ArmA2 / OA (low) performance issues

[Bulldogs 10]

Arma 2 is a CPU hog, meaning that if you run the same fps on low settings as high settings then it's most likely your CPU that's holding you back. That said, that happens most in the campaign.

There is another issue that's being worked on and that's the FPS drop around major cities. That's a graphics issue but it's being worked on.

[Tassadar 10]

Just got my money back.

So guys, anyone of you have a good suggestion of a good gaming rig?

[hotel 10]

There is another issue that's being worked on and that's the FPS drop around major cities. That's a graphics issue but it's being worked on.

Building Optimization and the orange brush and trees need to be optimized as well. I loose like 10 to 15 FPS looking at a cluster of orange brush. The buildings cause me to stutter or spike and the flashing textures they cause kills the immersion

[jumpinghubert 49]

@all with constant fps: lots of KI limit the cpu-usage down to 15-20 percent. Without KI or low number of units I geht cpu-usage of 75-80% with my Q6600, with a lot of KI (maybe in campaign) it goes down to 25%-40%. You can log the cpu-usage with the systemtool "perfmon".

[alan.rio 18]

Ok, with this specs:

35780 Intel Core i7 860 2.8Ghz Box Socket 1156

35802 Asus P7P55D Socket 1156

35947 Xigmatek HDT-S1284 Achilles

34481 OCZ DDR3 PC3-15000 1866MHz Platinum 6GB 3x2GB

34877 Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB SATA2 MAESTRO

31807 Cooler Master Dominator CM-690

34347 OCZ ModXStream PRO 700W Modular

35880 Asus Nvidia 7800 GTX 512

Winxp 64 bits updated to the latest patch

Latest nvidia official drivers.

I get arround 20-25 fps with 1680x1050 res and everything in low/medium. Don't know if thats ok or not, obviously the gpu is making a big bottleneck, but anyway i expected a better framerate.... :(

Thats not a bottleneck mate, thats a pinhole. The rest of your system is the dog's, top notch stuff, but you really really need to get at least an 8800GTS 512 ( and that will still be the bottleneck on that system), you can pick one up for nearly nothing nowadays. If you have the cash, get the new ATI.

[emjaiz 10]

This is probably the worst optimized game I have ever played. The lag is terrible. I feel like I wasted my money on this. The game seemed like it had so much potential but the bugs and coding is just terrible. I got 60+ fps in The Club PC with every setting maxed out (AA and AF) on 1680 x 1050. In Arma 2 I got 25-28 fps with every setting at its lowest (AA, AF disabled, 3d resolution 900 x 600), every other setting was on low and if it could go lower it was on very low. After 3 patches the game still runs like s**t. I really wish I could get my money back. Its said how the gameplay is quite good but the playability is just terrible.

Btw my pc specs:

780i MoBo

4gb DDR2 ram

9800 GTX + overclocked

Intel Q9550 quad overclocked to Q9770 level

Vista Ultimate 32 bit

[dogz 10]

@emjaiz

I dont know of another game that does anything like the gameworld calcs that A2 does so to compare to other games is silly.

you would need to put a simple flight sim a strategy a fps and a tank battle together to do what this game does......

you also need to have your OS and hardware setup well.

The game runs well for me 1680 x 1050 on a mid spec rig (see below)and for many others.

I suggest you dump Vista...(who uses that pos?) and do some reading.

XP pro 32

Q6600 3Ghz

2 Gig DDR2

9800GT 1Gig

2 x WD 750AAKS raid 0

Edited October 9, 2009 by dogz

[emjaiz 10]

@emjaiz

I dont know of another game that does anything like the gameworld calcs that A2 does so to compare to other games is silly.

you would need to put a simple flight sim a strategy a fps and a tank battle together to do what this game does......

you also need to have your OS and hardware setup well.

The game runs well for me 1680 x 1050 on a mid spec rig (see below)and for many others.

I suggest you dump Vista...(who uses that pos?) and do some reading.

XP pro 32

Q6600 3Ghz

2 Gig DDR2

9800GT 1Gig

2 x WD 750AAKS raid 0

Ahhhh, graphically im talking about here. I'm talking about a game that is maxed it that surpasses the graphics that my current Arma 2 settings are. And if running well for you means around 30 fps then I am getting the same. And yes, I have done alot of reading. This game is obviously poorly optimized.

[Herbal Influence 10]

Ahhhh, graphically im talking about here. I'm talking about a game that is maxed it that surpasses the graphics that my current Arma 2 settings are. And if running well for you means around 30 fps then I am getting the same. And yes, I have done alot of reading. This game is obviously poorly optimized.

It's not.

You comparing apples with eggs.

Arma2 is really cpu demanding and this not for no reason.

It's not just a graphical entertainer.

It's about physics and intelligent behaviour realized in a way you find nowhere else.

[emjaiz 10]

It's not.

You comparing apples with eggs.

Arma2 is really cpu demanding and this not for no reason.

It's not just a graphical entertainer.

It's about physics and intelligent behaviour realized in a way you find nowhere else.

Yes that is true but what I am saying is why would a game lag badly when the graphics are on par with BF2 minimum draw distance and so on? And no its not my system I can play other high end games quite fine. The fact is Arma 2 is poorly optimized hence why I am posting in this section of the forums.

[Herbal Influence 10]

Yes that is true but what I am saying is why would a game lag badly when the graphics are on par with BF2 minimum draw distance and so on? And no its not my system I can play other high end games quite fine. The fact is Arma 2 is poorly optimized hence why I am posting in this section of the forums.

Again you compare "high end games" with Arma2.

It's not your fault.

But after some weeks with Arma2 you will know better.

Arma2 is demanding everything (and more) your "high end games" demand plus an even better performance of the cpu.

I know that many people on this forum blame BI for "poor optimization".

But it's like saying: The Mercedes AMG with 12 Cylinders I bought consumes much too much compared to my VW Polo.

But because of the vast openess of BI games it's indeed not easy to explain why Arma 2 consumes so much. But that difficulty again lies in the nature of this. And it's quite difficult to grasp and to explain in words - again ... for the nature of it.

I can only give you a hint:

Each and every object (AIs, vehicles etc.) in Arma2 constantly inform themselves continously about their environment and relate to it.

This contains at last: watching - alone a complex thing to simulate, hearing (distance, direction ... )

That's a vast data stream.

plus

AIs (and vehicles in a way) act also autonomously and thereby again inform themselves continously about position and status datas from anything (buildings, underground, other AIs, vehicles - movement of such things) else.

That's another vast data stream.

plus

All objects do behave as if they were in real world with it's certain laws of physics.

All things happening are simulated as being indeed happening in that very special concrete situation (with that special underground, with that special own weight, with that special own speed, with that special and maybe differing speed of the others, with that elasticity ... etc. etc.).

plus

accepting and acting after commands given in the meantime etc etc.

Sure I forgot a lot. Lez say: That certain branch of that certain tree to the right ... did you expect it affects continiously the data stream for just watching? You only realize this when the tree has been cut down by a truck the AI didn't hear because of a nearby tank ...

It's an overwhelming "sandbox": Just put two groups of enemy solders around the airport tower of Utes, set yourself as Civi on top of the tower and watch whats going on ...

Hope you goin to appreciate ... :bounce3:

[Masterfragg 10]

Again you compare "high end games" with Arma2.

It's not your fault.

But after some weeks with Arma2 you will know better.

Arma2 is demanding everything (and more) your "high end games" demand plus an even better performance of the cpu.

I know that many people on this forum blame BI for "poor optimization".

But it's like saying: The Mercedes AMG with 12 Cylinders I bought consumes much too much compared to my VW Polo.

