Worst Performance EVER!

[troop 0]

Well alot of my friends with similar setups won't even touch Arma, and i should have listened, but OPF was a great game / Simulator, and i could never imagine that Bohemia / Nvidia would

fkkkkkkk up like they have done now.

Talk about disappointment

May I ask, which setup you got when OFP came out back then?

(Did you have it from version 1.00 or did you attend way later? )

I'd say, it was exactly the same story back then. OFP was

that advanced and ahead of its time that *no* technology was

able to run it fullblown. Now, how does it run on your current setup;

which I consider stellar for *today*? This is six years later...

And again, BIS pulled the stunt to deliver an simulation which no

current technology of today is capable of running it fullblown.

Did you accept the fact back then? In many opinion, like

written numberous times, it is impossible to compare OFP/ArmA

to any other simulation in existance. But you [should] know that.

And I do understand your anger. Have a beer (or ten) and just

come down, willyaa?

You *know* ArmA will run much better on technology avaiable

2 years from now... [duck]

Does OFP [1.96 tricked out + addons] give you 100+ FPS today?

Edit: I'm an idiot. Even with an single 8800GTS I get 160+ in OFP

Yours should be more like 250+ lol.

But that was the point I was trying to make;..back then

I barely scratched 30...with top-of-the-line hardware.

[baddo 0]

...but I have a very slow computer, and you know what? I am happy that I can run ArmA at all!

Maybe this has something to do what your expectations are and what the reality is. My expectations were very, very low when I got ArmA: I knew my computer does not fulfill min. requirements, then I was positively surprised that I got ArmA even running! And I thought i would have to buy a new computer! Maybe I will save my money for something else now, if I can play ArmA with this old and slow computer... You were negatively surprised as you have a monster computer and your expectations were much higher than mine, thus you are disappointed while I am not.

Cheers,

Baddo.

[4 IN 1 0]

Well alot of my friends with similar setups won't even touch Arma, and i should have listened, but OPF was a great game / Simulator, and i could never imagine that Bohemia / Nvidia would

fkkkkkkk up like they have done now.

Talk about disappointment

May I ask, which setup you got when OFP came out back then?

(Did you have it from version 1.00 or did you attend way later? )

I'd say, it was exactly the same story back then. OFP was

that advanced and ahead of its time that *no* technology was

able to run it fullblown. Now, how does it run on your current setup;

which I consider stellar for *today*? This is six years later...

And again, BIS pulled the stunt to deliver an simulation which no

current technology of today is capable of running it fullblown.

Did you accept the fact back then? In many opinion, like

written numberous times, it is impossible to compare OFP/ArmA

to any other simulation in existance. But you [should] know that.

And I do understand your anger. Have a beer (or ten) and just

come down, willyaa?

You *know* ArmA will run much better on technology avaiable

2 years from now... [duck]

Does OFP [1.96 tricked out + addons] give you 100+ FPS today?

i pumped about 80 under intensive AI firefight, so i assume that he got pretty much the same(if not better) as me(could get up to 200 on desert island, but thats no point to compare a emety island)

[lee_h._oswald 0]

HIGHLANDER @ May 03 2007,19:58)]why dont you turn the res down abit?

Because it looks like horror?

It looks like he is using a widescreen and the native res is 1680x1050.

There is no reason for him to turn down the res with a pc that powerfull.

Sorry, but the performance problem is ArmA and not his pc or tft or whatever.

There is no reason for anyone here to defend ArmA or BIS, because they were not attacked.

ArmA is a great game, but the performance problems are well known and should be fixed. And when they can't be fixed, BIS should let us know.

This is the troubleshooting forum, ppl post here to get help.

Thanks all.

MfG Lee

[4 IN 1 0]

HIGHLANDER @ May 03 2007,19:58)]why dont you turn the res down abit?

Because it looks like horror?

It looks like he is using a widescreen and the native res is 1680x1050.

There is no reason for him to turn down the res with a pc that powerfull.

Sorry, but the performance problem is ArmA and not his pc or tft or whatever.

There is no reason for anyone here to defend ArmA or BIS, because they were not attacked.

