So ive spent more time tweaking than playing...

[OverDawg 10]

Amazing how many people on this forum (and only on this forum) are still making excuses for the poor performance of the Arma2 engine. For the sake of argument, I think comparing it to the Fallout3 engine is fair and just look how that game performs with high res texture packs and uncountable scripts running in the background.

To bring up crysis once again; When Cryis was released people more or less accepted that the machine that could run it well didn't exist yet because Crysis was clearly a cut above all other games. Arma2 however, is not. If the "incredibly advanced and complex AI" is to blame for the CPU load and thus low FPS then there would be no improvement expected with any future patches, we'd have to wait for the next CPU to arrive. Logically one reaches the conclusion that the code is not what it should be and reasonable expectations have not been met. The dissapointment is further augmented by the numerous bugs/glitches and general lack of communication by the game's developers. This is why people complain, and rightly so...

Edited July 30, 2009 by OverDawg

[Bulldogs 10]

Let's not get mixed up here. A lot of people are complaining that the game runs like crap for everyone, it doesn't.

The problem we have here is a compatibility issue (or something related to that) which is making it run bad for many machines. The game is not broken for most players, it's just broken for the ones that can't run it correctly and as such it'll hopefully soon be fixed for those people.

I run on older hardware (E7300 @ 3.5Ghz, 9800GT) and I get smooth performance. The issue isn't based on the CPU or GFX card not being powerful enough in many of these cases but more a problem with compatibility.

So please understand that if it doesn't run well on your machine and you're using a kick ass machine then there's an issue there and you are suffering from that issue, not everyone else, many oither people, but not everyone.

Hopefully, it'll be fixed soon. 1.3 should be out within the next 2 weeks so here's hoping.

[SemiFrank 10]

Don't any of you read these forums?

What part of this game needs a monster cpu to run well don't you understand?

Let me start off by saying that I'm *really* not trying to start any beef with you, but I gotta tell you: your post comes off as being *really* arrogant.

So next time I buy a game, I should ignore the recommended specs on the box and check the support forum? Or will the box now read:

recommended requirements: monster cpu

minimum requirements: see unofficial postings @ http://forums.bistudios.com

Every single review and benchmark ive read about this game complains about it's shite performance, especially when compared to the "recommended" specs.

Too everyone defending the game, you've seen the minimum specs. You're telling me that if I brought some news cameras and a pre-built machine with those specs to BIS they would install the game and get it to run at even a fraction of playability?

Yes they're working on a patch

Yes we hope it fixes things

Yes we can only be patient during the development of this patch

Yes we know that some people are able to run it better than others

I personally, and I'd assume others feel this way, am pissed because the minimum and recommended specs are way off, based on the product we have in our hands. The posted recommended and minimum specs on a game is a very large determining factor when purchasing a piece of software, if this information is incorrect and the product is not someting that can be returned for a refund then people will be pissed. The company not acknowledging this is very irresponsible. Just because your game experience has been fine, because you have a "monster cpu" don't let that stop you from empathizing with the issue. If you bought an aftermarket part for your car, and the guy at the shop swore to you it would fit your 04 infinity and you brought it home and it didn't fit you would be pissed. If you went back to the store and heard "no refunds". Then you went to the message board: "You cant install the part unless you have the full body kit upgrade, will cost you $500+, no official manufacturer support for this, manufacturer doesn't acknowledge problem, but 'something is in the works'" Can you not for a minute put yourselves in someone elses shoes and admit that this is just flat out wrong?

Out of respect for their customer they should acknowledge the problems that have been brought up here and in all the industry reviews of their product. Obviously no one in their right mind woudl expect a press release saying "hey, you know that arma2 game? Yeah sorry, it's broken". No. What I would appreciate is a release on this site, even a sticky on their forums: "BIS would like to appologize to any users who are experiencing performance issues on hardware that meets or exceeds our minimum requirements. BIS is committed to providing the best products in the world and arma2 is no exception. We are working dilligently to address these issues, we appreciate your patience and value your business."

It's not too much to ask.

[InFireBaptize 0]

Don't any of you read these forums?

What part of this game needs a monster cpu to run well don't you understand?

