Horrible Performance...

[suma 8]

If the HDD makes so much impact on FPS (which I can't believe)

I would have to see some solid evidence before I believe such impact. In a static scene (like when standing near a bush) no HDD loading is happening and HDD should therefore have no impact on frame rate. If the WhiskeyBullets is right and he sees improved fps in such situation only after changing HDD, the only possibility is something was very wrong with his system before (something like HD driver causing excessive bus traffic all the time), which seems quite unlikely.

[NeMeSiS 11]

If the HDD makes so much impact on FPS (which I can't believe)

I would have to see some solid evidence before I believe such impact. In a static scene (like when standing near a bush) no HDD loading is happening and HDD should therefore have no impact on frame rate. If the WhiskeyBullets is right and he sees improved fps in such situation only after changing HDD, the only possibility is something was very wrong with his system before (something like HD driver causing excessive bus traffic all the time), which seems quite unlikely.

Do you have any idea why bushes have such a huge impact on the performance when you are close to them though? I dont see any LOD changes between 5m and 1m from the bushes, yet it cuts the FPS in half (more or less).

[Kevlar2007 1]

@Suma:

I agree, I can't imagine that HDD should have such an impact especially in static scenes.

some questions: Why many people have this FPS drop near some type of bushes and in the forests?

For me it makes the game unplayable in forests and near foliage but in the cities I get almost constant 25 FPS with very low settings.

Is BIS working on this problem to improve the performance and solve problems with foliage?

Thank you for your replay!

[suma 8]

FPS is about 20 on very foresty areas (like in the 'convoy ambush' sp mission) but usually runs at 25-28, except near bushes, can go up to 40-50 on more deserted areas...

Perhaps part of the problem might be different users perceive different performance acceptable? I cannot imagine a game with the scope and detail of ArmA running at constant 60 fps on current level GPUs and CPUs.

I would call performance like quoted "acceptable", however I understand there is plenty of users which compare ArmA with other FPS games which can run 60 fps or more, and they do not care much about explanations why is ArmA different and why it does not run that fast on their computers.

[nubbin77 0]

EDIT: I type too slow. Suma beat me to it. I'm leaving it here anyway though:

I joined this conversation late but I just wanted to clarify something for anyone that might buy into this nonsense.  Whiskey's argument sort of made sense (to some extent).  

However, there is a 100% undeniable test that can prove that a new hard drive won't eliminate the FPS issue around certain areas.

1.  Walk up to your favorite FPS dropping bush.  As you are walking there look at your computer's hard drive activity led light.  you'll notice that there is some HD activity.  Take note of your FPS.

2)  When you get to the bush stop take your hands off the keyboard and mouse and take note of FPS again.  

3)  Look at the HD activity led.  You'll notice now that there is no activity (unless of course you have some spyware or antivirus thing going in the background - your on your own there).  

4)  Wait a minute or 2 - keeping note that there is no HD activity.  Look at the FPS and take note again.  I bet the FPS is the same as in step 2.

Conclusion:  If the FPS is the same in step 4 as it is in step 2, that is 100% conclusive proof that the HD is not the bottleneck in this cirucumstance.  If the HD is not transmitting any data, it has no relavence in the FPS impact of the computer.  

There is the possiblity that a faster, defragged, and with an ARMA install on a drive other than the OS could lead to higher frames while moving around and constantly streaming in new data.  But the above bottleneck would obviously have to be dealt with before this would even become an issue.  

I'm not trying to further this debate, I'm just trying to keep people from running out and buying new hard drives and being disappointed if its not a miracle cure.

[suma 8]

Do you have any idea why bushes have such a huge impact on the performance when you are close to them though? I dont see any LOD changes between 5m and 1m from the bushes, yet it cuts the FPS in half (more or less).

The most likely explanation is the scene is pixel shader limited. The bushes are very dense, and they are very demanding on pixel shaders (high overdraw, alpha testing used, which reduces possibilities of early z).

When you move 2x closer to the bush with no LOD switching, the number of pixels rendered grows 4x. Some solution on our side could be deleting the finest LODs from bush models (or, with the same affect achieved with less drastic means, preventing them to be used).

[Kevlar2007 1]

Do you have any idea why bushes have such a huge impact on the performance when you are close to them though? I dont see any LOD changes between 5m and 1m from the bushes, yet it cuts the FPS in half (more or less).

The most likely explanation is the scene is pixel shader limited. The bushes are very dense, and they are very demanding on pixel shaders (high overdraw, alpha testing used, which reduces possibilities of early z).

When you move 2x closer to the bush with no LOD switching, the number of pixels rendered grows 4x. Some solution on our side could be deleting the finest LODs from bush models (or, with the same affect achieved with less drastic means, preventing them to be used).

Perhaps you could add some sort of Foliage quality settings in preferences so the people can adjust them to the level their Hardware can handle them.

[Jack-UK 0]

Do you have any idea why bushes have such a huge impact on the performance when you are close to them though? I dont see any LOD changes between 5m and 1m from the bushes, yet it cuts the FPS in half (more or less).

