Heatseeker 0 Posted June 23, 2009 I dont understand why Arma II is performing so bad, the graphics are pretty much like the first Arma, i think something must be wrong :confused: ? I know my computer is a bit dated now, i built it shortly after the first Arma came out. E6600 4 GB DDR II 8800 GTX 768 MB. Audigy 2 ZS Vista 32 bit. 250 GB sata II HD. I know.. the CPU could use an upgrade but i've only been running around in the editor with no other units and it almost feels like running the Armed Assault 1 demo on my old Pentium 4 -128 MB graphics card computer (stuttering, bad lods, missing textures, etc). This PC handled the first Arma rather well, in high settings and 4x AA, Paraiso, Bagango, etc have some really heavy scenes, even more than the towns of Chernarus. And theres no scalability, increasing or decreassing video settings doesnt make any diference in frame rate/performance, i swear it actually ran worse in low texture/detail settings :confused: . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
casum 0 Posted June 23, 2009 Viper, put it after the last " mark. ie: \ArmA 2\arma2.exe" -HERE Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Porter_ 10 Posted June 23, 2009 you guys say "verylow or low settings, every one of you have NVDA. 1) what is your display and fillrate? 2)Vista can lock Vsync, so a 60hz LCD will be in the 30s or lower if you cant hit the 60hz. Maybe why the "-winxp" flag is helpfull... 3) make sure your NVDA 3D CP is not using AA ect, and you can try different Profiles aka crysis ect. 1. very high settings = 1680x1050, 200% fillrate, all settings on Very High very low settings = 640x480 (or whatever the lowest res is), 50% fillrate (whatever lowest is), all settings on Very Low 2. Vsync is forced off via nvidia control panel for GTX285, off via ATI Tray tools for 4870 3. control panel options were checked for anything goofy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kklownboy 43 Posted June 23, 2009 I dont understand why Arma II is performing so bad, the graphics are pretty much like the first Arma, i think something must be wrong :confused: ? Its not the same. not even. if you can run a 130% fill with 1900/1200 then the game is so different than ARMA1, and 200% is down right spectacular. Its a new engine and a new game. needs lots more power to get the IQ up. I know my computer is a bit dated now, i built it shortly after the first Arma came out. E6600 4 GB DDR II 8800 GTX 768 MB. Audigy 2 ZS Vista 32 bit. 250 GB sata II HD. you rig would run 1280/1024 with 150% fill and high settings... I know.. the CPU could use an upgrade but i've only been running around in the editor with no other units and it almost feels like running the Armed Assault 1 demo on my old Pentium 4 -128 MB graphics card computer (stuttering, bad lods, missing textures, etc). This PC handled the first Arma rather well, in high settings and 4x AA, Paraiso, Bagango, etc have some really heavy scenes, even more than the towns of Chernarus. And theres no scalability, increasing or decreassing video settings doesnt make any diference in frame rate/performance, i swear it actually ran worse in low texture/detail settings :confused: . its your display? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maizel 10 Posted June 23, 2009 I;'m running Vista x 64. An I7 920 @ 3.2 Ghz. GTX 285 6GBS of DDR:12800 Everything maxed out gives me 24 fps's on a certain spot. Standing on the exact same spot with everything on thre lowest setting i get 30 fps. Something's not right.It may be Vista, If it is, I hope it gets fixed soon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kklownboy 43 Posted June 23, 2009 I;'m running Vista x 64.An I7 920 @ 3.2 Ghz. GTX 285 6GBS of DDR:12800 Everything maxed out gives me 24 fps's on a certain spot. Standing on the exact same spot with everything on thre lowest setting i get 30 fps. Something's not right.It may be Vista, If it is, I hope it gets fixed soon. you just showed that your vysnc'd.... whats your display? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maizel 10 Posted June 23, 2009 you just showed that your vysnc'd.... whats your display? I've got Vysnc'd forced off per my Nvidia control panel. Samsung Syncmaster 2223NW, if you must know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Porter_ 10 Posted June 23, 2009 I;'m running Vista x 64.An I7 920 @ 3.2 Ghz. GTX 285 6GBS of DDR:12800 Everything maxed out gives me 24 fps's on a certain spot. Standing on the exact same spot with everything on thre lowest setting i get 30 fps. Something's not right.It may be Vista, If it is, I hope it gets fixed soon. interesting, i wouldn't have expected that with an i7. i'm going to try out Windows 7 tonight. i'll report back if i see a bump in performance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kklownboy 43 Posted June 23, 2009 I've got Vysnc'd forced off per my Nvidia control panel.Samsung Syncmaster 2223NW, if you must know. doesnt mean its off...Vista will override it , so you have 60hz refresh? it will be cut down to 30 or lower... if you cant get above 60, even 59fps will drop it. But you have the power to run at your rez. Fillrate at stupid low and 500VD, and the rest at very low or off is only 30fps, or the 30 was with settings but fillrate and VD was higher? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maizel 10 Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) Sorry Kklownboy? What are you saying? What do you want me to do? I'm saying that the preformance was more or less the same, no matter my settings. If I were running at 60 fps all the time, I wouldn't be complaining, hehe. Edited June 23, 2009 by Maizel Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kklownboy 43 Posted June 23, 2009 Sorry Kklownboy? What are you saying? What do you want me to do? yeah that was confusing for me too lol.. have you tried with the lowest fillrate and lowest VD to see if you can get over 30? just use the intro flyby. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Porter_ 10 Posted June 23, 2009 Sorry Kklownboy? What are you saying? What do you want me to do?I'm saying that the preformance was more or less the same, no matter my settings. If I were running at 60 fps all the time, I wouldn't be complaining, hehe. just to cover your basis, to determine if vsync is actually disabled load the armory and stare at the ground. you should get fps higher than your refresh rate. also on the loading screen with the carrier you should get well above 60fps. i get 90+ with my system...so that will also confirm if vsync is actually off. using the nvidia control panel works for me. if it doesn't work for you, try using nhancer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maizel 10 Posted June 23, 2009 Setting The rez and fillrate to the lowest keeps me at 60 fps constantly. I was actually just complaining how poorly optimized this game appears to be. I'm running at ~25 fps whenever there is ANY action going on. And I don't even use too wild settings, even though I have a pretty decent machine. just to cover your basis, to determine if vsync is actually disabled load the armory and stare at the ground. you should get fps higher than your refresh rate. also on the loading screen with the carrier you should get well above 60fps. i get 90+ with my system...so that will also confirm if vsync is actually off. using the nvidia control panel works for me. if it doesn't work for you, try using nhancer. Vsync is on. Even though i forced it off in the control panel. Nhancer? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Noc0de 10 Posted June 23, 2009 I've got a fairly similar machine to others on this thread: Q6600 @ 2.4 4GB RAM GTX 260 Vista x64 I'm running the game at 1920 x 1200 (res and fillrate). All other settings are on 'Normal' except for post-processing that's on 'Disabled'. I get between 25-30fps. This doesn't seem to vary a great deal between settings, whether they're on low or normal or high. Interestingly, compared to most other games my GPU temps are quite low - my GPU fan doesn't ramp-up. I've got a feeling that as varying the graphics settings doesn't change my FPS much and given the GPU temps I'd be inclined to say I'm seeing a CPU bottleneck on my system? That ARMA2 cares far more about your CPU that your GPU. I can't help but feel the game feels a little un-optimized though? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bwort110 10 Posted June 23, 2009 I`m getting tired. I play in W7 and have the same ugly performance as in vista. In the wood s the performance ist ok, in town, like Mission 4 of the kampagne, i get 9-12 fps. With high and with medium and with low settings. Crysis and Stalker Clear Sky (including 10.1 effects) runs great on max at my machine. Arma 2 ist very good game, but at once unplayeable. Yes, i tested "-winxp" but it doesn`t help. My PC W7 Dualcore 6700 2,66 ghz @ 3,3 Ghz Radeon 4870 1 GB OC 4GB Corsaier xms 2 DHX DDR2 800 mhz plz make this game run.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Porter_ 10 Posted June 23, 2009 Nhancer? nhancer: http://www.nhancer.com/ download and force vsync off. this will do the trick. it's a well known issue that vista prevents forcing vsync on or off via the driver control panel, for both nvidia and ATI cards. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maizel 10 Posted June 23, 2009 nhancer: http://www.nhancer.com/download and force vsync off. this will do the trick. it's a well known issue that vista prevents forcing vsync on or off via the driver control panel, for both nvidia and ATI cards. It does work. And strangely enough, this seesm to bumb my framerate a little while playing as well. Not near what ie xpect from a machine like mine. But I'll take everything I can Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bwort110 10 Posted June 23, 2009 nhance doesnt work for ati cards. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kklownboy 43 Posted June 23, 2009 nhance doesnt work for ati cards. he didnt say it did? @ maizel, glad you have some progress, next is to use a different profile than the stock ARMA1, in your drivers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Porter_ 10 Posted June 23, 2009 nhance doesnt work for ati cards. use ATI tool. be warned though, if you're running Vista 64 you will run into driver signing issues. it's a pain. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heatseeker 0 Posted June 23, 2009 Its not the same. not even. if you can run a 130% fill with 1900/1200 then the game is so different than ARMA1, and 200% is down right spectacular. Its a new engine and a new game. needs lots more power to get the IQ up. you rig would run 1280/1024 with 150% fill and high settings... its your display? It already lags like hell with 100% fill rate. My monitor is a 22" asus with native rez of 1680*1050, no way i can run all high and 150%, no one can i think ... i turned the resolution down for both display and 3d. The post processing hides the jaggies, lod pop up's and gives the impression that its running better but i never liked the blur, it makes it hard to see and kill far away targets. Arma 1 looks better because i can use 1680*1050, high textures, shadder detail, AF and AA, the image quality is sharp and it runs smoothly, i wish i could run Arma II with the same quality/performance as Arma 1 :confused: . The graphics betwean both games are the same (same engine, diferent builds), textures, shadders, shadows and lighting look the same to me :confused: . I think BIS did something bad to the game :( . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Porter_ 10 Posted June 24, 2009 i've literally only tested for 10 minutes, but so far just upgrading to Windows 7 has increased my framerate from 27 to 37 in one particular spot (single mission, fairly intensive scene). i haven't patched to 1.02 yet, but that's next on my list. i'll keep testing it out, but as of right now it looks like Windows 7 64 gives much better performance over Vista 64. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sittinGood 10 Posted June 24, 2009 so what can i do with an ati card to force vsync off in vista 64? i searched for it but found nothing helpful. i get same fps whatever setting i use too. thx in advance ASUS P5Q-E Intel 2 Duo @ 3,0GHz 4GB Ram ATI 4850 512MB Creative X-Fi extreme music Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
An Fiach 10 Posted June 24, 2009 The graphics betwean both games are the same (same engine, diferent builds), textures, shadders, shadows and lighting look the same to me :confused: . Sounds to me like you have a faulty set of mk.I E's Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan80 10 Posted June 24, 2009 does forcing vsync off really make a difference to the FPS? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
