ArmaHolic ArmA 2 Optimization

[Thr0tt]

if your going to do that, then why dont you just use a lower screen resolution? because from looking at what you have done, its as if you just went into the option setting and dropped the fillrate from 100% to 50% thus making the game look extremely terrible.

Remember 100% fillrate = Render_W: 1680, Render_H 1050 which is the same as your screen resolution.

i play at 1280x1024 because that the max resoultion for my screen (19" lcd) and if drop the fillrate below 100% the game basically becomes unplayable due tot he fact that i cant make out the difference between a tree and soldier.

I want to be able to play the game not just look at it, if I increase the fillrate to the same as my res then the frame plummit. Fillrate on that res is about 75% and lilke I say, increase some of the other bits and it still looks nice but it is playable and I want to play not just gaup at it with 10fps.

Each to their own and until I upgrade my mobo and gfx card then I have to make do with a 'lesser' nice looking game but enjoying it all the same.

[fabrizioT]

Hmm i am with thyco on this one: i don't understand why 1680x1050 with fill rate at 75% should be better, both visually and performance-wise, than 1280x1024 and 100% fill rate (or about).

if you have your card say render 1680px and then interpolate to show 1280px on screen you will simply have a double disadvantage: unneeded strain to your card for lesser visual quality ...

[Yoma]

Lol i gues i simply didn't understand the fillrate story.

[BOTA:49]

1680x1050 at a true 75% fill rate (the slider is accurate, the percentage is not) is 1260x787. A lot lower than 1280x1024 (991620 vs 1310720, or roughly 25% less to render).

[craig3000]

I run my games at 1280x1024 so when I get ARMA2 I am going to stick it on that res with 100% fillrate -_-

[Helmut_AUT]

Can anyone tell if A2 is more shader-limited (like Crysis) or still also pixel/vertex rate limited?

Some of the mid-range GPUs only have a lot amount of shading units, I think the whole post processing creates that shading overhead which costs so dearly.

[Thr0tt]

Hmm i am with thyco on this one: i don't understand why 1680x1050 with fill rate at 75% should be better, both visually and performance-wise, than 1280x1024 and 100% fill rate (or about).

if you have your card say render 1680px and then interpolate to show 1280px on screen you will simply have a double disadvantage: unneeded strain to your card for lesser visual quality ...

It may not make sense or be your way to get better visual / performance out of the game but it works for me, all I am doing is sharing what works for me giving others the flexibility to try different options.

I am happy at the moment with what works, just for info I don't think there is a 1280x800 resolution in the options so could select that if I tried... (at work so can't check )

---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 PM ----------

Ok, just to throw something into the mix, I turned off cool'n quiet and gained 3+ fps on each ArmA Mark II tests...

[BOTA:49]

If you want 1280x800, you could always set it to that in the ArmA2.cfg file.

[Alex72]

Yes Thr0tt i guess thats what people meant. I understand you get better performance with lower fillrate, but what they say is that you could try lower the resolution and then set the fillrate to 100%. So you get clear image and good performance. So lower the res and set the render-res to the same. For example your 1280x800 you mentioned. Just do it in the config as you can set the res to what you want in there (i think. If its anything like ArmA1).

[ryan80]

i do not have sceneComplexity in my arma2 cfg file.
is it suppose to be there or added manually?
and what does it do exactly?