ArmaHolic ArmA 2 Optimization

[moosenoodles 0]

Anyone tried FSAA=1 (or 2 or whatever?) to see if kicks in standar antialiasing ?

I tried it a while back now with 1 and 4(to enable my edge detection method on my card) didnt see no change doesnt work for me. On my 4870 1gb card though I think turning off Cat AI to disabled improved the game play even more again alongside Kegs noblur mod..

No Idea why, Cat AI is supposed to help with shaders for optimizations etc, and I did not even have the sky flicker some been mentioning so far.

using cats 9.5

[Yoma 0]

Another strange thing i found is that if you put textures to high on a 8800GTX, i somehow get LESS texture lag then when putting it on low or normal.

Kegetys mod enhances the overal experience a lot!

I've put out a poll

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=73991

so please vote to let the dev's know this is something a lot of their users really really want.

[Dead3yez 0]

I've gathered everything known that improves ArmA2 performance, mainly graphically. The tips are pretty basic, but work. Seeming as a lot of people have already found them useful you can view them here.

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

New Addon:

VictorFarbau has released VF FPS Saver (VFFPSS) addon for ArmA2 on the BI forums, this addon adds gamelogic which you can place in the mission editor, it alters the terrain detail and viewdistance depending on your FPS.

Quote VictorFarau:

VFFPSS is an addon to be used on client machines (it will quit on servers). It is a logic object that can be placed in custom missions and it will be run once the mission starts. VFFPSS will take measures to dynamically adjust quality settings in order to squeeze out more FPS.

Why is this a game logic and not a standard addon to be used in all missions / campaigns? It is in a POC state (proof of concept) and I need to put more work into this should this be found useful by more people then myself; and actually myself as well

So, enter the editor and place a logic object "VFFPSS Logic" on your map and off you go.

VFFPSS constantly measures the current FPS performance. There's a wonderful new function in Arma 2 that makes this a piece of cake. I guess some sort of performance management like this one is what BIS had in mind when making this available for scripters. So, if the current FPS rate drops below a certain limit the addon will start to decrease the terrain detail step by step. If the lowest possible terrain detail is reached it will start lowering the viewdistance. The terrain detail will not be lowered to an extent that all grass is disabled. That would just affect gameplay too much. Besides, it looks really like OFP then

If your performance goes up again the viewdistance and after that the terraindetail will be gradually increased again. If you want to provoke a quick increase in quality you might want to look into the skies for a few seconds. That usually helps to raise the fps rate real quick.

Link:http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=5864

[tomcat_ 0]

what benchmarks you are using guys on the first post?

I can see max, avg and min which probably indicates fraps....but which is the actual benchmark?

[ThePainkiller 10]

language="German";
adapter=-1;
3D_Performance=100000;
Resolution_Bpp=32;
Resolution_W=1680;
Resolution_H=1050;
refresh=60;
Render_W=3162;
Render_H=1976;
FSAA=0;
postFX=0;
HDRPrecision=8;
lastDeviceId="";
localVRAM=1067663360;
nonlocalVRAM=1878523904;

my render seems a bit high hm? i set fillrate to 200%, thats why? What if i change this value to something lower like W2800 H1600?

[TangoRomeo 10]

System

C2Duo E6750 @stock

2gb DDR 800+

R4850 512mb

X-Fi

Vista 32 SP2

Since performance detoriates to unacceptable levels on my system when going beyond 100% fillrate, and IQ gets blurry below, i´ve also set 100% fillrate manually in the Arma2.cfg. Render dimensions = native res.

My current settings are

Res 1680x1050x32

anisoFilter=0; (8xAF forced via CP, results in better IQ)

TexQuality=1;

TexMemory=1;

useWBuffer=0;

shadingQuality=100;

shadowQuality=4;

soundEnableEAX=1;

soundEnableHW=0;

sceneComplexity=1000000;

viewDistance=3000.0002;

terrainGrid=6.25;

Looks stunning with these settings, as in Arma, i get some performance drops inside woods.

[Yoma 0]

language="German";
adapter=-1;
3D_Performance=100000;
Resolution_Bpp=32;
Resolution_W=1680;
Resolution_H=1050;
refresh=60;
Render_W=3162;
Render_H=1976;
FSAA=0;
postFX=0;
HDRPrecision=8;
lastDeviceId="";
localVRAM=1067663360;
nonlocalVRAM=1878523904;

my render seems a bit high hm? i set fillrate to 200%, thats why? What if i change this value to something lower like W2800 H1600?

Just set it equal to your resolution (Render_W=1680,Render_H=1050), it's a bug.

[ThePainkiller 10]

Just set it equal to your resolution (Render_W=1680,Render_H=1050), it's a bug.

wouldnt that mean i get fillrate 100%?

[USSRsniper 0]

wouldnt that mean i get fillrate 100%?

Yes. I think Fillrate 200% means that your render resolution is 200% bigger than the screen resolution.

[pchaxor 0]

sceneComplexity=1000000;

Looks stunning with these settings, as in Arma, i get some performance drops inside woods.

You have 1 Extra ZERO setting you at 1000% Fill Rate.

May want to adjust a tad. :)

[ThePainkiller 10]

You have 1 Extra ZERO setting you at 1000% Fill Rate.

