Game runs smooth at all settings max, 1600x1200

[hansgrubber.xw 0]

30 to 40 fps is not what in my opinion is called smooth , smooth is 70 fps

[karl76 0]

Cavry, what video card driver are you using? I have a very similar PC and I definitly have performance issues after a certain time passes and once the VRAM is completely filled.

[Scillion 0]

70?

I don't know if I have ever had 70 on any good FPShooter. I do like Frame Rate over pretty though.

I plan to build a system in the next few months with simular specs. Your system, though a few months old is more than I can afford. I'll have lower cost memory, one hard drive and not have the ability to overclock as high. Trying to get a video card with dx 10.

Hope it still runs pretty smooth. You might give us a few FPSecond from FRAPS. One in city, one in forest and one in open.

Right now I can run with everything On highest setting in forest at a smooth 6 FPS.

[NeMeSiS 11]

30 to 40 fps is not what in my opinion is called smooth , smooth is 70 fps

Mate, even OFP doesnt run on 70FPS on modern PCs, and it probably never will, its just not how the game works.

30 should do for most people, hell, 20-25 is fine as long as its stable, id rather have a stable 22FPS then unstable between 25-80FPS.

[JdB 151]

The minimum FPS required for the human eye to work properly is around 25-30. More = better of course.

[interesting link]

[sanctuary 19]

The minimum FPS required for the human eye to work properly is around 25-30. More = better of course.

[interesting link]

Very interesting link indeed, it explains perfectly why despite all the "24 fps is enough for the human eyes" statements , when playing a FPS anyone can feel easily a real difference between having 24 fps and having 70.

Then having -constant- fps would then be another plus , as the eye notice a very lot any framerate drop , even if the number always stay over those "24"

[fasad 1]

Mate, even OFP doesnt run on 70FPS on modern PCs, and it probably never will, its just not how the game works.

I have both FRAPS and kegetys dxdll reporting OFP running at up to 220 fps (while looking at the ground) in windowed mode! I don't know how that is possible given my refresh rate is 85hz. OFP is generally capped by your refresh rate. Maybe that is the number of simulation cycles it is running?

I'm using a 9600xt, which is now 3 generations out of date, but I can play ArmA at low details (20-40fps). Even on low settings it is better looking than OFP. Reduced viewdistance is the only thing worse than OFP, and that is only because the demo missions fix the viewdistance. I plan on buying a 7600/7800 (agp).

There is a free 11kb program called FPS Compare. It allows you to display game style graphics at two different framerates on screen at the same time. It can also give you a headache!

edit: for what its worth, if run OFP in a 640x480 window, I can get ~600 fps! Smooooooth

[Shashman 0]

For some strange reason, OFP is now running worse than ArmA on my rig, which isn't the best available:

XP 3800+

1gig DDR

Gainward Bliss 7800GT 512 Golden Sample

With all graphics options set to maximum and resolution of 1280x1024 (maximum my LCD can reach) I have an average FPS of 20.74 (used FRAPS benchmark), yet when playing the OFP:R mission, Revenge, my fps average is around 12 (haven't benchmarked yet but it's definitely choppy)

In nVidia control panel, I've disabled most options and put AA and AF to application controlled. Perhaps this is why ArmA runs better, because you can fine tune the display options more than you can in OFP?

Either way, I'm not complaining

[fasad 1]

As a serious contribution, I suggest playing OFP/ArmA at the highest resolution possible, even if it means turning other video options down.

In real life, 20/20 (6/6) vision is meant to be "normal". With a screen resolution of 1600x1200, when you use the the right mouse button zoom (without ironsights) the image you see is still inferior (although close) to the real visual sharpness you should be seeing assuming you have normal vision (by my dodgey maths and unit conversion anyway). Of course that's a game field of vision of ~45 degrees whereas in reality you have 180+.

A higher resolution makes long range combat a lot easier, and that is what OFP/ArmA are all about!

[Shashman 0]

1280x1024 is the most suited resolution for my LCD monitor (18.1") and it certainly looks gorgeous, although to be honest, I'll probably turn it down to 1024x860 as with that I get an average of 30FPS

[Maddmatt 1]

It's ridiculous that some people refuse to believe that ArmA runs fine for some people. If you can't manage your PC properly then it's your own fault. If you have an 8800 and still have performance problems then the game is not to blame.

7800GT and demo runs fine, a friend with a 7600GT also says it runs perfectly. I have seen reports of Radeon 9600s and Geforce 6600s getting decent performance.

So yea, the problem is the user.

[Guest]

It's stupid to buy an 8800GTX now. No DX10 supported games + prices will drop dramatically when there are more and better cards on the market.

Btw. I lieke Armas handling of end plates.

[Maddmatt 1]

It's stupid to buy an 8800GTX now. No DX10 supported games + prices will drop dramatically when there are more and better cards on the market.

