ArmA2 / OA (low) performance issues

[wardog01 0]

@ Goaz, keep your posts of your problem please to one topic.

@Bulldogs, he has a i5 so he doesnt have hypertreading.

Ow and there is a hotfix voor the 10.1 drivers of ati.

[pisuke 10]

To Goaz,

turn off catalyst AI.

It will help you.

[cnickcj 0]

i just brought arma2 for my pc , after waiting for a xbox version thats hasn't come yet .. my problem is , when i look at the ground the brightness is fine , but when i move to look at another object the screen goes very dark , or if i look at the ground bright then move to look at hills goes very dark .... does anybody know why this happens ??

[kklownboy 43]

To Goaz,

turn off catalyst AI.

It will help you.

Maybe , if he wants NO crossfire and use only one card...

For the flashy stuff ,Default ,Video Memory Setting. or try them all. Also 32HDR helps too.

[Bulldogs 10]

i just brought arma2 for my pc , after waiting for a xbox version thats hasn't come yet .. my problem is , when i look at the ground the brightness is fine , but when i move to look at another object the screen goes very dark , or if i look at the ground bright then move to look at hills goes very dark .... does anybody know why this happens ??

Sounds like HDR causing issues. Make sure you're patched up to 1.05, then disable post processing if you're still having problems.

You could also try editing your arma2.cfg file in my documents\arma 2 directory, and change hdr to 32 (most likely set to 8)

[cnickcj 0]

Sounds like HDR causing issues. Make sure you're patched up to 1.05, then disable post processing if you're still having problems.

You could also try editing your arma2.cfg file in my documents\arma 2 directory, and change hdr to 32 (most likely set to 8)

thanks for the help , i will try this tomorrow as i need to now buy a new power supply , the one i have is only 350w and my computer keeps acting really strange ..

[Vick 19]

I'm having a problem with my refresh rate, and or colorbit, but not a lag issue or any of that

regardless of what resolution and fillrate i use- the game always looks like its being played in a low resolution or 16bit color, i can play the game with everything maxed out including the res and fillrate with no lag/stutter

the only option that has made the game actually look decent was switching it to windowed. i can stretch that to be the size of the screen or even bigger, and the resolution looks nice and everythings sharp and clear.

why cant i accomplish that with any of the fullscreen resolutions?

ive tried adjusting the resolution fillrate and refreshrate in the .cfg file and setting it as read only, but to no avail

my pc specs are

everythings housed in a HAF 932 ;]

780i mobo

q9550 oc'd to 3.4(watercooled with a swiftech, dont have any temp problems)

2 gtx 260's running in sli

4gb ram

2 western digital caviars in raid0, 500gb(the operating system is on this)

1 40gb intel SSD (arma2 is the only thing on it)

750watt pcu

vista 64bit

drivers are all up to date, any advice would be appreciated, ive spent hours searching and tweaking options

Edited February 14, 2010 by Vick

[Bulldogs 10]

For starters, try starting the game up with -winxp at the end of the shortcut.

Second, under video settings check your aspect ratio and make sure it's set to the aspect ratio of your monitor, should be either 16:9 or 16:10 for widescreen, depending on your resolution :

1920 x 1080 = 16:9 (HD:1080p/i)

1920 x 1200 = 16:10

After that, disable post processing to see if that helps.

[Vick 19]

For starters, try starting the game up with -winxp at the end of the shortcut.

Second, under video settings check your aspect ratio and make sure it's set to the aspect ratio of your monitor, should be either 16:9 or 16:10 for widescreen, depending on your resolution :

1920 x 1080 = 16:9 (HD:1080p/i)

1920 x 1200 = 16:10

After that, disable post processing to see if that helps.

ive been running it with -winxp for a few weeks now. ive found out chaning my computers native resolution to 1920x1080 forces my in game colorbit to 16, changing it in the .cfg file doesnt actually change it in game either. it remains 16 bit, even though the cfg is saved as read only with 32 bit.

the difference is huge, from a bunch of nice colors and everything looking vibrant to a dull everything being dark and bleak

but running any other game/program ive got my 32 bit color.

when i lower my native resolution, it gives me the 32 bit color back, but the blurry textures come back.

ive also tried forcing a custom resolution with the .cfg but again even after setting it as read only, nothing changes in game- at least the quality doesnt.

