ArmA2 / OA (low) performance issues

[Leon86 13]

In general I'm just having bad performance on any type of terrain other than plain desert in CO. I have tried tweaking my settings a hundred times but would like some more help. Also I use some mods like Zeus and GL4 that are a little script heavy. Yes my native screen res matches my 3d one

Heres what I've got:

- Windows Vista 32bit

- Intel Core2duo E4500@2.20 ghz

- 4GB RAM

- PNY Nvidia Geforce 9400GT (vsync off, AO off, balanced for performance+quality)

- Quality Pref: High

- View Distance: 2411

- Texture Detail: Normal

- Vid Memory: high

- Anisotropic Filtering: Normal

- Anitialising: Normal

- Terrain Detail: Normal

- Object Detail: Normal

- Shadow Detail: high

- HDR Quality: Normal

- PP Effects: Low

- Vsync: Disabled

while your cpu isnt very fast the real problem is your gpu. The 9400GT is about as fast as the onboard video on the latest sandy bridge chips. If you want to play arma you'll have to put in a new gpu. If you want decent performance you'll want to have a card thats in the top 10 rows here

might need a new psu as well although with a 5770/5750/6750/6770 you might be able to get away with your current one.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Leon86

[Nightrain 10]

while your cpu isnt very fast the real problem is your gpu. The 9400GT is about as fast as the onboard video on the latest sandy bridge chips. If you want to play arma you'll have to put in a new gpu. If you want decent performance you'll want to have a card thats in the top 10 rows here

might need a new psu as well although with a 5770/5750/6750/6770 you might be able to get away with your current one.

Thanks for the response! Thats what I figured. For now I have disabled AA and aniostropic filtering, still have trouble in vegetation but its much smoother and hardly noticeable.

[azz_er 10]

I don't think that there is a problem per say with AMD. Things you have to be aware of that not all CPU are equal. I don't just mean Core count but cashes and the actual architecture of the CPU it's self. So GHz for GHz two chips from different lines and manufactures are going to be different.

Have a look at what these different chips cost not just the GHz they run at. If you are looking at a £100 quad from AMD your only going to get a dual from Intel.

I'm running a Hex core 1090T Black, it cost £200 when I got it but as the Bulldozer will be out soon the cost is coming down. That £200 chip will cost you £135 now! It's supposed to run at 3.2GHz but mine can run at 4GHz on air. I normally run at the default clock because I need a new cooler, but I run the game all of the textures at Very High at 40+ 50+ fps. What would you get from Intel at £135?? for a little extra you get an i5 2.9GHz or a little cheaper you get an old school Q8400 @ 2.66GHz I'm not sure if it would run as sweetly on a quad core running at less than 3GHz

So I don't think it's fair to blame AMD for poor performance because you have to compare apples with apples. AMD are cheaper, the tech is getting a little old but will come back with the Bulldozer.

So if your CPU only has 2 cores or any number of cores but can't run well over 3GHz I don't care who makes it, ArmA will struggle.

Its not that Im blaming AMD for poor performance but people's perceptions of CPU speed and technology are poor as well which was the point I was trying to make. People assume that an i7 at 3.2ghz and a 955 at 3.2ghz are the same and are asking why they are getting such poor performance from their rig.

[dmarkwick 261]

Can you honestly, without any prejudice, tell me there are no issues with the ARMA2 performance?..

Its a rhetorical question, i do not expect you to answer that.

Rhetorical or not, allow me :)

If FPS is the only thing that matters to you in a game, then ArmA is always going to disappoint you. It's not that it has preformance issues, it's that it's doing stuff that other games are not doing - that's why you get scorn when comparing it to any other game (not you necessarily, just generally).

The most important thing to bear in mind with ArmA2 is that it's not a player-centric game engine. You are no more (or less) important an entity on the battlefield than any other entity. The game does not revolve around you, you are only a very small part of the large picture.

I'm not just saying that either - if you place some opposing forces 10km away from your position & mission, those opposing forces will proceed to engage, stalk & battle each other just as though they were in your immediate area. This is what I mean by not being able to compare it to other games, in other games, if the player cannot witness or may never see the outcome of a battle - it simply doesn't happen.

