Forum Jump :

Author Message

Dead3yez  

I am evil


Posts: 3113
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: en
Location: North Yorkshire
Occupation: dead3yez
Age: 28
In-game name: dead3yez

 
#76 Posted at 2009-07-02 15:40        
     
Bump - as I have made another amazing discovery & added to first post. - If you are not running RAID and have 2 hard drives.

Try it and see for yourself! :eek

Run on multiple hard drives!!

ArmA2 is heavy on the harddrive I decided to split the ArmA 2 files onto two different hard drives, this can be done by making a mod folder on one of your separate hardrives. This makes loading faster, and allows you to simulate a faster data transfer rate.

For example I have moved the following files (they mainly contain textures and models), others containing configs may cause problems if you are running addons. into F:\CA\addons as shown below:

3321-externmodf.jpg

You can then run these files via the modfolder method

(safest method) I use.
-mod=F:\CA;@mod2;@mod3
or
to work with some mods/addons, depending on which files you have moved.
-mod=@mod1;@mod2;F:\CA

When patches are released you will have to move these files back into the main addons directory.



[edit] ;)

FPS helper v1.0b released

FPS Helper

This post was edited by Dead3yez (2009-07-02 15:58, ago)


Author Message


Posts: 20421
Rank:


Level: Super Admin

Country: nl
Location: The Netherlands
Occupation:
Age: 42
In-game name: Foxhound

 
#77 Posted at 2009-07-03 07:12        
     
Here is a follow up of my previous post.

I did some more testing last night and I am curious if I am the only one noticing in MP the game performs better than in SP. Can anyone confirm this?

My specs:
Intel E6600 @2.4
GTX8800
Windows XP
2GB RAM
Clean install, formatted my whole system last week and running a Virtual Machine for the ordinary internet stuff. So this XP install is only used for the game and some additional programs (for the overclocking I planned as well).


2 days ago I tried forceware drivers 190.xx and was not impressed. All settings on normal while running ArmAIIMark gave me much lower results than with 182.06.
So, I tried 186.xx (where I type xx I am not sure of the number, I type this at work). Performance here is almost the same as with 182.06. I seem to notice a few textures just refusing to load though. Making trees/bushes look like crap (with all settings to normal/high), not sure anymore if that was also present with 182.06 though.

Now, last night I joined a server to further test my results. I played on a server with 30 guys, running domination.
I was able to crank up all my settings to very high (including AA and AF, except PP that is disabled), even shadows are very high. The frames I get than are like 10 - 60, its really amazing. Only in woods the shadows cause the frames to go to 10.
Sometimes I am driving (I am just driving around, walking etc) through the landscape and have 45 - 50 frames. While there are buildings, bushes, trees etc. I just performs nice.
If I disable shadows (or set them to low) my frames will not drop below 20 - 25.

Oh btw, let me mention the mission setting overrides the landscape details, it sets it to low. but this is where it gets interesting.

I started up the editor, checked if all my settings were on very high, including shadows and did set landscape details to low.
Now.......max frames I get is like 16, its very sluggish and it is unplayble, while I was just in a server with the same settings getting between 10 - 60 frames. And in the editior its just me, no AI, no vehicles, no other players!

Am I getting stupid or what? Is there some more settings in those missions that i do not know about (I know there is also VD) which force your computer to run certain graphic settings?

This weekend I will try the 182.15 drivers, and do the above thing of using multiple HD's as well as the FPS improvement addon. However as it is not signed (and should not be) you wont be able to use it online (and you should not be able to) so whatever it does is only interesting for those who play SP :)


[edit]
Also let me add a note........
Like with Arma, settings graphical setting shigher, improves FPS sometimes, it does not necasarily make them worse.
I get better FPS with AF and AA set to high than I set them to low. Just try each setting for yourself one by one, you will see not always it influence the FPS and sometimes it makes things better.

This post was edited by Foxhound (2009-07-03 07:20, ago)

Visit my family webshop desteigerhoutshop.nl.

Advertisement


Author Message

Dead3yez  

I am evil


Posts: 3113
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: en
Location: North Yorkshire
Occupation: dead3yez
Age: 28
In-game name: dead3yez

 
#78 Posted at 2009-07-07 01:42        
     
Got my 260gtx, it's nice to run around with graphics on high and enjoy the scenery... But, that's all you can do with the GFX settings on high, run around. I still like to use my FPSHelper, it still does it's job by removing content that I think is unnecessary that makes the game fun to play. OFP-ArmAII Mark seemed to give me some quite bad results, only slightly better than what my 8800GS gave me. I can say from experience the 260gtx has given my much better performance than my old card, the results from ArmAII mark don't make sense at all. I still run the game on low settings, I have only increased the scene complexity and the view distance. Once I get my second 260gtx I will think about putting the settings up. For now the game is very very smooth which is nice, expecially in MP as it's something i've never experienced in that aspect.


