Enigma 1 Posted December 27, 2006 Here are my stats: Asus P4P 800 Deluxe 2.8c GHZ (Intel) Saphire X1650 Pro (AGP) PC3200 2 X 512mb Audigy 2zs Now I have to run the game on LOW on EVERYTHING. The only things that is on normal is textures. Then I have Antristroptic and shadows turned off. I run it at 1280x1024x32. Using Teamspeak overlay I get about almost 30 FPS in the country but in citys it will drop down to 15. BUT in a firefight my frames will drop especially in a city to the point where it is a slideshow. In a firefight in a city my FPS will get down to 9-12 and it is simply unplayable. Is this a game issue or is it just my computer? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lee_h._oswald 0 Posted December 27, 2006 Game. MfG Lee Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
twoodster 0 Posted December 27, 2006 Computers that can run this game on high haven't been invented yet. Come back in 20-25 years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lee_h._oswald 0 Posted December 27, 2006 Computers that can run this game on high haven't been invented yet. Come back in 20-25 years. Wrong, they are available right now. But the engine needs to be optimized. We have to wait for another patch. MfG Lee Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BraTTy 0 Posted December 27, 2006 He didn't say he was trying to run it on high. From what I see ,I am wondering if 1280x1024 is too much for your system, prolly low refresh and at the verge of your monitor and video card freq limits Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Visceral_Syn 0 Posted December 27, 2006 i'd go with 1280*1024 being to much for his vid card. i'm running: Pentium-d 830 3.0ghz Asus P5ND2-SLI Deluxe nforce4 MSI 6800 GT PCI-X 2Gb DDR2-667 (mixd, 2*512 GEiL DDR2-667/2*512 Crucial Ballistix DDR2-800) Creative Audigy 2ZS Platty and at 1024*768, i'm getting on average 34fps, in a firefight its dropped as low at 18fps. All settings on normal, Post Processing on low, AF at Very High and FSAA on low, Shadows on Low, and viewrange at 1250 ( or close to it ) ...Syn... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enigma 1 Posted December 27, 2006 I'm running the game at 75 hertz the same refresh rate as my monitor. Should I drop both down to 60 hertz? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaSquade 0 Posted December 27, 2006 Well (my .50) if you don't have the latest high-end hardware, you will need to make compomises. Personally i couldn't play on less then 72-75hz, but that is me. Not sure if it makes a big improvement (performence vs quality). Depending on your monitor, going a step back in resolution can make a bigger improvement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Homer Johnston 0 Posted December 27, 2006 refresh rate doesn't have an effect on the number of frames per second your CPU/video card can produce (the running speed of the game)... but generally, if your monitor is capable of using a higher refresh rate it is better, easier on your eyes... your monitor is a strobe light, the refresh rate is sorta just how many times per second it flashes a picture Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
binkster 0 Posted December 27, 2006 I would say hopefully bis will come out with a patch that will help low end computers. If not you might need to buy a better computer. I built one just for armed assault and I also use teamspeak overlay. Im getting around 72fps in less dense areas and around 50 in cities. And sometimes depending on the mission it gets in the 40s. This is with all settings on high or medium. I keep view distance around 1500 and I maxed out my resolution. I also noticed improvement if you put your resolution the same as your Windows. I invested in a e6600 overclocked with 8800gtx. Im sure most people wont fork out the money but its worth it to me. Also you might check out the the thread Here This improved load time, and now my map switching is almost instant. I read also since the map is streaming then it can help with fps as it streams the terrain. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cooee 0 Posted December 28, 2006 Might be time to weigh into this debate. It's a strange beast this game, some computers love it, lots dislike it......... My spects are : AMD 3800 duel core @ 2.2 7900GT @ 495MHz/1410MH 2gig ram Hercules Games theater I'm running the game @ Quality preference: Very high Visibility: 2046 Res: 1280x1024x32 Aspect:16:10 75hz Terrain: Very High Anisotropic: Normal Objects: High Shadows: High Texture: Very High Antialiasing: Normal Shading: High Blood: High Postprocess effects: High Game looks fantastic and runs like a dream. In open areas 70-80fps And 50-60fps in the bush or when all hell breaks loose. I've mucked around with it for days now, and this seems to be the best l can come up with. (Not computer literate by a long shot) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
S.O.S 0 Posted December 28, 2006 I heard theres a problem with certain pretty fast intel cpus which makes the game even with a 8800 very slow. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Goldenwings2002 0 Posted December 28, 2006 Intel Core 2 Duo e6700 - Overclocked to 3.33GHZ XFX 8800 GTX 768MB Video Card eVGA 680i Motherboard 2GB Corsair DDR2 Memory ___ Game runs like crap if I put shading detail on normal, high, very high. Game Resolution & Aspect Ratio: 1600x1200x32 - 16:10 Game Specs: Visibility: 3076 Terrain Detail: Very High Objects Detail: Very High Texture Detail: Very High Shading Detail: Low Postprocess effects: Low Anisotropic Filtering: Very High Shadow Detail: Very High Antialiasing: Low Blood: High With these settings and my rig the game runs great in every place including the bushes. However shading detail plays a huge roll for me which shouldn't be the case. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaSquade 0 Posted December 28, 2006 Sad to read your post Goldenwings2002 (as i'm planning to buy same thing, just asus stuff). Especially sad to read it doesn't performe that good very where i though it should of scored high...Antialiasing, Postprocess effects and Shading Detail :s (are we..me..expecting again to much of current hardware). Anyway, thanks for reporting. Guess it is in BI hands again... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris Death 0 Posted December 28, 2006 refresh rate doesn't have an effect on the number of frames per second your CPU/video card can produce (the running speed of the game)... but generally, if your monitor is capable of using a higher refresh rate it is better, easier on your eyes... your monitor is a strobe light, the refresh rate is sorta just how many times per second it flashes a picture Refresh rate does have an effect on the frame rate. If i set refresh rate on 60 my highest frame rate is 60 fps while on 85hz i get 85 fps at highest. Not sure though if you ment that by your statement that it doesn't have influence, but you can't overcome the limit of refresh rate with frames being displayed. ~S~ CD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeMeSiS 11 Posted December 28, 2006 but you can't overcome the limitof refresh rate with frames being displayed. Turn off vsync, which should be done anyway too overcome that horrible mouse lag (also turn off flip queue size (Ati cards) or render frames ahead (nvidia cards, get coolbits) And well, the refreshrate doesnt have any impact on the FPS at all, in your case it just allowed it to go higher, but it cant make your FPS worse (or better, you are just highering the limit, unless vsync blabla see above) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris Death 0 Posted December 28, 2006 Well ofpforum, my point was only that you can't get higher fps than refresh rate - some ppl don't even know this and are wondering why their fps is sooooo low even if it should be higher. Don't wanna say that it's common to run the system with 40/50 hz ref-rate but it has happened. ~S~ CD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeMeSiS 11 Posted December 28, 2006 Well ofpforum, my point was only that you can't get higherfps than refresh rate - some ppl don't even know this and are wondering why their fps is sooooo low even if it should be higher. Like i said, you can, turn of vsync. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris Death 0 Posted December 28, 2006 lol - you said turn off V-Sync to overcome that horrible mouse lag. I ain't got mouse lag and the game is running very smooth for me - should i turn it off though? ~S~ CD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeMeSiS 11 Posted December 28, 2006 lol - you said turn off V-Sync to overcome that horriblemouse lag. I ain't got mouse lag and the game is running very smooth for me - should i turn it off though? It helps against both There is no reason to turn if off if everything works properly, and i just read that it doesnt work properly on LCDs.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris Death 0 Posted December 29, 2006 Well, i tried it anyways and fps boosted up even more. In menu over 100 (can't remember anymore exactly). Minimum fps i'm getting now like when looking with binocs into a tree or bush = around/over 40, but only a few secones then it's at 55. Normal in town is around 60fps. I'm not quite sure if this frame rate increase makes sense though because the eye doesn't take note of it in comparisation to V-Sync on, where my lowest fps was 28. What's the price for turning V-sync off? (i dunno) Should i let it off anyways or does it affect other games then too?. Like i said - frame rate went even higher, but it was running smooth only before too (with v-sync on). ~S~ CD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aus_twisted 0 Posted December 29, 2006 Well, i tried it anyways and fps boosted up even more.In menu over 100 (can't remember anymore exactly). Minimum fps i'm getting now like when looking with binocs into a tree or bush = around/over 40, but only a few secones then it's at 55. Normal in town is around 60fps. I'm not quite sure if this frame rate increase makes sense though because the eye doesn't take note of it in comparisation to V-Sync on, where my lowest fps was 28. What's the price for turning V-sync off? (i dunno) Â Should i let it off anyways or does it affect other games then too?. Like i said - frame rate went even higher, but it was running smooth only before too (with v-sync on). ~S~ CD The only real effect having vsync off in ArmA is you can sometimes see 2 different frames on your screen at the same time which causes a vertical line accross the center of the monitor, this usualy happens when the player or view is moving fast and is more noticable when you have objects close by. The other effect vsync off has which really wont matter for ArmA currently anyway is you cannot keep your FPS at a constant framerate like say 60, 75 or 85 FPS etc. Having vsync on will limit your framerate to your monitors refresh rate which is a better option if your PC can run FPS constantly at the monitors refresh rate which will give the user far smoother gameplay because the framerate is not jumping around and you will never have 2 different frames displayed at once like I explained above. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris Death 0 Posted December 29, 2006 So if it's running fine with V-sync on then better run it with V-sync - right? ~S~ CD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeMeSiS 11 Posted December 29, 2006 So if it's running fine with V-sync on then better run it withV-sync - right? ~S~ CD Well, vsync on seems to cause mous lag for alot of people (including me). If i dont turn it off aiming is very crappy and ruins the game. (In other games i always have it on though, as normally its better to have it on) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites