Horrible Graphics/FPS

[SpiralOut]

I saw a lot of screenshots before I bought the game, and the game looked incredible. But it's a total different story after I installed. I'm getting very low FPS, and the only way to make the game playable is to put everything on very low, which makes the game look like nintendo.

The shots in the screenshot thread look great. Are you guys using supercomputers or what? Even the average screenshot or video I see around looks much better than what I'm getting on my end.

Very Low
http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq335/merkabaspiral/th_VeryLow.jpg (http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq335/merkabaspiral/VeryLow.jpg)

Normal
http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq335/merkabaspiral/th_Normal.jpg (http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq335/merkabaspiral/Normal.jpg)

Very High
http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq335/merkabaspiral/th_VeryHigh.jpg (http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq335/merkabaspiral/VeryHigh.jpg)

Even those screenshots don't do any justice. It actually looks a lot worse on my end during gameplay and movement. Is there anything I can do to make the game look somewhat decent and still get playable FPS?

Computer Specs:
Intel Core2Quad Q6600 @<hidden> 3.2GHz
4GB OCZ DDR800 RAM
Asus P5Q Pro Motherboard
EVGA GTX 260 Superclocked Core 216

[cyzz]

i have exact the same system/fps
no idea......

[usmc123]

Could be the resolution that is killing you. What kind of filtrate are you using? Also try fiddling around with settings, turn some things on low and others on high instead of everything at once.

[pogoman979]

mate i have the same problem and i know a few other who do as well. you can put everything on very high and it still looks like crap. my specs:
8800gt 512mb
e6750 duo @<hidden> 3.4Ghz
etc

i got the impression from some people that 512mb is not enough video memory these days so i think i may need to upgrade my gfx card.

how much memory does your gfx card have?

wrt to resolution im running at 1280x1024 (max for my lcd), so is that res too low or something?

[Maddmatt]

Even on the "very high" screen I can see your fillrate setting is less than 100%. Set it to 100% to make it look sharp. Only go higher if your PC can handle it.

As for the low FPS, no idea. All I can say is make sure you have the latest drivers, but that might not be helpful.
Strange, looks like your performance is similar to mine, but I have a 256MB Geforce 7800GT and an AMD 64 X2 3800! My PC is only slightly above the minimum requirements.

[Richieb0y]

mate i have the same problem and i know a few other who do as well. you can put everything on very high and it still looks like crap. my specs:
8800gt 512mb
e6750 duo @<hidden> 3.4Ghz
etc

i got the impression from some people that 512mb is not enough video memory these days so i think i may need to upgrade my gfx card.

how much memory does your gfx card have?

wrt to resolution im running at 1280x1024 (max for my lcd), so is that res too low or something?

You should be able to play it some on high and normal
try these settings if you want

Tex High
videomem High
Ansiofilter High
terain normal
objects normal
shadow high
PostP Verhigh
viewdistace 4000

i play whit these settings on 1440x900 and its very playable it almost stays everwhere between 60fps/25fps

http://i40.tinypic.com/b7c11g.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/208ybeu.jpg

[Helmut_AUT]

Most curious Richie. I have a 9600GT which is barely slower than your 8800GT in most games, and get 15 to 25 FPS at mostly low settings (textures normal, shadows normal) with a VD of 1200, at 1920x1200 (higher res, but not so much higher) You have an 8800GT, and run it at 25 to 60 with high details? Even if I put the game down to your res I get barely above 30 frames anywhere, and on less detail.

Something doesn't compute here.

[SpiralOut]

Okay, the quality problem was definitely the fillrate. It still doesn't look as good as some of the screenshots on here, but just putting the fillrate from 88%(very high) to 100% made a huge difference.

The bad thing is that I can't put it any higher than 100% without the FPS dropping like crazy. The GTX260 has 896MB of RAM and really isn't that bad of a card. I'm running at 1920x1200, so this might be the problem, but I get no problem with other games at this rez with max settings.

I'm currently running:
Viewing Distance 1600
Fillrate 100%
Shadows Disabled
Ansio Disabled
Textures and Video Memory on Normal
Everything else as low as it will go

With that I get somewhere around 10-45FPS, usually never going above 25. Even though its avg is 25, it still feels very choppy, and whenever medium-to-high action is going on it drops to under 15FPS. Is this normal for my specs? Richie I have pretty much the exact same system but with a much better video card, and get nowhere near that with everything on low! Cyzz or anybody else with a similar system, what settings/rez do you use?

[Helmut_AUT]

1) Check in your Arma2 config (in your documents-folder/Arma2) there's two lines concering rendering size and screen resolution. Putting Fill rate at 100% in game does not exactly match these values, so you should open the Arma2.cfg and do it by hand, setting both to 1920x1200.

