ArmaHolic ArmA 2 Optimization

[Yapab 10]

Turning all the settings down as suggested by many people simply makes this game look very outdated and ugly... gone is that realistic look and back is the 1998 Quake2 look.

And even then it still runs badly... patch please!

[Binkowski 26]

I can't alter the AA in the options, anybody have an idea?

[A.cain 10]

somone please help i have everything running in arma except:

texture detail; low

video memory; low:confused:

i have tried to reinstall many times but it wont allow me to change these settings as soon as i patch to latest, my sys info drivers patch etc is-

Vista64Bit Sp2

Intel® Core™ i7-965 Extreme 3.2GHz 8MB Cache

1,792 MB NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 295 cards in sli

12GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1333MHz

Driver version 186.18 (use nhancer for SLI setup)

arma patch 1.02.58134

language="English";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=360000;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Resolution_W=2560;

Resolution_H=1600;

refresh=60;

Render_W=5120;

Render_H=3200;

FSAA=2;

postFX=4;

HDRPrecision=8;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=200787968;

nonlocalVRAM=200787968;:j:

[Fox '09 14]

I just managed to tone out my AA,Shadows to Normal, Objects Detail to High and i get about 30-45 fps average impressed..

waoh ur russian.... 0.o

get out of my country :((

CHERANUS IS MY LANDD

[bangtail 0]

somone please help i have everything running in arma except:

texture detail; low

video memory; low:confused:

i have tried to reinstall many times but it wont allow me to change these settings as soon as i patch to latest, my sys info drivers patch etc is-

Vista64Bit Sp2

Intel® Core™ i7-965 Extreme 3.2GHz 8MB Cache

1,792 MB NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 295 cards in sli

12GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1333MHz

Driver version 186.18 (use nhancer for SLI setup)

arma patch 1.02.58134

language="English";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=360000;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Resolution_W=2560;

Resolution_H=1600;

refresh=60;

Render_W=5120;

Render_H=3200;

FSAA=2;

postFX=4;

HDRPrecision=8;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=200787968;

nonlocalVRAM=200787968;:j:

Search is your friend.

182.50 or lower to solve that.

Eth

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

waoh ur russian.... 0.o

get out of my country :((

CHERANUS IS MY LANDD

stop with the lame russian jokes thanks

[f2k sel 164]

Messed with my settings today and find it runs better with

Low terrain textures

High video and texture

Shadows very High

It dosn't run much quicker but with the shadows and texture set to high it does look better.

WinXp 32

Amd 64x4800+ x2 @2.4

Nvidia 8800GT

2meg memory

Resolution_W=1600

Resolution_H=1200

[ste4lth004 10]

Any of yous know how i can make arma2 use more ram, its only using around 800-1.2gig. ive never touched the cfg file before, ive only used ingame settings.

[Fox '09 14]

stop with the lame russian jokes thanks

okey dokey

:j: :j:

...........

:D

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

okey dokey

:j: :j:

...........

:D

:rolleyes:

[Masterfragg 10]

Guys don't expect a patch anytime soon, looks like the Devs are too busy making videos for muppets that can't read instruction books or use WSAD without a walk through...

I couldn't help but blast them on the video... It shows a complete lack of "honor" if you will even if it the video wasn't made by the developers.

We need patches...Not a walkthrough for the dipstick-ish.

Even the PR side of the company should of known that was a daft move! Especially with the "Troubleshooting" section of the forums being overrun with "WTF I CAn'TZ Runz tis wiD mY BEEFcaKe MaChInEZ!!!"

Frustrations vented again...

And now relaxed

[beugnen 10]

made no difference sadly. i think this is another urban myth

[ProfTournesol 956]

Guys don't expect a patch anytime soon, looks like the Devs are too busy making videos for muppets that can't read instruction books or use WSAD without a walk through...

I couldn't help but blast them on the video... It shows a complete lack of "honor" if you will even if it the video wasn't made by the developers.

We need patches...Not a walkthrough for the dipstick-ish.

Even the PR side of the company should of known that was a daft move! Especially with the "Troubleshooting" section of the forums being overrun with "WTF I CAn'TZ Runz tis wiD mY BEEFcaKe MaChInEZ!!!"

Frustrations vented again...

And now relaxed

BI dev team is one of the most dedicated to their community / players, releasing patch after patch for all their games. So keep your bitterness for yourself, we all know those troubles will be solved one way or another.

[beugnen 10]

BI dev team is one of the most dedicated to their community / players, releasing patch after patch for all their games. So keep your bitterness for yourself, we all know those troubles will be solved one way or another.

well im still waiting for them to patch A1, it still runs like a game written using Glide

[Masterfragg 10]

BI dev team is one of the most dedicated to their community / players, releasing patch after patch for all their games. So keep your bitterness for yourself, we all know those troubles will be solved one way or another.

I understand where you're coming from mate I really do.

But if BIS was going to truely support the community they wouldn't of released the game as a beta yet again they'd employ a beta team.

I understand if runs are tight but a closed beta would have done the job surely?

So no...No I won't keep my bitterness to myself when I've forked out dosh.

Simples really.

But I do apologise for that out burst but I stand by my comments and remarks.

**Edit**

Look sorry it's just frustration, I should keep it in check a bit more but it's hard when I've even paid out money on a quad core cpu just to get the game at 30+ fps and the campaign still runs pathetically.

And the video was pointless and shouldn't of been released until they had released a decent patch.

Edited July 4, 2009 by Masterfragg

[batis4 21]

Start like this:

Visibility: 2 KM

Texture detail: Normal (or high).

Vid memory: High (if over 512)

Anisotropic filtering: high

AA: Normal or high (nvidia GPU's handle AA like its not even there, sweet)

Terrain detail: very low (no grass)

Object detail: normal (or low)

Shadows: High or Off (high performs and looks better than normal)

Post processing: Off!!

3D resolution: 100%

Heatseeker, your options gave me huge fps boost. Running 30 FPS most of the time. On other settings the FPS was 20. Thanks.

My comp:

AMD Athlon 5000+ (running 3.0ghZ)

Nvidia GeForce 8800gt 512 mb

4 GB of DDR2 800mhz

[SaBrE_UK 0]

This might interest a few of you. It shows performance of ARMA2 demo on various systems.

[ste4lth004 10]

Thx for this sabre, great find, im glad i chose the 285 with my i7920, its more money but its flying for me on all games.:)

[beugnen 10]

don't believe everything you read on sites such as slashdot. for one thing they failed to observe the difference between the following core ecosystems in the game:

1. performance in the so-called A2 in-game 'benchmark'
   
2. performance in the sandbox modes
   
3. performance during normal in-game
   

1. - never appears to change regardless of settings or rig

2. - performance sky rockets on the same rigs. therefor the game is CPU bound in-game

3. is woefully slow considering what is being displayed and the little number of units on the map regardless

[Sonofchaos 10]

I was having performance issues running my max monitor res (1680x1050) even on the lowest settings in cfg file, but it's all sorted now, i'm running on the max settings etc, funny thing is it was so simple to fix it eluded me for a few days - changing the res down 1, so from 1680x1050 that's res 1440x900... problem sorted it looks a hell of alot better than at 1680x1050 despite being a lower res.

Maybe it'll work for others. It doesn't just work for ArmA 2, now i can run Crysis at max... woot!. Laters.

[sig 10]

I was having performance issues running my max monitor res (1680x1050) even on the lowest settings in cfg file, but it's all sorted now, i'm running on the max settings etc, funny thing is it was so simple to fix it eluded me for a few days - changing the res down 1, so from 1680x1050 that's res 1440x900... problem sorted it looks a hell of alot better than at 1680x1050 despite being a lower res.

Maybe it'll work for others. It doesn't just work for ArmA 2, now i can run Crysis at max... woot!. Laters.

So what system have you then?

[Sonofchaos 10]

So what system have you then?

Windows Vista 64-bit

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+

4094MB RAM

NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT Approx Total Memory: 2289 MB

HP w2007 Wide LCD Monitor 22"

[Joohan 10]

Windows Vista 64-bit

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+

4094MB RAM

NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT Approx Total Memory: 2289 MB

HP w2007 Wide LCD Monitor 22"

Sorry, but there's no way that system can run Crysis decently with max settings, just no way. Maybe it runs better with the lower res but with everything at max there's just no way in hell you're getting playable fps (constantly above 30fps) and same goes for Arma 2.

Anyway, I got my Arma 2 performance problems sorted by taking out 4 gigs of ram (had 8 gigs) and can now run it with max settings...just finished Manhattan and now i'm waiting for BIS to fix the team AI bugs in the further missions...

My rig btw:

q6600 oc'd to 3,2

4gigs of ram (8gigs originally but with Arma 2, only 4gigs are in use)

GTX 285

Creative Xfi Xtreme Gamer

Vista 64bit

Edited July 6, 2009 by Joohan

[Blueshift 10]

Search is your friend.

182.50 or lower to solve that.

Eth

My hero... Will try this asap

[voodoochile123 10]

I can't read all pages. Just to note, that with my 8800GTX I don't have the pre-rendered frames option in my nVidia driver settings mentioned in the first post.

Also, could anyone please confirm that the frame rate is better with High object detail compared to medium?

Thanks =)