I find a tweak that help my Arma performance.

[NorthStorm 0]

I find that a while ago and i told myself "what the heck, it might work"

I`m not saying that i had a 75% of boost but, at least i can play the game at a descent fps with everything max out except for the PP and the AA.

Here`s the link: http://www.tweakxp.com/article37033.aspx

I hpe that this will help some of you who`s having problem running arma.

Have a good one.

[jantenner 0]

thanks for the tip

[Richieb0y 0]

how many fps have u gained whit that program and what are ur specs

in case nobody did

[Maddmatt 1]

@Richieb0y: It's not a program.

A simple way to test this before making the batch file is to press Ctrl-Alt-Delete while ArmA is running and set it's priority to "high" or "above normal". Setting it too high can cause control input problems, so if your mouse/keyboard doesn't seem responsive after you turn it up, then just drop it a notch. Also, never set the priority below normal - that would be pointless. Also the "realtime" setting will most likely cause problems, but there is no harm in testing it.

[Journeyman 0]

Hmm, my McAfee Site Advisor warns me away from that site as it has been shown to have spyware in its downloads! Also I’d rather wait for BIS to finish optimising it first before messing with apps like that!

[Maddmatt 1]

Hmm, my McAfee Site Advisor warns me away from that site as it has been shown to have spyware in its downloads! Also I’d rather wait for BIS to finish optimising it first before messing with apps like that!

As I just said, it's not an app. Read my previous post if you don't want to visit that site.

[MamiyaOtaru 1]

Laffo @ not reading Matt's post or the link. The link has no download, it tells you how to create a batch file to automate what Matt describes doing with the Windows task manager. Can't imagine it would do much on a dual core, ArmA pretty much already has one to itself.

[CallMeSir 0]

I've tried this tweak on a few demanding games, over the years, in the hope of eeking-out a few more frames.  BUT sadly I never seen an increase in fps.

Maybe if you have a lot of services/background app's running it might help a bit.

Worth a try, but don't hold your breath..and use madmatts advice to try it.

[memnoch 0]

Besides a much better bet would be to shut down all non essential tasks and services before playing any games. I use Enditall2 for this. One click and all apps and services that you don't protect are shut down. Takes seconds.

[Infam0us 10]

Makes sense has this would give the program more resources to run. Is it possible to take the FPS before and after you have given the program high priority?

[Grassmonkey 0]

hiya all just a word i looked at the site and the cmd given on that site does not work for me but if you want to give it a go try this as it runs for me in high priority dont know if it makes a diff or not. start /d d:\arma /high arma.exe change the /d d:\arma to /d then where the game is loaded

[Infam0us 10]

Tbh its a hell of a lot simpler to Alt Tab out of the game, find the process and then select high ...

[boecko 0]

Would be nice if this could be integrated in  Kegetys ArmA-launcher.

I used this tool:

http://www.majorgeeks.com/Win2000_Launcher_d438.html

but it's of no use, if you start ArmA via the ArmaLauncher.

[kegetys 2]

I'd say increasing the priority of a game would generally not be a good idea since all it will do is give less processor time to all other applications running on the background. If you have some non-important programs running on the background that use up cpu time from the game then you would be better off dropping the priority from those programs instead (Or shut them down if possible).

[NorthStorm 0]

Good idea or not to increase the priority on the processor it makes the game playable till they make a patch to solve the problem. I have a P4 Northwood 3.4ghz, ATI X1950 Pro 256mb Pci Express, 2 gb RAM DDR2 4300, Audigy 2 and my page file is set at 2048. There`s nothing running in the background beside TrackIr. My computer is clean and defrag with, the latest drivers for everything.

I don`t see why i wouldn`t be able to run that game with everything max out at 1280 x 1024.

When i`m playing, my processor is at 65% and my RAM at 50%.

Like i said, for me, it gave the game a boost so i can play with what the game is suppose to deliver. I hate when i`m not able to get the same graphics who`s on the back of the box if you know what i mean...

If anyone have a better idea, let me know.

By the way, the link that i posted is not an .exe It`s just instructions for how to make a .bat and a shortcut of it.

By the way, the one i made is set to Realtime.

