ArmA2 / OA (low) performance issues

[nuggetz 0]

I tried changing the page file and setting video memory to very high with no difference at all. At present I'm having an absolute blast trying to figure out how to install XP on a sata hard drive with no floppy drive to install the drivers. fuuuuuuuuuuuun!

google slipstream xp.

[johncage 30]

is it possible to turn off ambient occlusion in this game?

[Bulldogs 10]

I upgraded from e7300 and 9800GT to Q9400 and 5850

My performance went up everywhere except for major cities. Previously I could run about 30 fps on low settings in major cities, 22 (still smooth) fps on medium. Now in major cities I get 22 fps on low settings (not very smooth) and anything over low settings gets the same performance but introduces freezing (all 4 cores of my q9400 read 100% and the game freezes for 1 second every 10-15 seconds)

EDIT : Nvm.. seems to be caused by one of my mods as disabling them gets rid of the lag/memory leak and performance issues. Now getting in major cities, 22 FPS on very high settings, 40 fps on low settings with all mods disabled.

BTW, for the ambient occlusion thing, I don't think Arma 2 supports ambient occlusion, I could be wrong though but I'm pretty sure it doesn't support it.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Bulldogs

[YerBawz 10]

Unplayable for me, i7 920, 6 gig ram, ati 5970 on windows 7.

I have tried the tweaks mentioned round the boards, HT off in bios, mem stuff in the .cfg and so on, nothing does the trick.

Everything else I play runs great so I'm not going to make any major changes to my set up, this has to be a BIS screw up of some kind.

I've removed the game but will keep an eye out for future patches.. that might fix things for people with my specs. (I'm not alone)

Shame, the game running better would be hard to beat.

The last week tring to get it going has been nothing but frustrating.

If any players with my specs have it running at anything close to playable, please let me know how you managed it.

[Janxy 10]

I have an i7 920, 6Gb ram, Windows 7 ( 32 and 64 bit versions ) and an ATI 4890 1Gb.

Arma2 runs absolutely fine for me, even in Chernogorsk. I'll check my graphics settings and post them here shortly.

Have you made sure all of your drivers are up to date and the latest 1.05 patch installed. Also defragging the drive that the game is installed will help loads with the streaming performance.

What graphics settings are you using?

Is the game installed on the same drive as windows?

My Graphics settings:

Interface Resolution - 1680 x 1050

3D Resolution - 1680 x 1050

ViewDistance - 5122km

Texture Detail - Normal

Video Memory - Very High

Anisotropic Filtering - Normal

Antialiasing - Normal

Terrain Detail - Normal

Objects Detail - Very High

Shadow Detail - Very High

Postprocessing - Disabled

Hope this helps

Edited January 16, 2010 by Janxy

[YerBawz 10]

I have an i7 920, 6Gb ram, Windows 7 ( 32 and 64 bit versions ) and an ATI 4890 1Gb.

Arma2 runs absolutely fine for me, even in Chernogorsk. I'll check my graphics settings and post them here shortly.

Have you made sure all of your drivers are up to date and the latest 1.05 patch installed. Also defragging the drive that the game is installed will help loads with the streaming performance.

What graphics settings are you using?

Is the game installed on the same drive as windows?

My Graphics settings:

Interface Resolution - 1680 x 1050

3D Resolution - 1680 x 1050

ViewDistance - 5122km

Texture Detail - Normal

Video Memory - Very High

Anisotropic Filtering - Normal

Antialiasing - Normal

Terrain Detail - Normal

Objects Detail - Very High

Shadow Detail - Very High

Postprocessing - Disabled

Hope this helps

Thanks mate, I really appreciate you posting your help on this.

I'm going to load it up and patch it and then try your settings out. I will post back and let you know how it goes.

I tried all types of settings last time from the lowest to the highest, various resolutions and the other stuff posted in the tweaks, and all I got was mad textures and crashes. It was a real pain.

My windows is also on my sata hard drive, no cash for any of the SSD drives yet... maybe later.

I also tried various catalyst drivers, right now I'm using the hemlock ones from the AMD site. The 9.12 drivers seemed worse to me.

What drivers are you using ?

Anyway, thanks again and I will post back later.

Fingers crossed ;)

[YerBawz 10]

Hi Janxy, I tried it out last night and got some settings that seem ok.

Interface Resolution - 1920 x 1200

3D Resolution - 1920 x1200

ViewDistance - 5238km

Texture Detail - Normal

Video Memory - Very High

Anisotropic Filtering - Normal

Antialiasing - Disabled

Terrain Detail - High

Objects Detail - Very High

Shadow Detail - Very High

Postprocessing - Disabled

Maybe something went a bit wrong with my first install, though I did it the exact same this time, I also defragged after both installs.

For the single player missions these settings seem fine. :bounce3:

I might tweak a few of the settings depending on whats going on in the game, but last night it played good enough with these.

Thanks again for the help ;), I was fed up moving the settings around all last week, only to keep getting a glitch fest.

[Janxy 10]

That's great. I'm glad you got it performing to a playble level .

Btw I'm using the catalyst 9.11 driver atm. I'll prolly update to 9.12 later on in the week.

Did you patch the game to 1.05? The last patch gave me a perceived significant boost in overall performance.

[napps420 10]

guys i like many of you was haveing performance issues low frame rates. buggy and laggy game play when playing campagn

My Graphics settings:

Interface Resolution - 1680 x 1050

3D Resolution - 1680 x 1050

ViewDistance - 2784km

Texture Detail - Low

Video Memory - Very Low

Anisotropic Filtering - OFF

Antialiasing - OFF

Terrain Detail - Very Low

Objects Detail - Very High

Shadow Detail - Very High

Postprocessing - Disabled

this was with my machine running

asus m2n sli deluxe

amd 2x 6400 3.2

2Gb corsair ram

2x asus 8800 gt in sli

win xp pro

i tryed every tweak i can find and still no improvement i was very frustrate.

i almost gave up when. i decided to upgrade a little. now i am running the game at

My Graphics settings:

Interface Resolution - 1680 x 1050

3D Resolution - 1680 x 1050

ViewDistance - 10000km

Texture Detail - Very High

Video Memory - Very High

Anisotropic Filtering - High

Antialiasing - High

Terrain Detail - Very High

Objects Detail - Very High

Shadow Detail - Very High

Postprocessing - Disabled

i now get super smooth game play no lag no bugs. i run at a steady 75 FPS. i've never seen the game run so smoothly. i'm playing the entire thing all over again. this also seem to help clear some of the game bugs.

New PC Changes

asus m2n sli deluxe swapped for asus m4n84 deluxe board

amd 2x 6400 3.2 swapped for amd phenom II 4x BE 3.2

2Gb corsair ram

2x asus 8800 gt in sli

win xp pro

it's all in your processor with a gaming MoBo to match. this game is very processor hungry. even if you have a quad. It has to be a quad that runs 3.0

and above to see results. it only costed me 300$ to make the swap but it was well worth it. Thanx AMD for you low prices on good cpu

[Zynik 10]

Cheers for being able to run arma 2 smoothly after upgrading your machine.

But seriously, does BI have some kind of deal with the hardware-industry?

I don´t want to be bitchy but things like "upgrade your pc for 300 $" can´t be the solution for running just one single game. As good as the game itself is.

Alright, i bought this game based on the following information:

Optimal PC Requirements

* CPU: Intel Core 2.8 GHz / AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or faster

* RAM: 2 GB

* Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT / ATI Radeon 4850 with Shader Model 3 and 512 MB VRAM or faster

* OS: Windows XP or Vista

I tested the demo, that seemed to work ok (no cities and just a few buildings)

And guess what? Yeah right, I spent the last few months on tweaking my machine to get it run at least acceptable on lowest settings. (Thanks to this forum, by the way.)

All this efford although my pc fits the optimal system requirements? Come on.

