Poor performance...

[dataM 10]

Ok guys Im having some serious trouble with this game. I get choppy performance on every kind of performance setting, even the lowest one possible. Could you help me identify where the hell my problem is? I mean, my graphic card isn't THAT old, so where could the problem be? I also have the latest drivers and all that kind of crap. Help please.

My specs:

i7 920 @ stock

Asus PT6 Deluxe V2

Nvidia Geforce 9800gx2

[whopper_with_cheese 0]

crank up that cpu...sim games love cpu power

i have same mobo+processor. game runs much better once u get it up to say 3.6+

what windows are u using too ? i still get a little bit of choppiness with win7 (7600x64) after v1.03 of arma2, but xp x32 is running it perfectly.

Others prefer win7 though...so if youve got time and HD space, it could be worthwhile trying different o/s's

[xmongx 0]

That system seems ample.

Did you defrag after installing?

If you did:

Do you terminate any unnecessary system processes before strating arma2?

If you do:

How many amps does your PSU supply on the 12v rail?

Also,

Whats the OS and how much ram do you have?

What does choppy mean? is it generally crappy fps permanently or periods of good FPS broken up by a few seconds of hanging?

[dataM 10]

crank up that cpu...sim games love cpu power

i have same mobo+processor. game runs much better once u get it up to say 3.6+

what windows are u using too ? i still get a little bit of choppiness with win7 (7600x64) after v1.03 of arma2, but xp x32 is running it perfectly.

Others prefer win7 though...so if youve got time and HD space, it could be worthwhile trying different o/s's

I got Win vista...:rolleyes: Hmm, I always thought that choppy, slow-motion like gameplay was a GPU related problem, and that hacking gameplay was CPU... guess i was wrong then...

---------- Post added at 10:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 PM ----------

That system seems ample.

Did you defrag after installing?

If you did:

Do you terminate any unnecessary system processes before strating arma2?

If you do:

How many amps does your PSU supply on the 12v rail?

Also,

Whats the OS and how much ram do you have?

What does choppy mean? is it generally crappy fps permanently or periods of good FPS broken up by a few seconds of hanging?

I get good fps when i look @ the ground when i play, when i look far in the distance or @ foilage, it goes "slo-mo" like... hard to explain

[xmongx 0]

Slowing down on foilage is a shader issue, as is looking though the scope (if thats what you mean by looking far in the distance)

what resolution do you run at?

do you have 3d resolution set any higher (fillrate higher than 100%)?

do you know what version of the nvidia drivers you are running?

vista is a fairly big no-no for arma2, running on either xp or win7 should improve things quite drastically. Arma 2 is a CPU bound game theres much more 'under the hood' than the average game.

Edited August 7, 2009 by xmongx

[dataM 10]

Slowing down on foilage is a shader issue, as is looking though the scope (if thats what you mean by looking far in the distance)

what resolution do you run at?

do you have 3d resolution set any higher (fillrate higher than 100%)?

do you know what version of the nvidia drivers you are running?

Im running the game @ 1680 x1050, and i'we got the 190.38 version of the drivers.

EDIT: I'we got 3 gb RAM btw

[xmongx 0]

Try dropping both to 1440x900 that may improve the issue. (if it does your gpu is shader bound)

I get worse behaviour aroung vegetation/scoped with anything higher than 182.50, ive tried any versions after that i can get my hands on and many older versions. That driver set seems the most suitable at the minute, plus its the last driver the devs reccomended.

If i had your hardware i would:

Roll back to 182.50 and Defrag, then:

Set res to 1440x900

Set veiwdistance to between 1600-2000

Set everything to normal

Except

post processing @ LOW

Anisotropic filtering at HIGH or V.HIGH

Failing that.

put xp or win7 on a second hard drive and dual boot.

if that doesnt work then fook knows ;)

edit 3gb is more than enough arma2 is unable to use anything past 2GB

Edited August 7, 2009 by xmongx

[bangtail 0]

crank up that cpu...sim games love cpu power

i have same mobo+processor. game runs much better once u get it up to say 3.6+

what windows are u using too ? i still get a little bit of choppiness with win7 (7600x64) after v1.03 of arma2, but xp x32 is running it perfectly.

