ArmA2 / OA (low) performance issues

[NeMeSiS 11]

Yeah, that PC is very slow, i am not suprised about the crappy performance at all.

[Leon86 13]

I have super lag and my requirements are somewhat good!:confused:

System: optiplex 360

Processor: Intel core Dual CPU/ E7500 @2.93GHz

RAM: 2 gigs

Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 8500 GT

OS: Windows 7

WAY OVER 10GB of free space

If you need to know anything else, just reply ,thanks!:)

that gpu is way below minimum system requirements. compare here and see how low it gets. A discrete 7800 is the minimum system requirement on the box, I'd recommend getting something a lot faster.

[gia251 10]

that gpu is way below minimum system requirements. compare here and see how low it gets. A discrete 7800 is the minimum system requirement on the box, I'd recommend getting something a lot faster.

I got a GIG a memory on my grpahics card so i dont think thats a problem.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I got a GIG a memory on my grpahics card so i dont think thats a problem.

Seriously? :rolleyes:

You could stick several TB on that card, it wont make it any faster. My penis can render graphics faster than that card.

[Leon86 13]

I got a GIG a memory on my grpahics card so i dont think thats a problem.

it is.

[-)rStrangelove 0]

My penis can render graphics faster than that card.

That statement just had the same effect as watching this video this morning:

[treacher 10]

MY RAGE POST:

Bought ARMA2 when it came out, few years ago, and performance was crap.

Now i bought the 2 expansions for Arrowhead, and was hoping that performance got optimized. I was wrong. Game is laggy and annoying to play...

Here is my PC:

Intel i7

OCZ Platinum 6 GB ( 2 x 3 )

Asus GeForce GTX 275

Vista 64 Bit

I know its not the top of the line, i had it for a year or so, but it is not a crappy system... BF:BC2 runs on highest details with 0 fps drops. It runs perfect. Yes, Takistan is huge compared to any BF map, but damn, why would they even bother to make a game that lags on ANY PC at the time the game was released?... Why?? Its a fcking medieval torture to look at the screen!

Ferrari or Porsche are not making cars that have 30000 HP on paper, but with engines that cuts out every 100 m, or gearbox that jerks your car around constantly...

Just for fun, i have lowered all my graphics settings to low, changed the resolution down to 1280x1024, changed the view distance to 1000 m, and ran a "benchmark mission".

Average of 62 FPS... :butbut:

Textures were popping in my face, visuals were crap, and still i only made 62 FPS. On Medium settings ( with 4500 m view distance, my PC produced only 27 FPS :confused: ... Its just unacceptable!

There are some players out there, who can play with under 30 FPS, and think its all good. Well, i can live with an occasional drop to 30 FPS for 0.1 sec, but anything above that makes me want to throw my PC out of the window and beat the living shit out of the game developers.

I love the original Operation Flashpoint, i still have it on my PC, and i had big hopes for the new game engine, but it failed miserably...

My penis can render graphics faster than that card.

My penis can write a better code for this game.

Edited June 1, 2011 by treacher

[maddogx 13]

MY RAGE POST:

yadda yadda

So are you actually looking for help, tweaks etc. or is your post just pointless drivel that we can safely ignore?

[-)rStrangelove 0]

Damn, i never can find the facepalm screenshot when i really need it.

[Leon86 13]

I run at 2000 viewdistance and model and terrain detail low, shadows high(important, high loads gpu instead of cpu). 1920x1200 and 115% 3d, with low aa.

I have a q6600 @3.3 and 2 overclocked gtx260's in sli. They only go to 100% with a smoke grenade but performance is decent.

[All-a-Mort 0]

Has anyone else had problems post-Reinforcements with an appreciable decline in visual quality?

Since installing reinforcements (hopefully correctly, though it's possible it went wrong trying to install to the same folder as Arma II and OA and overwrote something) I am now finding that vegetation in particular looks weird, sort of like it's texture is a grid or mesh shape. It wasn't like that under stock Arma II or OA. This is a new install so no mods messing with things either:

System specs:

i5-2500k @3.3hgz (not overclocked yet as barely out the box)

P8P67 Pro

8gb G.Skill Ripjaws X @1600mhz

MSI 6950 2gb @800mhz with 6970 shaders unlocked.

Samsung F3 1TB 7200rpm HDD

[maddogx 13]

Has anyone else had problems post-Reinforcements with an appreciable decline in visual quality?

Since installing reinforcements (hopefully correctly, though it's possible it went wrong trying to install to the same folder as Arma II and OA and overwrote something) I am now finding that vegetation in particular looks weird, sort of like it's texture is a grid or mesh shape. It wasn't like that under stock Arma II or OA. This is a new install so no mods messing with things either:

System specs:

i5-2500k @3.3hgz (not overclocked yet as barely out the box)

P8P67 Pro

8gb G.Skill Ripjaws X @1600mhz

MSI 6950 2gb @800mhz with 6970 shaders unlocked.

Samsung F3 1TB 7200rpm HDD

That's AToC. Go to "My Documents", look for your Arma2OA.cfg file and open it with notepad. Inside there should be a line that says:

AToC = 7

Change the 7 to 0. That should solve your problem. :)

[Zipper5 74]

My penis can write a better code for this game.

Then you better put it to work.

You obviously know very little about Arma 2 and what it does, or how your PC works. Want to know how I gathered this?

1. You're comparing its performance to BC2's.
   
2. You don't give any indication as to how fast your i7 is. There are many different clock speeds for i7 processors.
   
3. You think 62 FPS is low performance for your PC.
   

So rather than your first post being a rage post, make it so people will actually want to help you next time. Until then, you will be ignored. Rage again, and it may lead to posting rights removal until you can calm down.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Zipper5

[FanBF2 13]

I need your help ! :butbut:

In singleplayer mission, my fps is good. (50-60)

But in multiplayers my fps stay blocked at 30 fps with any parameters. (640x480, all settings on low etc...)

My specs:

Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bits

AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition 3.4 Ghz

Kingston ValueRAM 3x2GB DDR3-1333

Asus M4A87TD EVO

Gainward GTX-460 GLH 1GB DDR5

Acer H243 24"

And ArmA 2 CO of course.

Anyone know how to fix this issue ? :)

Edited June 1, 2011 by FanBF2[CH]

[treacher 10]

You obviously know very little about Arma 2 and what it does, or how your PC works. Want to know how I gathered this?

1. You're comparing its performance to BC2's.
   
2. You don't give any indication as to how fast your i7 is. There are many different clock speeds for i7 processors.
   
3. You think 62 FPS is low performance for your PC.
   

So rather than your first post being a rage post, make it so people will actually want to help you next time. Until then, you will be ignored. Rage again, and it may lead to posting rights removal until you can calm down.

My rage post is what it is - a rage post.

I do not expect any help or assistance. My video game experience tells me: if a game has issues after 1 year since release - it will never get better.

I am not trying to gain 5 FPS, by messing with .ini files, reverting drivers, updating my bios and all that nonsense. I expect a year old game to run smoothly, at least on the lowest possible settings, on a system that exceeds the optimal system requirements.

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

Can you honestly, without any prejudice, tell me there are no issues with the ARMA2 performance?..

Its a rhetorical question, i do not expect you to answer that.

As much as i want to disprove you clever observations regarding my IT knowledge, i will restrain myself from doing so. There are countless articles on ARMA2 low performance, made both by PC enthusiasts and hardware magazines. I just wish for BI to prioritize these issues as critical, and in future, deliver a well baked product, instead of trying to jump over their heads, and cook a highly promising but raw meal...

I still love BI titles. I will play them, same way as i would get laid with a crippled Megan Fox. I just need to cover the ugly parts - the rest is awesome.

[usmc123 1]

I'm aware I don't have a power PC by any means but here are my specs:

ATI 5670 2GB DDR3

Q8200 @ 2.3 GHZ (Quad)

8GB RAM

Now...I know for a fact, the last time I played ArmA, probably a year ago I played with a 9800gt on the same PC and it looked great and played great. My old card died and I have heard that the 5670 is about even with the 9800 so I picked it up, yet ArmA II runs much worse on it, at least as much as I remember. This is also a fresh install of ArmA II so I have no idea what kind of tweaks were running on my old install and all that but I'm just curious what kind of settings/tweaks you guys would recommend

[Leon86 13]

a 9800 is quite a bit faster than a 5670, so that's probably the problem.

[pendragonuk 0]

;1943176']I need your help ! :butbut:

In singleplayer mission' date=' my fps is good. (50-60)

But in multiplayers my fps stay blocked at 30 fps with any parameters. (640x480, all settings on low etc...)

My specs:

Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bits

AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition 3.4 Ghz

Kingston ValueRAM 3x2GB DDR3-1333

Asus M4A87TD EVO

Gainward GTX-460 GLH 1GB DDR5

Acer H243 24"

And ArmA 2 CO of course.

Anyone know how to fix this issue ? :)[/quote']

Please do the following:

Set the in game settings to...

Your screen rez should be the native for your monitor the 3D (fill rate) should be the same 100%

There are three benchmarks built into the game is you have Combined operations or just the one in Operation Arrowhead.

Benchmark 01

Benchmark 02

E08: Benchmark

You will have to run these at least three times due to the random nature. When you post back please have a these numbers and ensure you have set the game up the way it in the screen shot.

Only by knowing how you have your game set up can we hope to help.

[zaxooz 10]

My rage post is what it is - a rage post.

I do not expect any help or assistance. My video game experience tells me: if a game has issues after 1 year since release - it will never get better.

I am not trying to gain 5 FPS, by messing with .ini files, reverting drivers, updating my bios and all that nonsense. I expect a year old game to run smoothly, at least on the lowest possible settings, on a system that exceeds the optimal system requirements.

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

Can you honestly, without any prejudice, tell me there are no issues with the ARMA2 performance?..

Its a rhetorical question, i do not expect you to answer that.

As much as i want to disprove you clever observations regarding my IT knowledge, i will restrain myself from doing so. There are countless articles on ARMA2 low performance, made both by PC enthusiasts and hardware magazines. I just wish for BI to prioritize these issues as critical, and in future, deliver a well baked product, instead of trying to jump over their heads, and cook a highly promising but raw meal...

I still love BI titles. I will play them, same way as i would get laid with a crippled Megan Fox. I just need to cover the ugly parts - the rest is awesome.

I so absolutely agree with you on this. Its the same story for me, of course i haven't got a "slow" i7, I am running an even slower Athlon x4 at 3,4ghz and a GTX460 1gb at 850Mhz core plus a 4gb main RAM. Performance is grossly inconsistent, It runs mostly well but then fps can easily drop into single digits. Of course I have experimented with a dozen different settings combinations, but it mostly makes no noticeable impact as far as fps drops go, I am unwilling to sacrifice eyecandy either. Thats OA performance, now the hilarious thing is that I have downloaded and installed ARMA2 Free just now and that looks like shit (expectedly), but it works even slower than OA at decent settings that I run. Now how is that? Why is this happening? Why is my CPU load staying consistently at 60% each core and my GPU load doesnt go above 40% and I experience performance in the low 20s? I am not expecting an answer, it's just a reminder to all the ARMA2-performance apologists here that the game engine is massively unoptimized and the performance leap of the newer hardware is simply not reflected in the way this game performs. I used to run vanilla ARMA2 when it came out on an Athlon X2 5600+, a Radeon 4670 1gb and 2gb system RAM, performance is obviously better now and I can increase video settings, but now by much and neither is the picture quality drastically improved from that which I could achieve before. Crysis however is an entirely different story, it's been ridiculed and blasted all over the gaming forums, but at least I myself saw the situation change with successive upgrages...