A lot of people might retort with questions about what is the point of processing something that the player might never see? The answer is in the nature of the game - the open world paradigm. The game processes it because the game has no idea what you will decide to do next, and that's the entire point of the engine. It simulates everything so anything can happen. Whether you know it or not that's the reason you like it so much.

The more complex the scenario the more performance goes down. If you like high performance then you're looking at choosing simpler scenarios. That's not to say easy, or lesser, just simpler as in not so much happening far away from you.

So my rehetorical answer is: yes, I can say that. In fact, I'm amazed ArmA2 does what it does at any FPS.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Its not that Im blaming AMD for poor performance but people's perceptions of CPU speed and technology are poor as well which was the point I was trying to make. People assume that an i7 at 3.2ghz and a 955 at 3.2ghz are the same and are asking why they are getting such poor performance from their rig.

Yeah but that is not really AMD related, when ArmA2 was just released there were also tonnes of complaints about crappy running P4's. ;)

In any case, Intel still is mostly associated with performance, while AMD is more budget orientated which is currently correct, so the problems with unreasonable expectations are less than before, although they will probably never disappear. (OMAGAWD ONLY LIEK 25FPS BUT COD HAS 400!!!11!)

[gunso 10]

Previously i'm using window xp for playing Arma CO and it seems fine to me. But lately my XP crashed and i cant find my mobo drivers CD so i use win7 and copy my arma folder to the new location and did a re-install.

Is it just my imagination or did Arma runs slower in win7 32bit compared to win XP?

I'm beginning to notice lag when zooming out and see building beginning to spawn again not to mention the underbrush making spotting enemy more than 50m hard as hell in single player. MP is much smoother but in chernarus it's just a bit better than SP.

I have tweaked the settings to try multiple resolutions and the results is the same. Is it my hdd or is it the window7? I downloaded a western digital hdd diagnostic software n run a few test and the result is fine.

My rig :-

AMD Phenom X4 2.2G

Nvidia EN9600GT 512mb

4GB ram

If anyone can verify this i'll ditch win7 and will try as hell to find my winXP mobo drivers again.

PS: Omg my pc OS is determined by which one will run arma the smoothest, now i understand what armaholic means XD

Edited June 29, 2011 by gunso

[pendragonuk 0]

Previously i'm using window xp for playing Arma CO and it seems fine to me. But lately my XP crashed and i cant find my mobo drivers CD so i use win7 and copy my arma folder to the new location and did a re-install.

Is it just my imagination or did Arma runs slower in win7 32bit compared to win XP?

I'm beginning to notice lag when zooming out and see building beginning to spawn again not to mention the underbrush making spotting enemy more than 50m hard as hell in single player. MP is much smoother but in chernarus it's just a bit better than SP.

I have tweaked the settings to try multiple resolutions and the results is the same. Is it my hdd or is it the window7? I downloaded a western digital hdd diagnostic software n run a few test and the result is fine.

My rig :-

AMD Phenom X4 2.2G

Nvidia EN9600GT 512mb

4GB ram

If anyone can verify this i'll ditch win7 and will try as hell to find my winXP mobo drivers again.

PS: Omg my pc OS is determined by which one will run arma the smoothest, now i understand what armaholic means XD

I can't say one way or the other for definite but, ArmA was written for XP. If your running 32bit then yea I would think that there is a strong argument for XP. For us with lots of RAM and some more exotic hardware like SSD's and the like then Windows 7 if the way to go. This is speculation on my part when it comes to the OS but don't forget hard drive speed is way important with this game.

As for your PS, my entire rig was built for ArmA. The other games I play are child's play compared to ArmA. I'm currently planing my next purchase, a pair of SATA III SSD so I can RAID them and get rid of mechanical drives all together... Then maybe water cooling? not sure the AMD buldozer is out in a few months and I will need a new MoBo, So yea I know what Armaholic means too :eek:

[stk2008 14]

Snap OFP,ARMA is the only games I spent money on new parts for just to get the best gaming experience.

Its mad because its still the only game I will upgrade for.

No doubt ARMA3 will make me do the same.

BIS should have a deal with Nvidia,ATI,ASUS etc etc as tbh BIS makes them money from this game alone :D

[Leon86 13]

Previously i'm using window xp for playing Arma CO and it seems fine to me. But lately my XP crashed and i cant find my mobo drivers CD so i use win7 and copy my arma folder to the new location and did a re-install.

