ArmaHolic ArmA 2 Optimization

[prysk 10]

Hi all can someone help me how to set up my setting for Arma 2 ? I didnt play for a year, and now i dont remember the shortcuts ... cpucount=4....etc....

My rig:

i7-@4GHz

6GB DDR3

GTX 470

SSD 64GB

X58-UD3R

Win7 64bit

[nobrainer 0]

Anyone know how to get to the config files on the steam version of OA?

Have searched these and steam forums but no luck.

it's in your "C:\Users\<your name>\Documents\ArmA 2 Operation Arrowhead"

I allway use -profiles=some_path, since it "easier" to find the config-files then

Hi all can someone help me how to set up my setting for Arma 2 ? I didnt play for a year, and now i dont remember the shortcuts ... cpucount=4....etc....

My rig:

i7-@4GHz

6GB DDR3

GTX 470

SSD 64GB

X58-UD3R

Win7 64bit

"-nosplash -profiles=path_to_where_yo_want_it -world=empty -mod=@some_mod"

If that don't work, try also "-cpuCount=4 -exThreads=7 -maxmem=2048"

[pendragonuk 0]

Not sure if this has been addressed, a 66 page thread isn't the easiest thing to check through, plus there have been patches since it started...

I'm running an AMD Hex core CPU, with the command switches/functions it's obvious I have to change the CPU count but what of the exThreads command?

My current command line:

"C:\Program Files\Bohemia Interactive\ArmA 2\arma2OA.exe" -mod=PMC -mod=@CBA -mod=@DVD -mod=@Streamlined_Radio -winxp -cpuCount=6 -nosplash -maxmem=2048 -exThreads=7

[BigMorgan 11]

-exThreads=7 is supposed to use all available threads. That's as good as it's going to get.

[pendragonuk 0]

Thanks for your reply, I have noticed that the game dose not stress my CPU too much. It's not the limiting factor as looking at CPU trace after playing, the game never maxes any of the cores.

Then having 6 of them running at 4GHz helps... but even when running at stock speed 3.2GHz the game dose not max the cpu.

I still think it has more to do with moving large amounts of data about rather than chip speed. Running the game from an SSD also helps. ;)

I have two graphics cards with a combined RAM of 2GB. However I think for playing ArmA having just the one with 2GB would be better. A friend of mine has much better luck playing the game on is 2Gb card even though it is less powerful than the pair I have. Again I don't think it's about processing the data but getting it to the right place in a timely fashion. That's where the SSD can really help, it's not like the data is different, it's just delivers more quickly.

I'll be having a look at my RAM speed over the next few days. I'm currently running 8Gb at 1333. The RAM is suppose to run at 1600. There are issues running 4 slots at the full speed due to stability issues. Seeing as ArmA:2 doesn't use more than 2GB running the computer with 4Gb should be fine. So I pull 4Gb and ramp up the speed to see if it makes any difference.

[Bluterus 10]

Thanks for your reply, I have noticed that the game dose not stress my CPU too much. It's not the limiting factor as looking at CPU trace after playing, the game never maxes any of the cores.

Then having 6 of them running at 4GHz helps... but even when running at stock speed 3.2GHz the game dose not max the cpu.

I still think it has more to do with moving large amounts of data about rather than chip speed. Running the game from an SSD also helps. ;)

I have two graphics cards with a combined RAM of 2GB. However I think for playing ArmA having just the one with 2GB would be better. A friend of mine has much better luck playing the game on is 2Gb card even though it is less powerful than the pair I have. Again I don't think it's about processing the data but getting it to the right place in a timely fashion. That's where the SSD can really help, it's not like the data is different, it's just delivers more quickly.

I'll be having a look at my RAM speed over the next few days. I'm currently running 8Gb at 1333. The RAM is suppose to run at 1600. There are issues running 4 slots at the full speed due to stability issues. Seeing as ArmA:2 doesn't use more than 2GB running the computer with 4Gb should be fine. So I pull 4Gb and ramp up the speed to see if it makes any difference.

You do know that when you have SLI two 1GB cards do not total 2GB all you get is double the Processing power and video memory still remains as 1GB.

CPU does make a huge difference I've run the benchmark 1 with lots of different settings. Overclocking the cpu makes a huge difference I went from 27fps average at 3.08Ghz to 44fps average at 4.0Ghz.

SSD makes no difference to fps except for load times my fps remained the same on the ssd or normal HDD. The game is actually more stable on a Sata HDD than my SSD. Also my HDD is just a 7200rpm Sata 2 drive and the SSD is a Sata 3 6.0GB/s and there was no difference.

If you're running a 970, 980x or 990x do some benchmarking in arma then crank up the mhz and watch the frame difference.

[pendragonuk 0]

You do know that when you have SLI two 1GB cards do not total 2GB all you get is double the Processing power and video memory still remains as 1GB.

CPU does make a huge difference I've run the benchmark 1 with lots of different settings. Overclocking the cpu makes a huge difference I went from 27fps average at 3.08Ghz to 44fps average at 4.0Ghz.

SSD makes no difference to fps except for load times my fps remained the same on the ssd or normal HDD. The game is actually more stable on a Sata HDD than my SSD. Also my HDD is just a 7200rpm Sata 2 drive and the SSD is a Sata 3 6.0GB/s and there was no difference.

If you're running a 970, 980x or 990x do some benchmarking in arma then crank up the mhz and watch the frame difference.

thanks, I had almost forgotten about that post, it's a few months old. I have my rig running the game quite sweetly now. Much to the help of the guys on the forum.

These are my current settings and I'm getting 55-57fps on the first benchmarks low 70's on the Takistan benchmarks so I guess I'm doing something right.

By pendragonuk at 2011-08-10

[rfxcasey 1]

I'll be having a look at my RAM speed over the next few days. I'm currently running 8Gb at 1333. The RAM is suppose to run at 1600. There are issues running 4 slots at the full speed due to stability issues. Seeing as ArmA:2 doesn't use more than 2GB running the computer with 4Gb should be fine. So I pull 4Gb and ramp up the speed to see if it makes any difference.

I think you should know that running your memory at a higher frequency will make no difference at all unless you keep the same timing, at which point stability can become an issue. There are many, many benchmarks out there that support the fact that running tightening your timing is the way to go. By running your memory at 1600 you are just creating more heat and basically spinning your wheels in place. If you can run your mem at 1600 while keeping the same timing you use at 1333 you will see a difference though usually pretty small but this might be hard to do while maintaining a stable system depending on how good your memory is. I would suggest just running it at 1333 and tightening it as far as you can.

CPU does make a huge difference I've run the benchmark 1 with lots of different settings. Overclocking the cpu makes a huge difference I went from 27fps average at 3.08Ghz to 44fps average at 4.0Ghz.

While I don't necessarily dispute this, I have seen other test done where OCing didn't seem to make a huge difference. The real problem I see with this is, while is works very well for some people its really a workaround for another underlying issue. The fact that the game doesn't even max out any of multiple cores before grinding to a halt really suggests very poor coding and optimization.

My specs are...

AMD x4 Phenom II @3.2Ghz

GTX 560 ti 1GB OCed to 950Mhz core

4GB DDR2 @ 5,5,5,15 timing

1TB 7200RPM Sata II HDD

The game only uses up to 50% of any of my 4 cores. My video card is much better then what I have seen many others using. The GPU utilization is about 25% or less with the game maxed out. I can run BF3 at max settings and never drop below 38FPS. Arma 2 on the other hand, runs like relative Kakah. I have even tried lowering all the graphic settings as far as they can go and in the mission where the black guy gets promoted after the squad leader is killed, at the base next to the water where Lt. Marney is the game still only tops out at around 26 FPS. In the woods its a different story but still. The difference in FPS from maxing out the game to running it at minimum is marginal. I think Arma II is just very very poorly optimized which is a real shame.

I have seen people with lesser systems then mine claiming to run the game at max setting with vis distance set on 3Km and never see the FPS drop below 35FPS. I have tried looking at the various tweaks in this thread but to be honest the thread is huge and somewhat convoluted. Not the mention the fact that is is hard to tell what settings are still relevant as some of the suggestions I don't even have and entry for in any of my Arma configs such as the one for setting the sound on hardware accelerated.

My post is long enough already, but I would like someone to look over my configs and other factors and try to help me get this game working properly. Overclocking the CPU would be a last resort and really something that should be completely unnecessary even though I'm sure it makes a difference for some, just not for the right reasons.

Can anyone consolidate these tweaks by relevance to the most current version of Arma II. I do not have AO. I see there is a beta patch, is it still worth looking at or have recent patches made it obsolete. Thanks for any light anyone can shed.

[BasileyOne 10]

its sounds kinda weird[cause Arma2 not use more than 4x cores], but sometimes[especially in SP. not tested heavily] artificially incrase of "-cpucount" above physicall CPU cores/streams numbers 50% can give some FPS boost.

with 4x core CPU[mine]

"arma2.exe -malloc=3 -maxMem=2047 -nosplash -cpucount=4 -exthreads=7 -vm108 -world=Chernarus"

-switches

its would like "arma2.exe -malloc=3 -maxMem=2047 -nosplash -cpucount=6 -exthreads=7 -vm108 -world=Chernarus"

p.s. had [almost]no impact on MP.

did/tested occasionally.

[XxKilo11xX 1]

When i start the game, the main first screen had a lag to it. im guessing thats cause i messed around with my gaming options in my AMD control center. I thought i'd get a better picture and a nice smooth 3D rendering. Well it was total oposite. So i went back into my computer setting and defaulted my AMD gameing options. i opened the game back up. By the way i, only running arma2. i havent even been passed the first screen of the game yet. Can anyone help my so i can play this game with no lag and some sort of 3D rendering. Im a nooby to all this, so any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[ajax420 0]

@rfxcasey

This game is not poorly optimized like you might think. Comparing how it runs compared to BF3 is really a joke cause they are two entirely different pieces of software. HUGE DIFFERENCE! This game is EXTREMELY CPU INTENSIVE. Guys that are just now getting the latest $1000.00 CPU I7 2011 socket are just now getting the coveted 60 FPS solid. Also the game is EXTREMELY hard drive demanding. It's probably one of the most hardware demanding pieces of software around. The game is very well optimized to be able to run at all considering all the things the game engine takes into account to create the most immerse game ever. Every piece of you system is important with this game. Look for your bottle necks. HHD, FSB, CPU speed, etc.... Your CPU speed is OK but what is your FSB? It says your running DDR2 so You may have an older MB with a slower FSB. Guys (including myself) have been building game rigs exclusively for this game for 10 years now and hardware DEFINITELY MATTERS.

[Fox '09 14]

To be honest, the current updates really render this thread useless. The game is far more efficient than it was a year or so ago.

[DZ302 10]

I have an i5-2500k @ 4.2GHZ, 8GB DDR3, 6950 2GB and a 128GB SSD, I'm having some performance issues but can't find an up to date optimization guide. I remember a while back the game ran a lot smoother. If I right click my FPS is going down below 30, only way to fix is to put object detail on very low, I've tried every other setting, they don't help.

Edit: it's definitely a GPU issue, GPU activity is like 95% when playing.

Edited May 4, 2012 by DZ302

[Horus 83]

Disable Vsync and see if that fix your problem.

[Atkins 10]

Disable AA.

[domokun 515]

DZ302: Try these tweaks and let us know how you get on:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?85124-ArmA2-OA-%28low%29-performance-issues&p=2081466#post2081466

[Atkins 10]

How much A2 needs GPU RAM with 1900x1200 resolution at Chernarus?

Because of the orange trees I can't really put AA on at all in Cherna, even with 2x560Ti 1Gb. When running at woods where there are orange trees, the screen jitters/stutters/jerks when panning. Normal? Or is there some option I still have to look at?

