Months and patches later still no go?

[LT.INSTG8R 0]

Well let me say this game has been gathering dust on my HDD almost since its release and it disappoints me to no end.

So here I am months later a big patch and a Beta patch, yet STILL this game runs like crap on my Rig(yes I cant hold BI totally responsible ATI have to shoulder it too)

So yeah the Rig in my Sig can barely maintain playable FPS on NORMAL let alone actually turn anything up(tho it still bizarrely goes UP when changing somethings to higher settings)

NOW before anyone trys to give me the stuff about "update your drivers, yada yada" I KNOW how to maintain my Rig and I have NO issues with any other games I play and am also aware that running almost year old drivers will "fix" it which is pretty sad. (Okay TDU doesnt run so hot either but again thats them not me)

Im used to running game in 8xAA 16xAF and games just flying here(yes Im not forcing any of those things because they dont work anyway)

2nd Issue: WHY are there still no proper Joystick sensitivity settings in the GUI?? you guys knew about this back around 1.02 and gave us a "hack job config fix" Are you saying I STILL have to use that?

Why cant I use my Rudder Pedals?(there is clearly a Pedals Mapping in the Flight Controls) and yes AGAIN I know how to set that up as well as I have been flying IL-2 for well over 3yrs now...

I understand that may be sorted down the road but its not like it hasnt been asked for since 1.02 along with having some sort of Joystick Sensitivity adjustments.

While I can see there has been alot of progress made I guess Im just a little disappointed after all these months of waiting to be able to play this amazing game the way I should be able to, only to fire it up with all the latest patches and the same SIMPLE issues are still there

[sirex 0]

i really dont understand this sort of post. - my rig is alot worse than yours, but i play arma every day.

just get over the fact that your rig isnt up tio the standard anymore, and go play. it really makes no diffrence what every other game plays like when your comparing engines. apples and oranges.

[LT.INSTG8R 0]

i really dont understand this sort of post. - my rig is alot worse than yours, but i play arma every day.

just get over the fact that your rig isnt up tio the standard anymore, and go play. it really makes no diffrence what every other game plays like when your comparing engines. apples and oranges.

Perhaps you cant read. My system is "just" under what would be considered "Cutting Edge" as in there isnt much faster I could upgrade too. But thanks for the vote of confidence....

I am running an Opteron Dual core and 2 X1900s in Crossfire and your telling me my rig isnt up to standard???

You may have been justified in your post had I had an old P4 and a 9800 but this is not the case...

[ck-claw 1]

I have an 'old' p4 2.8 and 1x7900 and its running fine?

[LT.INSTG8R 0]

I have an 'old' p4 2.8 and 1x7900 and its running fine?

See now this is the bit I dont understand. It seems no matter what settings I attempt to run this game at Im getting barely playable FPS and when I say raise my sights Im dropping WELL into the low teens which is well unplayable.

As I said ATI are somewhat to blame and I have pursued them in the past on this issue and am pursuing them again on it.

I understand running a set of drivers from last year has some advantages but then any other game I will try to play may not function at all or run worse.

I suppose all I can hope for is that EVENTUALLY both sides will get it together and I can finally enjoy this game rather than fight with it.

Just for kicks I will turn off Crossfire and see if it makes any difference(Last time I tried it it made no difference and with it on I can clearly see by my Temp monitoring on my G15 it is infact running both cards)

I am not the least bit naive about how to run my rig and this isnt some Dell that I call Tech Support for when it has a problem. I am the guy people come to with their tech issues so its not like I dont know how to workaround performance issue. It just seems that this game has ALWAYS been a fight with me and refuses to let me enjoy it

Edit: So I disabled CF and tried it as a single card running the game in Normal, Shadows Disabled, AA and AF on Low @1600x1200(monitors Native Res)and as I suspected no difference whatsoever. I suppose at this point I really cant blame anyone but ATI as I am testing this with the Beta patch and most have said there is better performance with it.But sadly I suppose I will have to blow the dust off this one again after 1.07 or maybe give it another shot when the 7.4s come out in hopes one day I may be able to enjoy it...

[-TwK-Danny 0]

Well try disabling shadows [sry just read you already tried this]. This game has the ugliest shadows ive seen since original Operation flashpoint, yet the can reduce fps by up to 90%. And im not talking about going from Disabled to high. Im talking about going from disabled to low (!! ).

Im on a single X1800XTPE, coupled with a dual core 4400+ - the game runs good with shadows on disabled and post process on low, object and terrain both on medium, rest max possible (incl AA/AF ingame) @ 1280X1024.

This is the ONE and ONLY game that doesnt run maxed out on my computer. I have oblivion running great at 1280X1024, max settings, HDR+4xAA+16xHQAF. The performance of ArmA is a joke. And LT.INSTG8R, my friend with a 8800GTX and FX62 has the same performance issues as me - shadows and post precess kills his fps aswell.

Heck even stalker runs awesome (60-80fps @ max, 1280X1024) and shadows are so much nicer in that game. How can the jaggied shadows of ArmA be so demanding? It doesnt make any sense whatsoever.

[sirex 0]

the point i was trying to make is that arma's idea of a good machine isnt one you can buy yet. That's not to say you should jump to the conclusion that its poorly coded.

I dont think its down to sloppy coding, just that what the engine is trying to achieve is miles apart from the objectives of other games.

i'm fairly certain if you looked under the hood youd understand why, as per GTA, the graphics arnt possible to be right up there with other small scale games.

letting it gather dust is just silly imho. just put it on low and go have a blast like everyone else. They can patch some bugs and maybe squeeze some more perfornace, but dont expect a transformation in one patch.

[karazy 0]

Don't worry, Lt. I know EXACTLY how you mean. I have a very decent rig too, and I still get shit FPS. It's the engine.

[mattxr 9]

Saying that i have a very powerfull computer and since the latestest patches it has been working its ticket.. sometimes low fps and what not..

[NeMeSiS 11]

What FPS do you call playable? Dont expect much more then 30, no matter what kind of system you have.

[inthecutt 0]

i get exactly what your saying better optimization on bi part is appreciated. flash point to me was no where near as bad as arma. but strangely i still like this game go figure. and it is somewhat playable for the most part.

the one thing that pisses me off is the pine trees. there is zero excuse for an engine to take such a hit that it creeps it to a crawl around a tree. zero BI!!!! i still achieve over 30 fps for the most part and every game thats out is always on max settings except this game.

[ck-claw 1]

@ ofpforum playable fps?

think it differs from person to person? (hence the ppl bitching bout getting 100 fps on say bf2 and expect it in Arma)!

Me personally up to 30 to 40,hectic scenes lowest 15?

I can live with that!

[dirtylarrygb 0]

i really dont understand this sort of post. - my rig is alot worse than yours, but i play arma every day.

just get over the fact that your rig isnt up tio the standard anymore, and go play. it really makes no diffrence what every other game plays like when your comparing engines. apples and oranges.

Perhaps you cant read. My system is "just" under what would be considered "Cutting Edge" as in there isnt much faster I could upgrade too. But thanks for the vote of confidence....

I am running an Opteron Dual core and 2 X1900s in Crossfire and your telling me my rig isnt up to standard???

You may have been justified in your post had I had an old P4 and a 9800 but this is not the case...

Your system is way under "cutting edge,"

cutting edge is a QUAD core and SLI 8800 GTX. Soon a quad and a R600 crossfire.

Your running an opeteron, which in benchmarks for games compares to a E4300 Intel Duo (at best).

Your GPU is no slouch, BUT the 8800 is 2x faster and even they can't do everything in ARMA in hires.

Your machine was cutting edge 12 months ago, now it's in plays most games great but new titles come along and make it show its age. When Crysis arrives in DX10 what are you going todo?

Turn down settings, find a match in screen res, eye candy and stable FPS that lets you play ARMA and enjoy it.

Understand the fact NO MACHINE can max everything in ARMA yet. 8800's can at about 1280x1024 but above that res' many setting have to be turned down and the new 10 KM visual distance means in truth even the 8800 has to turn down visual distance to 5 km to max everything at lower res and non stutter frames.

You can cry ARMA wont max on your rig, but please go load supreme commander turn up the settings and watch your machine crawl. And get used to it. You now need DX10 hardware and vista soon.

The wonderful video by Dyslexi was made not at extreme res and with many settings turned down (no AA etc). ARMA still looks better than most games at those settings.

