1.03 Performance

[Hauler 0]

Ain't that the truth. A patch isn't going to fix these people's hardware woes - it might slightly improve it, along with driver revisions, but imho the only way to get a smooth framerate is to purchase absolute top of the line hardware. And even then the campaign will chug at certain points.

Not true at all. People were saying the same thing pre 1.03 and all that was needed for most was a driver update. Most of the people that play this game have rigs that can play on high settings with no problem. The problem here is that BIS has decided once again to do shady optimization upgrades to the game. All I heard leading up to Arma 2 was how much improved optimization has been improved but this is not the case. Bis need to get performance issues sorted. I bet when Ace mod comes out there will be much better performance with the addition of that mod. How come that is? Why can't Bis fix there own game so at least 90% of us see a quality difference in their product.

You are completely in the wrong on this. Yes probably with top of the line gear you could get the game to play on all Very high settings but people are having problems playing on medium and low so this has nothing to do with hardware. It has to do with optimization and this game is still lacking that quality.

[GunSlingerAUS 10]

People were saying the same thing pre 1.03 and all that was needed for most was a driver update.

So you're saying that a driver update cured most people's performance problems before this patch? Okaaaaaay...:rolleyes:

Face it - the visuals in ARMA2 are much more complex and detailed than ARMA1. From the shadowing to the texture detail to the number of polys to the shader effects - ARMA2 is a big step up.

All the optimisation in the world can't make this run smoothly, at decent quality settings, without the very best hardware. Having said that, it's a shame that lowering the visual quality doesn't help too much with performance, but it is what it is. Even my rig doesn't cut it - I'm thinking an i7 clocked to 4GHz should just about do it.

I give up, and will leave you guys to keep hounding BIS for this amazing patch that you think they're able to create in the next few months (even though the tech this game is built on is approaching ten years old), that will "optimise the game" and deliver 60fps for all. Good luck with that.

[Hauler 0]

So you're saying that a driver update cured most people's performance problems before this patch? Okaaaaaay...:rolleyes:

Face it - the visuals in ARMA2 are much more complex and detailed than ARMA1. From the shadowing to the texture detail to the number of polys to the shader effects - ARMA2 is a big step up.

All the optimisation in the world can't make this run smoothly, at decent quality settings, without the very best hardware. Having said that, it's a shame that lowering the visual quality doesn't help too much with performance, but it is what it is. Even my rig doesn't cut it - I'm thinking an i7 clocked to 4GHz should just about do it.

I give up, and will leave you guys to keep hounding BIS for this amazing patch that you think they're able to create in the next few months (even though the tech this game is built on is approaching ten years old), that will "optimise the game" and deliver 60fps for all. Good luck with that.

About the patch yes it did help Nvidia users run the game smoother. 190.38 has made a world of difference.

[jw custom 56]

About the patch yes it did help Nvidia users run the game smoother. 190.38 has made a world of difference.

I'm currently using 185.68 because they works properly with my projecter, but i'll try 190.38 to see if that gives more with ArmA2. I'm already getting 30+ FPS in Chernogorsk so i'm not complaining, but wouldn't mind getting even more :D

[DJH 10]

I get the sound cutting out bug every time anybody sneezes, I get lots more stuttering, I get loads of white shapes [people say triangles, but mine cover the screen almost entirely, just not the interface] and constant CTD either after the white triangley-ness or when trying to save ["cannot commit" error].

So overall, performance down in every aspect- Visuals, Stability, Sound and Playability.

Gonna go back to 1.02

[ssskai 10]

Fresh Windows 7 64bit Install

4GB Ram

2.4ghz Quad

2.5TB over 6 HD's (arma 2 installed on a 250GB HD)

2X Nvidia 285 Black edition GPU's in SLI

1.02 patch gave me peaks of 60 to 70 FPS in the menu that would drop down to as little as 5 or 6 fps even on the lowest game settings seemingly at random during game play. constant tweaking made differences of about 5fps which was still not enough.

1.03 patch fixed the saving feature and campaign mode glitches that i encountered (missions not ending in campaign mode and inability to resume multi player matches due to sync problems with other players). I report no change in the dreadful stability of the games frame rates.

My CPU, RAM and even my GPU's are not being fully utilised by the game so it is a clear indication the game has not been optimised to take advantage of a systems full potential.

All the SATA HD's are fully de-fragmented and C drive and the drive the game is installed on are both less than 15% full so the texture problems i also encounter should really have not occurred.

The system is really well ventilated and suffers from no overheating problems.

I also proceeded to try the game on the same system with Vista 32bit dual booted. obviously only 3gig of my ram would be used here as is the limitation with 32bit operating systems. performance of the game was pretty much identical within vista as it was in windows 7 apart from about a difference of 3 or 4 fps.

I have tried out nearly every suggestion, tweak, and update that has been suggested on these forums and elsewhere. i will stress that not changing the exe name to crysis64 would give even worse performance issues for me.

i really hope the next patch solves this games terrible stability.

[gunterlund21 10]

My system is showing alot more stuttering than with 1.02. In town Im definitely losing frame rates. I read in another thread about taking out CBA, loading a defragger etc. Did all that and upped my texture sizes(that made it worse). Now textures are down to normal and still get stuttering. Textures are slow to load as well. Big stuttering in towns that I did not have before with 1.02. Something has changed for the worse. My install is from steam.

