-TwK-Danny

i think you miss the point what we are trying to say here, as you really need to get something mess up really bad inorder to get such low perforemce, and what my "40 some FPS" is what i get in single player mission "battlefield" stable, so again: you need to get something in your rig really mess up inorder to get such low perforemce Thats the problem mate. My system is newly reformated (tried Vista..), ALL other games like STALKER, Oblivion, BF2, Penumbra, FEAR and Hitman4 are all running above great (max, 1280X1024, 4xAA for oblivion, 6xQAAA for the rest - except for stalker where AA isnt possible with max settings). My system scores 10118 points in 3dmark05, and ~5100 points in 3dmark06. A system does not preform this good if it has severe issues (considering my specs of course). AMDX2 4400+, X1800XTPE, 2gb 2-3-3-6-T1, A8R-MVP. And i wish people would stop saying its the drawdistance. Operation Flashpoint had huge view distances and in that game i dont have any issues. Hence we can rule out that the draw distance itself is causing the lower fps. "But ArmA is more detailed!!" Yes, i know this. But thats my point. ArmA isnt close to being high-end and no one can deny this. Its the fact that two 8800GTXs in SLI mode cant deal with this game STILL - that is the issue. The fact that Crysis might end up running better on systems that ArmA is scary. Im not by any means bashing or being mean to anyone. I just think that calling ArmAs performance justified is wrong. And hey thats my opionion and i dont mean to offend anyone - just trying discuss this issue.

Umm there are many that are suffering from low performance in Armed Assault. And please stop with the "i get 40fps" hints. It doesnt mean anything. On certain maps, i can get over 60 fps contantly. On other missions, fps are like down to 15-25. The problem is that ArmA isnt that advanced (i cant use the words "looking good" because thats all subjective) as many other games on the market (e.g Elderscrolls4: Oblivion). Yet ArmA is the one most demanding game ive ever seen - while i run ALL games maxed with at least 4xAA - ArmA is forcing me into normal-high settings with not-so-great fps. How about loading the single mission Convoy (or whatever its called, when you start near a red truck and are to prepare an ambush on a convoy.. its unlocked from start). Use fraps to show fps and tell me weather you find the performance acceptable or not. I think most people running with High\medium settings wont find acceptable (30+) fps.

Noope, I did a reformat and I´m using the 7.4 drivers now but i haven´t gotten around to actually installing ArmA. I will try it soon but school is taking all the free time I have.

ATi is finally here and are trying to fix this issue. Now lets try to answer them properly instead of talking about stuff that really has nothing to do with anything. Ive had other ATi devs contacting me and crossfire is not the only dev that cannot get the problem reproduced. So nothing is that simple. 1. One big question is if this happens with the newly released N.America demo, eg the ArmA:Combat Operations demo. Does anyone know if the combo 7.4 drivers and ArmA:CO suffers from this leak? 2. Could everyone that has suffered from this issue post full system specs like i will. Use my "model" to post information aswell. I suffered from this issue in patch 1.04-1.05 - using cat drivers 6.12, 7.1, 7.2. CPU: AMDX2 4400+ (dualcore optimizer installed) Mobo: ASUS A8R-MVP Crossfire (Xpress1600) BIOS 0402 (tried 0503, and 0604 - no diffrence) Soundcard: Soundmax onboard. GPU: ASUS EAX1800XT TOP (X1800XTPE = runs 700/1600) OS: Windows XP Pro SP2 all (yes, every1 of them) updates installed. Directx: Version from april2007.

Well try disabling shadows [sry just read you already tried this]. This game has the ugliest shadows ive seen since original Operation flashpoint, yet the can reduce fps by up to 90%. And im not talking about going from Disabled to high. Im talking about going from disabled to low (!! ). Im on a single X1800XTPE, coupled with a dual core 4400+ - the game runs good with shadows on disabled and post process on low, object and terrain both on medium, rest max possible (incl AA/AF ingame) @ 1280X1024. This is the ONE and ONLY game that doesnt run maxed out on my computer. I have oblivion running great at 1280X1024, max settings, HDR+4xAA+16xHQAF. The performance of ArmA is a joke. And LT.INSTG8R, my friend with a 8800GTX and FX62 has the same performance issues as me - shadows and post precess kills his fps aswell. Heck even stalker runs awesome (60-80fps @ max, 1280X1024) and shadows are so much nicer in that game. How can the jaggied shadows of ArmA be so demanding? It doesnt make any sense whatsoever.

Do you force AFR by setting Catalyst AI to 'Advanced'? That can help crossfire users alot.

I don´t know if this has been mentioned or not but the fps-drop people are experiencing might be due to the removal of mouse-lag in 1.05. I´m not sure how this works but there are game-engines where you can choose if the mouse is to be fully synced (=less performance but no mouse lag) or out of sync (mouse lag, but performance can go up by as much as 15+fps). Most known is this setting in all UnrealEngine2.0/2.5 games (splintercell-series, AmericasArmy, UT2004 etc etc). So while we might be getting lower performance, mouselag is gone (at least for me - compleatly gone, but i also notice the performance hit). And in my opinion, this game cant deal with mouselag as that kills you (unlike in other games, like TES: Oblivion).

Nope, you´re right. It says 1.05. Now release the patch

Well i tried all diffrent Vsync options and with Tripple buffer enabled/disabled on each - made no diffrence in performance whatsoever for my X1800 running with catalyst 7.2. As for buggy drivers, there are only two - nvidia and ati drivers. If developers of ArmA know ati/nvidia have buggy drivers, they should contact them and warn them beforehand that "ArmA in 2 months will use a technique that might interfere with your drivers" - not just assume that ati/nvidia someday will think "hey guys, what would happen if a game started using an auxilliary buffer instead of regular tripple buffering?"

Nothing mentioned about performance =/

I would try reinstalling the game. Might be that it needs to re-detect the correct graphics card. Worth the try i think..

Where do you guys enable Tripple Buffering? ArmA is a directx game, isn´t it? The tripple buffering options in our drivers (ati and nvidia) only affect opengl-games and hence shouldnt make a diffrence to ArmA.

I tried setting HDR to 16 and only notced reduced performance, with a much thicker fog close to me (=reduced draw distance). I could still enable AA though (might be that the game recognise my X1800). Pedroshin: I hear you, this game needs to have its performance imrpoved - and by alot. To get the job done, you simply need to be able to aim faster than the AI - that is impossible with mouselag that mainly is due to low fps/performance.

