ArmA2 / OA (low) performance issues

[thr0tt 12]

View Distance: 3500

Interface and 3D: 1650x1080

Texture Detail: Normal

Video Memory: Normal

AF: Very High

AA: High

Terrain Detail: Normal

Objects Detail: High

Shadow Detail: High

Postprocess Effects: High

FPS: 30 - 60 mainly in between in most situations.

Tried last night with VD at 10k which was ok but noticed a little stuttering so left it at 3500 which works best for my rig.

[grub 10]

Hey Guys,

Sorry to triple post. If anyone could enlighten me as to my previous post/question it would be greatly appreciated.

Its post #307. Just before TJAlol got a little cranky ;).

Thank you very much.

[thr0tt 12]

Hey Guys,

Sorry to triple post. If anyone could enlighten me as to my previous post/question it would be greatly appreciated.

Its post #307. Just before TJAlol got a little cranky ;).

Thank you very much.

Try my settings above. Some of the options in very high screw the game up completely so my settings I think I have a good compromise. You may need to disable AA but see how it goes.

Other than that then hope for a magical fps fix from BI although each patch appears to help...saying that, have you tried the latest beta patch ?

[lcdcc 10]

got pt6 2 i7 over clocked to 4.1 in turbo 3.9 standard, watercooled, radeon 5870 fastest card in world at moment, 1600 ram 6 gig game just jerks every 2 to 3 second running on 800 by 600 on lowest graphics. its not our pcs its the game sort it out i was the biggist fan of operation flashpoint 1, has codemasters stiched u up for going alone perhaps?

---------- Post added at 23:32 ---------- Previous post was at 23:11 ----------

is it to do with the agiex physics? and only nvidia can play this game? to me a game running on lowest ati graphics settings lowest draw setting and lowest graphics settings with a 4.1 gig i7 and radeon 5870 with ddr3 1600 ram should be pissing it not stuttering every couple of seconds, u can see the frame rate is very high but then stutter all over the place, whats this all about? im running windows 7 also is it only better on xp? operation flashpoint 2 runs on video setting at full blast callof duty modern warfare 2 full blast but i really love the sim of bohemia SORT IT OUT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[grub 10]

Try my settings above. Some of the options in very high screw the game up completely so my settings I think I have a good compromise. You may need to disable AA but see how it goes.

Other than that then hope for a magical fps fix from BI although each patch appears to help...saying that, have you tried the latest beta patch ?

Mmmm, I have downloaded the beta but do not wish to start campaign again as with all the bugs its a miracle I got to Dogs of war. Had to do badlands like 5-6 times. Fun though and still a great game.

So when I get through D of W mission I will install the latest beta.

Have also made use of Kju's little tweaks which help. He's a genius.

Thanks Thr0tt :D,

Regards,

Grub

[johncage 30]

i don't quite understand the performance of arma games.

i have athlon x2 5600+

2gb ram

9800gtx 512mb ram

updated drivers, etc

this is above recommended specs.

yet the game runs like poo (10-20fps) on medium to low settings. i should be able to have 30 fps on high correct? no anti-aliasing or anisotropic filtering. game is ugly and slow.

no virus or driver issue please. i play crysis on high with 40+ fps.

this game maybe have memory leak? what do you think?

[dogz 10]

@icdcc... and anyone else crying about there uber rig having stutters low fps on very low settings...or similar... YOU are missing the point.

I and many others have rigs with a third of the power that you guys have and the game runs fine at 1680 x 1050....

3G quad Q6600

2G Ram

9800GT

2 X 750G AAKS Raid 0

What is very publicly clear is that you need to have a good hard drive sub system/ram disk and you need to follow the tweaks on this forum.

The order of speed is as follows... I run two fast 7200 sata drives in raid 0 and some here run SSD and others run Ram disks.

Forget single drives unless you have SSD... or Ram disk

I suggest you set up a ram disk and you will be able to run 1900 x 1200 as smooth as silk... or get a better HD setup

@zach... you obviously have not read any of this forum or you would not have made such a post...

I love single digit posters that post negative without reading the forum....NOT!!!

Edited November 20, 2009 by dogz

[johncage 30]

look at my join date, low post count does not always equal new poster.

i have read and applied various tweaks, but they do not help. that is the reason i ask these questions.

if the game runs fine for you, that's swell. but don't assume that it is the fault of the user if it does not run well on their systems! negative posts are here because the game is not working as intended for many people. and it is a trend in all arma games, simpleton. how can you not realize that?

also, you provide no substantive evidence of the game requiring "better hd setups". and if it does, why has this not been printed in the systems requirement? i have not seen any credible sources here or elsewhere that stresses hd performance. frankly, i think you made that up.

ps. my hd is fairly new and fast sata. i doubt that is the problem. please provide actual insight and support. otherwise, do not "post negative". thank you.

must be harddrive:

(Arma II is going on the shelf... )

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=83270

(Arma2 - GTX295 Disaster)

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=90293

...and hundred other threads like this. thank you.

Edited November 20, 2009 by zachanscom

[Rexxenexx 0]

also, you provide no substantive evidence of the game requiring "better hd setups".

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=88388

People, try the beta -make sure your shortcut points to the beta exe-and cut your viewdistance to the minimum -don't complain yet- ALL the way left!! Then work your way up from there. If it still sucks still toss your rig or play MW2 for single player fun and play ArmA2 for MP fun. LOL! Thank GOD BIS is not EA, one patch a year!! :p

[dogz 10]

look at my join date, low post count does not always equal new poster.

i have read and applied various tweaks, but they do not help. that is the reason i ask these questions.

if the game runs fine for you, that's swell. but don't assume that it is the fault of the user if it does not run well on their systems! negative posts are here because the game is not working as intended for many people. and it is a trend in all arma games, simpleton. how can you not realize that?

also, you provide no substantive evidence of the game requiring "better hd setups". and if it does, why has this not been printed in the systems requirement? i have not seen any credible sources here or elsewhere that stresses hd performance. frankly, i think you made that up.

ps. my hd is fairly new and fast sata. i doubt that is the problem. please provide actual insight and support. otherwise, do not "post negative". thank you.

must be harddrive:

(Arma II is going on the shelf... )

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=83270

(Arma2 - GTX295 Disaster)

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=90293

...and hundred other threads like this. thank you.

zach with your response you have only proved my point... you have not read these forums.

qwertz and his investigation of Arma 2 HD usage is probably the MOST concise data anaysis of any of the components that affect performance of this game.

I assure you I am no simpleton and I wish you all the best... this is an amazing game and you will enjoy it immensly when you follow the advice on these forums.

I stand by my original post.

BTW like Rex I am using the latest beta... anyone that is not is missing out on big performance improvements.

Edited November 20, 2009 by dogz

[Helmut_AUT 0]

Hi all

Again Arma2 has me shaking my head in disbelief. I upgraded from an AMD 5000+, 9600GT with 2GB DDR2 to an i7-860, 4GB DDR3 and a HD4890. Using a clean new Win7 x64 install on an Patriot Torqx SSD, Arma 1.04 with the latest beta patch.

I'm running at 1920x1200, everything on normal except post processing OFF and AnisoFiltering MAX. VD 3000 meters.

I still get dips in the low 20s with this new system, for example in the Russian tank scenario that's included in the default single missions (where you start in a T-90 commanding a second T-90). When I drive trough some parts of a village or trough a certain amount of foliage, I'm seeing 22-25 FPS. Even if I have no soldiers or other tanks in view, just some houses and foliage.

Other games run blindingly fast. Even Stalker in DX10 with max. Visual Quality never goes below 30 FPS. Fallout3, Ultra settings, constant 60 FPS. Most other legacy games at highest settings - 60FPS.

I mean, I can accept that my old system couldn't run this correctly. But short of buying a HD5870 (which was not available) and overclocking an i7-920 to 3.6 Ghz, what exactly does one need to run A2 at a somewhat smooth 30 FPS?

I can't even say where my bottleneck is - I'm inclined to think it's the CPU still, but that CPU is better than a standard clocked i7-920 in all benchmarks I checked. This is a hell of a system. What am I doing wrong?

[InFireBaptize 0]

there is something wrong, what's your motherboard? have you made sure that all up to date? guys suggested that HT should be disabled for i7, they will confirm that to you, have you tried the -winxp switch?

[-=seany=- 5]

I feel your pain, I bet your fps sky rockets if you go into a forest or areas of dense foliage. Buildings are the problem. Its a mystery to me, for years we have needed uber rigs to play games with realistic flora and now we have the rigs capable of this, it's simple buildings, most of which we cant even enter, that are bringing our machines to their knees. There is a major flaw with the structures in this game we can only hope that the devs can fix it. The only thing that I can think of is the new damage model, that's all that has really changed from Arma1 -2 as far as I can see. And I'd gladly live without it for a boost in FPS.

One glimmer of light is that the devs are aware of it and are trying to fix it for the next patch. Check the Dev Heaven site. Suma has already fixed some streaming bugs with the textures, has created a test mission to benchmark perf in chernogorsk and has said that he still thinks there is more he can do to address the problem.

We can but wait.

[Helmut_AUT 0]

My mobo is an Asus with P55 chipset, one of the best boards in this class. Drivers and Bios all up to date, this system left the shop only two weeks ago.

I don't think I can disable HT on the fly, can I? That would mean I would have to skip my config around just for Arma2?

Gonna try the -winxp switch and see what it does.

Seany, it seems to be both foliage (certain trees or brush) and buildings. On the old system, I couldn't even walk in a forrest, now I can but if my tank goes trough some brush - peng, 22 FPS.

And yet if there are no other units on the map (empty editor test) I get considerable better framerate. So it might still be the CPU?

I was hoping patch 1.05 would finally bring some performance optimizations, but the beta right now does not show any unexpected benefits.

---------- Post added at 06:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:14 PM ----------

Okay,-winxp does not give any visible improvements.

I should also mention that I'm using Catalyst 9.10, waiting for some feedback on the 9.11 before I upgrade.

The system is clean, not even an Anti-Virus running in the background. Nothing but FRAPS and Arma2.

I'd love to hear some framerates of people with 4870 and 4890 cards.

Oh, another thing: Tried turning down 3d resolution to 1280x800 (67%) so basically "underscaling" - no real improvement, still drops below 25. Also tried disabling FSAA and low settings with little impact.

Which leads me to believe it is the CPU more than anything else but damn, the i7-920 was the best CPU in the benchmarks I've seen for Arma, and this one here should be even faster.

---------- Post added at 06:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:28 PM ----------

Seany, I see that you are differentiating between " CPU limited areas (Cities) and GPU limited areas (forests)".

You are perfectly right.

I just ran trough the same area as in that one particular mission, same positions, same view angles, but if there is no enemy AI in that village, I get 50FPS instead of 25. But if I run trough forrest, I still get 22FPS drops.

So it seems fighting inside urban areas and around buildings = CPU limit, fighting in vegetation is GPU limit. And my system hits both limits even though it's one of the fastest you can currently buy for less than insane money.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Helmut_AUT

[kklownboy 43]

i don't quite understand the performance of arma games.

i have athlon x2 5600+

2gb ram

9800gtx 512mb ram

updated drivers, etc

this is above recommended specs.

yet the game runs like poo (10-20fps) on medium to low settings. i should be able to have 30 fps on high correct? no anti-aliasing or anisotropic filtering. game is ugly and slow.

no virus or driver issue please. i play crysis on high with 40+ fps.

this game maybe have memory leak? what do you think?

You play crysis with out AA and at a different rez than A2?

Is this in the campaign? Your specs are fine. what you dont say is what your rez is? Alot of issues from performance is VD and Resolution, and then thinking 200%fillrate is ok... I see benchmarks for gtx285 @ 19/12 VH and 4AA is 19fps... Sooo whats the issue.

Your card is a 1280/1024 VD@2000 with good filters. Also the HD is now considered key to smooth game play, and my raptors will stutter this game...especially at VD above 4000

[kklownboy 43]

Hi all

Again Arma2 has me shaking my head in disbelief. I upgraded from an AMD 5000+, 9600GT with 2GB DDR2 to an i7-860, 4GB DDR3 and a HD4890. Using a clean new Win7 x64 install on an Patriot Torqx SSD, Arma 1.04 with the latest beta patch.

I'm running at 1920x1200, everything on normal except post processing OFF and AnisoFiltering MAX. VD 3000 meters.

I still get dips in the low 20s with this new system, for example in the Russian tank scenario that's included in the default single missions (where you start in a T-90 commanding a second T-90). When I drive trough some parts of a village or trough a certain amount of foliage, I'm seeing 22-25 FPS. Even if I have no soldiers or other tanks in view, just some houses and foliage.

