ArmA2 / OA (low) performance issues

[Lass_J 10]

Hi all.

Recently i've been trying to upper my FPS, but unfortunately nothing has helped me. When I play some of the scenarios, it's fine and I get around 50 FPS in benchmark 1. But when I play online it doesn't go much higher than 25, also when I download some missions from Armaholic, it's just as bad sometimes worse, adjusting some of the graphics settings hardly helps.

Specs:

Intel i7 920 @ 2.6 ghz

GTX295

6 GB ram

WD caviar blue 500GB SATA 16MB 7200RPM, a second 500gb samsung from my old pc, which is where Arma and steam is installed, i'm using the WD as my primary harddrive, could that be the problem?

I have the newest patch and graphics drivers installed, running the steam version if that helps.

I have tried just about anything both in this thread, and others i've read. I just don't know what could be causing this, any help would be greatly appreciated.

[Undeceived 392]

I can confirm very bad performance and FPS drops / stuttering... :(

In the last mission of the OA campaign (Zargabad) the frames go down to 7 every five seconds. And the highest I get there is around 25 FPS. Absolutely unplayable. And the odd this about this is: Setting down all options to low doesn't help practically anything.

Just as comparison: In smaller scenarios (e.g. the OA SP sniper mission) I get around 50 FPS (sudden drops to approx. 15 FPS too though :( ).

And the OA benchmark mission gives me the result of 54 FPS!

Scenarios with many AI and activity seem to be a no go (still...).

AMD Phenom II X4 965

Nvidia GTX 260

4 GB ram

Win 7 32bit

Edited July 1, 2010 by Undeceived

[Richey79 10]

In the last mission of the OA campaign (Zargabad) the frames go down to 7 every five seconds. And the highest I get there is around 25 FPS. Absolutely unplayable. And the odd this about this is: Setting down all options to low doesn't help practically anything.

I have exactly the same, and I'm fast coming to the conclusion that two things are to blame: the way the engine currently handles scripts (and specifically that the OA campaign scripts are 'inefficient') and the OA building models. (Poorly balanced) Load is being placed on the processors completely regardless of the graphics engine.

Until they fix these issues, ignore them. Have fun in the editor, getting scenarios from Armaholic as they come through and playing the Arma2 missions - pretty well optimised at this stage.

Edit: Would you believe, setting antialiasing to 'high', fillrate to 125%, both objects and textures to very high and vd to 4,500 seems to have helped smooth things out for my system (flip queue to 3 also seems to help)? I doubt this will be a solution for more hectic moments in the campaign, but seems to work for pretty much everything else I use A2 for.

Maybe there's too little scenery on Takistan, in some ways?

Of course, as soon as I go back to Chernarus, the clutter means these settings are wrong. They work fine with the grass set off, though.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Richey79

[otrebla_snake_ita 2]

That makes sense, thanks.

You're welcome ;)

I have exactly the same, and I'm fast coming to the conclusion that two things are to blame: the way the engine currently handles scripts (and specifically that the OA campaign scripts are 'inefficient') and the OA building models. (Poorly balanced) Load is being placed on the processors completely regardless of the graphics engine.

Until they fix these issues, ignore them. Have fun in the editor, getting scenarios from Armaholic as they come through and playing the Arma2 missions - pretty well optimised at this stage.

The bottle neck is the CPU, infact the engine still needs a lot of optimizations

Edited July 1, 2010 by otreblA_SNAKE_[ITA]

[AussieSausage 10]

hi all

firstly, my specs

x4 620 @ 3ghz

Xfire 5770's

4gb

win7 64bit

does anyone know how to make OA and/or arma2 run better, it runs like poop and it drops into the low 20s most of the times, even if i change to all low ( which i shouldnt need to ), my FPS dont even change

someone please help me

just ran benchmark and got more FPS running single GPU

wtf..

Edited July 2, 2010 by AussieSausage

[=kct=blackmamba 44]

try renaming the shortcut same as arma2, might work for crossfire app profile

[AussieSausage 10]

try renaming the shortcut same as arma2, might work for crossfire app profile

you cant change the .exe with steam games, when you do steam doesnt launch the game, says "this game is currently un-available"

completly sucks

[Richey79 10]

There's a workaround for Steam. Maruk posted it in another thread.

[AussieSausage 10]

There's a workaround for Steam. Maruk posted it in another thread.

got a link? cnt find anything

[1in1class 0]

Has anybody got the lag issue fix? Cant play the SP game in the editor with out an unit skipping through the map with bad lag.

Edited July 2, 2010 by 1in1class
need

[MuthaF 10]

got a link? cnt find anything

probably this:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=101615

[alpha9 10]

mine PC is 2.93 Core 2 Due, 3.5G Ram, Windows 7 Ultimate, Nvidia Geforce GTX 260, A2OA works ok even with 10k distance view in some places, but sometimes it crash, sometimes in game framerate go to 0 for few seconds, i dont know whats the problem. (this happen even with normal graphics setting with 3k distance view)

[recon 7185 10]

I get 25 fps on razor two mission.... seems pretty low with settings on high, AA disabled

PC specs....

