Ok, this is an alarming discovery.

[Rista 0]

I don't see why is everyone having a go at the OP. Are people really happy with the performance they are getting in ARMA 2? Surely there is the AI, a huge map etc but it is hardly THE most complex game out there and optimization is definitely not one of it's strong points. 55fps at those settings with C2D at 4GHz and a GTX 285 is very poor no matter the way you look at it.

[Alex72 1]

ARMA has always been about finding the RIGHT setting for your own system. ARMA2 ran very very crappy to me in the beginning and after a lot of testing many settings and playing for a while it gets much much better. This was before patches im talking about. And the patches help as well.

You need to set all the settings individually to what your system should run at. Not fantasy "Oh i can go VHIGH all over with top resolution" style, but set the things accordingly like make sure your video memory is set for your card etc. Then PLAY for a while with those settings. After you have played a while - change something and play again - for a while.

Install the 59210 beta and Kju's addon Low Vegetation for now to get even more boost.

I could go from 1024x768 and NO AA at all, and now im at 1280x1024 with AA=HIGH with even better performance! Weird? Yes, but thats how this series games been to me personally.

Stop the whine and go play and get busy with the settings. You got a better system and if that system was mine - i would have been real happy and my ARMA2 would have ran much better. Get off your period, and get the settings correct. And oh before i forget - if you dont know how computers work then ask a friend that can come over and set everything straight for you.

[Langnasen 10]

View distance is very different to world size, what W0lle was saying was th entire size of a COD5 level is far smaller than an ARMA2 one and therefore is able to be streamed/loaded in a very different way, not to mention there is far less to load anyway.

And anyway, why are we disscussing the lack of FPS on low settings if it runs ok on higher ones, i really wouldnt care if when i put my settings to low the FPS only increased by 10% because it runs fine on a higher setting regardless.

Out of interest, what is this other game that has far greater AI routines that runs fine?

OFF (Over Flanders Field), a mod for CFS3. And note that it's world-size (a factor you mention above) is the entire WW1 western front, an area considerably bigger than A2's. Populated with...well, I'm sure you can imagine. And a view-distance measured in tens of kilometers, not hundreds of meters. Much more of which is seen from high up, as opposed to A2's ground-level advantages.

JW Custom, you aren't getting the point. In a benchmark the same conditions must be met if results on different hardware are to be valid. What you're saying is that a car-test comparison between a Porche and a Ferrari, where we're trying to establish which is the faster car, is valid if the Porsche is tested on one track in the dry and the Ferrari is tested on another track in the wet.

I don't think you've posted your hardware either? My apologies if you did. Which would be irrelevant anyway, if all you've done is overcome A2's shockingly bad code by technological brute-force. Meanwhile the rest of us would like to see a performance from the game befitting our hardware.

---------- Post added at 09:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 PM ----------

ARMA has always been about finding the RIGHT setting for your own system. ARMA2 ran very very crappy to me in the beginning and after a lot of testing many settings and playing for a while it gets much much better. This was before patches im talking about. And the patches help as well.

You need to set all the settings individually to what your system should run at. Not fantasy "Oh i can go VHIGH all over with top resolution" style, but set the things accordingly like make sure your video memory is set for your card etc. Then PLAY for a while with those settings. After you have played a while - change something and play again - for a while.

Install the 59210 beta and Kju's addon Low Vegetation for now to get even more boost.

I could go from 1024x768 and NO AA at all, and now im at 1280x1024 with AA=HIGH with even better performance! Weird? Yes, but thats how this series games been to me personally.

Stop the whine and go play and get busy with the settings. You got a better system and if that system was mine - i would have been real happy and my ARMA2 would have ran much better. Get off your period, and get the settings correct. And oh before i forget - if you dont know how computers work then ask a friend that can come over and set everything straight for you.

Thank you, I know enough of how computers work to make a living dealing with them.

I also know enough to recognize when a company is taking the piss by making an expansion for a game they haven't yet got to work as it should.

[The_Angry_Canadian 10]

By turning the view-distance down to 500m in A2.

You still cant compare COD5 with Arma by doing that...

