ArmA2 / OA (low) performance issues

[kklownboy 43]

....

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

Know we dont have too, your experience is nothing like mine, on any stock mission i can adjust my kit and settings to go from 12fps to 90fps... Also i see you have a 3,8 OC, thats when I start to really get more performance, sorry you dont? I guess you have a nice huge LCD? 24in playing at 1900/1200, thats a strain for a 9800gtx 512mb, but normal settings should be ok? Odd that you can be on UTES and only get 27fps with a 3.8 oc...? heck thats easy fps island, 70fps for sure. I have been playing allot with the CAA1 mod A1 in A2, all the old islands ect, and A1 is nowhere near as nice as A2... most textures are not sharp, the land is bla unless you get in the nice grass and under growth, but still not at all as nice as A2. And to play A1 through the A2 engine WOW it runs much better than A1 direct. Funny we have a variety of hardware on the server we play on. MP coop, one has a 9500 1gb and another has a 9600gt512mb, they both have 19xx/12xx LCDs, they play well... Low settings ect but hey there in the fight... you really must have some issue, or you dont play online with A2?

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

I think a 300gb 10k rpm WD raptor helps a lot with the texture loading, I have no stuttering.

I would say the worst thing BIS did was suggest the Hardware for their recommended system. That was clearly a mistake.

I recommend a gtx200 series gfx card or better and at least a Core2Duo @ +3.5ghz.

[emjaiz 10]

I'd just like to say all these fanboys sticking up for the game, I mean there will always be fanboys making up excuses for the poor development of this game. You see why would this topic be here in the first place? It's troubleshooting! People having problems running it. And it seems to me there's alot of people with problems because these forums are plagued with people having issues running the game and bugs. So you fanboys claiming the game runs fine for you, well that's great you may have the near coincidental rig set up that happens to be perfect for Arma 2, but please post up some shots with Fraps. I still conclude that this game is poorly coded/optimized because why would I be getting 30 fps when I'm running the game almost equivilent to the graphics of Battlefield 2? This game is fun to play but is a piece of shit in the way it was made. Here we go with the fanboy posts again.......................:j:

Specs:

4GB DDR2

9800 GTX + Overclocked

Intel Q9550 Overclocked

Striker 2 Formula 780i

Vista Ultimate 32 bit (and no it's not Vista)

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

If you are truely here for help then change your tone. demanding help and calling people names is not the way to get helpful advice.

the game runs more than fine for me.

my latest ArmaMark benchmarks

Edited October 10, 2009 by [DirTyDeeDs]-Ziggy-

[jw custom 56]

So you fanboys claiming the game runs fine for you, well that's great you may have the near coincidental rig set up that happens to be perfect for Arma 2, but please post up some shots with Fraps.

Claim?? it's a fact the game runs fine for me, maybe because i spent a little time trying different settings :eek:

Making Fraps videos for you and the likes... i would never waste my time on that, you would just make up other excuses and my time would for sure be wasted..

[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...

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.

(...)

Sorry mate, since you were talking about overclocking an i7 I thought you were runnig it. But you are on AMD as I saw now.

As my Intel-sucks-thesis herewith is heavily damaged ... I am all the more interested in what you claiming is a lack of using ressources by Arma2:

- cpu-channels and

- pagefile

you mentioned.

I found that Arma2 uses between 55 and 89 %, mostly over 75 % during gameplay of both cores with my AMD x2 6000.

How to check cpu-channels being there and being used?

I opened a special thread here (no troubleshooting).

Thanx!

Edited October 10, 2009 by Herbal Influence

[advapi 10]

Hello,

I'm new to arma 2 and on the forum, I've passed all morning long to understand if arma2 runs properly on my sistem or not and till now I've got no answer...

I've got a q9550@3,93Ghz, 4gb ram ddr2 4870x2 2gb of asus and operation "harvest red" when you've to kill the sniper I got 34FPS standing stand... is it too low or ok? I've to resolution to 1600*1200 with distance of ~1900 no post-processing, AA and FA to normal...

I run it on Win7 64bit with no parameters and ati catalyst 9.9

Thanks

[Bulldogs 10]

I'm running :

E7300 @ 3.5ghz (basic overclock, Arma 2 crashes with advanced OC)

9800 GT @ stock

4gb DDR2

On normal/high settings, no AA, 1280x1024.

I get 45 fps average, top of 60 fps, bottom of 35 (except Manhatten/Dogs of War, that's 22fps constant, cursed level)

I would consider getting a bigger monitor and raising my video settings but I'm running an old graphics card that wouldn't handle much more than I'm throwing at it.

---------- Post added at 03:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:04 AM ----------

Alright, I should post this in here since the other thread says no troubleshooting, but I can't help myself...

