Bad PC or bad optimization?

[Benoist 0]

Ok, i was seeing the pics on the two photographic thread when i say "lol, i can't even imagine my PC with those grafics".

So now i have a doubt: My Pc is, or I at least i want to believe that, good, it's a:

Os: Windows XP Professional (5.1.2600)

Service Pack 2

Procesador: Intel Pentium 4 CPU 3.00 GHz

Memori: 1024

Mother Board: Asus

Graphic card: Gforce 6200

Sound card: I don't know but I think that it's careless

DirectX: the last one

I know that the Cache (i don't know hoy to write in English, sorry) has something to do in here but i don't know what is it, so sorry.

I have the sentings in this way (is the same orden):

Muy= very; Bajo= low; Alto=high; Desactivado=deactivated and Normal=well... normal.

(Sorry, i'm argentine, but the options are in the same position, BTW sorry, i speak english as much as i can, god bless American games & movies)

Tell me please, i will KILL (this option is the most recommended) for those graphic.

PD: If someone doesn't understand something it will be change, but tell me.

PD2: Damn, i started this an hour before.

[fasad 1]

>>Graphic card: Geforce 6200

I think this is the weakest link.

[Heatseeker 0]

If it runs in this PC at those settings you shouldnt complain about optimisation mate .

[Benoist 0]

I wasn't complaing about the optimization but it was a little strange to me because new games, like F.E.A.R., run grates on this PC with all the sentings high.

And the OFP had a problem with the optimization (no matter what sentings or what hardware you have with 126+vehicles the FPS go down).

Well, may be the Sarhani Island is to big and the ArmA is too grate =(

And what about yours PCs? How are they?

[smellyjelly 0]

But I had a similar system, AMD64 3000+, 1gig RAM, and a 6600GT PCI-E.

I run Armed Assault with about the same settings, except:

Objects on very low

Shaders on low

AF on low

Shadows on high

AA on low

[dirtylarrygb 0]

But I had a similar system, AMD64 3000+, 1gig RAM, and a 6600GT PCI-E.

I run Armed Assault with about the same settings, except:

Objects on very low

Shaders on low

AF on low

Shadows on high

AA on low

The CPU and RAM are fine, The geforce 6200 or 6600 are the problem.

ARMA is 4-10x more GPU intensive than games such as FEAR, Half Life 2 etc.

If your PC has an AGP slot then there are Nvidia AGP 7600 cards and 7900GS cards these would allow you to run the game on high settings GFX settings (the 7900 will run ARMA with most settings on high at 1024x768 res).

A 8800 gtx/gts is needed to run things at very high like you can see in some of the screenshots in the photo thread and even a 8800 cant run everythingat VERY HIGH and produce stable FPS while playing at 1280x1024 or better.

I have to make terrain LOW, and have post process off, so everything else can be VERY HIGH if I want ARMA to be playable. I find shadows very high and texture very high and anti alias very high make the game very immersive for me.

[echo1 0]

I wasn't complaing about the optimization but it was a little strange to me because new games, like F.E.A.R., run grates on this PC with all the sentings high.

And the OFP had a problem with the optimization (no matter what sentings or what hardware you have with 126+vehicles the FPS go down).

Well, may be the Sarhani Island is to big and the ArmA is too grate =(

And what about yours PCs? How are they?

FEAR running on high settings on a GeForce 6200? Wow, I thought I had heard everything... That card is not a good one for modern games.

@ DirtylarryGB: I doubt that ArmA uses more graphics power than FEAR, but it would use more than HL2 which is a very easygoing game on old PCs.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

I wasn't complaing about the optimization but it was a little strange to me because new games, like F.E.A.R., run grates on this PC with all the settings high.

And the OFP had a problem with the optimization (no matter what sentings or what hardware you have with 126+vehicles the FPS go down).

Well, may be the Sarhani Island is to big and the ArmA is too grate =(

And what about yours PCs? How are they?

FEAR running on high settings on a GeForce 6200? Wow, I thought I had heard everything... That card is not a good one for modern games.