Please, this game runs great for many on these forums, you are making out the sim is broken, it's not.

Sure it uses a lot of resources to run & is buggy inplaces BUT it runs great on the right rigs.

it runs good on mine with PP on low, AA on low, Terrain on Normal, Object Details on Normal, Shadow on very high. video memory on very high and view distance on 1000. I increased my CPU frequency to +5 and lagged only once during intense battle, you're right, this game is a CPU sucker not a GPU hugger :eek:

---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:53 PM ----------

Let me start off by saying that I'm *really* not trying to start any beef with you, but I gotta tell you: your post comes off as being *really* arrogant.

So next time I buy a game, I should ignore the recommended specs on the box and check the support forum? Or will the box now read:

recommended requirements: monster cpu

minimum requirements: see unofficial postings @ http://forums.bistudios.com

Every single review and benchmark ive read about this game complains about it's shite performance, especially when compared to the "recommended" specs.

Too everyone defending the game, you've seen the minimum specs. You're telling me that if I brought some news cameras and a pre-built machine with those specs to BIS they would install the game and get it to run at even a fraction of playability?

Yes they're working on a patch

Yes we hope it fixes things

Yes we can only be patient during the development of this patch

Yes we know that some people are able to run it better than others

I personally, and I'd assume others feel this way, am pissed because the minimum and recommended specs are way off, based on the product we have in our hands. The posted recommended and minimum specs on a game is a very large determining factor when purchasing a piece of software, if this information is incorrect and the product is not someting that can be returned for a refund then people will be pissed. The company not acknowledging this is very irresponsible. Just because your game experience has been fine, because you have a "monster cpu" don't let that stop you from empathizing with the issue. If you bought an aftermarket part for your car, and the guy at the shop swore to you it would fit your 04 infinity and you brought it home and it didn't fit you would be pissed. If you went back to the store and heard "no refunds". Then you went to the message board: "You cant install the part unless you have the full body kit upgrade, will cost you $500+, no official manufacturer support for this, manufacturer doesn't acknowledge problem, but 'something is in the works'" Can you not for a minute put yourselves in someone elses shoes and admit that this is just flat out wrong?

Out of respect for their customer they should acknowledge the problems that have been brought up here and in all the industry reviews of their product. Obviously no one in their right mind woudl expect a press release saying "hey, you know that arma2 game? Yeah sorry, it's broken". No. What I would appreciate is a release on this site, even a sticky on their forums: "BIS would like to appologize to any users who are experiencing performance issues on hardware that meets or exceeds our minimum requirements. BIS is committed to providing the best products in the world and arma2 is no exception. We are working dilligently to address these issues, we appreciate your patience and value your business."

It's not too much to ask.

Have you tried overlocking your CPU, how many processes do you have running the background or in your system tray? have you defraged your harddisk? switch your windows from best appearance to best performance.

Go to MSCONFIG and see what you have running when you start your computer.

[cosmokev 10]

it runs good on mine with PP on low, AA on low, Terrain on Normal, Object Details on Normal, Shadow on very high. video memory on very high and view distance on 1000. I increased my CPU frequency to +5 and lagged only once during intense battle, you're right, this game is a CPU sucker not a GPU hugger :eek:

---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:53 PM ----------

Have you tried overlocking your CPU, how many processes do you have running the background or in your system tray? have you defraged your harddisk? switch your windows from best appearance to best performance.

Go to MSCONFIG and see what you have running when you start your computer.

Yes I can see why not defraging your hard drive would cause a 15FPS

lock when you get near cities.

Or why when running xp with a huge range of ATI cards graphics corruption is present.

Or it does'nt seem to matter what combination of hardware is being run the games FPS is chronically low.

Shit man you have solved everyones problems!!!!

I cannot thank you enough for your valued expert opinions which everbody here will now undoubtedly follow and magically find the game now runs fantastically better.

It was when I turned off the background service "Listentodimwitanddefrag" that I noticed a huge increase in every possible way.

You Sir are my HERO.

:yay::yay

[SemiFrank 10]

Have you tried overlocking your CPU, how many processes do you have running the background or in your system tray? have you defraged your harddisk? switch your windows from best appearance to best performance.

Go to MSCONFIG and see what you have running when you start your computer.

