FPS opinion

[rangerpl 13]

My computer is very good but it's not really high-end, but I still get decent framerates (except places like Chernogorsk and other cities).

Typically, less than 15 FPS is unbearable, 16-25 is annoying but playable and 25+ is playable. I always get a framerate jump while in aircraft due to the game not having to render grass.

[EDcase 87]

Anyone who has low fps (25 or lower) might be worth testing to see if it feels better by turning ON Triple Buffer in gfx drivers. You don't have to turn on VSync.

[Mr. Charles 22]

Anything under 50 is unplayable

kiddin, bring me over 20 and i am happy, over 40 is jizztastic

[liquidpinky 11]

I find over 25 is acceptable, under it and I start to feel the input lag etc.

The higher the FPS, the better of course. :)

[paragraphic l 2]

May be useful to know what people find acceptable for mission editors, though a poll would have been nice.

How so? My pc has a hard time getting 30+ FPS on most missions, I like playing with 15+ but how can a mission editor make sure no one goes below that? And still someone who doesn't like less than 30FPS wouldn't enjoy playing on 15FPS but as I said before I can't go 30+ so where does a mission editor make sure who to listen to and who to ignore?

[NeMeSiS 11]

How so? My pc has a hard time getting 30+ FPS on most missions, I like playing with 15+ but how can a mission editor make sure no one goes below that? And still someone who doesn't like less than 30FPS wouldn't enjoy playing on 15FPS but as I said before I can't go 30+ so where does a mission editor make sure who to listen to and who to ignore?

They can estimate based on their own PC. If an old x2 4200+ can run a mission fine, all others can too. If your i7 struggles it is safe to assume that a large part of the community will have even larger troubles to run it.

Though what 'fine' and 'struggling' are largely depends on the outcomes of this topic. Also the reason i said why a poll would have been a good idea.

[nikiforos 450]

NeMeSiS I also believe that a poll would be a good idea but Im not able to start one. I edited my first post but cant find any option to start a poll in the current thread.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I guess you should have made it when you posted the thread, maybe mod can still edit it.

[Saint Warrior 10]

Guys, is it just me or Operation Arrowhead is really much faster game than original Arma II in terms of FPS? I don't play original Arma II but I remember it to be very laggy while OA is giving me 35-80 FPS on all normal settings and 1680 x 1050 resolution with Vsycn disabled and standard 1600 meter visibility. I also noticed that OA does much better job in texture rendering.

My system:

AMD Phenom II X4 940 3.0 Ghz Black Edition

4 GB DDR2 800 Mhz

XFX ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 2GB GDDR5 2x256 Bit Catalyst 11.2

Windows XP 32 Bit

[wipman 1]

Hi, when i'd installed the OA to make the CO, it gave me between 4 to 11fps in one of the campaign missions, while in the ArmA2 during the campaign, in that mission where you're on Electrowhatever (the bigger city) i'd get between 22 to 28fps.

That's why i'd uninstalled the OA and bever gonna install it again, aside of all the stupid things that came with the OA. Let's C ya

[NeMeSiS 11]

Hi, when i'd installed the OA to make the CO, it gave me between 4 to 11fps in one of the campaign missions, while in the ArmA2 during the campaign, in that mission where you're on Electrowhatever (the bigger city) i'd get between 22 to 28fps.

That's why i'd uninstalled the OA and bever gonna install it again, aside of all the stupid things that came with the OA. Let's C ya

Sounds like you did an awesome job at troubleshooting. :p

[Smurf 12]

Too much hate in this heart...

[wipman 1]

Hi, yeah man, i'd paid for something and what i'd get was F-Snake Oil, of course that im angry with BIS; i'd keept many people happy and playing to the ArmA wiz my custom faces even when they complained more than i, about the game; and this is what i'd get in return of my 20 bucks: über-crap.

The ArmA2 & OA are so stupidly made that you can't even make the custom faces work properly in game, the damn characters glow in the darkness as the damn medic on the ArmA's Queen's Gambit; what they were doing instead working on the game!? drink? go out wiz hookers? hookers and heroin...!? because is the only explain that i see to so much lazyness and few care on their products. It's as if you go to buy a car but they sell you a car with various hits, no lights, a door of other colour... rust on the lower and a trunk door that don't closes. The amount of bugs and their obviety and magnitude is only propper of a bunch of irresponsibles, that's MHO omiting all the swearing that i'll add to explain this. Let's C ya

[f00 10]

I have my config optimised for 76-90 fps on foot (with grass) and in-flight about 76 fps

http://i53.tinypic.com/2r3jbkp.jpg

Edited April 15, 2011 by f00

[VanhA-ICON 11]

I've never checked my fps. If it runs smooth enough for me I find it irrelevant to keep an eye on that.

[f00 10]

I've never checked my fps. If it runs smooth enough for me I find it irrelevant to keep an eye on that.

seriously ??? suggest you get hold of FRAPS:

http://www.fraps.com/

and run it without recording in-game so you can see what FPS you're getting as it makes all the difference to gameplay.

[NeMeSiS 11]

and run it without recording in-game so you can see what FPS you're getting as it makes all the difference to gameplay.

Personally i cant really enjoy the game when i am constantly worrying about my FPS. Currently my FPS is playable and further tweaking wont help, so i just turned it off and play the damn game instead.

[MulleDK19 21]

Anything under 60 FPS is unacceptable to me. I notice if it drops to 55. And I'd rather something higher. I can feel the difference between 60 and 100.

[f00 10]

Anything under 60 FPS is unacceptable to me. I notice if it drops to 55. And I'd rather something higher. I can feel the difference between 60 and 100.

couldn't agree more :)

[76 0]

Personally i cant really enjoy the game when i am constantly worrying about my FPS. Currently my FPS is playable and further tweaking wont help, so i just turned it off and play the damn game instead.

Damn straight, ArmA is a game that doesn't need a high FPS, there just isn't the speed of movement that requires it.

That said it is nice to have a brag-able FPS but gtfoi and play the game ;)

[f00 10]

Damn straight, ArmA is a game that doesn't need a high FPS, there just isn't the speed of movement that requires it.

That said it is nice to have a brag-able FPS but gtfoi and play the game ;)

I prefer smooth fluid gameplay vs "oooh isnt it pretty ahhhhh"

http://www.armaholic.com/forums.php?m=posts&p=54150

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Damn straight, ArmA is a game that doesn't need a high FPS, there just isn't the speed of movement that requires it.

That said it is nice to have a brag-able FPS but gtfoi and play the game ;)

The lower your FPS the worse your recoil is, from my experience.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I prefer smooth fluid gameplay vs "oooh isnt it pretty ahhhhh"

http://www.armaholic.com/forums.php?m=posts&p=54150

Cool and all, but lowering your settings doesnt help fuck if you are CPU limited (which, in the end, everyone is), might as well well get the maximum detail without hurting your FPS. :rolleyes:

EDIT:

The lower your FPS the worse your recoil is, from my experience.

Also, the lower your rate of fire.

Edited April 16, 2011 by NeMeSiS

[Infam0us 10]

Above 30 ...