Performance Issue

[speckfire 1]

I'm not happy with my system either.

I can play AA on 1024x768 with low graphics but I want more.

My system specs are the following

AMD Athlon X2 4600 (dual core)

1GB DDR 400MHZ Ram

250GB SATA 2 drive

Nvidia GeForce 6800 (AGP)

What do you guys recommend?

Upgrade or new system?

[Bunkers 0]

What do you guys recommend?

IMO you only need a better graphics card. It will make a HUGE difference for you to play on high settings.

[speckfire 1]

Thanks Bunkers.. I guess I'll change the Mobo to go PCI-E and get a good Video card. Adding Ram should help in the long run too.

[killerwhale 1]

Hey, it looks like the grass is only generated within 50-70 meters around the player, Is there anyway to improve this? get a good CPU, Increase Memory? something to do to improve this, or ar we stuck?

[CHKilroy 0]

I get terrible frames no matter what resolution.

AMD Athlon 64 Processor 3200+ ~2.1GHz

(Two SLi'd) nVidia GeForce 6600GTs 128Mb (Driver Version: 6.14.0010.9371)

Onboard Realtek AC97 (Driver Version: 5.10.000.5750)

2Gbs of RAM (Two 1Gb sticks)

German 1.01 Armed Assault

DirectX 9.0c

[Dudester 0]

I just wish somone somwhere would post a good FPS and then list there specs. i get 15 to 30 FPS wich i think is crap thats with AA switched off, Anti alias switched off, shadows low, the rest on medium. I only bought this computer last year and thought it would run most games for atleast 2 to 3 years. I can't see this game doing that well at in multiplayer. Not eveyone has the money to upgrade there machines and whos of to upgrade to a computer that this game requires to run smooth. Its bad enough that you cannot up the Resolution let alone the settings to high on the system i have.

2 gig ram

Geforce 7800

msi diamond motherboard

AMD 3500

Audigy 2 soundblaster card

[JackHorner 0]

I just wish somone somwhere would post a good FPS and then list there specs. i get 15 to 30 FPS wich i think is crap thats with AA switched off, Anti alias switched off, shadows low, the rest on medium. I only bought this computer last year and thought it would run most games for atleast 2 to 3 years. I can't see this game doing that well at in multiplayer. Not eveyone has the money to upgrade there machines and whos of to upgrade to a computer that this game requires to run smooth. Its bad enough that you cannot up the Resolution let alone the settings to high on the system i have.

2 gig ram

Geforce 7800

msi diamond motherboard

AMD 3500

Audigy 2 soundblaster card

Yo I was in the same boat as you man. I have a nice computer and could only play at 30fps max, and that was rare to see. I wrote out a tweak in this thread that pretty much works for everyone. It will almost double your fps, I went from 30 to 60 in lower settings. Before doing this tweak I had to run almost everything at normal to low, after the tweak I have been able to turn on AA, AF, Post Processing to high and textures to high and get a pretty stable 35 to 45 fps. Try it out man, it freakin works.

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....74;st=0

Goto my post a few up from the bottom, the big post.

NOTE: I have since changed my settings to 150000, you will understand when you read the post. Good luck

[lee_h._oswald 0]

It will almost double your fps!

Tried it, and I got 0 frames more. (german version)

Edit:

And I'm going mad seeing again getting EXACTLY 30fps, which is the half of the 60Hz my TFT is running at!

MfG Lee

[JackHorner 0]

It will almost double your fps!

Tried it, and I got 0 frames more. (german version)

Edit:

And I'm going mad seeing again getting EXACTLY 30fps, which is the half of the 60Hz my TFT is running at!

MfG Lee

hmm that is odd, the tweak works because it reduces the polygons on screen by alot. That would give any gfx card a boost. Im betting that you have some other setting that are getting in the way. Im inclined to think its something to do with triple buffering being unchecked and vsync being disabled but thats just a guess.

Are you sure you changed the profile file in your "other arma profiles" folder and not in the default arma folder?

It could be something to do with the German version though as I have the Czech version.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

I'm sure at everything I have done for a whole week now.

The list is ENDLESS!

I can do what I want, there is no way to get ArmA playable without setting everything to ultra low AND change the resolution to 640x480 which looks HORROR on a widescreen tft.

