ArmA2 / OA (low) performance issues

[Leon86 13]

If i can fly around utes usually having around 60 fps on all max settings, including view distance, does that mean anything?

utes is very small, viewdistance doesnt really mean anything if all the game has to show is extra sea.

try it on chernarus.

[navy198523 10]

So I'm only averaging mid 30s on pretty highest with aa turned off, v sync off, terrain detail off, background programs off,

I have a 560 ti geforce,

I 5 2500 k oc 4.5 ghz,

Asus Z 68 mother board

Windows 7 64 bit operating system,

Ssd drive

1 tarabyte hard drive

16 gig ram 1333 ddr

Corsair 700 watt power supply

10 fans including 3 120mm fans

For some reason when a lot happens on game frames dip, I'm sick of trying to figure it out. Machine is running cool, I have msi afterburner running and my machine is running only 120 degrees which is super cool and my frame counter is hitting low 30s, want to run in mid 60s highest setting, so I'm curious, gpu upgrade time to 680 or CPU upgrade to I7 2600k? But from my understanding, there are no games out right now that use more than 3 to 4 cores. Any advice would be great. Thanks.

[domokun 515]

navy198523: it sounds like you've already applied a few optimisations. Check these tried and tested tweaks:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?85124-ArmA2-OA-%28low%29-performance-issues&p=2081466#post2081466

[gambla 10]

@navy

With more action fps decrease, thats normal. CPU is fine, i'd buy a 680 or AMD anything. But 60 fps always is a tough number.

Second on the list should be a SSD, a small and cheap 60GB is fine for ArmA.

[navy198523 10]

navy198523: it sounds like you've already applied a few optimisations. Check these tried and tested tweaks:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?85124-ArmA2-OA-%28low%29-performance-issues&p=2081466#post2081466

Hey thanks so much, pulled atleast 20 more fps, up to average FPS 65, wanted to ask on the cfg file, I tried atoc 7 to 0 which is the no grass and changed it but I'm scared to save because I get this message,

ArmA2OA.cfg may contain features that are not compatible with plain text format. Do you want to save this document in this format?

To save click yes

To preserve formatting click no, then save copy in the latest word format.

Question how do I save in latest word format? Or can I ignore this and just save?

[MavericK96 0]

What are you using to open it? Just use Wordpad.

[navy198523 10]

I believe that's what I was using

---------- Post added at 04:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:09 PM ----------

Microsoft office word

[NeMeSiS 11]

Use notepad, MS word adds some odd formatting stuff which breaks the file.

[TheBrinker72 1]

Hey, I recently bought Arma 2 Combined Operations and I have serious performance issues.

Here's my system:

CPU: Intel® Core i5 CPU 750 @ 2.67GHz

RAM: 3,00 GB

VGA: NVIDIA GeForce GT 230

OS: Windows 7

Even though my system appears to pretty much meet the recommended setup, I can't run it above the "very low" preset.

Admitted, my system is not the best and I don't expect it to run at maxed out settings, but it should at least run "medium" or "high" properly, no? I mean, I can run Source games at the very highest settings, Crysis is playable at high without AAs... and Arma has to look like shit to be playable.

The recommended in-game defaults are at "High". However, the game's controls delay like hell and it's lagging pretty bad with that.

I am currently even proud of running it at 1920x1080 and bad shadows enabled!

...I updated all my drivers. What is wrong?

[Leon86 13]

VGA: NVIDIA GeForce GT 230

There's your culprit. it's kind of a budget card, only used by oem manufacturers like HP and Dell. If you want to play decently on 1920x1080 you're going to have to replace that card, and maybe the psu if it's not powerfull enough for a real gpu.

I'm running an i5-750 myself and it runs fine, although I've clocked mine on 4 Ghz, still good cpu's.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Leon86

[TheBrinker72 1]

There's your culprit.

I'm running an i5-750 myself and it runs fine, although I've clocked mine on 4 Ghz.

I know it's really a weak GPU, but this same card can also run most other modern games at high settings... Why not Arma?

[Leon86 13]

I know it's really a weak GPU, but this same card can also run most other modern games at high settings... Why not Arma?

Other games dont have the viewdistance and the trees. they're quite heavy on the gpu.

anyway, you can try to reduce the input lag by going to controls and put the mouse smoothing slider to the left until it's off.

also, go to Arma2OA.cfg and Arma2.cfg and edit it to

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=0;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=0;

also turn vsync off.

that wont inprove fps but it will help in aiming at lower fps.

[navy198523 10]

So I found some old threads from April 2009, right before arma 2 came out, seeing how excited people were about the release and when it finally released the let down of all the issues, I really pray Arma 3 has less issues but expect the worse. I didn't buy Arma until march 2011 so I didn't get to expirence the last release but from the way people make it sound it could be rough the first couple months after release.

---------- Post added at 01:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:07 AM ----------

Well bad news update lol something fell out of my pc around my processor..... Around the massive heat sink I have lol, sounded like a screw. Everything seems fine but stopped running so I can investigate my machine. Lol arma is litterally killing my computer lol

[Leon86 13]

So I found some old threads from April 2009, right before arma 2 came out, seeing how excited people were about the release and when it finally released the let down of all the issues, I really pray Arma 3 has less issues but expect the worse. I didn't buy Arma until march 2011 so I didn't get to expirence the last release but from the way people make it sound it could be rough the first couple months after release.