MasterFragg, it seems like there is some optimisation problem with Arma 2 on your system, wondering what it could be. You mentioned that it's not accessing the page file, although most people complain that it thrashes the hard drive too much. I've notice high page file usage myself (being that Arma 2 is a 32 bit application and as such can't address more than 2gb of ram), so if it's not accessing your page file then something is seriously wrong there.

Another thing I should point out is that I'm getting 90% CPU usage across 2 cores most of the time with Arma 2, so it's possible on your one that Arma 2 is having an access problem. Are you using any programs to restrict acess (some apps prevent the system from allocating more than a certain amount to a single program)

As well, it seems like there may be permission issues if Arma 2 can't access your page file. How is page file access on your other games?

[advapi 10]

are you talking to me Bulldogs??

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

blah blah blah i'm running vista blah

That's all I saw in your post tbh... I have just switched to Win 7 from Vista and noticed a sizeable performance increase. I'd post comparrison shots from fraps but you'd have to pay me a lot of money to put vista back on.

Also, wtf are you doing running a 32bit os with 4gb of ram?

[Bulldogs 10]

are you talking to me Bulldogs??

Sorry, didn't notice your post advapi. Yes, you're machine is running fine. The Campaign runs low fps in many missions due to the amount of strain on the CPU. Try some scenario's and custom missions to see what kind of frame rate you get there.

[special_air_service 10]

Sorry, didn't notice your post advapi. Yes, you're machine is running fine. The Campaign runs low fps in many missions due to the amount of strain on the CPU. Try some scenario's and custom missions to see what kind of frame rate you get there.

strain in his CPU ? but his CPU is Q9550 3,93 ghz...:confused:

That is surely extremely fast :eek:

[Bulldogs 10]

I should have noted that it's a strain on any CPU and there seems to possibly be a bottleneck in the engine, but yeah, that framerate is about right for the campaign, but outside the campaign you should be getting a higher framerate.

[advapi 10]

thanks for your answers... what should I do to enhance my campaign gameplay? disable AA/FA? buy 8gb ram?

does the -winxp and -maxmem parameters still need on 1.04?

Thanks

[jw custom 56]

Hello,

I'm new to arma 2 and on the forum, I've passed all morning long to understand if arma2 runs properly on my sistem or not and till now I've got no answer...

I've got a q9550@3,93Ghz, 4gb ram ddr2 4870x2 2gb of asus and operation "harvest red" when you've to kill the sniper I got 34FPS standing stand... is it too low or ok? I've to resolution to 1600*1200 with distance of ~1900 no post-processing, AA and FA to normal...

I run it on Win7 64bit with no parameters and ati catalyst 9.9

Thanks

thanks for your answers... what should I do to enhance my campaign gameplay? disable AA/FA? buy 8gb ram?

does the -winxp and -maxmem parameters still need on 1.04?

Thanks

ArmA doesn't even use your 4gb of RAM so it would not help getting 4gb more . Those command line parameters never did anything for my performance though, i don't know if they are needed anymore with patch 1.04.

I guess 34 FPS is pretty acceptable.

[amfitamine 0]

Well, I just replaced my Coreâ„¢2 Duo. I now have an I7 920@3,1Ghz P6Tmobo but with the same GTX275 card, X-fi, win7 32 bit OS and drivers. To check my performance I always take a specific spot on Utes, using the editor with now AI units, look at a specific house and watch my FPS. With my C2D I had about 43 FPS but now with the I7 (no HT) and higher graphic settings I get 73. Obviously the engine (physisc, day and night, ambiance, water..?) is verry bussy but I am just wondering with doing what?...

[advapi 10]

if the game supports physx it would take a huge improvement in my opinion... leaving complex calculation to the CPU... I know that using physx is difficult and won't do the job of BI guys... but hope soon or later it cames up!

[jw custom 56]

Well, I just replaced my Coreâ„¢2 Duo. I now have an I7 920@3,1Ghz P6Tmobo but with the same GTX275 card, X-fi, win7 32 bit OS and drivers. To check my performance I always take a specific spot on Utes, using the editor with now AI units, look at a specific house and watch my FPS. With my C2D I had about 43 FPS but now with the I7 (no HT) and higher graphic settings I get 73. Obviously the engine (physisc, day and night, ambiance, water..?) is verry bussy but I am just wondering with doing what?...

Sorry but i'm having a hard time understanding what exactly your question is :confused:

[[general nuisance] 0]

Hello there gents,

First my pc specifications :-

Corsair TX 750W

Asus Striker II NSE

Intel Core 2 Duo 3.16GHz

Geil Ultra 4GB RAM DDR3

Western Digital Caviar 1TB Hard Disk Drive

XFX GTX295 graphics card

Creative X-Fi Xtreme Gamer sound card

Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit

Now I have the same problem as many here do with Arma2. I experience low frames per-second during my games. In particular the campaign mode on the Chernarsus [sic] map where in the city, my FPS will drop to 15-20, which to me makes the game unplayable. I have tried changing the various graphical settings to their lowest possible but this will only alleviate the FPS problem by 5 FPS or so. Hardly neglible. I don't like setting the graphics to the lowest setting as it spoils the game for me and takes away the sheen of it.