Hello all, new player here I´m a big OpFlash fan and absolutely love Armed Assault as a game, but i think that technically, its a disaster. Not just in terms of game-bugs (you have to admit, not being able to complete some missions are pretty big errors..) and performance in terms of frames per seconds are also awful. What i´m here to post about is how some settings affect performance more than they 'should'. I have had as help my friends systems and my own (all pretty high-end ones) as help and they are as follows; System1: AMDX2 4400+ ASUS EAX1800XT TOP (TOP = 700/1600) 512mb Corsair XMS 2gb T1 A8R-MVP System2: AMD FX62 eVga 8800GTX 768mb 2gb Corsair XMS System3 AMDX2 4200+ 7950GT 256mb 1gb RAM. As you can tell this isn´t exactly what "everyone have" - this are above average performing systems, and these should be able to run a game as Armed Assault without any low fps. On all three systems, we noticed severe performance loss when closing in to bushes/trees and i plan on demostrating the performance hit from various settings. Note that with the performance hit, also comes huge amounts of mouse lag that makes the game unplayable (in the way that the enemy AI can react/aim much faster than you = youre dead.) The pictures i use to demostrate are all made in 1280X1024 resulotion (i have a LCD) and any lower makes things unsharp and my eyes hurt when playing at those resolutions. My driver settings are all 'natural', not forcing anything (no af/aa/aaa/hqaf, catAI=standard). To get started, i am first to show what settings me and my friends are playing with right now - that we found gives decent performance for our high end rigs; Settings Performance Having 30fps is "ok", but not in any way optimal. Note that the 8800GTX was a little faster (2-3fps) but that aswell is not acceptable seeing the 8800GTX is the fastest GPU there is today. And dont forget that the game settings are not even close to max. We have noticed that the three big settings that basicly kills performance (near foilage) are the following; Shader Quality Shadow Detail "Anti Aliasing" (im going to question the method used) The performance hit from each settings is huge, even by only going to "low" wich i am to demostrate now; In following pics, settings in above screenshot is used, but with the two other settings disabled/lowest. Eg. for Shaderquality pics comparisons - shadow and anti aliasing are disabled. Shader Quality: Very low low high Comments: The performance hit seems pretty fair, losing 10fps going from very low to high. This setting seems to control the amount of grass/bush shown, as well as activating normalmapping on textures futher away. But keep in mind that this is without any shadows nor any antialiasing - and we´ve already reached 30fps - lowest we can have for a playable experience. Shadow Detail: Disabled Low and Medium (performance is the very same) High and Very High (performance is the very same) Comments: Shadows reduce fps quite alot. This quite common in most games. But with the High and Very High settings, performance is no where to be seen. We dive into extremly unplayable fps, even with high-end hardware like mine. So whats the diffrence between medium and high? I see the shadows on ground are now softshadows, instead of regular shadows on medium setting. But we have had softshadows in game (e.g. oblivion) without this kind of performance hit before. So its either very badly optimzed softshadows or the engine simply cant handle these. But i also noticed that bushes and grass - ever leaf and grass straw seems to be affected by shadows on high/very high. Could this be the cause of the low fps? If that is the case, i would very much be happy if the devs would consider removing that for the "high" setting. Softshadows are so much nicer than the hard ones, and in games like Oblivion these are possible with 35fps+ with the rest of settings maxed, 1280X1024 HDR+4xAA/16xAF. Possible solution for low fps: Remove grass/leaf shadows (per-pixel-lightning?) for the high setting but keep it only for VeryHigh. Or else two settings are basicly both unusable on todays hardware. "Anti alisasing": I am not really sure what sort of AA this is. Basicly im questioning if it really is proper AA. We all know 7X00-series of cards cannot do HDR+AA. Yet it works with ArmA. Disabling AA ingame and forcing AA from driver (both ATi and Nvidia) does nothing to the game. Regular AA usually leaves grass/trees aliased (unless you are using AdaptiveAA). Meaning you usually dont have to deal with major mouse lag as soon as you close into loads of vegetation. This doesnt seem to be the case with ArmAs method of AA. I understand that this method is better in the way that it works for ALL graphics cards, but the performance hit is just too much. Therefore i request the abillity to use proper AA along with the HDR ingame - for X1x00/8x00 cards. We need the performance hit in areas with foilage. And here is to show the hit of using these 3 settings together; Shaderquality+Shadowquality+antialiasing Normal+Normal+Disabled (combo i use for playable performance): http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/224/arma2007030120285796ek9.jpg Normal+Normal+Normal: http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/5291/arma2007030120293034gl6.jpg VeryHigh+VeryHigh+Low: http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/407/arma2007030120301225nf3.jpg Possible solution: Let the cards able to do it force AA from within the drivers and possibly get better performing AA. All in all, it comes to the fact that ArmA seems to be the most demanding game out there - but doesnt live up to that when it comes to visuals. ArmA looks nice- no doubt about that - but it should NOT perform 50% of what Oblivin does, and that with oblivion played with higher settings (4xAA/16xHQAF against none at all in ArmA). The game has such a huge potenial and i would hate it if the performance never was improved.. i dont think its sensible to require two 8800GTXs to run these three settings together at "medium". I´d love a comment from any dev about performance and if it is to be improved with patches (judging the fact that there isnt a single sole that doesnt complain about perfrmance - its a must). Thanks for reading, Danny

c`mon what these questions are for?! Is there better GPU?. - No Is there PC with 4GB memory (servers doesn`t count)?. - No Is your CPU top speed CPU?. - Yes ...woow look at me I have Ultra-Sega-Mega-Drive PC It makes me puke. Grow up. No, you are wrong. My friend has a AMD FX62, a dualcore that is much faster than what that P4@3.6 will ever be. He also has the 8800GTX, wich indeed is faster than the 8800GTS. He still have problems running the game in higher settings - even though both me and him have found half-decent settings to play on. So there is no need to puke or grow up - that is an valid question and to answer him in a proper way; Opticalsnare: The game should work at 1280X1024, most settings at high/veryhigh. But be very careful when changing Shadows, Shaders and AntiAliasing as these three settings together drags down performance in forrests by ALOT and gives unplayable amounts of mounse lag when you use "zoom". Good luck.

Just to clarify, to fix this issue you have to force Trillinear filtering along with Anistropic Filtering. For ATi, you can only do this by forcing AF from ATi Tray Tools (seen in pic above), and choosing the "quality with trillinear" option. Enable that, and choose amount of AF (eg 4x or 8x) you want to apply. Note that you should turn off AF ingame when forcing from ATT. Best method (i use) is to create a profile with those settings and then set it to load for arma.exe only (you can do this in ATT - using the game profiles option). This way you dont have to force these settings for ALL games.