Author Message


Posts: 484
Rank:


Level: Member

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

 
#79 Posted at 2009-07-08 07:45        
     
Maybe add GPU Tool to the list of v card overclocking. It's great for the new 4800 range al so works with nVidia cards too.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/forumdisplay.php?f=69

Also should add GPU-Z as well for monitoring the v card temps as people tend not to know or forget about checking VRM temps.

http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/


Fox how did you crank up AA as it's disabled with the newer patch ?.

Specialdetachment.org
Asus Maximus Formula \ E8400 Wolfdale 3.0GHz \Xigmatek HDT-S1283\ G.Skill 2x2GB \ AxeRam 2GB 1200+ \ XFX 4890 1000\1100 \ 3xWDYS250GIG Raid5\ 3xWDKS250GIG Raid5 \ Liteon163 DVD \ GCE-8400B (8MB) \ Samsung DVDRW \ TOSHIBA 40" 1080p LCD HDTV \ PC Power & Cooling 750 Quad CF Edi

Author Message

Dead3yez  

I am evil


Posts: 3113
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: en
Location: North Yorkshire
Occupation: dead3yez
Age: 28
In-game name: dead3yez

 
#80 Posted at 2009-07-08 11:44        
     
AsRock+SD : Maybe add GPU Tool to the list of v card overclocking. It's great for the new 4800 range al so works with nVidia cards too.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/forumdisplay.php?f=69

Also should add GPU-Z as well for monitoring the v card temps as people tend not to know or forget about checking VRM temps.

http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/


Fox how did you crank up AA as it's disabled with the newer patch ?.

Thanks, I've added them to the first post. :)
Also, you are using 1.12.5134 (i assume you mean this by the newer patch) and not the older 1.12 ?


Author Message


Posts: 745
Rank:


Level: Member

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

 
#81 Posted at 2009-07-08 14:42        
     
Dead3yez : Try it and see for yourself! Run on multiple hard drives!!
@Dead3yez: Regarding the multiple HDD use, did you use a utility of some sort to chart R/W times, or just gauge the change based on the length of time the progress bar (or whatever the program uses) is displayed, or your own internal clock?

Can't try it yet with this title.
____EDIT:
Dead3yez : Try it and see for yourself!
NoQuarter : Can't try it yet with this title.
Dead3yez : What do you mean by Can't try it yet with this title.?
Sorry, thought you knew, I'm the village idiot holding out for a U.S. boxed copy of ArmA2, & don't bother with demos.
Thanks for the clarification.

This post was edited by NoQuarter (2009-07-08 18:36, ago)


Author Message

Dead3yez  

I am evil


Posts: 3113
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: en
Location: North Yorkshire
Occupation: dead3yez
Age: 28
In-game name: dead3yez

 
#82 Posted at 2009-07-08 15:05        
     
NoQuarter : @Dead3yez: Regarding the multiple HDD use, did you use a utility of some sort to chart R/W times, or just gauge the change based on the length of time the progress bar (or whatever the program uses) is displayed, or your own internal clock?

Can't try it yet with this title.

I haven't looked much into the actual details of the read times and stuff. I haven't actually done any tests that can prove/show the differences. I just decided to run a good portion of the game on a separate hard drive noticeably load times are faster on my system. So yes, I just based it on what I observed myself.

What do you mean by Can't try it yet with this title.?

This post was edited by Dead3yez (2009-07-08 15:17, ago)


Author Message


Posts: 20421
Rank:


Level: Super Admin

Country: nl
Location: The Netherlands
Occupation:
Age: 42
In-game name: Foxhound

 
#83 Posted at 2009-07-08 15:45        
     
I tried placing some files on my other raptor but I did get less good performance with it. Just by observing how the game would run. It seemed to me it had much more "trouble" getting things to render. I recieved a lot more stutter.
I put the files back and noticed the worse stutter was improved to less stutter.
Both HD's were recently formatted.

@AsRock
Make sure you have the lastest 1.02 patch installed, Patch 1.02.58134.

Visit my family webshop desteigerhoutshop.nl.

Author Message


Posts: 259
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: nz
Location: Fort Riley, KS
Occupation: U.S. Army Combat Engineer
Age: 34
In-game name: DetCord

 
#84 Posted at 2009-07-10 07:52        
     
Well, it's certainly very unoptimized, much as ArmA was, but I actually believe ArmA II is worse than it's predecessor, which is pretty sad but seem to be a continuing trait from BIS in this new product line. This is pretty interesting.

