TheXRatedDodo 10 Posted July 9, 2009 Hi all I've noticed a lot of people (specifically on gamefaqs) running nigh on the same rig as me who are running at far higher settings with about the same FPS. Right now I'm running this on some weird custom config (made using the tweak topic) and I'm getting 25fps. To give you an idea of how it looks, it probably looks a little worse than "normal" settings, but not by too much. My rig is: Q6600 @ 3.0Ghz Geforce 8800GT 4GB 800mhz RAM I've seen many people posting that they have this running on high settings at 25fps no problems, and I am getting about 25fps during city combat with my rig. Considering my computer meets the recommended requirements, this seems odd. Would a reformat solve this? Because I have nothing I mind loosing except my itunes, which I can swap onto my second hard drive. Cheers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KeyCat 131 Posted July 9, 2009 Can you also please post what OS you are using? /KC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheXRatedDodo 10 Posted July 9, 2009 Windows XP 32 bit. Service pack 1. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Starfire 10 Posted July 9, 2009 What kinda performance are you getting on High settings? I have a suspicion your Q6600 is kinda bottlenecking your performance. Also, how much vram does your 8800GT have? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TechnoTerrorist303 10 Posted July 9, 2009 I have a suspicion your Q6600 is kinda bottlenecking your performance. If this is the case, the box clearly lies as to what the game needs to run. a quad core cpu running at 3ghz should be able to deal with it no problem. Mine does. Arma2 currently comes complete with built in failengine, it's a bonus undocumented feature that hopefully will be deactivated with the next patch. Also, I'd put sp2 at least on your version of XP immediately Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ICE-Raver 10 Posted July 9, 2009 I was running an amd 5600, vista 32, gtx 280 and 4 gigs of DDR2 800 ram as of yesterday and I could barely run this game at all. I got 25 frame average in the benchmark but on actual servers my FPS dipped into the single digits on low and normal settings. I upgraded to the rig shown in my sig last night with an i7 and I now average 35 fps so far. I need to do some more testing but so far I see a massive improvement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grunks 10 Posted July 9, 2009 I only have an AMD Athlon 4200+ x2 dual core and it runs the game perfectly even though it's lower than the recommended one. I manage ArmA 2 on very high settings for *everything* with that processor, 2gb of RAM at 333Mhz and a 9800GT graphics card. Granted I can only get about 5k veiw distance before I start taking an FPS hit but i'm willing to not be able to see massive distances for playing in very high. Have you tried downloading the EVGA sli patch and the latest nVidea drivers? That certainly helped me. And before you reformat, maybe try a defrag? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheXRatedDodo 10 Posted July 9, 2009 1) My performance on high: I can't entirely remember, I shall report back shortly with a benchmark. 2) My 8800GT is 512mb. And as for the bottlenecking thing, I'm skeptical that this is the case. I hate to just strike down advice, but that makes very, very little sense. 3) Failengine? What's that? 4) On the service packs, I remember there was some outrage with one of the service packs completely screwing up certain people's PC's, and working wonders with others. That was service pack 3, right? Just to double check before I install SP2. 5) Raver, I tried the game on my bud's PC last week. Dual core, about 2.6ghz or so, not entirely sure. GTX 285 I think it may have been and 2GB of ram. We put the settings on very high and it ran about 25fps on the trial by fire mission. Considering you have very similar specs, that's very odd. 6) Grunks, I'm only running a single 8800GT, not two, would the SLI patch really help? I updated my drivers shortly after the game was released in the UK, so thats the uh.. 186.sometingorother patch, correct? I also defragged both hard drives and was met with very little performance boost. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grunks 10 Posted July 9, 2009 I'm only running a 9800GT but it appeared to help me. Maybe try ramping up the setting and bringing down the view distance and seeing what happens? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheXRatedDodo 10 Posted July 9, 2009 Which setting? Also I was thinking of upgrading to a 9800GTX that I could have bought from my friend early this year, but after looking at benchmarks for it, I noticed it usually only got a 4-6fps boost, so I decided to save my money. EDIT: Wait, sorry, missed your point there. I'll download the SLI patch and see what happens. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maddogx 13 Posted July 9, 2009 @TheXRatedDodo, Install XP SP3 and I believe your problem will disappear. If I'm not completely mistaken, Windows XP didn't properly support multithreading until a certain patch was released, which is now definitely a part of SP3. Try it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheXRatedDodo 10 Posted July 9, 2009 It WAS SP3 that there was a lot of complaints about when it realised, right? Have those problems since been adressed? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grunks 10 Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/pp6/PardGhost/ArmA%202/ArmA2settings.png Theres a screenshot of my settings, as you can see I'm getting a steady 30 FPS on the menu and it doesn't appear to take a hit once i'm in the game. Another tip would be a open ArmA 2. Then open up the task manager, right click on ArmA and set the processor to a higher setting. ArmA is current processed in "real-time" for me. As to SP3, I never had a problem with it. As a note to the post below me i'm running XP 32 SP3 Home. Edited July 9, 2009 by Grunks Below Post Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lockjaw-65- 0 Posted July 9, 2009 I only have an AMD Athlon 4200+ x2 dual core and it runs the game perfectly even though it's lower than the recommended one.I manage ArmA 2 on very high settings for *everything* with that processor, 2gb of RAM at 333Mhz and a 9800GT graphics card. Granted I can only get about 5k veiw distance before I start taking an FPS hit but i'm willing to not be able to see massive distances for playing in very high. Have you tried downloading the EVGA sli patch and the latest nVidea drivers? That certainly helped me. And before you reformat, maybe try a defrag? Im running on AMD athlon 6000+ x2 duel core, 9800GTX+, 8gig 1600mhz ram. I cannot get settings above normal? Going buy what you are saying I should have no problem getting all on max. What OS are you on? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maddogx 13 Posted July 9, 2009 It WAS SP3 that there was a lot of complaints about when it realised, right?Have those problems since been adressed? Yes, long ago. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheXRatedDodo 10 Posted July 9, 2009 Yes, long ago. Alright, cheers for the confirmation. I'll download SP3 and report back in a little while! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joethe33 10 Posted July 9, 2009 Hi allI've noticed a lot of people (specifically on gamefaqs) running nigh on the same rig as me who are running at far higher settings with about the same FPS. Right now I'm running this on some weird custom config (made using the tweak topic) and I'm getting 25fps. To give you an idea of how it looks, it probably looks a little worse than "normal" settings, but not by too much. My rig is: Q6600 @ 3.0Ghz Geforce 8800GT 4GB 800mhz RAM I've seen many people posting that they have this running on high settings at 25fps no problems, and I am getting about 25fps during city combat with my rig. Considering my computer meets the recommended requirements, this seems odd. Would a reformat solve this? Because I have nothing I mind loosing except my itunes, which I can swap onto my second hard drive. Cheers. That actually sounds normal. You're using a 32 bit OS, so you aren't getting the 4 gigs. The 8800 GT only has 128 processing cores... heh.. Decent dual core. Not the greatest rig out there. I do agree though, the engine isn't optimized correctly. I would rather they had rebuilt the engine from the ground up, or this bug stuff will plague them for the next generation of ARMA or VBS.. whatever simulation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheXRatedDodo 10 Posted July 9, 2009 That actually sounds normal. You're using a 32 bit OS, so you aren't getting the 4 gigs. The 8800 GT only has 128 processing cores... heh.. Decent dual core. Not the greatest rig out there. I do agree though, the engine isn't optimized correctly. I would rather they had rebuilt the engine from the ground up, or this bug stuff will plague them for the next generation of ARMA or VBS.. whatever simulation. Dual Core? Uh.. No ;) But considering the fact that people with identical rigs are getting far better performance, I am convinced I can squeeze a lot more juice out of this game yet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joethe33 10 Posted July 10, 2009 Dual Core? Uh.. No ;)But considering the fact that people with identical rigs are getting far better performance, I am convinced I can squeeze a lot more juice out of this game yet. Like I said, it could be a number of things.. Maybe your PSU is weak? All in all, your video card has 128 processing cores, which is low. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
demowhc 10 Posted July 10, 2009 Arma2 currently comes complete with built in failengine, it's a bonus undocumented feature that hopefully will be deactivated with the next patch. :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
