Arma II is going on the shelf...

[private plowjoy 0]

I get brilliant performance in single player scenarios with EVERYTHING set to Very high with 16x AF set in CCC.

In campaign mode, the game just crashes to desktop.

Error returned just now was 'Too many virtual memory blocks requested'.

This suggests bad game coding.

I am also suspicious of the CPU usage (or not) with quad core processors.

That makes total sense.

Missions are 'one off'. Campaigns are huge, sprawling affairs.

When you say Campaign 'just crashes to desktop', I assume that you mean after X amount of hours gameplay? The error you're getting is pretty much consistent with a memory leak, which would only manifest after a while playing (but sooner, the lower spec you are).

[CapBadge 10]

That makes total sense.

Missions are 'one off'. Campaigns are huge, sprawling affairs.

When you say Campaign 'just crashes to desktop', I assume that you mean after X amount of hours gameplay? The error you're getting is pretty much consistent with a memory leak, which would only manifest after a while playing (but sooner, the lower spec you are).

Yes, at the point it's crashing now is after around 3 hours of cumulative gameplay in the campaign 'Dogs of War' - 'Harvest road'.

The game crashes within a few moments of loading the save game.

Only a couple more towns to take and I have an APC and 2 T72's trying to take Mista.

[ChiefBoatsRet 10]

Reading all these threads is making my head spin and I feel like im trying to chase the wind and am no closer to finding the holy grail of optimization for running Arma2. Perhaps Cray will loan me one of their super computers or I accept that I will get no more than 30 fps with hiccups here and there, or for my own sanity put it on the shelf until that day that Arma 2 is.... perfection.

[sn0b0ard 10]

No problems running the game on my system on 1600x1200 & normal details. FPS between 20-30 which is perfectly playable. People just should stop expecting 60fps even on their monster-spec PCs, this is not your typical FPS shooter.

I think you hit the nail on the head. There was one thread in this forum about performance issues where the OP said that they are running the game maxed out, with everything set to very high, but they were receiving crash to desktop issues. The OP listed their specs, and they were decent, but not ultra high-end. The consensus was for the person to lower the graphic settings down to High, and maybe at a lower resolution, but the OP wasn't buying it because they thought that their system should run the game at very high with no problems. This game will take time to mature with patches, and yes, sometimes it is frustrating to see your FPS drop down, but you can always adjust the video settings down a little lower to get the smooth gameplay that you want.

[n0bby 0]

Well, after persevering through partial and complete run-throughs of the game with varying degrees of success/bugginess, my copy is now going on the shelf, as it's decided to completely refuse to recognise the DVD. The DVD won't auto-run, either.

I thought at first that my drive had died, but all other CD/DVDs work fine in it.

I reckon that in amongst all the pain I just about got my money's worth - and as nothing it threw at me was a surprise (i.e., it's OpF, so what do you expect!) I suppose I can't really complain. ;)

[mad rabbit 0]

I think you hit the nail on the head. There was one thread in this forum about performance issues where the OP said that they are running the game maxed out, with everything set to very high, but they were receiving crash to desktop issues. The OP listed their specs, and they were decent, but not ultra high-end. The consensus was for the person to lower the graphic settings down to High, and maybe at a lower resolution, but the OP wasn't buying it because they thought that their system should run the game at very high with no problems. This game will take time to mature with patches, and yes, sometimes it is frustrating to see your FPS drop down, but you can always adjust the video settings down a little lower to get the smooth gameplay that you want.

I think it 'missed the nail' completely.

This isn't as I stated previously, "someone with a an awesome rig trying to squeeze out an extra 5fps on top of their current 60fps. Nor are this single-core users."

In other words the majority of performance complaints are from users with ABOVE recommended specs, recommended being the key word, trying to get above 25fps on NORMAL settings. And whilst trying to get above 40 fps is just penile envy, in fact I don't think the human can even register that many fps, lets not kid ourselves that below 25 fps is playable or at the very least it's not enjoyable.