Others prefer win7 though...so if youve got time and HD space, it could be worthwhile trying different o/s's

This is exceptionally BAD advice.

The problem has NOTHING to do with OCing (or a lack thereof).

A 2.67 Ghz i7 with a decent video adapter (9800GX2 is fine) is more than capable of running any current game without any degree of OCing. People here should NOT be encouraging it as a means of alleviating performance issues.

If the guy's rig isn't running the game properly, OCing will probably cause more problems than it solves.

Sorry for the harsh response but I doubt you want to be responsible for damaging someone's machine.

In actuality, A2 really doesn't benefit that much from OCing. In my testing, from 3.33 Ghz to 4 Ghz only yielded a few FPS and raised the CPU temps to around 80.

After installing a Corsair H50 I had the temps down to 66 but that's still not an acceptable temp for ~ 5 or 6 FPS gain (Not when Im running at 49 @ stock under load).

@OP - Turning off HT is a good place to start in order to alleviate the stuttering.

Vista = Bad

Eth

Edited August 8, 2009 by BangTail

[no use for a name 0]

did you disable HyperThreading? It's a known issue that the game runs shitty with HT on

[Nutlink 10]

This is exceptionally BAD advice.

The problem has NOTHING to do with OCing (or a lack thereof).

A 2.67 Ghz i7 with a decent video adapter (9800GX2 is fine) is more than capable of running any current game without any degree of OCing. People here should NOT be encouraging it as a means of alleviating performance issues.

If the guy's rig isn't running the game properly, OCing will probably cause more problems than it solves.

Sorry for the harsh response but I doubt you want to be responsible for damaging someone's machine.

In actuality, A2 really doesn't benefit that much from OCing. In my testing, from 3.33 Ghz to 4 Ghz only yielded a few FPS and raised the CPU temps to around 80.

After installing a Corsair H50 I had the temps down to 66 but that's still not an acceptable temp for ~ 5 or 6 FPS gain (Not when Im running at 49 @ stock under load).

@OP - Turning off HT is a good place to start in order to alleviate the stuttering.

Vista = Bad

Eth

I have to beg to differ. On my Q9550 going from stock (2.83Ghz) to 3.62Ghz didn't increase my frames much, but it definitely smoothed them out. I rarely drop below 30 now, where as before I would dip into the mid 20's in and out. OCing my GTX 275 just a tad helped even more, allowing me to enable AA at 5 without much of a drop.

[bangtail 0]

I have to beg to differ. On my Q9550 going from stock (2.83Ghz) to 3.62Ghz didn't increase my frames much, but it definitely smoothed them out. I rarely drop below 30 now, where as before I would dip into the mid 20's in and out. OCing my GTX 275 just a tad helped even more, allowing me to enable AA at 5 without much of a drop.

His problem is clearly not one that would be solved by OCing his rig. I'll bet it's HT that's causing his issue.

OCing doesn't "solve" problems per se. It does provide some decent extra horsepower in some games (A2 isn't really one of them as far as OCing and the i7 go). If his game was running properly and he merely wanted a few more FPS, I might be inclined to agree with you.

That wasn't the case.

Eth

Edited August 8, 2009 by BangTail

[axure 10]

The rig mentioned in the first post is totally sufficient for a smooth gameplay, any suggestion of OC'ing is misplaced.

Add to that the fact that the game runs bad even on lowest settings and it's clear something is really wrong. The only question is: is there something weird going on with the machine? You can easily tell that by firing up another demanding game (like Crysis) and seeing how it will run on med-high settings.

If the machine is all OK (and it probably is), it means it's Arma2 that is screwed up. Which wouldn't be surprisng, if you've followed the threads about mouse lag. Even the best rigs can have problems because the game is simply buggy and BIS simply refuses to even recognize the problem, not to mention fixing it. (The input lag problem has now accumulated 39 forum pages of user frustration and still there's not a word coming from BIS, which clearly shows you they don't give s#!t about us.)