Is it just my imagination or did Arma runs slower in win7 32bit compared to win XP?

I'm beginning to notice lag when zooming out and see building beginning to spawn again not to mention the underbrush making spotting enemy more than 50m hard as hell in single player. MP is much smoother but in chernarus it's just a bit better than SP.

I have tweaked the settings to try multiple resolutions and the results is the same. Is it my hdd or is it the window7? I downloaded a western digital hdd diagnostic software n run a few test and the result is fine.

All the drivers you need for xp can be downloaded from the mobo manufacturers site, the gpu drivers directly from nvidia site.

My rig :-

AMD Phenom X4 2.2G

Nvidia EN9600GT 512mb

4GB ram

If anyone can verify this i'll ditch win7 and will try as hell to find my winXP mobo drivers again.

PS: Omg my pc OS is determined by which one will run arma the smoothest, now i understand what armaholic means XD

If you have 4GB ram it's best to have the 64 bit version of windows 7, as windows 7 is kind of ram hungry and 32 bit only uses 3.3 max.

XP isn't as ram hungry so 32bit is the best choice there. XP also has less fancyness so you might get better performance there, especially on such a relatively weak machine.

you can download the XP drivers from the motherboard manufacturers site. gpu drivers directly from nvidia site and you should be good to go.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Leon86

[gunso 10]

XP isn't as ram hungry so 32bit is the best choice there. XP also has less fancyness so you might get better performance there, especially on such a relatively weak machine.

i've been weighing whether i should make a new gaming rig now or wait for arma3 release where 160GB ssd price hopefully have gone a bit lower and just try to push my current rig till then.

There's also the issue that 4 core cpu seems to perform better than 6 core for current games unless i've been misinformed.

I also found a 4gb GPU (but the price... :() and thinking is there any difference with 2GB GPU put on SLI?

hmmm maybe i should just wait another 6 month for the upgrade n just get a 400bucks fully modded ps3 then to kill the time XD

[domokun 515]

@gunso : get a decent gaming rig now because A3 won't be released for at least 12, possibly 18 months. Plus, if previous experience is anything to go by, it'll prolly take another 6-12 months of patching before it reaches a stable and optimised state. So basically you'll be stuck on your PS3 for 1-2 years!!

So I'd recommend investing in a i5-2500k and GTX 560 Ti, with 4GB DDR3 RAM (I'm afraid that yours is prolly DDR2). Obviously you're going to need a new mobo too. That upgrade costs $550-600.

Don't waste money on after-market cooling, powerful PSUs or anything marked "Gamer/l33t". I'm not saying they're useless but with a tight budget, money is better spent elsewhere.

In the same vein, only consider a SSD once you've upgraded your CPU and GPU as they're the main bottlenecks in your system right now.

Edited June 30, 2011 by domokun

[love 10]

Hi guys,

I'm having a curious performance problem since I upgraded to CO. Until recently I've been running regular ArmA2 (not sure which version - the default that comes with the 505 box). The game has been running fine with settings on high @ 1280x1024 (native resolution). Today I got OA in the mail and happily installed it, effectively giving me Combined Operations. During the installation of AO, ArmA2 was updated to 1.06, and I got a nice CO icon on the desktop.

The thing is, when I now run either CO or regular ArmA2, the game is incredibly slow (about 1-2 fps and everything is in slow motion) and the sound stutters. Reducing the video memory setting from normal to low, makes the sound issues disappear and the fps rise to a normal level, but the game still runs in slow motion. I'm not talking about the fps, which seem ok (I'd guesstimate about 40-60), but every step I take is a giant step, like I'm walking on the moon (I hope that was clear :rolleyes:). Is this a problem familiar to anyone? Any ideas for a solutions? Installing the 1.59 patch doesn't help, by the way. Also, I'd really like to be able to play with better visuals - old ArmA2 looked and played great on high. With everything on low it's more of a meh experience.

My specs are:

CPU: Intel Core2Quad Q9550 @ 3.6 Ghz

GPU: nVidia 8800GT (512MB) - latest non-beta drivers, vsync forced off

RAM: 2GB DDR2 - Crucial Ballistix

OS : Few days old install of Windows XP SP3 (fully updated) 32 bit

Storage: 7200RPM HDD

Thanks!

