ArmA2 / OA (low) performance issues

[Blunt 0]

I've tried several different setups but still have issues in big multiplayer games like Warfare after about an hour of play or so.

Current setup:

AMD 9600 quad 2.3 ghz

GTX 260

4 gb ram

Windows 7 x64

Works fine in single player and mission editor even with quite a bit of units on map. But in multiplayer, as soon as I witness a large number of units in small area (like base in Warfare), my frame rate is screwed for the rest of the game, even after I get out of the clutter into a fairly empty area. I'm trying to figure out if that symptom is CPU related or what.

Seems to happen even with all settings on low and VD about 1200.

[blobface 10]

Hi there, this is my first post. I'm so glad I found this game, just when I thought there can't be a more accurate milsim available than Red Orchestra, I stumbled across Arma 2.

Unfortunately my machine couldn't handle the graphics despite the fact that it could play most games (cod:worldatwar, batman:aa etc) on highest setting. This game impressed me so much that I went out and bought gtx 295 soon after, the antec 900 case and a new 700w power supply, hoping to be able to play this smoothly, obviously with an upgrade from 8800 gts 512 sli to a single gtx 295, there was much improvement, I could run the game in 100% 3D resolution, most settings on high etc, but every now and then I'd get a stutter, and it doesn't run as smoothly as I wish it to be. (i'm really picky with fps), the following's my spec.

antec 900 case (in case you wanna know if my machine's too jammed or overheating)

700W power supply

window vista 32

4gb ram

intel core 2 duo cpu - e8400 3ghz

gtx 295 1792mb

1tb harddrive

1680 x 1050 lg monitor

To me the setup seems quite powerful and should be able to handle anything, and it does except for this game (in fact my 8800 gts 512 handled just about everything before the upgrade), and if for some reason something is not up to date with my setup, what should I upgrade next? the CPU?

p.s. it's the steam version of arma 2 so i assume it's always updated.

[special_air_service 10]

Guys, is that terrain detail truly affect the fps ?

[Alex72 1]

Look at this guys video with GTX260SLI and i7 920: Youtube

Looks about right to me. I seen people here with similar systems that say ARMA2 doesnt work with this setup. Same system here shows amazing gameplay. Note when he zoom into the village - no lag - no popping textures. To me when i do that with my system i lag some. But then my system is shit.

Sooo wished i had that setup...

[Majormauser 0]

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

He's asking why the engine calculates every bullet and AI in the Game as well as has a vast MAP to contend with. He's confused as why this takes a good processor to run it with good FPS

[Tassadar 10]

So guys, what would you say about this setup for arma II to run good.

Antec Nine hudnred

Asus motherboard.

Asus ATI Radeon 5870

6 gig Corsair Memory

750 Corsair Powersupply

Intel i7 920 processor

Noctua Cooler

Windows 7 64 bit

Would this etup be able to run Arma II on high and even very high?on resolution 1920x1080?

[special_air_service 10]

So guys, what would you say about this setup for arma II to run good.

Antec Nine hudnred

Asus motherboard.

Asus ATI Radeon 5870

6 gig Corsair Memory

750 Corsair Powersupply

Intel i7 920 processor

Noctua Cooler

Windows 7 64 bit

Would this etup be able to run Arma II on high and even very high?on resolution 1920x1080?

It should be, at least u can run it on high settings with those resolution, but I heard that some CoreI7 experiencing troubleshooting that makes they must set cpu count =-4, I dunno exactly but u can read on other thread that includes CoreI7 problem :)

Happy play the game mate :D

[Leon86 13]

;1461423']Hello there gents' date='

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 read that the "HT" option which is supposed to feature on all Intel processor from the Pentium 4 class and upwards

I also noted that larger hard disk drives may have problems as ArmA2 relies intensely on reading from the HDDs apparently.

General.

In the city (Chernogorsk) I have the same problem on my 3.46 Ghz core2duo the city has so many objects that the game there is cpu limited for me (you could try overclocking).