[Nutlink 10]

His problem is clearly not one that would be solved by OCing his rig. I'll bet it's HT that's causing his issue.

OCing doesn't "solve" problems per se. It does provide some decent extra horsepower in some games (A2 isn't really one of them as far as OCing and the i7 go). If his game was running properly and he merely wanted a few more FPS, I might be inclined to agree with you.

That wasn't the case.

Eth

I was responding more to the fact that you said OCing would cause more damage than it solves, actually, not to the OP issues. Same for the "A2 doesn't benefit from OCing," so it's more of a broad statement than a direct answer to the OP issue. I should have clarified that, sorry.

[bangtail 0]

I was responding more to the fact that you said OCing would cause more damage than it solves, actually, not to the OP issues. Same for the "A2 doesn't benefit from OCing," so it's more of a broad statement than a direct answer to the OP issue. I should have clarified that, sorry.

I was really responding specifically to his stated problem and his hardware. My point was more that OCing is not a way to solve problems such as the one he presented. No game will ever require a "current" rig to be OC'd to run properly. OCing is for enthusiasts.

Crossed wires is all.

:)

Eth

OT : A2 doesn't really benefit from OCing on i7's unless you are at a fairly low res (1280 x 1024 for example). I've done a fair bit of testing. I only bought the Corsair H50 to do that testing because I really don't like my CPU being over 55ish at any time.

Edited August 8, 2009 by BangTail

[Karhis 10]

I'm also very puzzled with the way this game is performing...

Let's start with my system specs:

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

Intel Core 2 Quad @ 3,2 GHz (Overclocked)

4 Gb Corsair XMS DDR2 @ 800 MHz (5-5-5-18)

ASUS P5E (BIOS rev. 1201 - latest)

Western Digital Velociraptor 300Gb

Club3D ATI Radeon 4870x2 (Catalyst 9.7)

Creative X-Fi ExtremeMusic (2.18.0013)

Corsair HX620 Power supply (620W)

Windows Vista SP2 64-bit

All the latest drivers installed that I am aware of, as well as the latest DirectX. Hard drive is defragged with Perfectdisk 10. ArmA2 version 1.03.

My ingame settings:

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

Visibility: 1600

Interface resolution: 1900x1200 (my native LCD screen resolution)

3D resolution: 1900x1200

Texture detail: Normal

Video memory: Default

Anisotropic filtering: Normal

Antialiasing: Normal

Terrain detail: Normal

Objects detail: Normal

Shadow detail: High

Post-process effects: Disabled

And the performance:

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

I roughly measured the performance using FRAPS in campaign mission "Razor Two" by randomly running around the US base in Elektrozavodsk. Frame rate was between 21-28.

That was not the frame rate I expected from a system with a second fastest single card GPU solution available at the moment and a decent quad core CPU. Moreover, tinkering with the settings seemed to have very little effect on the performance. For example, I lowered the resolution to 1440x900 (both the interface resolution and 3D) and the frame rate stayed the same, between 21-28.

So at this point I would come to the conclusion that I'm bottlenecked by the CPU. I took a couple of screenshots showing the CPU and GPU load (sorry for the finnish texts):

http://jumi.lut.fi/~rauta/1900x1200.jpg

You can clearly see the point where I alt-tabbed back to the game and CPU and GPU started working. But as you can see, the CPU usage is not very high, 50 to 70ish. And the GPU load, well, its hard to see it from the screenshot but it was around 40%. Maximum of 1 Gb memory used. Based on these figures, it seems that I'm not limited by CPU, not limited by GPU and not limited by memory. So where is the bottleneck? Beats me.

And the same figures with 1440x900 resolution:

http://jumi.lut.fi/~rauta/1440x900.jpg

I know this game doesn't like Windows Vista a bit yet a byte, but I had similiar problems with my other rig running Windows XP and NVIDIA hardware.

