Hardware and settings for ArmA

[raedor]

This thread is for discussions about which hardware will result in which performance with which settings.

Please do not open further threads discussing hardware/performance aspects.

[thaFunkster]

Shader Model>>>>

Hi, for those of you who are already playing ArmA, Does running with a Shader model 2 card, like the X800 result in any lower quality visual effects compared to running in shader model 3? If so, any chance someone can post some screen shots for comparison sake?

Thanks.

[neildood]

I have settings set from left to right in advanced mode;

1280x1024 @85hz *** *** *** View Distance 1200

Very High *** *** *** *** ***High
Very High *** *** *** *** ***Off
Normal *** *** *** *** *** *** ***Very High
Normal *** *** *** *** *** *** ***Low
Low

AMD 3800+ @2900Mhz
7900GS @660/1640
2 gigs of ram
7200rpm IDE

Framerate im getting is 30-60, just got it running and looking good.
One thing i dont understand is why when seeting AA to Very high, why do i get better performance??
Also noticed that from changing shadows from low to high there is no noticable diffrence

[Frederf]

I have AA turned all the way off (since I think it looks great there) but if AA high is same/better performance then I'll try that next time in the game.

[goodguyswearblack9]

I'd like to know what you guys suggest the optimized settings are for my PC until I get a better one. Thanks!

P4
2.54 GHz
1024 MB RAM
ATI Radeon X1300

[psycosmos]

Shader Model>>>>

Hi, for those of you who are already playing ArmA, Does running with a Shader model 2 card, like the X800 result in any lower quality visual effects compared to running in shader model 3? If so, any chance someone can post some screen shots for comparison sake?

Thanks.

'
I didn't notice any difference in Visual effects by forcing lower Shaders, alltough I've only used pretty low settings anyway, where it might not stand out that much.

One thing i dont understand is why when seeting AA to Very high, why do i get better performance??
Also noticed that from changing shadows from low to high there is no noticable diffrence :hm:

Just a guess: Is the AA still on if you set it to very high? It's possible that it uses too much ram on such settings and the card might turn it off, resulting in a perfomance boost compared to lower settings.

The shadows are different, if you move into the shadow of a tree and watch how it shows up on your body on low settings, there's a sharp border between light and dark and no detail to the shadow further in. If you do the same at high settings, the shadow is much more detailed, showing the holes of the foliage where light can pass through. (did that observation in the demo)

I'd like to know what you guys suggest the optimized settings are for my PC until I get a better one. Thanks!

P4
2.54 GHz
1024 MB RAM
ATI Radeon X1300

I would try and set everything to very low/off except for textures (set to low) and shaders (set to low too). That's because very low textures make for horrible bushes and the shaders improve terrain further away alot, also they add much to the appearance of the game overall, even on low settings (very low meaning they're off, at least it looks like). If that leads to an unplayable experience, pray for your new pc and set everything to very low.

If it's a 128 MB modell of the card, assure you use less than 128 MB of that memory, because using more and therefore using the pc's ram for graphics data too, might cost you some precious fps.

You can also get a bit of a boost by lowering the settings for "Texture Preference" and "MipMap Detail Level" in your drivers options (located somewhere around: right click on desktop>properties>3D). If you're there, assure that V-Sync is turned off too.

If you have a CRT, stand somewhere in the woods and compare the fps of different resolutions, use the lowest resolution you find acceptable (resolution wise, not fps), maybe improve it a bit by setting AA on low or medium, it will soften up the rough picture you get quite a bit and hopefuly cost you less fps than the gain through the lower Resolution (if it doesn't, leave AA off).


Now for myself:

Athlon XP 2800+, 256MB Radeon x1600 pro, 1536 MB Ram and similar out of date parts. Playing with framerates between 15 fps when it really gets bad like in dense woods and up to around 50 fps in actionless dessert Areas (the one that is).

Resolution 1152 * 864, Settings everything very low, except Textures (low due to 256MB card), Shaders (normal), Anisotropic filtering (normal) and AA (normal). I would like to turn on shadows, but the 5-10 fps off are too much when playing the borderline playable anyway :) instead I'll wait a bit for a nice DX10 machine.

[PKC]

Athlon XP 2400+
1gb Ram
Nvidia 7600GS 256mb AGP

Normal settings on terrain/objects/textures.

Low post processing though i don't notice a difference in FPS with it on high.

Normal AF filtering, no AA.

15 minimal FPS is heavy areas, generally though it's above 25.

[smellyjelly]

How does the performance in the demo compare to the retail version?

[Shashman]

Good question, as I'd like to buy it tomorrow

[neildood]

[quote=psycosmos,Feb. 16 2007,00:25][quote=thaFunkster,Feb. 15 2007,08:39]
Just a guess: Is the AA still on if you set it to very high? It's possible that it uses too much ram on such settings and the card might turn it off, resulting in a perfomance boost compared to lower settings.



Yea AA does switch on, if i go to medium-low i have worse framerates.
If i go to max i get loverly AA and good frames (wierd)