I work for a very large company as the senior technical advisor, Ive built 4 OS's on newly formatted hard drives, used 3 different OS's with all the latest drivers etc, nothing strupid running in the background etc etc.. not trying to sound like a d!ck, just that i know what im doing and it's not "user error" This game, out of the box runs like crap for me, I have tried to OC, but it made no difference. As for CPU, I have a new MOBO on my desk, and the quad core 9400 arrives sometime this week.

[InFireBaptize 0]

Yes I can see why not defraging your hard drive would cause a 15FPS

lock when you get near cities.

Or why when running xp with a huge range of ATI cards graphics corruption is present.

Or it does'nt seem to matter what combination of hardware is being run the games FPS is chronically low.

Shit man you have solved everyones problems!!!!

I cannot thank you enough for your valued expert opinions which everbody here will now undoubtedly follow and magically find the game now runs fantastically better.

It was when I turned off the background service "Listentodimwitanddefrag" that I noticed a huge increase in every possible way.

You Sir are my HERO.

:yay::yay

i was trying to help, the game runs fine on my computer, haven't really tried MP yet but missions are running fine, post your spec for us to see and your game settings, so we can help you further. Check my spec, my machine is not top notch but i can post videos "if you be kind enough to show my how" to prove that i'm not lying or i would anything you ask for.

[mad rabbit 0]

Let me start off by saying that I'm *really* not trying to start any beef with you, but I gotta tell you: your post comes off as being *really* arrogant.

So next time I buy a game, I should ignore the recommended specs on the box and check the support forum? Or will the box now read:

recommended requirements: monster cpu

minimum requirements: see unofficial postings @ http://forums.bistudios.com

Every single review and benchmark ive read about this game complains about it's shite performance, especially when compared to the "recommended" specs.

Too everyone defending the game, you've seen the minimum specs. You're telling me that if I brought some news cameras and a pre-built machine with those specs to BIS they would install the game and get it to run at even a fraction of playability?

Yes they're working on a patch

Yes we hope it fixes things

Yes we can only be patient during the development of this patch

Yes we know that some people are able to run it better than others

I personally, and I'd assume others feel this way, am pissed because the minimum and recommended specs are way off, based on the product we have in our hands. The posted recommended and minimum specs on a game is a very large determining factor when purchasing a piece of software, if this information is incorrect and the product is not someting that can be returned for a refund then people will be pissed. The company not acknowledging this is very irresponsible. Just because your game experience has been fine, because you have a "monster cpu" don't let that stop you from empathizing with the issue. If you bought an aftermarket part for your car, and the guy at the shop swore to you it would fit your 04 infinity and you brought it home and it didn't fit you would be pissed. If you went back to the store and heard "no refunds". Then you went to the message board: "You cant install the part unless you have the full body kit upgrade, will cost you $500+, no official manufacturer support for this, manufacturer doesn't acknowledge problem, but 'something is in the works'" Can you not for a minute put yourselves in someone elses shoes and admit that this is just flat out wrong?

Out of respect for their customer they should acknowledge the problems that have been brought up here and in all the industry reviews of their product. Obviously no one in their right mind woudl expect a press release saying "hey, you know that arma2 game? Yeah sorry, it's broken". No. What I would appreciate is a release on this site, even a sticky on their forums: "BIS would like to appologize to any users who are experiencing performance issues on hardware that meets or exceeds our minimum requirements. BIS is committed to providing the best products in the world and arma2 is no exception. We are working dilligently to address these issues, we appreciate your patience and value your business."

It's not too much to ask.

Well said.

[Steinfisch 10]

Have a q9400 with a Asus rampage extreme and a 280GTX. Not a very poor configuration.

But I had trouble with the game from the first second until now. Low FPS, all kind of crashes you can imagine, graphical errors, script errors.....

Today it's not done with posing in front of huge weapons. Professional teams like Infinity Ward, Valve.. will become bigger and bigger and those like 3DRealms and BI will disappear.

[bangtail 0]

Have a q9400 with a Asus rampage extreme and a 280GTX. Not a very poor configuration.

But I had trouble with the game from the first second until now. Low FPS, all kind of crashes you can imagine, graphical errors, script errors.....

