Performance Issue

[Evil Weasel 0]

ArmA is two games in one -> A really bad one when you have to play with fps lower than ~30. And a fantastic one with fps over ~30.

No wonder so much ppl complain about vehicle steering and other handling problems in Arma. With low frames it's close to impossible to drive a car. With high fps it's easy as hell.

MfG Lee

You've got it spot on Lee-H_Oswald. I tried running Arma with an Nvidia 6600GT and it was highly frustrating, even with everything on low. I spent Å130 on a 7900GS and it nows runs fantastically smoothly with everything on medium/ high. I've been slightly baffled ever since by the level of complaints on the forum about Arma. Yes, there are some bugs, but overall playing Arma is an amazing experience. Despite my love for OFP, going back to it feels like a return to the dark ages.

I'm afraid that the unpalletable truth is that the minimum graphic card spec for ENJOYABLE play is a 7xxxx series card ( sorry, I don't know the ATI equivalent). If you have an older card and can afford to upgrade, do so. You will be stunned by the difference it makes.

[van Nistelrooy 0]

The thing I can't understand is why my config can run perfectly all over games (Oblivion included) in very high settings with all filters on.

For sure there is a very big problem with bushes and grass, 'cause ArmA runs fine if there's no vegetation in the screen.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

ArmA was on german television last night.

...

They had to install ArmA on different PC's, the fastest one was half way able to run the game.

The freedom and very nice graphics was presented very well, but when it comes to play some missions everything went bad.

The performance was pure horror, he wasn't able to play smooth because of the low fps and the constant frame drop.

They tried on very high, low, very low but the performance was crap. I wonder they didn't call it UNPLAYABLE.

It's so sad seeing "our" game presented that way.

BIS, I beg you! Make a performance patch for ArmA or this game will never be a "big player" on the market!

MfG Lee

[khayes 0]

i bought the german version on internet, and when i tested it, i couldn't even play in its lower resolution.

i have an ASUS A78NX-E, AMD 2400+, 1G RAM, and a nvidia 6600 AGP8x 256.

i found this webpage and now i really have a better FPS.

I forced desactivate Vsync and triple-buffering. i also set to 'controlled by application' the other parameters. now i tune arma in its own video config.

the difference is impressive. maybe that could help you too

[Mr_Tea 0]

They`ve presented ARMA out of the Box, not patched.

No wonder that they had massive problems.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

They`ve presented ARMA out of the Box, not patched.

No wonder that they had massive problems.

And that is exactly what a "normal" user does.

MfG Lee

[sickboy 13]

They`ve presented ARMA out of the Box, not patched.

No wonder that they had massive problems.

It's unbelievable how such noobs can get into a tv serie showing computer games, really... it's a shame, and it is exactly the reason why I would never let myself being guided by usual reviews, not on tv, neither in books actually... they are supposed to be professional reviewers, but if their systems suck in configuration, their games unpatched while ArmA had a pretty huge performance bug in v1.0 .. then i'm sorry, but they are nothing more than idiots...

And that is exactly what a "normal" user does.

Lee

So everyone just have to take into account for all the ppl in the world that either:

[*] Don't use their brain

[*] Don't seek proper support on products that they buy

[*] Don't take the responsebility of having a properly configured and installed computer?

I'm sorry, but I think when we wen't over the 18+ years mark there were certain responsebilities that we learned to live with. If you don't have a drivers license, then don't drive until you have...  If you don't know how to use a drill, you better first test it or get a teacher, before you try to drill holes...

It's always nice and easy to put the blame on other's shoulders... many ppl forget self responsebility, but that's simply their problem..... and not somebody elses

[lee_h._oswald 0]

So you buy a car and there is something wrong with the engine and it's ok?

But hey, you are over 18 it must be ok. Just use your brain.

Don't let us get to far away from the discussion, but the performance problems cost BIS money and I believe that is not their main plan.

MfG Lee

[sickboy 13]

So you buy a car and there is something wrong with the engine and it's ok?

But hey, you are over 18 it must be ok. Just use your brain.

Don't let us get to far away from the discussion, but the performance problems cost BIS money and I believe that is not their main plan.

MfG Lee

The car is a very good example.... Thanks for bringing it up:

When you buy a new car and when there is something wrong with it... you just push the car on the side of the road, go stand outside, shouting "Stupid car", you walk the rest home, and you will never buy this "brand" car anymore.

No, you use your brain, common sence if you want to call it that, and you go back to the dealer, and demand a fixed or new car (probably just fixed, patched, version v1.01) ...

That's how things work.. To pull the example to your words about that "normal" users would only play version 1.0 and not v1.01, then those users are simply stupid, as in the example of a car that is not working properly... they wouldn't return it.. just never buy the same brand again...

I'm wondering why this is off topic, as it's just another view, another opinion, on the topic and your view...

