Extremely poor performance?

[h.IV+-I.esus- 10]

Yo.

First up, I will list my main system specs;

E6600 @ Stock.

2gb DDR2 @ 800MHz 4-4-4-12

ATi HD3870 512MB

Now, I recall watching a video about ArmA II, where some guy (from BIS, if I recall correctly) saying that with ArmA II, your ingame performance should be equal to, or better than your ArmA 1 performance on the same PC.

I've recently been playing ArmA again quite a bit (grabbed the FDF mod and Queen's Gambit), and my average FPS sits on around 30-50fps, depending on what's onscreen... with my settings all on 'High' @ 1920x1080 (any lower resolution and everything looks ridiculously blurry), and 3000 view distance.

So I figured I'd be all well and good for ArmA II - just assuming they'd optimized the engine and allowed it to display more detail at no cost to performance.

Oh how I was wrong (and the guy in the video, too).

I fired up the ArmA II demo this morning, and set it all up to match my ArmA settings and it runs like a dog.

I'm hitting 14fps on average, never topping 20, and sometimes hitting as low as 6.

It's ridiculously unplayable, and I've tried altering the cfg, and all that stuff that I found in that optimization thread - but none of it changes how the game runs at all.

Is there anything I can do to help my performance, aside from doing a minor PC upgrade+OC?

I WAS looking at upgrading to a Sapphire HD4890 OC, and grabbing an extra 4gb of RAM, then attempting to overclock my CPU to 3.0GHz... but only if I really have to.

[mr_centipede 31]

try defrag... close any unwanted program on the taskbar, like antivirus, esp NORTON. seems they like to scan everything. other than that i have no idea.

I got the demo too and got 35fps in benchmark mission

reso at 1280*1024, everyhing HIGH, VD 1600m

specs:

C2Q 9550@2.83ghz

ATI 4870 512mb 8.something driver (the one that came in the installation CD)

4gb ram

vista ultimate 64

[ryan80 10]

i think arma II has higher system requirements than arma I , just by looking at the system requirements stated with the game itself.

Minimum:

OS: Windows XP or Windows Vista

Processor: Dual Core CPU (Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz, Intel Core 2.0 GHz, AMD Athlon 3200+ or faster)

Memory: 1 GB RAM

Graphics: GPU (Nvidia Geforce 7800 / ATI Radeon 1800 or faster) with Shader Model 3 and 256 MB VRAM

Hard Drive: 10 GB free HDD space

Recommended:

OS: Windows XP or Windows Vista

Processor: Quad Core CPU or fast Dual Core CPU (Intel Core 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or faster)

Memory: 2 GB RAM

Graphics: Fast GPU (Nvidia Geforce 8800GT or ATI Radeon 4850 or faster) with Shader Model 3 and 512 or more MB VRAM

Hard Drive: 10 GB free HDD space

[Cionara 10]

The E6600 is too weak for it. Overclock it to 3GHz/3.2GHz or grab a Q6600 and overclock it to that.

[hardrock 1]

I have the same problem. I have the recommended system requirements, but I can barely play the game (the Demo, to be correct) on the lowest settings. I have set the resolution to 1920x1050, resolution to 100%, AA lowest setting and postprocessing off. All the rest is on mostly low and some normal, with those settings Arma2 isn't looking particularly nice, but at least I get 25FPS in the benchmark.

My system specifications:

Windows XP SP 2

Athlon64 X2 6000+

Nvidia 8800GT 512MB

2GB RAM

Asus M2N32-SLI Mainboard

Does anyone have any tips (apart from the above-mentioned) to improve my system's performance?

[BaseJumper 10]

@hardrock

Upgrade yer GPU to an ATI Radeon HD 4890 1 Gigabyte.

Also don't forget to buy a new Power Supply Unit (PSU),if yours does not have enough wattage.

Else your PC will shutdown itself because of lack of power.

Edited June 27, 2009 by BaseJumper

[hardrock 1]

Upgrade yer GPU to an ATI Radeon HD 4890 1 Gigabyte.

Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately I just bought this card one year ago and it's pretty much unused, so I'm not really a fan of replacing it. Would adding a second card (SLI) be an option? Is there any chance to improve my performance at all with that rig (more RAM?)?

[iLoctus 10]

@Hardrock

My rig is was pretty much the same as yours. I had a 8800GT 512 and an Athlon64 X2 6000+ till i upgraded to a HD 4890 GB last week..and from 2-4gb of ram.

ArmA2 runs at 14-22 fps on the first mission of the campaign with the 8800GT and at 20-27 with the HD 8490, playable, but once you get to the fourth mission in the game in one of the cities.. the fps drop down to unplayable levels so much that i have to drop the settings down to low/normal. In the editor i get about 40-60fps depending on whats going on, i suspect that the videos on utube showing similar rig specs were actually using the editor not the main campaign.

I have tried everything, updated all drivers to the latest versions, tried win xp, vista and windows 7...waste of time. The Athlon64 is the problem, its just too slow...no point over clocking it too as its already near its max.

Arma2 as it stands is just very very poorly optomized game, same as ArmA 1 was at the start, how devs get away with this kind of shit is beyond me... dont even waste your time... wait for the patches and hope that it improves performance.

You could wait for Operation Flashpoint 2, hopefully that will run better...

[BaseJumper 10]

@iLoctus

Would a Quad Core CPU fix your problem then ?

I suspect that its the number of AI processes, thats bogging down the CPU.

How is your experience in online multiplayer ? Good or Bad frames per second ?

Edited June 27, 2009 by BaseJumper

[iLoctus 10]

@basejumper

Yes a quad core would improve my performance... unfortunately i'll have to get a new motherboard, new chip etc... i'm not going down that route just to get a little bit more performance in one game. Just not worth it, i'm enjoying my older games at max resolutions and framerates now...crysis is stunning looking, the witcher, Empire total war can all be maxed out at 1900x1080

In my opinion, upgrading my chip isn't the answer, its the poor optomisation that the devs done with the game...very disapointed as i loved the first 3 missions that i played in the game, but as it stands no way i'm going to shell out more money for a small jump in performance.

[hardrock 1]

@iLoctus: I appreciate your answer. I guess I'll wait a while, maybe put in some more RAM and see whether it improves anything. I can still upgrade my GFX card in a few months.

It's disappointing to see that even the recommended system configuration does not really work out.

[h.IV+-I.esus- 10]

Mmm.

I guess I'll go through the painful process of overclocking my CPU (my motherboard is a prick to OC on) and see how I go for now.

It's a pain, as I can pull 50fps, and in some cases, well over that - in pretty much every game I own, maxed out @ 1920x1080, aside from ArmA and ArmA 2.

You'd think after ~10 years or so of engine building, Bohemia would learn a thing or two about optimization.

[iLoctus 10]

Hardrock..

let me know how you get on. My advice to you is dont spend too much time trying to get it sorted, its an exercise in "how to seriously piss yourself off" Oh and basejumper i've not tried out the multiplayer yet...

The recommended specs are a joke... they really dont work. Plain and simple.

I'll be keeping an eye out for patches and i hope that 1.03 does some serious work on the performance.

Good luck.

[kklownboy 43]

;1332710']Mmm.

...

It's a pain' date=' as I can pull 50fps, and in some cases, well over that - in pretty much every game I own, maxed out @ 1920x1080, aside from ArmA and ArmA 2.

...[/quote'] your resolution is to high for your H/W...you will get +20fps in crysis too, or any HDR deferred light engine with insane world size and view distances.... If you play on UTE, and create your own little action (editor), you will get playable frames, Also the Campaign is very taxing.

[TheMantis 10]

@HARDROCK

I would say try these settings,

-textures high/normal,

-view 1600,

-ANISCOPIC disabled,

-AA disabled,

-terrain normal/low,

-objects high,

-shadows normal/disabled,

-postprocessing off

Id rather have good looking vehicles/weapons/characters and less of the other eye candy.

