Extremely bad performance on 1.12

[tophe 68]

Me and my friend noticed on 1.11 that we got very bad performance, and on 1.12 it's even worse.

It's laggy and textures won't load. It builds up and get worse as we play. It work as smooth as silk on 1.08 and 1.09.

We have top of the line systems with 2gb ram and GF8800 cards. How come the newer patches is so much worse than the old ones? I have even tried setting all to LOW and it's still bad...

Earlier I could play on HIGH settings without problems...

[maddogx 13]

This really should go in the troubleshooting section.

Also, before anyone can answer your questions, you should post more details about your system:

- Which operating system (XP or Vista? Service packs?)

- Which CPU?

- What NVidia drivers are you using?

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I have the same issue. With 1.11 I could use the -vm108 parameter and it would run fine. 1.12 doesn't support this anymore, so I'm stuck with very bad stutters every second or so. It seems to be worse in the woods of North Sahrani (pre 1.08 it used to be a grass only issue).

I only have medium machine, and most settings on the normal<->lowest range. I do however use FDF sounds and ECS (not the HD version) addons.

I can no longer play in fullscreen in limited resolution as the stutters/"lag" makes it quite impossible to aim (aiming change being performed up to a second after I stopped moving the mouse). Instead I'm forced playing in windowed mode, which is normally not a problem since I like editing in windowed.

[tophe 68]

This really should go in the troubleshooting section.

Also, before anyone can answer your questions, you should post more details about your system:

- Which operating system (XP or Vista? Service packs?)

- Which CPU?

- What NVidia drivers are you using?

Well, my system is not the proeblem, I think. Since it has worked perfectly up until 1.11.

But I have a AMD 6000+ (tried with and without dualcore optimization), Windows XP with all the latest updates and nVidias latest drivers.

The problem lies in the patch, since it worked great before we applied it.

[max power 21]

roll back to 1.11, use -vm108 switch. This will at least tell you if it's the new memory management system.

[maddogx 13]

There must be some piece of software, a directX update or a microsoft hotfix or something else that is causing (or preventing) performance issues with the new memory management system.

I've seen people with (superficially) almost identical systems getting wildly different performance results. In one case I've read here in the forums, of two guys both with Vista32+SP1 - the one with the weaker system (less RAM, weaker CPU) was getting better framerates than the other guy.

I'm pretty sure the patch itself can't be the true cause of the problem, otherwise we'd all be getting the same performance issues. There is some external factor - maybe a windows DLL file that the new memory management system relies upon is not up to date (I've experienced something similar in ET:QW), or some people are using a certain piece of software, such as a specific virus scanner, that is somehow obstructing the new memory management from working properly.

We basically need to find the culprit(s), which could be extremely difficult.

[shadow 6]

Moving to TS

[bravo 6 0]

I must say i felt 1.09 alittle more smooth then 1.11 and 1.12.

[rstratton 0]

arma = extreme bad performance. didnt u guys know that

[BraTTy 0]

Thats such a wrong statement rstratton. I've played Arma on 4 different pcs I have owned and it has had better performance than Oblivion for example (current pc runs all games just fine)

I can't comment on topic starters problem as I haven't tried 1.12 as of yet (maybe tonight)

[PuFu 4591]

Very little info here (no CPU, no OS, no drivers)

*On vista: get the latest directX version here

*Get the latest Nvidia drivers here

I know for a fact that running under Vista SP1 can create problems. I would have the directX version and drivers up to date nevertheless.

[maddogx 13]

arma = extreme bad performance. didnt u guys know that

Your opinion. ArmA has been running nicely for me since 1.08.

Back to topic.

Regardless of any performance differences between 1.09 and 1.12, fact is the new memory management system doesn't seem to get along with certain systems. Since the performance problem seems to occur on all supported windows flavors (XP32/64, Vista32/64) but apparently only in rare cases, and is also fairly independent of hardware, I'm pretty sure the issue is being caused by either a driver/hotfix/SP, some 3rd party software or a system DLL.

