Hi SneakyPete, what view distance setting do you use? It could be because the videocard is loading more detail onto the screen because the Default setting uses more memory, whereas with lower settings the game loads lower quality versions so it does not max out the memory which is more performance friendly but the quality wouldn't be as good.

It might be hard to tell the difference at the moment because I believe the vegetation is currently bugged somehow. The developer said they were reworking it, so something must be wrong with it at the moment.

Mace, what bug is it you are looking to have solved? I've just reviewed the thread in hopes of helping, but I can't find where you mention what's breaking your game.

Hi Phazon,

My view distance is set to around 3000.

I think a few of the graphics settings are a bit screwed up as most do very little to my frame-rates (except vid mem). In general my frame rates in mp or against the AI in Blitzkrieg are 50-80 but around 25-55 in the campaign missions with the same settings which makes the campaign feel pretty sluggish. No real moans from me as I realise others have very poor frame-rates and stability but I'd like to see an improvement in the very slow and ugly texture loading especially when using zoom somewhere down the line if possible. I did read as you said that the devs were aware of the problem and solution so hopefully a fix won't be too long. I do feel there is a problem with the in game AA causing CTDs though.

I did alot of testing tonight on various settings and FPS, nothing really affected my framerate that much short of the texture settings or the 3D resolution which has a massive impact on visual quality. I get roughly 60 fps in the open field-like areas, but forests and towns halve that to 30. Its still perfectly playable, but it does give a somewhat choppy experience when you are looking in one direction that gives you good FPS then you look another and you lose FPS.

I find the vegetation and trees to be a big hit on FPS, and buildings hurt as well. Its expected of course as its alot of objects to render, but I can't help but think I do believe the developers can help make things better by doing some optimisation work.

As I noted before one developer today mentioned that they are going to rework the vegetation, which will hopefully drain less FPS and reduce the draw issues with them. The post in question is here: http://forum.iron-front.com/showthread.php?350-trees&p=2836&viewfull=1#post2836

There is nothing that can be fixed by us only the devs as they have already stated that they know about it and know how to fix it which is why I was pissed off it hasn't been.

It's blocky, low-res, morphing trees and bushes, low-res textures on buildings popping in and out. And it's nothing to do with setting the video memory to default before you suggest that as it happens on all graphics settings.

ARMA2 OA works perfectly at high/Very High.

For other Nvidia card users-supposedly setting IFL44 to the Arma2 profile in Nvidia Inspector increases performance, although I haven't tried it yet.

I hope they sort the CTD's as it's becoming frustrating, it pretty much crashes every time I play for over 15 minutes, I can just about ignore the trees and grass changing detail as I zoom but that kills it for me!

Must say though, I hope the devs come through as I was really looking forward to this one because of the setting.

It's funny as ARMA 2 works great on my system, here's hoping it's just a hiccup!

I have a i7 2600k, 8 gigs of DDR3, and a ASUS GTX580 DirectCU II on Windows 7 x64, all my other games work flawlessly.

Sounds to me Mace (and not being offensive here), that your problems are more eye-candy than game-breaking bugs?

With a genre so devoid of titles it's tough for me to get too upset. I'd rather have a buggy game that's getting fixed then nothing at all.

Erm, no not really unless you like playing against a constantly shifting landscape. Try spotting someone against that, it isn't easy and with textures appearing and disappearing it's not easy to concentrate.