HyperThreading wouldn't give you much more performance, also it is NOT on all pentium 4's and NOT on intel core2 series cpu's (so you dont have it)

If you have a lot of disk activity you could try loading some of the game data to a ramdisk. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=88629

[IrishCoffe 10]

Some of the post inside this section seems some old fary tale, how it be.. missing quad-core support in addition with no multi-gpu code optimization, really sucks and perhaps kill our expectation.

I7 920 @4.00 (28k Vantage)

Quad SLI 295 @Stock (31k Vantage)

BloodRage

OCZ 1600 6GB

WD1550HLFS RAID (Read 231 MB/sec HD tune)

SSD OCZ (Read 215 MB/sec HD tune)

In term of performance, it's like u know, watching a blu-ray video on one old Athlon Thunderbird 800.

Lot of stuttering, I mean really a lot. So, I've decided to leave a post for the posterns.

Vanilla 1.04 - ARMA2_Build_59323 - PROPER - no matter what, the game as it is will just stutter, so please: chunk, serialize the texture or at least for the most used enable a cache folder.

Thanks

[Tassadar 10]

It should be, at least u can run it on high settings with those resolution, but I heard that some CoreI7 experiencing troubleshooting that makes they must set cpu count =-4, I dunno exactly but u can read on other thread that includes CoreI7 problem :)

Happy play the game mate :D

Yeah well, I could just swtich of HT. I heard that improves performance. I could also clock the processor from 2.6 to 3,6 Ghz.

Which probably will improve performance.

Im just abit worried since If Armed Assault 2 has the system requiremtnets or the performance draining as this high. How long will a new monster rig be good for games today?, a year?, 6 months?

[IrishCoffe 10]

Yeah well, I could just swtich of HT. I heard that improves performance. I could also clock the processor from 2.6 to 3,6 Ghz.

Which probably will improve performance.

Im just abit worried since If Armed Assault 2 has the system requiremtnets or the performance draining as this high. How long will a new monster rig be good for games today?, a year?, 6 months?

Well. At this stage, october 2009 playing ARMA2 with HT on, will for sure permanently damage uor CPU ( if certain condition are meeted ). So.. Im pretty sure that Intel have some nice datasheet and/or technician which could explain how to implement such MULTI-ENTRY THREADING into the already existent app code.

U know, optimization is the key for the future :D

Edited October 23, 2009 by IrishCoffe

[Tassadar 10]

I said I was goign to switch it OFF:D, not on

So I fi have it swtiched off then? WIl lit iprove performance

[Bulldogs 10]

Possibly....

HT introduces a chance of cache thrashing (pretty high chance). Basically that means that your CPU is spiking as it's constantly hammering the cache which causes fragmented gameplay (stalls, fps spikes, etc)

[bono_lv 10]

Ok... I'm really tired of trying to get game playable. And now I'm really pissed and angry.

This game is great. But it is fucking broken. It is completely unplayabe on my system, it crawls at 20-30fps on multiplayer no matter what settings I choose. And actually Arma 2 doesn't look so good for that performance. Yeah, there are some things that looks really good, but overall graphics sucks, I accept that, because I treat to Arma 2 as to simulator. But give god damn performance at least 40fps, no lower than that.

I don't know what else I can try. Should I try anything at all after all this lost time?

I can only suggest something to BIS... And you can't imagine how I'm trying to hold on to not talk offensively.

1.) Do NOT focus on gameplay bug fixing or new expansion. I don't give a fuck that BIS has a lot of workers. If they need something to do - test different systems, fix god damn performance bugs. Focus all brain power on performance and stability fixes.

2.) FFS, get rid of forced v-sync, at least give an option to disable it.

3.) On next expansion, do MAJOR game engine changes, listen to community, there are lot of suggestions what's wrong and should be improved.

