ATTENTION: Nvidia 2xx series card owners

[r3pent 0]

GTX 260

4GB corsair ddr2 800 low latency

E6850 C2D oc @ 3.75

Track ir 5

running arma 2 @ 1680x1050, runs close to 60 fps most of the time, sometimes drops when lots of ai is involved but it is still very playable, almost everything on normal and some things on high, looks good, feels atmospheric, and WORKS!!!!!

[Styxar 0]

GTX 280 SLI

Q9550 @ 2.83GHz (quad core)

4Gb DDR3 RAM

50-100 FPS in Menu (Air carrier) and 30-40 FPS (in the woods)

I get between 20 and 30 FPS in the campaign mode (1920x1200 resolution).

Tried pretty much everything found on this forum with no effect whatsoever. Even changing drivers from 182.50 to 186.18 had no result (well maybe lost 1-2 FPS on average). Other than that OCing the CPU disabling/enabling SLI or putting graphics to medium and low seems to have no impact on performance.

Too bad. Waited for this game for a long time, got it on the first day it was released here in the UK and now I'm gonna have to wait for some sort of a fix before playing it.

[Balgorg 10]

There are a few threads suggesting problems with SLI. I notice u got ddr3 ! And your processor is pretty meaty. So who knows, my system is much lower performing than yours, but I get similar performance. I do have a 17inch monitor, so my res is lower.

I been messing with Sahrani, ported into arma 2, and that just flys with settings set to v high. It really is Cheranurus that is the problem, not the game engine. Stay positive and try some of the custom islands when they arive, with hopefully the items (trees and such) from Arma = better performace.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Balgorg

[MPBR 10]

BIS should realise that spending upward of £1500 on a pc to run their game is gonna do more for the console market than for the PC.

You defend the huge resources this game has as if developing a game that looks no better than others on the market, but with a mountainous performance hit is a good thing.

Why is it that console owners spend £400 max, and can play all the games that are developed for their platform for the next few years.

Well done you got your self a pc that can run a poorly optomised game well !, a game that appears to have less scalability that its competitors.:confused::butbut::eek:

Well, 1st off console games have CRAP resolution, a pc with a 7xxx series card can play the console equivelent @ such crappy resolution.

Not sure how you can say that the above is in anyway helping the console argument given how limited consoles are in there overall processing power compared to a i7 and gtx 295... I mean comon...you do know why consoles are so cheap riiight ? and why a top end video card costs more than the total console riiight ?

And the reason consoles can play for the next 2 years is because developers have to stick to useing the same outdated and crappy graphics for those 2 years... got a Crysis on your console yet ? or what about a decent racing SIM ?( see lfs) or hell any Sim for that matter, not to mention decent resolution (1920x or 2600x).

And a PC upgrade once a year is really not that much compared to other hobbies / interests, in fact its about one of the cheapest things given the time spent using said investment (for me anyway).

Oh yeah, and then there is all the mods for consoles in various games..oh wait...

lol

[Balgorg 10]

Lots of games released are scalable, meaning lower settings = better performance, that dont seem to be the case here. I do realise that part of the PC gaming hobby is about new graphics, but I have always wished that developers would concentrate on other things than graphics. There is so much a PC can do, in ways that consoles cant, I dont think all of the PC's strengths are being played too, as a result it seems a game of catch up. I for one have a family, and during an economic decline I cant afford to keep up. I love a new game, but it really shouldn't cost me so much to play it should it.

I have a strong dislike for consoles, and am fed up with the effect they have on the PC market, im worried that developers are always striving in the wrong direction, especially if they want to sell their games. Just look through the posts on this site to see the number of disapointed people, who have realised their hardware just aint up to the job.

[RedRage 0]

Q9300 Quad @ 3.0 Ghz

2xEVGA GTX 260 SC in SLI running on 186.18 beta driver (and i did try 182.50)

4 gigs RAM

Raptor 2 150gb HD

Vista Ultimate 32-bit

1680x1050 resolution

Running the game on very high settings with few things toned down to High (and terrain to Medium) at 3km visibility, I'm getting constant frame clogs when turning around with very choppy movement(especially in urban areas). Overall fps averages at attrocious 24-25 fps when controlling land units (air units seem to sport low 40s).