In terms of finding a solution to this problem, BIS could survey the specifications of ArmA2 users in combination with a ArmA2 benchmark (surely a small application could be released from BIS in this regard). Hopefully with this information they would a clearer idea of the performance problems, as would other "there's no problem with the performance, you're just running the game on too high a settings" people, and how wide-spread the problems are...

...or at the very least apologise to current customers who purchased this game out of long-standing loyalty and good faith the RECOMMENDED specs were accurate.

I do have faith in the BIS patching regime and a lot of this frustration is borne out of dedicated BIS followers seeing the potential in the game.

But BIS really 'dropped the ball' on this one and making an expansion just 'pours salt in the wound'.

Edited September 8, 2009 by mad rabbit

[desertjedi 3]

A lot of aggravation in this thread and a lot of arguing about performance that doesn't seem to be accomplishing much. Regardless of hardware, I don't see a lot of peeps stepping up to say, hey, I'm averaging 90 fps in Arma II on high settings...even with the hottest hardware money can buy.

But didn't a couple of the patches that came out for Arma 1 make dramatic performance enhancements?

I usually pick up a game about two years after it comes out. It just happens that way for me. When I picked up Arma, patch 1.14 was already out so everything was pure bliss. Except for some AI stupidity, I have like zero complaints about Arma (1). Now I'm here at the start (of Arma II) and it feels like the "bleeding edge"...seeing all the growing pains of this very complex game. I'm assuming that two years from now (maybe sooner), we'll have a patch that will do for Arma II what 1.14 did for Arma. But the trip to get there may be a bit painful. Many of you, I assume, won't be here two years from now.

Arma II dings my rig up a bit at 1680x1050 at Normal settings playing on a Core 2 Duo at 4.18Ghz and an overclocked GTX 260(192 shaders). I probably average about 40fps while in combat. And from what I hear, upgrading my hardware probably wouldn't do much. I think we'll have to wait on patches for real performance improvement.

But I have a FAR more serious problem with Arma II than bugs or performance issues. From the few times I've played, I simply don't enjoy the game. I don't like the locale, the look of the game or the whole "feel" of the game. So if you generally "like" Arma II, take heart...chances are the patches will do wonders for the game like they did for Arma. But being an Arma fanboy, I may have a tougher road ahead - trying to find the right missions or the right mods or the right something so that I actually enjoy the game.

[Game__On 10]

I think it 'missed the nail' completely.

This isn't as I stated previously, "someone with a an awesome rig trying to squeeze out an extra 5fps on top of their current 60fps. Nor are this single-core users."

In other words the majority of performance complaints are from users with ABOVE recommended specs, recommended being the key word, trying to get above 25fps on NORMAL settings. And whilst trying to get above 40 fps is just penile envy, in fact I don't think the human can even register that many fps, lets not kid ourselves that below 25 fps is playable or at the very least it's not enjoyable.

In terms of finding a solution to this problem, BIS could survey the specifications of ArmA2 users in combination with a ArmA2 benchmark (surely a small application could be released from BIS in this regard). Hopefully with this information they would a clearer idea of the performance problems, as would other "there's no problem with the performance, you're just running the game on too high a settings" people, and how wide-spread the problems are...

...or at the very least apologise to current customers who purchased this game out of long-standing loyalty and good faith the RECOMMENDED specs were accurate.

I do have faith in the BIS patching regime and a lot of this frustration is borne out of dedicated BIS followers seeing the potential in the game.

But BIS really 'dropped the ball' on this one and making an expansion just 'pours salt in the wound'.

Omg i so hate it when people say these things. Look man, if you can't see the difference between 40 fps and 100 fps YOU NEED AN EYE CHECK BADLY .

christ almighty.

As for the rest of your post, i'm sure it's awesome. BUT DON"T COME WITH THIS "THE HUMAN EYE" CRAP I HATE IT OMG IT"S SO STUPID !! :mad::eek::j:

[markushaze 10]

Really... if your using a TFT monitor ( LCD ) then the hunt for fps above the monitors native refresh rate is useless anyhow.

