ArmA2 / OA (low) performance issues

[Recta DP 10]

I have 60 FPS (average), ARMA 2 runs totaly smooth, but the controls are very laggy ingame (mouse lag).

Is it possible to make the controls more "direct"?

Thank you!

[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)

cfg = hd5870

It look like i'm cpu limited...

[Leon86 13]

is there some setting like the nvidia preredered frames? I always put that on 0.

In the arma config file (somewhere in documents)

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=0;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=0;

turn off vsync, might help too.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Leon86

[Recta DP 10]

is there some setting like the nvidia preredered frames? I always put that on 0.

In the arma config file (somewhere in documents)

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=0;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=0;

turn off vsync, might help too.

Are you sure? At the moment the default setting ist:

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1000;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=2;

I have already disabled vsync. There is still mouse lag...

---------- Post added at 06:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:41 PM ----------

Wow, thank you Leon86! Your settings (GPU_MaxFramesAhead=0;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=0) made it. The controls are very direct now.

How does this affect image quality?

Are there any other superb tweaks like this?

[Risbosix 0]

I need a superb tweak too :(

[Risbosix 0]

Up :(

[Leon86 13]

try model detail low, terrain detail low, 2000 viewdistance. (those are cpu intensive settings) shadows high, post low. rest on medium. (gpu intensive) Play about with settings until it runs and looks acceptable, you might be able to get away with higher terrain detail.

---------- Post added at 11:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 AM ----------

How does this affect image quality?

Are there any other superb tweaks like this?

It doesnt affect image quality, the render ahead thing lets the game render a few frames ahead, but since the player input was a few frames back you introduce lag. On some systems it improves the fps a bit, on my system all it does is introduce lag so I always kill it if I can.

[stk2008 14]

model detail and terrain detail is CPU intensive you say?

I knew view distance was but not the last two can some one confirm this please.

Thanks

[Risbosix 0]

Seriously i upgragred my HD4890 to a HD5870 for having better performance, not less...

[pendragonuk 0]

Seriously i upgragred my HD4890 to a HD5870 for having better performance, not less...

Once your graphics card is over a certain level of performance it's all down to your CPU. Then the two factors, CPU and GPU increase together to give better fps. Upgrading one without the other will have little effect. The 4890 is a good card, all the 5xxx series really give you is DirectX 11, something that does nothing for ArmA.

Sorry to say but if you wanted ArmA to run at a higher fps you should have bought a new CPU.

---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------

model detail and terrain detail is CPU intensive you say?

I knew view distance was but not the last two can some one confirm this please.

Thanks

As far as I can tell it's almost all CPU intensive LoL. Just play with the settings till your happy with the results.

[stk2008 14]

Risbosix I see you have overclocked your CPU has it made much difference to ARMA as in the stranded clock speeds when you went to the 3.4 its at now did it make a nice deference?.

Reason I ask I am on a Q6700 at clock speeds (2.4 I think) but on air some times these can go to 3.4 ish so wondered if I should.

Thanks

P.S

Me GPU is a 4890 1gb.

EDIT

PendragonUK that's just it mate I have upgraded 2 times now just for this game (come to think of it I only ever upgrade for ARMA and OFP when that came out to hehehe) and still dont get a great performance boost :( this game is so demanding its the best game ever and BIS are the tits but I so so hope they can increase the performance a little more.

Edited July 9, 2011 by stk2008

[Risbosix 0]

I didn't notice any differences since i've oced my cpu immediatly

Seriously an Athlon II X4 oced to 3,4ghz should run arma 2 faster than 20 fps...

[stk2008 14]

I didn't notice any differences since i've oced my cpu immediatly

Seriously an Athlon II X4 oced to 3,4ghz should run arma 2 faster than 20 fps...

Damn ok thanks any ways.

While I am here any one overclocked there CPU mainly a Q6700 or Q6600 and got a tasty FPS increase?.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I didn't notice any differences since i've oced my cpu immediatly

Seriously an Athlon II X4 oced to 3,4ghz should run arma 2 faster than 20 fps...

Well, comparing your specs to mine:

I have a PhenomII 955 clocked at 3.6GHz, 4GB ram and a 4870. I play on medium-high settings with an FPS of 25-30 and i am usually CPU limited, and my CPU is better than yours.

Unless your videocard is crap your CPU is the linit, get used to it.

[Risbosix 0]

I don't get it

Am i still CPU limited in MP mode?

Some friends with similare config have far way better performance

[NeMeSiS 11]

Some friends with similare config have far way better performance

Then it may be related to the general optimization of your PC. Fragmentation, useless processes running in the background, intrusive virusscanners, etc.

[Risbosix 0]

Bitdefender set to "game mode"

O&o Defrag running in background when pc is in IDLE

And latest driver installed properly

er.

I'm conviced my computer should run ARMA2 fast, all others games just run perfect (Crysis 2, Witcher 2 etc...)

[Leon86 13]

Damn ok thanks any ways.

While I am here any one overclocked there CPU mainly a Q6700 or Q6600 and got a tasty FPS increase?.

yeah, I run my Q6600 at 3.3 Ghz, making everything much faster. A lot of people run their Q6600's on 3.6 but my chip doesnt like that very much and I have to run at a rediculous voltage to have that be stable.

I run my chip on 3.3 Ghz at 1.37V (under load). Most Q6600's should be able to do that with lower voltages though. Especially if its a G0.

---------- Post added at 01:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 PM ----------

Bitdefender set to "game mode"

O&o Defrag running in background when pc is in IDLE

And latest driver installed properly

er.

I'm conviced my computer should run ARMA2 fast, all others games just run perfect (Crysis 2, Witcher 2 etc...)

Please post you settings, your pc is an athlonII quad with a 5870 correct?

[stk2008 14]

ARMA is a huge game dealing with many calculations in one go BUT it needs to be optimized more.

It will be though I have so much faith in BIS I mean look at what they do for us any ways content BETA`s,all ways communicating with us etc etc.

[birtuma 28]

Well, comparing your specs to mine:

I have a PhenomII 955 clocked at 3.6GHz, 4GB ram and a 4870. I play on medium-high settings with an FPS of 25-30 and i am usually CPU limited, and my CPU is better than yours.

Unless your videocard is crap your CPU is the linit, get used to it.

What is your GPU?

Sorry, didn't see "4870". No, in your case it's the GPU limiting. You could buy a HD 6870, they are pretty cheap now and you could double your performance.

Edited July 9, 2011 by birtuma

[Leon86 13]

What is your GPU?

Sorry, didn't see "4870". No, in your case it's the GPU limiting. You could buy a HD 6870, they are pretty cheap now and you could double your performance.

An 6870 is NOT twice as fast as an 4870, more like 1.5 times. If you upgrade from an 4870 I recommend getting a 200 euro card like a gtx560ti or 6950.

And having an 4870 doesnt mean you're gpu limited per se, it depends on the settings and the scenario.

[Risbosix 0]

yeah, I run my Q6600 at 3.3 Ghz, making everything much faster. A lot of people run their Q6600's on 3.6 but my chip doesnt like that very much and I have to run at a rediculous voltage to have that be stable.

I run my chip on 3.3 Ghz at 1.37V (under load). Most Q6600's should be able to do that with lower voltages though. Especially if its a G0.

---------- Post added at 01:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 PM ----------

Please post you settings, your pc is an athlonII quad with a 5870 correct?

Yes it's a quad and whatever my settings are the game still runs like crap even on everything on low 800x600... I get baterly 30 FPS

[Leon86 13]

Yes it's a quad and whatever my settings are the game still runs like crap even on everything on low 800x600... I get baterly 30 FPS

options->video options->advanced

screenshot please

[Risbosix 0]

options->video options->advanced

screenshot please

http://pix.wefrag.com/i/a/0/3/b/a/34871a45a8250f0a38f4045dbdab0fc7.jpg

37FPS on that screen

That's a scenario made by BIS

[birtuma 28]

An 6870 is NOT twice as fast as an 4870, more like 1.5 times. If you upgrade from an 4870 I recommend getting a 200 euro card like a gtx560ti or 6950.

They are faster than 1.5x, well maybe not 2x as I wrote, but 1.7x for sure. So he could get up to 50fps.

And of course, you can spend 200€ if you want. A HD 6870 costs only 140€ and it's maybe 5-10% slower than a 560TI or HD 6950.

And having an 4870 doesnt mean you're gpu limited per se, it depends on the settings and the scenario.

Sure, but an overclocked Phenom is a really strong CPU, and in most situations it won't limit. On the other side with a 4870 you can't really set higher settings, activate postprocess effects, activate antialiasing etc...