Tweaking the setting has almost no effect whatsoever (2-3 fps difference b/w Very High and Normal). Static scenes without trees can go as high as 37 fps (for 260 SLI :mad: ), as soon as i start moving and looking around it can go as low as 15 fps. Whenever there are troops moving on the screen my fps drops like a rock as well (on Normal model detail). If i try to lower the res from 1680x1050 to next lower setting, the game becomes so blurry that i have hard time distinguishing my squad mates 20 meters away (overall graphical appearance becomes worse than that of an average PS3 title (everything is washed out and blurry)).

Edited June 25, 2009 by RedRage

[Fox '09 14]

highest possible settings here. (but fillrate edited to screensize in config)

GTX 275

Q9550 @ 3.8 GHz.

I don't see a problem, 30-60 FPS.

---------- Post added at 01:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:56 PM ----------

Windows 7 RC1 32-bit.

[Armin2 10]

Hi,

i have 35-50fps on highest settings in complex scenes AND multiplayer.

This is how I did it:

WinXP

defrag

Forceware 190

in Forceware Menu:

Max pre rendered frames =8

VSYNC off

in ArmA:

put HDR precision (in the .cfg) to 32

disable FSAA

Doing this give you additional 20fps in all scenes. So actually the GTX cards are "broken". I wonder how much performance you could get if it was just better optimized.

[MPBR 10]

Lots of games released are scalable, meaning lower settings = better performance, that dont seem to be the case here. I do realise that part of the PC gaming hobby is about new graphics, but I have always wished that developers would concentrate on other things than graphics. There is so much a PC can do, in ways that consoles cant, I dont think all of the PC's strengths are being played too, as a result it seems a game of catch up. I for one have a family, and during an economic decline I cant afford to keep up. I love a new game, but it really shouldn't cost me so much to play it should it.

I have a strong dislike for consoles, and am fed up with the effect they have on the PC market, im worried that developers are always striving in the wrong direction, especially if they want to sell their games. Just look through the posts on this site to see the number of disapointed people, who have realised their hardware just aint up to the job.

With you on alot of that for sure. Guess I am lucky as always have the $$ ready for upgrades etc .. and its just part of year to year expensies now.

As yes, more development in not just graphics I strongly agree on. Like offloading or dedicating AI routies to (just because its there atm) Nvidia phyics engine etc... lets make the next decade al about AI and realy True Life physics.

On that wish list, I would also love to see game engines embrace (and yes, the backend technology needs to develop more as well) SMP for various engine modules. I have around 3-4 spare machines (well they are various servers but have very little cpu cycles being used) that I would love to put to use. Image offloading the AI, or Pathfinding, or hell even just the weather module to another spare PC or 2.

Thou, coming from a TRS-80 thru c16-c64-128 - x8086 etc and playing more games than I can name (let alone remeber), I do nowdays enjoy the pretty eye candy and MP experiances that we could only dream off back in thoses sprite infused days.

[RedRage 0]

Hi,

i have 35-50fps on highest settings in complex scenes AND multiplayer.

This is how I did it:

WinXP

defrag

Forceware 190

in Forceware Menu:

Max pre rendered frames =8

VSYNC off

in ArmA:

put HDR precision (in the .cfg) to 32

disable FSAA

Doing this give you additional 20fps in all scenes. So actually the GTX cards are "broken". I wonder how much performance you could get if it was just better optimized.

Part in bold increased my fps quite a bit! Cheers!

Also, are you using 190.15 beta? How does the driver perform compared to 186.19 (i was turned off by it's small size of 50mb, compared to usual 90-100...stupid, i know, but i re-installed 10 different drivers in the last 24 hours attempting to get arma 2 to run smoothly)?

[Spoock 3]

Hi,

i have 35-50fps on highest settings in complex scenes AND multiplayer.

This is how I did it:

WinXP

defrag

Forceware 190

in Forceware Menu:

Max pre rendered frames =8

VSYNC off

in ArmA:

put HDR precision (in the .cfg) to 32

disable FSAA

Doing this give you additional 20fps in all scenes. So actually the GTX cards are "broken". I wonder how much performance you could get if it was just better optimized.

my grandma telling me too :bigglasses:

[bangtail 0]

Part in bold increased my fps quite a bit! Cheers!

