ArmaHolic ArmA 2 Optimization

[iLoctus 10]

Hey guys

Great game so far, except for the really bad drop in frame rates i'm getting...

i have a athlon 64 x2 6000+ with a HD 4890 1GB, Vista 64 and at 1360x768 res..

Is it normal to have a frame rate of around 15-25? I had a 8800GT that i replaced yesterday and still getting the same frame rate.

Also, no matter what settings, high, low, normal etc.. i still get the same frame rates! Thats kinda strange!

My CPU is the problem isnt it? any suggestions? Any help at all would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

Edited June 25, 2009 by iLoctus

[Styxar 0]

I'm starting to get a feeling that this game is internally capped in the zone of 20-30 FPS because no matter what I do I still get that... Low graphics or very high graphics, OCed or not OCed CPU, SLI on or off it's still the same. I'm getting so annoyed I think I'd even be happier if there was something that I could to do make my FPS go down (at least I would identify what affects it)

[iLoctus 10]

I feel the same styxar, nothing i do seems to improve the performance one little bit...its really strange, i can max out most games easily... has to be the my CPU, if someone just told me "Yes its your CPU" i'd be satisfied that i've done everything i can and i'd just put the game away and look forward to Operation Flashpoint...

[r3pent 0]

well, its not internally capped, i get close to 60 fps, most of the time, occasionlly it drops down to 30-40, and im by no means running a super computer.

E6850 C2D OC @ 3.75ghz

GTX 260 182.50 drivers

4GB corsair DDR2 800 low cas

[iLoctus 10]

rspent

E6850 and athlon 64 x2 6000+ are pretty close are they?

same for HD 4890 and GTX 260?

[Styxar 0]

well, its not internally capped, i get close to 60 fps, most of the time, occasionlly it drops down to 30-40, and im by no means running a super computer.

E6850 C2D OC @ 3.75ghz

GTX 260 182.50 drivers

4GB corsair DDR2 800 low cas

well your CPU seems to be better than mine (q9550 @2.83Ghz OCed @ 3.2Ghz) for gaming. My ram is 4Gb DDR3 low voltage OCZ and GPUs are GTX 280 SLI. What FPS do you get in Chernogorsk?

[moosenoodles 0]

well, its not internally capped, i get close to 60 fps, most of the time, occasionlly it drops down to 30-40, and im by no means running a super computer.

E6850 C2D OC @ 3.75ghz

GTX 260 182.50 drivers

4GB corsair DDR2 800 low cas

I really dislike this sort of post, its evident that for the most part 60 fps is achievable in open areas or a more rural village type setting. "Most of the time" is to ambiguous for the general pc gamer that does not tweak and can me misconstruded as wow thats damn fine! But most people in arma with the maps/mission types being played for the majority are all large area city building scape types..

Seeing as gfx settings do diddly squat for most folk it seems, not heard many say oh that made my fps jump by lowering texture detail to normal from v,hight. (yeah right, i see no diff at all to be honest quality wise doing so to the eye)

Get in that city start playing with 30 people as this game is mostly played right now on the servers, and tell me your getting 60 nice solid frames again. I fail to believe it personally.

(I think that everyone is a bit annoyed that its not optimized and still like to make out its running like a dream)

Modern OS for today - check!

Enough Ram - check!

High enough clocked or standard mhz cpu - check!

High end gfx card - check!

Arma2 - not behaving engine wise as it should - Double Check!

realisticaly and Im going by what everyone says ingame play on TS etc or chat, the game in main areas of fighting with the decent player amounts are around 25-35 fps tops I kid you not.

Forget the rest wait for the patches form BiS, cause that is all that is going to fix this up. Just like ArmA 1 now its playing all dandy for everyone, but thats taken way to long to get to that stage from initial release.

I hope that ArmA 2 does not go the same route in that delay.