But even more important is the low performance: Even on overclcoked highest-end hardware (Core i7; 12 GiByte RAM and a GTX 285 with 2 GiByte VRAM) ArmA 2 becomes a slide show (less than 15 fps) running at 1,280 x 1,024 pixels with very high details. You have to go to low or medium details and have to activate Pixel Doubling (which is ugly) to get playable framerates. Given the performance you shouldn't even think about Anti Aliasing, but the Real Virtuality Engine doesn't support it, as well as any SLI or Crossfire modes, anyway.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,685770/Armed-Assault-2-Graphics-card-benchmarks-and-visual-quality-compared/Practice/

This impressive visualization is ruined by the bad LoD and the aggressive Streaming system as well as the post processing effects: The extremely exaggerated Motion Blur can be dealt with, but the Depth of Field which comes into effect in a short distance doesn't just soften the environment but also opponents who are more or less made invisible by that - so lower details are much better from a gameplay related point of view. Biggest drawback: Even on a graphics card with 2 GiByte VRAM ArmA 2 loads high resolution object textures at a very late time. Thus it is possible that a wooden box is made of a washy bitmap and until you get close enough you don't even recognize that the brow something is supposed to be a wooden texture. At closer distances on the other hand the textures are sharp and coherent. The animations are convincing and alarmingly realistic in some situations - especially those of the NPCs, who by the way are quite details except the faces.
ArmA 2 looks great in most parts, but the impressive graphics can't be run on any system at the moment - the performance is a disaster. To get the framerate to an acceptable level you have to lower the visual quality because of what the graphical experience suffers. The clipping bugs and the collision detection are further drawbacks. On the other hand the SSAA feature is unmatched by any other game at the moment.


Author Message

Dead3yez  

I am evil


Posts: 3113
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: en
Location: North Yorkshire
Occupation: dead3yez
Age: 28
In-game name: dead3yez

 
#85 Posted at 2009-07-12 22:43        
     
Just did a clean install of windows XP, only installed a couple of things other than drivers and ARMA2 on this hard drive. Before on vista x64, which was reasonably well maintained, did have a few things installed and ArmA2 was not installed on a clean hard drive like this, but still I don't see how that effected the results I got from ArmAII Mark. Here are the test results from the highest mark I was able to achieve with low-medium settings @1920x1200.

Vista64: ~2200
XP32 Sp3: 3345

:openmouth

[edit]
http://download.cnet.com/TuneXP/3000-2086_4-10290929.html

Tune XP 1.5, might as well mention it since I use it with XP, it's very good.

This post was edited by Dead3yez (2009-07-13 04:11, ago)


Author Message


Posts: 20421
Rank:


Level: Super Admin

Country: nl
Location: The Netherlands
Occupation:
Age: 42
In-game name: Foxhound

 
#86 Posted at 2009-07-13 07:41        
     
ArmA2 is known to perform a lot better under XP, it has been posted over and over again in the ArmA2Mark topic on the BI forums :)
The difference in performance is worth the dual boot setup.

I have created a virtual machine as I posted earlier. Although I only use XP this will keep my ArmA2 XP system clean of all other things except the game and some additional programs while you use the virtual machine to do all your things :)
You can use this too if for example you wish to use XP for the game and create a virtual machine for Vista and maybe even one for Windows7.

Visit my family webshop desteigerhoutshop.nl.

Author Message

Ivonq  



Posts: 14
Rank:


Level: Member

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

 
#87 Posted at 2009-07-13 08:12        
     
Hi guys,

Try having a look at www.tweakforce.com, don't know if it was mentioned before, but they have customized Nvidia drivers. I'm running win 7 with the 190.15 Xtreme G-drivers on a 8800GTX and it runs smooth. Everything on very high and AA on normal (around 30-40 fps).

Grtz


Author Message


Posts: 6
Rank:


Level: Member

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

 
#88 Posted at 2009-07-15 21:04        
     
I tried all sugestions for improving performance and the result is still the same and frustrating 25-30 FPS.
My only guess is that my system isnt good enough to run this game smoothly


Author Message


Posts: 1470
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: en
Location: Surrey, England
Occupation: Blackhawk
Age: 44
In-game name:

 
#89 Posted at 2009-07-16 22:01        
     
Dead3yez : Bump - as I have made another amazing discovery & added to first post. - If you are not running RAID and have 2 hard drives.

Try it and see for yourself! :eek

Run on multiple hard drives!!

ArmA2 is heavy on the harddrive I decided to split the ArmA 2 files onto two different hard drives, this can be done by making a mod folder on one of your separate hardrives. This makes loading faster, and allows you to simulate a faster data transfer rate.

For example I have moved the following files (they mainly contain textures and models), others containing configs may cause problems if you are running addons. into F:\CA\addons as shown below:

3321-externmodf.jpg

You can then run these files via the modfolder method

(safest method) I use.
-mod=F:\CA;@mod2;@mod3
or
to work with some mods/addons, depending on which files you have moved.
-mod=@mod1;@mod2;F:\CA

When patches are released you will have to move these files back into the main addons directory.

So you can do this even if you only have one hard drive?

If so, do you just make a folder, put those files in and add the shortcut to your ArmA 2 target?


Author Message

Dead3yez  

I am evil


Posts: 3113
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: en
Location: North Yorkshire
Occupation: dead3yez
Age: 28
In-game name: dead3yez

 
#90 Posted at 2009-07-16 22:18        
     
Yes, if you don't want to make modfolders in the ArmA 2 directory, you can do that.