Well bad news update lol something fell out of my pc around my processor..... Around the massive heat sink I have lol, sounded like a screw. Everything seems fine but stopped running so I can investigate my machine. Lol arma is litterally killing my computer lol

Arma 2 is pretty good now, after a whole bunch of patches. As for Arma 3 there will be a community alpha, so at least we'll know how buggy it is and how terrible it performs.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Arma 2 is pretty good now, after a whole bunch of patches. As for Arma 3 there will be a community alpha, so at least we'll know how buggy it is and how terrible it performs.

You will know how buggy and terrible the alpha will perform, its not a demo for A3. :p

[TheBrinker72 1]

Okay, thanks for help here, but I figured it out myself: The lag was exclusively caused by Anti-Aliasing. I don't know why, but it seems like it can't handle it in Arma... everything else can be very high and run at 30fps, but the smallest AA is causing bad lag :/

[domokun 515]

Okay, thanks for help here, but I figured it out myself: The lag was exclusively caused by Anti-Aliasing. I don't know why, but it seems like it can't handle it in Arma... everything else can be very high and run at 30fps, but the smallest AA is causing bad lag :/

Given your modest rig, here are a few more tweaks that should help you get A2 running smoothly yet looking good:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?85124-ArmA2-OA-%28low%29-performance-issues&p=2081466#post2081466

[MavericK96 0]

I know it's really a weak GPU, but this same card can also run most other modern games at high settings... Why not Arma?

I highly question which "modern games" can run at high settings on a GT 230.

[TheBrinker72 1]

I highly question which "modern games" can run at high settings on a GT 230.

Left4Dead 2 at the fullest, Crysis Warhead at regular high...

It's not like I'm talking about Battlefield 3 or Crysis 2 here.

[MavericK96 0]

Left4Dead 2 at the fullest, Crysis Warhead at regular high...

It's not like I'm talking about Battlefield 3 or Crysis 2 here.

Ah, okay. Yeah, those games are 4-5 years old so I guess my definition of "modern" is different from yours. :p

I guess ArmA 2 is technically 4 years old too, but it was pretty hard to run it at high settings when it came out. Only in recent times can we really start getting up there.

[Gladiator12 1]

I bought ArmA 2:CO a few days ago, and when I played it I discovered that I could only play with all settings on the lowest to play without much lag. I used "Can You RUN It" and I met, maybe even exceeded the system requirements for both games.

My specs are:

CPU:Intel Core I5-2450m 2.5GHz

Graphics Card: nVidiA 610M

RAM: 8 GB

Can anyone tell me how to run this better?

[Leon86 13]

I bought ArmA 2:CO a few days ago, and when I played it I discovered that I could only play with all settings on the lowest to play without much lag. I used "Can You RUN It" and I met, maybe even exceeded the system requirements for both games.

My specs are:

CPU:Intel Core I5-2450m 2.5GHz

Graphics Card: nVidiA 610M

RAM: 8 GB

Can anyone tell me how to run this better?

cant. that gpu is pretty much on minimum requirements.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-610M.63759.0.html

it scores around 4500 points on 3dmark06, the recommended for arma 2 is an 8800GT which will score about 11000 points. and even that will only get you good fps on 1280x720 on medium.

[DeclaredEvol 10]

Just going to let you guys know, if you're near trees or bushes... your GPU will be put to the test. This causes -20 FPS to your video game, secondly... it can be even WORSE if you have Post Processing enabled. The reason being is that Ambient Occlusion (SSAO) is sort of a tested beta feature of ArmA II. And it isn't well optimized to be on the game even for people with good enough computers in the first place. So firstly, put your Terrain detail on Very Low or Low and you'll notice an extra boost of performance very fast. Secondly put your Post Processing off and you'll notice a severe increase of performance there too. It seems that Terrain Grass, Trees and Bushes don't get along too well with the Post Processing.

My FPS stays at 50+ and sometimes up at 80's. But with Terrain Detail higher than low, and Post Processing on past Low... I'll immediately drop to 30FPS and lower. Just giving you guys a heads up, Post Processing and Terrain Detail are most likely your Graphical problems. You can use Anti Aliasing but you also have to realize your Anti Aliasing wont look 'as' good as it would with Anti Aliasing Post Processing enabled... so if you can find a comfortable range of Post Processing... you should have your self set :)

[MavericK96 0]

Terrain Detail is tricky because it does make a large performance difference, but it also makes a MASSIVE difference in visual quality. Basically if you go below High (IMO) you are getting into territory where everything looks like flat dirt carpet.

[special_air_service 10]

Terrain Detail is tricky because it does make a large performance difference, but it also makes a MASSIVE difference in visual quality. Basically if you go below High (IMO) you are getting into territory where everything looks like flat dirt carpet.

yes it is :(

I set my terrain detail on normal and it looks like a paper painted with trees and environment colours. But if I set it on high or higher , it really gave me decent impact on overall performance, making the game much less playable especially in the large town .