ArmA2 / OA (low) performance issues

[nikiforos 450]

Im using patch 1.56 right now should I upgrade to 1.57 ? Do I risk worst performance or could I get better framerates?

[Ish 11]

the game is naturally laggy. you won't get call of duty or even crysis level framerates. there's nothing wrong with your setup, and i suspect you've already tried updating drivers and turning off excess background processes(neither of which does anything, really, unless you're really out of date). the only thing you can do is turn down the graphics to low/normal and just get used to the sluggish gameplay.

i've tried the beta patches and they are in fact somewhat laggier than version 1.57.

It's mostly a chernarus thing. I've got 100+ fps on Takistan and most fan made maps.

[bensdale 0]

Yes Chernarus is realy strange.

I think the problem comes from the deciduous trees. On Cherna i have good FPS but as soon as deciduous trees comming, then my FPS goes under 20 (with zoom). For me it's impossible to play with AA on cherna.

I have no idea why BI has detailed the deciduous trees so much.

especially when I compare conifers from OA who do not need much performance, but still have a bad LOD. It would have been better the OA conifers to improve and for that the deciduous trees on cherna not so much detailed.

here is a CIT ticket for this: http://dev-heaven.net/issues/7866

Edited January 9, 2011 by bensdale

[george176 10]

I've noticed I take a huge performance hit when enabling aa (about 10 fps). This doesn't seem to happen in normal Arma 2, just OA. My specs are below

Specs:

Intel i7 980, 3.6ghz

Ati Radeon 5970, 2gb

12gb ddr3 ram

300gb hd, 10k rpm

Using Catalyst 10.4

I wonder if the 10.4 drivers have different AA settings or something? I have aa set to application controlled in CCC with the box filter selected. Should I use different settings there?

[OniBlood1986 10]

I'm fairly sure its my proc. I have been getting low FPS in game for a while I did shut down explorer and that gave me like 4fps gain. I normally sit any where from 18-25 fps sometimes it boggs down lower. I have tinkered with the guide with no gain and even set every thing on low without gain.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+ (2 CPUs), ~2.6GHz

4gbs pf Gskill 800mghz RAM

ATI Radeon HD 5670 ddr5 1gn

Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit

[[general nuisance] 0]

Hello AngryGamer94. Unfortunately as you know this game is deeply frustrating and many of us do experience the same problem as you. You said you have"ArmA 2". I take it you haven't got a copy of "Operation Arrowhead"? If not then I strongly suggest you do. As it runs smoother for me and by adjusting the target line of the desktop icon, you can load the "ArmA 2" campaign in the "OA" game (otherwise known as "Combined Operations"). In addition, I would consider buying a SSD and have it as a dedicated drive for "ArmA 2/OA" content. SSDs while they apparently have a shelf-life of seven years or so will more than suffice for now. They do not need to be defragged and their read/write speed is generally faster than the standard HDDs. Which of course only helps to make the game run more smoothly.

I think what B.I need to do is not to release a sequel to "ArmA 2/OA" and instead work on improving the game coding etc. Just as "Operation Flashpoint" lasted for about five years or so before the release of "Armed Assault", they just need to concentrate on making the current game as playable as possible. Otherwise we'll have a situation where most people will eventually be able to play "ArmA 2" on decent frame rates only for there to be a new game and yet more video rendering issues. Here's one thing that's vexed me and many others since "ArmA". Why have B.I not implemented programming to recognise and make use of CPU multiprocessing and SLi/Crossfire? These series of games are the perfect platform to use such such features and yet the latest game can only utilise 2GB of RAM or similar?

Edited January 13, 2011 by [General Nuisance]

[MoS 0]

I´ve remembered there was a fix for vegetation a year or longer ago: http://dev-heaven.net/projects/proper-projects/wiki/Vegetation_Tweak_Visuals

Just tried it got 10-15 fps more in average!

That is a MUST imho for everyone planning to play on Chernarus...!

[Pvt.mcdonald 10]

When I first bought Arma 2, my computer was 1-2 months old and I ran Arma 2 on high settings and it never crashed. Now I have had my computer for about a year, and I play A2:OA about 5-10 hours a week based on how much is going on in my life. It constantly crashes, especially when I shoot a gun, or blow something up.

Is this just a sign I need a new graphics card, or do I need a better processor.