The conclusion

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

At least for me the game behaves illogically. It is running poorly, yet it is not using the full potential of CPU, GPU and memory. Ingame-settings also do very little to improve performance. I would expect that a drop in resolution from 1900x1200 to 1400x900 would give me some FPS but it doesn't.

I guess the only thing to do is wait for the upcoming patches to improve performance.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Karhis
Added the version of Arma2 I'm using & power supply.

[Karhis 10]

Just installed Windows XP to my primary gaming rig today to see out if ArmA2 performs better under XP.

And yes, the frame rate _seems_ to be a tad higher but on the other hand the game is unplayable because of crashes to desktop. Before the crash, the graphics go crazy in a similiar manner depicted in the "Graphic bugs with ATI 4800" -series thread. This never happened with Windows Vista. Might be a problem of 4 Gb of memory and 32-bit edition of Windows XP though.

[Masterfragg 10]

Hi guys.

I'm starting to think that this could be a major, MAJOR issue with this game.

I'm starting to think that this isn't a patchable problem lol

Judging from the comments I have read all over this forum...

I'm starting to think graphics acceleration on this game is fucked up as well as the CPU Thread problem, the ram allocation problem and the Hyperthreading problem.

I mean I understand that BIS is a small company but are you seriously telling me they couldn't afford an i7 CPU to test on?! Bullshit...

At the current time my CPU stands at 40% usage in game I'm not going to bother with Screenshots because there are enough all over this forum already.

My ram usage continues to be only in the mid 500mb's at ALL times and I'm unsure of my GPU usage I currently don't have the stuff installed to check that (I'll get GPU-Z later)

...

...

...

On a harsh note, Operation Flashpoint 2 looks very good to me at the moment lol at least it'll be playable...I mean it's running on an X360 so it'll run fine for us. The time I spend playing OFP2 will give BIS time to get there sorry act together and it'll teach em to employ beta testers.

I don't mean to be an arsehole but after the Armed Assault 1 fiasco I thought they'd of learnt a lesson, I mean as you may have read in the other thread I took my copy back as faulty. I hate to say it as I am a huge fan of OFP1 and Arma1 (now it bloody works) but quite frankly the developer disappoints me and I feel they take the community for granted lol Don't get me wrong I tend to love their games but they are the Electronic Arts of the backwater developers.

Rush release a game to compete with another companys game (ofp2 of course) and think "To hell with beta testing we'll do it on the public"...

Sorry I know it's all harsh stuff but...Even US THE COMMUNITY would make great beta testers IF WE DIDN'T HAVE TO BUY THE GAME TO HELP BETA TEST just ask 100 of us to help in a closed bloody beta!

Don't get me wrong OFP2 won't be anything near what Arma2 could be, but sadly it might never BE what it could have BEEN and thats the problem right there really.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Masterfragg

[bangtail 0]

Hi guys.

I'm starting to think that this could be a major, MAJOR issue with this game.

I'm starting to think that this isn't a patchable problem lol

Judging from the comments I have read all over this forum...

I'm starting to think graphics acceleration on this game is fucked up as well as the CPU Thread problem, the ram allocation problem and the Hyperthreading problem.

I mean I understand that BIS is a small company but are you seriously telling me they couldn't afford an i7 CPU to test on?! Bullshit...

At the current time my CPU stands at 40% usage in game I'm not going to bother with Screenshots because there are enough all over this forum already.

My ram usage continues to be only in the mid 500mb's at ALL times and I'm unsure of my GPU usage I currently don't have the stuff installed to check that (I'll get GPU-Z later)

...

...

...

On a harsh note, Operation Flashpoint 2 looks very good to me at the moment lol at least it'll be playable...I mean it's running on an X360 so it'll run fine for us. The time I spend playing OFP2 will give BIS time to get there sorry act together and it'll teach em to employ beta testers.

I don't mean to be an arsehole but after the Armed Assault 1 fiasco I thought they'd of learnt a lesson, I mean as you may have read in the other thread I took my copy back as faulty. I hate to say it as I am a huge fan of OFP1 and Arma1 (now it bloody works) but quite frankly the developer disappoints me and I feel they take the community for granted lol Don't get me wrong I tend to love their games but they are the Electronic Arts of the backwater developers.

Rush release a game to compete with another companys game (ofp2 of course) and think "To hell with beta testing we'll do it on the public"...

Sorry I know it's all harsh stuff but...Even US THE COMMUNITY would make great beta testers IF WE DIDN'T HAVE TO BUY THE GAME TO HELP BETA TEST just ask 100 of us to help in a closed bloody beta!

Don't get me wrong OFP2 won't be anything near what Arma2 could be, but sadly it might never BE what it could have BEEN and thats the problem right there really.

OFP DR is an arcade game much the same as BF2. The way they are trying to use the OFP name to sell that game is despicable. They even talk about their "existing" fans which couldn't be further from the truth.

The only thing OFP DR shares with OFP is the name and Codeshafters are very dishonestly using that name to attract people who think this game is OFP2 when it quite simply isn't.

Enjoy OFP DR but please STOP comparing A2 to OFP DR. It's much easier to get such a limited game right so it's not going to be a major accomplishment if it ships in a better state than A2 did.

Eth

[Masterfragg 10]

OFP DR is an arcade game much the same as BF2. The way they are trying to use the OFP name to sell that game is despicable. They even talk about their "existing" fans which couldn't be further from the truth.

The only thing OFP DR shares with OFP is the name and Codeshafters are very dishonestly using that name to attract people who think this game is OFP2 when it quite simply isn't.

Enjoy OFP DR but please STOP comparing A2 to OFP DR. It's much easier to get such a limited game right so it's not going to be a major accomplishment if it ships in a better state than A2 did.

Eth

Your ASSUMING it's an "Arcade game" actually, and I wasn't comparing the games, I was simply saying it looks good and it'll problably be released in a working fucking order.

No offence intended but try READING posts before you reply.

But no matter how you look at it comparing the games is VERY VERY valid! Much like comparing GTA IV with Saints Row 2 is valid! What they are saying OFP2 (or OBG "Operation Bastardized Game") is ment to offer it is very valid to compare.

Also I say you are ASSUMING it's and arcade game because unless you've actually bloody played the finished version you have no right to judgment on what genre the game comes under (in your views) unless you managed to get a leaked version in which case you are breaking laws :P

Thats like me saying GTA V will be a first person bloody shooter ain't it?

That'd be an invalid point because I haven't bloody seen or played it

As for it being easier to release a smaller scale game again invalid point, you don't know the scale and you haven't played the damn game. Also it's called Beta Testing and QA something you BIS should learn about! it's all about release quality not "Oh lets release it in fucked up beyond life itself form and hope for the bloody best" ain't it?

I admit I'm directly attacking BIS, but I'm the first to admit my hypocrasy as I love the games (when they bloody work) but I can't help it. BIS may make great games (eventually) but the company are a bunch of cowboys...Although the end result does become greatness, shouldn't we expect greatness on release rather than a S.T.A.L.K.E.R.-esque game that needs to be patched up to be playable?

Still back on what I was saying, I refuse to accept your comments on OFPDR being "Arcadey" like BF2 because you have not played or experienced it.

But more to the bloody point WHO CARES!!! As long as it works and the game is FUN!

I remember the days when I was all about realistic games, then I grew up!

Realism is great! when it's fun! Fun should be paramount above every other aspect!

OFP was I still play that today...Armed Assault 1 was when they finally fixed it (campaign still doesn't work properly for many) and Arma 2 is (at the moment) a fucking disaster!

Thats just my views on the way things are though.

[shuurajou 10]

OFP DR is an arcade game much the same as BF2. The way they are trying to use the OFP name to sell that game is despicable. They even talk about their "existing" fans which couldn't be further from the truth.

The only thing OFP DR shares with OFP is the name and Codeshafters are very dishonestly using that name to attract people who think this game is OFP2 when it quite simply isn't.

Enjoy OFP DR but please STOP comparing A2 to OFP DR. It's much easier to get such a limited game right so it's not going to be a major accomplishment if it ships in a better state than A2 did.

Eth

If you watched the OPF2 videos with the developers talking you'd see that their goal (although probably not as pure as Arma) is exactly the opposite to your assumptions - they don't want the arcade experience.

[Masterfragg 10]

Although I will admit ethne is very right about Codemasters being dishonest with using the name Operation: Flashpoint, they are trying to piggyback on BIS's titles success.

Although another point is OFP2 will be directed at more mainstream, it'll be more universal not just for tactical phreaks (I'm one of them lol) so even though you'll need a good tactical mind you'll also be able to learn on the fly.

Where'as with OFP1 and the Arma series if you don't go into that game with a good knowledge on tactics (multiplayer mainly) your gonna die quickly, it's not really hugely noobie friendly. Also the AI lets Arma down to no end (Arma 1 that is can't comment on Arma 2 although it does look better) in Arma 1 the AI was god awful to be blunt. Also the campaign had enough scripting errors that it SHOULD have been canned and released as a pure Multiplayer game.

I should look at Arma 2 the same but I refuse to believe that the people that made the game can't make a campaign that works FOR that game when so many users of the community have made pure masterpieces in the form of SP missions, Coop missions, MFCTI was a classic from OFP in fact come on...Entire campaigns!

Although I guess thats what BIS are really about, the community and thats one thing I do have to hand to them up until Arma 2 they were all about the community even if releasing the mod tools was a bit late for Arma 1.

But all good things must come to an end.

On thread topic.

I ran a test.

Arma 1 (CTI@DVD) Server

3 players in coop 2 on lan 1 through netcon

Perfmon reported Arma.exe using 21 threads.

Pretty much the same as arma2 (19 to 21 threads)

Considering Firefox uses 32+ on my machine this could be an indication of BIS recycling too much code from previous releases. Which they are guilty as hell of.

They need to redesign alot of stuff in the .exe build and pretty much most of the core engine if I'm not mistaken (Amature programmer)

This could mean it won't get fixed, although I could be well off the mark

Also Ethn

You say "It's much easier to get such a limited game right so it's not going to be a major accomplishment if it ships in a better state than A2 did."

It isn't an "Accomplishment" releasing a game in a working state its a damn requirement.

Whats the point of releasing a game in a non-playable-for-most state? I could release my OWN damn game that does that...Anyone could...

Any gamer knows that games must be scalable, they must be usable for the majority of the fanbase and you can't expect players to stand by a company if they release utter trash...Thats why I don't like EA damnit!

Cryostasis is a prime example of this. I've seen reports that GTX295's can't run this game properly due to an overuse in "Frost-like" shaders.

Basically it's an overload they could have optimized it much better by reducing the shaders slightly and just performed a bit of polishing on the game to make it look just as good minus the heavy load. But they didn't and my comp has issues with it (25/40/50 ish FPS) and that is fuckawful as it's an INDOOR game!

I know Crysis is a bad comparison but hear me out.

Crysis is the bitch of games, no one has managed playing at very high @ 1920x1080@60fps (eurogamer.net done a segment on it I believe)

I run Crysis better than I run Arma2 and I'm sorry Arma2 can't use advanced AI as an excuse as it only uses 40% of the cpu and 530mb of my ram.

Even the hellspawn that is PC GTAIV runs better fully maxed out...I had to test it when I got my new CPU...

There is NEVER an excuse for releasing a game in a "Not-so-great-state" just because it has ambition and has scale.

If your going to say "oh it's ok for them to release total crap because it's big" then I could introduce you to a whole load of not-so-great-but-it's-big games!

(Sorry if I come across as a complete turd but like most of you I've been playing games for over 15 years now...Just seems that I've become more of a critic than most which is a curse)

Edited August 16, 2009 by Masterfragg

[bangtail 0]

Although I will admit ethne is very right about Codemasters being dishonest with using the name Operation: Flashpoint, they are trying to piggyback on BIS's titles success.

Although another point is OFP2 will be directed at more mainstream, it'll be more universal not just for tactical phreaks (I'm one of them lol) so even though you'll need a good tactical mind you'll also be able to learn on the fly.

