Ok, this is an alarming discovery.

[Langnasen 10]

After my posts in another thread, concerning poor FPS results in A2, I thought to try an experiment. These are my alarming findings.

System:

Maximus Formula II mobo.

E8400 CPU @ 4ghz

GTX 285 OCX graphics card.

2gb PC8500 RAM.

xFi sound card.

OS, pagefile and game on three seperate SATA drives.

A pretty decent system, by any accounts, and mega frames in all the other games I play at very high settings.

I turned all the video-settings in the game to their lowest possible:

Visibility: 500m.

Texture detail: Low.

Video memory: Default (allows latest cards to find best performance).

Aniso: Disabled.

FSAA: Disabled.

Terrain detail: Very low.

Objects detail: Very low.

Shadow detail: Disabled.

Interface resolution: 640 x 480 (seriously).

3D resolution: 640 x 480 (again, seriously).

Post processing: Disabled.

V-Sync: Disabled.

Campaign Harvest Red, mission of same name, standing on the roof looking over the city towards the tower-block, my FPS...? 55fps. Yes, that's right, fifty five frames per second. Graphics drivers: 191.07 (the latest).

I have a screenie, with the FRAPS readout if anyone doubts me. It looks like...well, how can I best put this...crap. But with crap one might have expected insane FPS. I could run CoD5 aW at high settings with 1920 x 1200 res, x4 FSAA on my GTX8800 and get an approx average of around 40 to 50 fps. Haven't tried it with this new card, but...you know...

No, it's not AI routines...I can now play OFF (a WW1 air-combat simulator mod for CFS3) absolutely maxed out and get 50+ fps. That's at 2560 x 1600 res. And that has over 300 AI planes in the air over a full-scale western front (more landmass than A2), with the view-distance measured in tens of kilometers.

But these claims could be viewed as subjective, and you guys all know what your rigs can achieve in other games at given settings. So you probably set A2 to similar settings, then backed off a bit because the game is 'particularly demanding'. Well, go and try it with my settings and see if you can make any sense of the results. Or tell me I'm wrong and something is badly porked with my install.

If it's not, something is very badly wrong with A1. Most of us have monster systems, some upgraded specifically for this game, and we're getting what...55fps with every single setting on Pong mode?! Please try this and post your results here.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Langnasen

[TimRiceSE 10]

Guess what? Most of the time the graphics is not the bottleneck. Turning your output to "turd" settings wont do anything to reduce the non-graphic related processing going on.

[Monkwarrior 0]

Let me guess: Vista 64bit ?

Which OS are you running, I hope its not Vista and I hope its a 32bit one.

Monk.

[jw custom 56]

I just tried setting all to lowest.

I tried a homemade mission which is going on in Chernogorsk.

My FPS was between 70-90 and sometimes way over 100. I measured this with 'DFS FPScounter' mod.

[Langnasen 10]

I'm running XP-Pro 32.

And please Tim, don't even TRY to excuse this on some BS "Oh gee, this uber-sophisticated game is running incredible schizzle in the back-ground, what do you expect?" Not when I run a game that has 300+ AI planes in the air, at max settings across the board, FSAA at x4, res at 2560 x 1600, and get a consistent 50+ fps.

Screenies: http://i499.photobucket.com/albums/rr356/Langnasen7/a2screenies.gif

Tell me of ANY other game that performs this badly at such diabolically crap settings? Absolute minimum settings, 640 x 480 res, and 55fps?! Are you frickin' kidding me? With the rig I'm running? I'd expect that with a P3 at 2ghz and a TNT maybe.

And don't be fooled by the pics above not looking too bad...trust me, on a 30" monitor that has a native res of 2560 x 1600 it looks like puke on a pavement. Well, try it on whatever monitor each of you has, you'll see what I mean.

BI, if this isn't a major issue with my hardware I'd say you have some serious explaining to do, because this apparent expose of 3rd-rate shonky coding is not acceptable. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but people don't spend hard-earned cash on the game AND expensive hardware upgrades to be cheated of performance like this.

---------- Post added at 07:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:51 PM ----------

I just tried setting all to lowest.

I tried a homemade mission which is going on in Chernogorsk.

My FPS was between 70-90 and sometimes way over 100. I measured this with 'DFS FPScounter' mod.

No, try the exact same mission as me, THAT is the benchmark. I too can get far higher frames if I go stand in the desert, looking at my feet (for example).

Try looking at the sky, with nothing else at all showing...you get the card's max fps do you? No, I thought not. That should give you pause for thought. And if it doesn't, go try that experiment in any other game you own.

http://i499.photobucket.com/albums/rr356/Langnasen7/a2sky.gif

Edited October 17, 2009 by Langnasen
Image > 100kb

[STALKERGB 6]

My game runs at around 30fps on pretty much full settings, its the processor that counts alot in ARMA2.

[TimRiceSE 10]

Just went to check myself in game. I get a higher FPS than you, yes on that mission, and I have a radeon 4850 512mb. I however have a core i5 750, i.e the game is CPU bound a lot more than GPU bound.

Looking at the sky, with my regular settings - very high except terrain detail and texture memory/detail, normal AA - and i get 60fps (vsync on) from around 40 fps looking horizontal, in chernogorsk.

[Langnasen 10]

My game runs at around 30fps on pretty much full settings, its the processor that counts alot in ARMA2.

Yes, and a Duo-Core E8400 @ 4ghz should be chewing this game up and spitting it out. Period. If it's not it's because the game's coding has very serious issues. The AI in A2 is nothing special. In fact I'd say it's pretty damn poor. Anyone else played other games where there are SERIOUS AI routines running, accounting for massively greater numbers of entities? That perform hugely better than A2's?

Guys, quit desperately trying to make excuses for this and see it for what it is. We've got members running around like headless chickens, recommending purchases of expensive hardware and esoteric programs to try and get this game running right (RAM drives?!), in the belief the game is somehow especially demanding and it's their fault it runs so crap because they have inadequate rigs. Let's put this issue firmly where it belongs, in BI's hands.

[metsapeikkoo 10]

Boohoo. Nothing new here.

[W0lle 1046]

1. Modern GPUs perform better with higher settings, several users noticed that in the past
   
2. Yes ArmA2 looks crap if set all settings to low
   
3. CoD 5 != ArmA2, totally different world size. I really wonder how one can compare the two games at all.
   
4. It's also known that Fraps eats performance, and thus FPS, as well.
   
5. Why don't just play the game instead of measuring how many FPS (aka e-penis) you got?
   

But to answer your question: 60 FPS with your settings in Chernogorsk (with vsync on)

Oh and +1 infraction point for that 233 kb image

Edited October 17, 2009 by W0lle

[Langnasen 10]

Just went to check myself in game. I get a higher FPS than you, yes on that mission, and I have a radeon 4850 512mb. I however have a core i5 750, i.e the game is CPU bound a lot more than GPU bound.

Looking at the sky, with my regular settings - very high except terrain detail and texture memory/detail, normal AA - and i get 60fps (vsync on) from around 40 fps looking horizontal, in chernogorsk.

So it looks like we might be seeing an explanation...the game's code is seriously screwed. Because NO game routines justify an outrageous CPU overhead like this (if that is indeed what's causing this).

[TimRiceSE 10]

OK then, my suggestion for you is turn off the FPS counter and look at the game instead and try enjoy it. It is what it is, this has been discussed countless times, BIS are working on it. People can suggest what they like, i seriously doubt very many people will drop $800 for a RAMdrive just for ArmA2, unless they really have money to burn. The game IS demanding for whatever reason and throwing more hardware at it does improve the situation. Just like the previous titles performance increases over time with patching. Nothing unusual here.

And lets be honest, we can only speculate on the state of the code and its complexity. One thing for sure though, my overall CPU utilisation rarely goes over an avg of %70 over all cores.

Edited October 17, 2009 by TimRiceSE

[W0lle 1046]

So it looks like we might be seeing an explanation...the game's code is seriously screwed. Because NO game routines justify an outrageous CPU overhead like this (if that is indeed what's causing this).

Says you because you must know the code then.

Seriously if you know that much you should get in touch with BIS, hire for a job and fix the seriously screwed code. It's a win-win situation, you get some money and we a much better game. :)

[Cain_ 10]

game runs fine. 100-150fps unless on 100ppl server :)

[vilas 473]

Langnasen

as i told you in other topic

i have half power of your PC and seems i have more FPS than you

my setting NOW:

1280*1024

textures, models HIGH

shadows medium

postproces disabled

terrain very low (no grass)

visibility ca. 2 km

and i have even 34 FPS in forests and Chernogorsk, while you were writing about yours 28

i remember situations in Arma when i had better performance than people with weaker PC than mine

but Langnasen please find advantages like : mission editor, addons and etc.

Arma give player much much more possibilities, don't look at default missions and FPS

just look at addons, possibilities and missionmaking

Says you because you must know the code then.

Seriously if you know that much you should get in touch with BIS, hire for a job and fix the seriously screwed code. It's a win-win situation, you get some money and we a much better game. :)

i know you are here ironic, but please remind begining of 2007

Arma 1 chopers were not firing from not guided missles to ground target

who found bug in weapons code and fixed ?

me :P i mean "poor coder, usual addonmaker" , cause i am poor coder, but i found reason why rockets were not fired, my addon was firing and engaging ground target, it was fixed in 1.06 or like that :)

simply there was screwed definition and my addon Mi-17 and AH6 were firing , while BIS not, BIS has it seems to few time to test all things

so sometimes people may have some right,

look , i have PC much weaker than his, i have better FPS, for me it is strange, if i have PC from 2006/2007 and he has "super PC" ?

if he has so good PC and my is 2 years old , than why ?

but no matter how we look on BIS games, there is nothing in the world that can be even half as good as BIS games

because of modding, addons, islands, open engine, mission editor , community etc.

and what was trying to compete ? OFP 2 DR ? it was biggest disappointment this year

indestructible trees, 64 AI on map max... closed engine probably.. shame

there is no second such wanna be military simulator

only Arma offers such things, other games are closed structure with scripted missions

even if there was hope some time ago that OFP 2 DR will be big thing (FLIR, nice movies, etc.)

now when DR is released, we all know it is shame of year :/

Edited October 17, 2009 by vilas

[Langnasen 10]

1. Modern GPUs perform better with higher settings, several users noticed that in the past
   
2. Yes ArmA2 looks crap if set all settings to low
   
3. CoD 5 != ArmA2, totally different world size. I really wonder how one can compare the two games at all.
   
4. It's also known that Fraps eats performance, and thus FPS, as well.
   
5. Why don't just play the game instead of measuring how many FPS (aka e-penis) you got?
   

But to answer your question: 60 FPS with your settings in Chernogorsk (with vsync on)

Oh and +1 infraction point for that 233 kb image

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?).

---------- Post added at 08:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:20 PM ----------

Says you because you must know the code then.

Seriously if you know that much you should get in touch with BIS, hire for a job and fix the seriously screwed code. It's a win-win situation, you get some money and we a much better game. :)

My knowledge is experiential...hundreds of games played since 1993, on just about every hardware combination known to man.

Your facetious comments are entirely uncalled for. How the hell you've kept your job as 'moderator' bemuses me, you are clearly unfit for it. Give yourself an infraction, you deserve one.

[jw custom 56]

I too can get far higher frames if I go stand in the desert, looking at my feet (for example).

Really... didn't i say i tried a mission in Chernogorsk(biggest city). I've been playing this mission with people who have asked me to load another mission because their computers couldn't handle it, so please don't compare it with standing in the desert looking at your feet!!!

[Leopardi 0]

Yes, and a Duo-Core E8400 @ 4ghz should be chewing this game up and spitting it out. Period. If it's not it's because the game's coding has very serious issues. The AI in A2 is nothing special. In fact I'd say it's pretty damn poor. Anyone else played other games where there are SERIOUS AI routines running, accounting for massively greater numbers of entities? That perform hugely better than A2's?

Guys, quit desperately trying to make excuses for this and see it for what it is. We've got members running around like headless chickens, recommending purchases of expensive hardware and esoteric programs to try and get this game running right (RAM drives?!), in the belief the game is somehow especially demanding and it's their fault it runs so crap because they have inadequate rigs. Let's put this issue firmly where it belongs, in BI's hands.

ARMA 2 is designed for QUAD CORE processors, so no a dualcore shouldnt chew arma2.

[Langnasen 10]

ARMA 2 is designed for QUAD CORE processors, so no a dualcore shouldnt chew arma2.

You're splitting hairs. A 4ghz Duo-Core is the equal of a Quad at 2.66ghz all day long. In fact it out-performs it in most cases. Mainly because the four cores don't even come close to maximum utilisation, even in a game supposedly optimised for them.

This is a code issue, period.

CoD 5 != ArmA2, totally different world size. I really wonder how one can compare the two games at all.

By turning the view-distance down to 500m in A2. Other than that you have A2's AI running, and as I've already noted I have at least one game I currently play that has massively greater numbers of AI routines and physics-calculations going on than A2's. Which runs at 50+ fps maxed out across the board.

---------- Post added at 08:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:35 PM ----------

Really... didn't i say i tried a mission in Chernogorsk(biggest city). I've been playing this mission with people who have asked me to load another mission because their computers couldn't handle it, so please don't compare it with standing in the desert looking at your feet!!!

You need to run the exact same conditions as me, using anything different completely invalidates your findings. How many AI entities are running in your home-made mission? How many are running in the mission I use to test? And so on and so forth.

[Herbal Influence 10]

Here we do discuss whether there is any proof for bad coding.

[Langnasen 10]

Here we do discuss whether there is any proof for bad coding.

Quoted for truth? Which is it, optimized for Core-Duo or Quad? Either way, people using Core-Duo or Quad are getting the same lousy performance. This game should be flying on some of the hardware owned around here, but instead it's staggering.

Theres alot of things the engine has to filter, draw, load, path etc, for example if you got your view distance past 5000 you might run into some problems with your CPU being almost fully used, the optimization I think could be better but it will be patched, the engine is not fully matured, Im expecting it to be improved with OA as the devs said, so if your CPU is being used up tune down the Viewdistance.

This game was optimized more for a Dualcore for what I heard, and Quadcores not so much but it still takes advantage of the extra cores.

[vilas 473]

Langnasen i will repeat myself, please find other advantages, like mission editor, custom made addons, open engine, modeability etc.

[STALKERGB 6]

By turning the view-distance down to 500m in A2. Other than that you have A2's AI running, and as I've already noted I have at least one game I currently play that has massively greater numbers of AI routines and physics-calculations going on than A2's. Which runs at 50+ fps maxed out across the board.

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?

[ganjaish 10]

1. Why don't just play the game instead of measuring how many FPS (aka e-penis) you got?
   

Oh and +1 infraction point for that 233 kb image

quality line

[jw custom 56]

You need to run the exact same conditions as me, using anything different completely invalidates your findings. How many AI entities are running in your home-made mission? How many are running in the mission I use to test? And so on and so forth.

So now we can only judge the games performance on that exact mission/place in the game... bs.

So if i can get a FPS ranging from 70-100+ in Chernogorsk with a great deal of units it really can't be completely invalid.