Horrible Performance...

[Kevlar2007 1]

Cool useless discussion still going on in here.

You can't prove anything here because you have no insight in sourcecode and there is where problems comes from. There is problem in combination of software and hardware only thing you can certainly prove is that there is some connection between software performance and differen hardware configurations.

Please BIS check your code and give us please some feedback of current progress of the problem solving or what you think could be the cause of all this confusion!

[Chris Death 0]

Quote[/b] ]Cool useless discussion still going on in here.

The only thing useless i can see is your repeated reminding

onto a useless discussion here.

You said that once, you said it twice and you said it again.

Even if other's ppl discussion sounds useless to YOU, you don't need to point onto it everytime you post as it gets

boring.

If you want to adress your posts to BIS, you're totally wrong

in this thread here but i guess you've overseen that fact by

reading lots of useless posts.

~S~ CD

[Jack-UK 0]

Get back on topic please or this topic will be closed, some people im sure want to use this thread for its designed purpose.

-----------------

Use the ArmA Mark Thread to find decent hardware systems: http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=55304

Higher the mark, the better. As you can see some systems perform better than others, at lower prices. It seems the GFX card has the biggest role in FPS, the better it is, the higher ur FPS. BUT it relies on a faster CPU the faster the graphics card is, therefore you need to make sure your system is in good balance to maintain an optimum FPS.

[Kevlar2007 1]

...

Just don't read my posts they also can be very easy overseen because of the wast amount of useles posts. But wait my own are also useles, then nevermind!

[Bunks 0]

therefore you need to make sure your system is in good balance to maintain an optimum FPS.

which is why this and other topics are not useless. No one is saying the HD is the key to performance. But so far, it’s the only hardware that has not been looked at with scrutiny as far as performance goes. So far ive seen the results of 7 cards tested on 2 different systems and the results varied. No question a better card established a better baseline of perfomance, but thats only because the game itself is still graphically intesive. But the varied results are associated with things that other games do not experience.

Next week I will have a chance to see for myself the difference between 3 hard drive set ups. If people like myself get told to shut up because we dont know what were talking about, then Ill be more than glad to keep what i find to myself. After all, im doing this becasue Im going to spend a ton of $$$ to play a single game, and I just want to be sure i get the best bang for my buck. This game is bizarre when it comes to performance and wouldn’t be nice if we can at least get some idea at whats working and whats not?

[Jack-UK 0]

Well dont expect BIS to get a response of their hardware through to you They've given us what they think the 'Minimum' and 'Recommended' Specs are.. whether you agree with them or not.

The best way is to use the community... People post their hardware, their FPS / ArmA Mark etc

Yes i have heard the HD is important as a lot of data streaming occurs in this game. Solution to that is get a faster hard drive (imo one of the most irritating parts of a computer to upgrade due to the amount of data needed to be backed up or transfered) and/or defrag regularly. Use a program such as UltimateDefrag to move the ArmA folder and important files to the outside of the HD, increasing data streaming speed.

[Kevlar2007 1]

...

They have given us wrong minum and recomended specs or they are uselles too. Best way to get more performance will be to change the way how the data is streamed and not for us to buy new hardware because is less expensive to us.

Just change sourece code and everything will be fine!

[lee_h._oswald 0]

Can the trolls please get out of here.

If you can play and have nothing usefull to say here, please go and play.

Topic Title is:

Quote[/b] ]

Horrible Performance...

...on a good computer, too!

That means, that we have people here with good computers(better than what BIS recommends, hardware and software wise), NOT able to play ArmA.

People paid money for this game and this is the ArmA - TROUBLESHOOTING forum. We are trying to get help, not stupid comments.

Thank YOU for reading and understanding!

MfG Lee

[Maddmatt 1]

...

They have given us wrong minum and recomended specs or they are uselles too. Best way to get more performance will be to change the way how the data is streamed and not for us to buy new hardware because is less expensive to us.

Just change sourece code and everything will be fine!

How are the minimum and recommended specs wrong? Obviously just because your PC meets them doesn't mean you can max out the settings. My specs are a bit below those of the guy who started the thread and I can play just fine. A little lag when I'm near groups of bushes and looking into them but that's not so bad.

"Just change sourece code and everything will be fine!"

Wow don't you have alot of software programming knowledge .

[Kevlar2007 1]

...

They have given us wrong minum and recomended specs or they are uselles too. Best way to get more performance will be to change the way how the data is streamed and not for us to buy new hardware because is less expensive to us.

Just change sourece code and everything will be fine!

How are the minimum and recommended specs wrong? Obviously just because your PC meets them doesn't mean you can max out the settings. My specs are a bit below those of the guy who started the thread and I can play just fine. A little lag when I'm near groups of bushes and looking into them but that's not so bad.

"Just change sourece code and everything will be fine!"

Wow don't you have alot of software programming knowledge .

Yeah you are absolutelly right, thank you man!

[Jack-UK 0]

Look the engine needs optimisation, its common knowledge. Im sure it will be fixed and optimised as the game develops.