2) Make sure you are testing frames in an empty editor map, to exclude CPU influences.

But yeah, as I wrote above: Something is really weird with this engine. Your 260 is a much newer card than mine, and you have the same problems.

[MadDogX]

@<hidden>,

anything above 100% fillrate pretty much kills my GTX285 aswell in 1080p. I can set it to 125% if I want, but I prefer to play with 30-50fps instead of 20-35.

Fillrate is very dependent on resolution though. If I set resolution to 1280x720, I can easily use 150% fillrate.

[Helmut_AUT]

Fillrate is dependent on resolution since it changes the amount of total pixels rendered by the card. 1920x1200 with 150% fillrate means the card actually renders 2880 x 1800 pixels, and then resizes, that is more than what 30" displays use native. It also explains why fillrate is a very bad substitute for FSAA.

[MadDogX]

Fillrate is dependent on resolution since it changes the amount of total pixels rendered by the card. 1920x1200 with 150% fillrate means the card actually renders 2880 x 1800 pixels, and then resizes, that is more than what 30" displays use native. It also explains why fillrate is a very bad substitute for FSAA.

Correct. In fact I just did the math:

1280x720 with 150% fillrate will in fact render at 1920x1080, except that the image is scaled down.

I personally see the fillrate optimizer as kind of a future-proofer for Arma2. In a few years there will probably be gfx cards out that beat the crap out of our current hardware. People using those cards can then squeeze even more visual quality out of the game.

[Richieb0y]

Most curious Richie. I have a 9600GT which is barely slower than your 8800GT in most games, and get 15 to 25 FPS at mostly low settings (textures normal, shadows normal) with a VD of 1200, at 1920x1200 (higher res, but not so much higher) You have an 8800GT, and run it at 25 to 60 with high details? Even if I put the game down to your res I get barely above 30 frames anywhere, and on less detail.

Something doesn't compute here.

put 1 more 9600GT and you must past my settings oh and i do have some stuff in the NV panel enabled like Sync it renders right now 8 frames ahead im still testing this.

mabye try Windows 7 it runs alot better then winxp or vista atleast it did for me

[OrdeaL]

Im also having the same problems with my 9600GT 512MB XT version.

maybe maxmem target line would help..what do you guys suggest if i have 2 gigs of Ram?

[DMarkwick]

I saw a lot of screenshots before I bought the game, and the game looked incredible. But it's a total different story after I installed. I'm getting very low FPS, and the only way to make the game playable is to put everything on very low, which makes the game look like nintendo.

The shots in the screenshot thread look great. Are you guys using supercomputers or what? Even the average screenshot or video I see around looks much better than what I'm getting on my end.

Very Low
Normal
Very High

Even those screenshots don't do any justice. It actually looks a lot worse on my end during gameplay and movement. Is there anything I can do to make the game look somewhat decent and still get playable FPS?

Computer Specs:
Intel Core2Quad Q6600 @<hidden> 3.2GHz
4GB OCZ DDR800 RAM
Asus P5Q Pro Motherboard
EVGA GTX 260 Superclocked Core 216

I note that you're playing on a high resolution. Have you tried the same thing on lower resolutions?

[Helmut_AUT]

Ordeal, what driver are you using? I'll test the new beta tonight. Maxmem shouldn't make a difference. Really can't belive they are stating an 8800GT as recommended and still our 9600GTs (depending on benchmark only ~10% slower) are killing themself at low settings.

[OrdeaL]

Ordeal, what driver are you using? I'll test the new beta tonight. Maxmem shouldn't make a difference. Really can't belive they are stating an 8800GT as recommended and still our 9600GTs (depending on benchmark only ~10% slower) are killing themself at low settings.

Im using 181.20 Drivers, Yourself?

[Helmut_AUT]

Older - 178 or something. I really need to try newer ones, they claim performance increase up to 20% in some games with the 185 compared to the 182. I don't usually believe in such kinds of magic, but I guess here it's time to try it.

[11aTony]

Maybe you gain performance on windows7 on lower end PCs but I have Q9450, 4GB RAM and 9800GTX 512vram on 22" screen and I have abolutely NO performance increase what so ever. Only thing is that windows7 is much more stable then vista. Vista is like if it doesnt like something then it starts to behave weird or even crash to blue screen. In XP you just got some error message and you delt with it. My nforce and gfx drivers are up to date. Anyway, my settings in A2 are:

1680x1050@<hidden> (lowering it to 1200 doesnt make much difference + its ugly)
Fillrate: 100%
terrain: 40
vdist: 10.000
texture: normal/1
objects: 250.000
shadows: 1
shader detail: 4 (this makes huge difference if you lower it)

Maybe I forgot something but this should be it. I dont know how meny FPS I have but its running smooth. Although it runs quite better on Utes then on Chernarus.