If that is correct, then we need to answer three questions:

1 - What NVidia/AMD/other driver versions and/or windows hotfixes and service packs are recommended for ArmA?

2 - What kind of software could interfere with ArmA memory management?

3 - Does ArmA use any new system .DLLs since the new memory management system was implemented?

As for number 1, I would suggest ensuring the following:

- Make sure you have the latest version of DirectX.

- If you are a Windows Vista user, try playing with and without Service Pack 1.

- If you are on XP, consider trying the latest SP3 release candidate. (I'm using it myself, no problems so far. And it can be uninstalled if it does cause trouble.)

- For NVIDIA graphics cards, consider getting the latest beta drivers.

- Grab the latest drivers for your sound card.

Concerning question number 2, try the following before starting the game:

- Turn off any antivirus and similar software.

- Make sure you don't have any programs running, that are constantly accessing your hard drive (like filesharing software)

Additionally:

- Defrag your hard drives.

- If any of your hardware is overclocked (CPU, RAM, GPU), consider returning to stock values for testing.

I have no ideas for question number 3 currently, as I don't know how to find out what DLL files are being used by ArmA, or if there have been any recent changes. Maybe a developer could answer that.

[The-Architect 0]

I can't play on any of the stock maps unless I have details right down low. I could before but not now.

My Vista 32 is brand new and I only have ArmA and some editing software on it.

[mr.g-c 6]

You always forget this:

http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/637/OpenAL_2.0.3.html

Its also important in terms of performance....

[cross 1]

Also, I'd recommend to turn of directx9 hooking programs. I had a similar problem (still do actually) but had some relief after turning off the rivatuners OSD and stats server. Turn off the FRAPS, GAMECAM, XFIRE etc if you are using...

[maddogx 13]

You always forget this:

http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/637/OpenAL_2.0.3.html

Its also important in terms of performance....

Isn't that automatically installed with the latest patch?

Quote from 1.12b:

Quote[/b] ](...) October 2006 DirectX 9 runtime is required (d3dx9_31.dll) and patch installer will update your system with it automatically if you don't have it installed.

OpenAL will be updated during the patch process to version 2.0.3.

[mr.g-c 6]

Ohh sorry.... my bad.... ok then of course you're absolutely right.

Anyway its never bad to download the openAl installer and check if its really updated....

Best Regards, Christian

[OrLoK 20]

Hello

It is a bit odd, the wildly fluctuating results we seem to be getting with arma regarding performance on similar systems.

I run all sorts of apps from photoshop to softimage and a whole range of games all at decent (not extreme resolutions) and only have issues with Arma and another off beat game called "Penumbra"

Now in the demo, everything ran a such a great framerate (albeit with the occasional crash!, but now I also have the LOD / Texture streaming errors although FPS in "wilderness" seems to actually have risen a frame or two since 1.01

.

But, the minute I hit a town/village/Airstrip, then it all goes poo.

I too, would like a rough guide as to which drivers are "unofficially officially" reccommended as there are so bloddy many out there. I understand that all PC's are (unless direct out the box) different.

I find it odd that some folk with PC's less powerful than mine are achieving higer fps at higher settings and visa versa. But I'm no programmer and dont understand such new fangled things.

Can one dual boot XP and XP? I would like to try Arma on a clean system. and although I've not heard of that boot set up, i wonder if its possible?

Anyhoo, let us know if there are certain driver sets that you find good and those that hinder performance as I cant wait to get playing propely again.

Rgds

LoK

[maddogx 13]

I believe it should be possible to dual boot two different XP installations, but you'll definitely want to backup all your data before you try it.

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ]Another average 4-6 FPS more i got when i closed my Vista sidebar and disabled the AERO features of Vista, before starting to play.

Also window-mode is a big FPS killer, so play it in Fullscreen.

System is a old Athlon 64 3700+ 1mb cache @ 3000MHZ, GF9600GT Geforce 174.74.

