Too much for my PC to handle?

[Bobert 0]

Yeah, that topic title is a bit of an exaggeration. I heard this game is very resource intensive, but I didn't expect this.

My system is:

AMD 64 3500+ 2.2GHz

2GB PC3200 DDR400 RAM

ATI x1900xt 512MB

Windows XP

Not the best, obviously. I run the game at 1440x900x32 at a 16:10 ratio. View distance is set to 1200(I can't imagine anyone being able to run it at max.) All of my drivers are up to date as well.

I put everything on High and Highest as a test, and obviously I got a pretty smooth FPS on the wide open plain areas, etc. However, my frame rate drops dramatically in the forest and city areas, we're talking unplayable frame rates.

Right now it's obviously not a matter of whether or not I have to turn my settings down, but how far, and which settings are more intensive on my rig?

I understand some of you will probably be telling me to tinker around and see what settings work for me, and believe me, I have, but I can never get a balance between performance and quality.

So if anyone has any suggestions, edits, or fixes that may help me out, I will gladly take them.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

View distance is probably the least system demanding thing. I have a geforce 6600 and use 2000m viewdistance

[ombas 0]

Yeah, that topic title is a bit of an exaggeration. I heard this game is very resource intensive, but I didn't expect this.

My system is:

AMD 64 3500+ 2.2GHz

2GB PC3200 DDR400 RAM

ATI x1900xt 512MB

Windows XP

Not the best, obviously. I run the game at 1440x900x32 at a 16:10 ratio. View distance is set to 1200(I can't imagine anyone being able to run it at max.) All of my drivers are up to date as well.

I put everything on High and Highest as a test, and obviously I got a pretty smooth FPS on the wide open plain areas, etc. However, my frame rate drops dramatically in the forest and city areas, we're talking unplayable frame rates.

Right now it's obviously not a matter of whether or not I have to turn my settings down, but how far, and which settings are more intensive on my rig?

I understand some of you will probably be telling me to tinker around and see what settings work for me, and believe me, I have, but I can never get a balance between performance and quality.

So if anyone has any suggestions, edits, or fixes that may help me out, I will gladly take them.

i use a x1900xt (at least till my 2900xt gets delivered tomorrow <g>).

shading and aa give the biggest hit to me - set to low. also, try post process and terrain detail on low as well. the x1900xt (512mb) does better with shadow set to high than low. keep the distance to 1200 unless you like to fly, then crank it up. the only place i have a MAJOR problem with is north sahrani forest, that convoy mission is a killer for me. i have a crt and run at 1280x1024 res. which might be somewhat equivalent to your 1440 x 900 widescreen res (??). 1600x1200 is too much....

good luck and keep tweaking

[bravo 6 0]

definitely Armed Assault need another good optimization in the near future..

many , many people complain about the same thing.

Im forced to play the game with all settings low and disabled.

(Specs: intel 3Ghz, 1,5ddr 400, Sapphire X1950 pro 512mb)

[-Puma- 2]

yeah something wrong with the code. complex landscape dosent really put any stress on the puter, but soon as the AI starts to show performance goes down...

I've been able to keep the game at acceptable levels with shadows

low, AA low, post low, and anything other high.

on top of that theres some wierd things, like night battles, where FPS goes down to 12(add a burning vehicle on the map, and see FPS frop by 5)

maybe OC that amd a little to get some FPS in citys and forrest

[Sinistercr0c 0]

I run a similar rig, same ram, screen res etc. but an AMD 3800 and an x1900xtx.

I run most settings on Normal/low, deffo low on AA. Post process and texture to low too and I get 30 - 35fps across the board with maybe 40 - 60 in open areas.

View distance anywhere upto 3000m isn't problematic for me.

No matter how much you tinker gfx wise you won't get much more than 30 - 40fps aversage I suspect, but the above should help.

I presume your using fraps to measure?

[-Puma- 2]

I run a similar rig, same ram, screen res etc. but an AMD 3800 and an x1900xtx.

I run most settings on Normal/low, deffo low on AA. Post process and texture to low too and I get 30 - 35fps across the board with maybe 40 - 60 in open areas.

View distance anywhere upto 3000m isn't problematic for me.

No matter how much you tinker gfx wise you won't get much more than 30 - 40fps aversage I suspect, but the above should help.

I presume your using fraps to measure?

U get 30 FPS in citys and in north?? plz tell me how the hell thats possible?

just noticed u have 1950xt...

but still im curious..

[Bobert 0]

yeah something wrong with the code. complex landscape dosent really put any stress on the puter, but soon as the AI starts to show performance goes down...

I've been able to keep the game at acceptable levels with shadows

low, AA low, post low, and anything other high.

on top of that theres some wierd things, like night battles, where FPS goes down to 12(add a burning vehicle on the map, and see FPS frop by 5)

maybe OC that amd a little to get some FPS in citys and forrest

Ahh, I've always been a bit wary of over clocking.

I just don't want to fry anything. I tried learning to OC once, and unfortunately I ended up finding it pretty complicated, and when I did get it, I didn't get any results.

[-Puma- 2]

yeah something wrong with the code. complex landscape dosent really put any stress on the puter, but soon as the AI starts to show performance goes down...

I've been able to keep the game at acceptable levels with shadows

low, AA low, post low, and anything other high.

on top of that theres some wierd things, like night battles, where FPS goes down to 12(add a burning vehicle on the map, and see FPS frop by 5)

maybe OC that amd a little to get some FPS in citys and forrest

Ahh, I've always been a bit wary of over clocking.

I just don't want to fry anything. I tried learning to OC once, and unfortunately I ended up finding it pretty complicated, and when I did get it, I didn't get any results.

OC'ing is fairly safe IMO. U can get some decent OC by just upping the clock frequency.

anyways if ure still interested heres a very good guide for AMD overclocking. This is where i started myself:

http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/AMD/138

have fun

[Bobert 0]

Thanks, I'll look into it.

[D007 0]

Amd's are known to not be as stable as overclocking cpu's as intels.. don't push it to far, the dies are not as good as intels..

thats why their inexpensive. great processor for the money. but it's not the best of the best.

also get the amd dual core optimiser.. this game is single core threaded so it runs better on single cores.. if you use that it should help you quite a bit.

the intel dual core hotfix helped me anyway.

overclocking you cpu will definitely help you though.. this game screams for cpu power.. overclocking your video card does poop..lol.. on 2 8800's in sli i oc from stock to 660 core and 920 memory.. and see close to no difference..

game still needs some serious optimization.

shading is huge in rural areas and trees shrubberies etc.. just keep it normal.. if u put it low things start to look like bad.. but normal is ok..

if you need to you can go low though. it's still not that bad.. I'm just use to super high def is all so my brain gets mad at me if i go for less..lol..

Ai's hack the hell out of this game..lol.. ai's start spawning and it's lag city..

Sniping at range at a target in motion.. idc what card ya have.. aint gonna happen.. you can't shoot somoene who makes 20 foot jumps instead of moving like a normal person. well u can.. with a whole hell of alot of luck and a truck load of ammo.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Amd's are known to not be as stable as overclocking cpu's as intels.. don't push it to far, the dies are not as good as intels..

thats why their inexpensive. great processor for the money. but it's not the best of the best.

Huh? AMD's OC fine, not as far as C2D's but much better then P4's etc IMO.

EDIT: Anyway, Bobert, what kind of FPS do you expect? 20-30 is fine, but if you expect a stable 50+ then ill say: Never, not going to happen.

[Bobert 0]

I expect 30, maybe 25 or less in woods and cities, but that's all.

And D007, my processor isn't duel core anyway...so I don't know if that fix would matter.

[BraTTy 0]

A processor upgrade would help you most.

Not sure what one would need to run the game on high (has this question been answered even from OFP? )

[Heatseeker 0]

The settings not to bump here are post processing and shadding detail, in your case im afraid you night have to disable shadows to have acceptable performance in the forests.

I think the northern vegetation is alot more demanding than the southern but the later actually looks better .

I dont think Arma suffers from bad optimisation (some compatbility problems, yes) i think it suffers from design decisions since NS is alot more problematic than the south.

The Arma engine is miles ahead of the old OPF one but Sahrani is just too demanding.