ArmA2 / OA (low) performance issues

[NeMeSiS 11]

If you are just having problems with lag and stuttering, welcome to the club. :) Everyone is having these problems with ArmA 2 right now.

My game is also running fine, but thanks for your concern. :p

[Kristian 47]

I sitll find funny that forest and nature are +45 FPS constant, but chernogorsk is 25 MAX :S

Such an awesome city and cant even play properly on it :(

[Fox '09 14]

recently my FPS has been going from 20-60 constantly. Its smooth for 5 seconds.. then it drops to 20-30 and goes back up shortly after.

perhaps i need to retune my settings, i recently exchanged my GTX 275s for one GTX 470.

[ladlon 10]

I've been getting acceptable (seemingly good) performance so far... but I do notice that it SEEMS any slowdown I do get is CPU based, and not graphical based... By that, I mean (probably) too many units being present. I can crank the graphic settings up, and see no real fps hit.

That said, are there any settings I can make to help any CPU strain (...aside from the actual number of units, if the mission allows that sort of control)? I don't know... something like how much computation each unit gets, etc? (I'm talking in the vanilla Arma2)

The solutions I'm finding are all based on graphical slowdown, so I'm wondering if there's anything that can be done for CPU slowdown...

[kklownboy 43]

recently my FPS has been going from 20-60 constantly. Its smooth for 5 seconds.. then it drops to 20-30 and goes back up shortly after.

perhaps i need to retune my settings, i recently exchanged my GTX 275s for one GTX 470.

my bet is a power control issue with your 470, its

A. Getting hot and powering down.Which you could adjust?

B. Less is going on on the screen graphically at those times so the card powers down but the CPU is still cranking out. Need to monitor the volts,temps RAM usage.

[Fox '09 14]

nope it's fine @ 70c,

i solved though, seemed to be fixed with the latest beta patch.

[Blaque 10]

Hey all,

I am having issues with my game as well:

Intel Core 2 duo 2.4 GHz

2.00 GB RAM

Windows 7 64 bit

Nvidia GeForce 9800 GT

It looks like me specs more then beat out the minimum requirements, so I turn all of my settings to Low/Normal to the point where the game is starting to look a bit ridiculous, and it is still choppy as hell. Normally, running around with a few people out in the open or in a forrest isn't too bad. But once I get in a town city with a ton of buildings/enemy units to render, it gets unplayable. Also in a chopper it gets a bit choppy, lol.

I've applied most of these fixes and tweaks I can find around these forums(VSync Off, run in -winxp, prerenderedframes=0, etc.). IS there anything I may have missed that I can tweak or is there something really lacking in my specs? I haven't read through all these pages so maybe I missed something. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated.

EDIT: I also have run on many different resolutions, and am not set on just one. My native resolution is 1920x1080.

[Jacky60 10]

about the i7. lots have suggested to turn off hyper threading. i would, except windows7 crashes when i do that. i want a confirmation from people that say their i7 was running poorly with hyper threading turned on.

the game's still downloading for me right now. i uninstalled it twice after two failed attempts to get it running past 10fps.

Turn off Hypethreading and you'll get 5-10% better performance probs more. With everything on very high apart from post processing (disabled) and video memory default I get 60 fps pretty consistently (5970+5870 tri-fire).

I'm running windows 7 64 bit and it runs everything fine -very stable.

[MavericK96 0]

about the i7. lots have suggested to turn off hyper threading. i would, except windows7 crashes when i do that. i want a confirmation from people that say their i7 was running poorly with hyper threading turned on.

the game's still downloading for me right now. i uninstalled it twice after two failed attempts to get it running past 10fps.

Turn off Hypethreading and you'll get 5-10% better performance probs more. With everything on very high apart from post processing (disabled) and video memory default I get 60 fps pretty consistently (5970+5870 tri-fire).

I'm running windows 7 64 bit and it runs everything fine -very stable.

I've had HT off on my i7 ever since I got the chip. You shouldn't get Windows crashes with it off, so there's something else wrong if that's the case.

[johncage 30]

that's windows 7's acpi problem. it's either hyper threading on or eist off. i prefer eist to save power. however i've used the 4-cpu command thing and it seems the performance is better...just not by much.

when i had my old 5600+ it was laggy, but at least moving the camera wasn't sluggish, now the frames are better, but camera movement is inconsistent, like jumpy. i think i might have to turn vertical sync back on, but that thing's weird.

[Juppie 10]

Running the mission where u kill shitload of ppl with a squad of 4 at night and destroying a BMP on about less then 20 FPS

Specs:

Intel Core 2 Duo E7400 @ 2.80 Ghz

2GB DDRII RAM

NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS + latest drivers.

All game settings are on LOW. and i still get gay FPS

[domokun 515]

Juppie: your video card and CPU are rather weak. Try a more virile CPU.

[oldy41 61]

I am currently running a Core2 Duo @ 3GHz and a Nvidia 285 GTX.

That grafic card should be good, but I know the processor is outdated.

My question is, what performance gain I may expect by switching to a quad core processor with about the same frequency? Does ArmA2 scale good with the number of cores, or is there no big difference between dual and quad?

(At the time A2 came out, most games were not yet prepared to make good use of more cores.)

Please experiences only, no mere assumptions. I have already reconned, that 4 cores are roughly about twice as much as 2 ;)

Thanks!

A.