Also, are you using 190.15 beta? How does the driver perform compared to 186.19 (i was turned off by it's small size of 50mb, compared to usual 90-100...stupid, i know, but i re-installed 10 different drivers in the last 24 hours attempting to get arma 2 to run smoothly)?

No kidding - You hit the motherlode there. The prerender limit has vastly boosted performance.

Eth

[OUT FOX EM 10]

Solved a few issues here:

182.50 nvidia driver = GOOD - newer drivers = graphical grossness/flickering.

Leave default nvidia setting in the control panel BUT disable Vsync and the gtx flies :)

I tried with performance setting on the texture filtering and that helped also.

Using the -maxmem=2047 -winxp

i7 @ 4.00 D0 with Gtx295 on vista 64 - 6gig.

Get 140fps on intro screen - 30-44 in multiplayer

running at 1920*1040 (native) and 100% fillrate.

Hope that helps - the driver change reallY helped me get a better result.

Also remove your cfg file after making these changes and sort out the settings in game.

Turn fraps OFF = W O W :)

What in-game settings are you using?

I'm only using the demo but I would think it should behave very similarly. Our specs are nearly the same so I tried everything you said. I went back down to 182.50, disabled v-sync only, used the command line switch '-maxmem=2047 -winxp', removed the .cfg file... didn't help. I get 20-30 fps on the intro menu, and between 30-40 fps in-game.

When I run the benchmark in the demo it says my average fps is 25.

Here are my specs:

Intel Core i7 920 (3.8 GHz)

6 GB OCZ Platinum DDR3 (1600 MHz)

2x GTX 285 - SLI

2x 1.5 TB HDD - RAID 0

Windows Vista x64

1920x1200

In-game settings:

Visibility: 3600

Quality preference: Very high

Interface resolution: 1920x1200x32

3D resolution: 1920x1200

Texture detail: Very high

Video memory: Very high

Anisotropic filtering: Very high

Antialiasing: Very high

Terrain detail: Very high

Objects detail: Very high

Shadow detail: Very high

Postprocess effects: Very high

Interface size: Very small

Aspect ratio: Very high

I've turned down various settings, and the improvement is negligble. When I've set everything to Normal instead of High/Very high, the average fps in the demo's benchmark only goes up to 34. That's not acceptable for my computer.

Also, in case anyone is wondering, my computer has brand new HDD's that I just put into RAID 0, meaning this a clean Windows install, and only the basic essentials run in the background.

[bangtail 0]

What in-game settings are you using?

I'm only using the demo but I would think it should behave very similarly. Our specs are nearly the same so I tried everything you said. I went back down to 182.50, disabled v-sync only, used the command line switch '-maxmem=2047 -winxp', removed the .cfg file... didn't help. I get 20-30 fps on the intro menu, and between 30-40 fps in-game.

When I run the benchmark in the demo it says my average fps is 25.

Here are my specs:

Intel Core i7 920 (3.8 GHz)

6 GB OCZ Platinum DDR3 (1600 MHz)

2x GTX 285 - SLI

2x 1.5 TB HDD - RAID 0

Windows Vista x64

1920x1200

In-game settings:

Visibility: 3600

Quality preference: Very high

Interface resolution: 1920x1200x32

3D resolution: 1920x1200

Texture detail: Very high

Video memory: Very high

Anisotropic filtering: Very high

Antialiasing: Very high

Terrain detail: Very high

Objects detail: Very high

Shadow detail: Very high

Postprocess effects: Very high

Interface size: Very small

Aspect ratio: Very high

I've turned down various settings, and the improvement is negligble. When I've set everything to Normal instead of High/Very high, the average fps in the demo's benchmark only goes up to 34. That's not acceptable for my computer.

Also, in case anyone is wondering, my computer has brand new HDD's that I just put into RAID 0, meaning this a clean Windows install, and only the basic essentials run in the background.

