Helmut_AUT

Seems like a strictly enforced "Buddy System", not the worst kind of "bug".

If a soldier goes down there's usually an enemy soldier left with his sights on that very spot. An instant "Medic auto healing" would only mean the medic gets shot. I actually like - both in the First Aid system and with medics - that you have to manually order guys onto the job under fire. You can first cover them properly that way.

They can cut more panels from the same raw waver, so more profit for them.

Well, playing Warfare (Superpowers) we were just past a Depot which had been captured by our side, with a "dead" Avenger sitting there (both gunner and driver dead, engine running). So that thing was behind us, we on the way to next town. Whenever I told my guys to go Combat mode so they would take cover, they turned around and shot at the Avenger. they ignored it while on "Aware" however. It's a great game once you get it running smoothly, but even then this minor stuff can be super annoying.

Thanks for the answers. Has this been a problem since the first day? I really didn't play that many large scale engagements on my previous weak system, so I can't say. In Arma1, my RPG/M136 soldiers usually were deadly at first contact with any enemy armour. Maybe a bit too much so, but that felt more proper than this here now. Oh, and they really need to stop shooting at enemy vehicles full of dead people. Which happens a lot when I set them to Combat Mode, so maybe that turns up their agressiveness?

I hope 16:10 LCDs are here to stay, but the simple matter is that manufacturers can make more profit per unit sold (due to cheaper production costs) for 16:9, and so for example Dell is artificially inflating prices on their 16:10s in order to force everyone to swap. The missing 120 pixels really hurt in productive apps and also in games. 1920x1200 was a logical upgrade from 1600:1200, but going down on vertical resolution is a downgrade.

According to the sticky thread, it is officially fixed, just found that posting by Suma.

Anyone tried with the new 308 beta if this is fixed?

Thanks, found it, it is in the coms menu. I was looking for the old "Team Menu" as we had in the Arma 1.14 Warfare 1.1

The CPUCOUNT parameter basically seems to keep Arma2 from using "virtual cores" in Hyperthreading, instead only using the 4 physical cores. In my case this brought considerable smoothness and better framerate (better average, but most imporant smaller minimum frames). It could help for any CPU using hyperthreading, but it seems that many have no problems with HT.

Sorry for being slightly OT, but I can't find for the life of me how to dismiss WARFARE soldiers?

I specifically get this with the UAZ more than with anything else.

Steel, are you running -CPUCOUNT=4 ? I have the i7-860 too, and it helped a lot. However, I'm now getting frequent CTD - something that did not happen earlier. Could be the latest beta, could be the CPU parameter? With your config, this thing should fly. Anfiach, I know you are basically "on my side" of the argument, just saying: Someone else asked what other game does similar things Arma2 does. I answered.

Okay, this is unlogical, but great: CPUCOUNT=4 truly improved my framerate. I tested it with a large AI engagement, me as civilian present but view steady on the ground (to unload the GFX card) and the difference is about 5 FPS at an average of 30, so significant. So basically you don't need to disable HT in the BIOS to get the benefits. This is the single most "fluid" improvement I had on this new system yet. BTW, I find it pretty silly that the mods are merging all "low performance" problems into a single thread here. There is a variety of fixes for people with AMD, Intel, Nvidia, ATI - no two performance problems are every exactly the same, so by throwing them all in a 37 page thread, people looking for a fix related to their config find 99% stuff that doesn't apply. ---------- Post added at 04:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 PM ---------- Operation Flashpoint DR, of which I'm not a fan, proved that you can do large islands and military engagement on modest to old hardware. It may not be our cup of tea, but the constant apologies for the poor BIS Engine performance are getting old. Even if one reduces VD to 1200 meters, you still suffer from much worse performance than in all other games. So simple saying it's the amount of detail and stuff on the island doesn't cut it.

I'm playing custom missions mostly. The bunch if converted "original" OFP missions, or the SP Scenario where you start as russian tank commander. Arguable these missions also have a lot of units in them, problem is I don't see any missions with few units. Oh, and I found there is a "frame rate limiter" tool but it doesn't work in Win7. http://www.caveofdistraction.com/2009/07/22/fps-limiter-smoother-gameplay-in-arma2-and-other-titles/ This would be a nice solution, if it would just work on my system.

Greg, if my performance is normal, then that means A2 is unplayable on the majority of rigs out there. 1280x800 is not a common gamer resolution anymore. JW, I'll try that. I think if the overall game was smoother and the FPS drops weren't so sharply, the control feeling would be okay. Right now the main problem is that sudden FPS drops really can throw off my aim and that's what makes it unplayable. If I had a software tool to limit FPS for 25, that would also help.

I just tested this specifically, trying 125% or 133% Fillrate versus Low and normal FSAA. Both the image quality and framerate are nearly identical as I swap these settings around. I'm almost believing that BIS could not implement "real" MSAA (edge detection FSAA) for ATI and is just activating super sampling if you set the FSAA option. I get a drop from 40 to 30 FPS just setting FSAA to low, while in most other games MSAA is basically "free" at maybe 5% performance loss. So yes, the problem here is with BIS and the implementation of FSAA on ATI that doesn't seem to work well togehter. I would have bought a GTX285 instead, but Nvidia articially kept stock so low that I couldn't get one. Besides, the benchmarks I've seen have the 4890 above the GTX285 in Arma2 even with FSAA.