[domokun 515]

Oldy41: almost none, 5-10% at a guess. You're much better off going for a very fast dual core (4GHz) than a fast quad (3.2 GHz). Nice gfx card btw. This is because A2 is wasn't designed from the ground up with multi-core support in mind. Before people criticise, please be in mind that this type of design is extremely hard to achieve. Very few engines really manage this. I'm not trying to excuse BIS, just explain the context. Like most sims, A2 is (and prolly will always be) CPU limited. Here's a half-decent test that illustrates this.

Edited May 10, 2010 by domokun

[oldy41 61]

Oldy41: almost none, 5-10% at a guess. You're much better off going for a very fast dual core (4GHz) than a fast quad (3.2 GHz). Nice gfx card btw. This is because A2 is wasn't designed from the ground up with multi-core support in mind. Before people criticise, please be in mind that this type of design is extremely hard to achieve. Very few engines really manage this. I'm not trying to excuse BIS, just explain the context. Like most sims, A2 is (and prolly will always be) CPU limited. Here's a half-decent test that illustrates this.

@domokun:

Thanks a lot. That benchmark link is very helpful in making an educated upgrade decision!

A.

[Leon86 13]

146 cpu roundup

Here's another one.

[MavericK96 0]

146 cpu roundup

Here's another one.

I saw this and was confused as to why the i7 870 was faster than the i7 920, but I guess the 870 stock clock is 2.93 GHz and the 920 is 2.66 GHz.

Luckily the 920 is a great overclocker and can hit 3.8-4.0 GHz easily on air cooling. :cool:

[DrFire 10]

Should my set up be only getting around ~27 FPS on normal settings at 1440 x 900?

Video Card: ATI Radeon 4870 512 MB

CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.2 Ghz

RAM: 4 gigs @ 667 MHz DDR2

OS: Windows Vista Ultimate 32 bit

[=kct=blackmamba 44]

what score do u get in benchmark 01 ?

what are your ingame settings ?

[DrFire 10]

My settings don't seem to matter - I get the same FPS for whatever settings I pick (very high or very low).

[Flash Thunder 10]

ugh downloaded a new campaign today called camp Pirog

cant even play it at 30fps even on the slowest possible settings!

500 vis

Very low on everything except Video Memory.

I assume its being caused by the amount of AI in the game its also on the poor performance map called Chug all of your resources on trees nurus.

:mad::mad::mad:

Specs:

9800gtx 512mb

amd phenom 9750 cpu's 4 clocked at 2.4ghz

8gb ram

[diveplane 0]

@diveplane: that does sound rather harsh. Please bear in mind that what might be fact for you might be fiction for others.

@Gen. Nuisance:

I whole-heartedly agree. I was hoping for 3rd time lucky!

Rather! However is also seems to be an increasing trend (Company of Heroes, Crysis, GTA4, etc.). To be honest I'd rather they publish some ambitious and slow, rather than something underwhelming and fast.

You're right to be wary so if you don't know what you're doing, invite a friend of who does and/or take it in very small steps. As for the graphic settings, despite their name much of their performance is dictacted by your CPU. With your setup you should be able to play smoothly with most settings on Default. FYI here's a good guide to OC your video card. Whenb I have a bit more time, I'll dig out a similar guide to OC your CPU.

In the meantime, here is another tweak that might help:

1. Find your arma2.cfg file (under My Documents)

2. Make a copy of this file (if anything goes wrong, you can go back to this)

3. Search for these 2 parameters and change the values to "0"

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=0;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=0;

This seemed to help me and others running Win7.

Oh and yes the vegetation tweak only really helps when the screen renders vegetation. So forests = good perf gains. City = little or none

really come on many cant be bothered doing this stuff, game should run right out of the box.

i run stock settings on my hardware , pushing beyond these default running speeds you risk frying your pc. it does strain and shorten your pc components life.

---------- Post added at 05:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 AM ----------

nope it's fine @ 70c,

i solved though, seemed to be fixed with the latest beta patch.

if your having frame issues , then it really is poor code.

that system you should be slick as butter.

[easty 0]

recently my FPS has been going from 20-60 constantly. Its smooth for 5 seconds.. then it drops to 20-30 and goes back up shortly after.

perhaps i need to retune my settings, i recently exchanged my GTX 275s for one GTX 470.

I there are driver issues with Arma and 400 series cards. I swapped out from GTX 8800 sli to GTX 480 SLI setup and I get similar FPS.. :eek:

I'm watercooled so heat isn't a problem. The game doesn't seem to task the cards in respect to heating them as with metro or JC2. And I can max the settings and it keeps the same FPS at around 16-2o unless I stare at a wall.

Looking forward to when I can run around with maxed graphics in Arrowhead.

[diveplane 0]

really hope operation arrowhead , next installment the game reads more ram , arma2 is cpu and ram intense , currently the game can only detect 2gig ram, which is poor,

min should be at least 3 gig ram spec , also the map is a resource hog = chugnarus, how about reducing the trees and objects on this map plz, to help slower machines.

performance patch 1.06 07, sure the dev team can do it ..

Edited May 13, 2010 by diveplane

[catito14 0]

I have a doubt to change my 4890 vapor-X for one of these cards:

-gtx 295

-HD 5870 vapor-x

wich one do you recommend for this game?? ´cause with my 4890 i can run all in mid-high with 30-40 fps

rig:

i7 920 @4ghz

4gb ram ddr3

win7 x64

hdd caviar black 750gb

Regards