*******Official Armed Assault 2 thread of official officialness*******

Loowi_ashley said:
Well this is a little silly, the day before this game landed on my doorstep I upgraded my computer and overclocked.

Here are my specs:-

i7 920 @ 4.02GHZ
6GB Patriot Viper @ 1602MHZ
GTX 295 @ 680/1200/1400
Asus P6T

My ARMA 2 settings are 1680*1050, all VERY HIGH, 1600 view distance and 150% (cant remember the setting name) Patched to 1.02.

The first mission at night im getting between 18-28FPS :eek:

The opening screen with the boat starts at 40FPS and drops to around 34FPS, training mission give high 20's.

Yes I know im running it on very high settings but come-on, it shouldnt be this bad!!!
Click to expand...

Its a pretty poorly coded game in that respect annoyingly
 
Hopefully the next patch will make things better, although I doubt it very much.
Is there a sweat spot for settings? maybe I should turn down to 100%, but it doesnt look no where near as nice :(
 
Regarding performance I have one thing to say - USE WINDOWS XP. I knew I'd kept a dual boot system for a reason, and only now have I found it!

I really cannot enphasise this enough, but I was getting awful frame rates and stuttering in vista 64. I thought to try it under XP (32 bit) and the difference is absolutely unbelievable!

I literally get double, sometimes triple the frame rates I was getting in Vista64 now using XP. On my set up at least, Vista clearly has major issues with the game as it stands (1.2 patch applied). For example, in the training missions performace with vista was great - often got 6ofps (can't turn off vsync in vista). But, in any of the 'scenario' single player missions or campaign I would only get around 30fps max. Mostly 25-30 with dips and stutters below that.

I'd read this game likes quad core and was reluctantly thinking that may be the problem, but as a last ditch attempt thought to try under XP.

Under XP, playing the 'scenario' missions (1 and 3 I use for testing, 3 being the most intense) I now get 30fps as a minimum and it mostly runs along at 45-70ish in mission 1 (turning off vsync in catalyst control panel works under XP). This is with the graphics settings all at high except terrain and object at normal, view distance 2000. I can even set 3D resolution at 133% to get 'fake' AA and still get this fantastic performance.

THE MOST IMPORTANT graphics setting I have found that affects smoothness, for me anyway, is the video memory one. I had it set at 'very high' as I have a 4870x2, but I think this setting may be for 'true' 2BG cards, that don't yet exist. On very high setting performance would fluctuate wildly. Selecting 'high' gives me the best and smoothest performance.

The other thing to do, is if you've been messing around with all your graphics settings - delete the Arma2 folder (containing your config file) in your documents and start again. This also helped me a lot.
 
Last edited:
As regards performance I have done several test over the last few days

Xp sp3 32bit ran about the same as win 7 32 bit , hardly anything different between them 1-2% performance in arma2 mark.

Dont know what its like under a 64bit OS ( not much written for 64bit game wise anyway ) so it would probably be slower under 64bit.

fraps used to generate fps when testing using single player mission 4

2009-06-21 09:23:23 - arma2
Frames: 21551 - Time: 425261ms - Avg: 50.677 - Min: 6 - Max: 63 - settings normal - post off

2009-06-22 01:07:56 - arma2
Frames: 10067 - Time: 271322ms - Avg: 37.104 - Min: 8 - Max: 61 - all high post on

2009-06-22 01:13:22 - arma2
Frames: 14943 - Time: 400764ms - Avg: 37.286 - Min: 25 - Max: 62 - all high post on


2009-06-22 01:21:52 - arma2
Frames: 14007 - Time: 363573ms - Avg: 38.526 - Min: 27 - Max: 61 - all high post low

2009-06-22 01:29:23 - arma2
Frames: 21630 - Time: 495178ms - Avg: 43.681 - Min: 25 - Max: 63 - all high post off

Hope this helps in deciding what to tweak in settings
 
I don't have Vista, but comparing XP 32bit and Windows 7 64bit, the performance is roughly the same .... BUT, I got a feeling it's better on Windows 7, mainly because there seems to less loading pauses and in general, gameplay just feels less sluggish on Win7.

I still need to do more testing though.
 
wunkley said:
Regarding performance I have one thing to say - USE WINDOWS XP. I knew I'd kept a dual boot system for a reason, and only now have I found it!

I really cannot enphasise this enough, but I was getting awful frame rates and stuttering in vista 64. I thought to try it under XP (32 bit) and the difference is absolutely unbelievable!

I literally get double, sometimes triple the frame rates I was getting in Vista64 now using XP. On my set up at least, Vista clearly has major issues with the game as it stands (1.2 patch applied). For example, in the training missions performace with vista was great - often got 6ofps (can't turn off vsync in vista). But, in any of the 'scenario' single player missions or campaign I would only get around 30fps max. Mostly 25-30 with dips and stutters below that.