The most likely explanation is the scene is pixel shader limited. The bushes are very dense, and they are very demanding on pixel shaders (high overdraw, alpha testing used, which reduces possibilities of early z).

When you move 2x closer to the bush with no LOD switching, the number of pixels rendered grows 4x. Some solution on our side could be deleting the finest LODs from bush models (or, with the same affect achieved with less drastic means, preventing them to be used).

Well hopefully that will explain *why* it happens So no more crap about hard drives

But i mean hopefully you guys could maybe add a setting to lower the amount of shaders necessary? As even those with the high GFX card specs experience quite a dramatic slowdown, a nice option to lower the LOD's would be great!

EDIT: Skullburner beat me to it =)

Also im going to pick up my new GFX card (which i bought purely for this game ) the ATI X1950 PRO 512mb which should hopefully give me a massive performance boost

[suma 8]

Perhaps you could add some sort of Foliage quality settings in preferences so the people can adjust them to the level their Hardware can handle them.

I have checked the current implementation and I see to some extent this should be already implemented. With Shading detail Low or Very low all tree and bush LODs over 1500 polygons are ignored. Perhaps we could make the limit even stricter for Low and Very Low and introduce some limit for Shading Detail = Normal as well.

[Kevlar2007 1]

...

I hope you will get better performance, but I am not sure because some people claim they have performance problems with such cards. Perhaps it is only false expectations of big FPS I don't know but my friend tested Arma Demo and has in some already mentioned areas drops of FPS to 20 FPS regardless the settings.

For me I would be happy to have 25 FPS constantly at least on very low settings.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Perhaps you could add some sort of Foliage quality settings in preferences so the people can adjust them to the level their Hardware can handle them.

I have checked the current implementation and I see to some extent this should be already implemented. With Shading detail Low or Very low all tree and bush LODs over 1500 polygons are ignored. Perhaps we could make the limit even stricter for Low and Very Low and introduce some limit for Shading Detail = Normal as well.

Would it be possible to make a 'custom' option for this so users can fiddle with this on their own?

Anyway, i appreciate it that we get an official word on this

[Jack-UK 0]

Perhaps you could add some sort of Foliage quality settings in preferences so the people can adjust them to the level their Hardware can handle them.

I have checked the current implementation and I see to some extent this should be already implemented. With Shading detail Low or Very low all tree and bush LODs over 1500 polygons are ignored. Perhaps we could make the limit even stricter for Low and Very Low and introduce some limit for Shading Detail = Normal as well.

I think it would be better if you could make a seperate setting maybe? I dont know how difficult that would be to implement...

Because some cards are very capable of running shading in normal/high and stuff.. but the bushes will then cause major slowdowns... and if they have to lower/turn off shading to stop the bushes lagging them then they lose visual quality :S

Just a suggestion...

EDIT: Beaten again

[Kevlar2007 1]

...

I agree!

Some separate setting would be better because we could get better visual settings trough it.

I get only big FPS drops if I look in directions of the trees or bushes so I could set them to less quality leaving everything else on greater quality, but I am not sure if it is possible.

My FPS drop to 7 if I zoom or look on foliage trough the scopes I am not sure if this problem has the same source but you should check this matter also.

@Jack-UK: now you beat me!

[NeMeSiS 11]

My FPS drop to 7 if I zoom or look on foliage trough the scopes I am not sure if this problem has the same source but you should check this matter also.

Maybe this could also be solved if LODs dont switch when zooming in, IIRC this problem was also noticeable in OFP, but it didnt really matter because the performance drop wasn't so big.

(Scopes are quite unusable in forests now, even with shading on low/very low the FPS drops are very high, which is a shame because the rest of the game seems well optimized and runs fine )

[JFK 0]

Hi,

Quote[/b] ]My FPS drop to 7 if I zoom or look on foliage trough the scopes I am not sure if this problem has the same source but you should check this matter also.

I had similiar problems, what shadow setting are u using? Shadow is the only problem i got. If disabled i can turn most other things on high (except AA and AF are normal) without having major fps drops when looking at bushes. Still drops, but only about 5 frames, so still very playable.

Important things i realized, Ati's adaptive Antialiasing caused massive drops. Disable it. Also noticed big performance boost with omega drivers. Maybe better optimized for "older" Ati cards. Imo, the Catalysts only improve newer models.

Btw, a question to Suma:

Have you already tried to implement some kind of dualcore support, and if yes what results did u achieve? Thx

Cya

[Kevlar2007 1]

...

Yeah, it is my observation too.

[Kevlar2007 1]

...

I am running everything on lowest setting, shadows are therefor disabled, still getting this 7 FPS when using scopes and zooming in foliage areas like forests.

Catalyst settings are all on performance and no adaptive AA or anything what could slow it down.

I already tried many drivers for Ati I managed to get better overall performance, but this FPS drop remains.

[Garack 0]

Can only play with minimum 22 FPS in hard fights and big ranged environments/citys in the evening time.

ALL set to very low, exept AA to normal on 1280.

Uff this Game wants a NASA Computer..

[crashdome 1]

Reverse your settings and put everything to Normal and turn off AA. I bet your FPS is better.