Beside FRAPS, is there any way to get the fps in the game?

[boecko 0]

I'd say increasing the priority of a game would generally not be a good idea since all it will do is give less processor time to all other applications running on the background. If you have some non-important programs running on the background that use up cpu time from the game then you would be better off dropping the priority from those programs instead (Or shut them down if possible).

This may be true for single core procs.

I'm using an Dual Core Cpu

1st cpu -> real time for Arma

2nd cpu -> os duty

So this would be quite handy.

Bye

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Dude, ArmA runs like crap on your system because your card is 256MB. Plus you've got a P4, like me, which is a problem, even when running at 4GHz my ArmA still can clog up in certain areas.

I need to get my hands on a Core 2/Core Quad. Then my 8800 will be unleashed, finally.

[SHWiiNG 0]

lol am i the only person who didnt get this to work.. i mean whenever i click on the Shortcut to the .Bin file.. all i get is crummy notepad.

[wamingo 1]

Dude, ArmA runs like crap on your system because your card is 256MB. /snip

Does the game actually benefit much from more than 256mb video memory? Does anyone have any experience with both a 256mb card and one with more (in arma)? Or maybe one with less?

Could a BIS dev be pursuaded to apply an answer to this? I think many would be very interested in such an answer as one could easily imagine less texture swapping could provide substantial performance benefits.

On the other hand it may not give you more fps once the textures are loaded so the only benefit would be less frequent stuttering when going crosscountry.

[max power 21]

My computer is clean and defrag with, the latest drivers for everything.

The latest ati catalyst drivers have some kind of memory leak that causes degraded performance. Roll them back to 6.7.

[lethal 0]

Dude, ArmA runs like crap on your system because your card is 256MB. /snip

Does the game actually benefit much from more than 256mb video memory? Does anyone have any experience with both a 256mb card and one with more (in arma)? Or maybe one with less?

depends on the texture settings, aa level (not sure about af), and resolution. generally speaking the more raw data the vidcard has to process the more vram gets used.

it's not true that you can't run arma on less that 512 satisfactory though. you simly reduce the amount of raw data mainly by reducing texture size, AA, resolution (in that order methinks).

there are a few programs out there that let you monitor the vram usage and judge if it's lack of vram that's causing you performance problems. i'll google up a few when i find the time; I don't have any links on hand right now, though.

I've had a x1600xt 256mb not long ago and have a x1900 512mb now. there is deninitely a difference - turning up the textures to max doesn't cause any stuttering anymore for me, but even with the x1600 i could set them on medium - high without any impact on performace. the BIG difference performance-wise lies not in the memory capacity but the shader performance. that really makes a huge difference

again, when i find some time i'll test how much vram arma actually uses.

[Dwarden 1125]

ArmA can easily saturate even 512MB card ...

thats why when all at max = HUGE amount of videomemory used ...

[Radic 0]

I haven't compared 256 vs 512 video memory for ArmA but I did so a while ago with Boiling Point, Far Cry, Call of Juarez demo and Fear:

Comparing a 6800GS512 card to 7800GS256 I found that unless HDR is implemented (man what a performance HOG!!! ) I had no change in frame rate or performance generally between the two in any of those games except Boiling Point - where the frames stayed the same but "halting" - ie. whilst driving around on the roads - was drastically less with the 6800GS512.

Amazing stuff considering the 6800GS 512 cost AU$270 and the 7800GS 256 cost AU$430 - you pay AU$160 more just to have HDR - whoop-dee-doo!!

[Maximus_G 0]

Does the game actually benefit much from more than 256mb video memory?

I've had a couple of tests, Arma eats about 200-240mb of video memory when texture quality is set to "low".

[Donnervogel 0]

Quote[/b] ]I don`t see why i wouldn`t be able to run that game with everything max out at 1280 x 1024.

What about the fact that the game is too demanding for it?

Nah seriously. I don't know if you have vewidistance at max or not but considering it took about 3 or more years after the release of OFP until computers were available that could play the game with max settings (including maxed out viewdistance) and even then the performance was rather bad I would not assume arma has been developed so that you can play it fluently with everything maxed out with any computer currently available.