Hardware and settings for ArmA

[Aart 0]

Running on Very High is the only way to play this game imho.  BIS really outdid themslves.  Beautiful visuals.

Sure when youve got the system to run it! I have to wait a couple of months to see it's full glory. Till the 1024x768 on normal and no shadow for me.

[Dark Angel 0 0]

Running on Very High is the only way to play this game imho.  BIS really outdid themslves.  Beautiful visuals.

Yeah. I play at 800x600, 500m visibility, all on very high. As I've mentioned earlier, I'm used to low framerates (I dropped from 1024x768 to 800x600 when I found out it's kinda difficult to aim. But I've got no problems now .

Actually, I'm used to low framerates so much that I'd probably suck if my framerate was to suddenly rise...

But, again, I don't fly planes - ever tried landing the Harrier with 500m visibility? You won't see the runway until it's too late. I can fly with textures to very low (as it works with 10km visibility).

[DaveG 0]

My performance aint so hot either.  

I'm running:

AMD athlon 3500+

ATI x1950xtx 512MB

2 Gig Ram

I'm using the following settings:

view distance - 1200m

Terrain - High

Objects - High

Textures - Very High

Shading - High

Post Process - Low

Aniso - Disabled (I set this to x4 in control panel as the in game setting does nothing)

AA - Normal

Shadows - Normal

res 1280 x 1024

Arma mark is ~1600

FPS - ~40 in open areas to less than 20 (barely playable) in some towns during combat.

I seem to get very similar frame rates no matter what settings I use.  with everything set to very low only gain by a few fps.

Great game, just wish it would be smoother.  I do think it should be better considering my system.

*edit - forgot view distance

[shataan 1]

I really do think the low performance many are experiencing is NOT visuals related at all.  A.I. NEEDS loads of cpu cycles to do its thing.     I play around with o/cing my cpu.  Default is 2.6 gig.  At 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, and 3 gig.... the A.I. progresively gets more active.  Well, in the demo anyways.

    Call me crazy, I know ya will, but Imho it`s the A.I. calcs in the game giving peeps the performance problems.   I`d be willing to bet if devs would start coding their games for Dual Core processors, that 1 core does the visuals etc, and 1 core does all the A.I. calculations, I bet peeps would see way better performance alround.

[Rebel Man 431]

I found this from OFP filefront, Hope help you guys, ArmA System requirements:

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

  * CPU: 2 GHz

  * RAM: 512 MB

  * Nvidia Geforce FX with 128 MB RAM & pixel shader 2.0, ATI Radeon 9500 with 128 MB of RAM  

    & pixel shader 2.0

  * Free HD Space: 3 GB (or more as needed for downloadable addons)

  * Software: Windows XP or Windows 2000 and DirectX 9

Recommended Specification:

  * CPU: 3 GHz

  * RAM: 1 GB

  * Video Card: Nvidia 6800 and above or Ati x800 and above with at least 256 MB RAM

  * Free HD Space: 3 GB (or more as needed for downloadable addons)

  * Software: Windows XP and DirectX 9

Thanks, But about my self, I first will buy ArmA later, Then tell us my System requirements.

[Richieb0y 0]

can someone help me. before i bougt the game some pll told me 2 go to www.srtest.com and check if the game can run on my comp and the results where for minium and Rec

so if i meet the Rec specs then i should have no probs whit Med settings but if i place 3 tanks my fps drops in 20s

is it my comp or the game let me know specs in SIG

Side Note: it dont spoil my fun whit the game but i like 2 now how u guys think

[Bad Pilot 0]

If you're getting 20+ fps then the game is running fast enough to play. If you have a big PC and you're getting that low framerate, then you're doing something wrong :P. Fiddle with your graphics driver, fiddle with the game settings.

I'm getting about 20, maybe as high as 30, fps now. In a few days, I'll have a new video card installed in my AGP slot and I'm hoping to double the fps with better visuals, too.

Moving from 128bit 6600GT 256MB DDR3 to 256bit X1950 Pro 512MB DDR3. The last upgrade before I change computers.

[Creepy_Smell 0]

I went from getting 20-30FPS with very low/disabled settings on a 9700pro to 25-35FPS with normal (Most settings)/low (AA, AF, Shadows) settings on a 7600GT with 1200 view distance. Rest of rig is Barton+2500 oc'd to 3200 and 1.5GB DDR RAM. While its not a big jump in FPS the quality has greatly improved. It normally stays steady at 30 with an occasional drop to 25 in forest. Very playable and without FPS counter it feels much smoother. Its the same FPS my old 9700pro ran my modded OFP so I am used to it.