1680x1050

Phenom II X4 965 @ 3.4 ghz

EVGA GTX 480

4 gigs ddr2 800

WD Caviar black 500gig 7200 rpm

Gigabyte 785g mobo

Windows 7 64bit

[Michael Withstand 10]

Im getting more or less the same performance(low 20s in campaign)

Core 2 duo 2.8GHz

NVidia 9800GTX+

8 GB DDR2 800MHz RAM

7200rpm HDD

Vista x64

So I would figure it's not the rig but it's the game. :)

Knowing how it runs even on your machine made me to think twice before upgrading my rig just for the sake of ArmA 2

Recon if I may inquire what's your test result for benchmark 1? I'm getting 34 but the truth is getting on average 30 or high 20s most of the time. It became 34 because of the high fps gained while the camera was looking high into the sky.

I updated my graphics driver yesterday and noticed that ArmA played a lot smoother and in the ArmA config file I noticed it registered 7 frames detected ahead instead of the usual 3. But a game later something seemed to kick in and the performance became like it always had and the detected frames ahead became 3 again. I believe ArmA 2 is capable of waay smoother gameplay even on my rig but something something is weighing the performance down.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Michael Withstand

[Nossarian 10]

every couple minutes my game drops to 2-5 FPS for a bit until I go into the menu and change ANY video setting. Any thoughts?

Specs:

Intel® Core2 Duo CPU P8700 @ 2.53GHz (can OC with Asus utility to + 15%)

6.00 GB RAM

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M 3839 MB Total available graphics memory

Windows 7 64-bit

Edited July 5, 2010 by DropoftheGun

[1in1class 0]

Should know by now guys that its not your system. Its OA itself, iv seen so many people try so many things to get the lag issue fix(like skipping along in the SP map) and better preformence, its OA doing the lag skipping in the SP editor game. People have 2x better computer then me and they got the same issue with the lag and preformance as i do. Lets just hope BI puts out an patch very soon that fix the lag slideshow skipping issue. As in most part the OA game is unplayable. Beta patch did nothing to help out with the lag issue or better preformence.

[Nossarian 10]

It isn't on OA though.

[1in1class 0]

It isn't on OA though.

What isn't on OA? OA took to ArmA 2. It has all to do with OA.

[recon 7185 10]

Im getting more or less the same performance(low 20s in campaign)

Core 2 duo 2.8GHz

NVidia 9800GTX+

8 GB DDR2 800MHz RAM

7200rpm HDD

Vista x64

So I would figure it's not the rig but it's the game. :)

Knowing how it runs even on your machine made me to think twice before upgrading my rig just for the sake of ArmA 2

Recon if I may inquire what's your test result for benchmark 1? I'm getting 34 but the truth is getting on average 30 or high 20s most of the time. It became 34 because of the high fps gained while the camera was looking high into the sky.

I updated my graphics driver yesterday and noticed that ArmA played a lot smoother and in the ArmA config file I noticed it registered 7 frames detected ahead instead of the usual 3. But a game later something seemed to kick in and the performance became like it always had and the detected frames ahead became 3 again. I believe ArmA 2 is capable of waay smoother gameplay even on my rig but something something is weighing the performance down.

Well if i remember somewhere around 45 or 50. In game is down to same framerates as you. I am on windows 7 64 bit so I do not know if i take a hit compared to XP users

[Nossarian 10]

What isn't on OA? OA took to ArmA 2. It has all to do with OA.

Sorry, should've been more specific.

THe low performance isn't on the Ex pack only. When I run the vanilla A2 it actually has worse performance than OA (oddly enough)

And on lower settings too

[Gemini 359]

Intel Quad Q9550 @ 4 Ghz

4 Go RAM Corsair PC6400

Radeon 4890 1 Go

Windows 7 Ultimate 32 bits

1680 x 1050 (filtrate = 100% @ 1680 x 1050)

Distance view: 2000 m

Texture detail: normal

Video memory: normal

AA: disabled

AF: normal

Terrain detail: normal

Object detail: normal

Shadows: high

Postprocess effects: low

30 FPS in average: it's playable, but I think it could be better. What should I buy if a quad CPU @ 4 GHz with a powerfull video card (yes it is) is not enough to play ArmA II with high settings + AA ?

[=kct=blackmamba 44]

set anti aliasing to normal or low, u have to figure it out but gives u few more fps's

u could set it to off but that doesnt look very nice

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

set anti aliasing to normal or low, u have to figure it out but gives u few more fps's

u could set it to off but that doesnt look very nice

set AA off and 3D resolution to 150% :rolleyes:

[Yoma 0]

I believe ArmA 2 is capable of waay smoother gameplay even on my rig but something something is weighing the performance down.

Maybe that something is called VISTAX64 :D

On my pc i get about 15-25% better performance in XP32 compared to VISTAX64.

That said OA probably needs some optimisations and will probably never run like an average 200m max VD corridor shooter...

Edited July 9, 2010 by Yoma

[Fraggle 10]

I was having a rather tough time getting Arma to run smooth.

CTD... Stutters, GFX card down clocking.

After playing with every setting possible, I managed to get some stabillity with, and a more enjoyable experience (Still having stutters/random downclocking) with the settings in the second post here.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=100601

Not the most potent PC, but ARMA is running alot better.