ArmA is a great game, but the performance problems are well known and should be fixed. And when they can't be fixed, BIS should let us know.

This is the troubleshooting forum, ppl post here to get help.

Thanks all.

MfG Lee

yes i agree, performance problem is a problem that ArmA had, and i dont think anyone here trying to hide it, but the base line is, untill ppl needs help tells us what they have done tried to iron out the problem, we cant shoot any of the trouble

(and i dont think we need to say it over and over and over again that BI better fix it or atless give us a statment that why and how its hard to fix in the worst case, and BI should know that better then we do, but after all the overall performance increase for some ppl seems to tell ppl that yes, they are trying hard to work it out)

[Kode 0]

HIGHLANDER,May 03 2007,19:58]

This is the troubleshooting forum, ppl post here to get help.

True, but he isn't posting for help, he is complaining about it. which doesn't belong in the troubleshooting in my opinion. Now if he would have asked if there was a possible solution, then yes. But he's really even bashing on BIS:

Quote[/b] ]Bohemia/Nvidia! you better do something about it fast, or you are gonna loose bigtime when it comes to revenues or legal ownerships of games!

I mean such things don't belong in here...

[dwringer 45]

or anywhere , really. i somehow doubt their revenues/intellectual property rights hinge upon the game's performance on the system a few forumites paid too much for, and used to get their hopes too high

[lee_h._oswald 0]

I mean such things don't belong in here...

After weeks of trying, tweaking, installing, etc. ppl can get very angry.

After all, we just want to play the game.

MfG Lee

[Swedish_-_M@ssacre 0]

Yeah i know that some hardware are not compatible, but why sell the sheit in the first place if thats the question?

You don't go and buy a Ferrari or Rolls Royce just to have it parked on the driveway.

The same goes for computers and hardware.

Heck i went and bought stuff for over $5000 just to get rid of the lag, chops, and slow response.

And how does it repay me?, like a can of sirup!

@ Troop

Well i can say this for sure, OPF didn't give me this kind of headake on my old gameboards, Arma is horrible, and i won't even imagine the guys who bought Quad cores and R waiting for the R600 or 8900 GTX to be released just to play Arma, Stalker or Crysis will go through.

It's sad, cause Arma deserves better promo then this.

the idea of having huge battles, on land, sea or air makes the gaming more realistic then before.

But @ a resulution of 800x600, with low viewdistance, no HDR or Post process, lag, chops and sheit.

Well that takes the air out of any HC gamer out there.

I agree to that the maps are huge, but then again, why cant you notice any difference even if you run a server with a standalone setting.

Core 2 Duo e6600

4 Gb ram

Double Raid Raptors @ 10 000 Rpms

A pityful 10 FPS increase, thats really lousy guys!

Well some of you claimed that a good support would patch games and those who wouldn't r bad.

Let me refrase the statement.

There are those who don't giva a sheit if there stuff work or not

There are thos who produce games but don't have time or the will to finnish it, so they patch the games til u puke!

And there are those who have both time and money, who understands the psyche of a gamer and simpleton, who dosn't want no bad language or sore remarks. produces a game, give great support and fix the problems if they accour ASAP.

A gamer wants PLAYTIME, not reading the manual or searching boards for the sulution to a problem that the developers should be aware of in the first place.

The Core extreme series and GF 8800 GTX or AMD FX - ATI 1950XTX should be in every game developers testbed!

As many of us buy's the latest gear just to get maxxed out.

If the gamedesigners won't stay up to date, why should we?

@ Dwringer

or anywhere , really. i somehow doubt their revenues/intellectual property rights hinge upon the game's performance on the system a few forumites paid too much for, and used to get their hopes too high

Well, if their product is bad and people will try other methods, you don't think that the developers have to rethink the whole idea? or they will loose in the longrun.

Seriously, how many of us with bad performance would even consider buying OFP2, not me or my friends anyway!

and i think there are a lot of guys with similar problems.

I don't condone PIRACY!, but when the sheit hits the fan i do understand it!