This is only from playing Clean Sweep (Which killed my FPS on my old card due to forest) and Blood Sweat Tears missions.

[MehMan 0]

I have a:

Barton 2.6, non OCed(although I can try OCing it, it can run faster and it won't melt, I've got enough fans)

XFX 6600GT DDR3 128MB, AGP, non OCed(Might give it a go here too)

1 GB of various sticks of RAM(2x256,1x512)

The game runs on low/normal, with 1200 view distance, at around 20-30 FPS, I've gotten into big urban firefights(50v50) and at most it dropped down to 16-17 FPS, still playable. I did notice an increase in preformance when forcing Vsync off in the nvidia panel and the mouselag was gone when I set the render frames ahead to 0. Forests on the other hand kill me if I don't turn off the shadows.

Does anybody know how much preformance might I gain with an OC?

And dang it, I've been hearing from a lot of people that they've gained a huge preformance boost when they bought a 7600 and I'm really thinking about it, since I won't be going to PCI-E yet as I don't have enough money for a complete system upgrade, only for a card. So tempting. Need to gather up some cash.

[FlyFisher 0]

@MehMan

With your CPU, try the game with that settings

Visibility: 1200 Very High

1024x768x32

Terrain: Very Low Antisotropicfiltering: Disabled

Object detail:Very High Shadow detail: Disabled

Texture detail: High Antialiasing: Disabled

Shading: Very low Blood: *rofl*

Postprocess: Low

And about your Videocard:

Tip1

Turn VerticalSync, Antisotropic Filtering and Antialiasing in your videocard options OFF

Tip2

Download "Coolbits2" (Registry) and open your Videocard Settings, you will see "Clock Frequency Settings" and you can regulate your performance!

PS: My friend got the same CPU + Graphiccard and with those settings he got 30-40 fps everywhere in the game! (in the forest 20 and desert areas 60 fps)

Cya!

[mr burns 132]

Terrain: Very Low Antialiasing: Disabled

Those settings may give a huge performance boost but also make the ground textures turn butt-ugly and spotting/aiming targets at distance will become much harder w/o anti aliasing ..

just my 2 euro cents

[chipper 0]

AMD XP 3000+ ~2.16Ghz

1GB DDR RAM

7800GS AGP 256MB

Terrain: Normal

Objects: Normal

Textures: Low ( Any higher FPS goes to shit)

Shading: Normal

Postprocess: Low

AF: 16x

Shadows: High

AA: Disabled

Blood: High

Well my FPS is barely "playable" but I want to have my textures on normal without the huge FPS drop. Any suggestions on what to lower etc...?

[Maximus_G 0]

Basically its the video card - it has a hard time working with textures. 7800GS can fill the scene with up to (roughly) 3 GPix/sec. For example, 6800GT does it up to 6.5, X850XT - 8.3.

I would recommend turning off AF. And shadows - to "low".

...and all other settings too Framerate is life! ©

[sander 14]

Hi,

You have Shadows: High, altering this setting should result in better performance. Detailed shadows take up a lot of processing power.

Regards,

Sander

[Shiz 0]

Yes i agree Shadows need to be set to Low if not off completely, TBH shadows look nice but you can get by without them. Also AF 16x m8 that needs to come way down. Hope this helps

[Cerebral_Assassin 0]

Yo all,

Just curious. I asked about the 7900 GS earlier and had great responses w/ it. W/ DX10 around the corner, and me not being able to afford an 8xxx series at the moment, does anyone here have or know if a 7600 GT would run ArmA on normal to medium settings?

What kind of frames to expect?

THanks in advance!!

AMD x2 4200

SATA HDD

1GB DDR2 800

ASUS SLI mobo w/ Nforce 4

[bravo 6 0]

i think you might need a better video card.

i have a x1950 pro 512mb ddr3 AGP

and i know i want more :P

[chipper 0]

Alright I can live with shadows on Low, but the 16x AF makes the textures look a whole lot better. I don't know if I could live w/o it

I'll see wut I can do thanks

[hoz 0]

I merged the 7600 topic with this one. I have a 7600GT and I run on medium settings and ArmA runs fairly decent.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]or know if a 7600 GT would run ArmA on normal to medium settings

Leadtek WinFast A7600 GT with a 2.8 Athlon XP and 1 Gig Ram

Settings in Arma:

Object details: High

Texture details: High

Landscape details: High

Postprocessing: Disabled

Viewdistance: 1200m

AA: Normal

AniFiltering: None

Shadows: Disabled (hope the 1.05 patch will make Arma run more fluent, so I can enable them)

I´m more than happy with the performance. Frame rates are good, expect a drop at foliage though as with all gfx cards apparently.

