Horrible Performance...

[bum71 0]

Hey there, long time OFP player, was incredibly excited to get the ArmA demo a week ago. That excitement quickly died once the installation completed and I played the game.

I can barely even run it. The game appears horribly optimized. Whenever I move my view, it lags for 5 seconds. If I enter a city, my framerate automatically slows to a crawl, despite the fact that games like Battlefield 2 have vastly more detailed cityscapes and run just fine for me. My specs:

Athlon 64 3200+

Geforce 7800 GTX 256MB

2 GB Corsair XMS RAM

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no reason at all why a computer like this should get an unplayable amount of graphical lag when playing the game with all settings on low. So I ask, what is up?

Anyone have some ideas? They'd be much appreciated.

[MiG 0]

That's real wird, my computer is worst than yours and there is no lag at all...

[-duke- 0]

You can't compare this game to BF2 and I'm not sure why people do because there completely different. BF2 does not have a free roaming 400 km/sq area of play nor does it have dynamic AI. I'm pretty sure the weather is all the same as well as day/night transitions so how you compare them is beyond me.

Now onto the rest of your question, yes, many of us experience lag on even good computers. I'm running an E6600 Dual Core 2.4 w/2 GB DDR2 Dual Channel @667 MHz and an NVIDIA 8800GTS. My game is set to 1024 x 768 and all details @ medium which seems to run mid 30's to low 40's FPS (average). Desert areas or areas with less foliage run far better while wooded areas produce lag spikes and flying only worsens the situation.

Try lowering your shadow settings, view distance, terrain detail and anti-aliasing. Personally, I'd sugges lowering everything and/or disabling the setting then bringing them up one value at a time until you have the best performance/visual ratio.

[bum71 0]

Are you kidding me? You get lag with that system?

I thought this game was released in most of the world. You can't possibly tell me they released a game that's unoptimized and doesn't run even on the best systems.

I already have the shadows and AA settings on as low as they can go. I'll try fooling with the view distance now.

Now, I have to ask: is there a person here who can run this game on full settings with minimal/no lag?

And I can compare BF2 on the visuals. ArmA has much better graphics on paper, but BF2's environments are far more detailed. And AI shouldn't lag up your system unless you're on a Pentium II or a Mac, heh. Also, the 400km island isn't rendered at all except for the area you can see, so it shouldn't be a big system hog. Well, unless they changed it from OFP.

[froggyluv 2136]

Thats really strange, my comp:

Sempron 1.8 ghz oc'ed to 2

geforce 6800 gs 256

1 gig ram

fps hover around 25, 20 in dense foliage - it's actually better in ARMA than OFP which I run heavily modded FFUR 2.5;SLX etc...FPS there 10-15

Also I changed color from 32 to 16 bit and am using system booster 2.0 which can be found in another thread here.

oh yeah, video card OC'ed as well

Detail s on normal, shadows- low, 1024x768, blood- high of course

[DaRat 0]

Quote[/b] ]Now, I have to ask: is there a person here who can run this game on full settings with minimal/no lag?

Yes, everything on V. High, @ 1024x768, 1200 Default VD.  My fps is always about 25-30 fps in big cities, and about 35-40 in the countryside (demo version)

I really can't understand how the game's performance can change so dramatically from PC to PC...  

[Stealth3 0]

Quote[/b] ]Geforce 7800 GTX 256MB

Theres you problem, 256 mb. You really need 512 to play it on high.

[bum71 0]

Whaaat? There are like 10 video cards avaliable with 512 MB, all are over 500 dollars, and all are made for graphic design and art. How can a game that doesn't even have a physics engine take that much power? If you're right, then my mind is boggled.

[jasono 0]

Quote[/b] ]Geforce 7800 GTX 256MB

Theres you problem, 256 mb. You really need 512 to play it on high.

Mines a 512mb card and I have trouble playing on very low settings.

I recently found out my card is hardly supported by Nvidia (GeForce 7500LE).

My CPU is fine, many others have used it, the same model and size.

2 Gig of DDR2 RAM is plenty.

Its not just the memory of a graphics card but also the memory speed. The speed on mine was very low and caused a bottleneck making the game performance low. I would advise all that havn't dont so to check their card properly and find out more than just the graphic memory on it.