BUT people should realise that this game is quite 'ahead of its time'. For example, go to the screenshots thread and look at some of the graphics. Those graphics are very very high definition. Then remember, ArmA uses a 400km/sq island to play on in free roam, with hundreds of soldiers in any one map.

It causes strain on the system. If you want better performance, get better hardware. Patches will refine the settings, but dont expect a dramatic improvement of 10 FPS or whatever... its not going to happen. By the end of 2007 this issue will not be raised as peoples machines will have improved and the game will become more into its time.

Yes, it needs optimisation, NO it is not going to work on low - end PC's unless your willing to give on having the lowest graphics settings and low FPS's.

[desertfox 2]

Makes me think of OFP almost 6 years back now.

If I remember correctly I had an AMD 333 at this time. Then I bought a Pentium III with 700 MHz .. and only after buying an C-Athlon with 1.4 GHz, I was able to run it with max settings and awesome framerates. Of course the gfx card generations improved as well with the CPU's.

All I wanna say is: BIS made, as Jack pointed out correctly, once more a game which is 2-3 years ahead of its time. You will see .. the PC's in 2-3 years will have no problem whatsoever dealing with Arma. And the game will still rock, and all that will be left of games like BF2 then, will be a scratched DVD in a dusty shelf. ^.^

[lee_h._oswald 0]

If you want better performance, get better hardware.

And again, as a special present for you:

Topic title is:

Quote[/b] ]

Horrible Performance...

...on a good computer, too!

That means, that we have people here with good computers(better than what BIS recommends, hardware and software wise), NOT able to play ArmA.

Or easier:

Good computer(very good, very expensive)

+

Armed Assault

=

- Bad performance.

or

- Bad fps after some minutes, very good fps after alt+tab

---

MfG Lee

[Bunks 0]

Makes me think of OFP almost 6 years back now.

If I remember correctly I had an AMD 333 at this time. Then I bought a Pentium III with 700 MHz .. and only after buying an C-Athlon with 1.4 GHz, I was able to run it with max settings and awesome framerates. Of course the gfx card generations improved as well with the CPU's.

All I wanna say is: BIS made, as Jack pointed out correctly, once more a game which is 2-3 years ahead of its time. You will see .. the PC's in 2-3 years will have no problem whatsoever dealing with Arma. And the game will still rock, and all that will be left of games like BF2 then, will be a scratched DVD in a dusty shelf. ^.^

I Couldnt agree more. However, this topic is about what we can do for right now. If the trolls quit acting so freaking defensive and either refrain from posting or perhaps maybe add some input, then we may be able to tweak a few frames here and there and actually play and enjoy this game for now. till these new systems become available, telling people to quit posting about how unplayable it is for them is not only paranoid but unhelpful to the rest of us.

I mean this is now bordering on absurd. This community had my respect for over 5 years (and dont let my new account fool you) since I started OFP on a PIII 800mhz myself. The game is a monopoly of sorts, since no other game exist that can be compared to it. So in essence, its the only game in town for some of us. So if we are unhappy about how it plays, its because its personal in a way. So for all of you who the games plays well for....FKING GREAT!!!! I am sooo happy for you. Now please let the rest of us figure out what we can do to share in your joy.

Edit-Im also going thru all this nonsense not only for myself but for my group since they all have given up on Arma already. But you will never hear from them in forums, because like most people who pay money for a product...they expect it to come out of the box working. And like one memeber who unistalled it said: "Im not going to spend 3 days learning about computer hardware to make it play better, thats why I paid THEM the money and not the other way around"

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

I could not agree with you more bunks, everyone needs to take a few breaths and think about what myself and others are trying to do here. Trying to find whats wrong and trying to find a fix for it just not for me but for everyone.

[Kevlar2007 1]

Yeah sure Arma is ahead of my ass dudes!

[dmitri 0]

All I wanna say is: BIS made, as Jack pointed out correctly, once more a game which is 2-3 years ahead of its time. You will see .. the PC's in 2-3 years will have no problem whatsoever dealing with Arma. And the game will still rock, and all that will be left of games like BF2 then, will be a scratched DVD in a dusty shelf. ^.^

It's too easy saying that. After the release of Resistance and the new terrain settings, I'd say "ahead of its time" due to the system I had back then and the detail added by the very high terrain setting.

Today - a single bush crippling a machine isn't "ahead of its time" - no matter how you want to spin it. Especially if that bush doesn't look much better than any other bit of foliage from countless other games, or even OFP (regardless of the technology driving it).

But yeah, 2 -3 years time I will still be playing. I guess I will have to wait until start of 2008 to play at a consistent framerate (I'm skipping Geforce 8800 and R600). Suggesting the purchase of new hardware isn't real advice\problem solving. It's just a very expensive band aid.

And, why is Whiskey still spreading nonsense?

[Heatseeker 0]

Bad fps after some minutes, very good fps after alt+tab

Have you found other people with this 'specific' problem?

