Philll

Seem to be popping up in all shooters these days, sorry if a thread exists I couldn't find it. http://www.coflash.com/stuff/goldak01.jpg http://www.coflash.com/stuff/goldak02.jpg http://www.coflash.com/stuff/goldak03.jpg

Funny isn't it. Probably figured some pretty pre release screenshots would earn them some quick $$$$ after release. That's the only redeeming quality about the game at the moment, it looks good.

1. You ask for help blaming something. 2. Someone comes here and agrees. 3. Someone comes here and disagrees, saying it works fine for them, its your fault, then they get fired up. 4. 10 pages later an admin/mod locks your topic with no official support offered. 5. The cycle continues.

Yeh, no point in buying high end machines if a card I had 2 years ago runs it better. I'm sure someone will pop in blaming it on nVidia instead, but like I've said before, BIS had something to work with (current or older drivers) whereas nVidia didn't. Even with a hack to get SLI going the performance is still terrible. Completely lower everything to its minimum and it still has slow downs, massive FPS drops, crashes or choppy frame rates after fresh installs, installing many drivers etc.

Boooo! I found it completely by accident. Thought it was cool.

i7 920 @ 3.6ghz GTX 295 6GB DDR3 Asus X58 P6T Deluxe Ok. Here is everything I have tried. Windows 7 x64 fresh install: - Updated all drivers to current version, MB, gfx, audio etc. - Installed DX9 + DX10. - Installed German version digital download. - Tried crysis.exe as main executable to enable SLI, no change. - Tried crysis64.exe, a little change but still a lot of slow downs. - Tried crysis64.exe with -winxp, seemed a bit better, still slow downs. - Tried changing memory configs in the arma config file, as my GTX295 has a lot of VRAM but it appears not all is being used. No change. - Updated to 1.02 in the morning, no change. - Tried putting all options to normal with post effects to disabled, shadows low, FSAA off @ 1920 x 1200 fillrate @ 100%, still choppy. - Set all options to low, amazingly still choppy during 3rd mission of campaign. Seems to crash a lot too. - Tried some more suggestions, Farcry2.exe and a few others found on forum. No change. - Overclocked my CPU to 3.8ghz instead of 3.6, no change. Went through a few more overclocking options to see if it would change anything, it didn't. - Took advice from someone and installed Vistax64. Windows Vista x64 Fresh install: - Updated all drivers to current version, MB, gfx, audio etc. - Installed DX9 + DX10. - Installed German version digital download. - Tried crysis64.exe, a little change but still a lot of slow downs. - Tried crysis64.exe with -winxp, all options to normal with post effects to disabled, shadows low, FSAA off @ 1920 x 1200 fillrate @ 100%, seems to have worked best so far. But still, there are major pauses when running around in towns. ^^^ This does not include all the other times I reinstalled it between making changes or reinstalling just for new patches. It's generally really slow on the campaign missions, single missions and night missions are a treat to play. I realise it's easy to just blame nVidia and say they should update their drivers, but couldn't BIS have optimized for the drivers that were available? How is nVidia supposed to know, yet BIS would have had something to work with. Then this from a BI Developer via PM: So in other words, to everyone who says IT IS working without user intervention, there you have it. I would also like to know what PC specs the developers are using. Surely they have some machine that runs this thing properly, can you please tell us all so we know what would work best? Or are you having the same problems? I noticed you removed my single thread asking this without even combining it, seems pretty sneaky to be honest. Anyway I think it's absolute crap that the game runs like this with the gear I have. BIS are doing themselves no favor releasing a game in this state as the same thing happened with ARMA and it is well known for needing a lot of patches. SETTLE DOWN fanboys, it's a fact, and all I am after here is a playable version of the game. I paid for it after all.

lol, this is very similar to what happened to me in the 2nd scenario mission. At the end when you're getting picked up, hot on the heels from being shot in the ass, I get in the truck and he goes here, there and everywhere. Eventually we all got shot and the mission failed. That's what you get when you can't even shoot from the truck as he was driving like a spastic. The driving has always been terrible with this engine and after this many years I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for it to improve to a good standard.

Makes no difference. When I went to Vista x64 I tried stock clocks, I wouldn't say it got better or worse. Just more of the same.

Alright then, please explain to me how Hyper threading on SQL Server and Citrix Terminal Server installations being enabled or disabled, from PC gear back in 2005, 4 years ago relates to PC gaming systems, with gear from 2009 running Armed Assault 2? Moron.

Technically it doesn't make sense so I'm unsure of that. Did you disable anything else?

First of all, I didn't lecture anybody about HT, genius. Second of all, I have HT turned off as stated previously in the thread. Perhaps if your comprehension skills were a bit better you would know that.

Guys... so much misinformation, if you don't know what your talking about please stay out of the thread. There's 5 or so posts there that are completely false. You just posted a link to an article from 2005 about performance on servers for HT, it has nothing to do with gaming desktops or the exact game in question, it is totally irrelevant. Again, if you don't know what you're posting, don't post it.

I did the tutorial level, but all I do is put my troops into the chopper then it flies off. In campaign level 4, I 'have it at my disposal' but how do I use it? I can call it, but how do I tell it where to go? Thanks.

All mine were in the high 40's, with the last test only hitting 13. Overall score 3937. IMO the test is pointless though, I only experience lag and stuttering on missions with lots of scripting whilst being in or near buildings. i7 @ 3.8ghz GTX295 6GB DDR3 1333mhz X58 P6TD Windows Vista x64 Using crysis64.exe language="German"; adapter=-1; 3D_Performance=-4194304; Resolution_Bpp=32; Resolution_W=1920; Resolution_H=1200; refresh=60; Render_W=1920; Render_H=1200; FSAA=0; postFX=0; HDRPrecision=8; lastDeviceId=""; localVRAM=1750458369; nonlocalVRAM=2147483647; With those settings I am good for SP missions 1 and 2 (so far) but not 3, campaign missions 1, 2 and 4 but not 3 (so far).

Yeh, but you don't need crysis installed for it to work, it loads the nVidia profile that comes with nVidia drivers.

If you have an nVidia card, it will pick up on the profile. Most game have profiles, and if you call it arma.exe it will load the settings that would work best for that game. Hence why I use crysis64.exe, because it enables SLI.

Yes I see now. How come they don't get you to do this as part of the tutorial though? It would be much much clearer. I mean, I knew how to find the menu but it wasn't very intuitive, I had no idea I needed it to say 'active' before I could tell it where to go.

The PC is bare. The only things installed are the newest drivers, I always remove all that side panel garbage and remove everything from startup via msconfig. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the configuration of the system. You say you run it as arma.exe, how come? Did ARMA support SLI? Also, why run it at 1680x1050? Surely the VRAM on a GTX295 will more than make up for 1920x1200? Out of all things I am willing to sacrifice, resolution is not one of them and hardly makes a difference anyway, the slow downs still happen on lower res so I've ruled that out. The game is just totally inconsistent. If you could explain why the slow downs only happen in the scenarios mentioned above it would help.

That'd be crysis64, crysis doesn't always work whereas crysis64.exe is always recognised. For me.

Pressing ~ (select all) then clicking where I want my squad to go results in a crash to desktop. At any time on any mission. Happens only since 1.02 patch. Suggestions?

Somehow, through sheer determination I played the slideshow that was campaign mission 3, and now I'm on 4, which is very open ended and graphic intense, but. I can now put most of my options to the max and run around shooting / talking / flying without ANY fps drop. So does this mean it really has nothing to do with the GPU, or the CPU, but really the game and the scripting / engine itself? Here is some stuff I've noticed. 1. I can play the 1st and second scenarios fine. They are relatively small but still, there is no lag whatsoever. 2. The third scenario is set in a town and involves a lot of little units scattered about and a lot of objectives for both sides. Lags like hell. 3. Campaign mission 3 is similar, around a lot of buildings with units scattered everywhere. Lags like HELL. 4. I can make 40 or so planes crash, land on groups of soldiers, have tanks come in, helicopters full of troops (basically a crazy crazy battle) contructed in the editor and it all goes together fine. No lag (apart from when the 40 planes first crash, then it dies down). But also, no buildings or towns. Works well. So what on earth is causing it? Obviously not the sheer amount of units. Walking around in the city / towns during a fight really puts the strain on. Furthermore my GPU usually pushes 80 degrees celcius with everything on normal, but if I turn some options down the GPU hangs at around 65 - 70, it's doing less work. Shouldn't it be pushing to make the experience even better at lower details, and working just as hard as it was? It's doing my head in. :icon_neutral:

lol you really are incredible. Defrag? I won't even spoil this one for you, go read everything I wrote and I'll see if you can figure out why I didn't defrag. AGAIN you do not read, I said SP missions are fine and it's mainly a campaign problem. I get 60+ constantly on the first scenario mission, so you need to accept your talking out of your ass. Please stop posting, you really really have no idea. Edit: Oh ffs you've edited your post again, I'm not even going to bother anymore.

Did you even read the original post or any posts thereafter? I tried 7 versions of nVidia drivers. CPU bound? i7 @ 3.8ghz, what that shouldn't be enough? Bad? Under 30. But the fps isn't the problem, its the FPS drop every few seconds, for a few seconds. Oh well, that did it. You officially don't read and have no idea what your talking about. And please stop editing your posts every 3 seconds, it's increasingly harder to reply.

Again.. What part of this concept are you having trouble with: People with 9800's are getting better performance An i7 with a GTX295 still struggles with LOW DETAIL, again LOW DETAIL. Thats LOW resolution, LOW post processing effects, NO FSAA, LOW terrain / objects etc, DISABLED post processing effects and so on. Get it? Why do you, and some other people, keep suggesting I am trying to max out the game? I am quite happy to play on medium all round.

I turned it off, didn't really help. I found my XP64 disc but I need to get around to formatting the Windows 7 HDD. So much effort for one game, I know plenty of people that wouldn't even bother :icon_neutral: