Dual Core User try the following

[NeMeSiS 11]

I accept your apology.  However, I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that what's makes this game perform the way it does, is it's ported xbox engine.

Possible, lets assume it does, then what would cause the lower perfomance (dissapointing performance compared to other games)?

All we really know is that the game is optimized to use as few RAM as possible (because xbox 64mb blabla), would that cause it?

Someone tested it a few days ago and there was a noticable FPS difference between an old ATA and an SATA HD, but still the SATA HD doesnt seem a magical solution.

When flying around it would be logical to have alot of HD loading (streaming terrain, introduced in OFPE), however, i dont have a significant slowdown or 'hangs' (that occur when the HD suddenly needs to load something from the HD, try spawning a unit that hasnt been pre-loaded in the memory yet) even when flying around at top-speed. To be honest the whole situation confuses me...

[sailindawg 0]

Quote[/b] ]Possible, lets assume it does, then what would cause the lower perfomance (dissapointing performance compared to other games)?

Not trying to be overly negative, but the only answer to that question is: it's how the game is programmed. The game needs a much more powerful engine rather than the older xbox engine you have alluded to.

Regarding the differing performance with differing hard drives, that all comes down to data in, data out and the increased bandwidth that each drive offers. The faster drives can move data more efficiently to feed the cpu as it makes the calculations the game is calling for. Again, as you say, it's not a huge performance gain from drive to drive. But when a game will only render at an average of 30 fps, any increase helps and will appear significant.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Not trying to be overly negative, but the only answer to that question is: it's how the game is programmed.  The game needs a much more powerful engine rather than the older xbox engine you have alluded to.

Well indeed the engine is programmed the way its currently is, and if we cant optimize the engine for our PCs, then we have to optimize the PC for our engines

There are always small things we can do to get a (small) performance increase and its probably the only thing we can do about it, they arent going to completely change the engine in a patch.

So if we know where to start with optimizing our PCs we already have done half of the work.

[sailindawg 0]

Not trying to be overly negative, but the only answer to that question is: it's how the game is programmed. The game needs a much more powerful engine rather than the older xbox engine you have alluded to.

Well indeed the engine is programmed the way its currently is, and if we cant optimize the engine for our PCs, then we have to optimize the PC for our engines

There are always small things we can do to get a (small) performance increase and its probably the only thing we can do about it, they arent going to completely change the engine in a patch.

So if we know where to start with optimizing our PCs we already have done half of the work.

OPF, that's what I have been doing. That's what I have liked about pc gaming. Sometimes I think I enjoy tweaking a game more than actually playing it! PC gaming is all about playing around with a game's settings, etc.. to get it to perform at it's best, the way the game developers wanted it to be seen.

Unfortunately, D3D games aren't like the easier OpenGL games. OpenGL games generally have a very handy ,cfg file to play around with. This D3D game doesn't. One is limited to the endless variety of driver, monitor and ingame settings to play around with to optimize the game for one's own pc. Which is currently what I have been doing. Stay tuned.

[Dwarden 1124]

@ofpforum

about Your HDD confusion, i already tried explain that multiple times ...

it's not just about HDD raw speed and interface ...

(and that vary by drive generation, firmware revision and so on)

it's also about CPU usage while utilizing that interface controller , see example :

some cheap VIA SATA eats X % CPU and in RAID mode 2*X %

now NVIDIA SATA eats X*0.9 % and in raid mode 1.7*X %,

then some Intel controller eats X*0.5 % and in RAID mode 1.5*X%

yet some profi standalone controller with offload processor and own memory eats only X*0.1% and in RAID mode 1.1*X% from CPU) ...

not to mention other stuff like bus saturation on different chipsets and so on ...

p.s. Sailin ... about that .cfg stuff You are wrong there is no problem to get very well "configurable" via config files D3D games same as OpenGL and vice versa

(ie: see games on Epic Unreal Engine (fully configurable D3D8, D3D9, OpenGl and software rendering)...

this is all up to developer decision ... nothing more nor less

[ZiggyJinx 0]

Dual Core Optimizer

Yeah i got 40-50 fps gain with this...... yeah i wish

when are they gunna sort this game out so it runs at a good 60-70 fps or is this wishful thinking.

[sailindawg 0]

Quote[/b] ]p.s. Sailin ... about that .cfg stuff You are wrong there is no problem to get very well "configurable" via config files D3D games same as OpenGL and vice versa

(ie: see games on Epic Unreal Engine (fully configurable D3D8, D3D9, OpenGl and software rendering)...

@Dwarden

I'm confused by your post. If I was not clear, then fine. In older OpenGl games such as Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, one could easily find a .cfg, open it in Wordpad and edit away. All cvars and variables were either boolian values or numeric equivalents. With the advent of D3D games, one generally needed to know console commands, for example, in BF42, given the file structure, if one wanted to lock fps at a certain rate, one would have to use a console command while in the game.

More recent D3D games have file structures with obscure (proprietary) extensions. Some of these files are easily opened on Wordpad and modified. GRAW is a good example of this with the .xml files.

ARMA uses .pbo extensions and puts the user defined information/profiles in the My Documents folder. However, the values used in armaprofile folder are obscure. Some seem to be boolian values while others are whole number values. There are no commands specific for system memory utilization or fps related commands as found in other game config files.

The only tweak for this game has been a target line tweak that has worked fine.

This is what I was commenting on. Back to your comment, this game engine is not based upon any version of the Unreal Engine. If it was, it would run incredibly well.

[Dwarden 1124]

@Sailindawg

i wonder if i should bother to post ... you seems to be lost case ... continuously reversing subject and people words or simply fail to understood what others said ...

i'm gunna myself to get some instead

[baddo 0]

If a game has a configuration file easily editable by users is not dependant on the used graphics implementation, I really wonder why people start to compare OpenGL to Direct3D based on if a game has a configuration file or not...? It really is upto the programmers of the game how do they choose to do it.

Please stop that kind of talk it's just silly

[sailindawg 0]

Thank you Dwarden. I take that as a compliment from you. The performance issues of this game are quite obvious. I'm glad you enjoy the game.

[kroky 1]

All we really know is that the game is optimized to use as few RAM as possible (because xbox 64mb blabla), would that cause it?

I would wish the game would use more RAM. Or at least that there would be an option to make the game use more RAM.

I upgraded my PC to 4GB RAM (before ArmA came out) in the hope this would help the performance. But it uses in maximum 1,3 GB RAM while game is running. I'm absolutely not impressed by the performance of the game and the streaming technology is something for XBOX and other consoles but not for PC.

Often I see textures popping up while moving ingame. If BIS decided to use streaming technology it should at least preload the textures more far ahead so that you couldn't hardly see it.

I will try RAID (on SATA) and lets see how it improves the performance.

My system:

AMD Athlon X2 4400+ at 4800+ (Optimizer installed)

Asus A8N-E (BIOS rev. 1013)

4 GB Kingston RAM

GeForce 7950GT (93.71 forceware)

Seagate Barracuda on SATA

Direct X 9.0c december edition

[Dwarden 1124]

All we really know is that the game is optimized to use as few RAM as possible (because xbox 64mb blabla), would that cause it?

I would wish the game would use more RAM. Or at least that there would be an option to make the game use more RAM.

I upgraded my PC to 4GB RAM (before ArmA came out) in the hope this would help the performance. But it uses in maximum 1,3 GB RAM while game is running. I'm absolutely not impressed by the performance of the game and the streaming technology is something for XBOX and other consoles but not for PC.

Often I see textures popping up while moving ingame. If BIS decided to use streaming technology it should at least preload the textures more far ahead so that you couldn't hardly see it.

I will try RAID (on SATA) and lets see how it improves the performance.

My system:

AMD Athlon X2 4400+ at 4800+ (Optimizer installed)

Asus A8N-E (BIOS rev. 1013)

4 GB Kingston RAM

GeForce 7950GT (93.71 forceware)

Seagate Barracuda on SATA

Direct X 9.0c december edition

use commandline switch -maxmem=999

then load in editor sahrani or run some cutscene etc ...

it's easy to push ArmA to use over 800MB of system memory

some people use values 1000-1400 but i noticed game is then more prone to crashing ...

[kroky 1]

I found that the ArmA Launcher Kegetys has made has an option of maximum use of system memory. I pushed the bar to the far end to 2048MB but my over all RAM usage (including that for Windows) is never over 32%, which means about 1,3GB RAM.

Will try the command line you suggested.

EDIT:

Ok apparently the -maxmem=XXX command is the same as used in Kegetys ArmA launcher.

When running the same mission without that command my system uses 23% of RAM, when setting the command even to max (2048MB RAM) it uses 32% of RAM.

Didn't experience any crashes, most probably because I've 4GB installed, and since Windows uses about 500MB and ArmA maxmem is set now to 2048MB, there are still about 1500 MB RAM left in worst case.

I would like to have a command to preload texture into RAM instead of the streaming technology. Or the two combined. Let's say the most used textures into RAM the other load/unload from HDD.

[Dwarden 1124]

what You use to monitor ArmA process memory usage ...

[kroky 1]

Since I've got a Logitech G15 Keyboard, I'm using LCD Studio to display the data on the LCD display of the keyboard. The most of the data LCD Studio is grabbing from Riva Tuner with enabled Hardware monitor.

But yesterday I experienced a CTD too after setting the maxmem setting to 2048MB, so right now I'm trying it on 999MB.

[m1c4d0 0]

Latest Dual Core Intel aren't just great because they are dual-core They are great for themselves, great speed, overclockable without too much issue, no thermal problem, well, very good CPUs.

Don't feel sad for us

Sure they are great man but there is no point to use them, because XP can not handle them great. Vista seems to be good for dual core procs but when I tried to run for example Call of Duty 2 on Vista, I've noticed that WinXP is doing much better perfomance than Vista. So, it's really sad to realize all this stuff