its running slow

[chrisj09 10]

just uploaded arma2 adjusted the settings etc , the games running slow and everything is on high/ veryhigh. i then tried it on low and its still the same. my comp can handle it becasue i have everything the optmal requirements ask for, except graphics card i have a n-vidia 8500 gt

can anyone help?

[Bulldogs 10]

If you're running an 8500gt, then it should all be set on low for graphics (maybe a few mediums) and make sure view distance is around 1200m. Other than that, test it under campaign and under armory and tell me what frames you get (after setting all settings to low)

[chrisj09 10]

how do u find the fps?

[Bulldogs 10]

You have to use a 3rd party program (either fraps or EVGA precision)

With Fraps, just install it and leave it running in the background while you play (should see fps in a corner of the screen)

With EVGA Precision, well, that depends on your OS, but goto setup generally and make sure Frames per sec is ticked and select "show in OSD"

[MPBR 10]

just uploaded arma2 adjusted the settings etc , the games running slow and everything is on high/ veryhigh. i then tried it on low and its still the same. my comp can handle it becasue i have everything the optmal requirements ask for, except graphics card i have a n-vidia 8500 gt

can anyone help?

Full system specs would be helpful as well.

[kanotson 2]

Same here, and my specs are also near the recommended:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4200+ 2.21Ghz

2Gb RAM

Nvidia Geforce 8600GT 1Gb VRAM

Windows 7 RC

The cpu recommended is 4400+ and gpu is 8800GT, but that would mean my PC can handle the game at normal detail. It's not true, I play at 1024x768 with all options at LOW (except the ones that doesn't make a big difference: AF normal, shadows normal, textures normal, terrain low). I can activate the postprocessing with the noblur mod, without a big loss of performance, but with such a low resolution it's a bit blurry.

At the moment the recommended rig is far from what they say in the box.

I'll wait for the next patch, we'll see if they can improve performance.

Edit: I had Vista 64 before and now I have Windows 7. I haven't notice any improvement.

Edit2: Ah, my fps are 8-20 in campaign and 25-35 in armory (if I watch the sky I can have a 50 fps boost sometimes)

Edited July 4, 2009 by kanotson

[Alex72 1]

a 5 year old cpu will not be good for this game. Kinda obvious. Minimum and optimal specs never meant yiihaa super fps and awesome gameplay. Not in my very long gaming career.

There will ofcourse be optimizations in patches, but i cn safely say that the 4400+ will never run the game satisfactory. Bit better, but not as good as you hope or think.

[beugnen 10]

just uploaded arma2 adjusted the settings etc , the games running slow and everything is on high/ veryhigh. i then tried it on low and its still the same. my comp can handle it becasue i have everything the optmal requirements ask for, except graphics card i have a n-vidia 8500 gt

can anyone help?

dont worry chris, everyone is getting poor performance with this game. intensive testing has shown that the game is very cpu-bound. case in point: max settings = 25fps, min settings = 25fps. changes to video cards, video drivers, sli settings, pre render limit have moot effect. cpu monitoring shows significant cpu load across all four cores ranging from 50-75%. very unusual considering this is no FSX + PMDG; X2/X3; X-Plane or DCS BS which model much more complex environments, systems and are visually more stunning.

please ignore posters who may blame your video card. even latest model cards run like a DirectX 6 game, though some Dx6 games probably look better.

---------- Post added at 12:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 AM ----------

I'll wait for the next patch, we'll see if they can improve performance.

well i hope so, i played A1 last month to see what the fuss was about and it ran light a dog. reports say A2 is using the same 'engine' as A1, they've had 3 years to fix it and it is quite clear they have not.

strange when they are supposed to be the same team from OFP and yet OFP runs better.

so wait we shall try, surely it cant get any worse...:cool:

---------- Post added at 12:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 AM ----------

Edit2: Ah, my fps are 8-20 in campaign and 25-35 in armory (if I watch the sky I can have a 50 fps boost sometimes)

yes, i did a similar test to very the engines world clipping by looking at the ground in game, it was not conclusive sadly. my aim was to remove the graphic element by removing all visible objects (looking at the ground or sky), the resulting FPS would be the 'max FPS', the difference between the max and normal eye-level would be the overhead in running a normal game with friendly and enemy units. since there was insignifant difference it was unclear whether volume clipping is working or the game is cpu-hungry.

but like you in the armory my FPS jumps 3x to a rock steady 60 FPS, even it a equally complex envionment as in-game. further evidence for a cpu-bound nature.

there is something seriously wrong with the CPU workload in this game. it is quite clear that the GPU is sitting there twiddling its thumbs waiting for the game to give it something to do.

[Tore 10]

strange when they are supposed to be the same team from OFP and yet OFP runs better.

They are the same guys who made OFP, and OFP is a game from 2001 which has got the optimizations it needed though patches.

And Arma2 is using a heavily modified version of OFP's engine (same with Arma1) ;)

Most of the issues will be fixed in patches. :)

and the game runs fine for me, but it has random slowdowns...

[bangtail 0]

dont worry chris, everyone is getting poor performance with this game. intensive testing has shown that the game is very cpu-bound. case in point: max settings = 25fps, min settings = 25fps. changes to video cards, video drivers, sli settings, pre render limit have moot effect. cpu monitoring shows significant cpu load across all four cores ranging from 50-75%. very unusual considering this is no FSX + PMDG; X2/X3; X-Plane or DCS BS which model much more complex environments, systems and are visually more stunning.

please ignore posters who may blame your video card. even latest model cards run like a DirectX 6 game, though some Dx6 games probably look better.

---------- Post added at 12:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 AM ----------

well i hope so, i played A1 last month to see what the fuss was about and it ran light a dog. reports say A2 is using the same 'engine' as A1, they've had 3 years to fix it and it is quite clear they have not.

strange when they are supposed to be the same team from OFP and yet OFP runs better.

so wait we shall try, surely it cant get any worse...:cool:

---------- Post added at 12:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 AM ----------

yes, i did a similar test to very the engines world clipping by looking at the ground in game, it was not conclusive sadly. my aim was to remove the graphic element by removing all visible objects (looking at the ground or sky), the resulting FPS would be the 'max FPS', the difference between the max and normal eye-level would be the overhead in running a normal game with friendly and enemy units. since there was insignifant difference it was unclear whether volume clipping is working or the game is cpu-hungry.

but like you in the armory my FPS jumps 3x to a rock steady 60 FPS, even it a equally complex envionment as in-game. further evidence for a cpu-bound nature.

there is something seriously wrong with the CPU workload in this game. it is quite clear that the GPU is sitting there twiddling its thumbs waiting for the game to give it something to do.

Ignore posters who think that budget/old hardware will run new games with all the bells and whistles (if at all).

Go buy a console if you want something that will last for 5 years.

The game has problems, I've said it a 1000 times, but patches will not solve the problem of of old/substandard hardware.

Yes, spending money on hardware is a pain (especially if you don't have a lot of money) but PC gaming costs money and there is no way around it. You can build a nice, current system for under $1000.00 (and if you shop around, even less).

And before we get into the "Crysis does this and Crysis does that" argument,

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-295,2123-4.html

4 x GPUs (2 x GTX 295) and a 4.00GHz i7 are barely getting it over 50FPS @ 1920 x 1200 with AA/AF enabled.

In my case and many others here, A2 is performing better than that with less horsepower.

Eth

PS : I would also like to say that FSX was a mess at release and still runs like a pig on even the most beastly machines and DCS Black Shark's (while being maybe the best sim ever made) ground level detail is nowhere near that of A2's (it simply doesn't have to be).

Edited July 4, 2009 by BangTail

[beugnen 10]

Ignore posters who think that budget/old hardware will run new games with all the bells and whistles (if at all).

Go buy a console if you want something that will last for 5 years.

The game has problems, I've said it a 1000 times but patches will not solve the problem of of old/substandard hardware.

Yes, spending money on hardware is a pain (especially if you don't have a lot of money) but PC gaming costs money and there is no way around it. You can build a nice, current system for under $1000.00 (and if you shop around, even less).

And before we get into the "Crysis does this and Crysis does that" argument,

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-295,2123-4.html

4 x GPUs (2 x GTX 295) and a 4.00GHz i7 are barely getting it over 50FPS @ 1920 x 1200 with AA/AF enabled.

In my case and many others here, A2 is performing better than that with less horsepower.

Eth

PS : I would also like to say that FSX was a mess at release and still runs like a pig on even the most beastly machines and DCS Black Shark's (while I love the game) ground level detail is nowhere near that of A2's (it simply doesn't have to be).

actually consoles have a three (3) year lifespan.

though it is true that patches can not miraculously and spontaneously resurrect old hardware, patches can improve game performance if the bug was in the software to begin with. case in point was our old friend DCS BS which has a rather unfortunate inability to mitigate itself across cores. users have found and proven that setting process affinity doubles FPS on multi-core systems. this fix DCS has reported will come out in a patch so users do not have to do it manually anymore.

yes FSX was a pig at release. SP2 though, improved performance. then there is REX which increases it a further order of magnitude. not bad for software updates, whether they are official or not. i fear your knowledge of FSX is perhaps out of date so im happy to assist here. also not bad for a 2006 vintage game. oh wasn't A1 released around the same time? what models more complex elements and which looks better? win on both i think.

while BS ground detail may be low, then again following all the suggestions in these forums of running A2 at 50% native, low settings, AA off, shadow off, low ground/object/mesh detail has a very striking resemblance to certain BS setups anyway. i fail to see how A2 is better in this respect.

QED

---------------

crysis - is irrelevant to this conversation. all my samples FSX, BS, X2/X3 and PMDG model large worlds, complexity, 1000s of objects and rendering. crysis while stunning, does not perform all these tasks.

[bangtail 0]

actually consoles have a three (3) year lifespan.

though it is true that patches can not miraculously and spontaneously resurrect old hardware, patches can improve game performance if the bug was in the software to begin with. case in point was our old friend DCS BS which has a rather unfortunate inability to mitigate itself across cores. users have found and proven that setting process affinity doubles FPS on multi-core systems. this fix DCS has reported will come out in a patch so users do not have to do it manually anymore.

yes FSX was a pig at release. SP2 though, improved performance. then there is REX which increases it a further order of magnitude. not bad for software updates, whether they are official or not. i fear your knowledge of FSX is perhaps out of date so im happy to assist here. also not bad for a 2006 vintage game. oh wasn't A1 released around the same time? what models more complex elements and which looks better? win on both i think.

while BS ground detail may be low, then again following all the suggestions in these forums of running A2 at 50% native, low settings, AA off, shadow off, low ground/object/mesh detail has a very striking resemblance to certain BS setups anyway. i fail to see how A2 is better in this respect.

QED

---------------

crysis - is irrelevant to this conversation. all my samples FSX, BS, X2/X3 and PMDG model large worlds, complexity, 1000s of objects and rendering. crysis while stunning, does not perform all these tasks.

I'm running A2 with everything on high/Vhigh @ 1920 x 1200 with the exception of "post processing" - off and "texture detail" - normal

Crysis may be irrelevant to your discussion but it is much vaunted here with people who are "mad" at A2.

I've never had performance issues with BS tbh, runs absolutely fine and always has although this isn't the place for BS discussions ;).

My knowledge of FSX is very current and while I don't play it that often anymore, I have plenty of customers that do. I would agree that performance has improved drastically, but it's still a pig and this is 2 years on, not 3 weeks.

Your comparisons are not scientific tbh. A2 is not really comparable to BS or FSX for several reasons not the least of which being the ground detail (as I mentioned before) is not at the same level as A1/A2.