Today it's not done with posing in front of huge weapons. Professional teams like Infinity Ward, Valve.. will become bigger and bigger and those like 3DRealms and BI will disappear.

LOL

BI have been around for 10 years and A2 is in the top 10 sellers on Steam and D2D.

Go play your linear shooters etc, you won't be missed.

Eth

[Bulldogs 10]

I don't say this often but cosmokev, you are a moron, stay off the troubleshooting forums if you don't want help or to be helpful.

Alright. I have to say that I agree that it's bad that the publisher puts il advised minimum/recomended specs, but, and not trying to defend any publisher, it happens on many games. As many long time gamers know the recommended specs are usually wrong. This doesn't excuse anyone it just shows an bad standard the industry.

---------- Post added at 11:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 AM ----------

Something I should add.

I'm running on an e7300 and a 9800gt (exactly the same as the 8800gt)

I was running at 2.6Ghz clock (stock) with 2GB Ram on Windows XP, which is all below/equal to recommended specs and at medium settings I averaged 32 fps during the campaign. I believe recommended specs were always recommended to run the game well at moderate settings, not maxed out, and as such I don't see how the recommended specs in this instance are actually wrong.

As for minimum specs, that's where I always have an issue with the game. Minimum specs in this case actually run the game (I've tested myself) but barely. On low settings it gets about 20-25 fps max, which technically means minimum specs do run the game, I just think they should change the standard to be that minimum specs run the game smooth at minimum detail.

All that said, if you're running a monster CPU and monster setup with bad fps then your beef isn't with the recommended specs, it's with another issue that will hopefully be fixed in the next patch (or fixed by manufacturers)

Edited July 31, 2009 by Bulldogs

[H-street 10]

I'm running on an e7300 and a 9800gt (exactly the same as the 8800gt)

I was running at 2.6Ghz clock (stock) with 2GB Ram on Windows XP, which is all below/equal to recommended specs and at medium settings I averaged 32 fps during the campaign. I believe recommended specs were always recommended to run the game well at moderate settings, not maxed out, and as such I don't see how the recommended specs in this instance are actually wrong.

As for minimum specs, that's where I always have an issue with the game. Minimum specs in this case actually run the game (I've tested myself) but barely. On low settings it gets about 20-25 fps max, which technically means minimum specs do run the game, I just think they should change the standard to be that minimum specs run the game smooth at minimum detail.

That is actually half the problem.

people think 60fps is "minimum" standard for performance when in fact it used to be 20fps (i think for most it still is), especially in a sim type game.

if you look at the minimum specs , with most the options turned off @ 800x600 do you get an average of 20fps? if the answer is yes then those are good minimum specs.

With consoles there has been a move to target 60hz for "recommended" specs but much of that has to do with very specific settings.

Crysis was brought up and that was a classic example of the same thing happening to Arma2. People got Crysis 2, saw the "specs", thought they had monster enough machines, immediately tried to crank all the settings up and got a slideshow and then complained.

For those of us that have been in the PC gaming for a while understand that new games are ment to have some longevity scaled into them. They run decent on this days hardware but have some future proof built into so options can be turned up to run on tomorrows hardware. Crysis is a great example of how the hardware has grown to allow the game to run well at higher settings..

I'm suprised with all the complaining in this thread someone hasn't done a proper tweak guide for Arma2.

Back in the day (sorry don't have the time to do Arma2 myself) you'd turn every option off/down including Sound and start tweaking up from there, including hidden options in the cfg file.

with that said for those having performance issues id start off with

800x600

All options turned off or down

empty map with no AI

Place self in large city with a bunch of armor/planes around etc..

The idea is to remove as much CPU dependence as possible..

now start tweaking graphical settings up based on your preferences until you get a good performance. Then try those set in a map with lots of AI etc..

My personal preferences are

1. Resolution (going native LCD resolution)

2. Texture Quality (w/Ani filtering)

3. Object Quality

4. View Distance

5. Shadows

etc..

And yea this might take some time, but after you tweak enough games you just get a feel for settings and what does what and how to tweak. and you can usually have your games running where you want them in a half an hour or so.

