ArmaHolic ArmA 2 Optimization

[FraG_AU 10]

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 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.

9600GT is not really a card that is capable of 1920x1200, really starts bottlenecking over 1280x1024. 8800GT is still faster then the 9600GT and that is a 2yr + old card. I feel your frustration, I have a GTX295 backed by a 4.2Ghz i7 and it still chugs. Just wait for nvidia/BIS to come to the party, I am sure some optimised drivers will help a bit. Problem with the 9600GT is its low bandwidth/texture fill rate. But yeah expecting to get any playable framerates at that res with that gpu is pretty much no go. But see how things go with patches.. my game seems almost locked at 30fps almost no matter what setting I play with.

[Nutlink 10]

Going into my control panel and setting my options to this helped me in both ArmA and ArmA 2. Only thing I did differently was force triple buffering on to compensate for having vsync on, although if you prefer you can force both of those off. Between that and the tips from above this gave me a big enough boost to run at 1920x1200 on all high settings and a 4k view distance. Done on a E8400 OC'd to 3.8GHz, 4GB RAM, GTX 275, Vista 64.

[usmc123 1]

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.

This game was developed as a game. VBS is a simulator/training software. I really don't get the gripes about this game. I think people just had their expectations too high. Edited June 10, 2009 by usmc123

[lapa 1]

Many people forget the massive scale that the "clunky" engine offers. I don't know any other military game that offers the same kind of scale and has equally impressive graphics.

[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?

HHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

plz?

[rowdied 44]

HHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

plz?

-maxmem=2048

Anything after 2048 doesn't work according to Suma

[Skeptic 10]

-maxmem=2048

Anything after 2048 doesn't work according to Suma

Correction. It should be 2047, 2048 and higher reverts back to default memory allocation. Was in Suma's post. Ohara also confirmed.

[m@ster 0]

language="German";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=46875;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Resolution_W=1600;

Resolution_H=1200;

refresh=60;

Render_W=2524;

Render_H=1893;

FSAA=0;

postFX=2;

HDRPrecision=8;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=527425280;

nonlocalVRAM=527433727;

[Binkowski 26]

language="German";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=46875;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Resolution_W=1680;

Resolution_H=1050;

refresh=60;

Render_W=1993;

Render_H=1246;

FSAA=0;

postFX=0;

HDRPrecision=8;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=522125312;

nonlocalVRAM=1878683648;

winX=0;

winY=0;

winW=1676;

winH=1010;

winDefW=1680;

winDefH=1050;

[Padooka 0]

Correction. It should be 2047, 2048 and higher reverts back to default memory allocation. Was in Suma's post. Ohara also confirmed.

Thx

This is news to me. I always ran with it set at 2048.

[Placebo 29]

Going to move this to TS and pin it as it certainly seems to be helping a lot of people out, thanks Armaholic :)

[ryan80 10]

what maxmem setting should i do if i have 2gb ram instead

[Cionara 10]

With maxmem I get random crashes.

But the -winxp gave me 5 Fps more all the time. Thanks for the help.

WIth evertything on very high, only landscape and objectdetail on low I got 60 frames even in the big cities that's amazing :D

I got a question. What does the shading detail change ?

Also I made a Comparison between different settings:

The first screen is with my settings with 52 Fps, the 2nd without postprocessing(low),

better shadows (high) and better vegetation (objectdetail=normal) with 44Fps, the 3rd has landscape and objects at very high (28Fps).

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2256/armavergleich.gif

So you could play with best looking settings even in big cities with good performance (screens at Electrozavodsk, in smaller towns performance will be better), and I can't recommend all settings on very high like you can see on the last screen because there's no difference but loosing a lot of performance.

greetz Cionara

Edited June 11, 2009 by Cionara

[Balgorg 10]

I am finding all these posts rather worrying, PC games like arma 1 and 2 are superb and are not matched by anything found on consoles. These are games designed to be played on the PC.

The last few years there has been a vast array of games developed for consoles, then being ported over to the PC, the result is crappy-games. Even Crysis and Stalker were dumbed down for the console kiddies, and bioshock/oblivion ? rubbish.