[Marines 0]

Hey there, long time OFP player, was incredibly excited to get the ArmA demo a week ago. That excitement quickly died once the installation completed and I played the game.

I can barely even run it. The game appears horribly optimized. Whenever I move my view, it lags for 5 seconds. If I enter a city, my framerate automatically slows to a crawl, despite the fact that games like Battlefield 2 have vastly more detailed cityscapes and run just fine for me. My specs:

Athlon 64 3200+

Geforce 7800 GTX 256MB

2 GB Corsair XMS RAM

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no reason at all why a computer like this should get an unplayable amount of graphical lag when playing the game with all settings on low. So I ask, what is up?

Anyone have some ideas? They'd be much appreciated.

Welcome to the club, mate.

AMD 64 X2 5000+

3G RAM

Alternating between a Radeon 1900XT with 256 and a 1300 with 512

ArmA either likes your system or it doesn't. If you search around the boards here, you'll find people with lesser rigs running it just fine. You'll also find people with beefy systems who have no trouble at all. Your guess is as good as mine.

[Czechm8 0]

Hey there, long time OFP player, was incredibly excited to get the ArmA demo a week ago. That excitement quickly died once the installation completed and I played the game.

I can barely even run it. The game appears horribly optimized. Whenever I move my view, it lags for 5 seconds. If I enter a city, my framerate automatically slows to a crawl, despite the fact that games like Battlefield 2 have vastly more detailed cityscapes and run just fine for me. My specs:

Athlon 64 3200+

Geforce 7800 GTX 256MB

2 GB Corsair XMS RAM

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no reason at all why a computer like this should get an unplayable amount of graphical lag when playing the game with all settings on low. So I ask, what is up?

Anyone have some ideas? They'd be much appreciated.

i have the exact same system hardware as you and Arma runs very smooth and good for me on 1024x768 with AA off and everything else at normal/high and it looks damn good.

my laptop also runs arma fine but has a geforece go 7900gtx in it.

maybe optimise your PC? good luck...

[Gunney 0]

Quote[/b] ]Geforce 7800 GTX 256MB

Theres you problem, 256 mb. You really need 512 to play it on high.

Not in my case im runnin wit a XFX Geforce 7600GT 256mb DDR3 and I am currently running mostly everything at high/very high(shadows disabled) at 1024 x768 resolution.

[bangtail 0]

Hey there, long time OFP player, was incredibly excited to get the ArmA demo a week ago. That excitement quickly died once the installation completed and I played the game.

I can barely even run it. The game appears horribly optimized. Whenever I move my view, it lags for 5 seconds. If I enter a city, my framerate automatically slows to a crawl, despite the fact that games like Battlefield 2 have vastly more detailed cityscapes and run just fine for me. My specs:

Athlon 64 3200+

Geforce 7800 GTX 256MB

2 GB Corsair XMS RAM

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no reason at all why a computer like this should get an unplayable amount of graphical lag when playing the game with all settings on low. So I ask, what is up?

Anyone have some ideas? They'd be much appreciated.

Bahahahahahaha, BF2 is vastly more detailed? Maybe in your opinion but BAD news for you, BF2 maps are about 1/100th of the size of the ArmA map. BF2 does not model things like ballistics or penetration to name a few. Everyone just assumes that if it looks better (this is subjective) and runs better, then ArmA is the problem. Not SO!

E

PS : Yet again this perception that a 2 year old Vcard/CPU with 256MB of RAM is somehow "top of the line". This is simply not the case, your rig is mid range. Im not saying this to be nasty but too many people buy this game, crank the settings up to High on there mid/low range PCs and then show up here bitching. According to you there are only 10 512 MB cards and all over $500.00? You need to do some research

[Heatseeker 0]

This thread scares me . Im about to invest a considerable sum on high end HW just because of Arma... dont tell me a 1500€+ setup has to run it at 1024x768 with shadows off. If this is the case the engine cant be using the HW properly .

[bangtail 0]

This thread scares me . Im about to invest a considerable sum on high end HW just because of Arma... dont tell me a 1500€+ setup has to run it at 1024x768 with shadows off. If this is the case the engine cant be using the HW properly .

