ATTENTION: Nvidia 2xx series card owners

[protector 10]

I'm not saying BI are a bad team i'm simply saying high systems should not be suffering on a high spec game... What BI have done with ARMA is simple amazing and I love it and will still play even with low fps but you have to understand the frustration of those who would like to play a game on the highest setting and get good fps but silly issues are not allowing the good fps part.

In regards to testing, ok things will get missed but I imagine they have a large test team and it seems they haven't been doing their job properly especially if you think it will be around a year before its a fully playable product.

[Styxar 0]

EVGA sli enhancement seems to do the same thing as renaming arma2.exe to crysis.exe. SLI works and you get some white flickering.

Still it seems the cards are not used to their full potential, no wonder i see no improvement in SLI mode for GTX 280, since just one of these cards should have enough juice to run the game at high FPS.

I also noticed that I never get more than 30 FPS in campaign mode, yet in boot camp and scenarios I get anything from 20 to 80 FPS

[no use for a name 0]

yeah I agree that some of these problems are pretty major; but they'll get fixed (fingers crossed). I just want to know what system BIS ran this thing on to get acceptable FPS at high settings...

[Armin2 10]

There is ONE ARGUMENT you can't deny when it comes to critizising ArmA 2:

If I just install it and don't optimise anything I get around 20 fps less in all scenes as if fully tweaked.

On a console the tweaking has already been done for you. In most PC games it is also optimized.

But in ArmA 2 I can only guess if my hardware is properly used.

[protector 10]

yeah I agree that some of these problems are pretty major; but they'll get fixed (fingers crossed). I just want to know what system BIS ran this thing on to get acceptable FPS at high settings...

Exactly. The testers must have been running some pretty well optimized systems to not pick up on issues people are suffering at the moment.

[Balgorg 10]

Many of the people who seem to have no complaints are running 3.5 - 4ghz processors. So im erring on the surmise that one of the greater bottle necks is the processor you have. Im on a q6600 2.4 oc'd by 5%, ive read quite allot of posts here by people with the same processor as me having similar performance problems. If a game was fully optomised for a quad/dual core then it should really fly. Does anyone know if any benchmarks have been done for single core vs quad/dual? Cos that should really demonstrate if it really is the GHZ of the processor that is the problem. I am tempted to get a decent fan and OC a bit more.

[RedRage 0]

Many of the people who seem to have no complaints are running 3.5 - 4ghz processors. So im erring on the surmise that one of the greater bottle necks is the processor you have. Im on a q6600 2.4 oc'd by 5%, ive read quite allot of posts here by people with the same processor as me having similar performance problems. If a game was fully optomised for a quad/dual core then it should really fly. Does anyone know if any benchmarks have been done for single core vs quad/dual? Cos that should really demonstrate if it really is the GHZ of the processor that is the problem. I am tempted to get a decent fan and OC a bit more.

There are a few i7 people here who are a having the same problems.

I have Q9300 @ 3.0 GHz, and 19-22 fps is a average at any graphical setting.

[Noc0de 10]

I'm on a Q6600 (running @ stock 2.4) with a GTX 260 OC.

I get pretty much between 25-30 FPS. I'm running at 1920 x 1200 @ 100% fillrate and no matter if I use low settings of very high, it seems to make little difference to frame rate +/- 1 or 2 FPS.

I'm inclined to think there's an issue somewhere, it's just whether BIS or the community can clearly demonstrate the problem and get it resolved. Somethings not quite right...

I mean look at this guy here. Here's got a lower spec machine than me, and yes he's running in a lower resolution, but his game is MUCH smoother than mine.

[silu- 10]

I'm on a Q6600 (running @ stock 2.4) with a GTX 260 OC.

I get pretty much between 25-30 FPS. I'm running at 1920 x 1200 @ 100% fillrate and no matter if I use low settings of very high, it seems to make little difference to frame rate +/- 1 or 2 FPS.

I'm inclined to think there's an issue somewhere, it's just whether BIS or the community can clearly demonstrate the problem and get it resolved. Somethings not quite right...

I mean look at this guy here. Here's got a lower spec machine than me, and yes he's running in a lower resolution, but his game is MUCH smoother than mine.

Same here. I have Q9450 and GTX 285 OC... :(

[Armin2 10]

Before complaining at least try these settings:

InGame:

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-2424480/Unbenannt.jpg.html

(btw. "Sehr Hoch" means Very High)

in .cfg

check if refresh is @ your monitors default

put hdr to 32

check if render is at 100%

use -maxmem=2047 -cpuCount=2

in Forceware V190:

pre render = 8

Vsync = OFF

use defragmentation tools

This gives me 35-60 fps in the craziest situations and makes the game fully playable. And I only payed 700€ for my rig.

C2D 2x3.8GHZ

GTX 275

4GBDDR2

WinXP

[tankkiller01 0]

where do you find the .cfg file

[wazandy 10]

I have to say I'm getting pretty sick of this slideshow of a game.

[GLeek 10]

Before complaining at least try these settings:

InGame:

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-2424480/Unbenannt.jpg.html

(btw. "Sehr Hoch" means Very High)

in .cfg

check if refresh is @ your monitors default

put hdr to 32

check if render is at 100%

use -maxmem=2047 -cpuCount=2

in Forceware V190:

pre render = 8

Vsync = OFF

use defragmentation tools

This gives me 35-60 fps in the craziest situations and makes the game fully playable. And I only payed 700€ for my rig.

