ArmAII-Mark

[yanquis 10]

erm, how do i use this tool? i dont see it anywhere, tried both mod folder & addon folder.

[AnimalMother92 10]

erm, how do i use this tool? i dont see it anywhere, tried both mod folder & addon folder.

it's a mission.

place it in your arma2/missions folder

go to singleplayer>scenarios in game

[Kristian 47]

I placed the mission folder to *:\Users\********\Documents\ArmA 2\missions

When I start the mission it says its "Read only"

Never mind, its not editor mission, but SP mission. My bad ;)

2088 was final score.

Its kinda wrong, because camera moved smoothly bug few lagspikes interupted it...

Going to try with gamebooster and then edit this post and post new results and system specs

Edited October 16, 2009 by Kristian

[long_bong 10]

Ok, got windows 7 - 64 running (was on vista 32...)

With full blast setting:

Test 1: 28,58

Test 2: 47,96

Test 3: 41,37

Test 4: 54,00

Test 5: 28,71

Total: 4012

Now with normal setting:

Test 1: 44,25

Test 2: 54,48

Test 3: 50,29

Test 4: 59,82

Test 5: 48,26

Total: 5142

WOW!

Hi

Curious, with a core i5, using a HD4890 with OC (934 MHz / 4 x 1088 MHz),

Vista 64

Ram 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 Non-ECC

With full blast setting:

Test 1: 21,78

Test 2: 31,26

Test 3: 27,35

Test 4: 34,38

Test 5: 25,98

Total: 2815

Now with normal setting:

Test 1: 24,31

Test 2: 35,59

Test 3: 29,48

Test 4: 35,26

Test 5: 27,90

Total: 3051

I would have expected a larger performance gap between normal and full blast mode,

Anyone has clue? I will change to Windows 7 soon :)

Thanks

[Opticalsnare 12]

Thats because vista has alot of stuff in the background on by default such as superfetch which i found to be on automatic and alot of other system running tasks, and that Windows 7 has these off or by man control only. However since i used the services in control panel > admin tools > services and disable a bunch of microsoft system programs it has increased my overall perf by quite alot. When i first ran this test with all these services on i was reported to have a mark of 1900 something, and since i disabled all theses services its been extremly better, its increased my mark and my arma 2 perf alot..

For all those interested in better Perf for vista, Disable superfetch, windows search, windows defender, windows defragging, indexing of folders and files, This has serously eased the pressure on my HDD before it would be grinding and making some of the horrid noises ive ever heard a hdd make, now its quiet and runs arma better. Its as if when vista detects some major hdd usage it feels the need to do something like index the new infomation or defrag it while its working and just in the end makes everything slower, it wants in on part of the action when it dont need to be...

Edited October 17, 2009 by Opticalsnare

[mlenser 10]

With full blast setting

I read that as soon as you set Visibility to 10,000 that it automatically reduces some of the other settings (even though it lets you select higher than it displays). Does anyone know if this is true and if so which settings does ArmA II reduce and at what visibility range do they start taking effect?

[yanquis 10]

my 4890 arma 2 mark with ALL settings maxed @ 1920x1080 = a measley 2334.18

posting that cuz i want to compare it to the 5870 if i get one, i am hoping it will break 3000.

btw, mark 2 sets its own view distance, it doesnt matter whaat you have yours set at.

[long_bong 10]

my 4890 arma 2 mark with ALL settings maxed @ 1920x1080 = a measley 2334.18

posting that cuz i want to compare it to the 5870 if i get one, i am hoping it will break 3000.

btw, mark 2 sets its own view distance, it doesnt matter whaat you have yours set at.

You may have a bottle neck with your CPU? IE you card may not fully perform because the CPU is ''slowing'' it down?

[jw custom 56]

My bottleneck lay on my 1.5TB harddrive which is not split in partitions and is one big mess :p

I'm getting a SSD to see if that will improve loading of textures.

Here's what i got:

..::[Score]::..

..::[Settings]::..

..::[System Specs]::..

CPU: i7-920 (@ 3.5Ghz)

RAM: 8GB Corsair DDR3 1333

GFX: Zotac GTX 285 1GB

HDD: Seagate 1.5TB SATAII

MOBO: Gigabyte EX58-UD4P

OS: Windows XP Pro 32Bit SP2 (yes i know..32Bit/8GB RAM... i got reasons ;) )

[yanquis 10]

You may have a bottle neck with your CPU? IE you card may not fully perform because the CPU is ''slowing'' it down?

no, its definitely not my cpu, i think its a perhaps a factor of a higher native resolution & that i havent bothered to OC the card, different settings used (everything topped out completely) (and i dont EVER disable PP, cant believe how many people do that -- what a waste of a great graphics engine!! no excuse for it, if you think it looks bad u simply have bad taste :D)

however when i run the same settings you did i score a full 1000 points lower! it cant simply be the non-OC'd GPU...gawd i hope that water i spilt on my tower a couple days ago didnt f things up more than i realized.

