Forum Jump :

Author Message


Posts: 62
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: uk
Location: Portsmouth
Occupation: PendragonUK
Age: 54
In-game name: PendragonUK

 
#76 Posted at 2011-03-12 01:27        
     
I have been doing some more testing, I quite please with the results even if it's way off running everything maxed out. Like everyone I have to figure out what is the best compromise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8I8HKrajSI

The details are in the description...

This is an old one recorded when I was running an Intel Q6700 and an ATI 5770, good enough to run "normal to High" 1920x1080, 3D 100%
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gotKIMV-u7g

This post was edited by PendragonUK (2011-03-12 01:36, ago)

Pendragon

[url=http://www.helpivanmartin.org/][/url]

Author Message


Posts: 12
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: se
Location:
Occupation:
Age:
In-game name:

 
#77 Posted at 2011-03-14 11:17        
     
If I try to push up the fillrate much beyond 100% or push the view distance out too far and the game becomes a slid show! To be honest I have to trim the setting shown to be able to play within a city on Chernarus or Zaragbad without lagging too much.

I guess I'm a little ticked off that my rig can't handle this game properly, so my question is, what can? Is there anyone out there that can have every in game setting maxed completely? can they get a sustained 60fps in every situation? Fillrate 200% 10K view distance running on a nice big screen??? Is it possible? What am I missing?

My Spec's: http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1695451



I have similar problems on this rig:

AMD Phenom II X6 1035T (Hexacore 2,6GHz)
XFX HD6870 Black Edition
6GB RAM
Windows 7 64-bit

ArmA II Combined Ops (Steam)

Since it doesn't matter how much I fiddle with the games graphic settings (performance in Chernarus is 18-25FPS even on low) I figured that it's my CPU that's bottlenecking the game. I really love ArmA II and would like to be completely immersed in the gameplay but that's not going to happen as long as the game runs this bad.

With ArmA II terrible performance on my rig and the upcoming TES V: Skyrim in mind I went ahead and ordered parts for a new gaming PC:

Motherboard: Asus P8P67 DELUXE REV B3
CPU: Intel i7 2600k (3,4 GHz and 3,8 GHz Turbo)
GPU: Gainward GTX 580 1536 PhysX "GOOD Edition"
PSU: Corsair AX850W
RAM: Corsair 8GB (2x4) 1600MHz XMS3
SSD: Corsair SSD Force Series 120GB 2.5"
CPU cooler: Noctua NH-D14

Now this should be able to run ArmA II on max settings (not including 10k draw distance) very smoothly but I'm afraid to get my hopes up too much since the game slaughtered my other PC... :P If the game still runs around 20 FPS I'll try overclocking the CPU to 4.6 GHz. If that doesn't help I really don't know what to do.

Is it at all possible that running the game through Steam somehow limits performance? I'm on a 8 mbit connection.


Advertisement


Author Message


Posts: 745
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: us
Location: Somewhere Out There
Occupation:
Age:
In-game name: NoQuarter

 
#78 Posted at 2011-03-14 14:48        
     
# Windir :...I went ahead and ordered parts for a new gaming PC:
...
SSD: Corsair SSD Force Series 120GB 2.5"
...
Do you still have time to amend your order... a Corsair Performance 3 SSD -for an extra bill- would take advantange of the MoBo's SATA III connectors.
# Windir : Is it at all possible that running the game through Steam somehow limits performance? I'm on a 8 mbit connection.
Doubtful. Steam is bloatware, but it has a small footprint.


Author Message


Posts: 12
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: se
Location:
Occupation:
Age:
In-game name:

 
#79 Posted at 2011-03-14 17:09        
     
# NoQuarter : Do you still have time to amend your order... a Corsair Performance 3 SSD -for an extra bill- would take advantange of the MoBo's SATA III connectors.

No, it's already been sent :)

I'm aware that there are new high performance SSD's on the way (OCZ Vortex 3) but the Corsair one was affordable enough, for a SSD that is, and has recieved many great reviews.

Ok, thanks for the information.


Author Message


Posts: 62
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: uk
Location: Portsmouth
Occupation: PendragonUK
Age: 54
In-game name: PendragonUK

 
#80 Posted at 2011-03-17 19:29        
     
It is odd but turning up the prepossessing effects has improved things. I have just run a coop mission set in northern Chernarus. Heavily wooded and a dam. (co06_baf_withdrawal_symptoms.Chernarus) Anyhow I had it happily running at 60-70fps I can't complain.


Now if the mission was in one of the city's in the south, I guess it would be a different matter...

