shouldn't this run better?

[asuperfreak007 10]

maybe i'm doing something wrong or have my game/system set up wrong but arma runs like a crap on my pc. it really seems like the minimum specs should be higher because i have everything on the list

processor: P4 2.4 - i have amd sempron 2600(?) equal to P4 2.8(benchmarked and factory oc)

ram: 512 - i have 756

video: radeon x800 - i have x1050

it has slighty better performance on our highend(beyond recomended) computer but still unplayable

i realize that my computer doesn't have insane raw power but it fulfills the min specs and its unplayable. i'm pretty upset(read pissed off) that this game has such horrible optimization to begin with as i payed good money that i worked my ass off for and got such a poor product in return. could somebody tell me how to get my game running better in singleplayer? what are some mods/patches/tweaks that make the game run smoother? i heard some people say turning off grass makes it run much better but i don't know how to do this. any help is much appreciated

and please don't give me any bulls*** about $800 upgrades that make the game run super max settings on 3 1080p widescreen monitors with itunes and firefox running in the background - i just want playable framerates on a game i was lead to believe would work on my pc

[hamis 0]

Search "addons&mods complete" section for this:PROPER_plants_standard_textures_with_lowplants,and this:PROPER_World_Configuration.There are some others too that might help,just don't remember what they are.

[asuperfreak007 10]

thanks for the input :)

is the low grass or whatever it's called for if you have everything set on medium but it keeps the grass low?

[asuperfreak007 10]

i've noticed that urban enviroments are much more unplayable that fields and desert - why is that?

[no use for a name 0]

more polys to render probably. In the outdoor environments you have trees, bushes, etc.; but there's only a few different types of each the game has to load. When you're in cities you have all those different buildings, textures, shapes that has to be loaded on the screen at once

[boomboomer 0]

Do you have all the advanced video settings to minimum/off and a low screen resolution?

Your PC meets the minimum spec to run the game but it's a good way short of the recommended spec. My kid's old PC was about the same spec and with the gamebooster app turning every off, before starting ArmA, the game was just about playable - but only with all the video settings at minimum.

If you have any other services or programs running your PC will not cope with ArmA, same with increasing any video settings.

[Maddmatt 1]

Have you updated the game to v1.14? The patches have pretty major optimisations.

[asuperfreak007 10]

i tryed the game booster app. i had everything else turned off but i guess it found something else to turned off. now it runs playable out in the open (semiplayable in the city) except for the mouse being really laggy - do you guys know what might be causing that. if the mouse was more resposive i think i might be able to play halfway decent

i have patch 1.14 and beta 1.16

[max power 21]

Looks like the ram is a bit low. The minimum specs are to run the game with everything on low. I don't know much about the Ati x1050, but the lower the number within the generation, the lower the specs of the card... so an ATI x1050 would be at the bottom end of the ATI x1950 line, and the x1600 would be the mid range card. Your graphics card may not meet the minimum specs because the x850 was a top of the line card and the x1050 looks like it might be a value card. At any rate, the vram available on those cards might be a little less than what you require if you have a 128mb version. The ATI x850 came with 512mb of ram, IIRC.

[NeMeSiS 11]

processor: P4 2.4 - i have amd sempron 2600(?) equal to P4 2.8(benchmarked and factory oc)

No its not, a sempron is not made for gaming. Its like an Intel Celeron.

EDIT: And the x1050 is not even close to the speed of the x800, its also not made for gaming. (Probably an onboard card)

[max power 21]

I guess the short answer is: No, it should not run better on that rig. There are things you can try to improve performance, like the shaders modification for plants suggested above, though.

[DrSnow 0]

Don't know if this helps any but:

If you have a agp card you could try to lift agp aperture size. It had a big impact on my pc. Also improving cooling was worth to do. i installed a cooling kit to gpu card which included cooling element and fan for GPU and heatsinks. Helped much too.

My specs:

P4 2.8 (oc to 3.0)

1 G Kingston memory

Sapphire radeon 9600XT pro 128

Win XP

Of course, all settings are very low, but the game somewhat playable... most of the time...

...and yes yes, i know it's a crappy rig but i bought it for ofp... and got over arma1 with it.

So now the pricetag says only 1300 euros for being able to play Arma2 properly ..sweet...:computer::annoy:

Edited June 2, 2009 by DrSnow
word missing

[desertjedi 3]

It's a shame that Arma shipped with such low minimum specs. That combination of cpu, video card and RAM would make playing Arma, IMHO, impossible.

[kklownboy 43]

yeah the whole minimum specs is WAY off, but such is "PCgaming" and a ever evolving sandbox game. Think workstation...man up and buy kit.

its not what you can tolerate with in game settings, its how much you can tolerate a credit balance.

Edited June 5, 2009 by kklownboy

[DrSnow 0]

That combination of cpu, video card and RAM would make playing Arma, IMHO, impossible.

Not detailed and wiew distance is short but not impossible. You can refer it like driving a night rally using only half lights, things just happen quickly. :D

Of course it also depends what you are ready to tolerate in the game. Vanilla Arma runs on my rig ok. problems starts with more detailed mods and such. But it has been great times anyways...

[DrSnow 0]

...man up and buy kit.

...and be careful who you call to man up, it might be that you are the one who's patting the s***t in the sandbox...

[no use for a name 0]

probably a CPU bottleneck as a lot of mods use scripts to get effects and such. Combine that with the normal CPU usage from AI and triggers and you're going to have a problem.

[kklownboy 43]

...and be careful who you call to man up, it might be that you are the one who's patting the s***t in the sandbox...

Well the issue i see for you is your on a AGP slot motherboard, and sooo you will have to buy a completely new platform just to buy a decent (as in modern) vidcard, like a ati4770 or nvidia 9600gt, you know lowend cards under 100$ that are ten times faster than your 9600 olds school ati....

[DrSnow 0]

Well the issue i see for you is your on a AGP slot motherboard, and sooo you will have to buy a completely new platform just to buy a decent (as in modern) vidcard, like a ati4770 or nvidia 9600gt, you know lowend cards under 100$ that are ten times faster than your 9600 olds school ati....

....sigh...

As i said, it runs fine with Arma.....

You see my friend, this one's almost six years old. You can't expect it to give 50fps or "normal" level of details. And it really make no sense to start upgrading it, in any manner... And lastly, if i'm even going to buy Arma2 is uncertain.... all to be seen later....

[echo1 0]

video: radeon x800 - i have x1050

Doesnt work like that. The x1050 is a low end card, the X800 is a lot faster than it. The Sempron is also pretty low end, but the graphics card is the main problem.