The results (4-6 FPS more) are huge on such a old system....

Regards, Christian

[Emryse 2]

I'm getting pretty bad performance as well on my rig - which I actually just upgraded - I wasn't nearly having such a rough time earlier last year - I too conclude that the "optimizations" in the later patches aren't all working as advertised... understand though that BIS is working very hard on it, I'm sure.

At any rate, my problem is that it seems no matter where I place the settings for graphics, I still get very unpredicatable framerates, where I can be looking one way and get 50, then zoom in with my scope and drop to 19, etc... And this did not happen before. In general my FPS do seem to get worse as continue to play. As much as I love ArmA, this gets more frustrating, because I upgraded my system just solely to get better results in ArmA. It's hard to document, but it just seems like I got better performance with my single GPU and less memory!!! That is ridiculous!

I'm running SLI and that's seen no dramatic improvements whatsoever - when I asked BIS directly about it, they said "sorry, not our problem - it's the hardware manufactuer..." and at the same time, NVIDIA is saying "sorry, not our problem, it's the software developer." Both answers are crap, because if BIS is going to carry the NVIDIA logo, then they had better well damn program the game to take advantage of SLI, which WAS available at the time they were developing it. Likewise, if NVIDIA is going to let BIS use their logo to state their game is NVIDIA rated, then they had better damn well make sure they work with BIS and release all necessary support and resources needed to ensure full optimization with SLI and their hardware products!!!

That ends my rant - it really is a frustrating issue, and spending $800 on upgrades just feels wrong for such a let down. If anyone can let me know good suggestions (and I've tried the "update all everything drivers, switch exe to fear or 3DMark06, bla blah blaw..." - please if anyone has real suggestions or a real solution, I would GREATLY appreciate it!

My specs:

Mobo: ASUS P5N32-SLI (latest bios and drivers available)

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 at 2.99Ghz (with the dual core hotfix WinXP patch from MS), with ASUS Silent Knight Heatsink/Fan (runs between 42 idle and 51 under load)

Memory: 4 gigs Kingston HyperX PC6400 DDR2

GPU: Two EVGA G8800GTXs in SLI (latest drivers available)

Harddrives: Two WD 320Gig HDs in RAID 0 (that's where the game is installed)

Soundcard: Creative Audigy SE

OS: Win XP 32 (with all latest MS Updates)

Version of ArmA: 1.12 (whatever latest posted on news) and QG expansion

Addons Used: ECS, ArmAEffects, FDFSounds, NWDScopeFix, NWDBallistics, DurgsVeg, GMJames SightAdjust, DMDarwin Smoke, SixPack 1 and 2, and basically any of the other recommended addons in the RyanD compilation thread (with a few exceptions that never before used to cause this kind of grief)...

Appreciate the time anyone takes to right back. Thank you BIS for making a great game, and I apologize as I don't mean to be rude, but it is frustrating, and I hope you can outline a better policy on how you are working with the hardware manufacturers either in this game, or the next.

Just my $.02!

[Yoma 0]

I'm getting pretty bad performance as well on my rig - which I actually just upgraded - I wasn't nearly having such a rough time earlier last year - I too conclude that the "optimizations" in the later patches aren't all working as advertised... understand though that BIS is working very hard on it, I'm sure.

At any rate, my problem is that it seems no matter where I place the settings for graphics, I still get very unpredicatable framerates, where I can be looking one way and get 50, then zoom in with my scope and drop to 19, etc... And this did not happen before. In general my FPS do seem to get worse as continue to play. As much as I love ArmA, this gets more frustrating, because I upgraded my system just solely to get better results in ArmA. It's hard to document, but it just seems like I got better performance with my single GPU and less memory!!! That is ridiculous!

