ArmA2 / OA (low) performance issues

[pendragonuk 0]

yeah if I could get a steady 30 fps i would be happy. Just insurgency maps are just unplayable for me. Theres like this cap at 26, drops down to 17 when moving in villages, but never goes above 26 fps. Changing any of the ingame settings from low/off to very high makes no difference, still stays at 26 fps. Its weird, just no idea whats causing it.

Well if changing graphics settings are having no effect then it's not the graphics card. Simple logic but we have years of experience getting games to run smoothly on our computer and it's always the graphics card :)

The low frame rate is a symptom of the whole game running slowly. There are a couple of things to look at here. One is your CPU, ArmA suffers badly on computers that lack a very strong CPU. The other is the server you are playing on. If the server doesn't have the power to run loads of AI then the server admin needs to have a look at he type of mission he is running.

With my server simple, low scripted missions run real well, even with lots of players. However if I run a heavily scripted mission the more complex the situation the slow it runs. I know what to expect from my PC, (client) and when I see my fps drop I know it's the server struggling rather than my home computer.

[azz_er 10]

Hey guys,

Having a bit of trouble when Im zoomed in (looking through an ACOG/Vector etc.) my FPS just halves and goes down to 10-25 when I normally walk around with 60-90fps. I thought you'd actually have more FPS when looking through binos as there's less to render. Anyone got any ideas whats causing this? Can make the game unplayable, especially if there's a firefight going on.

Specs:

i5 760 OC @ 3.6ghz

4GB DDR3

nVidia 1GB 450GTS

Windows 7 32bit

Cheers

[Leon86 13]

does it stay low or is it temporary?

[azz_er 10]

Temporary, only when I zoomed in on bino's or an ACOG. When I zoom out, it goes back to normal.

[MavericK96 0]

Hey guys,

Having a bit of trouble when Im zoomed in (looking through an ACOG/Vector etc.) my FPS just halves and goes down to 10-25 when I normally walk around with 60-90fps. I thought you'd actually have more FPS when looking through binos as there's less to render. Anyone got any ideas whats causing this? Can make the game unplayable, especially if there's a firefight going on.

Specs:

i5 760 OC @ 3.6ghz

4GB DDR3

nVidia 1GB 450GTS

Windows 7 32bit

Cheers

Slowdown during zoom is a common issue, though for me performance returns after a couple of seconds of LOD swapping (even while still zoomed). Couple of things:

-You're using a 32-bit OS with 4 GB of RAM why? You're losing about a gig or so of usable memory by not using a 64-bit OS.

-IIRC the 450 GTS is sort of a lower-mid level gaming card...only having one of them is probably going to bottleneck your 3.6 GHz CPU.

Question...What resolution/detail settings are you running ArmA2 at?

[azz_er 10]

Yeah I mistakenly bought the 32bit version of the OS instead of the 64bit version. As far as I know, it loses me around 512mb from my 4GB.

Yeah the 450GTS is a low-mid level card but I just though the problem was strange seeing as in Bino's/Acogs etc there's less "world" to render than normal and its annoying having a sudden fps drop.

Im planning an upgrade soon to a 64bit OS and a new gfx card.

Currently my settings are on low/medium, with a 3.5k view distance and running 1680x1050.

[MavericK96 0]

Yeah I mistakenly bought the 32bit version of the OS instead of the 64bit version. As far as I know, it loses me around 512mb from my 4GB.

Yeah the 450GTS is a low-mid level card but I just though the problem was strange seeing as in Bino's/Acogs etc there's less "world" to render than normal and its annoying having a sudden fps drop.

Im planning an upgrade soon to a 64bit OS and a new gfx card.

Currently my settings are on low/medium, with a 3.5k view distance and running 1680x1050.

The thing is, it doesn't just de-render the rest of the world when you go into scope view, it's more like it renders all of that, PLUS what you are now seeing far away. The lag generally comes from having to load high-quality LODs quickly in the distance.

With that card I would try lowering view distance to 2000 or so. That's probably why you're seeing that issue is that it's trying to load a lot more stuff than it's capable of.

I was also curious about specific settings, like what is each thing set to? You might want to try setting Video Memory to Default if you haven't, as that seems to help.

Also I am about 95% sure that the key for Windows 7 works for either 32-bit or 64-bit interchangeably, so all you should have to do is reformat and install the 64-bit version with your current key.

