For HIGHT END soluiton only (8800 an dual core)

[Teox 0]

Ok, I finally tested really all the possibility of graphic's setting.

Before my test i got 18/25 fps in a town, and 25/30 fps in a jungle...

So.. my config is:

amd 64 4600 x2

Geffo 8800 gtx

wd sata2 160 gb x 2

kingston 1gb ddr 400 x 2

resolution 1280 x 1024@60 hz (tft screen)

I tryed all you said in this forum before but this morning I tested all possible alternative for my game and...

I've finally found a solution.

I toke like scenery test "paraiso" because is full of buildings and i descovered that if I leave all VERY HIGHT but with post process LOW my fps rate is 56/70 in a city.. and 70/76 in a jungle.

Now I'm sure that the real matter for this game is post processing solution, that's true, maybe the part more beautifull of this game, but the penalty to pay is an unplayable game.

I hope you will try this settings and let me know after the report, obviosly with hight end pc.

[Possessed 0]

The effect of post processing has been discussed already. With those settings, take a car and drive couple of km's and tell what is your FPS then. Without alt-tabbing or menu loading during it.

If I don't move anywhere over 100m from the starting point, I can easily keep everything on very high.

[DaSquade 0]

Not sure what to say, but i thought i was generally know, post process and especially shadows are the most important FPS killers.

As for shadows only a normal cause i would say, especially knowing OFP/VBS only allowed max. 400 faces or was it points (where VBS allowed a bit more, but not much more. Was never confirmed by the way). Now, ArmA allows almost entire (closed) models to cast shadows + selfcasting. So only normal that has a (big) performance hit.

But still don't understand why shaders/post processing would have such big FPS hit. Afaik the 8800 were designed to have better performances regarding shaders, but maybe i'm noob and it turned out to be a market label .

[Possessed 0]

There were no problems with performance with postprocessing=high in 1.04. 1.05 ruined it.

[RogueRunner 0]

Before my test i got 18/25 fps in a town, and 25/30 fps in a jungle...

So.. my config is:

but the penalty to pay is an unplayable game.

Which part of unplayable on 18/25 fps do I not understand?!?

[Dr. Mojo- PhD 0]

The part where to somebody who shelled out enough money to get a machine that can run anything, at any time, it is unacceptable. My rig is similar with SLI cards to boot. I remember cranking up every setting I could in FEAR and FarCry and Half-Life 2 and Oblivion and never, ever, ever once dropping below 50fps.

Cut that in half and it looks like a slide show.

[Teox 0]

Before my test i got 18/25 fps in a town, and 25/30 fps in a jungle...

So.. my config is:

but the penalty to pay is an unplayable game.

Which part of unplayable on 18/25 fps do I not understand?!?

unplayable due a low fps... in MP is not the best tryng aim somebody if you don't reach 30fps as better.

[sickboy 13]

unplayable due a low fps... in MP is not the best tryng aim somebody if you don't reach 30fps as better.

You tried changing those max-render-frames-ahead setting from 3 to 1 as discussed a few times?

Im having no issues whatsoever to aim while having fps ~20

[twoodster 0]

I didn't think it was possible to change the max read ahead on the 8800 cards with the latest drivers? Whenever I try it I get blue screens when I start up games.

[JimLad 0]

Gawd this is so annoying. I tried the maxmem thing but I still get the LOD issues. Running Arma with all options on very high, it looks very tasty indeed - and it runs fine for a few minutes! A taster of what will hopefully come when the 8800 performance problems are solved

[memnoch 0]

The part where to somebody who shelled out enough money to get a machine that can run anything, at any time, it is unacceptable. My rig is similar with SLI cards to boot. I remember cranking up every setting I could in FEAR and FarCry and Half-Life 2 and Oblivion and never, ever, ever once dropping below 50fps.

Cut that in half and it looks like a slide show.

Agreed. I personally consider anything less than 30 unplayable. It's all down to personal perception. Ask you average FPS junkie what his opinion of the latest twitch-fest is and I'm sure they would say anything under 60 is unacceptable. I would have to agree with them to a point.

[Dr. Mojo- PhD 0]

Indeed. As much as there's a topic on the crappiness of the v-sync, if you set your monitor to 75Hz and cap the frame rate at 75fps, this is fine. With enough juice you should never have to drop lower. The reason is that the human eye isn't too good at perceiving anything visually above 75 fps. Cap the games out at 75fps and you can put the graphics processing power towards something else.

There's no reason why anything from a 7900 and above or ATI equivalent should be running ArmA so poorly (ie: 15-20fps, which seems to be the norm), especially in SLI mode.

[Teox 0]

Ok I've tested new configuration for about 4 hours.

Fps seems to be stable, and the GPU don't present overthermical troubles, but after a lot of time, expecially in "Berserk" scenery, due a reachless of tanks and choppers, my memory seems to become crazy...

I've to press alt-tab to reset them and I can go on with the game normally..

Now, dear BIS, is evident that a matter is in... I hope you can solve at soon...

[Possessed 0]

I made more testing also last night and found the optimal settings:

Resolution=1680x1050 (native resolution, the only acceptable option with TFT as you know)

Draw distance=2000m

Terrain: High

Objects: High

Textures: High

Shading: High

Postprocessing: Low

Anisotropic filtering: Very High

Shadows: High

Antialias: Normal (no need for better with 1680x1050)

Forceware Anisotropic sample and filtering optimizations: On.

First I tested with forest-town-forest trips and there were no FPS drop. FPS was 30-50 in forests, 40-60 in towns and over 60 on desert areas. Then I put AI to drive HMMMW (with me onboard) through Sahrani and went to drink some coffee... when I came back the AI driver had made a handbrake turn to the wall in Corazol but anyway, the FPS was on the same level.