Your CPU and GPU are only half as fast as the current fastest retail versions (Intel Quad 8800 GTX KO). And they CANT MAX ARMA, so turn down the settings and enjoy the gameplay and multiplayer fun and start saving for Crysis.... LOL

[LT.INSTG8R 0]

You guys dont get it. Im not EXPECTING to run it on VERY HIGH here folks I am barely getting playable FPS on LOW as in Im getting mid 20s and if I put my scope up its running down to 10-12 FPS THAT is not playable. I am totally used to playing games running 30s to 40s which is completely usable but having a "high" fps so 25 is on the verge of "slide show" territory(basically anything over 20fps is completely useable)

@dirtylarry: this rig under the latest Everest Benchmarks(4.0) still comes in in the top 5 in ANY of the benches being beaten ONLY be Quad Xeons and the the E6700 and I even beat them somtimes

so plz dont try to give the guff about whats hot Im completely aware but as you can see there isnt alot of gains to be had

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244....MG]

Have a look at those larry and you may wanna reconsider your benching sources as I JUST did those with FF open on this forum so I wasnt even attempting to get clean benches I can gladly post 3Dmark benches as well if you really wanna call my rig slow....

As for DX10 and Crysis I am in no rush to jump on the DX10 bandwagon just yet as there is only one choice at the moment isnt there? I never built this rig for that it was my interim UNTIL I decide to make that leap(again no reason to yet now is there?)

Im afraid your just missing the point here Im not after 60+fps with a 5000m Draw Distance I want USEABLE FPS on NORMAL....not 17s on tree maps and 20s on desert....Do you REALLY think Im that naive??? Im not some whiney kid whos thinks his PC isnt fast enough I KNOW its fast enough and Im not under any illusions as to this games power.....My issue is I CANNOT get anything close to useable on reasonable settings THIS is my problem. I should be able to run this on NORMAL with Low AA and AF is that not an unreasonable expectation? Are you trying to tell me I need to go out and waste a wack of cash on a Quad and an 8800 just to get that?? I think not....

[maddogx 13]

Lt.Instg8r, I've been messing around with the ArmA settings for some time now and I've been able to help some of my friends who have been having similar performance problems.

I realize you seem to know your way around your computer, but let's just go through the checklist of common problems:

1. Have you forced VSync to OFF? (do it, it helps a lot)

2. Have you set your view distance to something reasonable? (~1200)

3. Are you running Vista? (seems to cause problems in some cases)

4. Have you tried turning off all anti virus and file sharing software? (they are the worst performance killers)

I ask this because these are the problems I have mainly come across with other people. As you can see in my sig, I run ArmA at an average of 50 FPS with a rig that isn't quite as good as yours. That's no joke. I get ~30-35 in dense forests and >70fps in open areas.

Surely yours should do better if everything is set up properly.

[LT.INSTG8R 0]

Lt.Instg8r, I've been messing around with the ArmA settings for some time now and I've been able to help some of my friends who have been having similar performance problems.

I realize you seem to know your way around your computer, but let's just go through the checklist of common problems:

1. Have you forced VSync to OFF? (do it, it helps a lot)

2. Have you set your view distance to something reasonable? (~1200)

3. Are you running Vista? (seems to cause problems in some cases)

4. Have you tried turning off all anti virus and file sharing software? (they are the worst performance killers)

I ask this because these are the problems I have mainly come across with other people. As you can see in my sig, I run ArmA at an average of 50 FPS with a rig that isn't quite as good as yours. That's no joke. I get ~30-35 in dense forests and >70fps in open areas.

Surely yours should do better if everything is set up properly.

1: yes always, never run V-synch

2: yes it is in fact at 1200 as per default

3: Nope not touching Vista for at least another 6 months(I'll let others "guinea pig" it out before I even consider it a viable OS upgrade)

4:I use a Kapersky based AV that I can completely shut down and I do(basically I let it run a startup scan and thats it) I dont run any kind of filesharing nor would I be foolish enough to run it while gaming)

Good tips, I appreciate the effort but already covered.

I was just running Battlefields mission and well was seeing 13-23 fps on Low/Normal settings, no shadows of course( have very little interest in shadows in any game as they usually suck anyway visually and performance wise). basically it useable until I put my scope up, tho its pretty much ticking along at 17fps most of the time which it already slideshow territory for me.

