ArmA2 / OA (low) performance issues

[-=JackHorner=- 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...? :(

as long as you don't get less than 30 fps the game is playable, and enjoyable...

everyone's frame rate is locked to 30 in the campaign and in large scale missions by design...

You don't really need a high frame-rate as this game is not a run and gun fast paced shooter.

[special_air_service 10]

as long as you don't get less than 30 fps the game is playable, and enjoyable...

everyone's frame rate is locked to 30 in the campaign and in large scale missions by design...

You don't really need a high frame-rate as this game is not a run and gun fast paced shooter.

And one more thing, try to setting terrain detail to low or disabled n see the difference after that.

If u still maintain the terrain detail, try vegetation mod which u can download it somewhere in this thread (sory I forgot where is exactly the thread with that link to download :p)

With that mod, the terrain will not disappear at all, it will just render needed terrain detail but without sacrifice the performance.:)

[napps420 10]

i am currently trying to see if i can do some upgradeing in performance on my machine running games like crysis on high run great 55 fps or better game won't allow me to run very high it's blacked out

but when running arma2 and microsoft flight simulator i feel a great decrease in performance mainly due to draw distance if anybody can guide me on where to start upgradeing my system for better performance in these situations it will be greatly appreciated on arma i have to set draw distance to almost nothing to get 21 fps before nvidia update 50 fps after but draw distance and video mem are still set to low while everything else is set on very high moment i move draw distance over a little i lose frames had to play with it to get good frame rate while expanding the map textures

ASUS m2n32 sli deluxe MoBo

amd 2x 6400 black edition

2 gb corsair xms2 4 4 4 12

asus 8800 gt vid card in sli

corsair 750 wt toughpower

sata 80 gb HD i took from a dell machine

the machine was running slow on all low settings til i got the nvidia update for my sli cards that update made a world of difference

---------- Post added at 06:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 PM ----------

cpu is running at 3.4

---------- Post added at 06:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:08 PM ----------

no over clocking

[Alon.S 10]

Hey everyone, that's my first post here. I have a question regarding graphic settings in-game. I have a laptop equipped with:

Core 2 duo T7500 2.2 Ghz

3 GB ddr 2 667 mhz RAM

Ati Radeon 2600 HD with 256 Vram & up to 1067 using hyper memory.

What would be the best graphic options to be set in ArmA 2 for such a machine? I tried all low with low AA & AF, but still get lag in urban areas. Same problem when going medium without AA & AF.

[Bulldogs 10]

I'd suggest leaving AA off and try the latest beta patch

[Krout 10]

Hi everybody,

My first post here.

I have a PC (ASUS P6T, i7920 OC to 3.8, 6Gb DDR3 RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275 900 Mb and 24" LCD).

The thing is that I have Win 7 RC 64 bit on one drive - 200G

and Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit on another drive - 1Tb. Both OS have the same set of drivers.

I have Arma2 installed on both drives and boot to one or another.

Well, the game runs smooth on Win 7 RC and a little choppy (enough to notice) on final release. Any ideas why this is happening? :confused: Hardware is exactly the same in both cases, except for the hard drives. Could they be the problem?

Thank you

[Bulldogs 10]

Yep, it's most likely the hard drive. The larger your hard drive the longer it takes windows to access it (more ground to search). Try manually setting your page file and put the page file on the Final Release Win 7 (the one of the 1tb HD) on the 200gb hard drive. That way windows will access the smaller hard drive to page.

[Krout 10]

hmm, it sounds like a very good idea. I will try and report back.

Thank you

[Jay_L_22 10]

Hi all,

I am confused about arma 2's performance. My machine isnt the best in the world, but its certainly not bad and pretty much doubles the 'required' specfications for the game and well well over the minimum specs, yet i am getting an average of 22 FPS, can anyone help or suggest a solution.

My system is:

Windows 7 32 bit

4 Gb DDR3 1333 RAM

AMD Phenom 2 955 quad core 3.22 Ghz

Geforce 9800 GT (1 gig version) with latest driver (191 something or other)

Using FRAPS i get an average of 22 FPS over a period of half an hour in various standard locations within a mission in campaign mode. With a high of only 29 FPS.