Other games run blindingly fast. Even Stalker in DX10 with max. Visual Quality never goes below 30 FPS. Fallout3, Ultra settings, constant 60 FPS. Most other legacy games at highest settings - 60FPS.

I mean, I can accept that my old system couldn't run this correctly. But short of buying a HD5870 (which was not available) and overclocking an i7-920 to 3.6 Ghz, what exactly does one need to run A2 at a somewhat smooth 30 FPS?

I can't even say where my bottleneck is - I'm inclined to think it's the CPU still, but that CPU is better than a standard clocked i7-920 in all benchmarks I checked. This is a hell of a system. What am I doing wrong?

A single 4890 @ 19/12 is to much. Normal AA is 4X, so that is big... To compare to other games,is kinda fruitless, cause your NEVER going to get 3000m in any other game. More like 600m in a shoebox.. so 1600VD is "playable" at 19/12. To test a different rez, dont lower 3D, lower your Real rez.

If you want 30fps smooth @ 19/20 with ALL the fixings you need a 5870s in CF.http://www.hardware.fr/articles/777-7/dossier-amd-radeon-hd-5970.html

But two 4890s will work fine @ high normal~( if you turn off Fraps you will have less stutter/hitch.) and certain mods really help with the clutter issues. Also 2.8ghz or even your turbo 3.3 is still to ,low for A2.. 3.6/3.8 is just starting the performance, 4.xghz+ is where you need that 860, and you can. Or give up on Ati and go tri sli 285s. If smooth is all you want turn off fraps, lower your VD set your GPU_MaxFramesAhead= to 0,1, or 2.

I can run one 4870 of my four and test at 19/12, and it sucks for 30fps smooth with IQ i want.I run one 4870x2 @ 19/12 it still is not acceptable (but 16/12 is), run full quadfire( basicly 2x 5870) its great!. this is with 4.1+ i7 with HT off. So you sytem set up right now is high medium, or Low high..

Yeah insane cash to play.. @ 19/12 VH with 5000VD.. your almost there.

ps: 9.11 great driver

Edited November 20, 2009 by kklownboy

[Chill xl 10]

Try running the game without AA, it makes the biggest difference on my rig. My 4850x2 isnt able to handle AA very well, so are some reports from others using ATi cards aswell. What i noticed is that the card runs the game rather well except for AA, it cuts fps insanely and even worse it adds a form of stuttering: AA on low gives me roughly 30fps in tough areas with lots of those red fps killer trees but it just is so unsmooth. I can run everything on very high no problemo just no AA, to get some form of AA i bumped up the 3D resolution (fillrate) to get something like supersampling AA.

[thr0tt 12]

4890's are going cheap now due to the 5xxx series that are now out, 5850 works nicely here, maybe thats the issue ?

[-=seany=- 5]

Try running the game without AA, it makes the biggest difference on my rig. My 4850x2 isnt able to handle AA very well, so are some reports from others using ATi cards aswell. What i noticed is that the card runs the game rather well except for AA, it cuts fps insanely and even worse it adds a form of stuttering: AA on low gives me roughly 30fps in tough areas with lots of those red fps killer trees but it just is so unsmooth. I can run everything on very high no problemo just no AA, to get some form of AA i bumped up the 3D resolution (fillrate) to get something like supersampling AA.

I think the in game AA is a bit odd. With a gtx295 I get enough frames extra to make a difference with it disabled. But with a gtx250 I have tested, the FPS actually go up by one or two when you switch it from Disabled to Low.

I am have yet to try forcing AAx2 from the gfx card control panel, that might not cause so much of a performance hit.

[Blah72 10]

zach with your response you have only proved my point... you have not read these forums.

qwertz and his investigation of Arma 2 HD usage is probably the MOST concise data anaysis of any of the components that affect performance of this game.

I assure you I am no simpleton and I wish you all the best... this is an amazing game and you will enjoy it immensly when you follow the advice on these forums.

I stand by my original post.

BTW like Rex I am using the latest beta... anyone that is not is missing out on big performance improvements.

Your missing the bigger picture. I'm using the Beta and i still get shit performance, there is no gain over the 1.04patch. I get ridiculous stuttering and nothing does anything to relieve it. There is nothing posted on these forums here that has helped and i have tried everything that could be slightly related to the problem.

The bottom line is this game has serious issues, and the advice on these forums does not solve the problem(s) for everybody. The HDD thing is also a bit iffy. There is no reason everyone should have to fork out like $500 for an SSD or raptor to run this game properly.

I have tried the whole ram disk option and so have other people, and none of us have gotten any improvement with that whatsoever,so its debateable if the HDD is the issue anyway despite one persons testing.

[Alex72 1]

There is no reason everyone should have to fork out like $500

Not everybody has to. I didnt. And i got a lot of performance boost over 1.04. Also saying that the RAMDISK doesnt solve anything is also pure bullshit. My friends with 8GB is running with it and jumps with joy.

Nice nick btw...

[Leopardi 0]

You have AA? Disable it. It eats FPS on ATI cards.

[dogz 10]

@Blah... I feel sorry for those that cant tune their pc and/or work out what components and/or processes are causing stutters.

I have only to watch my HD led to see that it is the slowest and only part of my system that is struggling to keep up with the workload of this game.

I feel that those that cant solve the issues with the information available on this forum and with the betas, should try an Xbox game.

This game requires the player to have a good grasp of how a pc/os works.

[fantsu 10]

Hi all

Again Arma2 has me shaking my head in disbelief. I upgraded from an AMD 5000+, 9600GT with 2GB DDR2 to an i7-860, 4GB DDR3 and a HD4890. Using a clean new Win7 x64 install on an Patriot Torqx SSD, Arma 1.04 with the latest beta patch.

I'm running at 1920x1200, everything on normal except post processing OFF and AnisoFiltering MAX. VD 3000 meters.

I still get dips in the low 20s with this new system, for example in the Russian tank scenario that's included in the default single missions (where you start in a T-90 commanding a second T-90). When I drive trough some parts of a village or trough a certain amount of foliage, I'm seeing 22-25 FPS. Even if I have no soldiers or other tanks in view, just some houses and foliage.

Other games run blindingly fast. Even Stalker in DX10 with max. Visual Quality never goes below 30 FPS. Fallout3, Ultra settings, constant 60 FPS. Most other legacy games at highest settings - 60FPS.

I mean, I can accept that my old system couldn't run this correctly. But short of buying a HD5870 (which was not available) and overclocking an i7-920 to 3.6 Ghz, what exactly does one need to run A2 at a somewhat smooth 30 FPS?

I can't even say where my bottleneck is - I'm inclined to think it's the CPU still, but that CPU is better than a standard clocked i7-920 in all benchmarks I checked. This is a hell of a system. What am I doing wrong?

I hope you didn't upgrade your comp just because of this game.

See my sig.

Try 400x300 windowed resolution with all off, you still get 22FPS or something.

The problem is in this game, not in your computer, just live with that and wait for fix in the future.

My friend has Radeon HD5970 Black Edition with 2GB. Watercooled. i7 975 processor, overclocked to 3.6Ghz and tons of memory (don't remember). She still gets something like 20FPS in ArmA2, no matter what settings. :)

[Helmut_AUT 0]

A single 4890 @ 19/12 is to much. Normal AA is 4X, so that is big... To compare to other games,is kinda fruitless, cause your NEVER going to get 3000m in any other game. More like 600m in a shoebox.. so 1600VD is "playable" at 19/12. To test a different rez, dont lower 3D, lower your Real rez.

If you want 30fps smooth @ 19/20 with ALL the fixings you need a 5870s in CF.http://www.hardware.fr/articles/777-7/dossier-amd-radeon-hd-5970.html

Sorry, not buying this. Before the 5870 came out, the 4890 was the fastest single GPU card for ATI. In Arma it's actually faster than the GTX285, the fastest single GPU card from Nvidia. It runs everything you can throw at it in 1920x1200, so don't tell me this resolution is too high for the card.

The improvements from the 9600GT to the 4890 are so small that it is laughable.

Besides as I already said, at least in the village the problem is with AI, not with GFX. So now you're going to tell me an i7-860 is not enough for Arma2?

I don't get why people are so defensive of this massive performance problem A2 has.

For those who say disable FSAA - Sorry, looks like crap on a 27" screen without, so 2x is the minimum I want. I tried lowering it from normal, and it changed little in performance.

Again, it seems the problem is at least as much CPU as GPU related. It's time they fix this - I was thinking 1.05 would finally bring some performance optimizations, but the beta so far shows nothing of that sort.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Helmut_AUT