May want to adjust a tad. :)

scenecomplexity is NOT fillrate...

[moosenoodles 0]

Just set it equal to your resolution (Render_W=1680,Render_H=1050), it's a bug.

Yoma, what you mean its a bug? Its not a bug is it its msaa.. its meant to doubleup etc as you raise fillrate to compensate for no card AA being used?

Just hope they take it onboard and seriously fix it so we can use the high end card power we bought them for..Seems rediculous not to these days.

[thr0tt 12]

Resolution_W=1680;

Resolution_H=1050;

refresh=60;

Render_W=1280;

Render_H=800;

FSAA=1;

postFX=1;

HDRPrecision=8;

May not look as clear as many but with the above rendering and postFX settings it is stutter free and smooth in every scenario so far. Really depends on what you want, if you want to play the game smoothly then reduce the render to something in the same aspect as your monitor until it is playable then increase other options for instance my shadows are now on high as is the post processing which makes up for the reduced screen render resolution.

[thyco 0]

Resolution_W=1680;

Resolution_H=1050;

refresh=60;

Render_W=1280;

Render_H=800;

FSAA=1;

postFX=1;

HDRPrecision=8;

May not look as clear as many but with the above rendering and postFX settings it is stutter free and smooth in every scenario so far. Really depends on what you want, if you want to play the game smoothly then reduce the render to something in the same aspect as your monitor until it is playable then increase other options for instance my shadows are now on high as is the post processing which makes up for the reduced screen render resolution.

if your going to do that, then why dont you just use a lower screen resolution? because from looking at what you have done, its as if you just went into the option setting and dropped the fillrate from 100% to 50% thus making the game look extremely terrible.

Remember 100% fillrate = Render_W: 1680, Render_H 1050 which is the same as your screen resolution.

i play at 1280x1024 because that the max resoultion for my screen (19" lcd) and if drop the fillrate below 100% the game basically becomes unplayable due tot he fact that i cant make out the difference between a tree and soldier.

[thr0tt 12]

if your going to do that, then why dont you just use a lower screen resolution? because from looking at what you have done, its as if you just went into the option setting and dropped the fillrate from 100% to 50% thus making the game look extremely terrible.

Remember 100% fillrate = Render_W: 1680, Render_H 1050 which is the same as your screen resolution.

i play at 1280x1024 because that the max resoultion for my screen (19" lcd) and if drop the fillrate below 100% the game basically becomes unplayable due tot he fact that i cant make out the difference between a tree and soldier.

I want to be able to play the game not just look at it, if I increase the fillrate to the same as my res then the frame plummit. Fillrate on that res is about 75% and lilke I say, increase some of the other bits and it still looks nice but it is playable and I want to play not just gaup at it with 10fps.

Each to their own and until I upgrade my mobo and gfx card then I have to make do with a 'lesser' nice looking game but enjoying it all the same.

[fabrizio_t 58]

Hmm i am with thyco on this one: i don't understand why 1680x1050 with fill rate at 75% should be better, both visually and performance-wise, than 1280x1024 and 100% fill rate (or about).

if you have your card say render 1680px and then interpolate to show 1280px on screen you will simply have a double disadvantage: unneeded strain to your card for lesser visual quality ...

Edited June 8, 2009 by fabrizioT

[Yoma 0]

Lol i gues i simply didn't understand the fillrate story.

[Nutlink 10]

1680x1050 at a true 75% fill rate (the slider is accurate, the percentage is not) is 1260x787. A lot lower than 1280x1024 (991620 vs 1310720, or roughly 25% less to render).

[craig3000 10]

I run my games at 1280x1024 so when I get ARMA2 I am going to stick it on that res with 100% fillrate -_-

[Helmut_AUT 0]

Can anyone tell if A2 is more shader-limited (like Crysis) or still also pixel/vertex rate limited?

Some of the mid-range GPUs only have a lot amount of shading units, I think the whole post processing creates that shading overhead which costs so dearly.

[thr0tt 12]

Hmm i am with thyco on this one: i don't understand why 1680x1050 with fill rate at 75% should be better, both visually and performance-wise, than 1280x1024 and 100% fill rate (or about).

if you have your card say render 1680px and then interpolate to show 1280px on screen you will simply have a double disadvantage: unneeded strain to your card for lesser visual quality ...

It may not make sense or be your way to get better visual / performance out of the game but it works for me, all I am doing is sharing what works for me giving others the flexibility to try different options.

I am happy at the moment with what works, just for info I don't think there is a 1280x800 resolution in the options so could select that if I tried... (at work so can't check :) )

---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 PM ----------

Ok, just to throw something into the mix, I turned off cool'n quiet and gained 3+ fps on each ArmA Mark II tests...

[Nutlink 10]

If you want 1280x800, you could always set it to that in the ArmA2.cfg file.

[Alex72 1]

Yes Thr0tt i guess thats what people meant. I understand you get better performance with lower fillrate, but what they say is that you could try lower the resolution and then set the fillrate to 100%. So you get clear image and good performance. So lower the res and set the render-res to the same. For example your 1280x800 you mentioned. Just do it in the config as you can set the res to what you want in there (i think. If its anything like ArmA1). ;)

[ryan80 10]

i do not have sceneComplexity in my arma2 cfg file.

is it suppose to be there or added manually?

and what does it do exactly?