[Törni]

9600 GT here too and the game won't run in full HD. You have to lower resolution. If I lay down to grass I get something like 8-15 fps. Forests and urban areas also cause a massive fps drop.

[funkee]

mate i have the same problem and i know a few other who do as well. you can put everything on very high and it still looks like crap. my specs:
8800gt 512mb
e6750 duo @<hidden> 3.4Ghz

hmm... :icon_rolleyes: as I read the forum and see all the complains and issues, I afraid that we again got a crap like ArmA1 was at it's first release, that BI will be patching for next 3 years, so finally (when nobody already remember what was ArmA2), we'll get one of 16 beta patches (so we can test it for another 3 years), that will devide rest of the community in half.

I really loved trailers, screenshots and all that promotion stuff, but if real ArmA2 performance/quality is like ppl says, I'll never more buy BI product. :sulk:

[Helmut_AUT]

The shame is that they have one of the best AI implementations and additional features I've ever seen in a military sim. And these improvements are not tied to the graphics, so if I could swap the renderer of A1 into A2, still keep the new AI, editor modules and stuff, it would be a most perfect game. Or in other words, I can't go back to A1 now after seeing all the good things, but A2 needs playable framerates first.

[pogoman979]

Ordeal, what driver are you using? I'll test the new beta tonight. Maxmem shouldn't make a difference. Really can't belive they are stating an 8800GT as recommended and still our 9600GTs (depending on benchmark only ~10% slower) are killing themself at low settings.

if thats the case then my 8800gt runs arma2 like crap, so maybe its something else.

[funkee]

I bet this is AI/CPU usage (not graphics) bring down ArmA2 framerate. Look at this thread: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=74096 (the more AI the lower CPU-Usage). Im pretty sure this is the thing what cause performance problem in ArmA engine.

[Scrub]

This is wierd, I play at 1200x960, normal to high settings, 100% fillrate, 2.5kmVD, and have beautiful visuals, and pretty smooth gameplay. Some stutters here and there as it loads the textures or something, during a quick spin, but nothing huge.
Phenom x3 2.1ghz
ATI 3850
4gb ram

[Canadian Bacon]

I'm just curious as to how you got the game if you're in Michigan? The games not released in the USA right?

[OrdeaL]

Im also feeling that when theres AI my comp hates life..but in editor it cranks 30-80 FPS usually around 50

[Razorman]

I'm just curious as to how you got the game if you're in Michigan? The games not released in the USA right?

Many players worldwide allready have the German download version, me included & i'm in the UK.

[funkee]

This is wierd, I play at 1200x960, normal to high settings, 100% fillrate, 2.5kmVD, and have beautiful visuals, and pretty smooth gameplay.

hmm... could you put some screenshots? (with framerate of coz).

btw. I've noticed alot of GeForce ppl having performance issues, so maybe there is a problem with nVidia stuff?

[Razorman]

GF260 768mb
Quad intel @<hidden> overclock of 3.8ghz (445mhz x 8.5) with serious cooling but we won't go there.

4GB Hyper ram
Vista 32


This game is a CPU hog, graphics u can adjust with minor performance increases either way.

The game engine was designed around single core cpu's, it's advertised to utilize multi threading which it does, but only barely if you look at your performance graphs.

If you are running ANY cpu be it dual or quad core,the game (i use the term loosely at this is a simulator) is limited by the cpu speed, if like me you are running multicores @<hidden> 3.8ghz per core, in reality the game (as it sees it) is using a single 3.8ghz cpu.

Now in gaming terms a 3.8ghz cpu (for most games) is great, but remember this is built around a simulator, it's doing thousands of cpu calculations per second, more than any other piece of software (in this genre) out there.

i too am dissapointed about performance even on this rig, i know i could grab another 5fps by going up to a 295 or even (wash my mouth out) the fastest ATI card but it's not cost effective.

However i am getting a decent average of 35fps, running @<hidden> 1920x1200.with the following:

View 1500m

Fillrate 150%


http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp191/Razorman001/arma22009-06-1019-22-35-42.jpg

Just wanted to say you need uber power cpu wise if you want great graphics & gameplay, you can't have both unless you do.

Good luck.
http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp191/Razorman001/arma22009-06-1019-25-48-88.jpg
http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp191/Razorman001/arma22009-06-1019-25-27-18.jpg


Oh & i'm lovin the ga.... sim too.

[vengeance1]

Blurry View disappointing.

I am running a Dell XPS720H2C Liquid Cooled Q4 3.0Ghz SLI 8800 Ultra 768MB each.

I can crank up the Fillrate without issues and I have great FPS but it is still blurry, unbelievable! I have changed the settings until I am blue in the face and can not get the game to be as sharp as ARMA1.

I have no idea why this game has such bad graphic detail at medium to long distance. Up close it has great detail, hell you can see the bugs on the bark of a tree but distance is blurry? Wierd.

Any Ideas?

[Razorman]

It must be blurred to increase performance, only thing i can see.

[vengeance1]

It must be blurred to increase performance, only thing i can see.

Then I guess this is as good as it gets. Thanks for the reponse.

Disappointed, but I love the features over ARMA1

[Razorman]

Then I guess this is as good as it gets. Thanks for the reponse.

Disappointed, but I love the features over ARMA1

Exactly.

[Steinfisch]

I think it was not the best idea to let the user choose the size of the render target (back buffer) independently of the screen size (the fillreate). If the render surface is smaller than the screen, rendering process is less resource consuming but the surface has to be stretchet to the screen size and so a secondary filtering (loss of sharpness) occurs. in the other case you cannot benefit from the large render target because it have to be shrinked to the screen size too. This is similar to watching a HD film on a PAL/NTSC TV.

[Helmut_AUT]

Okay, for the 9600GT owners here - the recently (May) released 185 drivers give me about 10% more frames (average 22 to 24, low from 16 to 18, max from 29 to 31.

It is not a lot, but basically free - although I saw some people report problems on Vista with that driver (I'm on XP), it's WHLQ and runs nice for me with my main other games too, no problems. In fact Fallout3 and Stalker also got a boost.

Now the next thing I'll try is slap a low-watt 9800GT green edition in (changing the PSU to support more than such a low-watt card would void my warranty on the system) and then I want to see if 112 shaders vs. 64 shaders make a difference, despite slightly lower clock. I think they will, might bring me up to 25 average which would be acceptable.

[Sam75]

low FPS comes from chernarus island i think, perhaps taking too much video memory.

[SpiralOut]

Even after changing the resolution I still don't get that much better FPS. On a Q6600, 4GB RAM, and GTX260 I still avg a choppy 30FPS. And for some reason I can't change the resolution to 1680x1050, there is just no option. The next step down on the rez that doesn't stretch the screen oddly is 1600x900, and it makes the game look like crap on this screen. What resolution should I be using for a 24" widescreen? Is there a way to manually put it at 1680x1050?

This is absolutely nuts. I mean I built this computer in November. I have no problems with any other games, completely maxed out @<hidden> 1920x1200.

If I can't get this to work I guess I'm throwing this game aside and waiting for OFPDR.

[BrunoDerRabe]

here is some of the testing I did:
Test PC 1:
Intel Q6600@<hidden>,0GHz
Asus P5N72-T Premium
A-DATA DIMM 4 GB DDR2-1066 (Vitesta Extreme Edition)@<hidden> due OC of the CPU
2 NVIDIA 260GTX in SLI ( using the renametrick: changing arma.exe into crysis.exe )
1920*1200
Saitek X52Pro
Track IR 4 Pro
Vista Ultimate 64 SP2
1.01 patch installed:

4 cores busy 90-70%
3GB of RAM is used
runs smooth

settings
distance of view: 3902m
fillrate optimization: 150%
quality preference: very high

advanced settings

texture details: very high
grafic memory: very high
anisotr. filter: very high
landscape details: very high
object details: very high
shadow details: very high
post processing efects: very high ( just my personal taste )
resolution: 1920*1200
the framerate with above mentioned settings is about 20-22 fps, running from the green into a village drops it down to 17-19 fps for a few seconds and facing the ground while standing shows the max. with 28-29 fps, benchmarked with fraps in the first singleplayer mission
the impact on the fps by changing the postprocessing effect from low to very high is on the testsystem to insufficient to be mentioned here in numbers

The fps with 2 260GTX in SLI all settings on very high , 3902m , fillrate opt. 100% using the crysis SLI-profile: 25 fps
changing the fillrate optimization to 150%: 24 fps and some visual enhancement ( recommended ) changing the fillrate optimization to 200% screws it up on this system
Upgrading the RAM to 8GB did force me to use the older driverversion 182.5 to avoid the game detecting 256MB VRAM only, this happens with the latest WHQL 185.85 and Beta 186.08 drivers
Using version 182.5 solves the problem for now.
There is an impact on the performance by this upgrade, turning around looks more smooth now. Have a look at the screen please:

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/2171/arma22009061115135845.png


Test PC 2:
AMD Phenom2@<hidden>,6GHz
Asrock K10N780SLIX3-WiFi
A-DATA DIMM 4 GB DDR2-1066 (Vitesta Extreme Edition)
1 8800GTX ( latest GPU driverversion )
1280*1024
Winows 7 RC1
1.01 patch installed:

4 cores busy 80-60%

settings
distance of view: 3858m
fillrate optimization: 150%
quality preference: very high

advanced settings:

texture details: very high
grafic memory: very high
anisotr. filter: very high
landscape details: very high
object details: very high
shadow details: very high
post processing efects: very high ( just my personal taste )
resolution: 1280*1024
very smooth 17-23fps
I know smooth 17 sounds strange, but that`s the way it is - may be because of the 386bit wide memorybus and the 768MB onboard memory of the 88oo GTX.
Easy to see that the high 1920*1200 resolution is the big impact on the framerate, all the data needs to flow through the PC`s bottleneck, whatever this might be...

[Balgorg]

anyone tried turning off the grass?

[Razorman]

GF260 768mb
Quad intel @<hidden> overclock of 3.8ghz (445mhz x 8.5) with serious cooling but we won't go there.

4GB Hyper ram
Vista 32


This game is a CPU hog, graphics u can adjust with minor performance increases either way.

The game engine was designed around single core cpu's, it's advertised to utilize multi threading which it does, but only barely if you look at your performance graphs.

If you are running ANY cpu be it dual or quad core,the game (i use the term loosely at this is a simulator) is limited by the cpu speed, if like me you are running multicores @<hidden> 3.8ghz per core, in reality the game (as it sees it) is using a single 3.8ghz cpu.

Now in gaming terms a 3.8ghz cpu (for most games) is great, but remember this is built around a simulator, it's doing thousands of cpu calculations per second, more than any other piece of software (in this genre) out there.

i too am dissapointed about performance even on this rig, i know i could grab another 5fps by going up to a 295 or even (wash my mouth out) the fastest ATI card but it's not cost effective.

However i am getting a decent average of 35fps, running @<hidden> 1920x1200.with the following:

View 1500m

Fillrate 150%


http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp191/Razorman001/arma22009-06-1019-22-35-42.jpg

Just wanted to say you need uber power cpu wise if you want great graphics & gameplay, you can't have both unless you do.

Good luck.
http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp191/Razorman001/arma22009-06-1019-25-48-88.jpg
http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp191/Razorman001/arma22009-06-1019-25-27-18.jpg


Oh & i'm lovin the ga.... sim too.

Grass off here, you can see from my shots above.

[Cionara]

I have a Q9550 Quadcore to @<hidden> 3,8Ghz combined with 4GB Ram and a GTX280 and always have 50-60Fps with amazing graphics.

I can give you the advice, first turn the fillrate down to 100%, 150% isn't neccessary and kills performance, then turn Objectdetail to very low/normal and landscape to low because it doesn't make a difference in the look but my fps improved from 28 to 60 all the time. And using the startparameter -winxp gave me 5fps.

And I have no patience for the people who want to play with everything on very high, fillrate 200% even if it doesn't make a difference (objectdetail and landscapedetail to very low/low, just try it) and then they cry about bad FPS.
Also on 100% fillrate it will be sharp as it could be, 150% will only round up the edges a little little bit and cost a lot of performance.

Here's a little comparison with the landscape-details:
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4457/arma22009061019305532.gif

My Settings:
1920'1080
Fillrate 100%
Objectdetail: very low
LandsacpedetaiL: low
Shadows: Normal
Rest is very high.

Like I said i always have 50-60fps even in the big cities.

Made some screens of my graphics yesterday;

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/5469/blackhawk.jpg

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/5231/gelndewagen.jpg

They're even looking better but had to lower the quality because of the forum rules.

[dvolk]

Vegetation looks much better on high object detail. Likewise, shadows look terrible on normal or lower.

Not much point in using high post-processing though, since it looks worse than low and makes things hard to see.

[Cionara]

I like the high postprocessing it makes it more realistic if you look at things near you and i don't look at shadows that much but that's a matter of taste...

I made a comparison for you with the settings which I though meet your demands the best ;-)

The first screen is with my settings (52 Fps), the 2nd without postprocessing,
better shadows and better vegetation like you wantet it (44Fps), the 3rd has landscape and objects at very high (28Fps).

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2256/armavergleich.gif

So you could play with best looking settings at good performance even in big cities (screens at Electrozavodsk, in smaller towns performance will be better 50-60 fps), because objectdetail from normal to very high or landsacpe from low to very high doesn't make any difference except for 3 meters more grass and loosing a lot of performance.


greetz Cionara

[funkee]

If you are running ANY cpu be it dual or quad core,the game (...) is limited by the cpu speed, if like me you are running multicores @<hidden> 3.8 ghz per core, in reality the game (as it sees it) is using a single 3.8 ghz cpu.