Pendragon

[url=http://www.helpivanmartin.org/][/url]

Author Message

cinco  



Posts: 92
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: us
Location:
Occupation:
Age:
In-game name:

 
#81 Posted at 2011-03-17 23:42        
     
# PendragonUK : It is odd but turning up the prepossessing effects has improved things. I have just run a coop mission set in northern Chernarus. Heavily wooded and a dam. (co06_baf_withdrawal_symptoms.Chernarus) Anyhow I had it happily running at 60-70fps I can't complain.


Now if the mission was in one of the city's in the south, I guess it would be a different matter...

possible that depth of field has blurred clumped up objects to such a degree that they are easier to render.


Author Message


Posts: 62
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: uk
Location: Portsmouth
Occupation: PendragonUK
Age: 54
In-game name: PendragonUK

 
#82 Posted at 2011-03-23 21:56        
     
# cinco : possible that depth of field has blurred clumped up objects to such a degree that they are easier to render.
I have always thought that with ArmA what appears on the screen isn't hard for the graphics card to draw. The difficulty has been figuring out what to put on the screen in the first place. The huge files needed for the textures and moving them about has been the problem. What finally appears on your screen is really quite simple, the tough bit is for the game to decide what to ask the graphics card to draw and the massive textures involved.

As for the post processing effects they are just that post processing, after the event. The CPU dose the fancy stuff and adds the layer to the graphics card. Nothing to be gained by the graphics card in reduced complexity by having depth of field, it has to first draw the edges for it to then blur them. It does give the CPU more to do, I have six cores running at 4GHz. ArmA never maxes the CPU out there are plenty of spare cycles to burn up with fancy effects. There is 8GB of fast RAM but the game never uses more than 2Gb.

I would never want BIS to dumb down ArmA, heck it's the complexity we love. However there is a lot to be said for optimisation, this game needs some! Open up the game to make full use of the system resources it has to hand, if the computer has multiple CPU's GPU's an SSD and a shed load of RAM it should use them, not restrict it's self to using only a small portion of the available hardware.

Pendragon

[url=http://www.helpivanmartin.org/][/url]

Author Message

Rick_inactive  

One of Armaholic's finest ..... by presence....


Posts: 258
Rank:


Country: ca
Location: Alberta
Occupation: Sodbuster
Age: 28
In-game name: runny

 
#83 Posted at 2011-03-26 18:50        
     
# pvt kilbur : Yes but arma dosent like certain computers...
Yeah, its the weirdest thing O.o
I can play on med-high settings or highest settings with grass turned off on my laptop! This is much much better than a lot of people with $3000 super computers can do! My laptop isnt exactly a powerhouse either. Specs:
Intel i5 M430 @2.27 (plus powerboost)
Nvidia GeForce 230M X16 1024MB (Laptop version of course)
4.00GB DDR3
Win 7 x64
All wrapped up in a HP dv6000 entertainment laptop.
My take is that arma likes the i5 CPUs. My brother has a similar setup to mine except is using a ATI graphics card and his runs nearly as well as mine does.
I dont mean to brag about how well the game is running for me, I just want to solidify the point that arma just likes/doent like certian computers, almost regardless of computing power.
[edit] by "high" or "very high" I mean textures and those things. Post processing is always off, res and fill are at 100%, and the other fancy things are off. So it isnt maxed out, just very high.

This post was edited by runnybunny (2011-03-26 18:58, ago)

I am very macho.

Author Message

B~M  



Posts: 130
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: us
Location:
Occupation:
Age:
In-game name:

 
#84 Posted at 2011-04-02 03:17        
     
http://sites.amd.com/us/game/downloads/Pages/radeon_win7-64.aspx#2


Author Message


Posts: 208
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: us
Location: U.S.
Occupation: U.S. Army E-3 PFC MOS:92G
Age: 25
In-game name: BOB

 
#85 Posted at 2011-04-07 15:11        
     
i think your right, arma hates certain computers... my game runs about average 12 fps even though a have a prety decent computer. my settings are about as low as it can get without the game being blurry.

my comp specs are:
Model: HPE-120f
processor: intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9300 @ 2.50GHz 2.50 GHz
RAM: 8.00 GB
system type: 64-bit operating system

hard drive: 988GB
Memory: 8192MB RAM
Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) (7600.win7_gdr.101026-1503)
Manufacturer: HP-Pavilion
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9300 @ 2.50GHz (4 CPUs), ~2.5GHz

to me thats just a bunch of mumbo jumbo and i hardly understand it but from what ive been told that should more than enough to play arma without a ton of lag but aparently not....

Played this game as a child, best times of my life.

Author Message


Posts: 20630
Rank:


Level: Super Admin

Country: nl
Location: The Netherlands
Occupation:
Age: 43
In-game name: Foxhound

 
#86 Posted at 2011-04-07 16:10        
     
You do not list your GPU in the above list so we can only guess but a quick search with google told me you might have this card:
ATI Radeon HD 4350 which has only 256MB RAM and this is your first bottleneck (if you have a different card please list it!!)
Your CPU is decent but also not the greatest.
Those 2 will limit your experience with Arma 2 / Arma 2: CO.

Make sure you run at least 1.59, try the latest beta, update your GPU graphics card drivers. Use only a viewdistance in game of like 2000 - 2500. Set your postprocess to "disabled", disbale vertical sync in your GPU settings. Set your resolution not too high, and set render to 100% or maybe 85% (not sure of the ammount, just check the ingame settings).

Visit my family webshop desteigerhoutshop.nl.

Author Message

B~M  



Posts: 130
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: us
Location:
Occupation:
Age:
In-game name:

 
#87 Posted at 2011-04-08 22:04        
     
http://www.norrin.org/downloads/ArmA2/revive/AI_enabled/missions/Deep_in_the_Woods_02h.Chernarus.pbo
good map to test fps... usin acm also.


Author Message


Posts: 312
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: us
Location: Casper, Wyoming
Occupation: Digital Artist / Graphic Designer
Age: 29
In-game name: C. Cunico / WyteOut

 
#88 Posted at 2011-04-11 07:40        
     
Mmm..what kind of GPU do you have? That could be the whole problem! *DONT_KNOW*

My Youtube for noobie scripters: http://www.youtube.com/user/WyteOutAgain

Author Message

B~M  



Posts: 130
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: us
Location:
Occupation:
Age:
In-game name:

 
#89 Posted at 2011-04-16 18:31        
     
i noticed the fps drop going from runnin map in editor to over to multiplayer drops 10 to 14 fps.
joined a server the other day and it updated my punkbuster, now it seems to run a bit faster but that mp hesitation after running 10 steps is still there but less so. map im usin has 30 villages added on zargabad with each holding 12 enemy ai in and on spawned module bldgs and no enemy vehicles. maybe i need to upgrade my dsl and it will smooth out some. i imagine adding a dust storm would drop it lower. maybe somebody can figure a way to spawn town module bldgs and despawn after youve passed thru a cpl of towns, if you cant see them then they dont need to be there anymore. tried setting visual to 500 seems to help some just to keep focused on immediate town you are fighting in at moment.
30 villages sounds insane..... but it looks awesome for CQB fighting from village to village the entire road thru zargabad
spawn\de-spawn town modules by trigger, that would be the way to save the frame hit.
town modules placement drastically improves when you synch to pre-load module, they conform to land and surroundings much easier and you can practically jam them together and they conform nicely.
they need to pre-load first to get ai in and on the bldgs.

This post was edited by B~M (2011-04-16 18:39, ago)


Author Message

Rick_inactive  

One of Armaholic's finest ..... by presence....


Posts: 258
Rank:


Country: ca
Location: Alberta
Occupation: Sodbuster
Age: 28
In-game name: runny

 
#90 Posted at 2011-04-16 18:50        
     
# B~M : i noticed the fps drop going from runnin map in editor to over to multiplayer drops 10 to 14 fps.
joined a server the other day and it updated my punkbuster, now it seems to run a bit faster but that mp hesitation after running 10 steps is still there but less so. map im usin has 30 villages added on zargabad with each holding 12 enemy ai in and on spawned module bldgs and no enemy vehicles. maybe i need to upgrade my dsl and it will smooth out some. i imagine adding a dust storm would drop it lower. maybe somebody can figure a way to spawn town module bldgs and despawn after youve passed thru a cpl of towns, if you cant see them then they dont need to be there anymore. tried setting visual to 500 seems to help some just to keep focused on immediate town you are fighting in at moment.
30 villages sounds insane..... but it looks awesome for CQB fighting from village to village the entire road thru zargabad
spawn\de-spawn town modules by trigger, that would be the way to save the frame hit.
town modules placement drastically improves when you synch to pre-load module, they conform to land and surroundings much easier and you can practically jam them together and they conform nicely.
they need to pre-load first to get ai in and on the bldgs.
It sounds to me like your CPU is the bottleneck if loading units that you can't see is slowing you down. It sounds like you are playing CTI. CTI gamemodes already load units as you go, but to my knowledge, do not "unload" them when you move away.
I am sure there is a way to code your own load distance of units without using in-editor triggers. I don't know how, but It would only work on singleplayer unless you're the host. If you're interested in knowing how I'm sure someone here has those skills.

I am very macho.