I will continue to meddle with settings combos and may find something useable eventually as Im getting tired of NOT being able to play this game as I have had it since it was available here(German Morphicon version here)

[Steel_WOF 0]

"I am running an Opteron Dual core..."

sorry bro, a 170 is not dual core.

do you have an nvidia card you could try to seee what that does?

[LT.INSTG8R 0]

"I am running an Opteron Dual core..."

sorry bro, a 170 is not dual core.

do you have an nvidia card you could try to seee what that does?

Im sorry mate you are obviously REALLY wrong on that one. Why dont you go visit AMD and clear yourself up

The 148 is a single core the 170 is a DUAL CORE.(heck you could see that pretty clearly in the benchmark pics I posted...)

But just to set you straight,heres a little link for ya

Opteron 170 Dual Core....

As for having NV card nope, ATI guy(I am aware that this is also an ATI driver issue as they have YET to make any sort of fix with the handle leak issue or provide any kind of working Crossfire profile)

Edit: Wrong Opty model number

[sirex 0]

seeing as arma isnt coded for multiple cores, isn't this completely academic anyhow ?

[LT.INSTG8R 0]

seeing as arma isnt coded for multiple cores, isn't this completely academic anyhow ?

Good point but it does run across both my cores and always has. But yeah dont thing it matters much in the big scheme of things

But heres an old pic for reference that it does indeed run across both cores with no effort from me

http://img502.imageshack.us/my.php?image=corearmavq5.jpg

[troop 0]

"I am running an Opteron Dual core..."

sorry bro, a 170 is not dual core.

do you have an nvidia card you could try to seee what that does?

Im sorry mate you are obviously REALLY wrong on that one. Why dont you go visit AMD and clear yourself up

The 165 is a single core the 170 is a DUAL CORE.(heck you could see that pretty clearly in the benchmark pics I posted...)

But just to set you straight,heres a little link for ya

Opteron 170 Dual Core....

As for having NV card nope, ATI guy(I am aware that this is also an ATI driver issue as they have YET to make any sort of fix with the handle leak issue or provide any kind of working Crossfire profile)

Of course, the Opteron 165 is an Dual Core Prozessor as well.

I got both; 165 and 170 and both are Dual Core.

The 165 is maxing out (here) @2x2.8GHz; the 170 @2x2.6GHz

(core failure above that)

[LT.INSTG8R 0]

"I am running an Opteron Dual core..."

sorry bro, a 170 is not dual core.

do you have an nvidia card you could try to seee what that does?

Im sorry mate you are obviously REALLY wrong on that one. Why dont you go visit AMD and clear yourself up

The 165 is a single core the 170 is a DUAL CORE.(heck you could see that pretty clearly in the benchmark pics I posted...)

But just to set you straight,heres a little link for ya

Opteron 170 Dual Core....

As for having NV card nope, ATI guy(I am aware that this is also an ATI driver issue as they have YET to make any sort of fix with the handle leak issue or provide any kind of working Crossfire profile)

Of course, the Opteron 165 is an Dual Core Prozessor as well.

I got both; 165 and 170 and both are Dual Core.

The 165 is maxing out (here) @2x2.8GHz; the 170 @2x2.6GHz

(core failure above that)

Thats right 165 is the "smallest"of the Dual's. I was thinking of the 148's THATS the Single Core model

[450R 1]

Silly question - have you tried removing one of your video cards and running the game? Seems like a lot of people are having issues with SLI/CrossFire ... might be worth a shot just to see what happens as there are plenty of other members with lesser systems that run on higher settings without problems.

Lots of naivety regarding hardware here. Bottom line is, his system should have NO problems playing on normal barring bad settings or a hardware problem.

[LT.INSTG8R 0]

Yeah I disabled Crossfire yesterday just to see if it made any difference. Basically it runs the same(As I have known all along ATI has yet to do any kind of optimizations for this game, let alone any sort of Crossfire profile for it)I suppose IF they did a Crossfire I would be able to play it. I do truly suspect it is the ATI drivers that are the issue. I am currently using the Beta set they put out a week or so ago that added a Crossfire Profile for STALKER and Im playing quite a bit of TestDrive Unlimited and it is also suffering from alot of performance issues(tho I CAN play it with HDR+2xAA and maintain a decent 25-35 FPS) but they are aware of its low performance on pretty much all machines and a patch is slated for May.

Basically the only way I can get any decent FPS out of it is to put everything on Very Low and run a a little AA and AF.