---------- Post added at 04:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:25 PM ----------

JW! if you are considering getting an SSD solely because of arma 2 i urge you to read liquid pinkys guide on using ramdisk w/ 8GB memory...its free and takes about 10 minutes to set up start to finish. i just did it and ive been meaning to put it in my sig all morning. (it doesnt seem to improve benchmark scores, but thats not the point -- textures load almost immediately now!)

[kklownboy 43]

that was a second run score?

[jw custom 56]

(and i dont EVER disable PP, cant believe how many people do that -- what a waste of a great graphics engine!! no excuse for it, if you think it looks bad u simply have bad taste :D)

I don't understand people saying that PP looks so awesome... only thing it brings me is bad viewdistance and eyes bleeding due to blur hell:

Screenshot with PP On(Very high):

http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/4826/arma2ppon.jpg

Screenshot with PP Off:

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/4599/arma2ppoff.jpg

I simply can't see how PP is making it so great :confused:

P.S. also see how PP removes details in vegitation!!!

[kklownboy 43]

if it only blurred when you rolled and ran fast...and after you ran fast untill you got your breath back, otherwise as it is now(always a blur)..its off on my set up.

[jw custom 56]

if it only blurred when you rolled and ran fast...and after you ran fast untill you got your breath back, otherwise as it is now(always a blur)..its off on my set up.

Agree.

It got nice effects i like, but it got even more bad effects which i hate.

[yanquis 10]

very high is too much, but high is just right...and i think the PP shot looks -way- better in your sample -- less like a computer game, more like a gorgeous dreamscene. but to each his own.

[jw custom 56]

and i think the PP shot looks -way- better in your sample -- less like a computer game, more like a gorgeous dreamscene.

Really :confused:

If i look outside my window everything looks clear, on that PP example it's all blurred up :eek:

[yanquis 10]

im not saying it looks exactly like real life, but if im given the choice between a game looking -better- than real life (PP) & a game looking worse than real life (arma 2 w/out PP) illl take better. ;)

[kklownboy 43]

...)

So was your mark score from the second run?

[jw custom 56]

im not saying it looks exactly like real life, but if im given the choice between a game looking -better- than real life (PP) & a game looking worse than real life (arma 2 w/out PP) illl take better. ;)

Yeah but only differences on the examples is blur and some details in vegitation missing on PP example. I still fail to see the better in that :eek:

But as long as it's a option it's all dandy :p

[yanquis 10]

So was your mark score from the second run?

which one are you talking about? (tho im sure i dont remember anyway)

[jumpinghubert 49]

i like the blurry on horizon (not after runnig, thats terrible) and the outshining effect (i hope its the right word) when looking in forest to sky. It has a little bit an antialiasing effect. In the newest patch all these effects are reduced. Looks for me more realistic.

And to make it ontopic: nearly no difference in performance pp off/veryhigh.

greetings from germany

[kklownboy 43]

which one are you talking about? (tho im sure i dont remember anyway)

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1465820&postcount=610

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1465820&postcount=610

any? it best to take the second pass at the Mark. run it a few times, the first one is lame and not what most ppl use for there mark score.

[vilas 477]

booooooooooooooooo

my score 2110.75 :(

1280*1024

tex, models - high

shadows medium

posproces disabled

no grass, lowest terrain setting

[taxus 10]

Hi all, I'm wondering if my result is normal...

Intel Core i7 860 @ stock

G.Skill 4GB DDR3 PC12800

ATI HD Radeon 4890 1GB

Asus P7P55D

Vista 64-bit

Test Settings :

Video Memory - High

Post Processing - Low

Anti-Aliasing - Off

All other settings - Normal

Resolution - 1680x 1050

RESULTS : 3430 (HT disabled in bios)

Is it normal for this computer?

How can I increase the score (change Vista for seven)?

Is the game limited by the GPU or CP first?

Thanks and sorry for my bad english :)

Edited October 18, 2009 by taxus

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

Taxus,

Unless you record a benchmark with the same settings as others you wont get the most informed answers.

I suggest using standard settings for the benchmark to more appropriately compare to others results, and include your video driver version.

ALL NORMAL settings, including AA, with low post processing and 3D render 100%.

record the score after the second run of the 'mission'

once this is completed, then use your 'favorite recipe' of settings.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1412097&postcount=559

Edited October 18, 2009 by [DirTyDeeDs]-Ziggy-