This is not true. There is a significant difference between 1, 2 and 4 cores. Look at this thread (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=73663&highlight=multicore):


Ok, here is my next batch of results. This time the CPU is running at the intended 3.4GHz. I did only test at 2 and 4 cores, as those are the most common configurations anyway. As usual my test are run twice to avoid HDD loading lag. The result you see is the second run.

Specs:
CPU - Intel Core2Quad Q6600 @<hidden> 3.4GHz
RAM - 4GB DDR2
GPU - NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 (896MB VRAM)
OS - Windows 7 x64 RC
Resolution - 1680x1050

Results:
2 Cores - 2537
4 Cores - 4342

This time I also made CPU utilization graphs. On 2 cores we get almost 50% usage (50% line marked in red):
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/2933/arma2cputest2coresr.png

With 4 active cores the performance improves a lot. But as you see on the "CPU - Total" chart, the CPU utilization is not going much higher than 50% (marked again in red):
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/1975/arma2cputest4coresr.png

As you can see, there is about 100% increase from 2 to 4 cores.

[BrunoDerRabe]

Thank you funkee for this very good post, would be nice to see Razorman to edit his last post regarding the CPU usage/ multicore usage , so forumuser don´t learn things wrong...:bounce3:

[funkee]

your welcome :P

[Razorman]

http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp191/Razorman001/arma22009-06-1323-18-54-68.jpg
http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp191/Razorman001/arma22009-06-1323-18-43-64.jpg
http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp191/Razorman001/arma22009-06-1323-18-32-80.jpg
http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp191/Razorman001/arma22009-06-1323-18-04-11.jpg

Much happier now with performance & visuals, mmmm sniper heaven.

Oh btw, should be better with new 1.02 patch coming this week.

Game still needs major optimization from BI but i beleive we'll get it.

Oh, & i still stand by my original post.

[moosenoodles]

I still stand by the fact your viewpoint is aiming at the sky to reduce clutter rendering below, thats why ur seeing those high frames :D I know cause I can pull that off also :p

Oh and your facing the sea in those ruined church shots :D

Go do some fps shots on say loading up 1-10 coop woodland and see what they are in the base there where you start.. that is what sort of test I want to see. Could you add some weather into it as well so its not just a pure blue sky, cheers..

[BangTail]

I will chime in here as well.

I have 3 x 280 and an i7 975.

Fillrate is the big FPS killer here. At anything over 100%, there is a noticeable loss of performance and even though I can still get 35 - 50 @<hidden> 1680 x 1050, there is noticeable input lag (can't really describe it better than that).

Good luck,

Eth

PS : Trying to crank settings up on a 9600 GT or 8800 probably isnt a good idea. While they are decent cards, they are at best mid range.

[moosenoodles]

Turn off fillrate give us our cards capability back, will certainly help a little. Along with engine tweaks for memory handling of gfx and ai and we should be sitting pretty.

[Razorman]

I still stand by the fact your viewpoint is aiming at the sky to reduce clutter rendering below, thats why ur seeing those high frames :D I know cause I can pull that off also :p

Oh and your facing the sea in those ruined church shots :D

Go do some fps shots on say loading up 1-10 coop woodland and see what they are in the base there where you start.. that is what sort of test I want to see. Could you add some weather into it as well so its not just a pure blue sky, cheers..

Tbh i wasn't looking for fps when i took those shots, i've just been looking to get the best graphics/performance combination i could, from my earlier shots it's plain to see that i've done that, as for your requests for additional testing may i suggest that is best seved with your own rig?

I'm getting a solid 35fps in multiplayer with the preceeding visuals & huge fps's in the editor (up to 180fps skyward) without any AI inplace, singleplayer campaign around 30 min to 70 maximum.

i was initially very sceptical about Ama2's performance & optimization, i'm sure we'll see increases as with the original in performance but for now i'm happy, this was due to getting the new graphics settings all wrong.

If you care to look there is more than enough information scattgered around these posts to help but there comes a point when hardware is the determining factor, i really don't want to rain on anyone's parade but some users need to accept that this game/sim is a beast to run.

I hope the most of you will get to enjoy the game because it's well worth it when it runs well.

Good luck.

[moosenoodles]

Poking tongues and big grinning smileys have alot to say btw :D

Yeah 35fps in mp is not hard to achieve for anyone to much at times, Its just the fact its not always solid, although at times it does seem to be but heck MP has issues plain to see from peoples pc's more highly spec'd than your own there.

Yeah i see you had around 28 fps in same area (albeit diff location for it) you shot first set of screenshots, but my comment was more a leg puller and the fact your first shots were taken facing inland in standard 3rd person mode(not zoomed in to the 3rd person which ur latter shots are reducing frame lag anyhow).

So regarding me doing the tests I dont need to really, I can tell you 1-10 coop woodland is a porked situation for me 27fps max even when leaving the area for about 500mtrs lol (that might of been now due to a knackered gfx cfg again though) and has been for everyone ive seen join it in chat, for the most part.

Im guessing you done some of your own tweaking to get to "your at position" with the game now, so It would of been more sensible maybe to of taken the screenshots you did at the same place and same angles you did the first set, just for a better comparison you know ;)

[sittinGood]

back top topic:
i also have this choppy graphics ingame, while it doesn't matter what settings i choose. my fps are everytime around 20, i guess thers something wrong with texture loading, dunno. all drivers up to date. with all i mean ALL.
tried all the settings even in config. game runs not that bad, but anything must be wrong due to the fact my settings don't really change my fps neither do resolution settings. i hope this will be sorted out by BI or ATI. great game though.

ASUS P5Q-E
Intel Core 2 Duo@<hidden>,0 GHz
4GB RAM
ATI Radeon 4850 512MB
MS Vista 64Bit SP2

[Razorman]

Redkid Joker, since you asked so nicely ;)

1 Core - 2534
2 Cores - 2537
4 Cores - 4342

Now this is interesting, isn't it? Notice how much lower the CPU usage is compared to the 2-core version, but the performance is exactly the same! This has to be a bug, how else can you explain that two almost completely utilized cores yield exactly the same result as one core alone?

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/2029/arma2cputest1corer.png

And I have a feeling ArmAMarkII does not touch the problems I had in the campaign, where performance was significantly lower than just standing at the same spot in an empty map. While in the empty map performance was only limited by GPU-performance, I was completely limited by the CPU in the campaign mission. Going down to 25% fillrate did not change the framerate at all, while it did a huge difference on the empty map.

@<hidden>: ArmAMarkII is installed by simply copying the included file "ArmAIIMark.Chernarus.pbo" into the [...\ArmA 2\missions] folder. Then launch ArmA2, choose Singleplayer > Scenarios and run the testmission.

Interesting stuff eh?

Maybe help in this part of the forum?
I'm sure new patch will improve performance some.

[BrunoDerRabe]

@<hidden> ethne

Hi ethne, may I ask you wich PSU does the job in your TRIPLE SLI?

Thank you :-) ....

Arma2 is played here with Track IR and the resolution set at 1920*1200 - memory and GPU´s are swapped as needed between the 2 PCs

Intel Q6600 @<hidden> 3.0Ghz OC**************AMD PhenomII 940BE @<hidden> 3.0Ghz
4GB DDR2-1066@<hidden>**************4GB DDR2-1066
1 260GTX **************************2 260GTX in SLI
X-Fi Xtreme Gamer*******************Onboard Sound Realtek High Definition Audio
Asus P5N72-T Premium****************Asrock K10N780SLIX3-WiFi
PSU Xilence 750W Gamer Edition********PSU Xilence 750W Gamer Edition
Windows Vista 64 Ultimate*************Windows 7 RC1 64-bit

[Soulfly]

low FPS comes from chernarus island i think, perhaps taking too much video memory.

I agree with you.......it's the trees.

I don't think that this game is set to use high video memories.

I run this game with GTX 275 SLI mode and I get 50-60 fps on UTES.

The moment I got to the Chernarus, Bam!! From in FPS.

I tried changing my memory settings in the CFG file to 1792mb and nothing.

The games studders. So I'm only playing with 256mb of video memory and waisting 1500mb.

very weird. This games is very poorly codes for high spec cards. this game seems to run why nicer on the low spec rigs.

I'm running everything at very high except texture quality and video memory on normal becuase the game doens't want to use any more than 256mb.

Im sure once they fix this to atleast 1g than my system will run it better. but I'm getting 30-45 on charnarus with a gimped cfg file.

I guess that isn't so bad huh?!

[DLcmdr]

Same problem here.

gtx275 and a c2d at 3800 mhz.

Those people obviously are lying about the fps or dont notice framdrops beyond 15

[BrunoDerRabe]

I agree with you.......it's the trees.

I don't think that this game is set to use high video memories.

I run this game with GTX 275 SLI mode and I get 50-60 fps on UTES.

The moment I got to the Chernarus, Bam!! From in FPS.

I tried changing my memory settings in the CFG file to 1792mb and nothing.

The games studders. So I'm only playing with 256mb of video memory and waisting 1500mb.

very weird. This games is very poorly codes for high spec cards. this game seems to run why nicer on the low spec rigs.

