Okay let's hear it does Arrowhead run better than ArmA 2 or worse?

[Michael Withstand 10]

I've ordered Arrowhead and now awaiting my copy to arrive probably in the next 2 weeks the latest.

We've heard comments that seemingly described or promised that OA would run better than ArmA 2 and would benefit with optimization already in ArmA 2 patches.

So for those who are already playing it, does it run better than ArmA 2? Or worse?

If better or worse just how much better or how much worse?!

Thanks

EDIT:

I [We] would appreciate it more if you would post your PC configuration

and even better with in game graphical settings.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Michael Withstand

[Kristian 47]

I got live reports of OA running "great!" so I guess it runs better. :)

[usmc123 1]

Well, for me it runs worse. But I guess it is really varying.

[-)rStrangelove 0]

Just make sure you install the 1.52 patch and that the drive you installed it on is defragmented.

[KeyCat 131]

I wouldn't worry to much, due to lower object count etc. OA should perform better at same settings. I'm pretty sure people experiencing performance issues early on will see improvments by etiher patches and/or driverupdates/tweaked settings on their systems.

BTW, waiting for my OA pre-order to arrive.

/KC

[Muahaha 10]

I think this is very much dependent on the CPU and GPU you are running on, as what BIS has mentioned, the new AO uses GPU intensive features such as SSAO.

So the milestone varies for different users... But generally is AO better compare to vanilla Arma2.

I too am waiting for my pre-order to reach.... darn it for staying in a place no one bothers to notice!

[.Phoenix. 10]

Runs fine for me (played through campaign yesterday on 1.51) except for zargabad where i had to reduce the view distance a little. Will test 1.52 performance today:)

C2Quad 8300, 6 gigs ram, radeon 5770, running win7 64

[MavericK96 0]

With as close to apples-to-apples settings as I can get, so far OA seems to run at least as well as ArmA2, maybe better.

[jdmt 12]

Runs better for me.

[Michael Withstand 10]

Saw a video featuring the FLIR in OA damn that looks sweet :bounce3:

Ah reminded I still don't have my copy yet :p

The waiting game . . .:)

[Joseph Archer 10]

There is an issue with performance drop with dual GPU or crossfire/SLi cards. See trouble shooting thread. I'll make an entry in the community tracker later today.

[jackass888 0]

Runs slightly better. Tested same scene in same mission. Arma 2 had 43 fps, while OA got 46 fps. OA maps have acceptable fps(25-45) even on very high/high settings. But thats only on 1280*720. Chernogorsk however runs like a 1-legged wh***. Q6600@3,3ghz and hd4870

[WillaCHilla 10]

After using 1.52 since yesterday, performance is great and no more stuttering textures in the cities.

So I would say it runs more or less with the same performance in the cities as arma² (1.07) now.

In the desert and the mountains-area, performance is better than in arma² (because of the dense vegetation, I think :)).

[Arrowhead 0]

It runs pretty good for me on high-normal details at 2048x1152. About on par with Arma 2 1.05 on comparable settings. But I was in a town earlier while playing CTI, and my FPS seemed to take a bit of a dive with all of the nicely detailed houses. Still playable but I'd say I lost a good 10 fps there. The odd stutter too while running into the town, but very smooth everywhere else.

Q6600, ATI 5770 1GB, and 4 GB ddr2.

[liquidpinky 11]

There is an issue with performance drop with dual GPU or crossfire/SLi cards. See trouble shooting thread. I'll make an entry in the community tracker later today.

Is it not just a driver issue as my performance is pretty sound now after renaming the exe to ARMA2 to use it's SLi profile?

Performance in Takistan is certainly higher than Cherno and all my settings are far above those I used in Chernerus.

A2 settings:

Display res: 1920x1200

3D render: 125% (can't remember the size off hand)

Draw distance: 3.5K

Textures: High

Anistropic: High

AA: Disabled

Terrain: Low

Models: Normal

Shadows: Very High

Post Process: Disabled

OA settings:

Display res: 1920x1200

3D render: 125% (can't remember the size off hand)

Draw distance: 4K

Textures: Very High

Anistropic: Very High

AA: low

Terrain: Normal

Models: Normal

Shadows: Very High

Post Process: Low

Still runs better with between 30 to 60 FPS in an online game, in A2 it would struggle to push 25 to 35 FPS.

[Michael Withstand 10]

There is an issue with performance drop with dual GPU or crossfire/SLi cards. See trouble shooting thread. I'll make an entry in the community tracker later today.