Edited August 7, 2009 by gunterlund21

[TimRiceSE 10]

what viewdistance are the people who get stuttering using?

[todayskiller 10]

I chose the 3rd option, when i was on 1.02 I had to play on medium settings sure, Didn't bother me at all, Trees looked fine there was some lag, But mainly in Towns. But when I get 1.03 I noticed the trees were all blury, until I got right up next to them, I noticed WAY more lag, And all my settings were the same. I mean I got better then the required pc specifications. So I don't see why I am lagging bad now that a new patch came out saying they fixed performance issues, IMO...I think it jacked me up :( lol.

Here are my PC specs.

AMD Phenom 9550 quad core processor 2.20ghz

Nvidia Geforce 9800 gt

6gb of RAM

Hard Drive- 640.13gigs capacity

Windows Vista 64 bit.

[InFireBaptize 0]

Well I selected the third option. I posted a thread in troubleshooting regarding why. It seems foliage is causing some huge fps loss now in 1.03. Where I was once getting 40ish fps zoomed in on leaves, or grassy areas, i'm now chugging along at 15 fps or so. Sucked all the enjoyment out of doing missions with squadmates on maps with grass on full, etc.

try lowering your settings.

[-=seany=- 5]

I too am getting intermittent freezing since this patch: Vista64 ultimate. Second PC with XP64 has no problems with the patch

[roots 10]

I don't see any impact on performance by the 1.03 patch - I'm still locked to a stuttering and unplayable 25..27 fps in the campaign as soon as AI or structures are around.

Arma2, like Arma1, is just that: A sad joke about fooled customers, buggy code and unused potential. Maybe in a year or so it will be patched playable for 90% of us, but until then: CM, please don't disappoint us. You just saw how not to do it.

[fabrizio_t 58]

Hi,

i've done some extensive testing vith 1.03 performance via ArmAmark.

Result is v1.03 is marginally faster than v1.02, actually between 2.5% and 4% on my machine.

So no biggie.

[Sniper101-2 10]

This patch has killed my performance.

System:

Windows Vista Ultimate (64 bit)

Core 2 quad q9550

4gigs of Corsair bullet tracer ram

Radeon 4890 OC

Sata 500gb HD

Built a week prior to Arma2 release

Before this patch I was running everything on high except for AA and AF with post processing off view distance 1600. No lagg no stuttering even in the big citys. Post patch: i have had to turn all the settings down to medium and still recieve heavy FPS drops in large citys - allmost unplayable.

Pretty disappointing to say the least. I was expecting better performance with the patch not worse.

[Fiya 10]

This patch has killed my performance.

System:

Windows Vista Ultimate (64 bit)

Core 2 quad q9550

4gigs of Corsair bullet tracer ram

Radeon 4890 OC

Sata 500gb HD

Built a week prior to Arma2 release

Before this patch I was running everything on high except for AA and AF with post processing off view distance 1600. No lagg no stuttering even in the big citys. Post patch: i have had to turn all the settings down to medium and still recieve heavy FPS drops in large citys - allmost unplayable.

Pretty disappointing to say the least. I was expecting better performance with the patch not worse.

Drefrag multiple times. Don't use windows stock defragger either.

[dxfan01 10]

This patch has killed my performance.

System:

Windows Vista Ultimate (64 bit)

Core 2 quad q9550

4gigs of Corsair bullet tracer ram

Radeon 4890 OC

Sata 500gb HD

Built a week prior to Arma2 release

Before this patch I was running everything on high except for AA and AF with post processing off view distance 1600. No lagg no stuttering even in the big citys. Post patch: i have had to turn all the settings down to medium and still recieve heavy FPS drops in large citys - allmost unplayable.

Pretty disappointing to say the least. I was expecting better performance with the patch not worse.

i have the same problem :(

[Fiya 10]

i have the same problem :(

DEFRAG!!!! If you have not of course. And do it more than once... Also don't use the default Windows Defragger. Find something better.

[nuxil 2]

perfectdisk is good for defragging

i can not notice any diffrence in performence with this patch.

[MadsHilde 10]

Could someone please post a link for perfectdisk for win7 64...I can't figure out which to download when I google it. Thanks

[datter 0]

If you're using Win7 (or God forbid, Vista) the built in defragger is perfectly fine despite what the third party companies will tell you.

[MadsHilde 10]

Ok, thanks...people in this thread are just saying one has to use a better then the one in windows, but maybe they are only talking about xp.

[kremator 1065]

Win7 defragger is the best one of the MS bunch I have seen.

Carries out quite a few passes.

[gunterlund21 10]

Defraggin did nothing and I used that contig defragger that everyone is raving about. There is a programming issue here that needs to be addressed. That is why half the posts in the forum now are surveying performance.

[Guest]

If you're using Win7 (or God forbid, Vista) the built in defragger is perfectly fine despite what the third party companies will tell you.

It's not what the companies say, it is what the users say. Auslogics and ultimatedefrag are way better than any default windows defraggers.

And a note to anyone who encounters worse performance after patch, how many times can we say it, defrag defrag defrag!

The ansswer to all your problems is defrag! Use a 3rd party addon, windows is useless.

[shataan 1]

Agreed, I use O&O Defrag, and Registry Defragmenter, AND Pagedefrag. Win defrag blows.