Manufacturer:

LENOVO

Processor:

Intel® Core2 Duo CPU P8700 @ 2.53GHz (2 CPUs), ~2.5GHz

Memory:

4096MB RAM

Hard Drive:

249 GB

Video Card:

NVIDIA GeForce GT 240M

Monitor:

Sound Card:

Speakers (High Definition Audio Device)

Operating System:

Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit (6.1, Build 7600) (7600.win7_gdr.100226-1909)

[strategoslc 10]

Hi I recently built a computer with the following specs.

Motherboard: Asus Rampage 3 Formula

HDD: Hitachi 500gb 32mb cache 7200rpm

Graphics: nvidia GTX 580 sc

Memory: Corsair Dominator 3x2gb 1333mhz triple-channel

CPU: Intel core i7 950 (was overclocked but dropped it for previous issue... Need to overlcock it again.)

PSU: Zalaman HP 1000w

Monitor: Samsung 2ms @ 1600x900

OS: Windows 7 64bit

I am having trouble getting great frame rates with this computer. I know it's capable of it, since I have seen Lesser systems run it at maxed out with perfect frame rates when in intense battle scenes. Would overclocking it back to 3.5ghz make that big of a difference or is it something else like configuration settings? Please answer. Thanks.

[Tarnsman 10]

I need tips on setting up on a older computer.

I have the following specs

PIV Prescott 3.2ghz wHT

EVGA GTX 460SC 1GB

2 GB Ram

Im getting 24-34 fps by myself on average and 20 fps in the "Walk in the Hills mission 20-22 in the benchmark.

What can I change to get the most out of my GPU and give my CPU more space to handle AI and such?

[BLUEmako 0]

When I first bought Arma 2, my computer was 1-2 months old and I ran Arma 2 on high settings and it never crashed. Now I have had my computer for about a year, and I play A2:OA about 5-10 hours a week based on how much is going on in my life. It constantly crashes, especially when I shoot a gun, or blow something up.

Is this just a sign I need a new graphics card, or do I need a better processor.

There should be no reason for your hardware to need replacement. Have you done any system maintenance in the last year? You probably need to clean out excess resource hungry programs that are auto-starting on your machine and clean up your audio and video drivers. Do not trust Windows Update to do this properly for you.

Try doing a refresh of the audio and video drivers by downloading the latest versions, uninstalling the current drivers, running a driver cleaner utility and then installing the new drivers.

Have a look on http://www.tweakguides.com/ and read some of the guides there if you haven't done this before...

[Demidekidasu 10]

Hi everyone, this is my first time posting in the forums. Ive been around here for a while though, watching from the shadows, hehe (visited the forums before but only just made an account in other words!).

The reason I am posting this is because I am quite troubled by how ArmA 2 does not run particularly well on my system, yet none of my system's resources are being taxed.

Firstly, here is my system (built by myself):

*ASUS Rampage III Extreme motherboard

*Intel Core i7-950 o/c @4.1GHz

*12gb Corsair Dominator GT DDR3 @~1500MHz

*2x EVGA GeForce GTX 470's (SLI) o/c @688MHz/1376MHz/1795MHz

*Creative Soundblaster X-Fi Titanium

*120gb Corsair Vertex 2 SSD (primary drive)

*1tb Samsung HDD (storage)

*Corsair Obsidian 800d case (with lots of extra fans!)

*Corsair A70 CPU cooler

*Corsair AX1200 PSU (1.2kw with 100a rail)

*Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit

Now, this was an expensive build (£3000). I built it with the intention of enjoying games such as ArmA 2 with little to no noticable slowdowns. But this is simply not the case!

I run the game with 1.8km view distance and everything at "Very High" (except for "Video Memory" - "Default" and "Object Details" - "High"). In the first benchmark, it returns an average of 59fps (yummy!), but the second benchmark returns an average of 22fps (yuch!). Sure, it sounds like a CPU bottleneck, perhaps, but please first allow me to explain what I have observed...

I use the Logitech G19 keyboard and use various system monitoring applets on the LCD screen to keep an eye on everything in my system.

When I was running the second benchmark, none of my CPU's cores (I always monitor the usage of individual cores, not the overall CPU-usage) were exceeding ~70% usage, and my GPU's were only at 20-40% usage. (BTW, SLI is working in ArmA 2, I can confirm this, as I enjoy a great boost in performance when playing with it set to "AFR 2", so the problem is not SLI-related).

This is something that occurs every time a lot of CPU-dependant things are happening, and it severely kills my enjoyment of the game. There is no reason why the frame rates should be dropping when my system is not being challenged, unless the problem lies within the game itself, which is indeed possible, because I have seen this before in some of Bethesda's games - the dated engine simply cannot keep up with the amount of data involved when you run it with a lot of mods, resulting in frame rate drops even when the system is not being particularly taxed.

I am at a loss. I am not new to ArmA 2, and in fact I first played the game on it's release with a 2.8GHz Pentium 4, so I know all of the tweaks and tricks! But nothing changes.

All drivers are up-to-date etc.

Game is version 1.08.

Enabling/disabling HT in the BIOS makes no noticable difference either...

Excuse my rant, just needed to moan about it, as the game is quite clearly a faulty product if my conclusions are correct, which is a crying shame because the game is utterly fantastic otherwise!

[domokun 515]

If you knew "all the tweaks and tricks" then you'd also know that the in-built benchmark is a load of 'ol tosh. Especially the second one. What counts is your framerates during actual gameplay.

[Demidekidasu 10]

If you knew "all the tweaks and tricks" then you'd also know that the in-built benchmark is a load of 'ol tosh. Especially the second one. What counts is your framerates during actual gameplay.

Fair enough point I suppose, but I was refering to the unreasonably-low performance during gameplay as well. I just used the benchmarks as a common frame of reference.

The worst thing is during a big firefight in a city... 26fps even though no cores are at more than ~70% usage and my GPU's are hovering at ~85% usage is just terrible.

It almost gives the effect that the game is emulating running on a slower machine than what it is...

Know what I mean? It seriously annoys me, because I love ArmA 2, but if the engine is simply innadequate for the game, no future hardware upgrades will ever fix the problem...

[gL33k 0]

if the engine is simply innadequate for the game, no future hardware upgrades will ever fix the problem...

the engine is maybe 'not so good' for framerate. but usually, the feature available in arma2 are awesome. that 's why we love arma.

now, try to accept to play with reduced detail.

[Demidekidasu 10]

the engine is maybe 'not so good' for framerate. but usually, the feature available in arma2 are awesome. that 's why we love arma.

now, try to accept to play with reduced detail.

Yeah, ArmA 2 is completely brilliant otherwise and I hardly ever play anything else. But thats why I am so bothered by this...

I just tried running it with everything on the lowest setting possible (including the resolution and fillrate) and still only managed ~30fps (occasionally dropping into the 20's) in the situation that I mentioned before. Therefore, once again, my conclusion is that the performance problems are a serious issue that lies within the game's engine.

Put it this way:

If my 4.1GHz CPU is not getting more than ~70% on any core, CPU-intensive happenings are obviously being choked simply by the engine. The engine's innadequacy to handle the data is a major flaw in the game, and I really hope that BI are aware that the famously-low performance isnt completely related to hardware.

[-)rStrangelove 0]

@Demidekidasu:

1. is ArmA2 installed on the ssd?

2. what framerate does the benchmark OA show when using just a single GPU?

3. are you using creative drivers for the x-fi ?

4. on post screen does the x-fi use the same IRQ as the gfx card(s)? maybe try other slot on MB?

5. Physx disabled for both cards?

Edited January 20, 2011 by ])rStrangelove

[Demidekidasu 10]

)rStrangelove;1838475']@Demidekidasu:

1. is ArmA2 installed on the ssd?

2. what framerate does the benchmark OA show when using just a single GPU?

3. are you using creative drivers for the x-fi ?

4. on post screen does the x-fi use the same IRQ as the gfx card(s)? maybe try other slot on MB?

5. Physx disabled for both cards?

1. Yes, ArmA 2 is on the SSD

2. Oh, I dont have OA sorry, lol. But when I run the vanilla benchmarks with "Single GPU" mode, I get much lower frame rates. MSI afterburner reports even and decent GPU usage when SLI is enabled too, so I am pretty sure that the problem is not an SLI issue.

3. Yes I am. I believe they are up-to-date too. The only thing the auto-updater offers me is some pointless programs...

4. I have no idea how to find out, lol. I was under the impression that modern motherboards (especially a high-end one such as mine) assigned IRQ's automatically? I've certainly not had a single issue with the machine other than with ArmA 2, so I have so far assumed that all is fine and dandy. I wont rule out the possibility that it is wrong though, so if you could kindly tell me what to look for in the BIOS I will check it!

5. Yeah, PhysX processing is assigned to the CPU alone.

Thanks for the reply BTW!

[strategoslc 10]

Hello. I recently built a new computer and am having some weird fps issues, since I should have the hardware to play this game on high settings, easily. Is it due to the fact I'm not using a SSD? BTW: Using steam version wiht soem Mods installed.

My build:

Motherboard: Asus rampage 3 Formula

CPU: Intel i7 950 @ 3.6 going to OC to 4ghz

CPU Cooler: Zigmatek Dark Knight + Artic silver 5

Graphics: GTX 580 sc

RAM: Corsair 1333 dominator 3x2gb @ 1266 (underclocked to OC processor)

HDD: HITACHI Ultrastar A7K1000 HUA721050KLA330 (0A35770) 500GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Hard Drive

Can you guys help me out? thanks.

[EDcase 87]

Strange. Your system should be running ARMA beautifully.

All I can suggest is try with no mods and no OC (Just to be sure)

I don't use Steam version so can't tell if there might be a problem there.

I guess it automatically updates?

EDIT: your ram clock isn't right. My CPU is at 3.25Ghz and ram is at 1556

Edited January 27, 2011 by EDcase

[DrFire 10]

Well, I'm having some problems with low FPS and it's bothering me alot.

I play at high textures, low terrain, low objects, no post processing, normal AA, and 4000 view distance.

I get around 26 FPS constant on a 14 man server online.

This is with a recent fresh reinstall of Windows 7 Enterprise 64-bit

A new 6950 2 GB flashed to a 6970 2 GB

A AMD Phenom II Quad Core @ 3.2 Ghz

And 4 gigs of RAM.

What am I doing wrong? I'm running the latest beta patches, combined operations, and ACE2.

Oh, and at 1440 x 900 all in windowed

Edited January 27, 2011 by DrFire

[strategoslc 10]

Strange. Your system should be running ARMA beautifully.

All I can suggest is try with no mods and no OC (Just to be sure)

I don't use Steam version so can't tell if there might be a problem there.

I guess it automatically updates?

EDIT: your ram clock isn't right. My CPU is at 3.25Ghz and ram is at 1556

Well.. I had the option to turn it way up or down.. since it's just temporary is set it back to 2600 instead of 5000 something Is that ok? I didn't think I could safely supply voltage with that much of an OC of ram.

[Posta 10]

Just wondering if LOD switching is normal when standing (approx) 50 meters from a tree zooming in and out?

I've probably tried everything: Video memory (all presets), -Maxmem, CPU count, Ramdisk, Beta patches, mods, defrag :) and other graphical settings in-game.

Running latest drivers and standard settings in Catalyst.

[Demidekidasu 10]

Hello. I recently built a new computer and am having some weird fps issues, since I should have the hardware to play this game on high settings, easily. Is it due to the fact I'm not using a SSD? BTW: Using steam version wiht soem Mods installed.

My build:

Motherboard: Asus rampage 3 Formula

CPU: Intel i7 950 @ 3.6 going to OC to 4ghz

CPU Cooler: Zigmatek Dark Knight + Artic silver 5

Graphics: GTX 580 sc

RAM: Corsair 1333 dominator 3x2gb @ 1266 (underclocked to OC processor)

HDD: HITACHI Ultrastar A7K1000 HUA721050KLA330 (0A35770) 500GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Hard Drive

Can you guys help me out? thanks.

I have a very simmilar system to yourself (more powerfull in fact, with an SSD too), and I am getting crappy FPS - yet the game is not maxing out any department on my computer.

Read my earlier posts in this thread (only 1 or 2 pages back). Judging by my observations, I am absolutely convinced that it is the archaic and crudely-written engine that is limiting the game's performance, not necassarily weak hardware.

But nobody seems to be listening to me...

[ladlon 10]

It's very strange how some people are getting horrific frame rates, yet (for example) I was getting very smooth results (at good detail levels) with my lowly dual core and 2 gigs of ram... I was using (until recently) the beloved NVidia 8800 card, which I think was the main reason it was going so smooth. Now I've got a GTX 460.

But, ya, strange how others with a good system are having (in some cases) really bad performance... I guess that's the thing with PCs... so many combinations, not just of hardware, but fragmentation, background apps, etc.

I wish I could offer some words of advice, as I can imagine how frustrating that must be. I hope you guys find solutions soon. Sorry I can't help...

Oh, one thing you might want to try (...sorry if this has been mentioned), but I think I read somewhere to put shadows to very high.... While that seems counterintuitive, the logic is that in doing so, your graphics card takes over for it, as opposed to your CPU. I tried it myself, and found no FPS hit (...in my case, I was getting good FPS as it was, so it wasn't like it would improve, only (possibly) slow things down... which it doesn't appear to). Not sure if it's all true or not, but it worked for me... Might apply to other settings as well... where putting it higher in fact improves things. Worth a try.

Edited February 1, 2011 by ladlon