@ DirtylarryGB: I doubt that ArmA uses more graphics power than FEAR, but it would use more than HL2 which is a very easygoing game on old PCs.

I can run FEAR+extraction Point everything set ultra high at uber high res with SSAA on and 16q AA, at 100 + FPS.

Same rig I have to make sacrificies in ARMA or my machine has a fit.

ARMA is far more graphically demanding at it has 10km view distances and about 10x the polys etc etc. its the first game bar Supreme Commander than can humble an 8800 GTX KO ACS3, 626/1000.

FEAR, BF2, Half Life 2, FAR CRY, Joint Op's, WOW:TBC can't even dent a 8800 even when forced to 16xQ AA and Super Sample AA at 1280 res or better. In all their engines those games have things that push a GPU and the real test is can you run everything maxed aith high aa and supersample aa and still hit a stable 60+ FPS. Even Oblivion outdoors will hit 40+ fps settings maxed and until the 8800 GTX Oblivion was the stress test and is the closest thing to the current ARMA engine out door Oblivion rendering could humble a 7 series nvidia or ATI 1950 if you started ramping up AA etc.

So ARMA with its post process effects, HDR, draw distance, textures, real time lighting, dynamic lighting and insane shadow realism must be at least 4x more demanding than any of those older games.

I suspect an 8800 GTX SLI would be needed to let you run everything VERY HIGH at 1600+ widescreen res and never drop below 60 FPS. Right now ARMA is not SLI optomised, perhaps Nvidia and BIH will change that over the year.

Dual Core Quad Core optomisation may also help. ARMA pushes the very limit of DX9 and current games PC's, perhaps in 12-24 months a DX10 version will appear and things like the Post Process effects will be fully optomised, draw distance, shaders etc will be even smoother.

[Benoist 0]

Well, i earn some money in the last few weeks, it isn't much but well, something is something, and i usually save the money soy i have a little extra bucks around there.

What tipe of things would you recommend? Maybe the dirtylarrygb's Dual Core Quad Core?

First of all think that i have to buy a 160GB Hard Drive, my little baby of 80 it isn't growing.

Damn, when i broght it i think "yeah! 80gb! It's imposible for me to fill so much space!" and now

[max power 21]

How about a 3rd option? "Hardware intensive software".

[BraTTy 0]

If your running a PIV 3 gig and a 6200...first of all the 6200 is surely AGP or even built-in video and that limits your upgrade options (almost a waste)

check and see if you have pci-e slots

i recommend at least nvidia 6600gt or ati x800 or better, but are min specs for todays games

[-Puma- 2]

Quote[/b] ](Sorry, i'm argentine, but the options are in the same position, BTW sorry, i speak english as much as i can, god bless American games & movies)

allmost choke on my coffee dude

Quote[/b] ]I have to make terrain LOW, and have post process off, so everything else can be VERY HIGH if I want ARMA to be playable. I find shadows very high and texture very high and anti alias very high make the game very immersive for me.

how do u disable post processing?

benoist ur GFX card is somewhat weak, how much FPS u get??

maybe get a 7900 gt like sum1 said, they are cheap right now...

[ziiip 1]

"I wasn't complaing about the optimization but it was a little strange to me because new games, like F.E.A.R., run grates on this PC with all the sentings high."

I used to think the same when I had a 9600 SE in my PC, I thought that 15 FPS is great, but then after changing VGA i found out it's really in the monkey's ass.

[max power 21]

Optimization isn't a matter of FPS on any given system, but a matter of efficiency. In this game it's a matter of visual quantity as well as visual quality per frame. There is so much more going on- being displayed or calculated- at any given time in ArmA than most other games. Comparing this game to a corridor shooter is a faulty analogy.

[Shadow_Spyder 0]

You should all be lucky.... I have the following:

CPU: Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4Ghz

RAM: 2 Gigs

Video Card: ATI Radeon X1950 PRO 256 MB

and I have EVERYTHING turned off or VERY low, and I get times where I will have 5 FPS sitting at the airbase during an Evo map.