[-TwK-Danny 0]

Danny @ May 03 2007,18:40)]Umm there are many that are suffering from low performance in Armed Assault. And please stop with the "i get 40fps" hints. It doesnt mean anything. On certain maps, i can get over 60 fps contantly. On other missions, fps are like down to 15-25.

The problem is that ArmA isnt that advanced (i cant use the words "looking good" because thats all subjective) as many other games on the market (e.g Elderscrolls4: Oblivion). Yet ArmA is the one most demanding game ive ever seen - while i run ALL games maxed with at least 4xAA - ArmA is forcing me into normal-high settings with not-so-great fps.

How about loading the single mission Convoy (or whatever its called, when you start near a red truck and are to prepare an ambush on a convoy.. its unlocked from start). Use fraps to show fps and tell me weather you find the performance acceptable or not. I think most people running with High\medium settings wont find acceptable (30+) fps.

i think you miss the point what we are trying to say here, as you really need to get something mess up really bad inorder to get such low perforemce, and what my "40 some FPS" is what i get in single player mission "battlefield" stable, so again: you need to get something in your rig really mess up inorder to get such low perforemce

Thats the problem mate. My system is newly reformated (tried Vista..), ALL other games like STALKER, Oblivion, BF2, Penumbra, FEAR and Hitman4 are all running above great (max, 1280X1024, 4xAA for oblivion, 6xQAAA for the rest - except for stalker where AA isnt possible with max settings).

My system scores 10118 points in 3dmark05, and ~5100 points in 3dmark06.

A system does not preform this good if it has severe issues (considering my specs of course). AMDX2 4400+, X1800XTPE, 2gb 2-3-3-6-T1, A8R-MVP.

And i wish people would stop saying its the drawdistance. Operation Flashpoint had huge view distances and in that game i dont have any issues. Hence we can rule out that the draw distance itself is causing the lower fps.

"But ArmA is more detailed!!"

Yes, i know this. But thats my point. ArmA isnt close to being high-end and no one can deny this. Its the fact that two 8800GTXs in SLI mode cant deal with this game STILL - that is the issue. The fact that Crysis might end up running better on systems that ArmA is scary.

Im not by any means bashing or being mean to anyone. I just think that calling ArmAs performance justified is wrong. And hey thats my opionion and i dont mean to offend anyone - just trying discuss this issue.

[Swedish_-_M@ssacre 0]

@ [TwK]Danny

Well considering that your running stalker, i cant really understand why you have so poor performance.

Cause mine is bad all the way with those games.

I think i have most of the FPS games that you can get your hands on, and noone exept those two mentioned runs bad.

FEAR - XtP

Quake 4

Doom 3

Unreal T 03

Unreal T 04

Far Cry

Cod 2

Oblivion 4

Tomb raider - Legend

Ubersoldier, "this game was a nono on my old can of joy!"

Painkiller

BF2 / BF2142

Serious Sam 2

PREY

RTS

LOTR 1-2

C&C Tiberium Wars

Supreme Commander

These runs PERFECTLY, yes i know that they are a bit old, but if they have these games as a reference when benchmarking, i'll think they are up to par.

[Kode 0]

A gamer wants PLAYTIME, not reading the manual or searching boards for the sulution to a problem that the developers should be aware of in the first place.

The Core extreme series and GF 8800 GTX or AMD FX - ATI 1950XTX should be in every game developers testbed!

As many of us buy's the latest gear just to get maxxed out.

If the gamedesigners won't stay up to date, why should we?

Why is it a problem that you can only play it at 30-40 fps? Let's try to help you, as this is the troubleshooting forum. What settings are you playing with? and what framerates do you get?

It's possible they can increase performance, that depends on how the game is coded. But I don't really see a problem. I can play it with 20-40 frames/second, and that's more then enough for me.

The game is not behind in my opinion, but ahead, thinking of the future. Perhaps in 2 years there might be hardware where you can run ArMa with everything on max. a bit like OFP, which I still can't play with everything on max  . So if you buy a new PC in 2 years, you still have the "wow-feeling", and that is nice to have(I like it anyway:))

Buying the latest hardware doesn't mean you can turn everything on maximum.

And then again. What is the difference for you if it runs at 30-40 fps or at 100-120 fps? I see no difference in it...