ive gotten it to a happy medium i can be content with, but it really would be awesome to be able to play it fullscreen with everything looking the same way it does playing in windowed mode, and like i said stretching it to full screen or even bigger it still looks better than any fullscreen setting i could accomplish.

still gonna try adding custom resolutions as my native and see how the game scales them out i guess, ive got an appetite to get this solved

Edited February 14, 2010 by Vick

[Bulldogs 10]

Try lowering your view distance and try setting video memory to default or very high

[Vick 19]

Try lowering your view distance and try setting video memory to default or very high

thanks for the assistance

im not on that computer at the moment, but my video memory is set to default, was running it on very high, but it never made any dramatic changes for me, in the end i left it on default though

ill try lowering my view distance, i never did before considering i never had any stutter, i assumed the textures were all loading fairly quick, being its the only program i have on my SSD, but im sure theres plenty of variables im unaware of

ill try to get two screen shots later of the windowed vs fullscreen problem i have

[Bulldogs 10]

SS's would help. I'm not sure but lowering the view distance allows you to increase terrain detail, it's possible that the same bottleneck may be affecting you

[callihn 10]

Or your setup those are good framerates for the benchmark.

An athlon x2 with a 3650 is low end so I'm glad to see you're getting such good framerates in the benchmarks

remember though that the benchmarks are designed to stress your machine, and considering that you're running a low end machine, those are pretty good frame rates.

That aside, I don't know anyone who gets good frame rates in the campaign. It seems to run fine to the not part but in the heavily scripted heavy ai missions most people get around 22-24 framerates, although depending on the system and bottlenecks, 22-24 can be very smooth (it is for me, but I'm running a q9400 with a 5850)

Please read the required and recommended specs for the game before making such asinine comments to me in the future, here I'll supply them:

Minimum specs:

• Dual Core CPU (Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz, Intel Core 2.0 GHz, AMD Athlon 3200+ or faster)

• 1 GB RAM

• GPU (Nvidia Geforce 7800 / ATI Radeon 1800 or faster) with Shader Model 3 and 256 MB VRAM

• Windows XP

• DVD (Dual Layer compatible)

• 10 GB free HDD space

Recommended specs:

• Quad Core CPU or Dual Core CPU (Intel Core 2.8 GHz, AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or faster)

• 2 GB RAM

• GPU (Nvidia Geforce 8800GT / ATI Radeon 4850 or faster) with Shader Model 3 and 512 MB VRAM

• Windows XP or Windows Vista

• DVD (Dual Layer compatible)

• 10 GB free HDD space

Notice, that everything aside from the video is in the Recommended specs: NOT the Minimum specs:, so the CPU is the least of my problems.

That being said DVD frame rates in a game are pretty sad to say the least, the entire point of the whole thread is that most if not all of use who are fully supported by the game struggle to get minimal performance even when closer to the Recommended specs:, not to mention that you even contradict your misdirected hardware insult with "That aside, I don't know anyone who gets good frame rates in the campaign.", frankly I don't know where else you would want good frame rates, because the menu screen just doesn't cut it.

While we would all like to have few/fewer responsibilites in life so that we can afford to spend all of our money on playing games that's simply not a reality fro most people, but the reality is that DVD frame rates on a video game sucks and is a minimal to be playable, it particularly sucks when your the majority of your hardware is above minimal specs and your still getting that minimal performance.

There are things that can be done to make this better for all of us and that would be far more productive than trying to put the blame on the players who bought the game and have hardware that is suppose to run it.

[kklownboy 43]

Please read the required and recommended specs for the game before making such asinine comments to me in the future, here I'll supply them:

...

That being said DVD frame rates in a game are pretty sad to say the least, the entire point of the whole thread is that most if not all of use who are fully supported by the game struggle to get minimal performance even when closer to the Recommended specs:, not to mention that you even contradict your misdirected hardware insult with "That aside, I don't know anyone who gets good frame rates in the campaign.", frankly I don't know where else you would want good frame rates, because the menu screen just doesn't cut it.

..

