Worst Performance EVER!

[Swedish_-_M@ssacre 0]

Well, this must be a joke, but how come i'm not laughin?

Im of the opinion that you should buy all the games that deserve the support.But when i come to think of it, Arma and Stalker narrows it down quite a bit.

I'm one of many HC gamers that have spent alot of Cheddar on a brand new computer, new tower, PSU, CPU, 2x graphics for SLI and Overkill Rams.

but for what?, to play Arma @ lousy fps?

Sure i know that it's not all Bohemias fault, and that Nvidia has as much to do with this as they produce the hardware.

And beleive me, ive sent a similar message to them!

But this doesn't make me happy or helps me one bit! does it?

U buy lots of hardware, just to be able to play the sheit on Mid and Low specs, WTFFFFFFFFFFF.

Turn on Safemode for the sound as the 1.05 patch fux that up as well.

Running the viewdistance @ 1500-2000 just to be able to move, everthing else on normal.well this sux bigtime, and i cant be quiet anymore, sorry.

This is no flame, but if you cant stand the heat, you better stay out of the kitchen.

Arma = No Support for Core 2 cpus, no real support for SLI = FKK Joke!, as you know quiite well that alot of guys buys this kind of setup just to get everything out of their gaming.

I get something in between, 100-130 fps in openGL games like Doom3, Quake 4 with everything maxxed out.

Over 100 FPS in Oblivion 4

the same with UT2004

120-150 in BF2 / 2142

15-25 in Arma and Stalker, do u see the big difference!

Oyeah and i get about 18000 3D marks in 3dmark 06, so theres absolutly no prob with my hardware.

If you tell someone to lower their spec on their machines just to get a decent FPS, that like telling a owner of a hi tuned sportscar that you can only drive your car on 4th gear, even if you have 6.

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!

"EXTREME"

CPU 6800 Core Duo Extreme "Prometia @ -62 Celsius"

2048 Corsair Twin2x Dominator 8888C4D

EVGA 122 CK NF68 "SLI"

XFX GF8800 GTX "Watercooled" "SLI"

XFI Fatal1ty

PSU Silverstone 850w

Samsung 226BW 22" LCD

2x 150 gb Raptors HD @ 10 000rpm

WIN XP SP 2

Nforce 158.19

Nforce 165.01

............................................................

"WEB /Network/Gaming"

Core 2 Duo E6600

2048 Corsair Twin2x 6400

Asus P5 DH Deluxe

ATI 1900 XTX "CROSSFIRE"

PSU Tagan 650w

2x 150gb Raptors HD @ 10 000 rpm

XFI Fatal1ty

Win XP SP 2

Catalyst 7.4

As you can see, i have 2 setups, and the ATI doesn't performs as good in Arma / Stalker as you might think.

On the other hand, you shouldnt have to buy seperate gear just to be able to play your favorite games, now should u?

/SM

[4 IN 1 0]

so lets see, i am running a single 8800GTS and a E6600 without OC, and i still could pump out 30~40 on normal(good enought) in a 22", and a happy 50 on high with my old 15" under 1024x768, is this some kind of hint?

[RogueRunner 0]

Same, running a 7900GT on med, shadows off and view to 2000m and i beat your FPS!

[Swedish_-_M@ssacre 0]

That's what i mean, this is a big FKKKK U to everone who owns 8800 GTX or Quad Core QX6700 - 6800 Extreme.

They want you to spend your well earned dollars / Sek

but don't give a rats ass if your gear works with the games / Drivers etc.

Well boys i kick your ass bigtime when it comes to 3d Mark 06 and allmost any other game, so it's not the hardware, NO way!

No it's pisspoor optimized drivers and bad support for core duo, core 2 and SLI, that it!

15-25 Fps is in 1680x1050, the fps however dosen't change if i maxx or lower the graphics.

If i wanted 200 fps i arma i could get rid of all mipmaps and play @ 16 colors, just like we did with Quake back in the days.

They can however forget about OPF2, if it has the same performance, i'm NEVER gonna buy it.

[daikan 1]

Lesson 1:

Don't believe in what companies are trying to sell you.

Lesson 2:

Writing sophisticated software for the Wintel platform is like a gambling game. There is an infinite number of different hard- and software configurations that have to be considered, which is impossible.

Lesson 3:

Don't buy stuff when it comes out new. Of course you can buy it, but don't expect it to work as it should (see Lesson 2). IMHO the best combination of hard- and software is at least 1 generation behind the top of the line.

Lesson 4:

Patience is the key to a happy gamer's life.

just my .2$ and good luck to you.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

x2 4200, DFI Mobo with 2 Gig OCZ Ram and a 7900GTX and I use high settings and view distance above 2000. Frames are more than just fine!

[Swedish_-_M@ssacre 0]

I don't believe in the companies, i do my own tests, just like many of you guys do

And i haven't bought my equipment @ Launch, i waited a bit

And i have shown enough patience, i want to be able to play the game when it still feels fresh, not like BF2, 5000 patches later, u follow me?

Well, the 8800 outperformes any other prod when it comes to Opengl, Crytek or Epic engines, so i'll just have to face it.

$2000 for new graphics right down the drain for Arma or Stalker, and another $100 for the games.

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

[bob1787 0]

you'll never get 200FPS on ArmA persistantly, ever. if you think your going to get the same frame rates that you do on BF2/2142 then your going to be disappointed.

wait for some more driver updates

EDIT: took out something

[Key Dutch 0]

That's what i mean, this is a big FKKKK U to everone who owns  8800 GTX or Quad Core QX6700 - 6800 Extreme.

They want you to spend your well earned dollars / Sek

but don't give a rats ass if your gear works with the games / Drivers etc.

Well boys i kick your ass bigtime when it comes to 3d Mark 06 and allmost any other game, so it's not the hardware, NO way!

No it's pisspoor optimized drivers and bad support for core duo, core 2 and SLI, that it!

15-25 Fps is in 1680x1050, the fps however dosen't change if i maxx or lower the graphics.

If i wanted 200 fps i arma i could get rid of all mipmaps and play @ 16 colors, just like we did with Quake back in the days.

They can however forget about OPF2, if it has the same performance, i'm NEVER gonna buy it.

man i dont know what u did , but even i run Arma with better FPS than u and my settings is all on High and 1600x1200 resolution.

[-TwK-Danny 0]

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.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

It's a shame that the poor performance made me stop playing this game.

But let's hope that BIS or NVidia or whoever will fix this in the very near future.

Nobody want's 200fps, but ~20fps isn't very playable for many gamers.

MfG Lee

[4 IN 1 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

[andy-uk 0]

DualCore AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+

nVIDIA GeForce 7950 GX2

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe

2048 MB (PC3200 DDR SDRAM)

Creative SoundBlaster Live! 24Bit

Maxtor 6V320F0, ST3250824AS, HDS722580VLAT20

Dell E228WFP 22" @1680x1050

In-Game Settings: LINK TO IMAGE

i was surprised and a little gutted at first that my fps was only around 20-30fps on average (which to be honest is entirely playable, and considering the slower paced gameplay really makes no difference from 150fps in bf2), having come from GRAW in which i was running @60fps with all highest.

but now i am happy as not many people have much higher frame rates (apart fom those boasting about how they 60fps @800x600 - give me 1680x1050 any day...)

sorry to hear about your probs btw, maybe they will fix this soon.

andy.

[4 IN 1 0]

DualCore AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+

nVIDIA GeForce 7950 GX2

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe

2048 MB (PC3200 DDR SDRAM)

Creative SoundBlaster Live! 24Bit

Maxtor 6V320F0, ST3250824AS, HDS722580VLAT20

Dell E228WFP 22" @1680x1050

In-Game Settings: LINK TO IMAGE

i was surprised and a little gutted at first that my fps was only around 20-30fps on average, having come from GRAW in which i was running @60fps with all highest.

but now i am happy as not many people have much higher frame rates (apart fom those boasting about how they 60fps @800x600 - give me 1680x1050 any day...)

sorry to hear about your probs btw, maybe they will fix this soon.

andy.

getting new rig is more like stepping into a minefield for me, luckily i bet my money right and my rig isnt troubling me a lot

[Swedish_-_M@ssacre 0]

Well if i were to have big fps drops in any other game, i would agree,but i haven't, so i did a test before in fraps with Tomb raider - Legend, a game that many have complained about when it comes to heavy load on the GPUS, well, got an average about 60 with everything inkl 3generation content in 1680-1050.

When i come to think of it, every other game, works great, but Arma and Stalker is poor in comparison.

In theory, as some allready have posted, Arma isn't that much of a deal if you talk graphics, and with SLI and Core Duo u should get a much better performance, theres no question about it.

I know Single core / gpu setups runs better than dual or quadro, and that makes u both sad and pissed off at the same time.

I only got 10 more fps with my crossfire setup, average 30-35, which makes it playable, but no more than acceptable.

A game that have a lot of chopping or stuttering due to bad optimized drivers is no fun at all, even if you lower you spec to LOW.

For me graphics and framrate is a part of the package when it comes to gameplay and enjoyment.

With this in mind, i'm sure that QW, Crysis, Unreal 3, Bioshock and so forth will have the right support from scratch, as these guys really cares about FPS!