4.) Change system requirements to real ones... Bis knows how their engine is working, they should mention - "oh, don't forget to buy ramdrive with 12GB ram aaaand make sure you have 4xraid0 ssd drives too"

5.) Make actually use of faster gpu's.

Here's my rig:

Q9550 at 3.4GHz

4GB ram

HD4870x2

2xraid0 7200rpm hdd's

vista 32bit

It runs a bit better on win7, but still... Performance sucks ballz if i'm not alone on island and in deep forest without any buildings. To clarify - 10-35fps is not playable for me. Playable is 40+fps. And I am not talking about stuttering or lod popping. Just pure fps, it feels so sluggish and microstuttering.

Oh man... I can't describe how I want refund for this wasted time. The most stupid thing is that I realise - gameplay is really good...

And all BIS fanboys, plz don't start to talk shit about: "your system is not configured good etc..."

It's configured and optimized good - I play damn Crysis game on 1920x1200 AAx2 all maxed out. Guess lowest fps... 33 in rare ocassions. Average 40. I know - you can't compare these games, but I don't compare. I just say - my system is fine. Arma 2 engine is not.

Btw... Just an idea. Maybe there's some difference betwean Retail and Steam versions?

[hotel 10]

I agree with you Bono.....:(

[lee_h._oswald 0]

I upgraded from a GF8800GTX(768MB) to a GTX275OC(896MB).

- FPS in the intro screen(with -world=empty) jumped from ~100 to ~187-

- UTES is fully playable, even with 5000m viewdistance. (nice fps boost, but was playable with the 8800GTX too)

- Chernaurus is playable with very low viewdistances and the use of PROPER low buildings/trees/etc addons.

Turning the vd a bit higher and having some action going on, you can feel the "STEP" from smooth gameplay to a stutter one.

It feels like the arma engine is only processing every second frame, horrible...

And I'm having this bug now with the new graphics card:

It's that "fake land" horizon texture, it's getting cut randomly..

MfG Lee

[hollow point 1]

Some of the post inside this section seems some old fary tale, how it be.. missing quad-core support in addition with no multi-gpu code optimization, really sucks and perhaps kill our expectation.

I7 920 @4.00 (28k Vantage)

Quad SLI 295 @Stock (31k Vantage)

BloodRage

OCZ 1600 6GB

WD1550HLFS RAID (Read 231 MB/sec HD tune)

SSD OCZ (Read 215 MB/sec HD tune)

In term of performance, it's like u know, watching a blu-ray video on one old Athlon Thunderbird 800.

Lot of stuttering, I mean really a lot. So, I've decided to leave a post for the posterns.

Vanilla 1.04 - ARMA2_Build_59323 - PROPER - no matter what, the game as it is will just stutter, so please: chunk, serialize the texture or at least for the most used enable a cache folder.

Thanks

I read that Arma 2 hate quad SLI. try disabling one of cards.

[Bulldogs 10]

I'm considering upgrading my com soon (Core i7, 4890), but not sure if I should tempt fate. I run a 9800 and E7300 Core2Duo and get 30-60 fps on high settings (1280x1024) so I should probably just stick with what I've got, last thing I want is to upgrade and lose performance.

[The_Nexus 10]

Buyed it over steam. After hours of tweaking, I get 30-60 fps on Utes and 30 on Chenarus. This game is dead for me, until theres a chance to play it playable through a patch. Is there any hope for one...? :(

[IrishCoffe 10]

I read that Arma 2 hate quad SLI. try disabling one of cards.

Thanks for the suggestion, but.. as far I know the major issue is just the render method utilized by arma for drawing things on the traget area, in fact if u try grab a normal screen from the buffer u take only a black screenshoot rly :P

By the way, for make it simple that indicate on this specific setup that QUAD SLI is not really working.

I'm considering upgrading my com soon (Core i7, 4890), but not sure if I should tempt fate. I run a 9800 and E7300 Core2Duo and get 30-60 fps on high settings (1280x1024) so I should probably just stick with what I've got, last thing I want is to upgrade and lose performance.