I'd read this game likes quad core and was reluctantly thinking that may be the problem, but as a last ditch attempt thought to try under XP.

Under XP, playing the 'scenario' missions (1 and 3 I use for testing, 3 being the most intense) I now get 30fps as a minimum and it mostly runs along at 45-70ish in mission 1 (turning off vsync in catalyst control panel works under XP). This is with the graphics settings all at high except terrain and object at normal, view distance 2000. I can even set 3D resolution at 133% to get 'fake' AA and still get this fantastic performance.

THE MOST IMPORTANT graphics setting I have found that affects smoothness, for me anyway, is the video memory one. I had it set at 'very high' as I have a 4870x2, but I think this setting may be for 'true' 2BG cards, that don't yet exist. On very high setting performance would fluctuate wildly. Selecting 'high' gives me the best and smoothest performance.

The other thing to do, is if you've been messing around with all your graphics settings - delete the Arma2 folder (containing your config file) in your documents and start again. This also helped me a lot.
Click to expand...


what about on win 7?
 
Loowi_ashley said:
Well this is a little silly, the day before this game landed on my doorstep I upgraded my computer and overclocked.

Here are my specs:-

i7 920 @ 4.02GHZ
6GB Patriot Viper @ 1602MHZ
GTX 295 @ 680/1200/1400
Asus P6T

My ARMA 2 settings are 1680*1050, all VERY HIGH, 1600 view distance and 150% (cant remember the setting name) Patched to 1.02.

The first mission at night im getting between 18-28FPS :eek:

The opening screen with the boat starts at 40FPS and drops to around 34FPS, training mission give high 20's.

Yes I know im running it on very high settings but come-on, it shouldnt be this bad!!!
Click to expand...

Two things:
I assume the 150 % is fillrate optimizer ? then you are rendering in 2520x1575 resolution that gets downsampled to 1680x1050 on your screen.

Have you checked that you are actually utilizing both GPU cores ?
 
Found a sweetspot for settings on my slightly ageing system, most settings very high but fillrate 100%, terrain detail low, shadows and object detail normal. Getting 3600 Arma Mark and FPS in campaign between 35-60fps (will drop to mid 20's in the larger towns). 2500 view distance. 1440x900.

Windows 7 (not tweaked apart from services recomended with Black Viper web)

E6570 @3.4
4850 512mb
4gb PC6400

AFAIK Terrain Detail, Object detail and Fill rate are the big killers. (And view distance too ofc). Unless you have a Cray supercomputer I think there will be an element of compromise somewhere!
 
DennisK4 said:
Two things:
I assume the 150 % is fillrate optimizer ? then you are rendering in 2520x1575 resolution that gets downsampled to 1680x1050 on your screen.

Have you checked that you are actually utilizing both GPU cores ?
Click to expand...

Yes fillrate optimizer thats right, is it best to leave this on 100% and wait till AA is enabled?
How do I check both GPU's? their enable in nvidia tools.
 
jonneymendoza said:
what about on win 7?
Click to expand...

DennisK4 said:
Anectdotal evidence from the last couple of weeks suggest to me that it plays significantly better on XP and Win7 than Vista.
Click to expand...



This guy seems to be getting 10fps less with Windows 7.

wombraider said:
With arma2 mark its better to run once straight thru
then run again ( this time it rules out any buffering issues)
Take this second mark as the score

Specs as below:
1920 x 1200 - all normal settings except post processing which is low

xp sp3 182.06 drivers arma ver 1.01 = 5259
xp sp3 186.18drivers arma ver 1.02 = 5425.71

Win 7 arma ver 1.02 = 4243
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the XP info guys. If this true then I will be pleased that I bought and installed XP last week to boot along with Vista. I will try this out when I get home.

wunkley we have very similar setups other than you having a 4870 X2 which I think does not make as much difference as it should, as the cpu appears to be the bottleneck.

I do not have a problem with the fact that I cannot run the game on the highest settings. I do however take issue with the fact that turning everything down makes little or no difference (3fps). The engine appears to have limited scaling capability which I think is big mistake for any game no matter the niche market.
 
Loowi_ashley said:
Yes fillrate optimizer thats right, is it best to leave this on 100% and wait till AA is enabled?
How do I check both GPU's? their enable in nvidia tools.
Click to expand...

You can use AA now if you use patch 1.02 and tweak the .cfg file, but it removes shadows...
I think they plan to implement FSAA in a future patch.
The fillrate optimizer at 150% or 200% really improves visual fidelity but is a killer on the framerate...

You can use GPU-Z to check if both GPUs are used.
 
1680*1050, all VERY HIGH, 1600 view distance and 150%
Click to expand...

rendering at 2520 x 1575 :D



jonneymendoza said:
is that a PS2 game? umm im sure my iphone could run that game whatever it is
Click to expand...


cant be long now

zvr7fr.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom