Is the problem my CPU?

[Richie72 10]

I have been experimenting with all sorts of settings to get a good balance between FPS and visual quality for Arma2 but I'm sure my hardware should be more than capable of what I'm getting according to the "Optimal Requirements"!? I've been trawling these forums and trying different options but no luck. I can achieve excellent results in the editor with no AI but when it comes to SP or MP the results go below 20 FPS. I suspect it could be a CPU issue (although 3.2GHz Dual Core should be more than enough). Is there something I can change on the CPU side of things? Does anyone have any tips for me so I can get a decent experience?

[mrcash2009 0]

CPU for sure, also same here my spec is almost the same I posted this previously see how you go.

Below details help with laggyness and streaming, but FPS drop etc in campaign I'm having similar on the missions where you are in the large industrial city, but these setting ive managed to scrape away some buffer lag. Im pretty sure this game needs to be more optimised becuase people with I7's and Latest Nvidia cards are getting experiences, maybe a little less but similar with AI and city areas etc.

My Spec:

ARMA2 1.02

Nvidia 182.50 drivers

Athlon 64 x2 6000+ OC 3.2Ghz

GTX260 OC (216core) 800MB

800 FSB MOBO

XP 32bit Service pack 3

Xfi Extreme Gamer Sound card

My final setting (screen grab) : http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/6228/arma22009062311333226.jpg

What I see with these setting:

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/9483/arma22009062311352771.jpg

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/306/arma22009062311353479.jpg

I finally stopped some major stuttering and splutters in built up cities and flying and could also raise view distant to up to near 3000 by finding a sweet spot, which was setting my textures level to normal but then setting my video memory to very high .. video memory to anything less caused more stutters and jolts for me.

I tested looking at ti with texture level high etc and the eye candy doesn't drop so much that I could really tell. I could then set fill rate to 133percent also running native at 1440x900, put object detail to high and also landscape detail and then set view distance to just under 3000, shadows to high also.

I tried this under Vista 32 (dual boot) and its still laggy so it was better under XP fo me. I still have a few minor splutters while buffering the data (usual expected thing for arma) but its much more pleasant on the ground in large built up areas.

Massive difference was flying, I had textures high, vid mem high before and flying was a pause fest even at 2000 view distance.

My system is on the fringe in terms of spec for game, but so far with the eye candy you get at these settings and what I have as a rig I expected allot worse to be honest. Sure more AI around = fps drop which is understandable, I will get a quad fairly soon, but I do tend to play small teams in SP which I like the most.

in open large Forrest areas I cant really see an issue here, only when you get to coast areas or areas that have large built up towns/cities. But as I say setting my texture & vid mem options to how I have it made this allot better for me. I tested by placing large units with the biggest areas, running and spinning as fast as I could to see how it lagged and paused, both in full sunshine and rain (testing shadows) and it was far better .. still LOD moments, but far better.

I found that in the rain (even without setting fog) the performance is great, I prefer bad weather anyway

What I liked is down scaling in this game still doesn't give you that much crappy eye candy.

Heres my actual config settings:

language="English";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=93750;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Resolution_W=1440;

Resolution_H=900;

refresh=60;

Render_W=1800;

Render_H=1125;

FSAA=0;

postFX=2;

HDRPrecision=8;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=913133057;

nonlocalVRAM=258998271;

__________________

Edited June 23, 2009 by mrcash2009

[linuxares 10]

Try doing this.

First patch to 1.02,

then in the video settnings, change the 3d resoultion down, max use it 100% (same resolution that you have on your monitor).

If it works fine after that perfect, but lets do it better.

Go to C:\Documents and Settings\<User>}My Documents\ArmA 2\

Open Arma.cfg in notepad.

Then you should find FSAA=0;

Try to change it to FSAA=4;

It will look great afterwards and the game just flies! I run everything on VERY HIGH except shadows that made all the humvees turn blue, kind of a funny bug ;)

EDIT: I have a Quad Core Q6600 so you might notice diffrence but should still run smooth.

