ArmA2 / OA (low) performance issues

[Guess Who 10]

Thanks guys!

"stock speed on a 920 is 2.6 GHz, and there you would definitely be limited." (2.8GHz with turbo)

"TON of scripting and AI running about"

If that would be true, why are the CPUs only used about 40-50% ?

And why does overclocking the cpu not help?

"I would also recommend an SSD"

Yep, already have :-)

Just didn't mention it, 'cause it doesn't really help "on mission", when the level and all the textures are loaded (which at least doesn't really take all that long^^)

"Benchmark"

I did some testing after I got my second GPU (

link to data

):

with the setting I'm playing now - except now I have "Normal" (=4x?) SSTSAA enabled - I got 46 FPS.

Well anyway, I'm nearly finished with the default ArmA2 campaign and it seems this 20 FPS problem was only in this second free-roam mission.

Because after that (and before too), I'm running at 30-40 FPS (with drops into the twenties) and so I can play it quite smoothly now :bounce3:

And now the GPUs (and CPUs) are more heavily used: 50-90% (~ 40-65%).

Take warfare for example, overclocking an i7 920 to 3.2 GHz without turbo gives me about 10 more frames. And, additionally the cpu load is spread more equally over all four cores. So, overclocking works, at least in AI heavy missions. But with an i7 920 you will eventually have to settle at 30 to 40 fps, unless overclocking much higher.

[dlder 13]

Ok, so more MHz DO mean something in this game. I can accept that fact.

But am I missing something here, or why is it that OCing the CPU helps, even if the processor is never fully utilized?

I mean, if the CPU burns at 90-100% (on all cores if the app is multi-threaded, which Arma2 seems to be), overclocking surely does help. Naturally.

But otherwise...

:confused:

[MavericK96 0]

Well, are you talking 40-60% OVERALL utilization on the CPU? or every thread? Typically the first (and maybe second) primary cores are going to be maxed, or close to maxed, while the others probably won't be due to the way the game is optimized.

[dlder 13]

No, I'm looking at real-time usage on all 4 cores directly (with Aida64 on my Logitech keyboard-LCD).

And I disabled hyper-threading 'cause it was said it would help (and because only four cores were used anyway).

[HR4 Elite 10]

Since turning my v-sync OFF…an eye opener..

Interesting reading regards FPS issues, I use the ‘dvd’ mod (dynamic view distance) and it works a treat. Now I have turned my v-sync off, in completely open area maps I can reach 155fps with a view distance 4000 seen here in the link (pmc 51km desert map), in Fallujah I get between 45-52 fps just standing or walking around, flying can reach daft proportions 6000vd and 160fps or more (‘waves’ map), however even with running a skirmish mission in Fallujah I will still get 38-42 fps at full combat with 50 infantry AI plus myself a heli and motorised enemy crew.

I find using the 'dvd' mod simply reduces the view distance to maintain fps, so a vd of say 2000 as in the Fallujah link, will drop to between 800-1300vd, but when your in a city and in combat you only need 500 or 600 max anyway so you don’t even notice the drop, unless you look at the onscreen readout… the fps does not lower much adding another 20-30ai, I may loose 4-5 fps and a little more view distance but I just don't notice it. In urban battles the fighting is not as constant as open areas its more sporadic, I get no lag just the occasional tear if the fps count is too high, but even that’s not really that noticeable.

So my advice albeit I know virtually nothing about PC’s is; turn off v-sync, use ‘dvd’ mod, make sure the mod’s are in an order you think works for you i.e. testing.. I have around 103 mods loaded of which there are around 40 maps, but the maps don’t really matter whichever load order they are put, but I have all the usual Beta, Ace, Acex, Cba etc plus GL4, ASR, landtex, sab-clutter, JTD, st-movement, warFx, SMK, etc, etc. but have taken the time in testing load orders and which mod overlays which, this helps, more for smooth game-play, not from the fps side you may gain 2-3fps but that’s it.

I only turned the v-sync off a few days ago, so I am going to test some of my own missions (thats all I play, design missions and play them), so I will come back and update the findings.

The in-game settings I have are linked at the bottom of post and are mostly all very high for visuals, the only difference now is the v-sync is off whereas it is shown on, pic was before I turned it off, but that’s the only difference everything else is the same.. don't forget I have the in-game vd at 10000 but the 'dvd' mod overides the in-game setting and continuously monitors the fps and vd..

May not work for all but worth a try...

Edit: forgot to mention triple buffering on..via the gpu card settings..

.

Edited September 10, 2011 by HR4 Elite

[domokun 515]

..make sure the mod’s are in an order you think works for you ...

I only turned the v-sync off a few days ago ...

Mind sharing the order that your mods are loaded?

Also, don't you get "tearing" without v-sync?

Edited September 12, 2011 by domokun

[HR4 Elite 10]

Care you share the order that your mods are loaded?

Also, don't you get "tearing" without v-sync?

NP

Firstly answer your second question, ’No’ tearing but that’s too simple;

I read up on-line quite a lot before turning v-sync off and the vast majority of people find it runs o.k. so I turned it off to see, my monitor is only 60Hz and I expected to get tearing, although to be fair I didn’t know what that would look like other than what I had read, but many people using 60Hz monitors had little or no trouble with it. Since v-sync was switched off the only time I have had any difference, slight staggering of the picture which must be tearing, was in City 34 on the pmc-51km desert map, I was very surprised as I had around 100 ai in the city in combat and would have thought the fps rate would have come down so much that tearing would be out of the question, however there is little to no clutter on the map and fps is very high so I was still achieving 45-75fps and good view distance with everything going on. The reason why I think I got the tearing there is that the city has been finished to around 85%, a dense city with great potential for urban combat missions i.e. small alley ways, court yards, masses of building, roof top positions etc (I might say put together very well indeed, butted up building to form blocks and designed as a city should be), but some of the buildings need a little tweaking as there is a little collision problem here and there with ai, maybe this is why the tearing occurred, I don’t really know, however no real problem as it soon went.

Sorry the reason for the answer is a little long but ‘no’ as said, would be the answer to your second question turning it off was well worth it.. If I did experience a lot of tearing I would simply bye a 120Hz monitor, but until it becomes a problem my little 60Hz Benq is staying..

My mod list; I will list how it works for me, I had long testing and wrote down results whilst changing load orders to get the best performance for my system. Maybe it’s the way your machine handles info, I really don’t know but I do know that there is a performance difference with my machine, perhaps it would depend on your mods.

My view is that CBA, ACE, ACEX want their mods as priority as these are game changing I assume, so using that theory I basically put my priorities as; ai intelligence firstly followed by movement mods, effects mods, terrain effecting mods, armies and or units, weapons/vehicles/ammo and the like, followed by terrain bits and lastly islands (40), I thought about islands, should they be first.. but if you think about it we load the island directly first before setting out a mission so that work is already done, well that’s my thinking anyway...:j:

BETA (if you run it)

CBA

ACE

ACEX

ACEX US NAVY

ACEX RU

ACEX SM

ACEX PLA

DVD

GL4

ASR AI

ASR MAP GRIDS

ST MOVEMENT

SMK

ST HUD

WAR FX PARTICLES

JTD

LANDTEX

SAP CLUTTER

JSDF

JSDF ACE

BB MERCS

BW MOD

BW ACE

AAW

FFAA TERRORISTAS

WINTER CAMOES

Followed by individual weapon, vehicle, ammo type mods i.e. swm weap etc, no particular order, although bundling them together for instance rhs, glt, asr mods, etc

These are then followed by other terrain items i.e. brg Africa , towns, plants, buildings, road, foliage ect, no particular order..

Lastly islands numbering 40 in no particular order.

I have just downloaded PRACS so this will be added to the armies section..:)

.

[160thSOAR 10]

ArmA2 is giving me lag spikes on an Envy 14.5 inch. I have previously played ArmA2 on a worse computer on low settings, and it worked fine. Even when I put all settings other than 3D to lowest, the game still lags.

Computer Specs:

8GB RAM

i7 2.0 GHz

Radeon HD 6630

[NeuroFunker 11]

hi guys, i have an performance issues with in game VRAM settings.

I have ARma 2 CO.

Doesn't matter if i play arma 2 with or without addon.

If it's set video ram to VERY HIGH, game runs super smooth (depends on locations) with almost everything maxed out (3d res 1920x1080, 3,5km view distance).

But as soon i set video ram to DEFAULT, game is running very slowly, like i would have 16xAA set or something. Even if i set texture details to low, it doesn't help at all, same bad performance.

I checked how much vram game uses with very high vram settings, it goes never go over 800mb, mostly 600-700mb. If i set vram to default, game is using 1,1 or even 1,6gb vram.

here are my specs:

AMD Phenom IIx4 965BE clocked@3,8ghz

12GB DDR-3 RAM GSkill RipJaws

ATI Asus 6970 2GB DirectCUII

Any help perhaps?

Edited September 15, 2011 by NeuroFunker

[MavericK96 0]

ArmA2 is giving me lag spikes on an Envy 14.5 inch. I have previously played ArmA2 on a worse computer on low settings, and it worked fine. Even when I put all settings other than 3D to lowest, the game still lags.