Lastly, Console lifespan is in fact ~5 years. It's generally accepted that they last a lot longer than the accepted "current" gaming PC.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=175132

Cheers,

Eth

Edited July 4, 2009 by BangTail

[beugnen 10]

Your comparisons are not scientific tbh. A2 is not really comparable to BS or FSX for several reasons not the least of which being the ground detail (as I mentioned before) is not at the same level as A1/A2.

im not sure what the emphasis is with ground detail. if you just wish to focus on one aspect (an inadvisable thing to do) then Fallout 3 and Oblivion have superior GD and present much better. additionally, when A2 is loaded in either of the two 'sandpit' modes, the ground detail is the same as 'in-game' and yet the FPS triples. ground detail in A2 is not the weakest link so the performance drop is therefore caused by something else. [1]

your statement of FSX lack of ground detail is without verboseness to form a complete argument. unless A2 sports 15cm pixel textures, 10m ground mesh elevation data, 6,000 trees/square KM not to mention visibility at 100s of km then A2 ground detail is perhaps irrelevant.

i hear reasons from others that 'A2 runs slow because of all the AI and units'. i say take a look at X2/X3. it models 1000s of ships and presents better FPS. others say 'its the physx', i say look at BS. finally others cheer 'its because of realism'. i say they have never used a PMDG product.

there is a vast universe of software out there especially simulators, A1/A2 does not own the IP of Realism and some others actually do it better.:cool:

------------------

[1] cpu-bound

[jaundiced 10]

Lastly, Console lifespan is in fact ~5 years. It's generally accepted that they last a lot longer than the accepted "current" gaming PC.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=175132

Cheers,

Eth

all its saying is that MS surpassed the 5 year span that was commonplace. so you're right they are longer now, but in reality even longer than you say.

good consoles have a span of a decade these days (see PS2) - and if you keep up with reading about the current gen that is the exact plan. support for up to 10 years.

Edited July 4, 2009 by jaundiced

[bangtail 0]

im not sure what the emphasis is with ground detail. if you just wish to focus on one aspect (an inadvisable thing to do) then Fallout 3 and Oblivion have superior GD and present much better. additionally, when A2 is loaded in either of the two 'sandpit' modes, the ground detail is the same as 'in-game' and yet the FPS triples. ground detail in A2 is not the weakest link so the performance drop is therefore caused by something else. [1]

your statement of FSX lack of ground detail is without verboseness to form a complete argument. unless A2 sports 15cm pixel textures, 10m ground mesh elevation data, 6,000 trees/square KM not to mention visibility at 100s of km then A2 ground detail is perhaps irrelevant.

i hear reasons from others that 'A2 runs slow because of all the AI and units'. i say take a look at X2/X3. it models 1000s of ships and presents better FPS. others say 'its the physx', i say look at BS. finally others cheer 'its because of realism'. i say they have never used a PMDG product.

there is a vast universe of software out there especially simulators, A1/A2 does not own the IP of Realism and some others actually do it better.:cool:

------------------

[1] cpu-bound

I don't suffer from "performance drops" under XP, I did under Win 7 and Vista. I'm sure that will be fixed before long.

OFP/A1/A2 own the realism IP for "all encompassing Military sims". The only potential challenger is OFP-DR and I have serious doubts about that game.

There is presently no game like A2 to challenge it.

BS is far more "realistic" than A2, I'll grant you that, and as the DCS evolves, it may well become a challenger, but as it stands, it's one helo (but almost perfectly executed).

Regards,

Eth

Edited July 4, 2009 by BangTail

[beugnen 10]

all its saying is that MS surpassed the 5 year span that was commonplace. so you're right they are longer now, but in reality even longer than you say.

good consoles have a span of a decade these days (see PS2) - and if you keep up with reading about the current gen that is the exact plan. support for up to 10 years.

agreed, the ps2 was a milestone in console history i think. yes i stand corrected there, it seems only MS releases every 3 years. ps2 --> ps3 was 5 years. :).

---------- Post added at 09:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 AM ----------

I don't suffer from "performance drops" under XP, I did under Win 7 and Vista. I'm sure that will be fixed before long.

OFP/A1/A2 own the realism IP for "all encompassing Military sims". The only potential challenger is OFP-DR and I have serious doubts about that game.

There is presently no game like A2 to challenge it.

BS is far more "realistic" than A2, I'll grant you that, and as the DCS evolves, it may well become a challenger, but as it stands, it's one helo (but almost perfectly executed).

Regards,

Eth

agreed my friend. A2 has wonderful potential, im hoping for a fix.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Beugnen