ARMA II Beta Builds Released: Latest version/build: 1.04.6xxxx

[odjob 0]

My personal opinion is: There is little chance to increase performance without decreasing things we love at Arma2. It is CPU-demanding not for no reason. Instead of blaming BI for no-performance-optimization I would recommend to really get into the game to learn what this game all is about and what it indeed offers - you would then automatically stop from comparing it to other games that "run so smooth".

And a link that discusses whether it *CAN* be "optimized" or is already optimized:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=88095

And there are things you can do yourself, like here:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?p=1464601#post1464601

Well said.

Just because someone can "max crysis" on their hardware they belive Arma2 is "unoptimized and suck" when they cant "max it". The "max" meaning all graphics options on their fullest witch seems the most important to some.

Although Arma2 is very nice graphicaly its so much more than graphics, there is an unbelivable amount of stuff going on underneath that some fail to see.

[BoxiouS 10]

I agree to a certain extent, Arma 2 is the most demanding game there is on PC for sure, however there is definitely room for some optimisation. The fact that the game doesn't use much ram is a massive performance hog.

I'm happy with the performance from x210 and i think some of the delay must be down to fixing whatever they broke for x323. Regardless, i eagerly await the next patch.

[zeep 3]

Crossing my fingers for engine optimization, and whatever comes with that. Apart from all the community tweaks and fps improving mods, BIS have the best shot at making it happen.

[LeadCommando65 10]

My personal opinion is: There is little chance to increase performance without decreasing things we love at Arma2. It is CPU-demanding not for no reason. Instead of blaming BI for no-performance-optimization I would recommend to really get into the game to learn what this game all is about and what it indeed offers - you would then automatically stop from comparing it to other games that "run so smooth".

Just because someone can "max crysis" on their hardware they belive Arma2 is "unoptimized and suck" when they cant "max it". The "max" meaning all graphics options on their fullest witch seems the most important to some.

Although Arma2 is very nice graphicaly its so much more than graphics, there is an unbelivable amount of stuff going on underneath that some fail to see.

Just some thoughts about your point, we would trade the actual gaming experience for further perfomance improvements:

The game still has problems, if I can set it to whatever settings (resolution & quality) and don't get a fps increase or hardly 2-3 fps more. There must be something wrong.

Moreover, many users are experiencing performance drops with red trees & bushes and in cities. This was a problem with Arma1 already (bushes & shadow rendering) and got fixed with a very late patch. A logical conclusion would be to say, that there's a problem with those models / rendering of those models again (probably this time related to post processing effects?).

Everything described above would not decrease the actual gaming experience if it gets fixed properly.

[kklownboy 43]

i can adjust my settings, in game or in my ATI CC and have huge perfomance gains or losses... If you cant effect the FPS then your doing it wrong... Or your H/W sucks, but you should still be able to change it. Its impossible not to be able to adjust the performance, atleast worse. Now on a Scripted mission that has more going on than your H/W will allow... like the Campaign, or your running at view distances well beyond your CPU/GPU ability and then using some HD res with a card that cant push that many pixels, well yeah you will find a "Cap" DUH!

So this is your kit;http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1299801&postcount=1

and further on you complain that the game is at issue because you changed a driver... Just what res do you play at? A 8800Gt will run 1280/1024 with some filters, and a 1600VD... anymore than that and you will start the performance degrade.The reason the bushes/buildings bog you is because you haven't enough VRAM or GPU power to compensate. I can look at bushes all daylong not a issue. I can see FPS go down here and there, but the game is smooth. When you upgrade to more powerfull hardware, or really lower your resolution it will be smooth too. I dont want them to gimp the game, so 3or4year old midrange hardware can play at 1900/1200 or some such...

Edited October 16, 2009 by kklownboy

[armapaddy 10]

When higher settings result in better performance you know something is wrong. Also, from what i've read it runs better on some older systems compared to some newer ones. Anyone saying this game is 'optimised' is just in denial. Just because it runs well for you, doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with it.