I suggest to keep it for a little longer.

See if u can wait for 2nd gen dx11 card instead seek for another one 9800 at really cheap price to put in SLI on a new monitor :P

[clum 10]

Hi, new guy here and sory to have to jump straiight in with a request for advice.

Picked up arma2 a few days ago and so far it seems i'm going to be one of the many with performance issues. Doesnt seem to be hardware related though ass whatever settings i chose in game make ZERO difference to the framerate which stays between 23-26. Everything on low to everything on very high sees the same fps.

The onlly thing that does increase frames somewhat is to lower the resolutions significantly. This isnt a solution though for obvious reasons.

Ive tried a few performance mods like the low detail buildings and trees which helps a little but it seems ther problem lies elsewhere given the way the framerate seems locked despite settings.

i'll post my specs up below in the hope that someone with a similar system can advise on some things which have worked for them in getting the most out of this game. If theres nothing that can be done at this point then fair enough. 25fps isnt the end of the world and in fairness it feels fairly smooth compared to some games at that framerate.

E8500 @ 4.5ghz

6gb 1066 ddr2

GTX 280 (usually clocked to 702/1402/1202 but arma seems to dislike this)

Win7

1920*1200

running arma2 on 4x mult AA and 8xAF

everything else shouldnt be too important.....regular 7200rpm hard drive might be the only other thing.

Help is hugely appreciated.

Edited October 26, 2009 by clum

[stealth7d 10]

Hello all, I am considering upgrading my computer. As like many other people I am getting low FPS.

I have already exhausted all possible optimizations that I can do Ingame and in the Nvidia control panel, giving me about 5 FPS boost. Which leads to a total of around 15 FPS in any sort of village or combat situation.

In your opinion, what component is bottle-necking my system:

CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.4 Ghz (4 CPU's)

RAM: 4094MB RAM (800Mhz)

Graphics Card: Nvidia Geforce 8800 GTS 640Mb

Hard Drive: 7200 Rpm HDD 128 Gb

[special_air_service 10]

Hello all, I am considering upgrading my computer. As like many other people I am getting low FPS.

I have already exhausted all possible optimizations that I can do Ingame and in the Nvidia control panel, giving me about 5 FPS boost. Which leads to a total of around 15 FPS in any sort of village or combat situation.

In your opinion, what component is bottle-necking my system:

CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.4 Ghz (4 CPU's)

RAM: 4094MB RAM (800Mhz)

Graphics Card: Nvidia Geforce 8800 GTS 640Mb

Hard Drive: 7200 Rpm HDD 128 Gb

I see ur spec is well enough, but maybe the video card here is the main bottleneck since ur proc is 4 core already...

The best way to maximize ur spec is replace ur video card which can equallying ur proc power, I recommend take GTX 260 and above...

Make sure ur Power Supply is enough too...

I don't recommended ATI since there are lot of people hv issue with this card playing ARMA II

Happy gaming mate :)

[GLeek 10]

Buyed it over steam. After hours of tweaking, I get 30-60 fps on Utes and 30 on Chenarus. This game is dead for me, until theres a chance to play it playable through a patch. Is there any hope for one...? :(

yes there is. GDTplant mod. grass and tree detail cost are too expensive.

GDT tweaked it. give it a try !

[catito14 0]

Hi, my specs:

-Intel i7 920 2.66ghz @ 4.00 ghz

-ATI HD4890

-4gb Ram 1600mhz

-Windows 7

-Mother Asus P6t

-LG LCD 20´´ 1600x900

When i´m playing the game works fine in everything in normal, except the AA in high, i´m playing in 1600x900 ... but sometimes the game pulls the FPS down for 2 seconds and then continue working fine.

After, i used WIN XP and the game works smoother (in a 17´´ monitor in 1024x768) i think.

Anyone could help me??

Thanks in advance