If you have 30 fps, be happy.

If you have 50 fps , well that's great.

Anything over 60 fps (the refresh rate of a standard LCD screen is 60 Hz, maybe 75 Hz) is just not visible.

So in my book, 30 fps ( im saying stable fps, not 10 - 30 , rather 30 upwards ) is ok.

people looking for 100 FPS are either using CRT monitors or LCD with refresh rates over 100 Hz. And even then.... i think more then 60 - 70 FPS is just a nice to have, but no real benefit from it....

please correct me if i am wrong....

For me ArmA 2 runs ok, considering whats going on onscreen, i would rather say it runs well. a little more optimization here and there, and i think its gonna be great, i am having a blast already, and would put arma 2 right up there with the best games ever made :-)

Edited September 9, 2009 by markushaze
spelling

[Masterfragg 10]

i get NONE of the problems you guys are having. However , turn Post-processing on low and everything else to normal and AA OFF. there is NO computer out there in this currant generation of cards , processors, that can play this game with smooth frame rates on high graphic settings. It is future proofed to hell. Just like Oblivian before it, just like no one could run Crysis until the 8800 series of cards came out. In 2 years time with hardware 2 years from now, you WILL be able to run Arma 2 in all its glory , but right now the game looks great on normal and AA OFF and its too good a game to worry about stupid little things like window textures flickering.

My specs 8800 GTS 512mb, 2 gb ram, intel core 2 duo processor 2.66Ghz. Runs at 35 fps consistently on normal graphic settings and post processing on low. YES i get textures popping in and out , and yes some of the missions need to be explained ALOT better by the developers in briefings like , you can only do ONE artillary strike THAT...IS...IT(Its not a bug) and if you stray to far away from your mission you will get shot by invisible enemies.

Heres a tip :>:>:> When pc gaming remember this "ONLY UPGRADE YOUR PC a YEAR OR TWO AFTER a game that stresses your hardware out actually comes out, then upgrade to new graphic cards and processors etc. Never upgrade your computer before a game comes out, because it is INSTANTLY OBSOLETE".

IF you think just because you have a nividia 295GTX and the latest crap windows7 system for gaming and you can run Arma 2 with everything on very high with the latest hardware you have been duped by nividia and Bohemia into buying stuff prematurely. If games come out and you can run them sweet, why upgrade computer?, unless you cant run games anymore?

What you are trying to do is future proof YOUR computer without any needing to. However its not your computer that needs future proofing, because games will come out eventually that only can be played on high graphics, 2 years down the track, its a fact, because games are always trying to push the boundaries of graphics and lighting and are always trying to future proof it for the NEXT GENERATION of video cards and processors NOT this generation (Nividia 295gtx for e.g.) Because if they didnt do that, why would Nividia and Intel support the gaming industry with hardware later on $$$$$$$$$$$$?

You think They do this to video cards for people that like watching movies?. GET REAL, they do it to get the money off gamer's in the future. Why buy something if you dont need it yet. There is no game out at the moment apart from Arma 2 that requires anything higher, spec wise, than a single 8800GTS 512mb card and a intel core 2 duo 2.66Ghz. However now i know (because a game like Arma 2 has come out) in a years time, probably 2, i will need to upgrade my system. Why before, when its not necessary? XP still runs games better than vista its a fact. SO why bother?

There is ALWAYS a series of video cards that come out in a years time or 2 years time that magically make all the latest games like Arma 2, run really well all of a sudden. Its like magic, when 8800 series came out all of a sudden Everyone could run Crysis and Oblivian , its like magic. LOL. :):):):):) remember WAIT for the magic to happen, before YOU try and make the magic come prematurely when upgrading your pc. Because you will get duped over and over and over and over again. Wai tfor that special game like Arma 2 or Crysis to come out, Wait a year or 2(Preferably 2) Then go all out and upgrade to ALL the latest stuff.

