Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Michael Withstand

Okay let's hear it does Arrowhead run better than ArmA 2 or worse?

Recommended Posts

here is what I posted in the impressions thread:

OA Benchmark: 45 FPS, better than I got in A2.

core 2 duo e8400 OC'd @3.6 ghz

windows 7 64 bit

ATI Radeon HD 4870

Settings Normal (low AA and PP)

view distance 2000

frames seem great in SP, but way more stutter and texture pop in than Chernarus.

Overall, a step back in graphical quality. Chernarus looked great on Normal settings IMO, very realistic.

OA vegetation just does not look real. Combine that with some pretty barren landscape and it does not feel like you are in a real place like I did in Chernarus or even Utes.

Zagarabad had some serious slowdown and looked like crap as I toured it in the Huey.

Desert map is what it is, simply a flat desert, so not much to report there.

Best map is Takistan, which has some good varied terrain.

Overall, happy with frames, but there are some immersion-killing graphics that I hope get smoothed.

Have not tried Multi, but single player content so far is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did the postprocessing options change in OA?

i now get roughly 10fps less on Utes, with the same graphics settings, when running ArmA 2 content through OA.

does OA have additional postprocessing features enabled that the original ArmA 2 does not have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the "display driver has stopped responding and has recovered" (which crashes the game) after about 10 minutes, never had it with A2 so for me A2 runs, OA does not. I would have to call that worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a small test run in the editor and I'd say that in cities, the performance is mediocre (ie like Arma2), but performance in desert/mountain areas is vastly superior to me (frame locked to 60fps, that rarely happened anywhere in Chernarus).

For those with poor performance, I suggest you tweak the settings! The Arma engine design is luckily so good you can change everything on the fly. I dont know what I did, but SOMETHING in the settings absolutely DESTROYED framerates while looking at vegetation/cities, even the smaller ones. I mean like 15-20 fps, unplayable. After some tweaking, I got around 50 fps in the same exact spots (while looking roughly the same)!!!

Unfortunetly I didnt catch what it was, I just changed a bunch of things around. I know it was not the post process setting - All that does is kill fps in half, make the world a complete blur and adds absolutely nothing for some reason (seriously, I cannot see the quality difference aside from blur between very high/disabled!). The 15-20 fps was with it disabled. 50 fps with it at low, some other setting magically boosted fps.

But I suppose the real test is a how Domination mission feel or something, lol.

Edited by Murklor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Runs the same and better for me depending upon the island etc. It's definitely NOT worse though I do occasionally get some stutters when things are loading and I bet I can reduce that with a defrag. Either way, it's very playable and very cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't put in too many hours, but right of the start gonna tell you much smoother on much higher settings than I had on Arma 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worse for me.

View distance: 2538

Resolution: 1600x1200

3D Resolution: 1600x1200

Texture Detail: Normal

Video Mem: Very High

Anisotropic Filtering: High

Anti-aliasing: Disabled

Terrain Detail: Low

Object Detail: Normal

Shadow Detail: High

PPE: Disabled

Command Line: -cpucount=4 -exthreads=7 -nosplash

Processor: Intel® Core i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (4 CPUs), ~2.7GHz

Memory: 12GB RAM

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT X2

Operating System: Windows Vistaâ„¢ Home Premium

Edited by Aced170

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My CPU runs about 10 degrees celsius warmer, and it runs about the same for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Worse for me.

View distance: 2538

Resolution: 1600x1200

3D Resolution: 1600x1200

Texture Detail: Normal

Video Mem: Very High

Anisotropic Filtering: High

Anti-aliasing: Disabled

Terrain Detail: Low

Object Detail: Normal

Shadow Detail: High

PPE: Disabled

Command Line: -cpucount=4 -exthreads=7 -nosplash

Processor: Intel® Core i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (4 CPUs), ~2.7GHz

Memory: 12GB RAM

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT X2

Operating System: Windows Vistaâ„¢ Home Premium

Runs worse for me, no question about it. Even on Pantera I have alot better fps than cities on here. I got arouns 35 fps on Pantera sometimes 45 to 50. These maps are not doing well at all, dipping to 15- to 20 fps with little AI?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a little better. but the stuff from 1.07 was not in. i had to set parameters cpucount=4 and exthread=7, otherwise the game would be choppy and stuttery. also, had to set cpuframesahead to 1. although people say it's better to do 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok the city map is completely unplayable, I have an super clocked 260 gtx and my cpu runs a 4.0 :(

This is way worse than ARMA 2 as far as FPS. I got below 10 fps with just myself and 1 AI. I don't know what happended with the city textures but they are equated to orange trees.

Edited by stevedrumsdw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-cpuCount=4 i put this on my OA exe and hit almost totally eliminated all stuttering i was experiencing game is very enjoyable now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-cpuCount=4 i put this on my OA exe and hit almost totally eliminated all stuttering i was experiencing game is very enjoyable now.

Are you using Hyperthreading? My guess is that the automatic cpuCount=4 is not yet implemented in OA as it is in the latest ArmA2 patch, so you have to set it manually (for now).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GTX260

Phenom 9550 quad core (2.2, pretty poor overall)

I was lucky to get 20-30 fps in arma - however in OA I'm hitting 50 fps with higher settings and longer view ranges. Towns push it into the 30s, and the city map pushes me down into the 20s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Runs MUCH worse. That's it.

Maybe in the future it will be better. Right now the performance is horrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran a quickie editor setup as an AH-64 gunner vs a squad on the desert map. (at night) There, it ran slick as can be.

ZF-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Runs MUCH worse. That's it.

Maybe in the future it will be better. Right now the performance is horrible.

It runs MUCH better for me, so it must depend a lot on your hardware. Might just be the new islands though (didn't really try Chernarus yet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×