Same FPS (low) at any settings.

[Fighting_steel 0]

This is wierd.

I get the same FPS (around 22-24fps) with everything on low and 1280x960, as i get with everything on high and 1680x1050. Does not matter what i turn on and off. Vertical sync is forced off, so its not that. First when i turn all on Very High, the fps is different (around 15fps). So i cant even tune down settings to get a better fps. I have to put this game on the shelf sadly if this dont improve.

Arma 2 looks and run like crap compared to Armed Assault for me

PS: The small island work great, with fps at around 40-50.

Rig:

E6600@stock

8800GTS 640MB@max clock.

2GB ram

[RedRage 0]

This is wierd.

I get the same FPS (around 22-24fps) with everything on low and 1280x960, as i get with everything on high and 1680x1050. Does not matter what i turn on and off. Vertical sync is forced off, so its not that. First when i turn all on Very High, the fps is different (around 15fps). So i cant even tune down settings to get a better fps. I have to put this game on the shelf sadly if this dont improve.

Arma 2 looks and run like crap compared to Armed Assault for me

PS: The small island work great, with fps at around 40-50.

Rig:

E6600@stock

8800GTS 640MB@max clock.

2GB ram

Same problem with GTX 260s in sli. 22-24 fps no matter how I tweak. Looking around drops it to as low as 15 at times.

[Fighting_steel 0]

What is going on. Even on crap settings the fps wont increase!

[scorpio17523 10]

I have a similar situation, not matter what i change the rez or settings too, even turning everything to very low and off, and the rez to 800x 600 my max fps is 22-25 max.

Im on a quad core at 2.4GHz, 8800gtx at 756MB and 4 GB DDR 2 RAM (vista 32 bit though so its probably not using all 4 GB)

Anyone got any ideas? I can play the game on this frame rate but it would be nice to increase it.

[Heatseeker 0]

Me too :(

E6600, 4 GB ram, Vista 32 SP2 (only uses 3 GB) ,8800 GTX 768 MB..

I also get bad lods with the trees and stuff, i had a hmmwv turn into "paper" 10 meters away but my screenshot turned out black.

Disabled shadows, terrain to low (no grass), textures to normal, pp off, 1600 view distance..

[Pigsooie 10]

Same here Q9550 4GB Ram Dual 9800 sli Vista 64. Doesn't change even at lowest settings and Res.

[Balgorg 10]

If you really are getting fed up, try making a mod folder, and port over the files from arma:

buildings.pbo/ plants.pbo/ roads.pbo/ rocks.pbo/ sara.pbo

rename all but sara.pbo by putting CA infront, eg: CArocks.pbo

(dont rename sara)

Then run Sahrani in the editor, works for me, and I can turn all the settings right up to full.

Its not so much the Arma 2 engine thats at fault, its Chernarus and all its new textures and trees that are making things so bloody awfull. Certainly buggs in what I done with Sahrani, but no more than what i'm getting in chernarus ;-)

Cut and paste...........

Edited June 24, 2009 by Balgorg

[Heatseeker 0]

If you really are getting fed up, try making a mod folder, and port over the files from arma:

buildings.pbo/ plants.pbo/ roads.pbo/ rocks.pbo/ sara.pbo

rename all but sara.pbo by putting CA infront, eg: CArocks.pbo

(dont rename sara)

Then run Sahrani in the editor, works for me, and I can turn all the settings right up to full.

Its not so much the Arma 2 engine thats at fault, its Chernarus and all its new textures and trees that are making things so bloody awfull. Certainly buggs in what I done with Sahrani, but no more than what i'm getting in chernarus ;-)

Cut and paste...........

One thing i noticed is that Sahrani had prettier satelite textures, Chernarus looks like google earth from the air... but im too lazy to do that, it would be sad if the bad performance is caused by Chernarus and its artwork, i really looked forward to it and i do like it.

I think there must be some other problem..

[wingtip 11]

Vista Enterprise 64 bit

AMD 5200 2.6 ghz

crosshair motherboard

4 gigs ram

8800gtx 768 ram

680watt supply

game runs like crap and no difference in frame rates no matter what i tweak in settings....

its funny how everyone was so quick to say how much better arma2 was than crysis... fooyee i say... crysis never had near the bugs arma2 does, and crysis runs major smoother... sure the maps are smaller on crysis compared to arma2... but out of the box it had far less issues.

its just starting to get more than frustrating and more annoying now with the amount of problems this expensive sim/game has even on good pc's... So to me they either fibbed on their system specs or there is in fact more bugs and issues than they care to admit...

[Balgorg 10]

I think we are all bit spoilt by many of the other games weve been playing, which look much better on low settings, Crysis, FarCry 2, Cod 4, HL2, etc. Arma 2 needs the settings up quite high to look decent. Fill rate up to 200, HDR 32, etc.

Our expatations are thus rather great, and despite the power of some machines, and their former ability at running other games, Arma 2 is something most of us didnt quite expect. Normally lower settings = better performance, not here though.

As ive said running Sahrani in arma 2 looks very good, and runs so much better, so it must be new textures and objects that are slowing Chernarus down. I would be happy to have arma 1 textures, and arma 2's better AI, shiny looking guns and vehicals; and better animation-than a complete system hog.

Im sure that Chernarus is over cluttered up with stuff that really aint needed.

[Helmut_AUT 0]

If you're testing frames, you might want to test

1) On an empty Utes Island, in Strelka or the other village, to get a decent idea about performance with lots of objects on screen. Here it's mostly dependent on graphics card and settings.

2) In the "Superpower" Warfare mission included on Chenarus, which will likely max out the CPU before the card, so you will find out that the CPU is likely your true bottleneck. Not in all, but many missions in game use a lot of AI.