But because of the vast openess of BI games it's indeed not easy to explain why Arma 2 consumes so much. But that difficulty again lies in the nature of this. And it's quite difficult to grasp and to explain in words - again ... for the nature of it.

I can only give you a hint:

Each and every object (AIs, vehicles etc.) in Arma2 constantly inform themselves continously about their environment and relate to it.

This contains at last: watching - alone a complex thing to simulate, hearing (distance, direction ... )

That's a vast data stream.

plus

AIs (and vehicles in a way) act also autonomously and thereby again inform themselves continously about position and status datas from anything (buildings, underground, other AIs, vehicles - movement of such things) else.

That's another vast data stream.

plus

All objects do behave as if they were in real world with it's certain laws of physics.

All things happening are simulated as being indeed happening in that very special concrete situation (with that special underground, with that special own weight, with that special own speed, with that special and maybe differing speed of the others, with that elasticity ... etc. etc.).

plus

accepting and acting after commands given in the meantime etc etc.

Sure I forgot a lot. Lez say: That certain branch of that certain tree to the right ... did you expect it affects continiously the data stream for just watching? You only realize this when the tree has been cut down by a truck the AI didn't hear because of a nearby tank ...

It's an overwhelming "sandbox": Just put two groups of enemy solders around the airport tower of Utes, set yourself as Civi on top of the tower and watch whats going on ...

Hope you goin to appreciate ... :bounce3:

Personally, I say you're totally going down the wrong path here mate.

It is poorly optimized I can prove it!

I get 27fps all the time....40% usage on CPU (Cores 1 and 2 mostly)

If I put my resolution at 1920x1080 with everything on medium/high I get 27fps...

If it lower the resolution to 640x480 with fillrate at 320x240 I get....27fps with everything on low.

I know it ain't my computer I researched all the parts myself I built it myself and I've been building the damn things since I was a lil' lad of 14 so....I've had a lot of years!

This is a cock-poorly optimized game and another issue is that it's using the same engine as ARMA...Arma uses a heavy modded version of the OFP ENGINE.

Remember? Arma was ment to be nothing more than an "Engine Update" to allow players to run "OFP" on a updated engine that would support todays hardware.

I was watching Arma for years...I remember it well....This game is fucked....THE END

Also check out perfmon, this game uses around 21 to 22 CPU threads...Thats poor...very very poor it's bottlenecking itself via lack of open lines to the cpu.

Also it doesn't seem to use the pagefile...I've watched HDD access and well....Theres nothing being written to the pagefile at all.

Also x3 I don't know if you've noticed but this game doesn't take full advantage of system ram.

How the hell can you say to these people that it's "Not poorly optimized"??

Sorry but I'm actually quite angry that BIS fanboys are still defending them! If you stood up with everyone else and said F YOU BIS SORT THIS FUCKING THING OUT NOW....They'd have to wouldn't they?!

Christ....GOD hates fanboys lol

Edited October 9, 2009 by Masterfragg

[Herbal Influence 10]

Personally, I say you're totally going down the wrong path here mate.

It is poorly optimized I can prove it!

I get 27fps all the time....40% usage on CPU (Cores 1 and 2 mostly)

If I put my resolution at 1920x1080 with everything on medium/high I get 27fps...

If it lower the resolution to 640x480 with fillrate at 320x240 I get....27fps with everything on low.

I know it ain't my computer I researched all the parts myself I built it myself and I've been building the damn things since I was a lil' lad of 14 so....I've had a lot of years!

This is a cock-poorly optimized game and another issue is that it's using the same engine as ARMA...Arma uses a heavy modded version of the OFP ENGINE.

Remember? Arma was ment to be nothing more than an "Engine Update" to allow players to run "OFP" on a updated engine that would support todays hardware.

I was watching Arma for years...I remember it well....This game is fucked....THE END

Sorry. But you are mismatching things.

I argued about why ArmA2 is even more cpu intensive than other graphically "high end games". And I can tell you that my cpu is quite intensly working while playing it.

