datter 0 Posted July 4, 2009 I've come across two performance items that might not seem immediately obvious, but are worth trying. The first I found mentioned about the original Armed Assault and around here related to ArmA2, and the second just something I tried on my own. Try setting shadows to "Very High". I've heard that this setting may perform better than "High" or even "Normal" on some systems, and for me personally it is in fact much better. I have yet to fire up Fraps to determine any actual frame rate increase, but I can say that the game plays much smoother and feels much better at "Very High" shadows. Worth a shot. If you're running on an LCD monitor you'll no doubt be trying to run ArmA2 at your screens native resolution. In my case that is 1680x1050. In the campaign however I found some slow down so out of annoyance I lowered my 3d resolution to one step below my native res (should be 1440x990... though in ArmA2 it shows up as 1436x984 or something odd) with the AA set to "Very High". This gave me an obvious and quite noticeable increase in performance of course, but I initially thought it was going to be a bad decision since it wasn't my monitors native res. I would describe the picture as "soft" when running this way, and after playing for a minute or two I found I actually liked it better than the perfect crispness of my native res. The softness somehow makes it feel more lifelike, and when switched back to the native res (with AA) I find the crispness to be very... computery. So, try "Very High" shadows as well as setting you resolution one notch down from you native res. You might be surprised, and you've nothing to lose. datter Cave of Distraction - Gaming articles, including lots of ArmA2 material Your Thread Sucks - A web comic about life on the internet Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex72 1 Posted July 4, 2009 The individual settings in ARMA2 ive always said you have to mess with until you find the correct combo. The correct combo can up your FPS greatly in this game. Was the same in ArmA1. I played on normal or low in the beginning, and after messing with the individual settings it ended up with high/veryhigh wich ran the game much better. Dont know why it is like this - but its true. Alex Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beugnen 10 Posted July 4, 2009 I've come across two performance items that might not seem immediately obvious, but are worth trying. The first I found mentioned about the original Armed Assault and around here related to ArmA2, and the second just something I tried on my own. Try setting shadows to "Very High". I've heard that this setting may perform better than "High" or even "Normal" on some systems, and for me personally it is in fact much better. I have yet to fire up Fraps to determine any actual frame rate increase, but I can say that the game plays much smoother and feels much better at "Very High" shadows. Worth a shot. If you're running on an LCD monitor you'll no doubt be trying to run ArmA2 at your screens native resolution. In my case that is 1680x1050. In the campaign however I found some slow down so out of annoyance I lowered my 3d resolution to one step below my native res (should be 1440x990... though in ArmA2 it shows up as 1436x984 or something odd) with the AA set to "Very High". This gave me an obvious and quite noticeable increase in performance of course, but I initially thought it was going to be a bad decision since it wasn't my monitors native res. I would describe the picture as "soft" when running this way, and after playing for a minute or two I found I actually liked it better than the perfect crispness of my native res. The softness somehow makes it feel more lifelike, and when switched back to the native res (with AA) I find the crispness to be very... computery. So, try "Very High" shadows as well as setting you resolution one notch down from you native res. You might be surprised, and you've nothing to lose. datter Cave of Distraction - Gaming articles, including lots of ArmA2 material Your Thread Sucks - A web comic about life on the internet hi datter, thanks for the tips, though it isnt really a very good scientific approach perhaps. would have been better to measure with fraps before and after. the human eye is so easily fooled so its difficult to make firm judgements.:cool: others and myself have tried this before, in fact the game tends to like defaulting to 80% native rez or so for some bizarre reason. performance differences were not significant in our tests. and besides, the last game that made players play at underrated resolutions at say 640x480 was doom3, but at least it did not look pix-elated. its quite possible that you are reducing FOV which is reducing load on the CPU (yes CPU not GPU, A2 is CPU-bound) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flake 10 Posted July 4, 2009 [*]If you're running on an LCD monitor you'll no doubt be trying to run ArmA2 at your screens native resolution. In my case that is 1680x1050. In the campaign however I found some slow down so out of annoyance I lowered my 3d resolution to one step below my native res (should be 1440x990... though in ArmA2 it shows up as 1436x984 or something odd) with the AA set to "Very High". This gave me an obvious and quite noticeable increase in performance of course, but I initially thought it was going to be a bad decision since it wasn't my monitors native res. I would describe the picture as "soft" when running this way, and after playing for a minute or two I found I actually liked it better than the perfect crispness of my native res. The softness somehow makes it feel more lifelike, and when switched back to the native res (with AA) I find the crispness to be very... computery. yes i noticed a massive boost in fps after fiddling with the res, and it doesnt look as awful as one might expect. would be perfect for mp. tbh i prefer the computery crispness for sp Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Noraf 0 Posted July 4, 2009 well, about the shaddow settings, i almoust dubbled my fps when changing the shaddows from normal to v.high.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jake01 10 Posted July 4, 2009 For me, when I set shadows normal, they get all blocky and misshapen. High/Very high and they look completely normal. Seems like there's no change in FPS though, maybe I gain like 1-2 FPS by turning shadows off completely. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snowwhite 10 Posted July 4, 2009 (edited) Indeed, Shadow is the only setting I can max out without sacrificing any FPS, thats odd. Need to test some more but it seems Very High might run even a tad smoother then high. Update: The FPS is the same but the lag is slightly worse (tested thoroughly) but so much though that I'm back to high setting. Edited July 6, 2009 by Snowwhite Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