Change the exe name to crysis64.exe. But realistically, you can't max everything in A2 and get a constant 50 FPS (for now anyway) at that resolution, you're going to have to compromise.

Eth

Edited June 25, 2009 by BangTail

[OUT FOX EM 10]

Change the exe name to crysis64.exe. But realistically, you can't max everything in A2 and get a constant 50 FPS (for now anyway) at that resolution, you're going to have to compromise.

Eth

I've done that also, and I've forced different SLI modes. To say I can't "realistically" expect to max it, that's preposterous. I get a constant 60 fps on Crysis maxed at this resolution with 4xAA and 16xAF. To get half that on this game is a joke. The point is that SLI is not utilized in this game at all, or at least not in the demo. If I disable SLI, my framerate is the exact same, so that's proof enough that SLI is not used at all. If I force SLI using split-frame rendering and/or alternate frame rendering 1 or 2, I actually get worse performance.

I don't have to compromise. I don't have to buy either.

I'll keep my eye on this before I go spending any cash.

Edit: I renamed it to Crysis.exe, not Crysis64.exe, as I saw in another thread. I just tried Crysis64.exe and I'm now locked at 60 fps, so thanks for that. Still a shame I have to rename it at all in order for it to act right. I'm going to keep tinkering.

Edited June 26, 2009 by OUT FOX EM

[PuFu 4600]

Edit: I renamed it to Crysis.exe, not Crysis64.exe, as I saw in another thread. I just tried Crysis64.exe and I'm now locked at 60 fps, so thanks for that. Still a shame I have to rename it at all in order for it to act right. I'm going to keep tinkering.

You can blame that on Nvidia, and not really on BIS. Since SLI is detected and activated by driver and not game, renaming the exe only makes the drivers detect that .exe is a game and thus needing SLI active

They are supporting all kind of crappy games, but not even their latest drivers have been designed for arma2 (or at least had the arma2 in their profile as supported game).

[styxx42 0]

You can blame that on Nvidia, and not really on BIS. Since SLI is detected and activated by driver and not game, renaming the exe only makes the drivers detect that .exe is a game and thus needing SLI active

They are supporting all kind of crappy games, but not even their latest drivers have been designed for arma2 (or at least had the arma2 in their profile as supported game).

Um, Pufu, ya you can blame it on them. What the hell where they testing it with? Why where they not knocking on Nvidia's door making sure they where ready with this?

When have you ever read on a new game box, PLEASE RENAME OUR GAME AS ANOTHER POPULAR GAME TO GET IT TO WORK?

They should have went to the GPU makers and made sure it was include in the next driver set.... BEFORE IT WAS RELEASE. Not after.

I am tired people defending BIS for this. They dropped the ball.

I bet those other crappy game makers that are supported went to the GPU makers and made sure they worked before releasing there game to the public.

Just amazing you think it is not their fault. WHOSE FAULT IS IT PUFU?

Nvidia's? How would they know what ARMA II is? Or is it ours the players the people that pay money and don't know that it is driver specific to get SLI working?

Here is an idea. SLI is not NEW.

TEST IT. before releasing it. Unless you are releasing a BETA.

Does BIS care to chime in on why this is so?

Could you not get in touch with Nvidia during the years of development?

Was it too expensive to get ARMA added?

Did you just forget about SLI rigs? Are the GTX 2 series cards too new?

Give us a reason why we have to name our ARMA game something else to get it to work?

[-)rStrangelove 0]

Why do you get more fps if you prerender 8 frames instead of 3? Isn't this like the gfx card is waiting until a memory buffer is filled until it shows the next frame on screen? If so waiting for 8 frames in the buffer should take longer, shouldn't it?

I remember that decreasing this setting to 2 or 1 gave me MORE fps in GTA4.

Weird.

But this situation reminds me of the ArmA1 release tbh. We had lots of hate posts from newcomers here, stating that they 'should have more fps in ArmA because they had 100 in COD4'.

The newcomers left the ArmA scene when other games came out and the real fans enjoyed a better ArmA1 when it was patched a year later.

So i guess i'll just keep on playing ArmA1 until next year. ;) Until then i can play around in the editor.