Anyhoo, the "recommended" specs suck. Doesnt matter what you think they should do for you, they still suck... Then there's the lack of info for "recommend" Display/Resolution, and in game settings... So with your recommended H/W specs i say 1024/768 all low settings....And he is right about the "campaign" its a total low fps mission, with only 3.8~4.2 CPUs getting any good fps.. Soo call up sombody and complain about the "recommended specs" on the box and your Lowend hardware.. not getting you any performance... The box is wrong! And it will never change... Well they may up the specs on the OA box.

[callihn 10]

Anyhoo, the "recommended" specs suck. Doesnt matter what you think they should do for you, they still suck... Then there's the lack of info for "recommend" Display/Resolution, and in game settings... So with your recommended H/W specs i say 1024/768 all low settings....And he is right about the "campaign" its a total low fps mission, with only 3.8~4.2 CPUs getting any good fps.. Soo call up sombody and complain about the "recommended specs" on the box and your Lowend hardware.. not getting you any performance... The box is wrong! And it will never change... Well they may up the specs on the OA box.

I'm sorry I don't live in my parents basement and my hardware doesn't meet your standards, but it's mine and it's bought and paid for and not still on my parents, or my credit card and again, it meets or exceeds the minimal specs that they not I claim the game supports, you may not like that, but that's just too bad.

No, it doesn't matter what you think, try checking the thread title, apparently I'm not the only one that thinks we should be getting better performance.

If you had read my original post you would know that I already run at those settings.

I don't have to call anyone, that's what this thread is about. ;)

Then then minimal specs should be, according to you a "3.8~4.2 CPU".

As I have already said there are a varity of methods which could be used to improve performance of the game and it's not your decision as to weather or not that happens and frankly I don't recall asking for comments anywhere in this thread, I merely posted my observation of the situation and noted how discusting it is for people to think that DVD framerates are acceptable in games.

Again, you two keep talking about the CPU, when it is ABOVE recommended specs, how funny.

That being said, sure I know I don't have Da mos 133t rig in da world, but again, that's not the point.

Edited February 15, 2010 by callihn

[Bulldogs 10]

I wasn't trying to insult you in any way, so please don't get offended, but I'm just saying from personal experience that the recommended specs are inaccurate. This is a problem with Q&A testing that should have been done better.

I'm not trying to insult your machine by calling it "low end" either, it just is low end by today's standards.

From personal testing and details I've received from the testing of others I can tell you that your framerate is a bit above what people of your hardware setup usually get. That's in no way an insult, just an analysis based on gathered information.

As for the campaign framerate, that's due to a bottleneck. Please do some searching yourself before jumping to conclusions about my mental state. The campaign has a bottleneck that makes most people get stuck at 22fps in the heavy AI campaign missions.

Again, none of this is insults, it's all information to have at hand when analyzing and attempting to increase your performance.

[=kct=blackmamba 44]

yes kklownboy and bulldogs are correct

the CPU specivication on the box are a little off...

higher coreclocks mean performance increase thats pretty much the only way to

pump the performance to higher levels...

for AMD users try use the fusion utility they give a small performance increase

http://game.amd.com/us-en/drivers_fusion.aspx?p=1

[hotel 10]

Yo KK are you able to do the anti-aliasing through the CCC? I been trying liek hell to use CCC to control AA because I feel liek the game doesnt do a good enough job itself. I stopped using AA all together and just run my 3d res at 200% which works nicely and looks pretty damn good but certain things just simply need AA to look sharp.

Anyone else have thoughts on this....btw ATI card only please

[kklownboy 43]

Yo KK are you able to do the anti-aliasing through the CCC? I been trying liek hell to use CCC to control AA because I feel liek the game doesnt do a good enough job itself. I stopped using AA all together and just run my 3d res at 200% which works nicely and looks pretty damn good but certain things just simply need AA to look sharp.

Anyone else have thoughts on this....btw ATI card only please

CCC AA doesnt work in Arma2. Arma2's AA is fine.Normal AA is 4XAA and is realy good, High is 8XAA and is great. If you use CCC AA you will break any AA in game. Now AAA you can use and it has some effect/nicer, but on its own(no ingame AA) the game is jaggie.And AAA is a big hit. This is with 4XXX and under cards, not the new 5XXX with there awesome DX9 SSAA.

[hotel 10]

SSAA on my 5870 takes a pretty good hit in performance. The game looks incredible with SSAA and normal to high in game. The unfortunate thing is the forests when your walking through them in certain light conditions. The trees with those white lines aroudn them just kill the immersion.

I bench about 51 FPS on the first bench mission at everything very high no AA. AA on high I get about 40. With SSAA on it dips to unplayable numbers :(

[callihn 10]

yes kklownboy and bulldogs are correct

the CPU specivication on the box are a little off...

higher coreclocks mean performance increase thats pretty much the only way to

pump the performance to higher levels...

for AMD users try use the fusion utility they give a small performance increase

http://game.amd.com/us-en/drivers_fusion.aspx?p=1

Well, yes and no, yes they are correct that it's off, hence, my complaint as well as others in this thread and hence the thread, but they are wrong to come into a thread where people are complaining about the specs being wrong and tell them they are wrong for complaining, they are also wrong for their repeated attempts to blame the CPU which is well within the recommended specs, while the video card ( most likely the real issue ), which is not quite in the recommended specs was never considered. Video cards have certainly became overly complicated in buying at best and often times older cards actually produce better results than never cards, so many people get left out. :lecture:

That being said and done with as far as I am concerned, I love this game, it's quite fun and sure it has bugs like most, they could if they desire do more for performance across the board or just on the lower end of things, some of it could even be optional, it's been done before and that's the complaint myself and others have here, is that we feel that we should be getting a little better performance on the lower end of the supported systems, for me I get 27FPS in demo one and 20 in demo two, that's a little low for a start considering it could get reduced in larger battles online. Though again, the biggest issue is probably the massive screwing by the video card vendors.

That being said of course I'm always looking to upgrade as I can, but sometimes you have to go with other priorities in life, assuming you don't live with your parents and have no desire to go into credit dept, though I fully understand that the majority of America has issues with the latter, hence the state of the economy, I for one am not one of them.

[Bulldogs 10]

I think you misunderstood both of us. Try read our posts again with a calm tone in your head, not an angry one.

What we are saying is that they specs listed are wrong, which is in no way your fault, it's the fault of Q&A for not doing better testing, for not listing correct specs.

Neither of us told you that you should stop complaining, we were just giving your information about why you may have performance issues.

A simple response of "Thank you for the help" would go a lot further than "no, that's just stupid, you're wrong"

What we are trying to explain is that regardless of what they "recommended" specs say, we are trying to explain from personal testing and gathered information, what kind of performance you should get with your current CPU.

Run the 2nd benchmark test and see what score you get.

As an example here are the scores I rated with two different systems, both tested with the same GPU (ATI 5850) :

e7400 @ 2.6ghz = 10 fps

e7400 @ 3.4ghz = 15 fps

Q9400 @ 2.6ghz = 14 fps

Q9400 @ 3,4ghz = 22 fps

Please focus on the information at hand before jumping to your own logic that everyone else is wrong, as we are only trying to help by providing you with information.

EDIT : I should add that the second bench test is good for testing CPU speeds. The first bench test with the same settings gave 35fps on every CPU and speed.

Those tests were all under Windows 7, under Windows XP each benchmark go's up by about 4-6 fps, and the first bechmark that gave a score of 35fps gives a score of 45fps under Windows XP.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Bulldogs

[sethos 2]

Ever since release my game has been suffering from massive FPS 'dips', just for a split second, massive micro stuttering etc. I mean, the game ran fine but every so often the FPS would dip, textures would seem to have trouble loading and such.

So I finally decided to disable Hyper Threading today on my i7 and I can't believe the difference, NO micro stutters, NO dips, MASSIVE FPS Boost and the game is so smooth you won't believe it ...

[Makake 0]

already posted in a similar thread but maybe it fits in here, too. I'm getting a lot of monocolored shapes after a minute of playing and it lags like hell. any clue?

btw it's a ati 4850 and a P5200 dualcore.

[Pranne 10]

Ever since release my game has been suffering from massive FPS 'dips', just for a split second, massive micro stuttering etc. I mean, the game ran fine but every so often the FPS would dip, textures would seem to have trouble loading and such.

So I finally decided to disable Hyper Threading today on my i7 and I can't believe the difference, NO micro stutters, NO dips, MASSIVE FPS Boost and the game is so smooth you won't believe it ...

Very fine. I have a I7/950 and i CANNOT disable this.