On the other hand... I think something is wrong with my PC.. been having problems with my hard drive, and I think a good old reformat might help me get my FPS back. I used to have it good. I had everything on at least Normal and had playable FPS back when I first got ArmA in April. Ohwell...  

[xnodunitx 0]

Could be, or the processor does make a large difference, right now I have one gig of ram, a dual core 3.2ghz and a radeon x1600, I can run most things on medium to high, it varies heavily on the enviroment.

Desert area, maxed out and can afford a high amount of visibility, 6-8km or so, woodland area's,eh..forget it, most go to medium, some low, such as post processing.

In terms of city area's I can run with just about all on high, with the same viewdistance, sometimes I gotta turn off the post processing and low or medium antistrophic filtering.

Mind you, I keep anti-aliasing set to medium at all times, no need for the extra FPS that high takes.

shadows generally take a good 15 or so, still messing around to see what takes the most performance and so on.

As people said, its usually the antistrophic filtering, anti aliasing, shadows and post processing.

[Billy-no-mates 0]

AMD 3200+

Radeon 9800xt

1.5 gigs of Ram

Onboard AC97 sound card

Machine is 3 and a half years old

1024x762x32

Terrain = Normal

Object detail = Normal

Texture = Normal

Shader = Normal

Post Proccess = Low

AF = High

Shadows = Off/Low (depends on island pos or SP/MP)

AA = High

Blood = High

View Distance = 3000

Settings need adjusting depending on game mode (SP/MP), above example is typical of MP/SP in the south of the island, for the north, terrain = Low, Shadows = Off, AF = Normal.

These setting are possible as i have learnt to keep the computer clean and clutter free, with a few as possible background apps as possible running, as far as i'm concerned comparing ArmA settings to other games is silly as for example Half Life 2 runs on this rig with every setting maxed, AA, AF, HDR on full and get average of 30 FPS, different game different requirments, when i finally find (probably under a year) that games fall below this level i will upgrade to a rig capable of high settings on ArmA, this will also mean all other games should be no sweat (Crysis, World in Conflict etc etc)

[guerilla -MCY- 0]

i got a duo 6700 % 8800 GTX compination and i wasn't happy at all, patches made it a bit better but still 15-25 fps in the forrest or big cities. now i overclocked the Duo Core from 2.67 to 3.1 and the GFX Card from 566/900 to 630/1030. that's about the power you need for ArmA to reach a stable level but more wouldn't really but more fps wouldn't really bother me. the right pc setup for ArmA is not on the market yet.

PS; overclocking the DuoCore brought more fps than the the GFX

[tj72 0]

I think you should double the RAM and swap out the GPU for the best on you can get for the price. Other than that you can look into cooling and OC the CPU to get closer to 3 Ghz which seems to be a hump in the graphics requirements of the game. It might be worth making a seperate dedicated partition for ARMA if your not using a new OS install and might be competing with other processes currently.

AA looks great but kills my FPS as soon as Its on.

Ive got 1950 XT and AMD 5600 2.8

2Gigs of RAM and performance/playability is not an issue untill I touch AA. Ive tested all over Sahrani with a few inf groups running around and engaging.

[Q1184 0]

I think this thread is quickly turning into a clone of Hardware and setiings for ArmA  

[-Puma- 2]

im getting either 1950 pro or 7900gs 512

its all about the settings, wich IMO are not optimized well enough.

To back this up (incase sickboy comes here )

i made some screenies about it, but unfortunately the FRAPS fps wasnt shown it 'em.

but to the point i made several checks when playin in 1280x1024

and 1024x786 resolutions, and all the screenies i took showed the same fps...

right now shadows and AA are killers to me, but BIS needs to serioysly do something about the lag in cities and forrest. In 1.05

the performance was going the right way, but 1.07b got right back to the start (i know beta patch, but still.....)

[Luciano 0]

Optimization isn't a matter of FPS on any given system, but a matter of efficiency. In this game it's a matter of visual quantity as well as visual quality per frame. There is so much more going on- being displayed or calculated- at any given time in ArmA than most other games. Comparing this game to a corridor shooter is a faulty analogy.

Dude, please, it stop embarassing yourself.

Exactly what is so much that is calculated?

Sitting in front of a bush in northern part of safrani with no AI on the map, no custom placed object and getting 10 FPS....

How exactly is there a lot of calculations?

In Gothic 3, there are NPC's, all over the damn place, better graphics, and you get more than 10 FPS.

[Maddmatt 1]

Optimization isn't a matter of FPS on any given system, but a matter of efficiency. In this game it's a matter of visual quantity as well as visual quality per frame. There is so much more going on- being displayed or calculated- at any given time in ArmA than most other games. Comparing this game to a corridor shooter is a faulty analogy.

Dude, please, it stop embarassing yourself.

Exactly what is so much that is calculated?

Sitting in front of a bush in northern part of safrani with no AI on the map, no custom placed object and getting 10 FPS....

How exactly is there a lot of calculations?

In Gothic 3, there are NPC's, all over the damn place, better graphics, and you get more than 10 FPS.

Dude, please, stop embarrassing yourself! If you don't get more than 10FPS in ArmA then there is something wrong on your side, not ArmA.

And with all the mistakes in your post, your first sentence is so ironic

[Bunks 0]

The rumors about this game perfomance wise has been unreal. Ive been doing test after test with different machines and GPU's with alternating hard drive setups. I even bought the game and sent it to a web site PC tech guru to test it for me before I built a rig to play the game. After all the testing and info was in, this is what I discovered.

The priority in machines is not CPU,GPU, then HD like most people claim.

The real priority is CPU, MoBo Bandwidth(NB SB Mem), then finally the GPU and HD readwrite (especially for fast traveling or new position changes). CPU becomes critical especially under script intesive missions and GPU becomes more of a factor in larger made missions.

The video cards have a base frame rate, some a bit higher than others but not by all that much. The amount of FPS spikes from low to high is also based on the GPU's speed and memory amount but the game stability is not really that GPU intensive.

Once the CPU and Bandwidth of the main components have established the baseline, the vidoe cards effect from this point on is not about increasing FPS, but about how much more detail and resolution can be added without losing frame rate to the situation. The difference between an 8800 and a 7800 was not FPS but detail and Viewdistance WITHOUT frame loss.

Ive tested this extensively and I even put my money where my mouth was on the matter. Now I am in gaming heaven, I can play the game at (depending on mission type) 1600 resolution with low detail levels or at 1280 res with nice details. I can play Evolution at 45-65 frames constant with only a few moments of drop to the 30's at up to 2000 VD.

I made sure I had tight memory timings(gskill 800 mem 4-4-3-5 (1t), a decent video card (Evga7900gsOC), a Mobo that had good simple components with a fast chipset (evga 650Ultra), and two(yes 2) Hard drives, one clean one for the game(and only for the game) and another for virtual memory to be used. (OS on 160gb Sata 3 and Arma on a 74gb Raptor)

amd last but not least was XP professional (must have to set affinity use so Arma can be isolated to one core alone) with a slightly overclocked (very important to get higher FSB and cpu speed without making mem unstable)6420 @ 2.6ghz.

My cost (except for the raptor and xp pro) for this arma rig?

$770 US

So the game can be played without breaking the bank, there are better setups out there and even worse that play as good or better than mine. But dont bet on the wrong dog here, look for system function and balance before spending cash on high end stuff that wont help much.

[max power 21]

You should all be lucky.... I have the following:

CPU: Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4Ghz

RAM: 2 Gigs

Video Card: ATI Radeon X1950 PRO 256 MB

and I have EVERYTHING turned off or VERY low, and I get times where I will have 5 FPS sitting at the airbase during an Evo map.

On the other hand... I think something is wrong with my PC.. been having problems with my hard drive, and I think a good old reformat might help me get my FPS back. I used to have it good. I had everything on at least Normal and had playable FPS back when I first got ArmA in April. Ohwell...

There is something very wrong with your PC. I have a 4400+ with 2gigs of ram and an x850 and I have everything to normal or low and I get quite a respectable fps. Try updating all of your drivers, etc.