Sorry, not buying this. Before the 5870 came out, the 4890 was the fastest single GPU card for ATI. In Arma it's actually faster than the GTX285, the fastest single GPU card from Nvidia. It runs everything you can throw at it in 1920x1200, so don't tell me this resolution is too high for the card. The improvements from the 9600GT to the 4890 are so small that it is laughable. Besides as I already said, at least in the village the problem is with AI, not with GFX. So now you're going to tell me an i7-860 is not enough for Arma2? I don't get why people are so defensive of this massive performance problem A2 has. For those who say disable FSAA - Sorry, looks like crap on a 27" screen without, so 2x is the minimum I want. I tried lowering it from normal, and it changed little in performance. Again, it seems the problem is at least as much CPU as GPU related. It's time they fix this - I was thinking 1.05 would finally bring some performance optimizations, but the beta so far shows nothing of that sort.

My mobo is an Asus with P55 chipset, one of the best boards in this class. Drivers and Bios all up to date, this system left the shop only two weeks ago. I don't think I can disable HT on the fly, can I? That would mean I would have to skip my config around just for Arma2? Gonna try the -winxp switch and see what it does. Seany, it seems to be both foliage (certain trees or brush) and buildings. On the old system, I couldn't even walk in a forrest, now I can but if my tank goes trough some brush - peng, 22 FPS. And yet if there are no other units on the map (empty editor test) I get considerable better framerate. So it might still be the CPU? I was hoping patch 1.05 would finally bring some performance optimizations, but the beta right now does not show any unexpected benefits. ---------- Post added at 06:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:14 PM ---------- Okay,-winxp does not give any visible improvements. I should also mention that I'm using Catalyst 9.10, waiting for some feedback on the 9.11 before I upgrade. The system is clean, not even an Anti-Virus running in the background. Nothing but FRAPS and Arma2. I'd love to hear some framerates of people with 4870 and 4890 cards. Oh, another thing: Tried turning down 3d resolution to 1280x800 (67%) so basically "underscaling" - no real improvement, still drops below 25. Also tried disabling FSAA and low settings with little impact. Which leads me to believe it is the CPU more than anything else but damn, the i7-920 was the best CPU in the benchmarks I've seen for Arma, and this one here should be even faster. ---------- Post added at 06:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:28 PM ---------- Seany, I see that you are differentiating between " CPU limited areas (Cities) and GPU limited areas (forests)". You are perfectly right. I just ran trough the same area as in that one particular mission, same positions, same view angles, but if there is no enemy AI in that village, I get 50FPS instead of 25. But if I run trough forrest, I still get 22FPS drops. So it seems fighting inside urban areas and around buildings = CPU limit, fighting in vegetation is GPU limit. And my system hits both limits even though it's one of the fastest you can currently buy for less than insane money.

Foliage with white pixels I've only seen if you force Aniso trough a profile, which Arma2 does not like. Best to set both FSAA and Aniso to application controlled.

Hi all Again Arma2 has me shaking my head in disbelief. I upgraded from an AMD 5000+, 9600GT with 2GB DDR2 to an i7-860, 4GB DDR3 and a HD4890. Using a clean new Win7 x64 install on an Patriot Torqx SSD, Arma 1.04 with the latest beta patch. I'm running at 1920x1200, everything on normal except post processing OFF and AnisoFiltering MAX. VD 3000 meters. I still get dips in the low 20s with this new system, for example in the Russian tank scenario that's included in the default single missions (where you start in a T-90 commanding a second T-90). When I drive trough some parts of a village or trough a certain amount of foliage, I'm seeing 22-25 FPS. Even if I have no soldiers or other tanks in view, just some houses and foliage. Other games run blindingly fast. Even Stalker in DX10 with max. Visual Quality never goes below 30 FPS. Fallout3, Ultra settings, constant 60 FPS. Most other legacy games at highest settings - 60FPS. I mean, I can accept that my old system couldn't run this correctly. But short of buying a HD5870 (which was not available) and overclocking an i7-920 to 3.6 Ghz, what exactly does one need to run A2 at a somewhat smooth 30 FPS? I can't even say where my bottleneck is - I'm inclined to think it's the CPU still, but that CPU is better than a standard clocked i7-920 in all benchmarks I checked. This is a hell of a system. What am I doing wrong?

You can only upgrade from Vista, and even that is a bad way of doing stuff, so you are looking at a W7 fresh reinstall.

Is this really a feature, or merely an oversight in the coding? Why wouldn't the US 7.62mm M240 use the same "NVG-Only" tracers?

Hi all, damn that's a lot of troubleshooting threads for ATI. I'm new to the ATI Club, on W7 64bit with a HD4890, and still running patch 1.02. I can't read and sort all this thread out, way too much info. So, quick question for those who've better followed this than I: Is it safe to patch into 1.04? Or might that introduce Artifacts for me?

There's an SP Scenario called "The War begins" (or similar, mine is in German) which is a single player Warfare on Utes. I think there's also an MP Scenario of that kind.