-edit your .cfg file to force your VRAM to what your card has, save it, then right click the file and in properties make it read only.

[Maizel 10]

i love it how people act like the game isn't horribly broken.

Hardrock even with a top of the line PC, It's you'll hardly get playable FPS

[rowdied 44]

i love it how people act like the game isn't horribly broken.

Hardrock even with a top of the line PC, It's you'll hardly get playable FPS

And I love how people act like it's the worst game ever.:) I get decent frame rates (30-40fps)even on a

C2D 8400 @ 3.0

2 gb ram win xp

8800gt 512ram

normal settings

view distance 2000ms

Yes the game needs to be optimized more without question but broken? Come on.

[h.IV+-I.esus- 10]

It's not entirely broken, but it could have a hell of a lot better optimization.

EDIT: I just chucked all the settings on normal, and used the -winxp command on the shortcut and it seems to be far more playable. :/

Sure this game doesn't use any form of DX10, and using -winxp sets it to DX9?

Eh, I dunno... if it works it works.

Edited June 28, 2009 by h.IV+[I.esus]

[Maizel 10]

And I love how people act like it's the worst game ever.:) I get decent frame rates (30-40fps)even on a

C2D 8400 @ 3.0

2 gb ram win xp

8800gt 512ram

normal settings

view distance 2000ms

Yes the game needs to be optimized more without question but broken? Come on.

Indeed.

And I get less performance with the same settings with a I7 3.4 Ghz, 6GB's 12800 and a GTX 285.

Broken? Yes.

[boomar. 10]

I have a better system than rowdied, if i get under 30 fps with same settings then him then i'll cry.

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

i love it how people act like the game isn't horribly broken.

Hardrock even with a top of the line PC, It's you'll hardly get playable FPS

angry, ignorant statement, and very false...

proof

[MPBR 10]

Not to mention, that when Crysis was released, even top of the line hardware for its time would struggle @ 1650 - 1920 res with high to very high settings. Hell even now Crysis is one of the default benchmarks and with quad gtx295's 2600x res still makes hardware cry for mercy.

[rowdied 44]

Indeed.

And I get less performance with the same settings with a I7 3.4 Ghz, 6GB's 12800 and a GTX 285.

Broken? Yes.

And some with your specs run it fine. Broken? NO.

Have you tried some of the mentioned fixes for your system?

There are a few threads in here with some possible fixes, try a search if you haven't seen them already.

I'm sorry your latest hardware has trouble running the game, but from what I've read on other game forums, arma2 is not the only game causing problems with your system specs.

[An Fiach 10]

Fact is, the optimization is lousy. Changing settings should actually do something, but of course they only effect the gfx for the most part, they have to fix it for that and other reasons. Yes Crysis made top end systems struggle, but it was also playable on lower end systems because the scalability was not broken. There is also nothing ground breaking about ArmA2 ,well, nothing that currently works anyway, but nothing that warrants an insane hardware requirement (particularly given the advertised system requirements).

There comes a point when you have to stop making excuses for your favorite game designers and stop attacking people for having issues with games being released unfinished. If anything it only encourages other game developers to follow suit. Given BIS' history we can be confident that they will address the issues as quickly as they can and this is why I was willing to invest in the game but a company with a history of repeating the same mistakes cannot grow, it alienates the potential customer base and frankly, it pisses people off to purchase an unfinished game.

Bottom line; The game is broken for a lot of people. The number of those who do not have issues is in fact quite small. We are all waiting for a patch to correct the problem. Personally, I can play and enjoy the game, but I still want the game to work properly, and that includes the optimization issues.

[bravo 6 0]

well i would say its not improved, and yes the settings when you change look and act strangely.

per example with my crappy PC ( P4, 3,0ghz, 2Gb (ddr400), Radeon x1950 pro 512mb) can run ArmA2 with strange and excellent settings :p

Edit: look at my settings: settings picture

Edited June 28, 2009 by bravo 6