[Swedish_-_M@ssacre 0]

Well i will try to explain that to you, the more fps you have in a game, the more fluent it will be.

no chops, stutters or lag.

There is really no limit to how much fps you could have, either than the hardware and the refresh rate on the screen you are using. Vertical Synq usally limits "caps" the FPS around 60

If you can't manage to run Arma with everything maxxed on mentioned hardware specs, well then it's really bad coding both in the drivers for the hardware and the game as well.

one GTX consists of 768mb Graphical memory, i'm not sure if the SLI would double it, but if it does, well then it's a real dissaster regarding performance.

For me who are both FPS and simulator freak, can't stand flying a Jetfighter @ 25FPS, that wont due.

We are talking 3rd generation graphics, allmost the same or even better thats in the xbox 360, allthough iam painfully aware of windows XP and its bad optimisation twords gaming.

Vista isn't any better if your wondering, and it's not all up to dirX 10 to show the way.

Anyway, even on the lowest of settings i can at best reach 35-40 fps on a single map in the editor, no other players or AI on the map and that not satisfactory, sorry.

With a Opengl Engine we would reach at least 60 maxxed out or even more, and it would look better to.

sure i get much better results with one GTX card, but why stay with that when u can have the best up to date?

Regarding veiwdistance, theres no particular difference from 2500-10 000, so theres not much for the Gpus to work with is there?

[dwringer 45]

SLI does NOT double the available VRAM.

And since my 8800 GTS 320 sucks so bad compared to even people with 7 series geforce cards, I'm guessing that ArmA LOVES it some VRAM.

Which means we need to wait for 1GB + Video cards to really enjoy this the way it's meant to be (well, for several hundred more dollars )

[NeMeSiS 11]

SLI does NOT double the available VRAM.

And since my 8800 GTS 320 sucks so bad compared to even people with 7 series geforce cards, I'm guessing that ArmA LOVES it some VRAM.

Which means we need to wait for 1GB + Video cards to really enjoy this the way it's meant to be (well, for several hundred more dollars )

No, it is either a driver issue with the 8800 or a conflict between the 8800 and ArmA, or a combination of both...

What is strange is that some 8800 users reported their game runing fine, while others cant do shit.

[Swedish_-_M@ssacre 0]

So in other words we buy 2 gpus that using the same 768mb single videomem.

if thats the case, WHAT A RIP OFf!

There should be a way for the hardware prods to maximize the vid ram in SLI and implement this into games.

What they would have come up with instead is a modular setup of gpus and memory, that you can build on, and that's wouldn't be more expensive then to have to change card every or twice a year.

Just like a PC, you buy what you need, increase when you have the time and money.

Not like todays Hardware piracy, nvidia and ATI are PIRATES in the industry, they rip everyone off, cause what pukebrain came up with the idea to not incorporate the DDR4 rams on GF8800 GTX, just so they can push GF 8800 Ultra and 8900 with different rams and higher clockspeeds but overall the same specs.

There must be someone more than me who thinks similar on this matter?

So any word from BIS on the Arma performance and support on Core 2 & SLI!

Cause i don't get any!

P:S

All my friends who have SLI setups, cant get decent FPS, nor some of them who have AMD FX or ATi Crossfire

[strango 5]

First grab the ArmA Demo and give it a whirl. You'll see that it's a huge improvement over v1.05. Once we finially get 1.07 you'll be able to see this level of performance in the full game.

Next grab the latest nVidia driver. They actually just released another one yesterday. That one and the one before it was a pretty decent increase in performance for the 8800 cards.

Now all that said, it's still not perfect and I'd expect more from our setups, but you'll at least be getting high FPS with "High and Very High" settings in the game (based on my machines performance which is a quad-core and SLI 8800s running the ArmA Demo).

[mataio2341 0]

This game studio really does suck at support or reasoning. But it sucks in the same way windows does, I mean what is the alternative? No other game I know of is as realistic as VSB1 or Arma.