However i do agree that the spec system NEEDS to change on game boxes to stop this bs that has been happening with future proofing games on pc's for the last 10 years,well since 1995. There needs to be minimum requirements, medium requirements, developer requirements and FUTURE requirement specs so people know they cant run a game properly on high graphic settings and have good performance aswell before they buy the game on all the latest hardware.

Interesting idea, it's a pity that none of the problems are GPU related, it's a multicore optimization fuck up.

Check out perfmon, it only has 20-or so threads open to the cpu and only uses about 40% of each core due to cockpoor optimization. Arma 1 has the same problem but requires less CPU so you don't notice it as much.

Truth is BIS have not done anything to the engine other than overload it.

Hell...Firefox has more open threads than this game...

I think it's just time to accept that BIS have fucked it up...Wait until the next game when they pull their fingers out eh?

**EDIT**

Ok that was a bit harsh from me I'm sorry.

The main thing to watch for is a patch that sorts out game engine problems we need a better designed .exe and they need to do it now.

Basically the problem as I see it is they don't have the GPU doing enough, if they could optimize the game to use the full CPU & also forward something to the GPU that'd take the load off the CPU.

But truth be told if they sorted CPU optimization this game would run perfect for everyone...I have not a single doubt about that.

Example: I have a feeling that the Grass/Vegitation uses CPU also the geometry uses CPU as well (As it should) well if they can't open the amount of threads the game uses why not pass textures/grass and partial geometric calcs such as buildings to the GPU?

Edited September 9, 2009 by Masterfragg

[Jingle 0]

Arma 2 runs fine on my machine, when operation flashpoint came out it took years for me to run it on full settings, personally I think BIS have done a lot alongside the community to optimise this game so far with much more to come.

With operation flashpoint each hardware upgrade and patch improved the game and added an extra wow factor, same for arma 2, dont get me wrong there are a lot of bugs in arma 2 but it makes it far from unplayable even on my mid - low end system, and to be honest I am grateful for a game which is a masterpiece of digital art which provides an open ended platform for the developers and the community which has a shelf life of many many years.

I think the problem with most games of this genre for me is they have no long term appeal and eventually like rocky films get buried by the next sequel.

Arma 2 is not a game where you will get maxxed everythings running at 100 fps and for that I am glad as it will remain on my system as I upgrade through the years.

[dogz 10]

Masterfragg I find it interesting that ppl say they only get such low cpu utilisation...

I have a 3G Q6600 2G ram and 9800GT 1G on XPpro 32 all 4 cores on my cpu run at 80 - 90% and both cpu and gpu have to be kept at full cooling to stay at sustainable temps ie my pc is using all the grunt it has.

The game runs ok but seems to need more HP than I can give it, I would say it is using the resources on my machine pretty well.

[Alex72 1]

My dual core run ARMA2 at 80-90% as well. Its not a quad, but just saying.

[maddogx 13]

Arma2 generally uses 60-70% of my Q9650, occasionally spikes to 80-90%. I think this is perfectly acceptable. It's mainly the fact that only 0.8-1.2GB of RAM are used that really baffles me.

Compare that with a game like Crysis, where (at least on my computer) the CPU usage barely hits 20%, even with most stuff on high-veryhigh.

[mad rabbit 0]

A lot of aggravation in this thread and a lot of arguing about performance that doesn't seem to be accomplishing much.

But I have a FAR more serious problem with Arma II than bugs or performance issues. From the few times I've played, I simply don't enjoy the game. .

Valid criticism. If I was as loyal a BIS follower as I said I was I would be trying to help the situation rather than just bitch about it. But considering that ArmA1 wasn't really up to standard, even by BISs' opinion, and the imminent expansion release...you can hopefully understand the aggravation.

Omg i so hate it when people say these things. Look man, if you can't see the difference between 40 fps and 100 fps YOU NEED AN EYE CHECK BADLY .

Fair enough. Different standards fro different people. I think the point of my post was to highlight that the majority of ArmA2 gamers aren't unrealistic in their expectations. They just want a game that runs to RECOMMENDED spec. and that's all.

Interesting idea, it's a pity that none of the problems are GPU related, it's a multicore optimisation fuck up.

I think it's just time to accept that BIS have fucked it up...Wait until the next game when they pull their fingers out eh?

**EDIT**

Ok that was a bit harsh from me I'm sorry.

The main thing to watch for is a patch that sorts out game engine problems

Harsh but fair in my opinion. I have no doubts about the ArmA2 patching regime but I doubt the progress of their patches in terms of performance i.e. 1.04 and subsequent patches will bring no SIGNIFICANT increase in performance in my estimation. Happy to eat my words...really happy in fact...but that's my opinion.

And fingers don't need to be pulled out, nor am I, or I'm sure others, are baiting for an apology, I just think that 'fingers needed to be put in the right place' i.e. not up their ass initially.

It's not laziness not by any means. This is a mammoth game for small company. But we are still customers and whilst I sympathise to some degree, they have released a tarnished product, especially in light of their very loyal following (no other came can boast this involved a community in my opinion).

[maddogx 13]

I have no doubts about the ArmA2 patching regime but I doubt the progress of their patches in terms of performance i.e. 1.04 and subsequent patches will bring no SIGNIFICANT increase in performance in my estimation. Happy to eat my words...really happy in fact...but that's my opinion.

Considering the optimizations in Arma1 between around 1.05-1.08, I'd say it's entirely within the realm of possibility. Northern Sahrani went from nigh-unplayable to completely smooth. The patch log mentioned up to 100% performance improvement in certain situations and it was no lie.

Not saying that the same will happen with Arma2, but it's not unthinkable. :)

[Yapab 10]

Me and a friend are going to shelf the game for a while (until we finish OFP:DR COOP) because of the many bugs which prevent us from playing the Campaign in COOP.

Our main purpose for ARMA2 is the FANTASTIC Campaign... its so good we just cant get enough.. but the bugs are really starting to annoy us and we will wait for more fixes before continuing or buying the expansion.

For anyone who hasnt tried the campaign give it a go... its a lot of fun to play with a mate and try to go through the story... we have been playing COOP games together for over 10 years and this would have to be in my top 3 COOP experiences!

We are still both participating in the beta patches just not playing the COOP campaign.. and we dont have much time for MP/editor at this stage.

Yapa

[desertjedi 3]

Valid criticism. If I was as loyal a BIS follower as I said I was I would be trying to help the situation rather than just bitch about it...you can hopefully understand the aggravation.

I completely understand it...but I don't think there's much any of us can do about the bugs and performance issues until the game is patched. I guess my disappointment with the game itself is bleeding through- there's very little I like about the look and feel of the game. I'm hoping to find some mods that can change that. I just downloaded the SLX mod and US Army 09 for Arma II - the first mods I'll be trying. And playing Arma 1 or 2 without a fantastic sound mod like HIFIFX is a bit "crazy". :D

But considering that ArmA1 wasn't really up to standard, even by BISs' opinion,

I don't even know what that means - up to standard. I continually have fantastic missions in Arma 1 and believe the potential for blockbuster missions is only limited by the modder's imagination. When people start ripping into games, my first thought is...okay, tell me what game does it better? ...or... what would you rather be playing? For what we do in Arma 1/2, I don't think there's an answer to that due to the unique nature of "Arma". Arma II starts freezing up (and unfreezing) after about an hour of play (or abends with an out of memory error) but I'm still playing it.

Look man, if you can't see the difference between 40 fps and 100 fps

I agree completely but would even substitute 30 and 50. You can definitely tell the difference. I just played a complex Arma mission where I borked it up in the editor and as a result only got about 25 fps. I found it hard to believe but I could not aim my gun in time to prevent getting shot. It was just too jerky.