Don't get me wrong, it runs fine for me 90% of the time.

[kklownboy 43]

When higher settings result in better performance you know something is wrong. Also, from what i've read it runs better on some older systems compared to some newer ones. Anyone saying this game is 'optimised' is just in denial. Just because it runs well for you, doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with it.

Don't get me wrong, it runs fine for me 90% of the time.

Higher settings on H/W than can handle it means its using the framebuff better and not being choked down by the lower setting/engine...And what you have read about newer versus older is "whatever" .Older in what way? i7 runs this game best.PERIOD there are Quads that can keep up with OCing...The Newest cards are hands down better than older cards, relative to there SKU. As for optimizing the game, well sure they will find all sorts of little stuff to iron out that will help a lot. My point being, that they dont head down the "lowest card runs good path".. people should upgrade instead, or run it at what your kit can do. Commodity pricing in 24inLCDs(1900/1200),and DDR2(8Gbissues) has been a real issue for a lot of Devs... Saying your game runs COD4 at that rez and trying to compare to A2...one is playing Handball in a shoe box the other outside..

Your never going to run this game at HQ/1900/1200,5000VD with 8800gt with 60fps... ever.

Enough derailment, would be nice to try out a new beta. I am still not sure what 323 did.

[MehMan 0]

When higher settings result in better performance you know something is wrong. Also, from what i've read it runs better on some older systems compared to some newer ones. Anyone saying this game is 'optimised' is just in denial. Just because it runs well for you, doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with it.

Don't get me wrong, it runs fine for me 90% of the time.

Cough, wrong. Some settings on higher get rendered by different HW components.

[armapaddy 10]

I realise that but people with older systems should be able to turn the graphics down to get performance boost, generally speaking, even on the lowest setting there's not much of a difference in framerate.

I aplogies for derailing the thread, I just think the updates should be focusing mainly on performance issues because i'm sure they can do better. Oh, and seperate controls for planes and helos. :-)

[Alex72 1]

Hoping the really FPS devastating trees has been/being looked into. Ofcourse i wouldnt them to get really ugly just to get better performance for low/mid end PC's (people that spent hard earned cash on super pc's should get some value as well), but to me everything runs so damn fine and then when i look into some of the trees my system chokes and wants to die. That to me feels un-optimized. Its un-balanced performance when everything is super FPS apart from some trees that kill FPS totally.

Like IceBreakr's updated Panthera looks awesome now, but too heavy for me on the ground while before using those heaviest trees it was the easiest island for my system. Again though im not complaining on IceBreakr, but that BIS hopefully manages to make them a bit easier for us. They managed to do so in ArmA1 with a patch.

Hopefully some beta will test this. Pretty please. :)

[LeadCommando65 10]

i can adjust my settings, in game or in my ATI CC and have huge perfomance gains or losses... If you cant effect the FPS then your doing it wrong... Or your H/W sucks, but you should still be able to change it. Its impossible not to be able to adjust the performance, atleast worse.

Didn't I say I can have a fps increase? But it's that little, that it's not worth the worse image quality. Unless I'm setting the game to all-low (where it looks like OFP...) the graphics options ingame are pretty much useless.

and further on you complain that the game is at issue because you changed a driver... Just what res do you play at? A 8800Gt will run 1280/1024 with some filters, and a 1600VD... anymore than that and you will start the performance degrade.

1) Changes in ViewDistance don't give me any single fps increase or decrease. It just creates greater lags, when I set it higher because it needs to load more objects.

2) If I set the resolution lower like my native flatscreen resolution, the game gets that much blurry, that I get a headache - it's unplayable. Changing the rendering resolution results in the same.

When you upgrade to more powerfull hardware, or really lower your resolution it will be smooth too. I dont want them to gimp the game, so 3or4year old midrange hardware can play at 1900/1200 or some such...

This statement is that much arrogant, I can't believe this. You really don't want that other people, who don't have bought just a new pc for this game, can't experience a good visual quality? I'm not requesting BIS should lower the actual looking of the game (cause it's really great and I love it), but there's always the possibility to make improvements.