My settings are:

AA = off

Anistropic filtering = off

post proc effects = off

shadows = normal

terrain = normal

textures = normal

object detail = normal

memory = default

view distance = (default - middle of bar at 2300)

resolution = 1280 x 800 x 32

I don't like playing games with much less than 30 FPS, so this is a real annoyance, especially as it is way above the system requirements.

Anyone else with a similar system getting such poor performance?

Thanks

[yanquis 10]

first of all, welcome to the club. ;) it is an odd engine and tweaking it for your system is a game in and of itself.

do you really notice the low fps? i find i dont notice any difference b/w framerates around where youre reporting & ~40 fps which is around what im averaging at the moment in a squad vs squad engagement (just checked). i get inconsistent performance from the game & occasionally turn on fraps to see what it says im getting...frankly unless its chugging or something i can never even guess. at times when ive felt the game is flying i turn on fraps and it says im getting 19-30 fps. most issues that effect gameplay in arma 2 have nothing to do w/ your average frames per second in my experience.

also, my guess is you can crank the settings up a LOT and not get any dropoff. the game is odd like that. AA is the setting that kills me but ive read here that nvdia cards handle it very well. though tbh, im not convinced i notice any actual effect from it other than performance decrease.

finally keep in mind the the campaign can be very system intensive so the results there are probably a baseline for your overall experience.

anyway i would suggest downloading the latest beta patch as a first step, run in native res (100% 3D resolution in the settings), try settings at high or very high and video memory at very high instead of default. read around the forum as there are dozens of tweaks...im too tired at the moment to get started listing some but hopefully someone will.

[Bulldogs 10]

I have a 9800GT and get about the same in the larger missions in the campaign, but it's still smooth at 22 fps for some odd reason. Although outside campaign I get about 45-60 fps.

[Jay_L_22 10]

Thanks for your reply.

Unfortunately i do notice the poor FPS in most cases, especially in forests, army bases and towns. Aiming is a nightmare in these locations, and spotting units whilst moving is almost impossible. I think my FPS (being between 18 and 26 most the time) is in that region where small changes make a large difference.

I have searched the forum a little, and one change i have made is to alter an nvidea setting to 8 pre-rendered frames, but that didn't seem to make any difference.

I might download the beta drive as you suggested and give that a try now.

Thanks

[Bulldogs 10]

Also have a look in the mod (complete) section of the forums for some tweaks such as proper projects tweaks

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=85739

They reduce some of the complex textures to increase frame rates.

Also try reducing your view distance to about 1600 and and set video memory to very high.

As for the Max-Prerendered Frames setting, that basically works by setting to 8 making low fps seem more smooth but chance of introducing input lag (mouse lag, slow keystrokes), setting to 1 (or around that area) reduces input lag but makes it less smooth.

[Jay_L_22 10]

Thanks for that information on the pre-rendered frames, very useful. Also one thing id like to point out is that the campaign i was benchmarking with a constant FPS of 22 was Manhattan. Sounds like a crap campaign mission for FPS. I will try the same settings on a single scenario see what i get.

Thanks everyone

Just tried benchmarking 'trial by fire' with the same settings and i get an average of 40 FPS over the first 10 minutes of the mission. I don't know if 'trial by fire' is a demanding mission on FPS, im guessing not, but this certainly makes more sence now.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Jay_L_22

[Bulldogs 10]

Campaign missions are extremely demanding on the CPU, especially missions like Manhatten and the ones further on in the campaign due to the large number of AI. Generally dual cores will get about 22-28 fps in those missions, quad cores (especially intel) get around 30-35.

Outside the campaign you'll find much better performance, unless you create a mission with lots of AI and heavy scripting.

