, now I'm more concerned with the lack of difference. Shouldn't I have to notice something big :)?

[CSS_Hayzee 0]

the article doesn't so far cover the usage of following start parameters:

-cpuCount=

-exThreads=

might be important

This is what i was wondering about...have these parameters in my target line(from long ago), but forget what settings for each were...tried to search for info on these, but turned up nothing.

[chrisb 196]

I use 'cpuCount=4' for my quad core, 'exThreads' I don't use, but '7' I think is what is recommended, could be wrong on that though.

But to be honest I think the game auto detects stuff like this now, so not sure if its really needed now or not..:)

[domokun 515]

I tested cpuCount=4 earlier this month with the latest betas and found no gains in using it so I've dropped it

[griffz 1]

-exthreads=7 (or cpucount=4) is the default behaviour of the exe if it detect a quad core CPU . adding it to exe launch parameter doesn't do anything if you run it from a quad core. on a such machine , -exthreads=3 will help you to preserve 2 other core from be used for rendering.

-exthreads=3 can be usefull if you plan to run a dedi server + a client on the same quad core machine. in this case, the client can use 2 hardware threads, while the server can use 2 others. your server and client exe will not overrun each other, and will keep running decently and better than without there is little to no bonus to use exthreads=7. the MAJOR gain is the 2nd thread. arma dev explained that long time ago.

cpucount and exthreads param. are related in that way that cpucount value help arma exe to define exthreads value . cpu=2 means exthreads=3 (if NOT DEFINE MANUALLY) cpu=4 means -exthreads=7.

ps: disable any hyperthreading stuff. arma doesn't like it.

Edited January 24, 2013 by griffz

[MMrrTT 1]

Guys, what does this setting do GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1000 and what is the best variant for i7 920 + AMD 7950.

[orcinus 121]

Hi

Sorry for the belated response. Here is some information about using ERUNT (as ERUNTgui) to solve issues with a corrupted registry or a Win installation completely unusable due to a broken registry.

Download ERUNTgui from here: http://www.webng.com/krtech/ERUNTgui.htm

ERUNT is a well-established freeware program that I have used since 1998 with nary a problem. It has saved mine and friends' systems on variuous occasions.

It's quite simple to use. Some tips:

Best run from an administrator account (well, easiest anyway).

I install it to a different directory (indeed a different partition) than the default C:/Windows.

I back up daily as a routine on starting up. I also backup before installing any program, and most especially before doing anything within the registry.

Weekly I backup the recent files to my WD Eilte external drive, deleting files older than 8 weeks. You could use a CD or DVD otherwise.

Restoring from within Windows is easy - just launch the program & hit the appropriate box (cunningly disguised with the words "Restore the registry").

If you hacked the registry or for some other reason your system is broken, restore from DOS using either a DOS boot disk or the Windows recovery console, etc. Open the desired backup folder and launch ERDNT from within that folder.

ERUNT vs system restore:

Pre-Win 7 (e.g., XP) system restore did not back up the registry so it wasn't much use if the registry became corrupted by error or malware.

Slightly OT:

Even in Win 7 I have found ERUNT very helpful. A few years ago a friend with a Win 7 system (who I had advised to install ERUNT) got a persistent nasty that IceSword located in the system restore folder. Deleting the system restore directory from a live Linux DVD then restoring the registry from an earlier version from DOS solved the problem. Many (but by no means all) malware exploits involve registry hacks so restoring the registry from a pre-infection backup can immediately render the malware inactive.

Other malware may infect the MBR and sometimes logical partition data. Use HDHacker to make backups from your clean install & keep them somewhere safe with a copy of the program. Remember to update them any time you change partitions (resize/move, add new. etc.).