Intel Q6600 @<hidden> 3.0Ghz OC**************AMD PhenomII 940BE @<hidden> 3.0Ghz
4GB DDR2-1066@<hidden>**************4GB DDR2-1066
1 260GTX **************************2 260GTX in SLI
X-Fi Xtreme Gamer*******************Onboard Sound Realtek High Definition Audio
Asus P5N72-T Premium****************Asrock K10N780SLIX3-WiFi
PSU Xilence 750W Gamer Edition********PSU Xilence 750W Gamer Edition
Windows Vista 64 Ultimate*************Windows 7 RC1 64-bit

ArmA2 (1.02), BIOS, drivers and OS are up to date

I'm running everything at very high except texture quality and video memory on normal becuase the game doens't want to use any more than 256mb.

Im sure once they fix this to atleast 1g than my system will run it better. but I'm getting 30-45 on charnarus with a gimped cfg file.

I guess that isn't so bad huh?!

Did you try the msconfig trick on your system?
Would be interesting, , if this workaround does help you.
Have a look here please: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=73232&page=7
Easy to recognize the impact on the detected VRAM.
Because my system is very different I can´t give you an advice of the value to set in the advanced startup options of the msconfig for the amount of RAM.
Wich NVIDIA driver version do you use?
Changing your memory settings in the CFG file to 1792MB doesn´t help, because it will be overwritten by the game.

Intel Q6600 @<hidden> 3.0Ghz OC**************AMD PhenomII 940BE @<hidden> 3.0Ghz
4GB DDR2-1066@<hidden>**************4GB DDR2-1066
1 260GTX **************************2 260GTX in SLI
X-Fi Xtreme Gamer*******************Onboard Sound Realtek High Definition Audio
Asus P5N72-T Premium****************Asrock K10N780SLIX3-WiFi
PSU Xilence 750W Gamer Edition********PSU Xilence 750W Gamer Edition
Windows Vista 64 Ultimate*************Windows 7 RC1 64-bit

ArmA2 (1.02), BIOS, drivers and OS are up to date

[Soulfly]

Did you try the msconfig trick on your system?
Would be interesting, , if this workaround does help you.
Have a look here please: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=73232&page=7
Easy to recognize the impact on the detected VRAM.
Because my system is very different I can´t give you an advice of the value to set in the advanced startup options of the msconfig for the amount of RAM.
Wich NVIDIA driver version do you use?
Changing your memory settings in the CFG file to 1792MB doesn´t help, because it will be overwritten by the game.

[COLOR="Blue"] COLOR]

Intel Q6600 @<hidden> 3.0Ghz OC**************AMD PhenomII 940BE @<hidden> 3.0Ghz
4GB DDR2-1066@<hidden>**************4GB DDR2-1066
1 260GTX **************************2 260GTX in SLI
X-Fi Xtreme Gamer*******************Onboard Sound Realtek High Definition Audio
Asus P5N72-T Premium****************Asrock K10N780SLIX3-WiFi
PSU Xilence 750W Gamer Edition********PSU Xilence 750W Gamer Edition
Windows Vista 64 Ultimate*************Windows 7 RC1 64-bit

ArmA2 (1.02), BIOS, drivers and OS are up to date

If you set the CFG file to read only it doesn't overwrite. Truthfully, I'm tired of messing it. I just hope that BI get's their shit together so we don't have mess with this. I been gaming for over 3O years and this is the first time I have to do this much tweaking to get a game running that doesn't even push my system. This game should be pushing my cpu and and gpus but it doesn't due to poor coding. I'll be patient and wait for some patches but I'm glad that I still have arma1 installed. Arma1 pushes my system more than this game. It's pretty obvious that this game inst new tech friendly. My system actually stresses the game and it should be the other way around. Don't get me started, I could even start on the LOD problems this game has too.

[BrunoDerRabe]

Truthfully, I'm tired of messing it. I just hope that BI get's their shit together so we don't have mess with this. I been gaming for over 3O years and this is the first time I have to do this much tweaking to get a game running that doesn't even push my system. This game should be pushing my cpu and and gpus but it doesn't due to poor coding. I'll be patient and wait for some patches but I'm glad that I still have arma1 installed. Arma1 pushes my system more than this game. It's pretty obvious that this game inst new tech friendly. My system actually stresses the game and it should be the other way around. Don't get me started, I could even start on the LOD problems this game has too.

*If you set the CFG file to read only it doesn't overwrite.*
O.K., let say it this way,,,, it will be ignored. If you change it to read only, in this case it is like an effort to ignore, that the efforts to get it right, had no success so far ;)