[ProfTournesol 956]

Hi guys,

I'm having a curious performance problem since I upgraded to CO. Until recently I've been running regular ArmA2 (not sure which version - the default that comes with the 505 box). The game has been running fine with settings on high @ 1280x1024 (native resolution). Today I got OA in the mail and happily installed it, effectively giving me Combined Operations. During the installation of AO, ArmA2 was updated to 1.06, and I got a nice CO icon on the desktop.

The thing is, when I now run either CO or regular ArmA2, the game is incredibly slow (about 1-2 fps and everything is in slow motion) and the sound stutters. Reducing the video memory setting from normal to low, makes the sound issues disappear and the fps rise to a normal level, but the game still runs in slow motion. I'm not talking about the fps, which seem ok (I'd guesstimate about 40-60), but every step I take is a giant step, like I'm walking on the moon (I hope that was clear :rolleyes:). Is this a problem familiar to anyone? Any ideas for a solutions? Installing the 1.59 patch doesn't help, by the way. Also, I'd really like to be able to play with better visuals - old ArmA2 looked and played great on high. With everything on low it's more of a meh experience.

My specs are:

CPU: Intel Core2Quad Q9550 @ 3.6 Ghz

GPU: nVidia 8800GT (512MB) - latest non-beta drivers, vsync forced off

RAM: 2GB DDR2 - Crucial Ballistix

OS : Few days old install of Windows XP SP3 (fully updated) 32 bit

Storage: 7200RPM HDD

Thanks!

Did you try to defrag ?

[love 10]

Did you try to defrag ?

I didn't, actually - and it turns out my filesystem was quite heavily fragmented. I've defragged now, but it didn't have any bearing on the performance of ArmA2 unfortunately. My HDD thanks you anyway, I'm sure it's much happier now! :) Any other suggestions?

[gunso 10]

I didn't, actually - and it turns out my filesystem was quite heavily fragmented. I've defragged now, but it didn't have any bearing on the performance of ArmA2 unfortunately. My HDD thanks you anyway, I'm sure it's much happier now! :) Any other suggestions?

try something from here,

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3342764

1 of it works for me

"7. You can get a 10-20 fps boost with nVidia cards by editing the settings for arma2.exe. I'm using the Forceware 190.15 beta drivers but older drivers will work with this solution too. Go into the Forceware control panel and create a new profile for arma2.exe, it doesn't matter if it's Steam or any other retail copy. Scroll down and set the maximum prerendered frames to 8, and set vsync to force off. All other options can be left at their default."

and try to update your GPU driver that sometimes help too, and patch your arma2/co. i remember the latest patch actually increase your framerate.

---------- Post added at 01:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 AM ----------

@gunso : get a decent gaming rig now because A3 won't be released for at least 12, possibly 18 months. Plus, if previous experience is anything to go by, it'll prolly take another 6-12 months of patching before it reaches a stable and optimised state. So basically you'll be stuck on your PS3 for 1-2 years!!

So I'd recommend investing in a i5-2500k and GTX 560 Ti, with 4GB DDR3 RAM (I'm afraid that yours is prolly DDR2). Obviously you're going to need a new mobo too. That upgrade costs $550-600.

Don't waste money on after-market cooling, powerful PSUs or anything marked "Gamer/l33t". I'm not saying they're useless but with a tight budget, money is better spent elsewhere.

In the same vein, only consider a SSD once you've upgraded your CPU and GPU as they're the main bottlenecks in your system right now.

OMG 12-18 months!!!! :eek:

i'm thinking about spending around 1500 for this rig and dont mind doing OC to my cpu because i'm thinking of using liquid cooling for it (it's just 100 bucks anyway nowadays). I'm thinking of using it for ~3 years (I get tax deduction for a new PC every 3 years anyway :P).

can anyone recommend me a decent spec for my budget? I'm kinda behind on my pc tech knowledge. I can use my old rig as arma2 server lol.

oh i'm using a 17" monitor anyway and not planning to change it any time soon, just want arma2 (and 3 hopefully) to run at it's best.

Edited July 5, 2011 by gunso

[domokun 515]

OMG 12-18 months!!!! :eek:

i'm thinking about spending around 1500 for this rig and dont mind doing OC to my cpu because i'm thinking of using liquid cooling for it (it's just 100 bucks anyway nowadays). I'm thinking of using it for ~3 years (I get tax deduction for a new PC every 3 years anyway :P).

can anyone recommend me a decent spec for my budget? I'm kinda behind on my pc tech knowledge. I can use my old rig as arma2 server lol.

oh i'm using a 17" monitor anyway and not planning to change it any time soon, just want arma2 (and 3 hopefully) to run at it's best.

If you're got a budget of $1500 then I'd suggest:

CPU: Intel i5-2500k @ $220

HSF: big with 1, possibly 2, large fans, e.g. Scythe Mugen 2 @ $50 (Noctua NH-D14 very good but $90)

Mobo: P67 from a good brand, e.g. ASUS P8P67 PRO B3 @ $140

GPU : GTX560 Ti or ATi 6950, e.g. MSI N560GTX Twin Frozr II @ $220

RAM: 8 GB DDR3 RAM, e.g. Corsair 8GB DD3 XMS PC3 12800 (2X4GB) @ $75

Storage: large (2TB) & fast (7200rpm) HHD, e.g. Western Digital Caviar Black WD2002FAEX @ $150

SSD: large (120GB?) & fast SSD, e.g. Intel 320 Series 120GB SATA II SSD @ $235

Optical drive: simple DVD burner, e.g. Samsung SH-S222A @ $20

PSU: Seasonic X-560 560W Modular @ $125

Case: Antec P183 @ $140

OS: Win7 64-bit @ $100

TrackIR: v5 Pro @ $150

Mouse: Logitech G500 @ $50

Monitor: decent 27" TFT @ 1920x1200, e.g. Samsung P2770FH 27 @ $275

Headphones: Creative Fatal1ty Gaming Headset @ $45

Joystick: Saitek X52 Flight Control System @ $90

Blu-Ray: burner, e.g. Lite-On iHBS112-37 @ $115

The stuff in italics is optional and in order of preference.

Stable, quiet & upgradable PC that should deliver solid framerates @ 1920x1200 in most games and a great gaming experience in OA/A2.

Any prognosis on its performance in A3 would be foolhardy, wishful thinking at the best.

Edited July 5, 2011 by domokun

[stk2008 14]

I could never spend that kind of money n trackIR when free track (providing you have the skill to build the LED array etc) is just as good tbh.

I used a Wii mote and I get very smooth performance.

My one I made performed perfectly.

[Leon86 13]

Or try facetracknoir, all you need is a webcam.

[tony1977 0]

hi,

ive just recently bought OA after hearing that it might perform better thank arma2. on most of the default missions it does and im gettin smooth framerates (30+) but in some other missions (start of campaign for example) where the mission takes place in a built up area it drops down to low 20's and becomes very choppy.

i found the following tip

5. Disable AToC (open your ArmA2OA.cfg and change "AToC=7;" to "AToC=0)

i cant find the cfg file though. the cfg file for arma 2 is in my documents folder but not so for OA. any ideas?

[Leon86 13]

strange, my OA config is in the same place as the arma2 one.

[tony1977 0]

i should add i bought it from steam but that shouldnt affect where the config file is right?

[domokun 515]

toni: that tip was from me ;)

I just checked and indeed the file you need (ArmA2OA.cfg) is in the same directory as your ArmA2.cfg (for me its C:\Users\XXX\Documents\ArmA 2) where XXX is the name of your PC.

Maybe you're right - it might be different for Steam users.

Any Steam users out there that can chime in on this?

[tony1977 0]

i done a re-install and this time the confog file is there. i see when i run OA ive got an option to tun combined operations as well. when i run it it jus seems to be the same as the regular game.

whats is that option for?

[Risbosix 0]

My game runs very slowly

Here's my specs: Athlon IIX4 635 2,9@3,4 ghz

4gb DDR2 PC 6400 @400mhz

HDD Caviar Blue

HD870

the game runs at 20 FPS, in single or multiplayer mode.

Most of my setting are set to medium and view distance to 4-5km

I downgrade the graphique to the lowest possible, the FPS are almost the same as if i where running the game in my native resolution (1920x1200)

My driver are installed properly (uninstall, restart in MSE, driver cleaner, reboot and reinstall)

[pendragonuk 0]

What's the graphics card???