These are the graphical settings which I can use to play the game fluently. In massive armored battles FPS tends to drop near 20 but that is acceptable.Hopefully we will get back those great postprocessing effects of 1.04 without 1.05 performance loss.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

The part where to somebody who shelled out enough money to get a machine that can run anything, at any time, it is unacceptable. My rig is similar with SLI cards to boot. I remember cranking up every setting I could in FEAR and FarCry and Half-Life 2 and Oblivion and never, ever, ever once dropping below 50fps.

Cut that in half and it looks like a slide show.

Erm, the fastest intel Quad core Oc'ed monster PC, 8800 SLI GTX on the planet (score 25k with liquid heluim cooling, produces 125% better FPS in 3d mark 06 than my current rig which scored under 8k), see the world record holder on 3dmark. has noted supreme commander on visual HIGH with 3 Ai teams will eat that PC alive i.e. CHUG! FPS = 2!!!!

Company of Heros, with to many AI units can eat any current PC alive. Start using ALT key to swing round the camera and watch a monster PC implode if there are to many units onscreen.

Oblivion, you were running 4x AA Anti Alias, super sample transparency and Correct Gamma AA, on any rig before the 8800 and got better than FPS 50 at 1600+ res outdoors right???or are we talking 1024 res' no aa here?

NO PC can run Crysis at HD with everything High with AA etc and not stutter, the kit to do that comes out in the next 12-24 months. It's been the same since at least Far Cry and will stay the same for along time.

Far Cry ate any geforce FX GPU alive, it took the 6800 to allow AA and 1024 res to produce stable FPS, the 6800 arrived at least 6 months after Far Cry. And on't turn on SSAA on the 6800 LOL.

In both the Alan Wake and current Crysis videos online, created on very high spec kit you can see 20 FPS or below in action in complex scenes.

The lastest 5k, Alienware/Dell top of the range overclocked monster quad core CPU with Dual 8800's can't run everything new or coming soon without some FPS stutters or without having to tame some settings in high res on modern monitors, thats right we are moving to 2000+ res and 50" LCD's.

No single core, 7 series card could run HL2 at 4xaa with Super sample etc everything high 1280 res+ and always be over 30 FPS. only a 8800 can do that, so it took 24 months for a perfect super smooth HD vesion of HL2 on a single card.

There is no magic amount of hardware that can bought and will always run new games at super eye candy mode in high res with AA cranked up. Most benchmarks you see for games never even have Gamma Correct AA and Supersample Trans turned on for the benchmark.

The 6 and 7 series cards could not even do HDR and AA together for 99% of games. So only once you have a 8800, can you see what you missed on some titles. That's right ONLY an 8800 allows you to play from Far Cry/HL2/Doom 3/Quake 4/BF2/WOW and above in HD widescreen all eye/AA candy max and not stutter.

An 8800 or 8800 SLI and Duo/quad core means ARMA/CRYSIS/STALKER/ALAN WAKE will run well, but not 60+ fps with everything high and aa high in HD res all the time in fact expect Lag in complex bits.

Nvidia's OWN website admits, "the way its mean to be played" for battlefield 2142 means:

http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_bf2142_techtips.html

Nvidia Recommended Settings

Parameter 7900+ 7600+ 6600+

Resolution 1280x960 1280x960 1024x768

AA 2X Off 2X

Dynamic Light High High High

Dynamic Shadows High High High

Effects High Medium Low

Enhanced Lighting On On On

Geometry High Medium Low

Lighting High Medium Low

Terrain High Medium Low

Texture High Medium Low

Texture Filtering High Medium Low

View Distance Scale 100% 100% 100%

No mention of 4x/8x AA OR supersample tran's and gamma correct aa, thats right either SLI a 7900 or have an 8800 if you want that and above 30 fps at 1280 + res.

The BF:2142 engine IS the BF:2 engine which has been on sale since summer 05? It's an OLD game FFS.

So before you spend your next 5k with Alienware I would get it in writing they gaurente 50 FPS 4x AA widescreen 1600+ 16:9 res, AA Super Sample tran's on, gamma correct on. For Supreme Commander and Crysis etc or your money back. And then get my refund in days.

Do you have any idea how crap 1024 res looks even with aa high settings on a 32" monitor? Do you have any idea how crap things look with Super Sample not enabled at high res? And if your running a BIG games rig, please tell me your not using some postage stamp size monitor?

Try running 640x480 then switch to 1024x768 on your current monitor and tell me what you think the visual improvement was. Now, try 1024x768 and switch to 1600x1024 widescreen and tell me there is no difference....

Run oblivion again at Hd res with Supersample and gamma correct on at 1600 + res and see if you can top 40-60 outdoors fps, ARMA has at the very least 2x the detail and 10km vis range! and is giving me 40+ everything very high while flying that a major achievment for Bohemia in my book.

I'm really sorry to sound negative but the "Wah, I don't get 100 FPS on my high spec kit in my new game" comments really annoy me, anything over 8 months old is MID SPEC now at best, for HD PC gaming.

Most huge new LCD monitors only work at 60mhz anyway so you argue you only need to hit 60 FPS anyway or at least 30 FPS to have happy, eye candy, high res, widescreen, PC gaming!

* In case you dont know what transparency super sampling is, its a feature with AA's alpha channel textures, e.g. grass, bushes and wirefences. Ever wondered how that guy spotted you through 2 wirefences but you could not see him? he has SSAA On you didn't. Accessed through nvidia control panal.

SSAA has a performance drop, about the same As AA off to AAx 4. I.e. it's like hitting your GPU FPS rate with a baseball bat.