C2D 2x3.8GHZ

GTX 275

4GBDDR2

WinXP

dude , you are playing @1280x1024. it's a gay resolution :D

here, many are trying to tweak for 1920x1080/1200 :rolleyes:

probleme is not same than yours :o

[bangtail 0]

dude , you are playing @1280x1024. it's a gay resolution :D

here, many are trying to tweak for 1920x1080/1200 :rolleyes:

probleme is not same than yours :o

Well at least he is trying to help others as opposed to making silly comments and trying to show off.

There are plenty of people who game at lower resolutions and since the performance problems are not resolution based, a fix for him is likely a fix for you.

Eth

[Armin2 10]

I always buy low resolution average latency monitors because of the better performance and the tearing that covers microstuttering.

[kklownboy 43]

dude , you are playing @1280x1024. it's a gay resolution :D

here, many are trying to tweak for 1920x1080/1200 :rolleyes:

probleme is not same than yours :o

what he said has nothing to do with resolution except for his FPS. His advice is solid. The issue i have seen on this forum is the way to big 19/12 LCD at 60hz and ppl running

1) a 512mb card---- fail

2)2007-2008 mid range card----fail

3) thinking they can run it maxed out IQ setting-- epic fail

4) comparing ARMA2 to " i run all my games high and @ 1900/1200" ---- well you dont run crysis or farcry2 or any other HDR with AA on high.

But i am sure your xbox or PS3 looks great on your 19/12 except for the fuggly jaggies.....

Also CPU power is very important. To use high settings and view distances, most ppl complaining should be using 1200VD... not 10000!

[Armin2 10]

Before complaining at least try these settings:

InGame:

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-2424480/Unbenannt.jpg.html

(btw. "Sehr Hoch" means Very High)

in .cfg

check if refresh is @ your monitors default

put hdr to 32

check if render is at 100%

use -maxmem=2047 -cpuCount=2

in Forceware V190:

pre render = 8

Vsync = OFF

use defragmentation tools

This gives me 35-60 fps in the craziest situations and makes the game fully playable. And I only payed 700€ for my rig.

C2D 2x3.8GHZ

GTX 275

4GBDDR2

WinXP

Setting Texture Quality to High Performance also adds some fps. Visual quality seems to be the same (almost).

[saedrin 10]

Arma 2 is running like total ass.

1st- I cannot change my video memory size or texture quality past normal, the options are missing.

2nd- The textures are randomly loading and unloading EVERYWHERE. The city looks like some type of retarded joke.

3rd- LOD is not working, and by not working, I mean working everywhere all the time. I can look at a humvee and watch it go from full detail to a block of ass and back within 5 seconds, without moving more than 10 feet away, even if I'm stationary.

4th- The lag, even on the lowest settings is random and annoying. It just goes from running fine to running like shit, randomly.

My rig:

Q6600 at 3.0

EVGA 780i motherboard

EVGA GTX275 on latest nvidia drivers (yes I've tried the last three drivers as well)

8gb DDR2-800

Vista x64

screen: 1920x1080

What the fuck is this?

---------- Post added at 09:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 PM ----------

I just spawned in the middle of an ocean after starting a co-op campaign.

THE FUCK?

[moisesjns 10]

NEVER mind I FIXED IT HEY PAY ATTENTion this could be a lot your guys problems

OK so fo rme i KNEW it was my resolution was WAY to high to check what the game resolution is starting at go to C/ users/ app data/local/arma or arma 2 demo/ OK now open rpt file with notepad now ctrl f and search for resolution it will tell you what the game is starting at .

NOW here is what i put so the game would work i put in the cfg file in c/ users/ documents arma arma 2 demo folder

resolution_w=1024

resolution-w=768

refresh=59;

Render_W=1024;

Render_H=768;

FSAA=0;

postFX=2;

HDRPrecision=0;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=896;

nonlocalVRAM=1900;

add that and see if it works THANK you optimization tab :) oh btw i have a gts 250 so that might be the problem for many 2xx cards

Edited June 28, 2009 by moisesjns

[Fox '09 14]

where do you find the .cfg file

read the optimization thread. It will point you in a good direction :D

[saedrin 10]

Well I just fixed all of my issues by switching randomly to the 182.50 Nvidia drivers.

Thank jesus and allah.

[rowdied 44]

I mean look at this guy here. Here's got a lower spec machine than me, and yes he's running in a lower resolution, but his game is MUCH smoother than mine.

He is also playing on the small island utes, not chernarus the large one.

There is no fps recording so we don't know what his frames really are.

The game runs fairly smooth around the 30fps mark, which it looks like he's running at judging by the slow downs when action takes place.

[Duxa 10]

fix here --> http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=76858

[MacBradley 10]

Tried everything mentioned in this tread and still am usually getting FPS in the 20's when in cities, low 30's when in big fields, single digits in big battles from editor. Everything I do mentioned here makes little to no difference.

System Specs:

AMD X4 Quad @ 3.45Ghz

4GB DDR2

gtx260 OC'd 20%

Vista 32

I'm kinda mad I bought this game. The demo didn't quite put enough strain on my system to notice how bad this game runs. Now that I've hit the first mission that you're in a big city, I'm not going to play until I can do it with 30 FPS or more. I can play Crysis good on high, so this game should at least be able to do it on normal/low.

[Overwhelming 10]

I woudn't even mind lower FPS, if at least the textures loaded properly. And now the game just crashes to desktop. Great!