I hate to say it but in this day and age if you want to play at high resolutions with the details up high you will need a High end rig. Typically :

Core 2 Duo/X2 5000

7900 GTX 512/x1900 512  or greater

2 Gigs of RAM

Realistically, you can buy a Core 2 Duo 6300 for 100.00 quid and get it up to x6800 speeds with no hassle whatsoever. As long as you do a little research b4 you buy there are plenty of bargains to be had that will give you a high spec machine without the high spec prices.

E

[bum71 0]

Bahahahahahaha, BF2 is vastly more detailed? Maybe in your opinion but BAD news for you, BF2 maps are about 1/100th of the size of the ArmA map. BF2 does not model things like ballistics or penetration to name a few. Everyone just assumes that if it looks better (this is subjective) and runs better, then ArmA is the problem. Not SO!

E

PS : Yet again this perception that a 2 year old Vcard/CPU with 256MB of RAM is somehow "top of the line". This is simply not the case, your rig is mid range. Im not saying this to be nasty but too many people buy this game, crank the settings up to High on there mid/low range PCs and then show up here bitching. According to you there are only 10 512 MB cards and all over $500.00? You need to do some research

You can't keep using the size of the ArmA map as an explanation for bad performance. If you do keep using that as an explanation, then you're acknowledging that the whole game is horribly flawed because it has outdeveloped current technology, which is untrue.

The thing about a huge world is that only a small part of it is rendered at a particular time. Distant 3d objects are rendered as 2d sprites that look 3d. This is easily visible when flying, you can see the terrain render as you get closer to it. So a large map is not a big system hog when only a small part is fully rendered at any particular time, especially when you have the view distance on low.

Considering all the stories of random performance present in this thread, you can't possibly say the problem is on the user end and just move on to the next point feeling omniscient, because if someone has a 5000+ CPU and a high end video card and can't run the game on low settings, then you clearly have a problem on the developer side. If you can read this

Quote[/b] ]Not in my case im runnin wit a XFX Geforce 7600GT 256mb DDR3 and I am currently running mostly everything at high/very high(shadows disabled) at 1024 x768 resolution.

and still be comfortable with telling me that my video card is the problem, then you are in blatant denial.

Also, I never said my card is top of the line. I said I have a "good computer." Good is just above nice and just below great. Of course the 7800 has been surpassed, but you seem to think the fact that it's not top of the line provides an instant explanation for why the game can't run on low settings without unplayable lag. So basically, you're suggesting the solution is that I have to go buy a computer that costs as much as my car in order to play this at 1024X768...

...I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this is a problem that lies 100% with BIS.

[Marines 0]

I do think the majority of you are simply missing the point. He didn't post a topic in an attempt to make comparisons between BF2 and ArmA, and instead started a thread dedicated to the issues conflicting the game ATM.

And I quote...

Quote[/b] ]If I enter a city, my framerate automatically slows to a crawl, despite the fact that games like Battlefield 2 have vastly more detailed cityscapes...

Now, he is speaking about urban environments that ARE far more detailed in BF2. While the simpler city texts of ArmA are far less detailed, yet chug on a rig such as his.

[Heatseeker 0]

This thread scares me . Im about to invest a considerable sum on high end HW just because of Arma... dont tell me a 1500€+ setup has to run it at 1024x768 with shadows off. If this is the case the engine cant be using the HW properly .

I hate to say it but in this day and age if you want to play at high resolutions with the details up high you will need a High end rig. Typically :

Core 2 Duo/X2 5000

7900 GTX 512/x1900 512 or greater

2 Gigs of RAM

Realistically, you can buy a Core 2 Duo 6300 for 100.00 quid and get it up to x6800 speeds with no hassle whatsoever. As long as you do a little research b4 you buy there are plenty of bargains to be had that will give you a high spec machine without the high spec prices.

E

Im specifically refering to Arma and the frequent posts of this type:

Quote[/b] ]

I'm running an E6600 Dual Core 2.4 w/2 GB DDR2 Dual Channel @667 MHz and an NVIDIA 8800GTS. My game is set to 1024 x 768 and all details @ medium which seems to run mid 30's to low 40's FPS (average).

That is a very decent system capable of running most games at insane resolutions, just check his settings, resolution and frame rates, 1024x768 hurts my eyes already... something is wrong with Arma .

