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

[MJK-Ranger 0]

Well, for me it runs worse. ArmA2 is still best in performance :)

[andromedagalaxe 10]

here is what I posted in the impressions thread:

OA Benchmark: 45 FPS, better than I got in A2.

core 2 duo e8400 OC'd @3.6 ghz

windows 7 64 bit

ATI Radeon HD 4870

Settings Normal (low AA and PP)

view distance 2000

frames seem great in SP, but way more stutter and texture pop in than Chernarus.

Overall, a step back in graphical quality. Chernarus looked great on Normal settings IMO, very realistic.

OA vegetation just does not look real. Combine that with some pretty barren landscape and it does not feel like you are in a real place like I did in Chernarus or even Utes.

Zagarabad had some serious slowdown and looked like crap as I toured it in the Huey.

Desert map is what it is, simply a flat desert, so not much to report there.

Best map is Takistan, which has some good varied terrain.

Overall, happy with frames, but there are some immersion-killing graphics that I hope get smoothed.

Have not tried Multi, but single player content so far is good.

[Fred DM 0]

did the postprocessing options change in OA?

i now get roughly 10fps less on Utes, with the same graphics settings, when running ArmA 2 content through OA.

does OA have additional postprocessing features enabled that the original ArmA 2 does not have?

[Heatseeker 0]

did the postprocessing options change in OA?

i now get roughly 10fps less on Utes, with the same graphics settings, when running ArmA 2 content through OA.

does OA have additional postprocessing features enabled that the original ArmA 2 does not have?

Ofcourse.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=101040

[Jeevz 0]

I get the "display driver has stopped responding and has recovered" (which crashes the game) after about 10 minutes, never had it with A2 so for me A2 runs, OA does not. I would have to call that worse.

[glowbal 13]

OA runs way better as Arma2 for me..

[Murklor 10]

I did a small test run in the editor and I'd say that in cities, the performance is mediocre (ie like Arma2), but performance in desert/mountain areas is vastly superior to me (frame locked to 60fps, that rarely happened anywhere in Chernarus).

For those with poor performance, I suggest you tweak the settings! The Arma engine design is luckily so good you can change everything on the fly. I dont know what I did, but SOMETHING in the settings absolutely DESTROYED framerates while looking at vegetation/cities, even the smaller ones. I mean like 15-20 fps, unplayable. After some tweaking, I got around 50 fps in the same exact spots (while looking roughly the same)!!!

Unfortunetly I didnt catch what it was, I just changed a bunch of things around. I know it was not the post process setting - All that does is kill fps in half, make the world a complete blur and adds absolutely nothing for some reason (seriously, I cannot see the quality difference aside from blur between very high/disabled!). The 15-20 fps was with it disabled. 50 fps with it at low, some other setting magically boosted fps.

But I suppose the real test is a how Domination mission feel or something, lol.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Murklor

[Grizzle 0]

Runs the same and better for me depending upon the island etc. It's definitely NOT worse though I do occasionally get some stutters when things are loading and I bet I can reduce that with a defrag. Either way, it's very playable and very cool.

[Fred DM 0]

Ofcourse.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=101040

thank you. that explains everything. my guess is that the postprocessing option is the reason that many people suddenly claim worse performance than with just ArmA 2.

[TovarishMimino 10]

Haven't put in too many hours, but right of the start gonna tell you much smoother on much higher settings than I had on Arma 2

[aced170 14]

Worse for me.

View distance: 2538

Resolution: 1600x1200

3D Resolution: 1600x1200

Texture Detail: Normal

Video Mem: Very High

Anisotropic Filtering: High

Anti-aliasing: Disabled

Terrain Detail: Low

Object Detail: Normal

Shadow Detail: High

PPE: Disabled

Command Line: -cpucount=4 -exthreads=7 -nosplash

Processor: Intel® Core i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (4 CPUs), ~2.7GHz

Memory: 12GB RAM

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT X2

Operating System: Windows Vistaâ„¢ Home Premium

Edited June 30, 2010 by Aced170

[Ish 11]

My CPU runs about 10 degrees celsius warmer, and it runs about the same for me.

[stevedrumsdw 10]

Worse for me.

View distance: 2538

Resolution: 1600x1200

3D Resolution: 1600x1200

Texture Detail: Normal

Video Mem: Very High

Anisotropic Filtering: High

Anti-aliasing: Disabled

Terrain Detail: Low

Object Detail: Normal

Shadow Detail: High

PPE: Disabled

Command Line: -cpucount=4 -exthreads=7 -nosplash

Processor: Intel® Core i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (4 CPUs), ~2.7GHz

Memory: 12GB RAM

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT X2

Operating System: Windows Vistaâ„¢ Home Premium

Runs worse for me, no question about it. Even on Pantera I have alot better fps than cities on here. I got arouns 35 fps on Pantera sometimes 45 to 50. These maps are not doing well at all, dipping to 15- to 20 fps with little AI?

[johncage 30]

a little better. but the stuff from 1.07 was not in. i had to set parameters cpucount=4 and exthread=7, otherwise the game would be choppy and stuttery. also, had to set cpuframesahead to 1. although people say it's better to do 8.

[stevedrumsdw 10]

Ok the city map is completely unplayable, I have an super clocked 260 gtx and my cpu runs a 4.0 :(

This is way worse than ARMA 2 as far as FPS. I got below 10 fps with just myself and 1 AI. I don't know what happended with the city textures but they are equated to orange trees.

Edited June 30, 2010 by stevedrumsdw

[rcjsniper 0]

-cpuCount=4 i put this on my OA exe and hit almost totally eliminated all stuttering i was experiencing game is very enjoyable now.

[MavericK96 0]

-cpuCount=4 i put this on my OA exe and hit almost totally eliminated all stuttering i was experiencing game is very enjoyable now.

Are you using Hyperthreading? My guess is that the automatic cpuCount=4 is not yet implemented in OA as it is in the latest ArmA2 patch, so you have to set it manually (for now).

[Windexglow 10]

GTX260

Phenom 9550 quad core (2.2, pretty poor overall)

I was lucky to get 20-30 fps in arma - however in OA I'm hitting 50 fps with higher settings and longer view ranges. Towns push it into the 30s, and the city map pushes me down into the 20s.

[enad 11]

Runs MUCH worse. That's it.

Maybe in the future it will be better. Right now the performance is horrible.

[Dreepa 10]

Runs MUCH better than Arma2

[zad fnark 10]

I ran a quickie editor setup as an AH-64 gunner vs a squad on the desert map. (at night) There, it ran slick as can be.

ZF-

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Runs MUCH worse. That's it.

Maybe in the future it will be better. Right now the performance is horrible.

It runs MUCH better for me, so it must depend a lot on your hardware. Might just be the new islands though (didn't really try Chernarus yet).