Computer Specs:

8GB RAM

i7 2.0 GHz

Radeon HD 6630

What do you consider a "worse" computer? 2.0 Ghz for this game is actually pretty low, plus you are playing on a laptop which is never going to give you the gaming performance of a decent desktop.

[160thSOAR 10]

Well, I was playing on a computer with half the RAM earlier. It was a 2007 MacBook Pro. I forget the other specs, but I assume they were similarly worse. And I could still run the game without lag, albeit on low settings.

My new computer can run stuff like Bad Company 2 on higher settings than my old one. But it seems to hate ArmA2, which rather ticks me off.

[kklownboy 43]

Well, I was playing on a computer with half the RAM earlier. It was a 2007 MacBook Pro. I forget the other specs, but I assume they were similarly worse. And I could still run the game without lag, albeit on low settings.

My new computer can run stuff like Bad Company 2 on higher settings than my old one. But it seems to hate ArmA2, which rather ticks me off.

maybe the HDD? Also you can try to set the threads and cpucount

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=2009120&postcount=91

Your CPU maybe slowing down during game play then speeding up?

Edited September 16, 2011 by kklownboy

[Black Russian 10]

So I am running the current Beta, have a SSD, a Sandy Bridge CPU and 8 GB of Ram.

When I run the default mission "Hike in the hills" and using 3rd person view at the beginning I always got lags (the car hangs/jumps shortly) while the frames are in general over 40 according to Fraps and even often around 60 depending on the view.

So why is it lagging? It can't be access times or transfer limits because of the SSD and enough RAM. Does it load the textures too late or what?

Can anybody confirm this?

Edited September 18, 2011 by Black Russian

[NeuroFunker 11]

whats ur GPU? SLI X-fire perhaps?

[Black Russian 10]

whats ur GPU? SLI X-fire perhaps?

No, one AMD 6950.

[NeuroFunker 11]

No, one AMD 6950.

6970 here:yay:

game video settings, set graphics ram to very high, if it's set to default. Geting bad performance with default vram setting.

[CorsairFlyer 10]

Hey

As you except it (:D) I got some FPS issue in CO.

But first here are my specs :

i5 2500k on ASUS Sabertooth P67

ASUS ENGTX580 with lastest drivers (280.xx)

Corsair Vengeance 2x4Go PC12800

Windows 7 64Bits

OS on M4 SSD and ArmA in Samsung F3 500Go (7200 rpm) HDD

ArmA 2 CO patched in 1.59/1.09, no beta.

Well, in the OA campaign and is user made missions, I get low fps (about 25). I only get better when view dist is <1000 (!).

But in the editor or benches, I have great results;

Here is a screen of ArmA Mark v1.0.

http://hapshack.com/images/arma2orpr.jpg

And my ArmA2OA.cfg :

language="French";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=-4194304;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Windowed=0;

Resolution_W=1920;

Resolution_H=1080;

refresh=60;

winX=16;

winY=32;

winW=800;

winH=600;

winDefW=800;

winDefH=600;

Render_W=1920;

Render_H=1080;

FSAA=3;

postFX=0;

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1000;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=4;

HDRPrecision=8;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=1576468480;

nonlocalVRAM=2147483647;

vsync=1;

AToC=0;

It happens in ArmA 2 modded or clean..

I see no reason for my issue.. :( And I'm downloading the lastest beta to test :)

Hope it will get resolved soon ! :D

Thanx

[besomuk 10]

I'm having issues with Arma 2 Free edition and MP games.

At the beginning everything works nice and smooth, but after a while ( sometimes 30 mins, sometimes 1 hour ) FPS starts to drop until game is unplayable.

In SP everything works nice with high settings using 1920x1200 and with lot's of units around...

I'm running it on Phenom 2 X4 920, 2gb kingston hyperx and GTS250.

[NeuroFunker 11]

it depends on the server, which are u playing, so it's not really your issue, but more an server hoster issue. Especialy it is noticeable on Chernarussian Civil War or Revolution servers, they are full mostly and it starting to lag like hell, after like half an hour in most cases.

[Nutlink 10]

I usually have a 6970, but right now that's on hiatus, so I picked up a GTX 570 to replace it for the time being. So far in every other game my 6970 flat out beats the GTX 570 except ArmA 2 CO. In ArmA the GTX 570 stays consistent with the frame rates, so even in the middle of Zargabad on a relatively heavy mission I still manage about 40fps or higher with very little dipping. Even worse is that with the 570 I can max out the game with everything on very high (AA on Normal, PP on Low) with a view distance of 4000, while the 6970 had the same settings except Objects and Terrain were on High instead, but as soon as I would move my head and the blur would kick in my FPS would drop and the game would stutter, as if it was loading everything in sight. It did this regardless of settings though, which was very irritating. I doubt it's a problem with the card seeing as the 6970 absolutely destroyed the GTX 570 in every other game I've tried.

[stk2008 14]

I usually have a 6970, but right now that's on hiatus, so I picked up a GTX 570 to replace it for the time being. So far in every other game my 6970 flat out beats the GTX 570 except ArmA 2 CO. In ArmA the GTX 570 stays consistent with the frame rates, so even in the middle of Zargabad on a relatively heavy mission I still manage about 40fps or higher with very little dipping. Even worse is that with the 570 I can max out the game with everything on very high (AA on Normal, PP on Low) with a view distance of 4000, while the 6970 had the same settings except Objects and Terrain were on High instead, but as soon as I would move my head and the blur would kick in my FPS would drop and the game would stutter, as if it was loading everything in sight. It did this regardless of settings though, which was very irritating. I doubt it's a problem with the card seeing as the 6970 absolutely destroyed the GTX 570 in every other game I've tried.

is the 6970 ATI? and the GTX 570 AMD I think they are if so wonder if this is why?.

My ATI 4890 seems to run fast as hell in all me games even latest ones but ARMA as per usual still eats me system for dinner :(.

[reconteam 19]

Thanks for the advice, I see that unless I get that time machine working I won't be able to run this at a steady 50-60 FPS, but not dipping below 30 or so would be good. I have some sort of OCD thing where lower FPS messing up weapons rate of fire drives me crazy.

ATI's counterpart to the GTX-500 series is the 6000 series correct? What's in the 200-300$ range? Also, are Nvidia cards are still running ArmA better than ATI/AMD?

My primary case fan died so I replaced it with a newer, better one. That plus the oversized copper heatsink on my CPU means I ought to try to find a higher overclock setting that won't give me any trouble.

I'm due for a new HDD, my current 10k RPM drive is almost full. Would either a 15k RPM HDD or a SDD provide a significant benefit for ArmA and other games?

I haven't installed or used a SDD before, is there anything special I should know about them? (besides for the fact that they're damn costly)

[Black Russian 10]

while the 6970 had the same settings except Objects and Terrain were on High instead, but as soon as I would move my head and the blur would kick in my FPS would drop and the game would stutter, as if it was loading everything in sight. It did this regardless of settings though, which was very irritating. I doubt it's a problem with the card seeing as the 6970 absolutely destroyed the GTX 570 in every other game I've tried.

I can confirm this behavior with the 6950. I don't have a Nvidia GPU but it really does stutter and Arma seems to be [more] optimized for Nvidia.

I hope that this could be fixed in future versions. Especially since the usage of PhysX will most likely push Arma 3 even more towards a Nvidia centric universe.

I haven't installed or used a SDD before, is there anything special I should know about them? (besides for the fact that they're damn costly)

SSDs are the better choice because they are in most cases much faster and have lower response times.

[nerdwing 13]

Hello :)

This is my computer:

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=ASUS+CG1330&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=1116091274840872687&sa=X&ei=-7qMTunoC8r40gGTzYzWBA&ved=0CC8Q8wIwAg

I was foolish and bought a hexacore 2.6ghz, rather than a more capable quadcore. I'm very limited in my overall fps in any missions it seems, especially campaigns. At a glance, is it safe to say this is due to CPU bottleneck? Overclocking isnt really feasible due to the motherboard's restrictions. I'm going to attempt to upgrade the PSU today to an 800 watt model, which will be the first step in any future hardware improvements for this computer.

[MavericK96 0]

Hello :)

This is my computer:

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=ASUS+CG1330&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=1116091274840872687&sa=X&ei=-7qMTunoC8r40gGTzYzWBA&ved=0CC8Q8wIwAg

I was foolish and bought a hexacore 2.6ghz, rather than a more capable quadcore. I'm very limited in my overall fps in any missions it seems, especially campaigns. At a glance, is it safe to say this is due to CPU bottleneck? Overclocking isnt really feasible due to the motherboard's restrictions. I'm going to attempt to upgrade the PSU today to an 800 watt model, which will be the first step in any future hardware improvements for this computer.

What's the video card on that? I didn't see that listed on there.

Also, 2.6 ghz is fairly low for this game. Maybe try getting at least 3 ghz overclock. Also make sure that you have cpuCount set to 6 to take full advantage of your hexacore.