When a great PC game comes out you finally feel that all that expensive hardware was worth it, but with arma 2 there are worrying sign's.

Whats getting me is the number of people here with seriously high spec systems struggling to run the game with a decent FPS.

When a game like Arma 2 fails to satisfy, the PC as a format for gaming suffers. More developers will move away from developing PC orientated titles, and the world of decent PC gaming will be lost.

Devs like BI really need to make sure their games are playable on lower spec machines, so the genre dont become the preserve of the super rich.

[Skeptic 10]

Remember when Crysis came out there were no PC capable running it on max settings. Arma2 is visually very realistic, so I won't be surprised to see next generation of GPUs to be able achieve higher playable FPS.

Thx

This is news to me. I always ran with it set at 2048.

Here you go, words of The Man himself.

Maximal allowed value for -maxmem is 2047. Anything above is clamped to 2047. If anyone seems any difference between 2047 and 4096, you fell a victim of wishful thinking.

what maxmem setting should i do if i have 2gb ram instead

Leave it as is.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Skeptic

[householddog 10]

Is Virtual memory just referring to the size of the swap file on the hard disk? Or is it something else? I am not sure, how it helps, if its just the swap file.

Is there any way of disabling the sound completely. I mean totally killing it, so the game doesn't play it (ie not just turning it down to zero)? I just want to see how it affects FPS.

Edited June 12, 2009 by householddog

[76 0]

Remember when Crysis came out there were no PC capable running it on max settings. Arma2 is visually very realistic, so I won't be surprised to see next generation of GPUs to be able achieve higher playable FPS.

A newly released GPU will be around the $1000aus or $800aus mark and most can't afford to buy that, maybe after 12mths have passed and the price drops to a reasonable level. I think you missed what Balgorg meant.

[rowdied 44]

Correction. It should be 2047, 2048 and higher reverts back to default memory allocation. Was in Suma's post. Ohara also confirmed.

Ya sorry 2047

[Alex72 1]

Didnt see this in the first post and i confess im very tired atm, but my mate told me about some commands for the commandline i should know when i get ARMA2. This he says boosted ARMA2 good for him. He has quad and 3gb ram so this is his setting:

-cpuCount=4 -maxmem=2048 -noCB

Change cpuCount accordingly ofcourse like 2 for dualcore's, and maybe test maxmem as it is there even if you got 2GB. What -noCB does i have no idea. And sorry if this was mentioned here just thaught i'd share what i just heared.

EDIT: Just saw the 2047 issue. Maybe that applies here? not sure. I need the bed. :) Check that though before testing. Nite guys.

Alex

Edited June 13, 2009 by Alex72

[Skeptic 10]

A newly released GPU will be around the $1000aus or $800aus mark and most can't afford to buy that, maybe after 12mths have passed and the price drops to a reasonable level. I think you missed what Balgorg meant.

ATI changed that - they constantly push cost/performance envelop. Latest single GPU enthusiast card HD4890 was introduced at $250 (US price).

[afp 1]

I just can confirm a rise of at least 10 FPS with the method in first post of this thread plus a general feeling that the game works smoother, without noticeably loss of quality.

Just the best ArmA 2 optimisation so far.

[POTS 0]

I just can confirm a rise of at least 10 FPS with the method in first post of this thread plus a general feeling that the game works smoother, without noticeably loss of quality.

Just the best ArmA 2 optimisation so far.

Do you have a quad core or dual core?

[afp 1]

Core2Duo E6600 2.4GHz + NVidia 9800GT

I have to mention that some details are lost, I think the vegetation or something but overall works smoother.

[pauliesss 2]

For anyone with graphic problems on NViDiA graphic cards, try these settings in NViDiA Control Panel - use Global Settings option, it does helped me a lot and now I dont have problems with white "dots" on trees and bushes. It may help you with other graphic problems too, but be sure to remove ArmA2 from Program Settings first, if you have it there.

:):):)

Edited June 15, 2009 by Pauliesss

[moosenoodles 0]

you also have texture filtering LOD bias on allow instead of clamp :D