This is the worst performace problems in a game I have everseen.

And it's not only this one pc, we tested on 6 differrent computers, laptops with different graphic cards. from GF6600 up to GF7900GT. Low fps whatever you configure.

MfG Lee

[Sgt_Eversmann 1]

have you disabled vertical sync?

I feel kinda sorry for you...because I know how it feels if you cannot play a game very well that you like

And you have a better Hardware then me...

[JackHorner 0]

I'm sure at everything I have done for a whole week now.

The list is ENDLESS!

I can do what I want, there is no way to get ArmA playable without setting everything to ultra low AND change the resolution to 640x480 which looks HORROR on a widescreen tft.

This is the worst performace problems in a game I have everseen.

And it's not only this one pc, we tested on 6 differrent computers, laptops with different graphic cards. from GF6600 up to GF7900GT. Low fps whatever you configure.

MfG Lee

Man im really sorry to hear that, I know how much of a headache these things are. I don't know what to say, this tweak has worked for four of my friends so far.

Maybe we could get someone else with the German version to try it out and see if its a problem with that version.

[maxqubit 1]

@LeeHOswald

I'm sorry to hear that.

I have P4 2.8, 1GB ram, AGP 7600GT, clean windows, -memsize=768, 1024x768x32

And it runs like ... errm fine on normal settings (i'm no fps junkie but it is reasonable fluid)

I have the german online version running from hdd (no disks)

I have tweaked some minor things to the XFX 7600GT 256MB

So, seeing your specs a 7600GT AGP should do the trick. I think the 128, 256, 512 GPU VRAM makes a big difference (perhaps a 7600GS 512 isn't that bad, but my 7600GT is nice)

To buy a new rig out of frustration???

[lee_h._oswald 0]

I preordered a GF8800GTS which will arrive next week with a bit luck. Then I will test that thing in my other pc(HTPC).

Note: I will have to put my cpu, ram, audigy from one pc in the other one and make a clean windows install, optimize windows, overclock the cpu to have the best base for ArmA.

A LOT of work no one pays me for...

---

Btw, here is a list of things I tried so far(I'm sure I forgot something, will add later):

Quote[/b] ]

- 4x different chipset driver

- 3x different vga driver (older, latest, latest beta)

- 1x new sounddriver for the audigy

- 1x new OpenAL software installed

- disabled "turbo mode" of the audigy

- 2x checkdisk for partition c: and d:

- 3x defragmentation

- checked that "compress files" is disabled

- checked my RAID 0

- checked drive speed

- checked that enough drive space is available on c: and d:

- 1x complete fresh install of Windows on another harddrive -> ArmA runs slower

- disabled all not needed windows services

- disabled all not needed startup programs

- 2x scanned for virus -> nothing found

- 3x scanned for spyware -> nothing found

- checked for new bios

- tried bios settings like "agp aperture size" 32/64/128/256/512

- installed latest directX

- changed the pagefile(virtual memory) disabled/50MB/1024MB/2048MB

- checked the temperatur of: cpu, gpu, motherboard, power supply, ram, hard drives and my head

- installed another power supply

- over- and underclocked my cpu

- over- and underclocked my gpu

- tested with 2048MB dualchannel mode

- tested with 1024MB singlechannel mode

- checked if "amd cool and quite" is disabled

- tried 3x different dvd-rom drives

- installed arma 4x

- installed arma on partition c:

- installed arma on partition d:

- installed arma "special edition"

- installed arma "normal edition" (yes, I own both)

- installed arma on my htpc (home theater pc)

 -> AMD 3200+(939), 1024MB, GF6600GT, GF7600GT also tested

- installed arma on a pc at work

 -> AMD 3500+(AM2), 2048MB, GF7600GS

- installed arma on a friends brand new notebook

 -> core 2 duo, 1024MB, GF7600 GO

- 3 other friends installed it on their pc's (one has oc'd amd OPTERON cpu and GF7900GT)

- started arma with version 1.00 and 1.01 -> last one is a tiny bit faster

- started arma with and without virus protection enabled

- started arma with the "audigy"

- started arma with "onboard sound"

- started arma with "sound hardware acceleration" on/off

- started arma with "vsync" on/off

- started arma with "triple buffer" on/off

- started arma with "aa" on/off

- started arma with "af" on/off

- started arma with "max. rendered frames ahead" 0/1/2/3/4/5

- started arma with all 4 different nvidia "image quality settings"