Where'as with OFP1 and the Arma series if you don't go into that game with a good knowledge on tactics (multiplayer mainly) your gonna die quickly, it's not really hugely noobie friendly. Also the AI lets Arma down to no end (Arma 1 that is can't comment on Arma 2 although it does look better) in Arma 1 the AI was god awful to be blunt. Also the campaign had enough scripting errors that it SHOULD have been canned and released as a pure Multiplayer game.

I should look at Arma 2 the same but I refuse to believe that the people that made the game can't make a campaign that works FOR that game when so many users of the community have made pure masterpieces in the form of SP missions, Coop missions, MFCTI was a classic from OFP in fact come on...Entire campaigns!

Although I guess thats what BIS are really about, the community and thats one thing I do have to hand to them up until Arma 2 they were all about the community even if releasing the mod tools was a bit late for Arma 1.

But all good things must come to an end.

On thread topic.

I ran a test.

Arma 1 (CTI@DVD) Server

3 players in coop 2 on lan 1 through netcon

Perfmon reported Arma.exe using 21 threads.

Pretty much the same as arma2 (19 to 21 threads)

Considering Firefox uses 32+ on my machine this could be an indication of BIS recycling too much code from previous releases. Which they are guilty as hell of.

They need to redesign alot of stuff in the .exe build and pretty much most of the core engine if I'm not mistaken (Amature programmer)

This could mean it won't get fixed, although I could be well off the mark

Also Ethn

You say "It's much easier to get such a limited game right so it's not going to be a major accomplishment if it ships in a better state than A2 did."

It isn't an "Accomplishment" releasing a game in a working state its a damn requirement.

Whats the point of releasing a game in a non-playable-for-most state? I could release my OWN damn game that does that...Anyone could...

Any gamer knows that games must be scalable, they must be usable for the majority of the fanbase and you can't expect players to stand by a company if they release utter trash...Thats why I don't like EA damnit!

Cryostasis is a prime example of this. I've seen reports that GTX295's can't run this game properly due to an overuse in "Frost-like" shaders.

Basically it's an overload they could have optimized it much better by reducing the shaders slightly and just performed a bit of polishing on the game to make it look just as good minus the heavy load. But they didn't and my comp has issues with it (25/40/50 ish FPS) and that is fuckawful as it's an INDOOR game!

I know Crysis is a bad comparison but hear me out.

Crysis is the bitch of games, no one has managed playing at very high @ 1920x1080@60fps (eurogamer.net done a segment on it I believe)

I run Crysis better than I run Arma2 and I'm sorry Arma2 can't use advanced AI as an excuse as it only uses 40% of the cpu and 530mb of my ram.

Even the hellspawn that is PC GTAIV runs better fully maxed out...I had to test it when I got my new CPU...

There is NEVER an excuse for releasing a game in a "Not-so-great-state" just because it has ambition and has scale.

If your going to say "oh it's ok for them to release total crap because it's big" then I could introduce you to a whole load of not-so-great-but-it's-big games!

(Sorry if I come across as a complete turd but like most of you I've been playing games for over 15 years now...Just seems that I've become more of a critic than most which is a curse)

It worked fine for me out of the box. I had to fiddle a bit with the settings, but that's "du jour" with any game

You say you've been playing PC games for 15 years but games shipping in an "unfinished" state surprises you? Im not saying it's ideal, but it's the way of things in PC gaming. If you're not happy with it, go buy a console.

People who've played DR have said it's arcadey. Why does this annoy you so much? I really don't get why people get so emotionally involved. If it's so great, go play it when it's released and have fun.

As far as DR's popularity goes, enjoy. If it keeps dullards away from this franchise, then more power to it.

Eth

PS : This discussion has nothing to do with this thread so let's not derail it anymore.

PPS : Always worrying about FPS. Some people spend more time looking at the FRAPS counter than actually playing. I get between 40 - 60 FPS in Crysis @ 1920 x 1200. Guess what, it's totally playable. I'm sure you sit there looking at the little yellow numbers instead of actually playing the game and subsequently lamenting the fact that you aren't getting 100+ FPS.