This was a rage post.

[stk2008 14]

I do have to agree here ARMA2 is my life and BIS are the best BUT the ARMA engine is showing its age now.

I know it does what no other sim does and has to cope with stupid amounts of info but since OA I to have seen a decrease in speed.

just before OA came out a patch came out for ARMA2 and I could bump my detail up I was well chuffed then I installed OA and DOH its all gone down hill since tbh.

[azz_er 10]

Anyone else started to realise there seems to be a link with a lot of FPS problems and AMD CPU's?

[stk2008 14]

Nope I have Intel and my FPS sucks for the spec I have tbh.

The game needs more optimizing no other reason.

[pendragonuk 0]

Anyone else started to realise there seems to be a link with a lot of FPS problems and AMD CPU's?

I don't think that there is a problem per say with AMD. Things you have to be aware of that not all CPU are equal. I don't just mean Core count but cashes and the actual architecture of the CPU it's self. So GHz for GHz two chips from different lines and manufactures are going to be different.

Have a look at what these different chips cost not just the GHz they run at. If you are looking at a £100 quad from AMD your only going to get a dual from Intel.

I'm running a Hex core 1090T Black, it cost £200 when I got it but as the Bulldozer will be out soon the cost is coming down. That £200 chip will cost you £135 now! It's supposed to run at 3.2GHz but mine can run at 4GHz on air. I normally run at the default clock because I need a new cooler, but I run the game all of the textures at Very High at 40+ 50+ fps. What would you get from Intel at £135?? for a little extra you get an i5 2.9GHz or a little cheaper you get an old school Q8400 @ 2.66GHz I'm not sure if it would run as sweetly on a quad core running at less than 3GHz

So I don't think it's fair to blame AMD for poor performance because you have to compare apples with apples. AMD are cheaper, the tech is getting a little old but will come back with the Bulldozer.

So if your CPU only has 2 cores or any number of cores but can't run well over 3GHz I don't care who makes it, ArmA will struggle.

[Nightrain 10]

In general I'm just having bad performance on any type of terrain other than plain desert in CO. I have tried tweaking my settings a hundred times but would like some more help. Also I use some mods like Zeus and GL4 that are a little script heavy. Yes my native screen res matches my 3d one

Heres what I've got:

- Windows Vista 32bit

- Intel Core2duo E4500@2.20 ghz

- 4GB RAM

- PNY Nvidia Geforce 9400GT (vsync off, AO off, balanced for performance+quality)

- Quality Pref: High

- View Distance: 2411

- Texture Detail: Normal

- Vid Memory: high

- Anisotropic Filtering: Normal

- Anitialising: Normal

- Terrain Detail: Normal

- Object Detail: Normal

- Shadow Detail: high

- HDR Quality: Normal

- PP Effects: Low

- Vsync: Disabled

[pendragonuk 0]

Heres what I've got:

- Windows Vista 32bit (Look to replace with 64Bit, Win7 is the best)

- Intel Core2duo E4500@2.20 ghz (It's a bit slow, can it be

or replaced?)

- 4GB RAM

- PNY Nvidia Geforce 9400GT (vsync off, AO off, balanced for performance+quality) (Set all of the sliders to Performance)

- Quality Pref: High (set the 3D resolution to match the screen rez)

- View Distance: 2411 (try to cut it back unless you fly a lot, 1600 should more than enough for infantry)

- Texture Detail: Normal

- Vid Memory: high (Set to default)

- Anisotropic Filtering: Normal (Try turning off)

- Anitialising: Normal (Try turning off)

- Terrain Detail: Normal (Try setting to low)

- Object Detail: Normal

- Shadow Detail: high

- HDR Quality: Normal

- PP Effects: Low (Try turning off)

- Vsync: Disabled

What BIS say is the system requirements for the game in reality can be a bit on the low side. Especially if you are running mods and such. The published system requirements are for the vanilla game.