[bangtail 0]

No, I dont think there is anything wrong with it at all. It flies along on my system, absolutely no lag to speak of. And the size of the map, not to mention the amount of calculations going on is far greater than BF2. If you can't appreciate that then I guess thats your problem. It will never be a good comparison IMHO. I think alot of the problems people have are down to the settings being mismatched. It took me a day to get it where I wanted it. I can guarantee that some of the people complaining have their view distance at 3K and everything on high on a mid spec rig and they are wondering why it's slow  

I'm sure there are some technical problems that BIS needs to iron out but it runs fine on both my rigs and several of my friends have purchased the download version, and equally, after messing with the settings for a few hours it is running very well.

E

PS : And as far as stability goes I would actually go as far as to say its the most stable game I run. In a month of playing I think it crashed once, and that was while I was switching tasks.

[xela89 0]

c2d e6300 @2.3ghz, 1go ddr2, x1950pro 256 mb (6.15)

terrain vh, object h, texture h, shader vh, postprocessing low, aniso n, antialiasing disabled, shadow n, vd 3000, 1280x1024

most of the time, 40fps, in desert area 75 and in the heat of big battle or in forest, never under 20fps

VidMemWatch says that I have 245,97mb of card memory and ingame, it has never goner over 225mb and most of the time it's around 215mb, => no need for a x1950pro 512mb in my case, the added 256mb would be never used

and no need to buy a 1500€ computer to make the game run fine, my cpu mobo ram and graphic card costs me less than 600€ including delivery

[dmitri 0]

Quote[/b] ]Geforce 7800 GTX 256MB

Theres you problem, 256 mb. You really need 512 to play it on high.

No.

Refer to Xela's post.

Or checkout my own post on page 10 of the foliage issue thread..required viewing for anyone who believes video memory causes the performance drop near foliage...

[Chris Death 0]

Quote[/b] ]Mines a 512mb card and I have trouble playing on very low settings.

I recently found out my card is hardly supported by Nvidia (GeForce 7500LE).

My CPU is fine, many others have used it, the same model and size.

2 Gig of DDR2 RAM is plenty.

Its not just the memory of a graphics card but also the memory speed. The speed on mine was very low and caused a bottleneck making the game performance low. I would advise all that havn't dont so to check their card properly and find out more than just the graphic memory on it.

Jason - you know what LE in GeForce 7500LE stands for?

Low End -> that's the point

I had exactly the same card on my 3,4ghz 2gb RAM pc and

performance was terrible.

Now with a GeForce 7950 GT KO 512mb the game runs

sooooo smoooooooth

And btw - BF2 details lack on every corner - even some

details are missing ) stairs hanging lose in the air or so.

Viewdistance in BF2 on 100% seems to be around 300 meter

well if it's much more, than it's 400 meters - but not more.

~S~ CD

[twoodster 0]

I've got an Core 2 Duo E6600, 2gig DDR ram and an 8800GTS. I also struggle to get anything above 20fps in citys. In fact, the only time I get much above 30 is when I'm in a desert. The game definately has some serious problems somewhere!

[NeMeSiS 11]

I've got an Core 2 Duo E6600, 2gig DDR ram and an 8800GTS. I also struggle to get anything above 20fps in citys. In fact, the only time I get much above 30 is when I'm in a desert. The game definately has some serious problems somewhere!

And yet...

My amd x2 4200+, 1,5gb, x1600XT gives me 50FPS in de desert (everything normal, no shadows, AF very high, AA low, 1800m), 25FPS in cities and 17-22FPS in forests.

[Bunks 0]

I dont think you guys are getting this yet. There is something seriously wrong with this game perfomance wise. I got an e-mail from an old clan mate who began testing this game with multiple cards and setups. I aksed him if he could tell me which setup best suits this game before I buy a new rig. Right now he says he will send results to me once he gets his intel board and chip setup. But his first few tests with an AMD , he said he is seeing results totally inconsistent between vid cards and frame rates. His last message was this:

"I dont see any consitent pattern of frame rates and card quality so far. The FPS on six cards tested so far show no increase/decrease as in other games. I'll let you know what I find when I get the intel rig setup."

I would love to see a Tom's Hardware or other tech site to do an extensive test of this game. I bet they will be scratching their heads if they did.