Using double core myself thanks for the information, appreciate it

[NeMeSiS 11]

Is it not just a driver issue as my performance is pretty sound now after renaming the exe to ARMA2 to use it's SLi profile?

Performance in Takistan is certainly higher than Cherno and all my settings are far above those I used in Chernerus.

A2 settings:

Display res: 1920x1200

3D render: 125% (can't remember the size off hand)

Draw distance: 3.5K

Textures: High

Anistropic: High

AA: Disabled

Terrain: Low

Models: Normal

Shadows: Very High

Post Process: Disabled

OA settings:

Display res: 1920x1200

3D render: 125% (can't remember the size off hand)

Draw distance: 4K

Textures: Very High

Anistropic: Very High

AA: low

Terrain: Normal

Models: Normal

Shadows: Very High

Post Process: Low

Still runs better with between 30 to 60 FPS in an online game, in A2 it would struggle to push 25 to 35 FPS.

What happens if you turn on SSAO? (PP on normal of higher for nicer SSAO)

[mattxr 9]

They both run good for me, cant really compair them cos my fps maxes at 60 lol

[liquidpinky 11]

What happens if you turn on SSAO? (PP on normal of higher for nicer SSAO)

Dunno, not really a big fan of bloom to say the least. Ambient Occlusion I don't mind though, would be nice to have them separate on the menu.

[wingtip 11]

My initial performance results with operation arrowhead...

same exact pc as i had for arma 2

3.1 ghz dual core amd

gforce gtx 280/1 gig ram

4 gigs system ram

700 watt supply

vista enterprise 64 bit

arma 2, no matter what i tried, wouldnt run period.. just standing still looking around i got around 12-14 fps... totally unplayable....

fast forward to OA, same pc, patched to 1.52, runs flawlessly (so far)... i went through 95% of the tutorials to refamiliarize myself and got online for 20 minutes after patching before i left for work this morning and without having fraps up to get the fps it seemed smooth enough i didnt care...

so it is interesting how some of us that couldnt run arma2 can run oa , yet some people that had good performance with arma2 now have crap performance in oa.... in my case whatever they changed (besides not having to draw a bazillion trees) did the trick and im thankful...

of course this could all change the moment i step into a full server with 20 aircraft flying around and 20 vehicles driving around and explosions everywhere but its a major major improvement over what i got with arma2 without changing anything but installing oa and patching.

congrats BI on a nice job so far!

[Fred DM 0]

never ran any benchmarks in ArmA 2 with my current system, so i'll leave that for later.

i've noticed excellent performance in Takistan, my fps are usually between 60 and 75 (which seems to be the fps cap due to vsync). if lots of units/structures are around, fps may drop into the 40s.

Zagrabad is different, of course. i get roughly the same fps as in Takistan when i'm in the outskirts. entering the city on foot causes a massive fps drop, into the 20s. i don't even want to imagine the performance with AI units there... :p

that's with all settings on Very High and AA on Medium, 1600x1200, distance 3800m. i5 750, 4GB DDR3 1600, 5870, W7x64.

Chernarus, by comparison, ran worse. in the rural areas it never went as high as in the rural areas of Takistan and Zagrabad, while the fps drop in the big settlements is roughly the same. Zagrabad is larger, thus the performance hit more noticable.

overall i'm pleased. peformance in Zagrabad may become a problem and require some tweaking. or maybe a patch/removal of Securom may do the trick.

[Pain0815 10]

My impressions are this:

AO runs better than ARMA2:

-in the editor

-in small missions

ARMA2 runs better as AO:

-in big missions with much AI

-in big coop sessions in MP

-in big towns (chernarus and elektroz. are much smoother than zargabad)

athlon x2 6000+ / 4870 1gb / 2gb

p.s. securom does nothing on your performance i think, it only checks your disk at start of ao. nothing more

Edited June 30, 2010 by Pain0815

[Zipper5 74]

Mine runs just as good as Arma 2 did with v1.07, and runs slightly better occasionally.

[Fred DM 0]

p.s. securom does nothing on your performance i think, it only checks your disk at start of ao. nothing more

obviously you don't remember the German release of the original ArmA... :D

not saying Securom is at fault this time as well, but it would explain the performance drops some German OA users have been reporting in comparison with ArmA 2.

[pauliesss 2]

ArmA2 runs better for me than OA, a lot better.