Sidenote: The default Ram clock was at 700 Mhz. i clocked it to 750 today with no sideeffects and the game "seems" to make benefit of it. It appears to run more fluent when loading textures.

[wamingo 1]

I have a 7600gt (256mb) running on a 3500+ AMD and it runs "ok". Can boost the settings mostly all the way up if the missions aren't too cpu intensive. It's rather subjective what is good fps and what is fluent and it depends entirely on the mission. When flying around you will meet the little fps spikes which can be scary when trying to land on a rooftop But not so bad you can't enjoy it.

My advice is though, if you got money to spare, get something better. If not, you can still enjoy it.

I would really like to know if arma benefits much/any from more than 256mb video memory. Any one know?

[bravo 6 0]

my PC specs:

CPU: P4, 3.0Ghz

M.Board: Guru Abit Ai7

Ram: 2G ddr 400 (2x256mb + 1x512mb + 1x1G = 2G)

HDD: 250Gb 16MB Sata II

Power supply: 550 Watts

With a Sapphire Radeon X1950 pro 512mb ddr3 AGP all runs fine even with all settings very high and view distance 1200m

The most strangest thing is that if i put all settings at very high plus the biggest resolution i can play ARMA fluid on a 1200m view distance.. something i never expected. ( to be fixed?! )

i have the feeling that all settings at very hight and the biggest resolution is not working properlly as it suppose to work..

are these resolutions having any problems?

will graphics (eye candy) be better when 1.05 comes out?

not exactly sure if im happy untill the new patch comes out.

[Gecko1969 0]

My first post (that I remember, duh. Old age).

So my question is I have some funds to buy a new computer. There are limits (aren't there always), so I need to get input as to what is the better bang for money. I see that the Dual processors are not supported. Is there an official word on if this is or is not going to happen? If not I guess sticking to and AMD product would be the best route. Next question. I am an NVIDIA fan and have been happy with them for long time (honestly never owned an ATI product, so I am very biased) and I am looking at their line up. What is the current state with SLI? Must I buy exactly the same Make (Mark) to use SLI? I know the same model must be used but if I use NVIDIA drivers shouldn't I be able to pick up a single card now then a cheaper one later?

As I run XP and I hear DirectX 10 is not coming to XP (a ploy to get people to buy Vista bloat) is holding out and dreaming of then ext gen hardware worth it?

Besides that I am sure to have at least 2 gig of RAM (the fastest timing I can get). And I am hunting around for a nice deal on a used sound card. Any other suggestions?

Thanks and I am looking forward to the US release though I may break down and order it from the import stores.

Looking forward to multiplayer gaming with some of you.

[-Puma- 2]

Yo all,

Just curious. I asked about the 7900 GS earlier and had great responses w/ it. W/ DX10 around the corner, and me not being able to afford an 8xxx series at the moment, does anyone here have or know if a 7600 GT would run ArmA on normal to medium settings?

What kind of frames to expect?

THanks in advance!!

AMD x2 4200

SATA HDD

1GB DDR2 800

ASUS SLI mobo w/ Nforce 4

I have 7600gt OC'd and i run arma 1024x786 everything in normal execpt postprocessing low and AA low. I get FPS from 15 (tight spots) to 45 ( desert). I can play urban desert missions with 30 FPS. 7600gt does its job being a middle range card quite well. I'll bet I can get some steady FPS once the game is properly optimized

btw: Gecko have u looked into SoundBlaster Audigy 4?? It has EAX advanced, so it will support all EAX versions, nice driver support and the best part its only around 50 $ (audigy 4; it comes with remote) and about 25$ , for the Audigy 4 SE (without remote)

[ziiip 1]

I have a 7600 GT but its no so cool for me...I have everything on normal, without shadow, AA, normal AF. In North Sahrani my FPS is mostly 25, but big foliage can drop it to 10. Otherwise it's usually about 38.