[r3pent 0]

get out of the wrong side of bed today moosenoodles?

ok, it is this tweaking and perserverance, and reading and collecting of information that has got me satisfied with the state my ArmA 2 game is in.

i play online mostly, on hold servers, with 30 people, and in cities, 40-60 fps, why would i make it up? believe me or dont believe me, i was making a point that there is NOT an fps cap as i get 60fps regular.

my thoughts are that people are buying this game and expecting it to be call of duty, and they are so shocked and surprised when their million dollar machine wont play well on the highest settings, start low, then work your way up, find a balance between playability and eye candy, for the record i am running @ 1680x1050, some settings on low, some normal, and some high.

[FeoFUN 10]

I really dislike this sort of post, its evident that for the most part 60 fps is achievable in open areas or a more rural village type setting. "Most of the time" is to ambiguous for the general pc gamer that does not tweak and can me misconstruded as wow thats damn fine! But most people in arma with the maps/mission types being played for the majority are all large area city building scape types..

x2

Someone(BI?) must create some sort of BENCHMARK MISSION, that will include predefined script, scenario, scenes, cameras, units, etc.

May it be reasonable to create the new thread to discuss such BENCHMARK MISSION/SCRIPTED MOVIE?

[nzjono 10]

well, its not internally capped, i get close to 60 fps, most of the time, occasionlly it drops down to 30-40, and im by no means running a super computer.

E6850 C2D OC @ 3.75ghz

GTX 260 182.50 drivers

4GB corsair DDR2 800 low cas

Its IS internally capped at 30 fps in game and 60 fps in the menu screens

here check out the photo of my G15 Fraps display..live framerate is on 23 here and to the right is the 30 capped framerate which does NOT move in game. It changes to a capped 60 in themenus.

Seems like SLi GTX295 owners are getting the worst of this. As you are not running an SLI setup you may actually be getting better framerates than those of us with higher cards and cpus than you, its crazy!

[Fox '09 14]

I agree with moosenoodles. BUT I find the woods very laggy, and any other places with lots of shadows. But, heh.

Here's my "maximum settings" requirement........

CPU: E8XXX Series @ 4 GHz/ Quad cores (Kentsfield Q6XXX and upper Yorkfield Q9XXX) or Phenom II (dual, tri or quad)

GPU: GTX 260 and up OR 4870 and UP.

RAM: 3GB or more. Otherwise,forget about it!

That's really enough to play the game smoothly on highest settings possible at the original release. The patches, will further decrease the need to have such awesome hardware.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Fox '09

[r3pent 0]

it is not internally capped, 60fps in menu, 60 fps in game, do i have to show some screenshots?

[DieterWeber 0]

It's not capped at 60 in-game. When it look at the sky it shoots to like 80.

[UKCarbine 10]

Hi Folks,

The performance on this system is pretty bad. I don't expect to get high frames all the time but at anytime would be of some use. On the single player scenarios I can get up to 50fps. When I play MP campaign or Evolution maps etc then I'm lucky to get 30 FPS. In the menu it is capped at 60 FPS. I have yet to try and pla other MP style games as it stands there is no point as it doesn't not allow me to play the game comfortably. It is an amzing game and I love it just hoping that some useful suggestions for increasing performance will follow.

ASUS P5B Deluxe WiFi AP

Hiper 730 Watt Type M ATX v2.2

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 2.83mhz 1333 FSB (clocked to 3.6mhz)

ATI Powercolor 4870x2 2gb

Kingston HyperX 8GB (4x2GB) DDR2 PC2-8500C5 1066MHz

150gb WD Raptor X

150gb WD Velociraptor

X-Fi Fatal1ty FPS Edition

Vista Business 64bit

Dell Ultrasharp 2407WFP 24"

The Graphic options do not allow any performance increase even when on low settings. I can whack them up on high or in some maps Very high and get roughly the same frames. I have V-Sync disabled on my desktop/CCC panel.

I have not adjusted the Config file as of yet but I do run with the parameter -winxp. So I would say there is some form of FPS cap to me.