[napps420 10]

i don't know what the hell i did BUT IT WORKS PERFECT

ASUS m2n32 sli deluxe MoBo

amd 2x 6400 black edition

2 gb corsair xms2 4 4 4 12

2x asus 8800 gt vid card 512mb in sli

corsair 750 wt toughpower

sata 80 gb HD i took from a dell machine

with these specs which are lower than most folks haveing major issues i run game with everything set to the max 1900x1600 res the only thing i had to methodically adjust to going up one click and testing is the texture slider game runs full speed no hicups no lag no glitches just a steady 65 fps oh yeah i had to update the nvidia drivers and update game to 1.04 for this to work if anybody needs to know anything about my config in specific any info i can hand out i'll be glad to help

---------- Post added at 04:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:41 AM ----------

this was tested in campaign mode from Manhattan to badlands and still going

[Jay_L_22 10]

Thats amazing. Which nvidea driver do you have? As you said, your system is on par with mine, yet mine struggles at 22 FPS on certain campaign missions.

If this is true with all things being equal, then clearly Arma has some sort of problem with something somewhere!

Edited November 4, 2009 by Jay_L_22

[Krout 10]

I don't know if this is considered a related issue. I still have ARMA2 demo, the full game is on it's way. My PC: ASUS P6T, i7 920 @3.8 GHz, 6 Gb DDR3 @1500 and GeForce GTX 275, Viewsonic vx2433wm. I built this machine just to play ARMA2 because I love the demo. I installed the demo on this machine running Win 7 RC - it runs perfect! I installed the demo on Win 7 Ultimate (final built) and it runs terrible. Same set of drivers, same everything and it sucks. I explain what I mean. When I "turn my head" everything is blurry in between starting and ending points. On RC it is MUCH clearer. When I "run" if feels like it stumbles every second or two (kind of lagging). What can it be? Hardware is the same, except for the different HDs I have OSs installed on.

One more thing: I have Avast Antivirus installed on RC OS, and NOD32 on final build Windows. I disabled the NOD32 but the play is still the same, choppy.

BTW, Crysis runs at EVERYTHING @ "very high" just great on final build Win 7. In a few days I will get my full game and I hope, hope everything will be fine.

Any thought? what can I try?

[hamis 0]

You can try this:http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=88629

[napps420 10]

nvidia driver 191.07

[Krout 10]

You can try this:http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=88629

Thank you, hamis. Great information there.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Krout

[reconteam 19]

i don't know what the hell i did BUT IT WORKS PERFECT

ASUS m2n32 sli deluxe MoBo

amd 2x 6400 black edition

2 gb corsair xms2 4 4 4 12

2x asus 8800 gt vid card 512mb in sli

corsair 750 wt toughpower

sata 80 gb HD i took from a dell machine

with these specs which are lower than most folks haveing major issues i run game with everything set to the max 1900x1600 res the only thing i had to methodically adjust to going up one click and testing is the texture slider game runs full speed no hicups no lag no glitches just a steady 65 fps oh yeah i had to update the nvidia drivers and update game to 1.04 for this to work if anybody needs to know anything about my config in specific any info i can hand out i'll be glad to help

---------- Post added at 04:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:41 AM ----------

this was tested in campaign mode from Manhattan to badlands and still going

What texture "slider" are you talking about?

[napps420 10]

i'm sorry the draw distance (has a horizantal bar the more yoou move it the slower the game becomes even in small increments)

texture is should be set on low at first

these 2 items eat up the most processor with the slightest adjustmets

[kklownboy 43]

nvidia driver 191.07

I highly doubt your getting 65fps in Manhattan And 1900/1600 is a veryodd rez? can you post you whole arma2.cfg?

[jigawatt 10]

Well, I have tried and tried to tweak this game but can only get about 20ish FPS in cities.

Windows 7 64bit Retail

EVGA 680I Motherboard

Intel Q8200 Quad Core

500gig Samsung Spinpoint SATA3.0

Sapphire 4870 512meg (Latest ATI drivers)

6gigs Crucial PC6400

I have used the tweaks suggested from the Armaholics Optimization forum thread and used the No Bloom, Low Res Structures/Buildings/Vegetation mods. Also using the -winxp, -cpucount=2. The cpucount actually gave me about 5 frames, so that one worked pretty well.

If I recall correctly, my ingame settings are (starting with left row down) low, default, off, off, low, medium, low, low, disabled. I have my view distance set to 2000 and my resolution and 3D set to 1680x1050.

It is still playable, just wanting to push a few more frames if I can.