Anyways, until some time is spent with a proper tweak guide and each setting with performance numbers, (what is CPU / GPU and how much ) lets not jump to much on the Arma2 is broken band wagon. Everyone did it with Crysis and Crysis was one of the greatest moves forward in PC gaming in a long time. Arma2 is carrying a great Squad Sim torch that no one else seems to want to carry..

[Joe_M. 10]

For those of us that have been in the PC gaming for a while understand that new games are ment to have some longevity scaled into them. They run decent on this days hardware but have some future proof built into so options can be turned up to run on tomorrows hardware. Crysis is a great example of how the hardware has grown to allow the game to run well at higher settings..

I wouldn't consider ArmA2 playable at a decent level, but that's another story...

If this is going to happen on a regular basis, it could affect the sales. People will sooner or later realize, that it's no good, buying games, when they are new. A copy will cost only a fraction of the price at release, a year or two after. Fine, this will save the customers some money, but I'm not sure, if the publishers would be happy about that.

[EDIT] And yet another post about how to tweak ArmA2. I can't even remember how many I'ver read before... Most people around have spent countless hours on useless tweaking. I've surely spent near 60 hours, to get ArmA2 running (including the time taken for installing different operating systems).

Edited July 31, 2009 by Joe_M.

[Game__On 10]

man i thought i had it bad :o

For all those on Vista, stop complaining about the game, but blame those ^ssholes at microsoft for making that POS OS (from a gamer's perspective at least) and advertising it as the new super awesome gaming platform.

This ^ is what pisses me off to no end. EVERY game runs like total ^ss compared to XP, dx10 or not still at least 15 to 25 % performance decrease.

Nevermind when super awesome dx10 is enabled. You may then just take a huge diaherrea (*may not be an actual word) dump into your computer case as your performance is cut in half, while you have to squint your eyes to see an extra glistening in some puddle on screen.

f^ck vista, and f^ck microsoft.

On XP , arma 2 performance is , as said many times before, more then 30% increased over that pile of shite vista .

That's one.

About Arma 2 . I have spent many hours tweaking settings, and performance isn't all that great indeed. This is true. (yes captain obvious :p )

When i hear people say it runs allright for them, and i see fraps pointing at 30 frames per second i almost get a heartattack. 30 frames per second is not even playable. I mean seriously, below 70 fps it's choppy as hell and annoys the sh^t out of me. Nevermind 30 :eek: If you think that is decent you are deluding yourself, is my honest opinion.

Like i said i also spent hours trying settings, it almost never drops below 60 fps. It is 85 (vsynced) almost constantly in the woods, but there is something seriously f^cked up with the buildings, as it occasionally drops into the 50's range, and even 40's when zooming in with the scope.

And i just can't figure out what it is. Object detail is a big hog for some reason.

It barely makes an impact on the screen, but for some weird reason it eats frames like a pig.

But wtf is up with the buildings ? They make me :cry:

And why does arma 2 not use more RAM ?

Anyway, first blame vista for your performance problems. Then BI for f^cking up the buildings and RAM usage.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Game__On

[Bulldogs 10]

Thats all we're saying. If you can run the game at 20 fps on minimum settings with minimum specs then those minimum specs are acurate, if you can run the game at medium settings with 25+ fps on recommended specs machine then those specs are accurate (I was running 30 fps on high settings on recommended)

This is not new, this is the way it has always been in the industry. I only wish that they'd have a spec of "this is what you need to max it out (with exceptions)"

[Joe_M. 10]

Oh come on, 20 fps is surely not enough. 40 fps is the minimum for a game played it the first person perspective. 60 would be better though. I do get 15 to 25 fps, but it drops to 7 to 10 fps for no (obvious) reason and it won't increase anymore. And a short time later it will freeze or CTD. This is unplayable... And before somebody suggests to check my hardware: I did. More than once. I did all kind of tests, not a single issue. I can run all other games with no issues.

[mr reality 0]

new games are ment to have some longevity scaled into them. They run decent on this days hardware but have some future proof built into so options can be turned up to run on tomorrows hardware. Crysis is a great example of how the hardware has grown to allow the game to run well at higher settings..

This is simply not true.

OFP couldn't be played on the highest settings even 5 years after release,maybe never, because of poor optimization.

