ArmaHolic ArmA 2 Optimization

[Nutlink 10]

You can set it in there manually. It's for the view distance, ie 160000 is 1600m or 1.6km. At least that's how it seems to work for me, I'm not sure if there is any other difference.

[trini scourge 1]

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?

SceneComplexity refers to the object detail. It's not in arma2.cfg. Look in your profile file.

Read here for more details: http://www.armaholic.com/forums.php?m=posts&q=6713

[maddogx 13]

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?

It's not in the ArmA2.cfg, it's in your .ArmA2Profile file.

You can set it in there manually. It's for the view distance, ie 160000 is 1600m or 1.6km. At least that's how it seems to work for me, I'm not sure if there is any other difference.

Nope, SceneComplexity controls overall object detail, not view distance. You're thinking of the ViewDistance option. ;)

EDIT: Trini beat me to it.

[DaSquade 0]

Hm, i always thought SceneComplexity meant 'amount' of objects (faces?) in your view.

Is it me or do we lack an object-draw distance controle setting?

[Nutlink 10]

Strange, because when I set my SceneComplexity to 160000 my view distance went to 1600m when I thought I originally had it at 3000m. Sorry for any confusion.

[kklownboy 43]

that is normal, your quality settings can reduce your VD automatically if the game thinks your H/W isn't up to the task...

[Alex72 1]

just for understanding. The NonLocalVRAM in ARMA2 as well as ArmA1 plots out a lot of numbers. What should it be set to if you have for example 2500 virtual mem? Would it be enough with writing in 2500 or is that wrong in number of numbers (...lol).

Gonna test with ArmA1 as i dont have ARMA2, but good to know. Thanks

Alex

[Skeptic 10]

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 ...

I'm not 3D designer, so I can explain this in layman's terms.

Let's say you monitor can do 1680x1050. Imagine, you set in game options to 1280x720, but still full screen. What will happen is that game will be stretched out to fill your screen, but it is rendered with less amount of pixels.

This analogy is similar to whole Fillrate -> Resolution, but one level deeper. If you set Fillrate < Resoluiton, it will run faster because game engine will render at 25% less detail in your 75% example.

So the hierarchy goes Fillrate -> Resoluiton -> Your native screen resolution. Ideally you would set

100% (fillrate) -> 1680x1050 (resolution in game) -> 1680x1050 (your native screen)

but you can gain performace with lower image quality

75% (fillrate) -> 1680x1050 (resolution in game) -> 1680x1050 (your native screen)

or improve quality

125% (fillrate) -> 1680x1050 (resolution in game) -> 1680x1050 (your native screen)

I'm not fan of playing at lower than native screen resolution, but you could

100% (fillrate) -> 1280x720 (resolution in game) -> 1680x1050 (your native screen)

Hope this helps.

[moosenoodles 0]

Skeptic that is writen in a most odd and confusing way :D

maybe you could explain it differently than Resolution in game + your native screen

That to me would be same thing,

Rather than say,, Resoultion output choice via game menu over the rendering screen resolution (Fillrate%)

100% fillrate = rendered at same level as chosen resolution choice in the game menu. (e.g 50% fillrate would say render the game half of the chosen output resolution choice in the game menu but you would still be stretching or contracting to view at your chosen ingame menu resolution.)

Dunno maybe its just the way I read things but your post confused me lol no offence and thanks..

[Razorman 10]

Dunno maybe its just the way I read things but your post confused me lol no offence and thanks..

& i thought it was just me..he he.

[moosenoodles 0]

Infact lol, I vote for BIS to just get rid of it and put back in normal everyday widely used and loved AA options for ones card and then no bugger will be confoooosed :D

[Alex72 1]

They said they might. But they also said the AA from their tests produced some artifacts. Didnt sound dead serious (as in not too big artifacts i guess) but artifacts none the less. So they might check it a bit before activating it.

Hope they get it sorted. That fillrate sure is heavy for us that doesnt yet have monster machines.

Alex

[Sam75 0]

have you noticed graphic differences when changing "hdr precision" and "shading quality" values ?

[Skeptic 10]

& i thought it was just me..he he.

I guess no writing manuals for me then :D

[mach1ne 10]

Startup Parameters

-maxmem=xxxx

With this you can set the maximum virtual memory that will be allocated to the game, this works up to 2048.

---------------------------------------------------

Since I have 4 gig memory what should I set -maxmem=xxxx to?

[moosenoodles 0]

72;1303672']They said they might. But they also said the AA from their tests produced some artifacts. Didnt sound dead serious (as in not too big artifacts i guess) but artifacts none the less. So they might check it a bit before activating it.

Hope they get it sorted. That fillrate sure is heavy for us that doesnt yet have monster machines.

Alex

Trust me its no good for even high end gaming rigs regardless what you hear :D

Its all dandy playing etc but for it to be anyworthy a solid platform for mass fighting this fillrate drudge really does need to be dealt with harshly!! lol.