Even if view-distance is set to 500m, the world still goes on 150 km around you.

[-Snafu- 78]

Isn't CFS3 quite an old game?

Plus flight sim terrain is nowhere near as detailed as that of ArmA 2's.

[Langnasen 10]

You still cant compare COD5 with Arma by doing that...

Even if view-distance is set to 500m, the world still goes on 150 km around you.

And what goes on exactly? AI entities doing their thing. How many entities are doing their thing in OFF's world? The entire western front. Not just the 300+ aircraft...also tanks, trucks, infantry, AA positions. How many in A2's hugely smaller area? And are those entities actually present when the player isn't there to see them? No, they're not. In an SP tank-sabotage mission I saw AI infantry spawning in front of me when the klaxon went off.

So what we have in A2 is a bubble of AI entities within a close range of the player, whereas in OFF we have the entire western front populated with AI entities interacting with each other in real time.

Think about that. :)

[jw custom 56]

JW Custom, you aren't getting the point. In a benchmark the same conditions must be met if results on different hardware are to be valid. What you're saying is that a car-test comparison between a Porche and a Ferrari, where we're trying to establish which is the faster car, is valid if the Porsche is tested on one track in the dry and the Ferrari is tested on another track in the wet.

Yes i am getting the point.

I can get 70-100+ fps in Chernogorsk the biggest city on Chernarus with lots of units and what not. So you conclude game is broken because you can't get more than 55 fps in a mission in the campaign, that makes no sense.

Yes true this can't be compared 100% but it surely puts thing in perspective.

[ganjaish 10]

ofp 2 is out try that .

[jw custom 56]

ofp 2 is out try that .

LOL yeah shouldn't have any fps problems :p

[Langnasen 10]

Isn't CFS3 quite an old game?

Plus flight sim terrain is nowhere near as detailed as that of ArmA 2's.

But as we already appear to have established, it's not the terrain causing the appallingly bad performance in A2, the problem lays elsewhere. The terrain affects FPS only where it's visible on the monitor anyway, and we know from games like Crysis that far better quality terrain and flora than A2's give better FPS at far higher settings.

All I'm hearing for A2 is one lame excuse after another, when in fact you should all be justifiably concerned with a company that is already devoting resources for an expansion while the original game runs like crap on top-level hardware. Which is why this is the third game with which they're pulling this stunt.

[W0lle 1050]

Are you really so asinine as you think this is some kind of 'e-penis' thing going on? Are you serious? Grow up and behave with due consideration for your position as moderator, instead of making deliberately provocative comments better suited to a troll. I am posting legitimate findings and voicing legitimate concerns, in a legitimate manner (over-sized pics not withstanding, that was an error born of ignorance of the apparent rule...but boy, you sure did jump on that excuse to hand out an 'infraction', didn't you. A polite heads-up would have sufficed, don't you think?).

And another one for violating rule #18. No matter what, we do not allow any public discussion on how the forums are moderated.

I suggest you cool down real quick.

[-Snafu- 78]

But as we already appear to have established, it's not the terrain causing the appallingly bad performance in A2, the problem lays elsewhere. The terrain affects FPS only where it's visible on the monitor anyway, and we know from games like Crysis that far better quality terrain and flora than A2's give better FPS at far higher settings.

All I'm hearing for A2 is one lame excuse after another, when in fact you should all be justifiably concerned with a company that is already devoting resources for an expansion while the original game runs like crap on top-level hardware. Which is why this is the third game with which they're pulling this stunt.

Err, the terrain in A2 can be a drain on resources. Well, the trees and buildings. Both of which are highly detailed (unlike CFS3) and used throughout the map, often in close proximity.

I ain't no "expert" such as yourself but this comparison with CFS3 seems a bit flawed.

[Langnasen 10]

Yes i am getting the point.

I can get 70-100+ fps in Chernogorsk the biggest city on Chernarus with lots of units and what not. So you conclude game is broken because you can't get more than 55 fps in a mission in the campaign, that makes no sense.

Yes true this can't be compared 100% but it surely puts thing in perspective.