[EDIT] A minimum of 22fps is actually pretty good.... or did you mean MAX of 22FPS?

[Dwarden 1124]

i'm sorry for "reopening" that HDD topic ...

but it seems lot of people seems to forgot "CPU" usage hit when device are in use on EIDE/SATA/SCSI controllers ...

in case of "banned" Whiskey his "FPS" increase can simply results from CPU usage drop (for example with IDE disk was usage 15% while with SATA only 5%) ...

with quality controllers (hiend stuff contain own "processing" unit and huge cache, some even additional ram) you can easily drop below to >5% (and with SCSI no problem get >1%)

and for SATA2 vs SATA vs IDE theme, definitely noticeable are higher burst and buffered values on SATA2 ...

his argument of 8MB version of disk being faster than 16MB is incorrect , 

You can easily test that Yourself - buy and compare 2 vs 8 vs 16MB HDDs from same manufacturer, type, serie batch and same interface

just my 2 cents ...

p.s. for these who want crown perf

Hitachi announced that they finalizing 750MB/1TB drives for 1st/2nd quarter with 32MB cache

and "pure" 133 MB/s read&write speeds and You can bet Seagate, Western Digital soon follow) ...

---

now to graphics side of ArmA  i noticed

Quote[/b] ]

The most likely explanation is the scene is pixel shader limited. The bushes are very dense, and they are very demanding on pixel shaders (high overdraw, alpha testing used, which reduces possibilities of early z).

as many know actual Adaptive Anti-Aliasing (ASTT/ASBT) is huge performance hit at ATI cards ...

(hint ASTT = super-sampled Anti-Aliasing on transparent Alpha tests , ASBT = super-sampled Anti-Aliasing on transparent Alpha blends)

and with disabled AAA You get no anti-aliasing on alpha

yet since Catalyst 6.10/6.11 beta You may noticed that ATI is experimenting with EATM = should be alpha coverage on Transparent Alpha tests and blends

(yet some describe it as Alpha test AA which offer alpha coverage on tests instead of transparent alpha blends and tests)

where perf hit is only 50% of AAA yet image quality is even higher ...

it looks and works quite well with ArmA yet there are some "bugs" with shadows etc., my hope BIS is in touch with AMD.ATI over this  

[Potatomasher 0]

Ok. Finally i decided to buy "new" processor.

Before: Athlon64 3000+ 1850Mhz, 2gb mem, GF7600GT

After: Opteron 146 2400Mhz, 2gb mem, GF7600GT

Arma-mark (normal detail 1500m) was 1400 and now after the upgrade it's 1880. Not much, but i guess it's worth the 109 € it cost.

Strange scores here on arma-mark homepage. Lot's of dual core systems got lower score than my even with better GFX card.

Update after some game test:

Actually i'm quite happy now how this runs. I can put almost everything high.

This is very much CPU dependent game like OFP. Not as much, but more than games usually these days.

[dm 9]

Strange scores here on arma-mark homepage. Lot's of dual core systems got lower score than my even with better GFX card.

One has to appreciate that there are a LOT of variables which ArmA-mark doesnt take into account (such as the huge combinations of gfx settings, view distances and whatnot, not to mention the different hardware setups).

Those people getting "low" ArmA-Marks may well have all their settings maxed out, while people getting "high" ArmA-Marks may well have their settings "very low".

ArmA-Mark has to be taken with a pinch of salt, but it does show common performance groups across the board.

[Potatomasher 0]

Strange scores here on arma-mark homepage. Lot's of dual core systems got lower score than my even with better GFX card.

One has to appreciate that there are a LOT of variables which ArmA-mark doesnt take into account (such as the huge combinations of gfx settings, view distances and whatnot, not to mention the different hardware setups).

Those people getting "low" ArmA-Marks may well have all their settings maxed out, while people getting "high" ArmA-Marks may well have their settings "very low".

ArmA-Mark has to be taken with a pinch of salt, but it does show common performance groups across the board.

Yes, it isn't very reliable. Someone with AthlonXP & GF7600GS got 5000. Yeah right.

[crackersficus 0]

OMFG. I cant believe this, i was so excited about this game, so excited and now all we have is a buggy POS....

i will not be buying this game, im getting c2d and various errors because my sound card isnt set to game mode....

and then the low fp2 on a good machine?

i got a e6600, 2 gig ram, 7900GT and im getting 30> fps.....

wtf is going on, this game should not have been released, more testing should have gone into it, gw guys... no really great work, u have pissed off a Op Flash fan.

[NeMeSiS 11]

OMFG. I cant believe this, i was so excited about this game, so excited and now all we have is a buggy POS....

i will not be buying this game, im getting c2d and various errors because my sound card isnt set to game mode....

and then the low fp2 on a good machine?

i got a  e6600, 2 gig ram, 7900GT and im getting 30> fps.....

wtf is going on, this game should not have been released, more testing should have gone into it, gw guys... no really great work, u have pissed off a Op Flash fan.

Fortunately you told us what settings you used so we can help you

EDIT: And whats wrong with >30 fps? Im getting <30fps most of the time