If the game gets choppy after a few minuts of play and alt+tab fixes it for a while your video card might be overheating!

I think you've posted before that you overclock, i cant guess everything you've tried to fix this problem but if i were you i would put everything running at stock speeds and check/monitor CPU/GPU temperatures just to be on the safe side (maybe you already have).

In adition i would try some other graphics intensive games at full settings to see if this issue also happens.

Faulty memory could also be responsible for this i guess... i used to run this prog that checked everything, i will see if i can find it or remember its name.

Your video card is new, its possible that there are problems in it that need to be adressed in future driver releases (stability/compatbility), other people have reported about the GTX but i havent found many Arma user reports on the GTS.

I understand your very frustrating situation .

[Jack-UK 0]

If you want better performance, get better hardware.

And again, as a special present for you:

Topic title is:

Quote[/b] ]

Horrible Performance...

...on a good computer, too!

That means, that we have people here with good computers(better than what BIS recommends, hardware and software wise), NOT able to play ArmA.

Or easier:

Good computer(very good, very expensive)

+

Armed Assault

=

- Bad performance.

or

- Bad fps after some minutes, very good fps after alt+tab

---

MfG Lee

As i have said, what you name a "Good PC" may still not be 'good' enough for ArmA as this game is ahead of its time...

Yes i agree the engine needs to be optimized, ive said this COUNTLESS times. I have been quite a critic of ArmA since trying the demo.

For those with top of the range hardware and are experiencing stupidly low FPS <20 on a top notch pc say, then there is an issue. But if you look at the first post of the thread the PC which is posted is NOT top of the range and is not over the reccomended spec in all aspects (the CPU is lower).

I'm trying to inform people what i know from what is asked and what is stated.

so once again: Yes the engine needs optimization in terms of performance. But the game is also very demanding because of its GFX, meaning that what some people regard as 'good' is not 'good' for this game due to it being ahead of its time. Therefore i am on topic.

p.s. i love your sig MFG lee had to chuckle

[desertfox 2]

There's something odd that comes to my mind just now.

I installed ArmA on a freshly installed Windows system, with all drivers up-to-date and no other software on it. ( Due to a HD failure the day before ) and I really was pleased with the framerates I got on medium to high settings. We're talking about an average of 30 fps @ 1280x1024 pixels resolution.

So the other day I see that ATI has released a driver update on December 17th, and I go and download it .. the full Catalyst control thingy. And my framerates dropped down to 6-8 !! in MP missions. I could only get the performance up again after removing ALL ATI drivers with the uninstall utility from them - and installing the actual "drivers only" ( Without the shitty control center thang ) again.

So if nothing helps, did some of the guys who experience massive lag try to re-install windows from the scratch ?

[Dwarden 1124]

just fast answer, ATA-7 drives got theoretical maximum higher than ATA-6 yet there is no problem to find ATA-6 drive perform better than ATA-7 drive

in terms of raw read/write unbuffered perf ...

of course there is difference in buffered results but that don't help with huge files at all ...

it starts to play way bigger role with multiple drives in raid

[bangtail 0]

Yeah sure Arma is ahead of my ass dudes!

You need a temp ban. You aren't contributing anything to this at all. Further to that, Armed Assault IS ahead of it's time. There is no other game like it. It's AI routines are the best I have ever seen in ANY game and I could go on and on about all the other elaborate features the game has.

There are definitely some performance issues for some people and that is unfortunate but I am sure they will all get fixed and hopefully sooner rather than later.

E

[aus_twisted 0]

I think the easiest fix for BIS would be to remove the 1st LOD of these detailed bushes that are causing problems, I know for me they kill my FPS when the 1st lod is in view. And the ground clutter (grass etc) doesn't help either which is useless for gameplay in several ways, it's only a visual thing.

[Kevlar2007 1]

...

Yeah go on and ban me.

You are contributing to this thread exactly so much like me or even less then me with your storys about how arma is ahead of the time. With that story and your other uselles posts you helped me alot to solve my and problem of others so I thank you very much.

[MassDriver 0]

Quote[/b] ]I installed ArmA on a freshly installed Windows system, with all drivers up-to-date and no other software on it. ( Due to a HD failure the day before ) and I really was pleased with the framerates I got on medium to high settings. We're talking about an average of 30 fps @ 1280x1024 pixels resolution.

So the other day I see that ATI has released a driver update on December 17th, and I go and download it .. the full Catalyst control thingy. And my framerates dropped down to 6-8 !! in MP missions. I could only get the performance up again after removing ALL ATI drivers with the uninstall utility from them - and installing the actual "drivers only" ( Without the shitty control center thang ) again.

So if nothing helps, did some of the guys who experience massive lag try to re-install windows from the scratch ?

About the ATI drivers:

I, too, get lower fps with the ATI Control Centre installed. My advice is: Don't use it. Just use the drivers (and WDM drivers, if you need them) without the Control Centre, and get some third party control program like ATI Tray Tools to manage your games. It works MUCH better (even solved some graphic glitches for me in certain games).