- started arma with desktop resolution lower then ingame

- started arma with 16/32bit color depth

- started arma with a "dvi" cable connected to my tft

- started arma with a "normal vga" cable connected to my tft

- started arma with my widescreen tft

- started arma with my "normal" 19inch tft

- started arma with my lcd beamer (1024x768)

- started arma with -maxmem=512/-maxmem=640/-maxmem=768/-maxmem=1024/-maxmem=1536/

MfG Lee

[Sgt_Eversmann 1]

poor dude.

hopefully you can enjoy arma soon

[Chris Death 0]

I must say that i see lot of ppl expecting too much from

their systems, especially when it comes to viewdistance.

I remember in OFP a viewdistance of 900 meters has always been good for playing on average systems, but in ArmA the

discussion always starts at 1200 and above.

With our current systems we should imho be around the 900m

viewdistance or maybe less, since it's the first hardware

generation to run ArmA.

I also see some ppl complaining to have waisted their 42-50

bucks for that game, while i rather may have waisted my 999

euros in october for a new pc (bought for ArmA in first case)

but i should have been waiting a little longer to see what

i will really need.

I understand the frustration if there's a new favourite game

comming out and you can't play it and i remember having

had this very often in days before OFP e.g: NHL Hockey series. In OFP i started with a 700ghz pc and and afterwards

i never experienced the probs with buying newer generation

hardware not running games like they should.

Now ArmA sets a new standard of hardware requirement and

i think it'll take a while until we all can enjoy into it like we should or want.

p.s: i also feel sorry for you Lee Harvey, that you can't play it

like you want now.

~S~ CD

[maxqubit 1]

@LHO

Weird, the only thing all these 'tries' have in common is your ArmA copie(s) ...

I have the online version and run from hdd (no disks involved) ... I'm not saying you should try that, but it is a thought.

[dmitri 0]

My performance issues are almost entirely related to foliage.

I run Rivatuner's monitoring app (sorta like fraps, but it gives you a realtime graph of FPS) on my second monitor. Place my unit in a sparse region near a bush (only bush for at least 100 meters). I get 55fps 10 meters from the bush, I run towards it and as I enter it - drop down to 18fps, the second I run out of the bush - back upto 55fps. Slowdown only occurs very close to or in foliage.

My fix has been to drop shading detail to low (OFP level foliage ). Still see a FPS drop though. The other settings had little affect on this specific problem.

I'm running the German version, patch to 1.1 on an AMD 4200 @ 2500mhz, 7900, 2gig RAM, X-fi.

The game does look beautiful though - even with reduced settings. Love Monte Liberacion (HJ45) at sunrise.

[norsu 180]

I run Rivatuner's monitoring app (sorta like fraps, but it gives you a realtime graph of FPS) on my second monitor. Place my unit in a sparse region near a bush (only bush for at least 100 meters). I get 55fps 10 meters from the bush, I run towards it and as I enter it - drop down to 18fps, the second I run out of the bush - back upto 55fps. Slowdown only occurs very close to or in foliage.

I'm running the German version, patch to 1.1 on an AMD 4200 @ 2500mhz, 7900, 2gig RAM, X-fi.

Yep, those bushes are really fps killers . I tried to edit to give them smaller textures but that didn't help much (1-2fps). Perhaps there is something wrong with their models? If they are simply too high poly, BIS could make an option for next patch to install lower quality bushes.

Oblivion had similar problems with its grass. Someone released a grass model with lower polycount and it helped greatly while still keeping quality high.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

Screens are resized from 1680x1050 to 800x500.

Config changes:

sceneComplexity=1 <- Yes, ONE.

(highest value is 1000000 btw)

Placed myself here(my testing place for fps and texture loading):

Because of sceneComplexity=1 nothing can be seen:

Great FPS for seeing nothing.

MfG Lee

[Goldenwings2002 0]

My performance issues are almost entirely related to foliage.

I run Rivatuner's monitoring app (sorta like fraps, but it gives you a realtime graph of FPS) on my second monitor. Place my unit in a sparse region near a bush (only bush for at least 100 meters). I get 55fps 10 meters from the bush, I run towards it and as I enter it - drop down to 18fps, the second I run out of the bush - back upto 55fps. Slowdown only occurs very close to or in foliage.

