My Rig.

[J.Agnew7]

Hey guys.

I've been thinking, and I checked over the Recommended requirments for ArmA, and got really confused. I am pulling anywhere from 25 down to 3-5 FPS. And it's usually on the lower en(-11). I am completly lost on why it is doing this. the Recommended requirements are:

Recommended Specification:

* CPU: 3 GHz
* RAM: 1 GB
* Video Card: Nvidia 6800 and above or ATI x800 and above with at least 256 MB RAM
* Free HD Space: 3 GB (or more as needed for downloadable addons)
* Software: Windows XP and DirectX 9

My rig is.

Mobo: Asus P5GD1
Intel P4 3.00 GHz
1.5GB RAM(3x512)
ATI Radeon X1600 with 512MB RAM

EDIT: My current Ingame Settings are:

Resolution: 1024x768x32
Visibility: 1200
Terrain Detail: Low
Object Detail: Normal
Texture Detail: Normal
Shading Detail: Very Low
Postprocess effect: Low
Anisotropic filtering: Low
Shadow Detail:Low
Antiailiasing: Low
Blood: Low


Any idea on the problem?

Thanks
Agnew

[AMosely]

Based on your specs it would seem as though your FPS would be better - probably 25-30. In case you don't know, ArmA is an odd game with video settings - often times higher settings and resoltions yield better framerates.

There are several good tips in this thread that you might want to check out for adjusting your settings, as well as how to 'flush' the video in-game.

Good luck.

[JAMerica]

Make sure the VSYNC is turned to off in the control panel for your video card's driver. I don't own an ATI card, but this guide should help:

http://www.tweakguides.com/ATICAT_8.html

Of course make sure you have updated the following:

catalyst drivers
directx (June2007)
openal

[=Sarc=]

Antialiasing will be a pretty big hit on performance. I turn mine off for this game and have had great performance all the time. When I have it on, it's pretty good but tends to get worse when in trees and bushes.

[J.Agnew7]

Thanks for the responses guys. I've gotten my FPS up to around 17 at times. Yet it still dropps dramatically down to the -10 area at times. I would love to know who made the recommended requirments for ArmA, cuz they certianly don't work to well.

Ill keep messing around. Thanks

[=Sarc=]

What settings do you have it on now?

[J.Agnew7]

currently i have:

Resolution: 1024x768x32
Visibility: 1200
Terrain Detail: Normal
Object Detail: Normal
Texture Detail: Normal
Shading Detail: Very Low
Postprocess effect: Low
Anisotropic filtering: Disabled
Shadow Detail:Low
Antiailiasing: Disables
Blood: Low

I hate the Antiailiasing disabled cuz its hard to spot enemy heads over hills. But ill adapt.

[Dick Blonov]

Originally Posted by J.Agnew7

currently i have:

Resolution: 1024x768x32
Visibility: 1200
Terrain Detail: Normal
Object Detail: Normal
Texture Detail: Normal
Shading Detail: Very Low
Postprocess effect: Low
Anisotropic filtering: Disabled
Shadow Detail:Low
Antiailiasing: Disables
Blood: Low

I hate the Antiailiasing disabled cuz its hard to spot enemy heads over hills. But ill adapt.

I have an ATI card too. Try disabling adaptive anti-aliasing (in the catalyst control centre). Then try AA on low in ArmA. Some info on the subject.

Quoted from the article: «Of course, quality adaptive anti-aliasing results in some quite large performance drops in more intense scenes. »

I was getting < 10 FPS in the forest. Now I get >20.

DB

[=Sarc=]

Originally Posted by Dick Blonov

I have an ATI card too. Try disabling adaptive anti-aliasing (in the catalyst control centre). Then try AA on low in ArmA. Some info on the subject.

Quoted from the article: «Of course, quality adaptive anti-aliasing results in some quite large performance drops in more intense scenes. »

I was getting < 10 FPS in the forest. Now I get >20.

DB

I'm not sure how that would help if it runs at 17 FPS without antialiasing. It's possible another video setting or system setup is holding back on performance.

[Dick Blonov]

Originally Posted by =Sarc=

I'm not sure how that would help if it runs at 17 FPS without antialiasing. It's possible another video setting or system setup is holding back on performance.

Yeah, you're probably right.

DB

[Insanatrix]

dont run xfire with arma. there's a 5-10FPS increase =P, cause i always see you on xfire playing arma.

[NoDebate]

Well I am currently searching for a gaming notebook. Here is my best find so far.

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Toshi...oductDetail.do

It's the Satellite X205-S9359 - Toshiba Laptop. From what I've heard it's a gaming monster. All in all it's going to cost me about $2,700, with accessories.

Feel free to take a peek at it. Would it be worth the buy? Or build my own laptop from the bottom up?

[J.Agnew7]

You want a gaming rig. Go visit Alienware. Now there are some kik ass gamin rigs. Of course.. only visit if you got the money.

[Riyker]

AgNew, Arma shells to disk a lot. Do you have fast harddrives? I had a similar problem in BF2 (major video chop) -- but I had a fast video card.

I deleted all the cache and installed a fast Westerd Digital and the problem went away. Not sure if that helps you, but a full, unorganized, and/or slow harddrive may be your problem.

[=Sarc=]

Alienware got bought out by Dell. Dell has some decent gaming laptops and they don't cost an arm and a leg.

I've never looked at building your own laptop. Unless you mean a configurator at some manufacturer site instead of the barebones laptop chassis.

Get the best video card you can find. The video card will be the hugest bottleneck besides the harddrive in a laptop. That Toshiba looks like it has the 8700, which I think is the best. Any lower and it's not really worth it. I have a 8400 on my laptop and it runs ArmA at low settings, 1280x800.