Don´t get me wrong. This is not a whine-post, but I think not everyone has 300 bucks handy to spend it on this game.

I mean if i know a games requirements are beyond what my machine can handle, i just don´t buy it. Simple as that.

So in the end it feels a little weird, that so many users happily upgrade their machines without criticising the situation.

All folks like me can do now is sit an wait for some future patch to fix stuff.

Shame for such a great game with so much potential.

To make a long story short:

My cheaper solution: Just bought arma 1 for 10 bucks and hang out on the few remaining servers.

[YerBawz 10]

guys i like many of you was haveing performance issues low frame rates. buggy and laggy game play when playing campagn

My Graphics settings:

Interface Resolution - 1680 x 1050

3D Resolution - 1680 x 1050

ViewDistance - 2784km

Texture Detail - Low

Video Memory - Very Low

Anisotropic Filtering - OFF

Antialiasing - OFF

Terrain Detail - Very Low

Objects Detail - Very High

Shadow Detail - Very High

Postprocessing - Disabled

this was with my machine running

asus m2n sli deluxe

amd 2x 6400 3.2

2Gb corsair ram

2x asus 8800 gt in sli

win xp pro

i tryed every tweak i can find and still no improvement i was very frustrate.

i almost gave up when. i decided to upgrade a little. now i am running the game at

My Graphics settings:

Interface Resolution - 1680 x 1050

3D Resolution - 1680 x 1050

ViewDistance - 10000km

Texture Detail - Very High

Video Memory - Very High

Anisotropic Filtering - High

Antialiasing - High

Terrain Detail - Very High

Objects Detail - Very High

Shadow Detail - Very High

Postprocessing - Disabled

i now get super smooth game play no lag no bugs. i run at a steady 75 FPS. i've never seen the game run so smoothly. i'm playing the entire thing all over again. this also seem to help clear some of the game bugs.

New PC Changes

asus m2n sli deluxe swapped for asus m4n84 deluxe board

amd 2x 6400 3.2 swapped for amd phenom II 4x BE 3.2

2Gb corsair ram

2x asus 8800 gt in sli

win xp pro

it's all in your processor with a gaming MoBo to match. this game is very processor hungry. even if you have a quad. It has to be a quad that runs 3.0

and above to see results. it only costed me 300$ to make the swap but it was well worth it. Thanx AMD for you low prices on good cpu

I will be keeping what I have :D ,

my i7 920 is very stable at 4.0 (cool as cool enough), my ram is 6Gb corsair, mobo is a gigabyte ex58-ud5 and my graphics card is more than enough.. (window7 .. but still)

there is still something wrong with the game, that forces it to get nerfed so much on my system.

Needing to trade up a more than powerfull enough system, because of one game not running great would be mental, and hardly a clever thing to do if you play other games.

:crazy:

It's a BI thing, I refuse to feel any hardware envy. lol

To be fair - I will be trying future ATI drivers too, if it improves worth shouting about I will post it here.

Lesson learned though.

Janxy - Yes I patched to 1.05 both times,

I don't want to think about how it was pre 1.05 - that would have been too much.

Not that I'm bitching, glad to see BI releasing them..... unless that was the last one!!! lol

Edited January 19, 2010 by YerBawz

[=kct=blackmamba 44]

guys i like many of you was haveing performance issues low frame rates. buggy and laggy game play when playing campagn

My Graphics settings:

Interface Resolution - 1680 x 1050

3D Resolution - 1680 x 1050

ViewDistance - 2784km

Texture Detail - Low

Video Memory - Very Low

Anisotropic Filtering - OFF

Antialiasing - OFF

Terrain Detail - Very Low

Objects Detail - Very High

Shadow Detail - Very High

Postprocessing - Disabled

this was with my machine running

asus m2n sli deluxe

amd 2x 6400 3.2

2Gb corsair ram

2x asus 8800 gt in sli

win xp pro

i tryed every tweak i can find and still no improvement i was very frustrate.

i almost gave up when. i decided to upgrade a little. now i am running the game at

My Graphics settings:

Interface Resolution - 1680 x 1050

3D Resolution - 1680 x 1050

ViewDistance - 10000km

Texture Detail - Very High

Video Memory - Very High

Anisotropic Filtering - High

Antialiasing - High

Terrain Detail - Very High

Objects Detail - Very High

Shadow Detail - Very High

Postprocessing - Disabled

i now get super smooth game play no lag no bugs. i run at a steady 75 FPS. i've never seen the game run so smoothly. i'm playing the entire thing all over again. this also seem to help clear some of the game bugs.

New PC Changes

asus m2n sli deluxe swapped for asus m4n84 deluxe board

amd 2x 6400 3.2 swapped for amd phenom II 4x BE 3.2

2Gb corsair ram

2x asus 8800 gt in sli

win xp pro

it's all in your processor with a gaming MoBo to match. this game is very processor hungry. even if you have a quad. It has to be a quad that runs 3.0

and above to see results. it only costed me 300$ to make the swap but it was well worth it. Thanx AMD for you low prices on good cpu

thats strange i got a similar cpu and i get 24 fps average in first benchmark mission with viewdistance set to 4000...

are u testing on utes or chernarus ??...

[MikeBE 10]

Hey i'm about to buy a new laptop and I just want to make sure I can run ArmA 2 on it, here are specs:

INTEL® CORE™ I5-520M (2.4 Ghz Quad)

4 GB RAM

512 MB ATI Mobility RADEON HD 4330

Windows® 7 Home Premium, 64bit

So can I run ArmA 2 on it:confused:

[Leon86 13]

Hey i'm about to buy a new laptop and I just want to make sure I can run ArmA 2 on it, here are specs:

INTEL® CORE™ I5-520M (2.4 Ghz Quad)

4 GB RAM

512 MB ATI Mobility RADEON HD 4330

Windows® 7 Home Premium, 64bit

So can I run ArmA 2 on it:confused:

Videocard might be a bit light. Just try the demo and see how it performs.

[Eagle 01 10]

Hi.

Like the thread suggest i'm having graphical issues with Arma 2. I would like to clarify that i've had no problems in the past either in Arma or Arma 2 prior to the release of patch 1.05 /ACE 2. Nothing in my hardware has changed since then.

My system specs are are follows :

Intel Core 2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00 GHZ [themal-electrically cooled]

Windows XP SP3

4 GB RAM (OCZ)

GeForce 8800 GTX 768 MB, [Water cooled]

video BIOS 60.80.0e.00.08,

ForceWare version 169.21 [using omega drivers]

DirectX 9.0c

Monitor HP w2408 native @ 1920 by 1200/32

I have tried the GeForce/ ION 196 v196.21

and multiple other nVidia drivers with no success.

While in game here are some of the worst issues :

1, the resolution is very poor and the image blurry even with post process disabled and all video tabs set to low.

2, multiple time i get stuck in "receiving..." black screen with no control but ability to type text messages and i end up forced to

Crtl Alt Del to shut down if i'm not simply completely frozen and need to reboot.

3, no matter which settings adjustments i make in the video options in game it does not improve the situation.

4, in towns and in forrest i get white distortions and loss of image often.

I've looked high and low and while a few others might have some of the issues i have none of the solutions they offered seem to fix the problem. Also according to all monitors CPU/GPU/Memory etc my system does not appear to be max out when this problem occurs.

When i select default on the video settings ArmA 2 chooses the following

Texture Detail : Normal

Video Memory : Normal

Anistropic Filter : Low

Antialiasing : Low

Terrain Detail : Normal

Object Details : Normal

Sahdow Details : High

Post Effect : High

Aspect Ratio : 16:10 Wide

Visibility : 1600

Quality Preferance : High

I'm used to playing with all settings on High or Very High with no issues before. If this issue was fixed by someone's answer and i missed it somewhere else in the forum i apologize.

Your help is much appreciated.

Thanks

[kklownboy 43]

for the blurry, 100% 3D resolution in the ingame setings.

[randir14 10]

thats strange i got a similar cpu and i get 24 fps average in first benchmark mission with viewdistance set to 4000...

are u testing on utes or chernarus ??...

He's probably playing in an empty Utes, 75 fps at those settings in the real game would be impossible with that setup.

[=kct=blackmamba 44]

yes thats what i mean...

on empty "utes" i do 100+ fps (forgot my graphics settings)

in the bengmark i get 24 average, with everything set to high and view distance 4000.

in harvest red i get only 22 average, the only thing that bothers me is chernogorsk mission, the rest of the campaign i can play normal no issue's

[Bulldogs 10]

Eagle 01,

first make sure you disable all mods (including ace 2) and make sure you don't have any custom files in your addons directory or any other custom files like the noblur custom file that has major issues with 1.05 (if you're not sure then reinstall arma 2 and patch it with 1.05 fresh)

delete your arma2.cfg file in your arma 2 folder (under my documents)

start arma 2 then turn anti-aliasing and post processing off and set everything else to medium. Set view distance to 1600m. Set your resolution AND 3d resolution to your monitors native resolution.

If you're still having problems then completely uninstall arma 2 and delete your arma 2 directory then reinstall, patch and test it out, but before doing so I'd suggest downloading a fresh 1.05 patch as your one may be corrupt.

[=kct=blackmamba 44]

yes i understand but what do u think when u have a viewdistance of 4000mtrs your graphics card needs to render allot i think 75 fps isnt possible with my viewdistance and setting it back to 1600 isnt a option for me..

but when i turn around fast i wont have any slowdowns so im fine with the fps now could be a little higher but i can play and enjoy the nice scenery ingame

[kklownboy 43]

yes i understand but what do u think when u have a viewdistance of 4000mtrs your graphics card needs to render allot i think 75 fps isnt possible with my viewdistance and setting it back to 1600 isnt a option for me..

but when i turn around fast i wont have any slowdowns so im fine with the fps now could be a little higher but i can play and enjoy the nice scenery ingame

VD needs alot of CPU too.

[=kct=blackmamba 44]

thats true...

but i got twice the optimal requirements for this game and still it doesnt run 100%.

specially when there is allot AI nearby like when engaging the enemy camp in "manhatten" mission..

[callihn 10]

Not too good here either and the point is this system as well as others here meet at least the minimal specs or better and most come closer to or surpass the recommended, so why hasn't something been done?

I get 24 FPS on the first benchmark and about 18 FPS on the second, that's the best I've been able to do, well I can get upto 27 if I dork the terrain down to the lowest and the shadows to lowest, but that looks so bad it's not worth playing, here are my settings:

language="English";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=48387;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Resolution_W=1024;

Resolution_H=768;

refresh=60;

winX=16;

winY=32;

winW=800;

winH=600;

winDefW=1024;

winDefH=768;

Render_W=1024;

Render_H=768;

FSAA=0;

postFX=0;

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1000;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=2;

HDRPrecision=8;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=536870912;

nonlocalVRAM=256638976;

Windowed=0;

version=2;

blood=1;

singleVoice=0;

anisoFilter=1;

TexQuality=1;

TexMemory=1;

useWBuffer=0;

tripleHead=0;

shadingQuality=7;

shadowQuality=3;

sceneComplexity=150000;

viewDistance=1600.0001;

terrainGrid=50;

CPU= AMD Athlon 64+ x2 4850E

VIDEO= ATI HD3650 512MB GDDR4 Latest drivers tweaked down to a minimal as well.

Memory= 2GB DDRII

Edited January 24, 2010 by callihn

[Bulldogs 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)

[=kct=blackmamba 44]

today i used fusion desktop utility

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

in the first benchmark test

now i get 27fps average viewdistance 4000mtrs

when i set the viewdistance to 3000mtrs i get 29fps