I think the controls especially on Arma are terrible, and I order $300 worth addons a few months back for VSB1 and when they got here (2 weeks late) they simply didnt work. And the lovely makers of VSB1 would not refund my money or send me a new set discs. They wanted me to pay the shipping to send my VSB1 key all the way to them in Austalia. Which would mean I would have to wait another month without even being able to play VSB1 while the tryed to fix there own mistake. Absolutely ridiculous

if a game studio is suck at support then you wont even get a patch which fix things, keep it in mind

edit: what kind of problem you have on VBS1 BTW

Well I have the latest patch and suprise suprise it hasnt fixed any of my problems, not the crazy heli contols or the horrible performance. And worst of all not the fact that my Sahri map will not open with the game crashing to desktop.

[Swedish_-_M@ssacre 0]

@ Strango!

What do u take us for, imbecills?

I Have the latest forceware 165.01 and Chipset, soundcard, sata drivers

Why should i regrab the demo when i have the original?, patch 1.5 installed, tested both ways, no improvement whatsoever

i've tried allmost every driver nvidia has pushed through their labs!

[NeMeSiS 11]

Why should i regrab the demo when i have the original?

The latest demo is 1.6..

[Swedish_-_M@ssacre 0]

Allright i'll give it a shot, , but that really makes u wanna puke, as it's a demo and most of us already bought the freaking thing.

I hope the 1.6 patch is round the bend

[baddo 0]

If you have a problem with the design of Nvidia's SLI technique, inform Nvidia please, so they can make it better. It is true SLI does not double the amount of video RAM for applications. But I can only wonder how you can come up to a conclusion that this means SLI is a rip off? You must know the SLI technology very well if you start to claim such thing...

Quote[/b] ]With a Opengl Engine we would reach at least 60 maxxed out or even more, and it would look better to.

Hmm... again, I wonder how you can draw such direct relation... OpenGL engine means at least 60 frames per second with your hardware? It doesn't matter what the application does? How much data is being pushed into the graphics card to render? It doesn't matter what else than graphics is being run at the same time?

I think you are just angry now and make up angry statements without giving them much thought. Please cool down so people here can help you tune your settings so that you become more satisfied with the performance you get

[strango 5]

You should try 158.18 or 158.22 (released on May 2nd) depending on which O/S you running.

I'm running XP (158.22 drivers) and saw an improvement.

[SlurrpyChillyFries 0]

well, im adding my 2 cents.

with all settings at normal (antialias off) and post process to low, vsync forced off, amd x2 3800 2 gigs of ram with no swap, gts 8800 at 1680x??? (cant remember not used to widescreen res yet) and a view distance of 1000m i would like to believe that i could get better than 15 fps. no matter what i do the framerate doesnt move, unless i jack everything to high, then ill loose 5 fps. i can move the res to 800X600 and i get a decent framerate...but that is not what i bought.

i think the point that is trying to be made is that when your system exceeds the recommended specs by a despairingly large gap, you would like to think you can play closer to the high end of its settings or at recommended system settings and blaze its performance.

im sick and tired of hearing ppl with lesser computers telling the ppl with better computers, thats what you get for buying top of the line (they use more words than that)...i say kiss my ass, that is the most childish, jealous response i have ever heard.

Swedish_-_M@ssacre's machine is in proper working order, there is probably drivers and an arma patch that he needs (as well as i) but he/she should be able to play this game with normal to high settings and obtain a playable framerate (50 fps or more). i know Swedish_-_M@ssacre is drawing conclusions with improper data but stop trying to invalidate his point of half the machine running higher framerates at similar settings.

this is happening to me right now, my clan mate runs higher fps at the same exact settings as i, and he runs a p4 2.8 gz with a 7950 and i have an x2 3800 with a 8800. there is no reason this should be happening. and yes, i understand how to build and tweak a computer, i have been doing it for 12 years now and that is enough time for even a dumb ass to figure it out.

btw Swedish_-_M@ssacre, i want to rub one out on your floppy drive dude, that system is bang up!

[dmarkwick 261]

Well this thread was an enormous waste of time. It's fairly obvious that most people get reasonable performance out of ArmA, while a very few get worse, for little apparent reason.

Reasonable summary? Good, then sell the frickin' thing and move on for Christ's sake.