FPS drop in 78188 compared to 1.57

[no use for a name 0]

Well after testing some more, even with AOTC=7 I didn't see any performance drop from 1.57-->78188 beta. I re-enabled VSYNC and that smoothed out the "jerky" camera panning (of course), and made it a LOT smoother, w/o the 'laggyness' that most people complain about.

AA=Off

AF=Very High

3D Res=100%

Objects=High

Textures=High

Terrain=Normal

Shadows=High

PP=Low

Vsync=Enabled

Tried a few different stock missions w/o any mods and it seemed to be the same, if not better, than any version before.

35FPS in the Benchmark mission; and ~30-40FPS avg. in most other missions.

Edited February 13, 2011 by No Use For A Name

[sickboy 13]

(I really enjoy working for this community - I appreciate that instead of just complaining you are willing to put a significant effort into this.)

Your and the rest of BI's support is examplary in comparison to other companies, it is at least for me a source of motivation and inspiration ;-)

[Fireball 16]

Here come the screenshots; somehow higher quality equals higher FPS to me comparing 1.57 with 1.58 BETA:

1.57: http://www.zerouptime.ch/files/arma2oa_2011-02-13_17-31-56-08.jpg

1.58 BETA: http://www.zerouptime.ch/files/arma2oa_2011-02-13_17-34-17-28.jpg

:confused:

[suma 8]

Well, it didn't take long. The low fps and stuttering starts with 76934.

This means some revisions between 76934 and 76815 must have caused this.

I can see two changes in this range which could be related:

[76930]  Fixed: More reliable VRAM detection on Vista/Win7 (using DXGI).  
[76871]  Reduced lod switching in dense (forsest, town) scenes.

I think it is more likely the "Reduced lod switching" is causing this, as it is likely to cause better LODs to be used in some situations. If this is the case, I am afraid it will be hard to "fix" it, as it is impossible to have both: high quality and high speed. You might check if perhaps reducing the object detail would help.

[Fireball 16]

I think it is more likely the "Reduced lod switching" is causing this, as it is likely to cause better LODs to be used in some situations.

I'm pretty sure it's this, which would explain why the screenshots/view differ for me so significantly. What it does not explain is the better performance in 1.58 BETA for me...

EDIT: It's probably the improved VRAM detection on Win7... ;-)

Edited February 13, 2011 by Fireball

[celery 8]

You might check if perhaps reducing the object detail would help.

My object detail is already at low and switching to very low yields only a couple of frames.

These are my settings:

Texture detail: normal

Video memory: very high

AF: normal

AA: off

Terrain detail: very low

Object detail: low

Shadow detail: normal

HDR quality: normal

PP: off

V-sync: on

Changing any of these settings (including video memory) has no effect on the beta's worse performance.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Celery

[pauliesss 2]

I had the same problem(http://dev-heaven.net/issues/17145#note-5).

I solved this by changing Video Memory from Very High to Default. However, there is still noticeable FPS drop when aiming to areas with high density of trees and bushes, but this "problem" is here since the release of ArmA2, especially on deciduous trees.

[mosh 0]

Great, thanks a lot, I am looking forward to see the result.

(I really enjoy working for this community - I appreciate that instead of just complaining you are willing to put a significant effort into this.)

The feeling is mutual. We really enjoy working with you all as well.

I clearly got better performance with newest beta (only one I tried today with your test, Celery) over 1.57 during the first round of tests.

I then used FRAPS to document it and results were about the same, with FRAPs slowing everything down of course.

1.57

G1dstAQr-CU

BETA 78188



k_wzsa2jBwM

If there's anything else I can test let me know, or any settings or certain beta I should try. Those were my PvP settings, usually I bump it a little higher for coop, with AA on. I like the new atoc thing...

[Beagle 684]

I see a minimal drop in fps in benchmark 08 from 33fps to 31fps, but benchmarks scene is much smoother and has no visible texture switching. I would call it a better performance since FPS is not the main aspect...I don't prefer higher fps but with texture and LOD swapping.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Beagle

[suma 8]

What it does not explain is the better performance in 1.58 BETA for me...

It is a bit counter-intuitive, but sometimes (depending on GPU, resolution and tree size on the screen) using better LODs for trees may give better performance. While better LODs have more vertices (increased vertex shader load), they also often cover smaller area (reduced pixel shader load), therefore sometime the pixel shader savings more than compensate for vertex shader loads. This is something I would like the engine to be able to consider directly in the LOD selection - we shall see if and when it will be done.

[.kju 3239]

1.57 - 68-69 FPS

78188 - 65-66 FPS (and way better image quality)

I added before the cam code:

setViewDistance 3000;
setTerrainGrid 3.125;

One interesting observation:

At the first run you get LOD switching etc - ignore this part. It no longer

happens on the second run anyway.

At the start the FPS hovers around 30 FPS for 5-15 seconds.

After that time it jumps to 65-70 and remains there.

[Tonci87 163]

Oh boy, if only ATOC would work for me. I get Trees covered with white dots and a FPS decrease .

HD5850 Sapphire Toxic with 10.10 catalyst driver here

[vohk 10]

Oh boy, if only ATOC would work for me. I get Trees covered with white dots and a FPS decrease .