And the best thing is: I already experienced a better playability due to the patches. So the game was already improved. Why is it forbidden to ask for further enahncement on that sector?

[S-M 10]

The game runs like arse for the majority of people, and has done from the very beginning.

Now improvements have been made, and some people have made real progress in working out what is wrong, but the fact is, it was released in an utter gash state, it has hurt sales, not very many people are playing it online (compared with others)

Somebody saying "ohh get a new pc, its fine on mine" is just a waste of time really.

The only way this game will survive is by getting new people interested, now many people may have wanted to upgrade a rig, to play something like crysis at full settings, but they wont do that for Arma2, because the chances are that they will upgrade the rig and still hit a load of bugs, giving them the same performance as before.

I can clock my quad @ stock 2.6ghz and get the same FPS as running it at 3.3ghz?

Getting more performance by turning AA up ?

Getting the same FPS from 200% render instead of 100% render ?

Got the point yet ?

But according to some goons on this forum, i need to upgrade my computer some more = LOL!

But as long as its apparently ok for them, the rest of us should just buy a new computer :D

To be honest, i suspect now that the fail of DR is over, the beta/official patches for A2 may slow down somewhat.

[sick1 13]

The game runs like arse for the majority of people, and has done from the very beginning.

Now improvements have been made, and some people have made real progress in working out what is wrong, but the fact is, it was released in an utter gash state, it has hurt sales, not very many people are playing it online (compared with others)

Somebody saying "ohh get a new pc, its fine on mine" is just a waste of time really.

The only way this game will survive is by getting new people interested, now many people may have wanted to upgrade a rig, to play something like crysis at full settings, but they wont do that for Arma2, because the chances are that they will upgrade the rig and still hit a load of bugs, giving them the same performance as before.

I can clock my quad @ stock 2.6ghz and get the same FPS as running it at 3.3ghz?

Getting more performance by turning AA up ?

Getting the same FPS from 200% render instead of 100% render ?

Got the point yet ?

But according to some goons on this forum, i need to upgrade my computer some more = LOL!

But as long as its apparently ok for them, the rest of us should just buy a new computer :D

To be honest, i suspect now that the fail of DR is over, the beta/official patches for A2 may slow down somewhat.

I compare this games performance with that of an RTS. The more units you have on the map the less FPS you will get. I've started making campaigns that spawn enemy groups rather than have them all in place at start and the performance is awesome. I'm running on a Athlon x2 2.1 ghz. The campaign is deff not optimized.

[cashxx 10]

What about people with new systems that run other games at highest settings fine, but with Arma 2 set to lowest settings I only get 30fps and lag and crashing. See specs below.....its not the best machine, but its not the worse either.

[sick1 13]

What about people with new systems that run other games at highest settings fine, but with Arma 2 set to lowest settings I only get 30fps and lag and crashing. See specs below.....its not the best machine, but its not the worse either.

The lag and crashing sucks, but 30 FPS in the campaign or online is awesome.

[Alex72 1]

The game runs like arse for the majority of people

Thats not true and you know it. How many have baught and are playing the game, and how many complains? If the majority of people thaught this then of all mates i have there should be ONE saying this. But no one does and they say the game runs fine.

Its not the majority (thousands of players). Thats just an illusion to people reading the trouble shooting thread. Not saying the game doesnt have problems - that we know. But the majority of people have it running ok/good.

[Schurer 0]

^^Agrees with what he said.....^^

[Duke49th 1]

What do you have your anti aliasing set to? Off, low, normal, high, very high? I have an ATI too and I can only get decent FPS on normal or below, I read Nvidia cards handle it better.

I run it at low (2xAA). I don't need more @1280x1024 (would be nice, but it is not really needed)

But it makes no difference if I set it to disabled or low. more then low (medium/high) gives me a slightly fps hit. Not much, but noticeable.

Btw who is the girl in your avatar picture?

This Avatar Pic or my Profile Pic?

If you find it out, send me her phonenumber:p

Edited October 18, 2009 by Duke49th

[-TwK-Danny 0]

Thats not true and you know it. How many have baught and are playing the game, and how many complains? If the majority of people thaught this then of all mates i have there should be ONE saying this. But no one does and they say the game runs fine.

Its not the majority (thousands of players). Thats just an illusion to people reading the trouble shooting thread. Not saying the game doesnt have problems - that we know. But the majority of people have it running ok/good.

Depends on what people are playing. Maybe your friends are only playing multiplayer?

Fact is the campaign runs like crap on the majority of computers. I can imagine high end core i7s and 4890 crossfire/gtx285 sli systems to handle it. But normal PCs - no chance.

I mean with a PC like yours, what fps do you get on the harvest red mission (city mission)? huh? Tell us what you define as "fine".

This is my HD4890 trying to run this mission:

at 1920x1200 everything on lowest

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3205/arma22009101911001842.jpg

WOW 19 fps! Yeah sure there are no problems at all with performance in this game. Only the fact that this game is compleatly unplayable.

Lets try 1280X800:

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/999/arma22009101911004532.jpg

WOW 20 fps! The game is looking like operation flashpoint 1 and still performs like ... well ... nothing really runs this BAD so there is no reason to compare arma2 to anything. ArmA2 has gone as far as setting a new standard on how shitty a game can run on a PC.

Have you read other forums? The only thing people whine about ArmA2 is the godawful performance. Nobody enjoys gaming at 20fps.

And again, I am only talking about the actual campaign. Multiplayer runs much better for me (on almost max settings even, 4xAA), as do the single missions. Its only the campaign that runs like crap.

Lets see your performance? Can you achive 60 fps (on lowest possible settings) in that missions? Please do show.

[S-M 10]

Maybe people have a different definition of "arse"

But the fact is, that unless you are part of the community and see that updated patches are available, you have NO CLUE that improvements can be made.

The amount of people who bought this new game, and no longer play it, would be a testament to that.

Upon release, the game ran like garbage, the users who are part of the forum/community and such, will now have a mostly improved performance, but it seams the vast majority are still suffering with the stupid stuttering and microlags.

People having to buy turbo2000000000 hard drives, maybe building some kind of killer ramdrive using parts from the space station orbiting earth, swapping out textures for different ones, praying to mecca before doing a clean install ;) is not really fixing the problem, that the game runs like arse!

IMO if your computer EXCEEDS to recommended specs on the back of the box, and the game does not even run smooth, then you have cause for complaint.

As above though, some of the campaign is broken, and unplayable due to bugs.

---------- Post added at 11:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 AM ----------

PS. dont get me wrong, i still love the game, i just wish it ran properly on my system that exceeds the recommended specs.

[thr0tt 12]

Runs like arse here. Mind you my spec is below the recomended.

No beta patches for a while, could be a good thing... or they are all AFK :S

[Yapab 10]

They are playing operation flashpoint dragon rising :P

It has been quiet recently with the beta patches..... also 1.04 was supposed to be a performance and mouse patch, it did not improve performance at all.

Hopefully we see some work done on it soon, or maybe they should just remove all the trees and buildings from the map :)

Yapa

[RUKH 0]

Originally Posted by randir14 View Post

Btw who is the girl in your avatar picture?

I belive her name is Reon Kadena. And no...I don't have her number. :)

[Yapab 10]

I belive her name is Reon Kadena. And no...I don't have her number. :)

Correct, one hot babe :)

btw where are all the woman in ARMA2?

[Alex72 1]

Danny;1467327']Depends on what people are playing. Maybe your friends are only playing multiplayer?

Running everything but the campaign. The campaign is about 0.0001% of the game. Its just a series of missions. And if it doesnt work well due to triggers wont work etc - that is not the same as that the game isnt playing well. Thats a mission designers fault.

The game is running fine with room for improvements - and thats whats going on with the beta's. Just like with OFP and with ArmA1.

Missions that doesnt work - designers fault.

Alex