[special_air_service 10]

what is orange trees ? you mean some trees coloured orange ? or trees with orange leaf ? try Lowering your view Distance and after that use AA at low first, see what happens , if it isn't impact performance too hard , then continue increasing it until reach the level you want :)

[Atkins 10]

what is orange trees ? you mean some trees coloured orange ? or trees with orange leaf ? try Lowering your view Distance and after that use AA at low first, see what happens , if it isn't impact performance too hard , then continue increasing it until reach the level you want :)

Indeed the trees with orange color. Sorry for the confusion.

Can't lower VD. DayZ has it set server side.

I have experimented already quite extensively and found out that for smooth sailing I need to disable AA completely. I was wondering if the 1Gb is holding me back...

[Metal_Izanagi 1]

I've tried pretty much every fix in this thread, disabled AA, lowered view distance to around 1000, left no stone unturned, and /still/ this game chugs along like some sort of sad step-brother to other games that run perfectly on my hardware. I've detailed exactly what I've tried doing in another thread, but seeing a post in here saying that the fixes in this thread are useless because of the latest patches made me have to come here to say this: That's a lie. While the fixes might not /do/ much anymore compared to what they might have done in the past, they're still a lot better than just trusting BI to fix the optimization issues themselves. Pretty obvious from the amount of issues almost every user seems to have that this game was way ahead of its time, in the worst way possible. It might be nice to say "Hey, we made a really realistic simulator!" but it's pointless when it runs like crap on all but the most ridiculous hardware setups.

[Leopardi 0]

I've tried pretty much every fix in this thread, disabled AA, lowered view distance to around 1000, left no stone unturned, and /still/ this game chugs along like some sort of sad step-brother to other games that run perfectly on my hardware. I've detailed exactly what I've tried doing in another thread, but seeing a post in here saying that the fixes in this thread are useless because of the latest patches made me have to come here to say this: That's a lie. While the fixes might not /do/ much anymore compared to what they might have done in the past, they're still a lot better than just trusting BI to fix the optimization issues themselves. Pretty obvious from the amount of issues almost every user seems to have that this game was way ahead of its time, in the worst way possible. It might be nice to say "Hey, we made a really realistic simulator!" but it's pointless when it runs like crap on all but the most ridiculous hardware setups.

I'm having the same problem, the game is only utilizing 20-30% of my HD 7870 2GB at certain areas like chernogorsk. And my CPU should be able to handle it easily... BF3 is able to squeeze 100% out of my GPU at all times.

I hope ArmA 3 concentrates on utilizing the computers better, its just stupid that my perfectly capable GPU sits there unused at 20-30%.

[Metal_Izanagi 1]

Well, I seem to have fixed whatever the problem was...a reboot later and I'm running textures at High, everything else at normal or in the case of stuff I don't need like Anisotropic, off. My GPU isn't too happy, hitting the 56C mark, but it can handle it.

[special_air_service 10]

Indeed the trees with orange color. Sorry for the confusion.

Can't lower VD. DayZ has it set server side.

I have experimented already quite extensively and found out that for smooth sailing I need to disable AA completely. I was wondering if the 1Gb is holding me back...

Did you set your video memory to default ? If yes then it should be not your video Memory problem since 1 GB is more than enough to play ArmA II .

[Atkins 10]

Did you set your video memory to default ? If yes then it should be not your video Memory problem since 1 GB is more than enough to play ArmA II .

I have had the video memory always at default. I was just wondering if 19x12 was too much resolution for 1Gb. I did try with lower resolution but the end result was the same pretty much. Now I lowered some other settings a bit like Terrain/Texture etc and I can almost have Low AA. It still does stutter a bit but less now. Gonna have to fiddle some more in editor. Hate to have a SLI and still can't use AA.

Edit: Trilinear optimization or/and Triple Buffering might help in this "issue".

Leopardi:

Your CPU will and can not handle A2 as u imagined. A 2500k with stock settings will perform better than 1090T OCed.

Try fiddling with the settings while trying out the game in the Editor. I recommend that you find an old version of www.playclaw.com and monitor ur cpu and gpu usages while u play.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Atkins

[kewlio250 1]

POST 3

i hate the 3 post rule