Edited August 8, 2011 by MavericK96

[gunso 10]

Just installed Arma 2 on my rig and its looking and running very sad. FPS 22 and ugly.

Here is my rig. What to I need to to to improve looks and performance.

Mainboard : EVGA 132-CK-NF78

Chipset : nVidia nForce 680i SLI SPP

Processor : Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 @ 2666 MHz

Physical Memory : 8192 MB (4 x 2048 DDR2-SDRAM )

Video Card : Nvidia Corp NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX/9800 GTX+

Hard Disk : WDC (250 GB)

DVD-Rom Drive : ATAPI DVD A DH20A4H ATA Device

Monitor Type : Acer P243W - 24 inches

Operating System : Windows Vista Home Premium Home Edition 6.00.6002 Service Pack 2

DirectX : Version 10.00

Windows Performance Index : 5.6

Thank you.

use winXP, it increases ur fps by 30%. I can vouch for this, because previously i'm using winXP and can run chernarus map with track IR on 1280 X 1024 without any lag. i'm using phenom 2 quad 2.2ghz and EN 9600 GT 512mb graphic card.

But when i start to use win 7 chernarus map lags at the same resolution and using track IR makes the game unplayable at all with the lags, reducing the resolution makes it smoother but wtf....

I'm gonna use winXP again with dual boot when i finally found my winXP cd serial no =3

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18024779

[azz_er 10]

The thing is, it doesn't just de-render the rest of the world when you go into scope view, it's more like it renders all of that, PLUS what you are now seeing far away. The lag generally comes from having to load high-quality LODs quickly in the distance.

With that card I would try lowering view distance to 2000 or so. That's probably why you're seeing that issue is that it's trying to load a lot more stuff than it's capable of.

I was also curious about specific settings, like what is each thing set to? You might want to try setting Video Memory to Default if you haven't, as that seems to help.

Also I am about 95% sure that the key for Windows 7 works for either 32-bit or 64-bit interchangeably, so all you should have to do is reformat and install the 64-bit version with your current key.

I've uploaded a screenshot to make it a bit easier.

Link

Ah right, in that case I might just do a straight reformat. I'll look into it and see if I can grab a disc from somewhere.

[MavericK96 0]

Hmm...The only thing I could see is maybe turning down the view distance (like I was saying) to 2000-2500 and probably turning AA off or to low. "Normal" is sort of like 4x FSAA and I'm not sure your card can handle that. One thing you could try is using the FXAA shader mod that people have been trying...supposed to be a lot less of an FPS hit but still give you a good AA.

Thread is here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=123121

---------- Post added at 02:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:22 AM ----------

use winXP, it increases ur fps by 30%. I can vouch for this, because previously i'm using winXP and can run chernarus map with track IR on 1280 X 1024 without any lag. i'm using phenom 2 quad 2.2ghz and EN 9600 GT 512mb graphic card.

But when i start to use win 7 chernarus map lags at the same resolution and using track IR makes the game unplayable at all with the lags, reducing the resolution makes it smoother but wtf....

I'm gonna use winXP again with dual boot when i finally found my winXP cd serial no =3

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18024779

It would not be worth it for him to run XP as he's got 8 GB of RAM and XP won't even use half of that. You could try a dual-boot but honestly I don't think the performance increase is anything near 30%. That link you posted is over two years old, btw.

[gunso 10]

Hmm...The only thing I could see is maybe turning down the view distance (like I was saying) to 2000-2500 and probably turning AA off or to low. "Normal" is sort of like 4x FSAA and I'm not sure your card can handle that. One thing you could try is using the FXAA shader mod that people have been trying...supposed to be a lot less of an FPS hit but still give you a good AA.

Thread is here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=123121

---------- Post added at 02:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:22 AM ----------

It would not be worth it for him to run XP as he's got 8 GB of RAM and XP won't even use half of that. You could try a dual-boot but honestly I don't think the performance increase is anything near 30%. That link you posted is over two years old, btw.

well if you think about it, he can still use winXP 64bit if he can manage to get all the necessary driver for his devices or just use dual boot.

Who cares about 8GB ram if it cant even run arma2 smoothly =/

But from my experience trying 2 OS on the same rig, winXP is much more efficient and faster in doing a lot of stuffs. I remember doing 4-6 large zip file extraction + converting video + playing a window game or watching HD movie at the same time but when i use win7 i can only do like 1/3 of the stuffs that i usually do and running a game is out of the question even watching HD movie makes the movie stutters.

But with arma2 it really makes a big difference, on winXP i dont even need to tweak my GPU config and can play with track IR even with my web browser open in the background. but with Win7 i need to tweak my GPU settings and still cant play chernarus map with track IR. I even have horrible FPS when playing chernarus map with dynamic weather turn on, on MP server.

The only thing that i like about win7 is it's search function, other than that... i still prefer winXP

[Bluterus 10]

Just installed Arma 2 on my rig and its looking and running very sad. FPS 22 and ugly.

Here is my rig. What to I need to to to improve looks and performance.

Mainboard : EVGA 132-CK-NF78

Chipset : nVidia nForce 680i SLI SPP

Processor : Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 @ 2666 MHz

Physical Memory : 8192 MB (4 x 2048 DDR2-SDRAM )

Video Card : Nvidia Corp NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX/9800 GTX+

Hard Disk : WDC (250 GB)

DVD-Rom Drive : ATAPI DVD A DH20A4H ATA Device

Monitor Type : Acer P243W - 24 inches

Operating System : Windows Vista Home Premium Home Edition 6.00.6002 Service Pack 2

DirectX : Version 10.00

Windows Performance Index : 5.6

Thank you.

Thats very good fps for arma 2 depending where you're getting this.

I wouldn't be too concerned about getting more performance your card is most certainly your biggest bottleneck at the moment the 9800GTX they're a bit old and very underpowered.

The 9450 was a good cpu with 12mb cache. Get an aftermarket cooler and overclock if you get up around 3.6ghz you will see probably a 10 fps jump.

I use to run a q9550, asus p5q deluxe, ocz platinum 8gb ddr2, gtx275 1792mb i dont remember fps but I wasn't happy.

I have a new system now

I7-950 had to overclock from 3ghz to 4ghz to get my current fps

evga x58 ftw3 board

Gskill ddr3 1600 12gb

2x evga GTX570 1280mb overclocked to 797mhz each

Enermax 1020w PSU

SSD sata 3 6.0gb/s main o/s drive

2tb WD cavair black where the game is installed doesn't make a difference anyways.

Under scenarios benchmark 1 when I run that I get an average of 35 fps at these settings.

Res: 1920x1080

3d: 1920x1080 100%

AA: 8

View Distance: 6300

Everything on Very high incl post processing

Vsync: off

HDR: Normal as I can't see a difference between normal and very high

If I turn the view distance down to 3000 and aa on normal I get 55fps average.

With all that I still whinge and want more but where do we stop my system cost me a bucket load.

My mates GTX285 can get 25fps in the same benchmark so I'd say just grab an old 295 on ebay they're selling for about $100 overclock the cpu and upgrade or downgrade from vista if you can as it will be holding you back.

You can buy a windows 7 ultimate x64 cd key on ebay for about $50 and then just download an uncracked copy of windows 7 ultimate x64 from a torrent site and use your genuine key.

[=wfl= sgt bilko 10]

use winXP, it increases ur fps by 30%. I can vouch for this, because previously i'm using winXP and can run chernarus map with track IR on 1280 X 1024 without any lag. i'm using phenom 2 quad 2.2ghz and EN 9600 GT 512mb graphic card.

But when i start to use win 7 chernarus map lags at the same resolution and using track IR makes the game unplayable at all with the lags, reducing the resolution makes it smoother but wtf....

I'm gonna use winXP again with dual boot when i finally found my winXP cd serial no =3

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18024779

Turn off AERO, start games without Visual Themes and set up system to favor performance.

[Sp3tsnaz 10]

I know I posted a thread about this but this seems to be a much better place for it.

Generally I don't have lag but when I run the game after like 10 minutes, CPU usage would go mad and reach 100%.

My specs:

OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601)

Processor: Intel Core i5 CPU M 460 @ 2.53GHz (4 CPUs)

RAM: 4096 MB

Graphics card: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5650

Video Memory: 1 GB

[kazesim 2]

Guess its about time I actually post on this thread. Iv played ArmA 1 and 2 since release and have never had very good framerates on them (around 13 FPS with more then 40 AI). I think Iv tried all the fixes here with no luck, and want to ask if anyone has other suggestions. Also, I'm thinking of upgrading my mobo/CPU or GPU soon partially for this reason and wanted to ask which one probably needs it more. Specs are:

A2 v1.10

OA v1.57

OS: Vista Home Premium SP2 x64

Video: ATI Radeon HD3870 512MB GDDR4 v8.831.2 (CCC v11.3)

Audio: ATI Integrated v6.58.0.6600

Motherboard: Foxconn RS780

CPU: AMD Phenom 9600 x4 2.30GHz

RAM: 4094MB Hynix 667MHz DDR2

HDD: 2x Western Digital 320GB 7200RPM SATA2

PSU: 730W Hiper 4M730

The lag seems to be caused almost entirely by the AI, most of the graphics settings make no difference, including resolution and terrain detail. Here's what I normally run at:

View: ~1500, 500 when laggy

Texture detail: Normal

Video Memory: Normal (makes no difference)

Anisotropic: Low

AA: Disabled

Terrain detail: Low

Object detail: Normal

Shadows: High (no diff between normal and high)

HDR: Normal

Postprocessing: Disabled

Interface res: 1024x768

3D res: 100%

Around 70 AI in a battle in a real mission is 8-14 FPS. In the editor; 120 AI and some tanks driving around is 7 FPS consistent with average GPU around 40%, never more then 70, CPU of 60% to 65%. OA Bench #1 is 19 FPS average, ~50% GPU up to 70, and ~75% CPU up to 88. Bench #2 is 4 FPS (yes 4), with consistent 20% GPU, and ~52% CPU up to 66. Temps are always 44C and 64C max. Doesn't make a lot of sense, I have friends with similar or worse comps that can run it far better (seems to be how the game is). If anyone has suggestions, please let me know.

Also, I wanted to offer a few random (mostly) graphics-related fixes Iv found:

For extreme stutter until your in the realm of SPF (seconds per frame): try changing the video memory option to anything other than what it's currently set on. This will actually fix a lot of things, like the grey texture-less sky.

For white dots on all the trees such that it looks like its snowing, try increasing the anisotropic.

If it looks like its really foggy such that you can't see 300m, but its not, change the view distance to something other than what its currently on, it gets set to some kind of <500m mode sometimes.

If postprocessing gets stuck on, change the video memory to Default.

If the game constantly freezes and crashes with FRAPS running, disable the overlay while your in a game menu. If it freezes during a mission; click the "wait for this program to respond", wait about 20 seconds and it will usually defrost.

For mission makers: know that the AI causes almost as much lag when they are dead as they do when alive. Add a "killed" EH to all the units you create that sends the body to a garbage collector (server-side).

And for anyone still getting an "out of memory" crash, like I used to on ArmA 1 that would crash it at exactly 14 minutes and 23 seconds; if you have a dual-core AMD CPU install their dual-core optimizer.

And Sp3tsnaz: do you by chance have Kaspersky? KIS 2011 and 2012 have a bug that randomly maxes the CPU for around 20 sec, happens to me all the time.

[MavericK96 0]

kazesim: Your main bottleneck looks to be your CPU. 2.3 GHz is just not a lot for this game, and based on what you've said about AI being the main cause, you can be pretty sure your CPU is not sufficient. I would look at upgrading your GPU as well, but if, like you say, changing graphics settings does not matter a whole lot, then you are primarily CPU-bound.

Not sure how good that particular CPU is at overclocking, but you might want to look into that as an option other than upgrading the CPU outright.

[Sp3tsnaz 10]

@kazesim I don't have Kasper Sky I use Norton.

[MavericK96 0]

I would recommend not using Kaspersky OR Norton TBH. Norton is one of the worst resource hogs out there, and Kaspersky isn't much better.

I'd go with Avast! Free or MSE.

[Sp3tsnaz 10]

It's not from Norton, I play other games that need better specs than Arma 2 and this doesn't happen. I play Total War: Shogun 2 on medium/high settings.

[kazesim 2]

Thanks Maverick, thats what I was thinking. I'll probably get a Phenom 2 Black at 3.5 (unlocked multi, unlike this one), or just wait for Bulldozer. The CPU/mobo I'm using was from a prebuilt comp where pretty much everything is locked and it runs at 67C load with the stock heatsink, so I'm not sure I can OC it as it is.

And Sp3tsnaz: I'm not sure what else it could be, the only time I get random max CPU is really bad script errors or when Kaspersky goes on a rampage.