Cheers Carb

Edited June 25, 2009 by UKCarbine

[Fox '09 14]

Carb, try editing your config file as that seems to help a lot.

---------- Post added at 04:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:45 PM ----------

well your CPU seems to be better than mine (q9550 @2.83Ghz OCed @ 3.2Ghz) for gaming. My ram is 4Gb DDR3 low voltage OCZ and GPUs are GTX 280 SLI. What FPS do you get in Chernogorsk?

You can't compare a quad core to a dual core by clock speed. Q9550 @ 3.8 (For me) > ANY Core 2 Duo

[furia 10]

Gentlemen, I am just about quiting but before doing it I would try to get some advice here from your expertise. Computer graphics and video card tweaking is surely not on my "curriculum" :mad:

I have the following config file

language="Spanish";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=100000;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Resolution_W=1440;

Resolution_H=900;

refresh=60;

Render_W=1440;

Render_H=900;

FSAA=0;

postFX=0;

HDRPrecision=8;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=522125312;

nonlocalVRAM=1341353984;

I have a Dual core Intel 2,2 mhz, 3 Giga Ram and an Nvidia 8600M GS.

Not the latest or hotest machine lol but usually runs most sims and games nicely. I do not pretend to have 60 fps but now I can barely get more than 8 in best case.

I use Nhancer and I tried using the Crysis profile or Arma 1 profiles but I cannot see much difference.

One strange thing I noticed is that I got the same FPS no matter I place all sliders to max or to min, and this puzzles me.

I have great hopes for this game and I plan to upgrade my PC shortly but on the meantime I would like to be able to at least get used to Arma 2 on this one.

Any tip, suggestion, comment.... would be most welcome.

I have no clue what to do next other than unistalling the game and wait for better times. :(

[moosenoodles 0]

it is not internally capped, 60fps in menu, 60 fps in game, do i have to show some screenshots?

the game for alot is being capped for people in mp to 30frames like it or not, u just have vysnch forced off, some people especially the ati users and it seems high end rigs with nvidia cards are seeing that vsync to off does diddly effing squat.

Yeah I can get anywhere between 30-60 fps also and 130 in sky and floor if i force vsync with tools other than the normal driver control panel etc. but its not a smooth fps transition in arma2 right now, i can post screens all day of nice angled sky shots slightly moving the ground out of view to gain my fps counter some love.

But I stick by the fact that yeah you can get the fps to 60 but its not staying at 60 when u start blowing up a town with more than 60 AI/team mates/and air support.

Kudos to you if your getting 60 fps *regular* < ur words not mine. I would love to see a nice youtube vid (ill take into account a 10fps drop if its a good rig while recording) to see how it runs in a city with all that going on :D As I said screenshots mean bugger all.. I can give you 1350 fps in a screenshot, yeah its zoomed in on the map screen but still. (making a point here) ?

It plays fine with 35 in city with lots going on, but Heck you must have some magik leet skills to get that going much more...

p.s yes we all collate info ive been around here for plenty of time with arma and arma 2 reading as a whole, and love to tweak but there is only so much you can tweak while the engine is being a naughty kid that needs a spank or two.

Edit: I am also going to bet there is a nice water shader issue right now, 1.01 looking across sea gave the boost in fps one would expect, now its a dog performance of a show. Shaders are messed up or something is not really as it was in 1.01 in 1.02, my bet is also that the water is being drawn for miles under the terrain, like so many poorly optimized land masses are done in other games. If its not that worrys me even more about why settings seem to make no diff to ones fps.

Final note: im realistic in all this testing and fps malarky, I dont beat around the bush(unless its my misses) like some spoilt fanboi, I tell it as it is so devs can really step up to the mark with honest decent remarks, and accurate portraying of the game state as it stands (at this time)

Peace out, love you all really :D

Edited June 25, 2009 by moosenoodles

[r3pent 0]

i will do my utmost to show you a video, let me just add, i run with vsync forced ON, to stop tearing when im using my track ir, and of course triple buffering helps then.

[moosenoodles 0]

i will do my utmost to show you a video, let me just add, i run with vsync forced ON, to stop tearing when im using my track ir, and of course triple buffering helps then.

Thats great but tripple buffering does nothing as its an OpenGL instruction set. Its a good reason you see why I believe alot of placebo stuff is going on here, if one does not know his system or drivers then how can one be taken seriously with such claims of great fps?

see what im saying? not an attack or anything so please dont take it like that :D

[r3pent 0]

hmm, well thats true, but i could also say the same about your claim of a 30fps cap, see what i mean?

[moosenoodles 0]

hmm, well thats true, but i could also say the same about your claim of a 30fps cap, see what i mean?

well the cap isnt a problem to proove for variety of people here is it, there is a thread with some guy posting the images of this and then again with a forced driver level vsync off etc. 25 and 28 frames in first then 40 50 60 130 in the next shots.

at same locations.

Thing is there is umpteen people that have mentioned the limit, and I also had the limit, I was under the assumption it might of been bad cfg files being made with arma, or arma not reading them right.

Cause you can really get a few discrepencies at times when deleting them and letting arma remake them. and im talking big changes like 3d_application=100000 and then = -474535363

^^ I mean a bit odd right?

Not to mention EW and HW on the sound options in the profile cfg switching 0 and 1 at times.

I myself had to use Ati tray tools to set up a seperate profile for arma to get the option to brute force vsync off.. terrible that but still..

Just longing for 1.03 now... no time frame of course for that is a killer, but still done when its done, as they say. :D

[Mr.oi 10]

Ok what am I doing wrong I copied and pasted the config file, read every post on this thread (this is a wonderful unselfish community) These are my specs.

dell xps 710

q6600

4 gigs

285 gtx 186.18

vista 64bit Ult

20 in widescreen

I get 60 +fps in boot camp but any scenarios or the performance test I avg 28fps. Man I just want 30, nothing more! My rez is 1600x900 3d is at 80% have tried 100% not much difference. I also did the winxp at the start up. Is there anymore I could do? I will process all help.

Thank You,

Oi!

[nzjono 10]

hmm, well thats true, but i could also say the same about your claim of a 30fps cap, see what i mean?

Here then, a photo of my G15 LCD displaying FRAPS

Its IS internally capped at 30 fps in game and 60 fps in the menu screens for many of us (not all)

Live framerate is on 23 here and to the right is the 30 capped framerate which does NOT move in game. It changes to a capped 60 in themenus. The live framerate can not go over this cap.

Look, its great if your SLI is working etc but for many of us it is not.

Having said that the game is still very playable and hugely entertaining (albiet frustrating at times) and a great evolution from Arma 1. Ill be waiting for new Nvidia drivers and a new BI patch to sort my framerate and SLI issues out.

Edited June 25, 2009 by nzjono

[Fox '09 14]

Is that your maximum resolution? If so ignore this. Set it to your max resolution, as it puts more pressure on your graphics card (at least this game does..) when it's downsized.

Make sure the config file is set to read me and "render_w/h and resolution_w/h" is set to your resolution.

[cold_Que 10]

Just to post my experience for the record,

System:

Windows 32bit Vista

Quad core duo 4 X CPU QX9650 @3.0Ghz

Quad SLI 2 X 9800GX2 cards (182.5 drivers)

8gigs of DDR2 RAM

Settings:

language="English";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=93750;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Resolution_W=1920;

Resolution_H=1200;

refresh=60;

Render_W=1920;

Render_H=1200;

FSAA=0;

postFX=0;

HDRPrecision=8;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=526319616;

nonlocalVRAM=938737664;

I am getting very low frame rates, and single digit frame rates when I am near bushes. I have vsync off, and have tried the -winxp command line option yet to no effect.

Any suggestions would be appreciated, yet this game out the box thus far has been a disappointment.