Btw. I lieke Armas handling of end plates.

I agree, but some people seem to have no problem wasting money.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Mate, even OFP doesnt run on 70FPS on modern PCs, and it probably never will, its just not how the game works.

I have both FRAPS and kegetys dxdll reporting OFP running at up to 220 fps (while looking at the ground) in windowed mode! I don't know how that is possible given my refresh rate is 85hz. OFP is generally capped by your refresh rate. Maybe that is the number of simulation cycles it is running?

I'm using a 9600xt, which is now 3 generations out of date, but I can play ArmA at low details (20-40fps). Even on low settings it is better looking than OFP. Reduced viewdistance is the only thing worse than OFP, and that is only because the demo missions fix the viewdistance. I plan on buying a 7600/7800 (agp).

There is a free 11kb program called FPS Compare. It allows you to display game style graphics at two different framerates on screen at the same time. It can also give you a headache!

edit: for what its worth, if run OFP in a 640x480 window, I can get ~600 fps! Smooooooth

Mate, you have no idea how much i looked  for that program!

Anyways what i ment was: in OFP the AI seems to have so many loops in their scripts that the FPS is easily reduced to 20-30 when a few groups start fighting eachother, its CPU capped, not GPU

In ArmA its probably going to be the same in a while, but for now our GPU's still struggle with all the bushes

Anyway, the program also shows that having just 30FPS (25 should work also, 20 for some people too) is enough, as long as its stable (doesn go much below, or above it, so in some cases it could be better to lock your FPS on 30, instead of letting it go between 30-70, cause then 30 feels like crap).

EDIT: I looked for a similiar program, but this one is just as good.

[HellToupee 0]

i have 4400 duel core and 7900gt and arma runs fine for a while, it seems in the demo maps late in the game performance just drops, the cti is best example u start off fine, but 20minutes u can barely even shoot a gun.

[Jack-UK 0]

The 'bush lag' is more to do with shaders, the more pixel shaders etc that your graphics card has the better...

Thats the reason why i bought an ATI X1950 PRO instead of an Nvidia card as it had more pixel shaders and stuff, and i dont get very much 'bush lag' at all (theres a slight FPS drop obviously, but it runs very well in bushes)

[MehMan 0]

Geforce 6600s getting decent performance.

I got a 6600GT and I have decent preformance if I don't push it too hard. I get decent preformance on mainly low-normal, if I put it on normal I still have decent preformance but I get LOD loading errors.

[imustkill 0]

i have 4400 duel core and 7900gt and arma runs fine for a while, it seems in the demo maps late in the game performance just drops, the cti is best example u start off fine, but 20minutes u can barely even shoot a gun.

That's because of the lack of a body removal script.

I can't run ArmA or the demo on 1280x1024 (my monitor's resolution) very well, so I drop it to 1024x768 and it's playable for the most part. I have the following specs:

AMD64 2800+ Skt754 o/c 2.0ghz

1gb DDR333

6600GT 128mb AGP8x

Maxtor 200gb ATA Hard Drive

[Maddmatt 1]

Geforce 6600s getting decent performance.

I got a 6600GT and I have decent preformance if I don't push it too hard. I get decent preformance on mainly low-normal, if I put it on normal I still have decent preformance but I get LOD loading errors.

Exactly, so by this we can conclude that anyone with a higher spec machine who is having performance problems is definitely doing something wrong or pushing video settings too high.

[cavry 0]

As per request, here some screens with fps:

Settings:

Intro:

Beach:

City:

Forest:

Mountain:

Best,

Cavry

[-CS-SOBR-1st-I-R- 0]

Sorry if my post has nothing more to say but:

WOW

Mate.... enjoy it... enjoy it for all of us who can not play it as it is meant to be.

[bQMS] SOBR

[cavry 0]

Just some more data (as per request from '5133p39':

My ArmA Mark Score at these settings is 2738.05

Results here

Best,

cavry

PS: Nonwithstanding all the critics here, this is one of the most beautiful games I have seen so far.

[Maddmatt 1]

...

Why don't you use Anti-Aliasing? Even with my 7800GT I have AA on .

[cavry 0]

...

Why don't you use Anti-Aliasing? Even with my 7800GT I have AA on   .

Believe me, you don't need AA on 1600x1200. At the end of the day, even on lower resolutions I would probably not use AA, because it somehow blurries the picture, but this is purely a matter of taste I guess.

[Maddmatt 1]

...

Why don't you use Anti-Aliasing? Even with my 7800GT I have AA on .

Believe me, you don't need AA on 1600x1200. At the end of the day, even on lower resolutions I would probably not use AA, because it somehow blurries the picture, but this is purely a matter of taste I guess.

In my experience, setting it to Low looks good and keeps the sharpness. Low AA looks better than the normal setting. The normal setting seems to make things blurred, though that might be because it is the Nvidia 2xQ setting - which makes things blurry.