I'm running SLI and that's seen no dramatic improvements whatsoever - when I asked BIS directly about it, they said "sorry, not our problem - it's the hardware manufactuer..." and at the same time, NVIDIA is saying "sorry, not our problem, it's the software developer." Both answers are crap, because if BIS is going to carry the NVIDIA logo, then they had better well damn program the game to take advantage of SLI, which WAS available at the time they were developing it. Likewise, if NVIDIA is going to let BIS use their logo to state their game is NVIDIA rated, then they had better damn well make sure they work with BIS and release all necessary support and resources needed to ensure full optimization with SLI and their hardware products!!!

That ends my rant - it really is a frustrating issue, and spending $800 on upgrades just feels wrong for such a let down. If anyone can let me know good suggestions (and I've tried the "update all everything drivers, switch exe to fear or 3DMark06, bla blah blaw..." - please if anyone has real suggestions or a real solution, I would GREATLY appreciate it!

My specs:

Mobo: ASUS P5N32-SLI (latest bios and drivers available)

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 at 2.99Ghz (with the dual core hotfix WinXP patch from MS), with ASUS Silent Knight Heatsink/Fan (runs between 42 idle and 51 under load)

Memory: 4 gigs Kingston HyperX PC6400 DDR2

GPU: Two EVGA G8800GTXs in SLI (latest drivers available)

Harddrives: Two WD 320Gig HDs in RAID 0 (that's where the game is installed)

Soundcard: Creative Audigy SE

OS: Win XP 32 (with all latest MS Updates)

Version of ArmA: 1.12 (whatever latest posted on news) and QG expansion

Addons Used: ECS, ArmAEffects, FDFSounds, NWDScopeFix, NWDBallistics, DurgsVeg, GMJames SightAdjust, DMDarwin Smoke, SixPack 1 and 2, and basically any of the other recommended addons in the RyanD compilation thread (with a few exceptions that never before used to cause this kind of grief)...

Appreciate the time anyone takes to right back. Thank you BIS for making a great game, and I apologize as I don't mean to be rude, but it is frustrating, and I hope you can outline a better policy on how you are working with the hardware manufacturers either in this game, or the next.

Just my $.02!

Have you tested without the tons of mods?

SLI is known to have problems in several games. Don't blame BIS for a shoddy upgrade method like SLI. (NVIDIA should be making better cards instead of hardslapping you with multiple cards, but guesss what makes them more cash... Yes in part its just a big marketing trap.) Maybe NVIDIA should introduce some "SLI-optimized" logo for games, so people don't get frustrated.

Windows XP32 cannot USE 4GB of Ram. In some mainboards you'll actually see that in effect using 4GB of rams introduces both performance and stability problems.

You also say you use raid 0. Maybe you should check the speed of the raid performance. Often raid performance comes along with dips when reading small stripes of data. Maybe there is something wrong with your MB raid drivers (last drivers are NOT ALLWAYS THE BEST)

Besides all this: maybe you expect too much from a game like arma. 10K VD comes at a price...Try turning down your vd to about 2500-3000. Don't start the "but my system is so super it should run it all options very high and never hickup" argument. It's false. There is still NO SYSTEM that can run Arma full option without any hickups.

[oblisk 0]

I've notice a slight fps drop also.

[SpaceReverend 0]

Slight..yeah. For me its much bigger than a slight drop. Even I added 2gigs of ram it still got lower fps.

specs: Amd athlon 3500+dualcore

MSI K9N Platinum motherboard

Geforce 7600gs 512mhz top silent

3 gigs 800mhz DDRII, One Corsair 1gig kit and one Ocz 2gig kit

Hope you BIS boys see that something is wrong.

[maruk 80]

Hope you BIS boys see that something is wrong.

From this topic it's very hard to find any clear indication what type of problem if any is present in 1.12.

Without any exact reproduction scenario comparing 1.08 / 1.09 / 1.11 / 1.12 on given hardware/software configuration and exact numbers it's impossible to say much.

We test the game on many different configurations and also in many situations but we can't confirm any such behavior - which doesn't mean it may no exist but maybe it's not as obvious as it may look at first.