Edited June 23, 2009 by linuxares
Filling in more

[Helmut_AUT 0]

I can achieve excellent results in the editor with no AI but when it comes to SP or MP the results go below 20 FPS.

Sadly BIS included a lot of missions that are very loaded with AI, and the new "Micro-AI" needs a lot of CPU power.

For comparison, I have an AMD 5000+ X2, and if I try to play the Warfare-Style missions on Chenarus, I get below 16 frames. Even if I'm looking at an empty field, where in the editor I can get 40 frames.

It is really sad - and I hope BIS will find improvements in their CPU demands - that with CPUs better than "Optimal Recommended" we can not play the included missions.

For me in testing with the editor, I found that 10 AI groups (about 80 soldiers) is the max. I can run before I go below 25 frames (the least I find playable). If you look at the benchmark here:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,687620/ArmA-2-tested-Benchmarks-with-18-CPUs/Practice/

you will see that only some very recent CPUs (Intels less than a year old, AMDs from this year) get 25+ framerate in their test mission.

I think they simple went overboard on CPU load. I can't see this game being a market success if you need a system less than a year old to actually play the campaign and SP scenarios shipped with it.

[Richie72 10]

language="English";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=93750;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Resolution_W=1440;

Resolution_H=900;

refresh=60;

Render_W=1800;

Render_H=1125;

FSAA=0;

postFX=2;

HDRPrecision=8;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=913133057;

nonlocalVRAM=258998271;

I've tried this mrcrash2009 but I don't think I'm getting the same results as you. In SP i'm still getting between 12 & 18 FPS. This is just unplayable. Is there anything that can be done with the CPU? (except throw it away and get a Quad!)

First patch to 1.02,

then in the video settnings, change the 3d resoultion down, max use it 100% (same resolution that you have on your monitor).

If it works fine after that perfect, but lets do it better.

Go to C:\Documents and Settings\<User>}My Documents\ArmA 2\

Open Arma.cfg in notepad.

Then you should find FSAA=0;

Try to change it to FSAA=4;

No good for me linuxares, mine's even worse adding AA into the mix!

[von_paulus 0]

Could you look at this thread?

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=74401

I'm not suggesting that you might have a problem in your system, but I noticed for example that your memory is not running at 800 as it should be. One thing I noted since Operation Flashpoint is that if you don't have a tuned system you can run into trouble. We know that this game is very CPU dependent.

[Richie72 10]

I had a look Von_Paulus but am not sure which part of that thread would help me. I can't do the GPU > CPU test because it says "atcalrt.dll not found". I don't think it works on Nvidia cards. my Ram is all OCZ, 2 x 2GB running dual channel and 2 x 1GB running dual channel. I don't know why it is running at 667 instead of 800.

[von_paulus 0]

another important factor to watch over would be DPC (Deffered Procedure Calls) latencies

download http://www.thesycon.de/dpclat/dpclat.exe

read more http://www.thesycon.de/eng/latency_check.shtml

on ideal idle system state they <20us

and on most of systems depending on number applications / work and various drivers <75us stable

with high spikes only when something intensive is going on (e.g. starting new application or doing CPU or I/o intesive ops)

if your system shows different values or random / looping spikes then Your system gunna have perf issues with realtime data streams

The latency test you can run.

As for the memory you've to tweak your motherboard cmos settings in order to run at proper speed. Updating the BIOS might help to recognize more different type of memories. You can also try also the support tech (forums) of Corsair and of the motherboard maker. There are users (look at the thread http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=47904 ) at this forum that have a lot of hardware knowledge that may help you.

You can have a bigger memory latency in each cpu cycle if your memory is not well optimized.

I'm not saying that this will solve your problem, but it's those little things that sometimes make the difference between night and day.

[Richie72 10]

Thanks Von Paulus, I've taken the 2 x 1GB Rams out as they were somehow conflicting with the 2Gb ones even though they're all OCZ. Now running at 800MHz. Game is running at about 25 FPS in empty spaces but in a town with AI it still goes way below 18FPS. Hopefully things will get better with future patches and that'll make Arma2 much more enjoyable.