I've seen A2 go over 120 FPS @ 1920 x 1200 (thats not constant, usually more like 50 - 60), and that's great speed tbh. Crysis' extensive shader usage really pushes Vcards, that's why you don't see 100FPS (yet). The GT300 flagship (x 2) might well be able to deliver over 100FPS in Crysis @ 1920 x 1200). We'll know in a few months.

---------- Post added at 07:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 AM ----------

If you watched the OPF2 videos with the developers talking you'd see that their goal (although probably not as pure as Arma) is exactly the opposite to your assumptions - they don't want the arcade experience.

I've watched them, personally I think it looks like garbage. That's my opinion. From what I've read and watched, it is going to be a very limited game with nowhere near the scope of A2.

We'll see if Im right in October :)

Eth

Edited August 16, 2009 by BangTail

[Karhis 10]

Perfmon reported Arma.exe using 21 threads.

Pretty much the same as arma2 (19 to 21 threads)

Considering Firefox uses 32+ on my machine this could be an indication of BIS recycling too much code from previous releases. Which they are guilty as hell of.

They need to redesign alot of stuff in the .exe build and pretty much most of the core engine if I'm not mistaken (Amature programmer)

This could mean it won't get fixed, although I could be well off the mark

The thread count is interesting, I would have also expected that a game which takes advantage of multicore CPUs would use more threads. I checked it quickly and there were something like 17 threads being used, can't remember the exact amount though. Maybe this is the reason for relatively low CPU utilization on my quad core rig - that there is not enough parallelism going on. I might be wrong though - I'm and amateur programmer as well. (However I did took one course of parallel programming in school and I know what a pain in the ass it can be to do stuff in parallel instead of sequentially.)

I _guess_ that this is where the age of this Real Virtuality engine shows. It was not designed for multicore CPUs in the first place. With multicore GPUs the situation is similiar. For example with my ATI 4870x2, the Crossfire is working (both GPUs are utilized) but in the campaign (again in mission "Razor Two" which I'm using as a reference) disabling one GPU (by disabling Catalyst AI in Catalyst Control Center) does not affect FPS at all.

Yes, of course improvements have been made in the game engine over time, but I have a gut feeling that in order to get proper multicore (CPU and GPU) support the engine needs major overhaul or needs to be written from the scratch - which is too big of an operation to be released as a patch. I really hope that I'm wrong though :) (and that wouldn't be the first time)

You say "It's much easier to get such a limited game right so it's not going to be a major accomplishment if it ships in a better state than A2 did."

It isn't an "Accomplishment" releasing a game in a working state its a damn requirement.

Well said. That is how it should be. But as Ethne stated, this sadly isn't the case with PC gaming anymore. In my opinion, Internet changed that since it's possible to easily distribute patches. Sorry about derailing :)

[shahin 10]

hi all..my system is cpu 3.4 ful catch dual core...xp 32bit..4gig ram..ati 4850 1 gig..all dirver update..my fps in the game is 15...how can i handle it..?my system is weak or someting else?someone tell me what can i do to play smoothly..?i use german version

[Jackdaniels 10]

Ok guys Im having some serious trouble with this game. I get choppy performance on every kind of performance setting, even the lowest one possible. Could you help me identify where the hell my problem is? I mean, my graphic card isn't THAT old, so where could the problem be? I also have the latest drivers and all that kind of crap. Help please.

My specs:

i7 920 @ stock

Asus PT6 Deluxe V2

Nvidia Geforce 9800gx2

Take everything people say here with a pinch of salt, it's not your system that's at fault here, it's the game that's the problem! You will find that hours of tweaking lead to nothing. Also, it's quite obvious that reinstalling a new OS will improve performance! I mean, what program doesn't run better after a new reinstall? And if a reinstall is really what this game needs to get it running better, then you will be reinstalling a new OS every couple of months. I gave this game away to a friend because I got that sick of it, I will never buy another Bis product again.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Jackdaniels