The only perspective I'm getting that's worth a candle is from the countless other people who have already voiced concerns similar to mine. You appear to be an exception...all I can say to that is "lucky you."

[STALKERGB 6]

But as we already appear to have established, it's not the terrain causing the appallingly bad performance in A2, the problem lays elsewhere. The terrain affects FPS only where it's visible on the monitor anyway, and we know from games like Crysis that far better quality terrain and flora than A2's give better FPS at far higher settings.

All I'm hearing for A2 is one lame excuse after another, when in fact you should all be justifiably concerned with a company that is already devoting resources for an expansion while the original game runs like crap on top-level hardware. Which is why this is the third game with which they're pulling this stunt.

Yes but the game artists are not the ones responsible for the engine code so they may as well be making new assets for an expansion.

Again, with OFF its annoying to compare to ARMA, AI in the air will have very different rules to AI on the ground for how to move and operate, esecially in terms of collisions with objects, in the air their is, in the simplest terms just the ground to collide with and then other aircraft but the plane can choose pretty much any root it wishes to travel without having to think too much.

On the ground their are countless objects the AI would have to decided to avoid/hide behind/move through so it can become far more complex in terms of simply moving from point A to B.

And the graphical age of OFF will make a difference, the CPU will still have to use some of its time with graphical elements of the game and the more complex they are, the more time it will need.

[jw custom 56]

The only perspective I'm getting that's worth a candle is from the countless other people who have already voiced concerns similar to mine. You appear to be an exception...all I can say to that is "lucky you."

Yeah i must be lucky or maybe it's my computer that can handle the game. I'm possitive that i'm not the only one as i see lots of people playing online almost everyday!

[jeffroland 10]

Langnasen, I think quertz has pretty much solved the performance issue culprit in his other thread. I suggest you buy a lot more RAM and try his technique. I can't believe you only have 2 GB RAM in that powerful rig.

[Langnasen 10]

Yes but the game artists are not the ones responsible for the engine code so they may as well be making new assets for an expansion.

Again, with OFF its annoying to compare to ARMA, AI in the air will have very different rules to AI on the ground for how to move and operate, esecially in terms of collisions with objects, in the air their is, in the simplest terms just the ground to collide with and then other aircraft but the plane can choose pretty much any root it wishes to travel without having to think too much.

On the ground their are countless objects the AI would have to decided to avoid/hide behind/move through so it can become far more complex in terms of simply moving from point A to B.

And the graphical age of OFF will make a difference, the CPU will still have to use some of its time with graphical elements of the game and the more complex they are, the more time it will need.

The sheer number of entities in OFF at least matches, if not out-weighs, those in A2. And you're forgetting that OFF also has numerous ground-based entities. That do a far better job of handling staying on a road, I might add.

And given the performance of A2's AI entities in some regards, I have to wonder how their overhead can be even remotely justified.

It's become pretty clear to me, from reading other far more knowledgeable posts than any I could formulate, that far from A2's engine being 'new' it's nothing more, in fact, than a re-hashed version of OFP's.

[TimRiceSE 10]

OK. stop playing then. It is what it is. BIS are working on patches. Youre not helping, youre just spewing rants. This is neither alarming or a discovery. Find a way to be happy with it (like many others) without keeping an eye on your FPS or go play CFF.

To the point of why BIS are working on an expansion while ArmA2 is in the state it is: ArmA2 is still being patched and fixed while OA is under development. Fixes and tweaks to the engine made for OA will be applied to ArmA2 for the most part. BIS dont abandon their products and their morals for pure money grabbing. Quite the opposite.

Edited October 17, 2009 by TimRiceSE

[Jex =TE= 0]

Langnasen put yourself in the editor with no AI around and see what FPS you get? If there's no AI about you can factor them out, can't you :)

[-Snafu- 78]

The sheer number of entities in OFF at least matches, if not out-weighs, those in A2. And you're forgetting that OFF also has numerous ground-based entities. That do a far better job of handling staying on a road, I might add.

And given the performance of A2's AI entities in some regards, I have to wonder how their overhead can be even remotely justified.

It's become pretty clear to me, from reading other far more knowledgeable posts than any I could formulate, that far from A2's engine being 'new' it's nothing more, in fact, than a re-hashed version of OFP's.

CFS and A2 are completely different things.

- The CFS world is nowhere near as detailed as A2s.

- CFS is a flight sim while A2 covers infantry, air and armour - combined arms or mil-sim.

- The AI for CFS will work completely differently than that of A2s

- You can't play as armour in CFS

- You can't play as infantry in CFS

I might as well go on to a COD forum and rant about how it can't do large scale terrain with appropriate VD like FSX.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Snafu

[STALKERGB 6]

The sheer number of entities in OFF at least matches, if not out-weighs, those in A2. And you're forgetting that OFF also has numerous ground-based entities. That do a far better job of handling staying on a road, I might add.

And given the performance of A2's AI entities in some regards, I have to wonder how their overhead can be even remotely justified.

It's become pretty clear to me, from reading other far more knowledgeable posts than any I could formulate, that far from A2's engine being 'new' it's nothing more, in fact, than a re-hashed version of OFP's.

I think most people understand that ARMA2's engine is by no means new and that it is indeed an update of the original OPF engine.

With regards to the AI, unless you are playing the SP campaign the AI is pretty much always on the ball. I have very few times when i feel myself getting annoyed at the performence of my computer buddies and often i am supprised at the clever actions of my enemies.

OFF's ground units won't have massively complex areas to travel across, its like if i has a piece of paper with one dot on and i had to avoid that dot; not too hard but if you have a thousand dots it becomes trickier and you would have to think about your way round the dots (similar to the large number of objects on ARMA's maps).

Most peope as Alex72 said can generally find a happy medium for playing the game and getting it looking nice.

No-one disagrees that the ARMA engine isn't the best it can be for optomisation but for what it is, its not half bad.

[Langnasen 10]

Langnasen, I think quertz has pretty much solved the performance issue culprit in his other thread. I suggest you buy a lot more RAM and try his technique. I can't believe you only have 2 GB RAM in that powerful rig.

I look to the common denominator. My rig played all my other games very well even before I upgraded my card from a GTX8800 to a GTX285. Including CoD5 at high settings at 1600 x 1200.

The idea of buying more RAM to get around BI's 3rd-rate coding (which is what it is, in my opinion, and many others') is ludicrous.

It's companies like BI that are helping to seal the fate of PC gaming. Yes, there will always be a hard-core of fanatical supporters who will tolerate any kind of failing in a game, but their numbers are fast dwindling to the point there will no longer be enough to fund the market. Take a good long hard look at the number of people playing A2 on the servers on any given night. I remember the days when 30,000 online players for a game wasn't unusual. Yes, A2 has incredible scope...but it's performance is a disaster, and when people have lavished so much money on their hardware it leaves a very bitter taste.

---------- Post added at 10:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:08 PM ----------

Langnasen put yourself in the editor with no AI around and see what FPS you get? If there's no AI about you can factor them out, can't you :)

I'll do that later, thanks for the suggestion. :)

[TimRiceSE 10]

Wait a minute. CFS3 was released in 2002. Come back in 7 years time with the hardware of 2016 and see how ArmA2 runs....

[Monkwarrior 0]

The only perspective I'm getting that's worth a candle is from the countless other people who have already voiced concerns similar to mine. You appear to be an exception...all I can say to that is "lucky you."

Sorry, that one doesnt fly.

In fact its the other way around.

In this forum you will mostly see the people having troubles with the game.

The thousands without any serious problems are not voicing anything in here.

They are playing the game ......

Monk.

[Defunkt 431]

I think it amusing you discount any comparison between even slightly dissimilar scenarios while making your own far more absurd comparisons with completely different games. You cannot compare with COD5, however you've set your view-distance the engine is designed to stream much larger areas. All sorts of optimisations are available to the Quake-derived COD5 engine because it knows nobody will see further than the extent of its postage-stamp BSP maps. You also cannot reasonably compare to a flight-sim, the primary AI simulation (flight) has no terrain to negotiate.

Wait a minute. CFS3 was released in 2002. Come back in 7 years time with the hardware of 2016 and see how ArmA2 runs....