I agree that the bad performance is a bad seller, and I hope BIS can come up with some patches that can adress the issues that ppl are having... But testing version 1.0 and complaining about low fps, while it's a known bug and already fixed from release day 1 in patch v1.01, then sorry... but what are we talking about? Besides, most complainers can have a descent FPS with properly configured systems, clean and healthy driver installations, and especially don't think that a system that was "top notch" 2 years ago, while the graphics card back then was already budget or middle class, will perform well on high settings. Altough you are right, that even ppl with proper/moderate systems do have performance issues aswell...

Many compare ArmA to other games aswell:

"ArmA runs shit, but Doom III and Quake 4 on highest graphics settings run just fully smooth"...

yeah well, arma is showing you 1200m of viewdistance, with many objects, units, etc in view, while a doom or quake shows a couple of square meters, usually...

Anyway, again, I agree that there can probably be done a lot in the engine, with future patches and probably even future driver updates, but the fact remains that most ppl try to put the responsebilities elsewhere, and simply expect something that they can't really expect...

[Stag 0]

MfG Lee

So everyone just have to take into account for all the ppl in the world that either:

[*] Don't use their brain

[*] Don't seek proper support on products that they buy

[*] Don't take the responsebility of having a properly configured and installed computer?

I'm sorry, but I think when we wen't over the 18+ years mark there were certain responsebilities that we learned to live with. If you don't have a drivers license, then don't drive until you have... If you don't know how to use a drill, you better first test it or get a teacher, before you try to drill holes...

It's always nice and easy to put the blame on other's shoulders... many ppl forget self responsebility, but that's simply their problem..... and not somebody elses

Not everyone, just the people who want to sell software to the blokes (who probably outnumber us 10 - 1) who just want to sit in front of their rig and shoot things. These people will plug a game in, play it for five minutes and then get on to every forum they can reach screaming how crap the game is, because they get their expectations of how something should run from playing with a Nintendo. Irritating? Yup, but they do have the money developers need to produce their next title, and they don't take kindly to being told to RTFM.

The fact is, enthusiasts are always in a minority. If they depended only on the members of this forum for their income, then even if we all bought a title when it came out BIS would soon be nothing more than a memory. That's the economics of

survival.

You can take comfort in your eliteism, but it's the plebs who will make this title succeed or fail.

I'll just go and duck now, 'cos people are always taking pot shots at the messenger.

[sickboy 13]

...

You are very right, but in your example, the ppl do start shouting on a forum, where they probably get pointed to a patch that will fix their problems anyway..

Lee's example was stating that the casual gamer would do exactly as the reviewer; install game, say it's crap, and that's that. And to that I made a reply..

And indeed, companies should concentrate on how the world works, and not on how it should work, as that would probably mean the end of the company...

[lee_h._oswald 0]

There is no discussion about "ppl should know about patches for games". Sad as it is, installing patches is normal today.

And as we all know, the patch 1.01 DID NOT fix the performance issue for everyone.

I only tell, this is bad for ArmA, it's community and BIS(and their money).

It's hard to show friends how fantastic ArmA is, when the performance is crap like it is now.

MfG Lee

[Stag 0]

I'm also a fan of A game called "Battle of Britain 2; Wings of Victory" which when patched to 2.05 becomes the finest combat flight simulation available for WW2 (aside from the woeful lack of multiplay). Buy it, I heartily recommend it. But one Noob got the game and ran it unpatched. The next thing he did was put a scathing review on Amazon of how unplayable the title was. I wonder how much damage that did to the sales of the game?

BTW, one thing I've noticed on this forum is that if people ask for something, they are more or less told to stop wasting everyone's time and use the search engine. To me that's even worse than RTFM, but that's just my observation.

[Stag 0]

There is no discussion about "ppl should know about patches for games". Sad as it is, installing patches is normal today.

And as we all know, the patch 1.01 DID NOT fix the performance issue for everyone.

I only tell, this is bad for ArmA, it's community and BIS(and their money).

It's hard to show friends how fantastic ArmA is, when the performance is crap like it is now.

MfG Lee

You get the FASAA fix? did it for me You can find it using the searc-DOH!

Edit your ArmA config in My Documents\Arma to FSAA=0

Then edit your profile to PostFX=0

Starts to look more like old OFP, but it works.

[sickboy 13]

...

Version 1.0 German, the version that was tested in the review, had the securom bug that made even the fastest machines have problems...

Version 1.01 German - The "Major Frameratebug" got squashed, and as such, that's the version that should've been tested, to make a real statement about the performance of ArmA. Simple..

Doesn't mean there still might remain other framerate bugs, or optimizations that still can be done, agreed.

Still, all ppl I play with daily and the different configurations I had my ArmA in and running on, ran with a usual fps of around 35, which to me sounds good enough - As long as ppl had updated drivers, clean systems, not 1 million 'optimization-tools' running, 'special settings', and I don't know what crap more

ArmA can still be optimized, and many bugs still must be fixed.. agreed, but I remain with my point that ppl expect too much from usually "old" systems, and forget that the computer world doesn't sit still and that proper drivers and system maintainence is essential for proper performing of games ...

Quote[/b] ]I'm also a fan of A game called "Battle of Britain 2; Wings of Victory" which when patched to 2.05 becomes the finest combat flight simulation available for WW2 (aside from the woeful lack of multiplay). Buy it, I heartily recommend it. But one Noob got the game and ran it unpatched. The next thing he did was put a scathing review on Amazon of how unplayable the title was. I wonder how much damage that did to the sales of the game?

Agree that it's probably devestating to sales, if such review would be looked upon by a broad amount of players.

Quote[/b] ]BTW, one thing I've noticed on this forum is that if people ask for something, they are more or less told to stop wasting everyone's time and use the search engine. To me that's even worse than RTFM, but that's just my observation

Well, for me it's very simple thing... People tend to ask things way too easy, instead of taking responsebility and looking things up themselves, as it is "they" that need something, not "me", as such .. im personally pretty hard in these matters, but I don't know about others, I guess there are a lot of ppl that wish to spend their time only helping other ppl day in day out, but that aint me

[Stag 0]

Ah. You've hit a nail bang on the head! When I first started simming, it was back in 1996. Bought a PC, Bought European Air War, and grumbled when I couldn't run it maxed. After that, so many titles that I couldn't run the way they looked in the magazines. I got used to it. Then all of a sudden, the kind of radical development we had back then stopped. IL2 and it's sequels, all basically running on the same old engine. Technology got a chance to catch up, then overtake.

Now, all of a sudden there's been a revolution, especially in the field of graphics, and the hardware necessary to play the games usually has a serious price tag attached. Just like the "Good Old Days". But people seem to have forgotten what it was like, or a new generation has come up which never had to deal with that frustration before.

Me, I can't wait for Oleg maddox's Battle of Britain Sim to appear; I expect to see a large lynch mob marching east with pitchforks and blazing torches when that sucker hits the vid-RAM.

[sickboy 13]

...

Yep, got a point there... The thing is, why do ppl don't think in the computer world, as they do with usual things they buy??

Ppl don't drive 250km per hour, with their lada 1.1 from 1989, but they might do it with their BMW which was built to manage those speeds...

Ppl don't run for hours on their € 2,50 bathing slippers, but on proper (professional) sport sneakers...

Why must it be so different for computers?

And indeed Lee, now ur right... this is offtopic

[lee_h._oswald 0]

Back to topic.

-----

I was just playing a capture & hold mission. After some time driving with a car, the fps in a city were really bad.

Then I did this(watch the fps counter):

-

Low fps:

-

Going to the options menu. "Ahh, very high settings! No one can play with settings like this!"

-

Really? Let's disable shadows! Oh, Nothing happen to fps.

-

Ok, let's put the shadows back to VERY HIGH(OFP reloads the scene):

---

---

Now you can drive to another city and you get the same bad fps. Just repeat the shadow thingy again and fps are high again.

Is it a now a shadow problem oder does the shadow switching "fix" just something else because of reloading the scene?

Edit: It's the reloading, not the shadows.

MfG Lee

[Stag 0]

My problem was that the framerate just got gradually worse until it became unplayable. Changing the settings in any way seemed to refresh the game, then it started to degrade again.

Sorted to (relative) satisfaction though.

[Goldenwings2002 0]

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=68;t=55684;st=0

It's nice to see that you're experiencing the frame rate drop near trees/foliage too. And you thought everything worked

[RMK 0]

I have no idea what the hell is going on performance wise with my game, currently running 1.0.2 german version and its still got some very strange slowdowns, Sanhari is mostly unplayable in the north due to it.

While just playing around in a large forest, game runs at according to fraps 20fps with high settings (shadows on normal, aa on normal) turn off the shadows...no effect, turn off any of the other settings no effect, turn off AA AND shadows and i suddenly get 35fps rising to 60fps occasionally. The strange thing is when AA and Shadows are on, its holds at 30 excatly..no higher or lower, with them off it flucuates all over.

However, my system isnt excatly old...so i wish i knew WHY this happened. specs:

Intel Core II Duo E6300 (OC'd to 2.4ghz)

Nvidia Geforce 7950GT 512mb

1.5gb DDR2 RAM 640mhz

Realtek HD

7200RPM Maxtor 320gb SATAII

The game runs at 60fps+ in the south of the island and on the other island, its just the trees that lag my game...I havent a clue why

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

I think i found a fix for the Dual core and or SLI user. I will Start a new thread with the info tonight.