Try playing Armed assault with everything maxed,including view distance, and see if you dont get a couple of slide shows now and again.

With developers releasing games every 2 or 3 years with the same series, the older game just gets forgotten about and they move onto the next one.

Armed assault was only produced so that BIS could make money to carry on with ArmAII. So in that logic, how could armed assault ever have been a game to last 4 or 5 years.

I and very many of the guys having problems with ArmAII can play other games fine with high settings, it's only BIS games that make your hardware scream in pain, which inturn tells me it's just not optimized. The engine is a mess with all the countless patches and in the long run this can't help. There must be hundreds of MBs of files in this engine that isn't even used, it needs an overhaul.

[-TwK-Danny 0]

Armed Assault got a patch that improved performance by as much as 100%. A patch, released a year+ after the game first was released. Thats a year of hearing bullshit explinations of why the game runs bad (again, mostly on these forums) - but in the end, it was finally fixed by a patch.

The performance in ArmA2 is broken, bugged, and not optimized the slighest at this very moment when it comes to the campaign-missions. (mind you own made missions run good, even when i have lots of AI in them). There are also clear and obvious performance issues with Vista and Windows 7 compared to XP. Only patches can fix that, and yes it is poor optimization and nothing else.

[Bulldogs 10]

I'm just curious what part is poor optimization. I understand that a lot of people can't run the game well, but I run it perfectly on an aging PC, so should I consider my copy magically well optimized or should I consider that it's optimized better for my hardware than all these people with new hardware.

I just want to point out that if you expect to run Arma 2 on 50km view distance then you're obviously kidding yourself. No game runs that high a view distance, if you tried a 10km view distance on Crysis you wouldn't get more than 1 fps, that's not bad optimization, that's just how rendering works, the more you see, the higher the strain.

[wooly-back-jack 10]

well as I have said before, after ages messing about not just with game/driver settings...but BIOS also. (increasing NB<->SB speed and upping cpu + ram voltage but with no overclock) My game IS now running. (looks like LEGO-ARMA but it doesn't crash)

Why the hell should I have to do all that to get a game to work?! lol

[Bulldogs 10]

Cause life hates you :)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not excusing Arma 2 for anything. I know it has issues, I'm just saying that too many people have been telling me that since they have an issue then everyone else must have the same problem. I understand many people have problems, but most people seem to be running fine (most, not all) and for the rest, I hope a patch fixes your problems soon.

[von_paulus 0]

Why the hell should I have to do all that to get a game to work?! lol

Unfortunately games in PC are sometimes like trying riding a bull. For example I in "ARMA II" don't have any major problems like CTDs, while in "Rise of Flight" I do.

Glad you solved some of your problems . :)

[wooly-back-jack 10]

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1382818&postcount=5

there's what I had to do if it helps anyone anyway

[mad rabbit 0]

Danny;1388273']Armed Assault got a patch that improved performance by as much as 100%. A patch' date=' released a year+ after the game first was released. Thats a year of hearing bullshit explinations of why the game runs bad (again, mostly on these forums) - but in the end, it was finally fixed by a patch.

The performance in ArmA2 is broken, bugged, and not optimized the slighest at this very moment when it comes to the [u']campaign-missions[/u]. (mind you own made missions run good, even when i have lots of AI in them). There are also clear and obvious performance issues with Vista and Windows 7 compared to XP. Only patches can fix that, and yes it is poor optimization and nothing else.

Agreed.

Patch 1.14 for ArmA1 was magic! But as has been stated, why should we have to wait for a patch when we've already paid-our-dues/funded ArmA2 with ArmA1 purchases.

Now I know they can't optimise every system and some problems are not BIS's fault e.g. ArmA1 + ATI driver and custom faces was and ATI problem.

But have a look through the forum. This many people upset about ArmA2 performance is no coincidence nor insurmountable task by BIS to diagnose PRIOR to game release. Performance issues when the majority of ArmA2 users are running with Recommended Specs but using low/off settings should be in the minority, which they are not, and a small minority at that.

[nyran125 10]

Yep agreed, recommended specs should be replaced on box to minimum and a NEW Spec recommendation called Future Specs and the year people will actually be able to run it.