[mad rabbit 0]

I don't even know what that means - up to standard.

I was referring to BISs comments about ArmA1 themselves. Although perhaps it's noteworthy that at least BIS 'are' self-critical. This is a rarity and certainly wouldn't be seen from larger companies like EA for example. And perhaps it makes them more reluctant to admit their current mistakes with ArmA2 when people, such as myself, are bringing up their own admissions for ArmA1? Perhaps they should make no mistakes at all as despite this community we're still customers? Meh.

I was also referring to the overall feel of ArmA1, much like your feeling with ArmA2. It's seems we've switched in that regard. However I believe that the performance of ArmA1 from the start was great and just got better! Sure there were a couple of bugs e.g. near instant death on motorcyles, but I certainly didn't care. Minor bugs can be overlooked if the game runs. Can overlook any bug if the game won't run at all.

I agree completely but would even substitute 30 and 50. You can definitely tell the difference. I just played a complex Arma mission where I borked it up in the editor and as a result only got about 25 fps. I found it hard to believe but I could not aim my gun in time to prevent getting shot. It was just too jerky.

At the moment I'd love to get 25 fps! My fps is around the 20 mark.

[Bulldogs 10]

I'd say there's likely to be a performance increase from patches depending on hardware setup. Only say that because I'm running a 9800GT and an E7300 @ 3.5GHZ. I get 45 fps under scenarios and 30 fps under campaign on XP at normal/high settings 1280x1024 res. There's many people with much greater setups than mine getting worse performance, which is why I believe patches will help those people.

Of course, there's always the other side of the scales with people complaining that they can't get more than 30fps at a massive resolution on all very high and 6k view distance... but that's a different topic altogether.

[mad rabbit 0]

There's many people with much greater setups than mine getting worse performance

This is why I still have faith in BISs patching regime, still...recommended,

I'm just aiming for over 25fps on normal settings, no AA, 1920x1200 native res., 2000 view distance. My CPU is .3 down from recommended and .5 up for minimum. And please don't get me started on everything I've tried from NVIDIA tweaks to mini-overclocking the CPU and GPU.

[Monkwarrior 0]

Well, I won't shelf the game.

I got reasonable fps so far.

There is of course one thing that I'm not so happy with: the viewing distance.

Many months ago BIS said arma2 would be everything arma1 has + lots more new things.

The new things came, but some of the crucial elements got lost like the viewing distance. More detailed: I'm talking about the viewing distance for the trees: arma1 does this a lot better then arma2. In fact in arma2 you loose so many fps if you want to have the same viewing distance its almost unplayable.

This is a major thing for me/us, because we concentrate on modding tank warfare.

Why did BIS oversee such a crucial element ?

Maybe more disturbing: BIS promises the same for the new expansion. Why would it be different this time, because last time things didn't go well ?

I do hope the viewing distance and thus optimizing elements will be addressed soon. These are the major elements for many players.

Enjoy gents, Monk.

[Bulldogs 10]

Well you can't exactly take a game, multiply the graphics detail by 10, then expect it to run the same, although I wish that was the case.

The things you are talking about are kind of difficult. If you increase the draw distance of the foliage then you lower performance. If you put it on very low terrain then you get basically the same as arma 1, but you have to remember that all details are still far beyond arma 1 so there's going to be a drastic difference in performance regardless.

That said, if you raise view distance and object detail level, and put terrain on very low and disable post processing, then you should get a good setup for long range battles, you won't get the same performance as arma 1 though, 'cause that would just be illogical.

[mad rabbit 0]

I got directed to this review of ArmA2 which I think sums-up my opinion and possibly a lot of others ArmA2 player's opinions very accurately:

ArmA II - Incredible accuracy and AI depth... but at what cost?

http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/Review/155358,arma-ii.aspx

[Bulldogs 10]

Gotta love atomic, they always manage to put it perfectly