Its just so archaic im dumbfounded everyday I read about it and shake my head on why they would adopt such a feature (if you can call it that) in a game of this long standing and now bearing new fruit and goodness this side of 1902 lol.

Still im sure they will see the error of theyre ways once all the steam people start hammering them about it.

[Fox '09 14]

Remember everyone, set the file as READ ONLY when you are done changing render_w and render_H as it changes if you do not set as read only, as i stated above.

-Fox

[Razorman 10]

Trust me its no good for even high end gaming rigs regardless what you hear :D

Its all dandy playing etc but for it to be anyworthy a solid platform for mass fighting this fillrate drudge really does need to be dealt with harshly!! lol.

Its just so archaic im dumbfounded everyday I read about it and shake my head on why they would adopt such a feature (if you can call it that) in a game of this long standing and now bearing new fruit and goodness this side of 1902 lol.

Still im sure they will see the error of theyre ways once all the steam people start hammering them about it.

Simple really, this whole game is based around the original Flashpoint engine, whilst the concept & game design is brilliant in places they are working with an archaic game engine that belongs in the 1980's.

This was originally designed as a simulator/training software, not a game.

This is Arma 1.5 Final, Not Arma 2.

Therefore untill a new engine is used it will be clunky & awkward.

As i stated before the concept & design from idea to inception is brilliant, shame about the engine.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Razorman

[GLeek 10]

100% fillrate is a trap! the picture quality is nowhere near what it should looks like.

i suspect some of postprocess filter, running at 50% resolution.

i dont know what 's happened to Bohemia studio. but it must be good pot.

[POTS 0]

I have a feeling that if they fix this mess then HUGE performance problems will go away. There is definitely something wrong, deeply wrong, with the optimization.

[moosenoodles 0]

Ive got it running pretty darn nice though but it seems to take a bit of tweaking for the individual again I guess.. Still If its running for me this well so far and so early on release I can only imagine that it will get even better like arma 1 patches did..

Cant wait for more updates....

[ryan80 10]

my sceneComplexity in the arma2profile is set at 300000

which i assume is the default value. is it too high?

should i set it lower to improve performance?

[Helmut_AUT 0]

I tried lowering Res from 1920x1200 to 1680x1050 yesterday, and it did basically nothing.

I run all details at low on my 9600GT (except textures) and get 20 frames avg. Changing stuff only adds/removes about 3 FPS, only the textures make a more noticeable impact.

I really want to belive it's somewhere in my config, but the fact simple is that tooling around with game settings or even resolutions doesn't really change anything substantional.

I know the 9600GT isn't the fastest card, and 1920x1200 is a high resolution, but this card matches the RECOMMENDED specs, so you should either be able to play low resolution- high details or high resolution low details at 30 FPS.

The fact that all the advanced graphic options basically provide little improvement makes me think that yes, there is a real bottleneck somewhere in their engine.

I'd be curious what happens when you look dead on at a house wall from up close. For me, I can't get high FPS even looking at the ground.

[thyco 0]

I tried lowering Res from 1920x1200 to 1680x1050 yesterday, and it did basically nothing.

I run all details at low on my 9600GT (except textures) and get 20 frames avg. Changing stuff only adds/removes about 3 FPS, only the textures make a more noticeable impact.

I really want to belive it's somewhere in my config, but the fact simple is that tooling around with game settings or even resolutions doesn't really change anything substantional.

I know the 9600GT isn't the fastest card, and 1920x1200 is a high resolution, but this card matches the RECOMMENDED specs, so you should either be able to play low resolution- high details or high resolution low details at 30 FPS.

The fact that all the advanced graphic options basically provide little improvement makes me think that yes, there is a real bottleneck somewhere in their engine.

I'd be curious what happens when you look dead on at a house wall from up close. For me, I can't get high FPS even looking at the ground.

there definately a bottle neck somewhere, and i think its something to do with Chenarus, Utes, granted its a very small island grants me so much greater FPS that i can run the game at on very high settings with 200% fillrate and a 2.4k view distance and still have 25 fps while playing the "war welcome" mission in multiplayer

[Helmut_AUT 0]

I have the same problems on Utes I have at Chenarus. With Arma and Arma2 it's kind of funny - I can turn up STALKER Graphics quality to max - that game has amazing shadows, lots of postprocessing/overlay, highly detailed 3d structures - and I get 30 FPS+.

Even if I turn down view distance in Arma to something comparable with Stalker, even if I try to recreate the same visual scene (less foliage etc.) - Arma gives me 20FPS at low settings.

The amount of power needed to generate a similar visual scene/effects just is a lot higher in A1 and A2 engine than other shooters. The fact that it's a tactical game with open world shouldn't matter that much when you turn down VD to 500.