[MavericK96 0]

67C load is not that bad...I think chips nowadays typically have a max temp of 90-100C before they will shut down. But yeah, stock heatsink and not many BIOS options would not work well for overclocking, if at all.

Honestly I would look at going to a Sandy Bridge system before I would get another AMD chip. Another user posted some results from an X4 at 4.0 GHz versus a 2500k at 4.0 GHz and the 2500k was like 30%+ faster in ArmA2. Not sure what exact parameters were used, but from what I hear Intel has the much better offering right now. We'll have to see what Bulldozer brings.

[dlder 13]

Hi there!

As pretty much everybody I too have low FPS... I currently play the Arma2 singleplayer campaign from Combined Operations and I'm in the second free-roam-mission where I get about 20 FPS in the country/woods and only about 15 in cities... (the first free-roam performed better!? - haven't watched that closely)

And the weird thing is: the SLI is working but both GPUs aren't used to capacity (only to about 40-50%)

So one would think it's the CPU, but (HT disabled) I get about 40-50% evenly distributed on all cores :-\

This seems to explain, why OCing the CPU to 3.8GHz with 1600MHz@CL7 doesn't help at all (maybe smoother gameplay not noticeable alone through Fraps/FPS).

And the weirdest part of it all: it doesn't matter what I try to change/lower, I just don't get more FPS / smoother gameplay...

nVidia driver settings don't matter. (see driver settings below)

Ingame-Settings don't matter either (for the most part):

PostProcessing: Very High -> Disabled = +0 FPS

HDR: High -> Normal = +0 FPS

Shadow: Very High -> Disabled = +0 FPS

AA: High -> Disabled = +0 FPS

AF: Very High -> Disabled = +0 FPS

Texture: Very High -> Disabled = +0 FPS

Object: Very High -> Very Low = +0/1 FPS

Terrain: Very High -> Very Low = +0/1 FPS

Resolution: 150% -> 100% -> 75% = +2 -> +0 FPS (100% = 1920x1200)

The only setting that helps at least a little bit is Visibility. But to gain playable 30-40 I would have to change from 3600 to about 500 (which in my oppinion is pretty much useless). So I'm settling somewhere in between for a minimal improvement.

Windows 7: Aero -> Classic = +0 FPS

So, after all this fooling around, the only thing I CAN conclude is: the Arma2-Engine is extremely un-optimized.

Neither the CPU nor the GPU(s) are fully "exploited" :(

Is there NOTHING one can do? Some magic trick like setting the pagefile to exactly 3.192.549 KB :bounce3:

Arma2 CO

--------

Arma2 Retail v1.10

Arma2-OA v1.59

My PC

-----

i7-920 Stock (or 3.8GHz)

6GB-1066 (or 1666)

2x GTX580 Stock (or Single)

Bios

----

Turbo enabled

HT disabled (or enabled)

nVidia v280.26

--------------

Ambient Occlusion = Quality (or Off)

Aniso = Application

AA Gamma Correction = On

AA = Application

Transparency = 4x SuperSample (or MultiSample or Disabled)

GPU = Max Performance

CUDA = All

Max pre-rendered frames = 3

Multi-display = Single Display

Power Management = Performance

SLI = nVidia

neg. LOD = Clamp

Texture Quality = High Quality (or Low Quality)

Threaded Optimization = Auto (or Off)

Triple Buffering = On

VSync = Application

SLI = Enabled

PhysX = Auto

[Leon86 13]

How are the benchmark missions?

[MavericK96 0]

Dlder: With those GPUs and that CPU it's likely that you are CPU limited, unfortunately. This is also evidenced by the fact that changing the graphics settings do not affect framerate that much.

At 3.8 GHz you shouldn't be too limited but you wrote "i7-920 Stock"...stock speed on a 920 is 2.6 GHz, and there you would definitely be limited.

Doesn't really make a lot of sense, the performance you're getting if it's at 3.8 GHz. Maybe try reinstalling and also doing a fresh install of your video drivers?

I would also recommend an SSD if you can afford it, as it helps this game out a LOT. Not necessarily FPS wise, but the stuttering/LOD swapping is next to zero with an SSD.

Also, like Leon86 said, it's important to know if it's just in the campaign, because the campaign has a TON of scripting and AI running about, which can cause framerates to plummet even on some of the highest-end rigs.

Edited September 8, 2011 by MavericK96

[dlder 13]

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%).