My fix has been to drop shading detail to low (OFP level foliage ). Still see a FPS drop though. The other settings had little affect on this specific problem.

I'm running the German version, patch to 1.1 on an AMD 4200 @ 2500mhz, 7900, 2gig RAM, X-fi.

The game does look beautiful though - even with reduced settings. Love Monte Liberacion (HJ45) at sunrise.

This is exactly my problem. I am running the game at 1280x1024...

Problem for me is I get a fricking slide show when running through just a few bushes or trees. I do not have any crappy video card or system so this is uncalled for.

[Vänskä 0]

System:

ASUS S775 IP965 DDR2 SATA2

CORSAIR DDR2 KIT 2X1GB 800MHZ HEAT SPREADER

2 x SEAGATE BARRACUDA 7200.10 320GB SATA

INTEL CORE 2 E6600 2.4GHZ 1066/4M S775

GeForce 7900GTX 512MB GDDR-3 650MHz (NVidia ForceWare version 91.31)

The game runs really sweet for me. I play it on 1280x1024 resolution and everything on high (except postprosessing since I don´t like how it looks) and I have a viewdistance of 3500m.

I can run the game also everything on very high including 10 000 viewdistance. The game runs fine, though I get some LOD issues and random crashes by that memorything.

Here some of my experience. Viewdistance does effect my FPS (it being somewhere around 40-60 usually) very little. But there´s little point to keep it much over 3000 because the objects won´t still be drawn.

Changing resolution has some effect but I don´t need better FPS and my monitor doesn´t support higher resolutions.

Texture settings is the probably the one what causes my some problems if I set very high. I will eventually run out video memory. This has also some effect on the FPS.

Postprocessing has also some (quite a lot) effect on the FPS.

Object detail is somewhat the same as texture detail. Slight effect on FPS.

Shading doesn´t seem to have any effect on my FPS.

So in my experience biggest factors are resolution, objects, postprocessing and antialiasing.

And yes my FPS goes down like everyone elses when going into dense forest, bushes or such. Grass can be a problem if you use scopes or binoculars (specially when lying on the ground) FPS can drop from 40 to 10 instantly, but this not such a big or a common problem.

Practically all the issues I´ve have are MP related but that´s a different story and it´s a no short list.

[Guggy 0]

AMD Athlon 64 3800 (2 of 'em)

Nvidia Geforce 6100 GPU

2 gigs ram

Now I'm pretty confident MY video card shouldnt even -WORK- for ArmA, yet it somehow manages to. I can get maybe 20-30 fps with view distance set to 500.

640x480 resolution, lowest all settings.

It was still enough to play the campaign all the way through, but I'm certainly looking forward to the Geforce 7950 I'm picking up tomorrow. I'll run ArmA at 800x600 (crap monitor ) , but hopefully the fps will be over 30, maybe even 40.

[Mr_Tea 0]

AMD Athlon 64 3800 (2 of 'em)

Nvidia Geforce 6100 GPU

2 gigs ram

What videocard is that?

Onboard or AGP, and how much memory does it have?

[Goldenwings2002 0]

These are my system specs:

Intel Core 2 DUO e6700 2.67GHZ w/ Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro | 2x 1GB Corsair 6400C4 | eVGA nForce 680i SLI (122-CK-NF68) | XFX GeForce 8800GTX (PV-T80F-SHF9) | Creative SoundBlaster X-FI XtremeMusic | Thermaltake ToughPower 850W | 2x Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATA II in RAID 0| Dell 2405FPW | Antec Nine Hundred w/ Modification of 4x Arctic Cooling 120mm Fans (AC12)| Samsung SH-S182M DVD-Writer 18X |

I can barely play this game @ 1280x1024 near any foliage. It runs great if I am not near any foliage, but the moment I put myself near or even think about looking at a few trees/bushes the fps drops to slideshow FPS. Everything is on Very High but now I have been changing a lot of things and still am getting the fps hit @ 1024x768 near foliage. This is just sad as it was funny trying to kill someone in multiplayer in a fogged up forest. They couldn't hit me and I couldn't hit them LOL. 1 FPS...