[Yoma 0]

Lots of games released are scalable, meaning lower settings = better performance, that dont seem to be the case here. I do realise that part of the PC gaming hobby is about new graphics, but I have always wished that developers would concentrate on other things than graphics. There is so much a PC can do, in ways that consoles cant, I dont think all of the PC's strengths are being played too, as a result it seems a game of catch up. I for one have a family, and during an economic decline I cant afford to keep up. I love a new game, but it really shouldn't cost me so much to play it should it.

I have a strong dislike for consoles, and am fed up with the effect they have on the PC market, im worried that developers are always striving in the wrong direction, especially if they want to sell their games. Just look through the posts on this site to see the number of disapointed people, who have realised their hardware just aint up to the job.

There is a very good way to go around the expensive hardware issues:

Buy games 1 to 2 years after they are released. You'll have fully patched up stuff that can run on cheaper hardware, less crashes, more fun and all at a lower price. But my gut feeling says you WANT NEW games, and that means you NEED good PC hardware. It's allways been this way in PC gaming, from the day the first games came out untill now, there have allways been games released that needed better hardware then the previous ones. It's even been that way in consoles too. Yes those are cheaper, no they don't have the same flexability as the PC platform.

Also take a look at the whole Indy games development stuff, you'll find great games that can run on a EE PC and kost virtually nothing. Great gameplay, virtually no graphics :-)

[OUT FOX EM 10]

I used the EVGA SLI Enhancement and it has made quite a difference. My framerate essentially doubled in all scenarios, from the menu to the game play. I highly recommend it to anyone having issues with SLI:

http://www.evga.com/articles/00463/Default.asp

[protector 10]

)rStrangelove;1329769']

So i guess i'll just keep on playing ArmA1 until next year. ;) Until then i can play around in the editor.

This sort of player is the reason BI don't get stuff sorted. You can't just say "oh it runs like crap so I wait" too many companies are releasing unfinished products and its a shame.

I'm looking to get a new system and the GTX 295 was going to be the card but if BI can't pull their finger out and sort it what is the point of having a nice system to play a beautiful game when it won't even run smoothly.

[MPBR 10]

This sort of player is the reason BI don't get stuff sorted. You can't just say "oh it runs like crap so I wait" too many companies are releasing unfinished products and its a shame.

I'm looking to get a new system and the GTX 295 was going to be the card but if BI can't pull their finger out and sort it what is the point of having a nice system to play a beautiful game when it won't even run smoothly.

Because there is more than just Arma 2 ?

And BI have already released some patches (from the orig german release) and a demo.

Now that the demo is out, I expect that there will be some more information coming regarding future patches and direction.

Unfortuantly thou, bugs on release are never going to go away, games and game development is just soooo complex these days, add to that the various mix and match hardware options, it really is not a as simple as it sounds.

And let us also not forget, that there is only EVER 1 REASON to be in Business... and thats to make Money... Pressure is always being applied to get the ROI asap for any project / development.

[silu- 10]

I have Q9450 and GFX 285 OC, but getting only ~25fps. No matter what resolution or settings. I tried to install 3 different drivers, but no difference at all. I hope they get this fixed as soon possible.

[-)rStrangelove 0]

Show me another infantry simulator that has the same features as ArmA2 and i'll leave here. But since there's no alternative i try to make the best out of it.

At least i know this game WILL be patched, fixed and optimized for the next years - something that you also don't have with other games.

Yes, BIS aren't perfect developers but they are trying to fix things, one step at a time and listen to the game community. Ever heard about EA paying attention to customers? Haha.

[no use for a name 0]

This sort of player is the reason BI don't get stuff sorted. You can't just say "oh it runs like crap so I wait" too many companies are releasing unfinished products and its a shame.

I'm looking to get a new system and the GTX 295 was going to be the card but if BI can't pull their finger out and sort it what is the point of having a nice system to play a beautiful game when it won't even run smoothly.

...and if people did that with a company like BIS then they'd probably go under. They don't have the resources and manpower. No, it's not a good excuse; but it's the truth. So unless you want to wait another year (or even more) while they fully test every single thing, then you'd probably be complaining that the graphics are outdated

it's lose-lose