HD5850 Sapphire Toxic with 10.10 catalyst driver here

Given the 12.12 or 11.1/11.1a a try? I'd already moved past the 10.10 by the time ATOC was implemented, no problems other than some very minor white spotting (oddly enough, not usually around trees). Using 2x5850s, had an FPS increase with the 11.1 and the recent betas.

[AnimalMother92 10]

I'm also having a huge FPS drop with the new betas when looking through scopes at vegetation, as reported @ http://dev-heaven.net/issues/17585

No beta - 60 fps

No beta - 38 fps

With beta - 54 fps

With beta - 14 fps :eek:

Using Atoc=7 with the beta. GTX 285 with latest drivers. Windows 7.

[Fireball 16]

Using Atoc=7 with the beta. GTX 285 with latest drivers. Windows 7.

How's it when you disable AToC?

EDIT:

AninmalMother92:

I can see what you mean, the diffs in your demo mission for me are in extremis from 25 fps (1.57) down to 18 fps (1.58 BETA) on the red/orange trees. I can clearly see that it's not switching to high LoD in 1.57 final, thus also offering a relativly ugly view considering that I have my video options all yanked to the max, opposed to 1.58 BETA, it's switching to high LoD while scoping onto the trees/bushes. When I adjust Object and Terrain details to Normal (not to mention AA), it was all back up to the performance in 1.57, so I find the change kind of fair (so I do have the options for the better view now).

Edited February 15, 2011 by Fireball

[AnimalMother92 10]

Not my demo, just commenting on that ticket ;)

Anyways, even when I disable Atoc, my FPS still goes into the teens when scoping in.

[Prodavec 10]

So what we can do to return back dropped FPS, because in 1.57 all was ok?

Also FSAA and AToC was turned off. And I have good FPS in MP: 30-35 is minimum, 50-80 is average. With beta using scopes is useless - can't aim with that lagggs.

It's my demo created for CIT ticket :P

fps_test_in_dense.Chernarus

1 435 bytes in 1 file

and 1 dir

Created: 13 feb 2011 г., 20:54:45

Modified: 13 feb 2011 г., 20:29:48

MD5: 8caef119168ae73b12a3dd601f65aff3 *mission.sqm

SHA: 962c8468a0fa19631f294d0d2f1ce440423eb6b5 *mission.sqm

WIN-SFV32: mission.sqm 61F13C54

Edited February 15, 2011 by Prodavec

[Fireball 16]

So what we can do to return back dropped FPS, because in 1.57 all was ok?

Well what happened is, that with higher quality settings you get better looks right now, when I turned down my settings to "Normal" I got my FPS back and had a similar quality as with 1.57.

But I'm out of advice for those who got everything already on low/very low and off - except to buy new hardware. :butbut:

[AnimalMother92 10]

Erm, but scoping in was fine in the last patch. Now I can't even look at a bush through my ACOG without it feeling like molasses.

[Prodavec 10]

Fireball

I do not use higher quality of images for two reasons:

1. It's decreasing FPS that very important in MP

2. It's decreasing your effectivity in MP

And what will I do each time when developers will decide to change drawing quality / algorithms? Upgrade my PC?

I repeat - with OFFICIAL 1.57 all works fine.

I did not order image "improvements". If I need to improve quality of a picture, I will open Settings and I will change it independently.

[Alex72 1]

Not really related since it seems its on Cherna/Utes you have the FPS drops. However as a pleasant surprise for myself in the OA maps i noticed this in the latest build (with AtOC=7).

Takistan:

IMAGE 1 (no scope)

IMAGE 2 (w. scope)

VSYNC = 60FPS max.

Still the AtOC on my ATI card looks rather weird, and the white pixels are there in one of the LOD's. Will check the more lush forests of Cherna and Utes next and see if i get the drop.

Utes:

IMAGE 1 (no scope)

IMAGE 2 (w. scope)

So far the same performance (tested orange trees - same result as above). However i do feel a slight decrease in FPS around villages/vegetion compared to previous build(s). And maybe i either missed something in a changelog or just dont remember how grass was plotted out on the ground, but is there more grass now? Beyond the normal limit around the player i see thinner bunches of grass which i cant recall seeing before. Might be my mind however and i just havent registered it before.

EDIT: Related to FPS drop.

Slight correction about loosing small amount of FPS in villages/towns. Tested running Fallujah city where i normally have minimal FPS drop to have something to compare to BIS made maps, and my gameplay/FPS was pretty jerky in there. So i think i know where you're coming from about the FPS drop talk. I just don't see it in my scope.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Alex72

[Prodavec 10]

Alex72

Which build of arma had you tested?

[ginger mcale 11]

Confirmed here too.

15 frames difference for me with the graphical settings shown in the screenshots. AA disabled of course to have comparable scenarios.

While FPS drop´s in scope are being investigated please take a look at (Huge FPS drop in scope issue reported by me) http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=112646

Hopefully related.

[bensdale 0]

@Alex72

You have 60Fps on orange trees while zooming :eek: ?

Which ArmA II settings you use ?

[Prodavec 10]

bensdale

Yep, users should describe which settings and build they're using or info will be useless.

@Alex72 also unlock your FPS (disable VSYNC) for test, we want to see relative drop of fps. For example you have 120 max fps, with beta 65. Total 45% perfomance drop! But with VSYNC enabled we cant see that because in both cases we will see 60 fps.