I have gone onto the Arma2 CFG file in the documents portion and made sure the "resolution" and "render" numbers matched; which are 1280x1024. However this has made no discernible impact on the problem.

I read that the "HT" option which is supposed to feature on all Intel processor from the Pentium 4 class and upwards should be disabled. I couldn't find a "HT" option in my BIOS. However, I there was "virtualization technology" which is enabled and "Intel Speed Step....." which is disabled. Do either ones have any thing to do with the "HT" feature?

I also noted that larger hard disk drives may have problems as ArmA2 relies intensely on reading from the HDDs apparently. Due to my system running off a 1TB HDD (I know the read/write speed is important); could that be part of the problem? If so perhaps a defrag would be in order, as I've read here. Would any one suggest a good defrag tool forme?

Thank you,

General.

Edited October 12, 2009 by [General Nuisance]

[Flakpanzer 0]

Hi folks,

I have the following system:

Gateway DX4300-01

AMD Phenom II X4 810 (2.6Ghz)

8GB DDR2 Ram

1TBSATA 7200RPM Hard Drive

Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 1GB 256-bit GDDR3

18X DVD+/-R/RW Optical Drive

High-Definition Audio with 7.1 Support

700 Watt Power Supply

Windows Vista Home Premium 64-Bit

Regardless of the graphics settings I tweak in game, I maintain 20 - 25 FPS during play according to FRAPS. On low settings, or maxed out.

I run ARMA II with the -winxp command line to fix texture issues, but other than that, I have tried several of the tweaks here in the forums without any change.

From what I understand, my system should have no issues running ARMA II at higher frame rates than I am getting. Am I wrong about that?

Any suggestions?

Thanks.

[Alex72 1]

Resolution and settings? If you say "should have no problems with this game" i suspect you maybe go all out and with high resolution? ARMA2 is still "heavy", and even though you think you're the king on the block - you might need to tune some settings down. 1GB VRAM means also that the VIDEO MEMORY in-game setting should be set to DEFAULT i think(?). Or was that 2GB... Someone knows better i hope. But the key is to change around the settings and test in between to find the sweet spot.

The beta's show some better performance, but for now with 1.04 besides testing around with the in-game settings you can also download and run Kju's addon for better performance. I run it with great results.

But test changing the settings down a bit all around, and then raise them individually and test between the changes.

Alex

Edited October 12, 2009 by Alex72

[Flakpanzer 0]

Thanks for the reply Alex, I am at work right now, and can't exactly remember the in-game settings I am using....But I know it is set to 'default' at 1920x1080 I believe....But I have experimented with setting changes from Very Low to Max and it hasn't made any noticeable differences in frame rate.

Always stays at 20 - 25 fps.

I'll try the Vegetation tweak tonight.

And as far as the 'king of the block' stuff - I just bought this PC (first new one in four years) and changed out the video card and power supply (about all I know how to do technically to PCs) because they were thought to be bottlenecks on that particular Gateway...I'm still honestly not sure if my system is great for gaming, but it runs OFP:2 at 45+ FPS, so I'm just trying to figure out why it won't run ARMA II at over 25fps.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Flakpanzer

[Nizam 10]

Check this benchmark HERE

The 4850 is not on there but the 4770 is and is very close in performance to your 4850.

According to this site I think 25 fps is about right for that card at that resolution.

Actually you seem to be doing quite well considering the test setup was using a more powerful CPU.

[kklownboy 43]

Thanks for the reply Alex, I am at work right now, and can't exactly remember the in-game settings I am using....But I know it is set to 'default' at 1920x1080 I believe....But I have experimented with setting changes from Very Low to Max and it hasn't made any noticeable differences in frame rate.

Always stays at 20 - 25 fps.

I'll try the Vegetation tweak tonight.

And as far as the 'king of the block' stuff - I just bought this PC (first new one in four years) and changed out the video card and power supply (about all I know how to do technically to PCs) because they were thought to be bottlenecks on that particular Gateway...I'm still honestly not sure if my system is great for gaming, but it runs OFP:2 at 45+ FPS, so I'm just trying to figure out why it won't run ARMA II at over 25fps.

ARMA2 is much more of a game than DR...But your res is high for your card( its to high) but i believe your talking about the campaign? FPS in the campaign are low~ for all. Try multiplayer or SP missions.

[LRK89 10]

has anyone here used of are using fps helper 1.2? can you post some screens of before and after so I can see what it looks like please. i want to use but not if it makes it look crappy