Hardware Issues: Tips/Tricks/Solutions

[Jack-UK 0]

Try it yourself.. but usually its better to set control panel to "Application Controlled" and set the AA/AF ingame

p.s. added the SecuROM fixed EXE to the first post + thanks dwarden for all your additions!

[CharveL 0]

Here is a link to my NVidia Control Panel 3D Settings incase it helps someone with their performance. I find my ArmA pretty darned good now with these settings.

Nvidia Control Panel Settings eVGA 8800GTS 640MB

These settings also helped alot when I was running a eVGA 7950GT KO Superclocked.

<span style='color:olive'>My Specs:

eVGA 680i Motherboard

eVGA 8800 GTS 640MB (Not OC'd)

2x1024MB Buffalo Firestix DDR2-1000 @ 1067Mhz

Core2Duo e6600 2.4Ghz OC'd @ 3.02 Ghz

Creative Soundblaster Audigy2 ZS

HDD0 WD Raptor 74GB

HDD1 WD Raptor 150GB

HDD2 WD Raptor 150GB

OCZ GameXStream 600Watt

Resolution: 1400x1050</span>

I know it's a high end rig, but these settings really do make a huge difference.

Link no workie.

[Batstat 10]

8800 owners do you get better performance with aa and af set ingame or in the control panel?

I belive Jack-UK generally spoken is right. Beside that, this is an apple - banana compare.

It can be my lack of understanding, but how can you be sure you compare the same thing, ingame and driver vise is not a 1:1 relation.

Anyway my 4 runs and numbers, fraps benchmark of ingame video 60 sec.

1: Driver AA and AF to sw controlled. Ingame AA to very high amd ingame AF to very high.

Avg: 23.867 - Min: 5 - Max: 41

2: Same as above

Avg: 23.867 - Min: 10 - Max: 40

3: Driver AA Override SW - 16x, AA transparency - Multisampling, AF Override SW - 16x

Avg: 21.167 - Min: 5 - Max: 34

4: Same as above

Avg: 22.217 - Min: 10 - Max: 37

Not sure what this answer? The difference is there, it is minimal, but is it the same picture you get? I don't think you can be sure of that.

Screen 1280x1024

Note that the ingame video always play out slightly different so there will always be some result difference also.

[Jack-UK 0]

yup, i dont have an Nvidia card so i cant test it myself on that particular card... But im pretty sure setting it to application controlled is the best way... the control panels simply override + "force" the setting ... forcing probably isnt good...

Although the control panel approach does seem to have more flexibility over it ... with 8x/16x multisamping etc etc and possibly you will get a better graphic quality, but i cant tell

But for performance, always use application controlled.

[ArmaVidz 0]

Here is a link to my NVidia Control Panel 3D Settings incase it helps someone with their performance. I find my ArmA pretty darned good now with these settings.  

Nvidia Control Panel Settings eVGA 8800GTS 640MB

These settings also helped alot when I was running a eVGA 7950GT KO Superclocked.

<span style='color:olive'>My Specs:

eVGA 680i Motherboard

eVGA 8800 GTS 640MB (Not OC'd)

2x1024MB Buffalo Firestix DDR2-1000 @ 1067Mhz

Core2Duo e6600 2.4Ghz OC'd @ 3.02 Ghz

Creative Soundblaster Audigy2 ZS

HDD0 WD Raptor 74GB

HDD1 WD Raptor 150GB

HDD2 WD Raptor 150GB

OCZ GameXStream 600Watt

Resolution: 1400x1050</span>

I know it's a high end rig, but these settings really do make a huge difference.

Link no workie.

Link do worky

As for the AA/AF set to application controlled or Off, I put mine as off and run the game at native resolution. Previous to 2 weeks ago that was 1440x1050, now that native resolution is 1600x1200. It looks good enough imo. If I can play it, anyone can. I am a stickler and jerk about my games looking like poo-poo, I won't have it. heh.

[malik22 0]

I have a 8800 gts 640mb and set texture detail to default like said in the 1.8 release notes but havent seen a performance increase from having it on very high how about you guys?

[ArmaVidz 0]

Honestly, in the last week or two, I dunno what I did, but the only super-speed increase I see is how fast I get to the desktop from mid-game  

[libertyordeath776 0]

Hi,

I have a question about video card. My comp had onboard vid when new, i bought a agp 8X geforce card for it. I installed it about a year ago. I was reading about Bios stuff and was looking in my Bios and noticed my vid adapter there says PCI? The other option is agp/onboard. My card is in the agp slot, when i look in device manager it says PCI bus slot 1? Why doesnt the device manager say its in agp slot?

[leonil 0]

it's only say that, if you put a pci video card in your pc, it will be the primary video card (interesting if you make a mistake will updating the bios of your agp card and want to see what you are doing in your screen for reflashing it ^^'

[libertyordeath776 0]

In my bios it says pci for my primary vid adapter. My vid card is agp in agp slot? Had onboard vid before. Im conused?But thanks for the reply.

[yannara 0]

My Arma runs very well in the desert or in a field enviroment, but if I'll go into the woods, fps will low so much, that aiming and shooting (or other quick action) becomes very slow, and this is because of that grass and trees, which take all force of the graphic card (x1950). Is there any way to lower the woods&grass quality, that fps would become faster? Is there any tweek to disable the grass?

[Q1184 0]

Disabling shadows will give you a huge boost. I went from 18 to 30 FPS in the woods Also try lowering shading quality.

[Cannon Fodder 0]

I've found that the biggest indicator of performance for me is how high the level of detail can be maintained before performance significantly degrades - in other words, video RAM.

I'll give you an example - I'm engaging targets on a large scale map, like Evolution, and I'll be running quite smoothly in the desert. As soon as I get to the woods to the North - the game runs much, much more slowly when I look at shader-intensive areas - like a cluster of trees with overlapping shadows. This is NOT because of the fact that my computer is having trouble rendering it from a speed point of view - it is essentially because I do not have enough video RAM to render the entirety of the scene without 'swapping' occurring and causing massive slowdown. A quick alt-tab (because FLUSH doesn't work usually) and I'm back to running nice and quickly for a period of about 5-10 minutes and then the same will occur again, when the memory is filled.

I do not think this is a problem with how ArmA manages memory - instead, I think it is a problem with how far I am pushing my computer to reach the desired visual quality at the expense of stability. Because of ArmA's streaming system, I definitely think that the game allows me to run at a higher than normal level of graphical quality for my video RAM but only for limited periods of time. Because I'm using an older 256MB card (a 7900GT), it is only a matter of time before the RAM is filled.

Reducing various things helps ease the burden and stretch out these periods between the memory getting filled - shadows seem to be the biggest factor. Next to that is texture quality, then post processing. All of the others do not affect the eventual degradation of performance, from my testing. A quick fix solution is to play in a lower resolution - I can maintain lower resolutions for longer periods than anything higher.

I've come to the conclusion that a 8800 with a huge amount of RAM is the only solution to these woes.

[Grodin 0]

Could point out that no matter how much all the fanbois love to use it everywhere, term "Lag" has NOTHING to do with framerates, graphics cards, keyboard or mouse inputs....

Its about network latencies...

Just to make it easier for supporters to troubleshoot your problems.

For example, single player can not lag. Saying that "omg i haev huuuge lags when i put 500 soldiers in editor!!1" is just... well..

[ArmaVidz 0]

yes anything about slow latency time between the player and the server is lag. It should not be used for anything but.

Any issues relating to slowness other than ping, or slow network connection between the player and the multi server, should use the term 'performance' i.e: I get poor performance when....

[NeMeSiS 11]

Could point out that no matter how much all the fanbois love to use it everywhere, term "Lag" has NOTHING to do with framerates, graphics cards, keyboard or mouse inputs....

Its about network latencies...

Just to make it easier for supporters to troubleshoot your problems.

For example, single player can not lag. Saying that "omg i haev huuuge lags when i put 500 soldiers in editor!!1" is just... well..

Lag just means 'falling behind' according to dictionary.com, its not some kind of computerterm.

[ArmaVidz 0]

Yes true, however when applied correctly in the computer world, as most words do when used from common english to describe issues in the with technology, the correct way to use it typically addresses a particular type of 'falling behind.'

Typically when us computer geeks refer to lag - it has one meaning. Use it how you want - but for clarity's sake - I would say use lag only as a term for network throughput/latency.

[Grodin 0]

Could point out that no matter how much all the fanbois love to use it everywhere, term "Lag" has NOTHING to do with framerates, graphics cards, keyboard or mouse inputs....

Its about network latencies...

Just to make it easier for supporters to troubleshoot your problems.

For example, single player can not lag. Saying that "omg i haev huuuge lags when i put 500 soldiers in editor!!1" is just... well..

Lag just means 'falling behind' according to dictionary.com, its not some kind of computerterm.

Actually it is computer term but all the fanbois have just given it a new meaning in every possible situation, dictionary.com gives people the most likely meaning of the word when all people misuse it.

This _computer term_ was in use before any dictionaries even knew about it.

Click for more detailed explanation about lag

[NeMeSiS 11]

Typically when us computer geeks refer to lag - it has one meaning. Use it how you want - but for clarity's sake - I would say use lag only as a term for network throughput/latency.

I know and understand, its annoying when people complain about 'lag' when they actually just have a low FPS, but when they label it 'FPS lag' you cant really complain IMO.

[Grodin 0]

Typically when us computer geeks refer to lag - it has one meaning. Use it how you want - but for clarity's sake - I would say use lag only as a term for network throughput/latency.

I know and understand, its annoying when people complain about 'lag' when they actually just have a low FPS, but when they label it 'FPS lag' you cant really complain IMO.

Yes its very clear what people mean when they tell its specific kind of lag, mouselag fpslag etc, however it sounds odd to me because its kinda wrong term, saying "i have fps lag" is like saying "i have internet stuttering"

[Lepardi 0]

Meh... can't believe it. My new system cannot run ArmA.

I have 4gb of ram (1gig disabled for arma 64-bit & 4gb problem), a C2D @3,2GHz and 8800GTS 640Mb. Barely runs on normal settings, well, gotta go with these then. I am disappointed. Or is there any chance of a better performance in the full game over that US Demo (1.06) ?

[Elcivor 0]

it might be an old message, and yes, I know I am using a old 3d card. but the Asus Radeon 9600se does NOT work with Catalyst 7.10 on ArmA.. atleast, that was what happened to me, I use an older version of Catalyst now(7.8)

maybe that will help also with the "cannot create 3d device:blablabla" error. that is what happened with me

[Lepardi 0]

Hey,

Is this normal?

When I go to a 'dark' place, or look at my legs it looks normal, daylight is good and everything looks natural:

But then I go outside and it goes like this! It looks like it's evening, not day! Is it supposed to be like this, or why does it look like this? Can it be fixed?

[Madus_Maximus 0]

Methinks its something to do with the HDR. It's not technically a "bug" but more a limitation. I'm not sure if it's the HDR engine or a DX9 thing.

[Maddmatt 1]

...

The sun is in your eyes. Turn around and your eyes will adjust so it's not as dark.

Changing HDR Precision to 16 might improve it, dunno. But you lose the sun flare effect.