[berowe 0]

Stop comparing things to Oblivion. I can run that maxed on my POS system it's old hat. In oblivion you have 'zones' and loading bars every 30 seconds so obviously they can cram more up-close detail in. Other than that what about creatures and world objects that randomly appear when you get within 50m of them? It's like movie special effects- they use their tricks of the trade to make the world feel immense and not simply the thousands of separate tiny "levels" that it really is. Those tricks won't work in a simulator like ARMA though- Imagine calling in emergency combat air support and having your A10 pilot say over TS: "Give me a minute or two dudes, I'm not done loading your zone"

I don't think people fully grasp how hard these huge islands are on your system. I remember playing WWIIOL when it came out and being amazed that I could drive or fly through 1/2 or 1/4 scale europe if I wanted and that it did some freakishly detailed armor penetration calculations but all everyone else did was bitch that it wasn't as pretty as -insert random FPS here-

Anyway OP: Unless you're running everything completely maxed out then I agree that your system isn't jiving with Arma. Just wait for patches/updates but otherwise just do like the rest of us and play without your #@$ing fps monitor running and I guarantee you will learn to not give a damn that you're not getting 2000fps and simply enjoy the game.

[--DST-- HIGHLANDER 0]

why dont you turn the res down abit?, you dont need all the eye candy anyway m8 p.s with those resalutions, i take it you play coop maps etc?

[Marines 0]

Well if i were to have big fps drops in any other game, i would agree,but i haven't, so i did a test before in fraps with Tomb raider - Legend, a game that many have complained about when it comes to heavy load on the GPUS, well, got an average about 60 with everything inkl 3generation content in 1680-1050.

When i come to think of it, every other game, works great, but Arma and Stalker is poor in comparison.

In theory, as some allready have posted, Arma isn't that much of a deal if you talk graphics, and with SLI and Core Duo u should get a much better performance, theres no question about it.

I know Single core / gpu setups runs better than dual or quadro, and that makes u both sad and pissed off at the same time.

I only got 10 more fps with my crossfire setup, average 30-35, which makes it playable, but no more than acceptable.

A game that have a lot of chopping or stuttering due to bad optimized drivers is no fun at all, even if you lower you spec to LOW.

For me graphics and framrate is a part of the package when it comes to gameplay and enjoyment.

With this in mind, i'm sure that QW, Crysis, Unreal 3, Bioshock and so forth will have the right support from scratch, as these guys really cares about FPS!

I know exactly what you're saying, mate. However, I think you totally missed the point several posts up. Point being, there are an enormous number of variants related to hardware that can effect individual preformance in the game. Some people with high-end gaming rigs experience massive problems, while others do not. The same goes for those with mid-level systems, and at times, can run the game at the general high settings with a stable FPS count (30-40). No one here has been able to narrow down exactly why the preformance issues are so diverse... no one.

[4 IN 1 0]

....

pretty much sum it up, thx for the imput

[vilas 473]

this thing were told thousands times

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=61429

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....1;st=15

ARMA is game with worst performance i ever seen, i hate its HDR

but performance can be cause be very very huge island with so many objects, on Nogova there was 150 000 objects, no grass, can you imagine how many objects are on Sahrani ?

maybe million ? size 400 km2 and all AI units are working in time, in other game objects, vehicles, AI are inactive when not seen by player

do you know other map for game such big, with so many objects ? houses than can be destroyed by user, not only in cutscenes ?

[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

[dwringer 45]

heh, I get about the same fps now with a P4 3.6, and 8800GTS 320Mb as I did with a P4 2.6 and a 9800 pro...

but now I can also increase the graphics detail to a mixture of Low/Medium/High (depending on whether it's CPU or GPU intensive, I can't turn up the CPU hungry options as much) and the FPS remains consistent. I can also up the resolution.

Dropping the settings back doesn't seem to help, though; my fps stays about the same anyway - it's just ugly as sin.

So it really seems like ArmA is trying to scale its performance to each system so that the fps can remain 'consistent', but there must be some kind of glitch here because sometimes it drops into the low teens, and other times it flies up to like 40 or so.

I really won't complain, because the game just came out in the USA 2 days ago, which means the "real" support can now begin. Plus, comparing a 2 day old (i know it's older than that but, ultimately, it's not) game to Oblivion, which is more like two YEARS old, is frankly ridiculous.

[zyklone 1]

Just ignore this kind of poster.

They seem to think that if there is a 'very high' setting they're somehow entitled to use it. Use the settings your hardware can handle and that gives you acceptable FPS.

Otherwise you're telling game developers to block all settings that can't be handled easily by todays hardware, i much rather have the setting in two years when the hardware is twice as fast.

The fact that people think 100 FPS makes any sort of sense is amusing also.

[4 IN 1 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

[Marines 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

Got that right!