Performance Issue

[kroky 1]

I pressed a whole day my F5 key to update the morphicon website to see if the patch is out.

The first thing I have done is to update ArmA to 1.01.

It did NOT help!

I have turned everything to ultra-low-deluxe, does not help.

---

Turning down the resolution helps, yes.

But playable is ArmA only at 640x480. Looks great...

---

Here a screenshot with the lowest settings available:

Click me, I'm running on 30fps!

---

I think, I know why it looks so bad.

You all know about OFP's feature located in the userinfo.cfg:

frameRate=25.000000;

Means: OFP try's to hold the fps stable at 25, using lower LODs and textures, etc.

If we say, there is something wrong with ArmA or the copy protection system used, so we allways have too low fps even with high end PC's.

So it looks to me, that ArmA try's to hold stable FPS, which is not possible with this bug present(if there is one hidden in the engine or the copy protection).

Result is bad lod's switching in front of you, slow texture loading, etc.

---

I can't and I will not believe that Morphicon, BIS, the Betatesters played ArmA this way and said:

"Horray, runs great, we have Gold Status!"

---

MfG Lee

I second that wholeheartedly.

I don't know who did the testing job of ArmA but I think I would do it better.

And there is definitely something wrong with the engine of this game. Lot of graphic/sound problems.

Can't believe BIS sold the game in this state....

[Stuntman 0]

The strange thing here is that most of you complain about low fps, right? but the vidoes of ingame in ArmA at YouTube have exellent fps! even if it is fraps or hand holded cam!

Just look at them and see how smooth they are! off course they maybe are so smooth because of low units on the battlefield or maybe low graphics, but I dont think that's the main reason for the good fps. you see, one of my friends bought a copy of ArmA from Czech Republic, and I saw that with ONLY him on the map, the fps are at 15-10!

His specs are: 1024mb RAM, 2.4Ghz and 256 MB Memory.

So the videos of players playing ArmA in YouTube have better fps, plus most the players are playing at game conventions and some of the videos are from BIS I think.

so why do the game convetions and developers videos at YouTube have higher FPS then the games which are bought? Note: the last video is from IGN.

here's the Links. Note how good fps the videos have. did you guys have so good fps?

VIdeo by BIS, showing battles and some units Note: may take some time for users with low bandwith: its stream download

[Mr_Tea 0]

Look @ my settings, works great with my GeForce 7600GS 512MB.

how many FPS?

30?

40?

how many of ram?

your processor?

what is your OS?

a 7600GS with 512MB can run correctly the game?

FPS: ~30 (I don`t use a framecounter)

Ram:2x512MB PC3200 @dualchannel

CPU:AthlonXP 3200+ (Barton with 400Mhz FSB)

OS :Win2K Prof. with SP3

Why should the 7600GS with 512MB vram have problems with ArmA?

[twisted 127]

let me get on the bandwagon here.

I play ArmA and enjoy great perfomance.

settings are 1300 view distance. Ainsotrophic filtering low. AA off. terrain normal. every other setting high.

according to fraps i average 30+ FPS. sometime higher. it plays smooth and responsive.

my computer is

AMD 64 3200+

2GB RAM

Nvidia 7800 GTX

shitty sound card

in fact the only probelm i have found is on the secure the airport mission where the sound gets screwed up and i had to change to software for commands to be spoken (and if commands are not spoken they are not followed and are stuck in a queue.)

[NSX 8]

@twisted

Surely, mate, it's just because of your 7800 GTX. 30 fps isn't too much for ArmA if it had normally programmed engine.

My specs are:

AMD Athlon 3200+ (hardly overclocked upm to smt like 4000+)

4*512 mb Kingston dual channeled

6800 GS 512 mb (overclocked from 425/1000 to 500/1250)

Well, don't have any problems with sound, but my performance sucks. You can surely run game without any lags only when everything is low. Well, I'm not thinking my system is top-notch, but it's still good enought to run for example SC:DA on maxed "Next generation" options, while ArmA pretends to be the laggiest coffin to my computer.  

Don't know what BIS were thinking, but I'm not going to buy old videos without Dx10 support. I'm planning to get my GF 8800 a few months later, but...that's just... "incredible" performance for game we've been awaiting for 5.5 years (however, Armed Assault was in developement for 1.5 years).

[lee_h._oswald 0]

So we can say:

CPU: ~3000+

RAM: ~1024MB

+

GeForce 6XXX = Bad Performance.

or +

GeForce 7XXX = Good Performance.

---

Very good, my pc has AGP...

So I can buy a MSI 512MB NX7600GS, which isn't that expensive and has passive cooling. But performance can't be THAT great, DDR2 vram as far as I know.

Or the 512MB Gainward 7800GS+ GLH(goes like hell) which is too expensive for the "old" GF7 chip, looking at the new NVidia G80.

---

So my dear BIS programmer, hat do you recommend?

Buy the 7600GS?

Buy the 7800GS?

Buy a new PC?

Wait for new NVIDIA drivers?(Do they know about ArmA or only BF2142)

Or wait, cause you are working on a patch right now?

---

MfG Lee ...

[stisoas 0]

buy an 939 motherboard 55$

use your actual PC3200 ram ? free)

buy a cheap single core A64 and overclock it. 60$

buy a good copper thermal dissiper 25$

buy a X1900/1950 XT 256MB 220$

play arma in good condition (no price)

edit: okay nevermind. i didnt see what was your cpu. your 6800GT is crushing your global arma performance. i got one , and i saw what a 6800GT can give on it . it's ....awefull

so , 939 on AGP board ? simple like HELL godness!

buy a PCIE 939 mobo .

buy a X1900XT(or 2) 256MB

crossfire would rocks.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

No way.

I have a Shuttle XPC SN95G5. (photo)

Athlon64 So939 3800+(2400MHz @ 2900MHz)

2x 1024MB DDR1

256MB GF6800GT AGP

Audigy 2ZS

There is NO chance that I will buy another Socket 939 board with a new heatsink(the shuttle has a fantatic heatpipe cooling system), a new powersupply, a new pc case and a graphics card like the ati.

It would be a waste of money because socket 939 is DEAD.

MfG Lee

[stisoas 0]

A64 2.9ghz is pretty fine for gaming cpu. so , 200 buck vicard and 50 buck mobo is a good deal i think .

now, if you want grab an 900 buck bundle ...

ps: dont forget i have 6800ultra, and a X1900XT . on 2 diff but quite similar computer. i know what i tell.

[Forrestal 0]

You can also take the Radeon X1950PRO AGP

[stisoas 0]

You can also take the Radeon X1950PRO AGP

-20% perfs versus a X1900XT. i recommend a couple mobo/vid card. it's my last word .

[Xoanon 0]

I have a dog of a rig:

P4 3.06 HT

1GB RDRAM

Nvidia 6600GT 256mb AGP

Running patched German version with the language patch applied.

To start with the game was graphically glitching all over the shop, messy shadows and colour glitches etc. however...

I installed the latest Direct X (even though I was under the impression that I WAS running the latest)

Then I installed the latest OFFICIAL Nvidia drivers (I WAS running a teaked version)

Then I defragged my hard drive.

Now I can run everything on normal but with shadows and textures on high at 1024 res with no problem (although I may drop down the textures to normal if I get any slowdown when things get REALLY busy). I don't know the FPS because if the game isn't stumbling I don't care.

So if you have some performance issues give these steps a go:

Clean your system of all spy/malware and close down msn etc.

Defragment your hard drive

Install the latest DirectX from microsofts website (even if you think you HAVE it already)

Install the lastest OFFICIAL drivers for your card

Play  

[Placebo 28]

It was mentioned elsewhere or in another thread, that an app which shuts down all running applications such as enditall (use google) is great to use, my wife uses it before running Gothic3 and she gets much better performance even than from a fresh reboot.

[MaximoPoder 0]

Athlon 64 3200+

PNY 1024MB DDR400

Samsung 512 DDR PC3200

PNY FX5900SE 128Mb

Creative Sound Blaster X-Gamer Live! 5.1

Maxtor 80Gb 7200RPM

Seagate Barracuda 120Gb 8200RMP

GPU Settings:

Antialiasing Settings - Off

Anistropic Filtering - Off

Image Settings - High Performance

Vertucal Sync - Applicationg Controlled

ArmA Settings:

Res: 800x600

Terrain Visibility: Minimum

All Configs: Low

Result:

Good Frames (Except near or in the bushes)

Bad Graphics

[lee_h._oswald 0]

Clean your system of all spy/malware and close down msn etc.

Defragment your hard drive

Install the latest DirectX from microsofts website (even if you think you HAVE it already)

Install the lastest OFFICIAL drivers for your card

I'm working in the IT, those things are the first I have done.

Also my gaming PC is cleaner then "virgin maria".

---

I have some other hardware here I borrowed from work.

Let's see if things are better with a GF 7600GT.

MfG Lee

[lee_h._oswald 0]

Just another testing with the 6800GT to show that something is wrong with: ArmA or My PC or Me or the rest of the world.

---

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

Sehr Hoch=Very High

Sehr Niedrig=Very Low

Niedrig=Low

---

- Same location.

- Looking north and south.

- 1200m viewdistance

- 50m viewdistance

Settings used:

1.) High -> Very High

-> Click for settings <-

Result:

-> Click for Screen (3360x2100) <-

---

Settings used:

2.) Ultra Low

-> Click for settings <-

Result:

-> Click for Screen (3360x2100) <-

---

Any idea why there is:

- Close to NO boost in fps by changing the viewdistance from 1200m to 50m? (doesn't matter if High or Low Settings)

- Only a boost from 11fps to 33fps changing from Very High to Very Low? (doesn't matter if using 1200m or 50m viewdistance)

---

Thanks for listening.

MfG Lee

[Evil Weasel 0]

Lee_H_Oswald, you were spot on regarding the difference between the Nvidia 6xxx and 7xxx series.

With a AMD 3800+ dual core rig, 2 gigs of ram and an AGP 6600GT 128mb card, the best I could get was bare minimum fps with all settings on low, no anti-aliasing, a view distance of 1200 and resolution of 800x600. Even then too much foliage or too many buildings gave that lovely slide show effect.

I've just splashed Å130 on a pci-express 512mb 7900GS ( I've got a dual motherboard). Everything else is exactly the same.

I'm now thoroughly enjoying all settings on normal, a view distance of 2000m and resolution of 1024x768 with "normal" anti-aliasing to avoid the jaggies. It looks fantastic and so far I'm getting lovely smooth frame rates anywhere on the Island.

If you can afford it get a new graphics card, you'll be amazed by the difference. One of the best Å130's I've ever spent.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

If you can afford it get a new graphics card, you'll be amazed by the difference. One of the best Å130's I've ever spent.

Buying something new isn't the problem.

I can order everything to build a nice Core 2 Duo with GF8800GTS tomorrow, build it myself the day after, overclock it like hell and start playing.

But is that the solution for all the ppl having performance problems with their 3GHz, GF6XXX PC's?

And why do I have to throw away my nice and fast PC like it was a hundret years old piece of crap.

I would like to know what's the reason for the sometimes very strange behavior of the ArmA engine.

Maybe I will find out, maybe I will not.

But I can discuss it on a german ArmA forum instead here, if you like.

MfG Lee

[Marines 0]

I just picked up on that this morning. While playtesting in the editor, I placed myself along with 10 infantry squads (5 OPFOR/5 IFOR) in an urban enviornment. I left the graphics settings at normal with a resolution of 1024 x 768. A hellacious firefight ensued, and I experienced no frame rate issues what so ever. I tried it again, with the same resolution, and all graphics options set to high. Again, I experienced no frame rate issues at all.

So this got me thinking. I cleared the map of any units, and place myself in an area with dense foliage. MY FPS dropped considerably while moving on foot after doing this.

Well, I spose my ArmA experience will be limited to the editor.

[stisoas 0]

Clean your system of all spy/malware and close down msn etc.

Defragment your hard drive

Install the latest DirectX from microsofts website (even if you think you HAVE it already)

Install the lastest OFFICIAL drivers for your card

I'm working in the IT, those things are the first I have done.

Also my gaming PC is cleaner then "virgin maria".

---

I have some other hardware here I borrowed from work.

Let's see if things are better with a GF 7600GT.

MfG Lee

DONT !

it's useless. 7600GT perfs will be common , or even low .

all these forest area will make your 7600G even GT's one cry ...

buy something bigger.

[rev 0]

Intel Pentium 4 - HT, 3200 MHz (3.2) (16 x 200)

Gigabyte GA-8I848PM (3 PCI, 1 AGP, 2 DDR DIMM, Audio, LAN)

Microsoft XP Windows Home Edition SP2

1024 MB (PC2700 DDR SDRAM)

Intel 82801EB ICH5 - AC'97 Audio Controller [A-2/A-3]

ST3160021A (160 GB, 7200 RPM, Ultra-ATA/100)

NEC DVD_RW ND-3500AG (DVD+R9:4x, DVD+RW:16x/4x, DVD-RW:16x/4x, DVD-ROM:16x, CD:48x/24x/48x DVD+RW/DVD-RW)

nVIDIA Gainward GeForce 6600 GT AGP 128mb

i get the problems, and i can only play with 15 fps on everything very low. Not very happy

[kickback98 0]

FYI

My system:

AMD64 3800+

2Gb RAM

2 x 7800GTX in SLi

Settings:

1920 x 1200 resolution

Visibility: 1200m

Terrain details: Normal

Object details: Low

Texture details: Very Low

Shading details: Normal

Postprocess effects: Low

Anisotropic Filtering: Very High

Shadow detail: Disabled

Antialiasing: Disabled

Blood: High

Performance (fraps):

Average 50fps, in build up areas and forest: 25-40fps

Comments:

I have found that switching of shadows and antialiasing and keeping texture details very low, you can boost performance a lot.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

Some news.

After installing several new drivers...

Defragmented my hard disk...

Tried another thousand things... with no changing to the performance....

I tried following:

Put the cpu clock back from overclocked 2900mhz to it's default 2400mhz.

RESULT: nothing... Not 1 Frame more or less.

---

Ok, let the cpu work at 2400mhz and take out one of the 1024MB ram modules.

So we now have 500mhz cpu power AND 1024megabyte ram less.

RESULT: nothing... Not 1 Frame more or less!!  

---

Thank you BIS for let me getting INSANE!

MfG Lee

Edit:

[stisoas 0]

Some news.

After installing several new drivers...

Defragmented my hard disk...

Tried another thousand things... with no changing to the performance....

I tried following:

Put the cpu clock back from overclocked 2900mhz to it's default 2400mhz.

RESULT: nothing... Not 1 Frame more or less.

---

Ok, let the cpu work at 2400mhz and take out one of the 1024MB ram modules.

So we now have 500mhz cpu power AND 1024megabyte ram less.

RESULT: nothing... Not 1 Frame more or less!!

---

Thank you BIS for let me getting INSANE!

MfG Lee

Edit:

[im]http://lee.plankton.ch/ArmA_UD.jpg[/img]

GPU limited .

[Bunkers 0]

Oh my.. I've now spent roughly $700 on upgrading my machine and the performance increase is quite good. BUT, I just cant get enough of the ArmA eye-candy. I'm getting addicted to higher and higher graphic settings and now I'm thinking of buying a whole new system anyway    which would enable me to run ArmA super-smooth on über-settings, but that would mean I've wasted alot of money..  

Edit: Oh yeah.. I've already bought ArmA twice. Once on disc from Germany and then the download (because then I had not received the discs yet). So now Placebo can put my picture on his desk j/k