There will be a kind of bottleneck in your system - we can surely consent on that.

[R0ckheadRumple 10]

This is my system:

Intel Core I7 920 @ 3.4 GHz

6GB Corsair DDR3 1333MHz

ASUS P6T Deluxe x58

XFX GTX 295

2 Samsung Spinpoint 500gb HDD's in RAID 0

Hanns G 28" Monitor 1920x1200

I doesnt really matter what i set all the settings to, i still cant get over 30fps which is pretty bad considering the specs.

[emjaiz 10]

Sorry. But you are mismatching things.

I argued about why ArmA2 is even more cpu intensive than other graphically "high end games". And I can tell you that my cpu is quite intensly working while playing it.

There will be a kind of bottleneck in your system - we can surely consent on that.

Hahaha, it is poorly optimized even many reviewers had said so. I myself believe so and as do other people within these forums, why do you think this topic is here in the first place? After observing your posts you are what we call a "fanboy" :D.

[otrebla_snake_ita 2]

@nVidia users: new drivers have been released. In the log they say: "18% of performance improvements in ArmA 2"

[KeyCat 131]

;1458703']@nVidia users: new drivers have been released. In the log they say: "18% of performance improvements in ArmA 2"

Are you refering to 191.07 WHQL?

FYI, they didn't do much FPS wise on my setup, I actually lost a few % compared to 182.50 WHQL. Go figure...

/KC

[otrebla_snake_ita 2]

Yes, I mean 191.07

[jw custom 56]

This game is fucked....THE END

Yeah sure... it runs fine here, maybe you should degrade to a game your computer can handle :)

Yes i'm a fanboy and i'm proud of it, but it doesn't change the fact that this game runs fine my end

[emjaiz 10]

Yeah sure... it runs fine here, maybe you should degrade to a game your computer can handle :)

Yes i'm a fanboy and i'm proud of it, but it doesn't change the fact that this game runs fine my end

Post your computer specs, and the average frames per second you get.

[Herbal Influence 10]

Hahaha, it is poorly optimized even many reviewers had said so. I myself believe so and as do other people within these forums, why do you think this topic is here in the first place? After observing your posts you are what we call a "fanboy" :D.

Oh, yes, I am a huge fanboy. :bounce3:

But consider this: My cpu - cores get used close to the max when doing Arma2.

And: I am happy with the results.

But since you are fans of Arma2 also: Let's try to break it further down.

I have a thesis:

It's something with Intels-Cpu.

They are probably not optimized to do Arma2.

And indeed I don't know about "channels" used - I would be lucky to learn also about that.

Perhaps because Intel had to spare the money for they since long knew they would have to give a 1 Billion Euros to the EU for consumer-misleading-distribution practises ... ;-)

EDIT:

In terms of fraps: If I place myself on top of airport tower of Utes as CIVI and insert three troups (BLUFOR, OPFOR, RES) I get 34 - 59 fraps with mostly highest settings (just my individual taste). Just to give an example.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Herbal Influence

[kklownboy 43]

...

I get 27fps all the time....40% usage on CPU (Cores 1 and 2 mostly)

If I put my resolution at 1920x1080 with everything on medium/high I get 27fps...

If it lower the resolution to 640x480 with fillrate at 320x240 I get....27fps with everything on low.

I...

well then you are CPU limited in the Campaign, let me guess Manhattan? Yeah we all know about the lack of frames there. Like since June.. But in almost all other parts of the game; Sp missions, MP missions the Editor, its not like that. Sooooo when posters make that assumption its not on the 'right path",they are always talking about the Campaign. But if all you want to do is play the Stock Campaign, well your going to have issues.. Game runs great i pull 40s to 90s on my FPS with VH and HD resolutions, but i have a i7cpu @4.1z and Quadfire ATi cards...512mb of vidram isnt going to do it very well,

[jw custom 56]

Post your computer specs, and the average frames per second you get.

i7 920 @ stock clock

GTX 285

8GB DDR3

On normal missions i get a average of 45 fps, on more demanding missions i've made i need to lower some settings to keep fps well above 30 fps.

Current settings:

[Masterfragg 10]

Yeah sure... it runs fine here, maybe you should degrade to a game your computer can handle :)

Yes i'm a fanboy and i'm proud of it, but it doesn't change the fact that this game runs fine my end

lol thats rich like anyone listens to fanboys anyway.

I'm a critical bastard when it comes to games and proud...If a game has issues I don't hide behind fanboy googles I stand up and say "The company fucked up big time" I couldn't give two fucks if your computer runs it....No one does....No one believes it either.

Unless you overclock an i7 or do something amazing with the game it doesn't run great does it?

And rather than be proud of being a fanboy I'd seriously look into your motives for being such a fanboy.

I mean...What have BIS done recently? Released Arma 1 in a fucked beta stage and release Arma 2 on an engine that can't totally handle it...WOW...GREAT COMPANY!!!

Fucking EA may be twats but at least they release half playable games lmao

Oh and as for that screen shot how about doing some screen shots of the FPS counter of fraps?

That doesn't even really matter my point is that lets face it...Arma 2 running on 1/500 computers isn't fucking good is it?

I'm still waiting for BIS to sort shit out then I'll rebuy the game...Returned mine as a faulty product as it was nothing more than a faulty product and all the mods and community driven fixes don't make up for BIS being a bunch of lazy gits does it?

They need to either develope a new engine or move on to greener pastures like...working in their local bar or cafe!

They can't stay on a modded 2001 engine for ever....The engine just ain't as scalable as the classic QIII engine.

---------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 PM ----------

well then you are CPU limited in the Campaign, let me guess Manhattan? Yeah we all know about the lack of frames there. Like since June.. But in almost all other parts of the game; Sp missions, MP missions the Editor, its not like that. Sooooo when posters make that assumption its not on the 'right path",they are always talking about the Campaign. But if all you want to do is play the Stock Campaign, well your going to have issues.. Game runs great i pull 40s to 90s on my FPS with VH and HD resolutions, but i have a i7cpu @4.1z and Quadfire ATi cards...512mb of vidram isnt going to do it very well,

Actually I ain't CPU limited and telling me what my CPU is doing is a bit silly considering that I'M the sod using my computer and monitoring it.

Also no it wasn't the Manhattan mission it's every fucking mission.

I've even stated else where that OC'ing the CPU doesn't help and I actually underclocked my graphics card and it didn't change a damn thing in the FPS department.

I'm sorry I refuse to accept that theres something wrong with my rig, runs everything else perfectly yet this game (Which isn't a big improvement over Arma 1 (Which is why I still play Arma 1 with ACE mod which has pretty much all the features of Arma 2 lol)

Meh...We should agree to disagree though

Edited October 9, 2009 by Masterfragg

[jw custom 56]

I don't hide behind fanboy googles I stand up and say "The company fucked up big time"

Neither do i, the AI needs improvement on many areas but still it doesn't keep me from enjoying the game :)

I couldn't give two fucks if your computer runs it....No one does....No one believes it either.

I think the people i play with everyday believes my computer runs it :p

Unless you overclock an i7 or do something amazing with the game it doesn't run great does it?

Actually when i OC it i get CTD's, but when running @ stock speed it's stable and runs the game nicely :)

And rather than be proud of being a fanboy I'd seriously look into your motives for being such a fanboy.

My motives would be that i really enjoy ArmA 2 :D

I mean...What have BIS done recently? Released Arma 1 in a fucked beta stage and release Arma 2 on an engine that can't totally handle it...WOW...GREAT COMPANY!!!

Can't comment on ArmA 1 as i never played it. On the ArmA 2 note.... all i can say is it runs on my and surprisingly also on all the other people i play withs computers :eek: