Disabling Post Processing completely?

[Helmut_AUT 0]

Hi Guys

I have a 3000+ AMD, 1Gig RAM, Nvidia 7600GT with 256 Vid Ram. Running on a 1600x1200 LCD in native resolution, with 2xFSAA.

Many other new games run perfectly nice at these settings, even with lots of details (Oblivion, Full Spectrum Warrior Ten Hammers...).

However, Arma goes down to 20 or less FPS sometimes. Even with lowest shader and low post processing settings. Texture quality doesn't seen to have much influence on the frame rate, Aniso is off.

Now, one thing for sure: In all other new games I tried (Oblivion, FSW II, Red Orchestra) which support HDR, it has always been a performance killer. In RO it costs me 10 frames or more, out of a 40.

Some guy here on this board actually said that HDR and FSAA are generally a problem and Arma may use Software Rendering to combine those two.

I don't know if it's that, or if it's just the shader performance on a 7600GT, but I'm pretty confident that if we could disable HDR (post processing) totally, we would see a really nice FPS increase. The little bit of Sun Glare really isn't worth any FPS loss to me.

So is this possible, and if not, why the hell did Bohemia Studios make such a shader-resource hog mandatory?

[Maddmatt 1]

That resolution is too high for your graphics card to handle in ArmA. Setting postprocessing to low does disable it. The best option is to lower your resolution. If you want to keep that monitor in it's native resolution you will need to upgrade the graphics card.

Also, on that card you may as well keep postprocessing on high because it will make very little difference. For some reason the 8800 cards have a large performance impact with it on high, but not the 7 series.

[-Puma- 2]

I havent tested with the new versions, But I have 7600gt and in 1.02 setting post processing to low actually gave me a 20 fps boost, and after that i havent change it. Ill do some tweaking to see if maddmatt's right

[Bad Pilot 0]

wtf are you using AA for? Disable it.

[Maddmatt 1]

wtf are you using AA for? Disable it.

To get rid of aliasing

On low it doesn't have much performance impact. The main problem with his settings is the high resolution.

Edit: By the way, don't force AA in your video card drivers. Rather enable it in-game for better performance.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

wtf are you using AA for? Disable it.

To get rid of aliasing

On low it doesn't have much performance impact. The main problem with his settings is the high resolution.

Edit: By the way, don't force AA in your video card drivers. Rather enable it in-game for better performance.

AA off ;}

Texture no higher than normal

Try shaders and Object at low

Terrain low/very low

Should speed it up.

Try HDR 16 in the cfg.

[Helmut_AUT 0]

I thank you guys for your help, but I think you are making excuses for a game that should definitly run on this card, at this resolution.

Let me post a part of something I wrote on another board:

********************

Most average gamers who are not into flightsims likely still use 6800GT and lower - so a 7600 is certainly a good medium-range card.

If you don't belive this, just understand: I'm running Oblivion - one of the prettiest games ever made - with most graphic settings on high, at 1600x1200 2xFSAA, and I get 20 to 25 FPS. Never lower than 18. That is with full range outdoor views enabled, grass detail, shadows from leafs on the trees...indoors I usually get 40 or more.

I run LOMAC in medium quality at 25 to 30 FPS. And I run Full Spectrum Warrior II - which has very similar graphics to Arma - also at 1600x1200 2xFSAA with steady 30FPS. FSW II is especially interesting to compare since it's all about urban combat, the detail in those citys puts any Army city to shame, and the player models are excellent too.

So, please don't tell me that a 7600GT can't run modern, very good looking games. It can.

But for Arma, even if I set everthing to lowest, my FPS goes to as little as 10 at the start of the first campaign mission. So how can that be, that I can run other modern games at decent framerates with high details, and Arma has unplayable framerates even at the lowest details (to be more precise - lowering the settings in Arma has hardly any input on the framerate).

Simple - because it seems obvious that many of the graphical enhacements have been "tacked on" to the original Flashpoint Engine by a GPU-intensive post-processing code, and Arma's graphical setup does not allow the user (like pretty much any other game today) to disable these shader-intense processes. FSWII and Oblivion also have HDR, enabling it makes them unplayable. But these games look very good without HDR and disabling it is a simple menu option.

One user on the tech support boards here said that the 7000 series has a problem combining HDR with FSAA, the work around used by Nvidia's driver being a software rendering as part of the whole thing. Now if that's true, then that's definitly a problem on Nvidia's side - but also a problem for Arma since it simple does not allow to disable HDR. So for a bit of sunglare, I pay 20 of my possible 30 frames per second.

Sorry for the rant, but I know my tech. I don't see why other games run like oil on this rig while Arma insists on wasting shader performance for little visual gain.

********************

I should emphasize this point: Besides shader quality (which I set to very low), post processing (set to low) and drawing distance, the other graphics options don't even have a notable impact on the framerate. So anything I can change, I did change, and it does solve nothing.

I know from other games that larger textures, for example, hardly ever bother the 7600GT since it's RAM is fast enough. But what definitly kills it is any kind of extensive shader usage.

What remains after setting everthing to low - and still not getting decent frame rates, compared to other visual advanced games - simple is the post processing thing.

I take it from the answers given here that there is no way to disable it. But I bet anyone here dollars to donuts that with PP gone, we would see 10, 20FPS more on most rigs easily - at any resolution.

To me this seems like OFP with forced use of Keygets postprocessing dx9.dll file - which had the same kind of problems.

[Marines 0]

wtf are you using AA for?  Disable it.

To get rid of aliasing

On low it doesn't have much performance impact. The main problem with his settings is the high resolution.

Edit: By the way, don't force AA in your video card drivers. Rather enable it in-game for better performance.

AA off ;}

Texture no higher than normal

Try shaders and Object at low

Terrain low/very low

Should speed it up.

Try HDR 16 in the cfg.

Suma already stated months ago, that altering the HDR value in the config file will not have any impact upon the game.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

wtf are you using AA for? Disable it.

To get rid of aliasing

On low it doesn't have much performance impact. The main problem with his settings is the high resolution.

Edit: By the way, don't force AA in your video card drivers. Rather enable it in-game for better performance.

AA off ;}

Texture no higher than normal

Try shaders and Object at low

Terrain low/very low

Should speed it up.

Try HDR 16 in the cfg.

Suma already stated months ago, that altering the HDR value in the config file will not have any impact upon the game.

There is a vast difference in 8 bit vs 32 bit by the time it takes to go full white or black especially with NVG on.

Perhaps its just 8800 users but i see a vast difference.

I have also noted there is some slow down with 32 bit HDR vs 8 bit in FPS but its very minor on a 8800.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Suma already stated months ago, that altering the HDR value in the config file will not have any impact upon the game.

Suma said that lowering the value below 8 doesnt have any effect, you can however change it to 16 and apparantly 32 works too.

[Maddmatt 1]

Games advance with technology, if you really want max settings then get an 8800. If you don't have the highest end hardware, then you can't go expecting the best graphics.

How LOMAC and Oblivion run doesn't mean anything, they are different (and older) games. On high settings ArmA looks much better than Oblivion. You can't just expect all games to run the same.

[Helmut_AUT 0]

Sorry Madmatt, but that's a weak answer. Oblivion and FSW II on high settings (which run very smoothly for me) look every bit as good or better than Arma on low or medium settings, I can show you the screenshots. Both games do shaders, animated grass, complicated shadows, detailed models and detailed large landscapes.

As for the "high resolution", I know from personal testing that there's very little framerate difference between 1024x with 4xFSAA (to keep the jaggies down) and 1600x with 2xFSAA.

Unless you're suggesting that this game needs to be run at 1024x with less than 4x FSAA (which is an eye-pain on any screen larger than 17") I can't see how this is acceptable image quality to you.

Anyway, we're getting off-topic here. Seems to me there's no way to disable PP, which seems like a rather crude implementation of new graphical features into an old engine.

[Dwarden 1125]

mad i guess u never ran Oblivion maxed via .ini tweaks

and with tons of preloaded cell buffers ... u can get kms of AI active scenery

hint you need at least 4 cores ...

[suma 8]

Quote[/b] ]In all other new games I tried (Oblivion, FSW II, Red Orchestra) which support HDR...

Major point of HDR in ArmA is not the sun glare, it is the realistic lighting levels to accommodate for for adaptation during changes of environment (like going from shadow to sun).

Our 8b HDR mode is something other games do not offer - this mode does not use floating point render targets and therefore its performance hit is very low (at the same time in this mode it is possible to use AA on almost any graphics card).

[Raj 0]

elo got big problem playing AA. IT LAGS!!!!

my spec :

p4 3.0 ghz

512 mb ddr ram

fx 5200 with 256 memory

i'm only able to play AA in the deserts so far!

hmmm i am planning to buy a new card....any alternatives for that fx 5200 PLEASE!!!

[killaalf 0]

Your rig is seriously underpowered, Raj. 512 MB RAM is not much, and that 5200, well, lets face it, it was a lowend card when it came out, what, 3-4 years ago.

Don't know your budget, but you should be able to get a 6600GT or a 9800pro pretty much dirt cheap by now. I'd also recommend to get another 512 MB RAM. That's it basically, short of a complete system overhaul.

[Radnik 18]

elo got big problem playing AA. IT LAGS!!!!

He ment AA as Anti-Aliasing.

[Maddmatt 1]

mad i guess u never ran Oblivion maxed via .ini tweaks

and with tons of preloaded cell buffers ... u can get kms of AI active scenery

hint you need at least 4 cores ...

No I didn't. Got tired of the game after a few weeks. Sure you can make the game look pretty good with mods, but then you can't say it performs better than ArmA

@Helmut_AUT: No I never said that you need to run the game at 1024x768, on a decent size monitor that would look horrible. But 1600x1200 on a 7600 is not going to run very well unless you lower settings.

[Heatseeker 0]

Sorry Madmatt, but that's a weak answer. Oblivion and FSW II on high settings (which run very smoothly for me) look every bit as good or better than Arma on low or medium settings, I can show you the screenshots. Both games do shaders, animated grass, complicated shadows, detailed models and detailed large landscapes.

As for the "high resolution", I know from personal testing that there's very little framerate difference between 1024x with 4xFSAA (to keep the jaggies down) and 1600x with 2xFSAA.

Unless you're suggesting that this game needs to be run at 1024x with less than 4x FSAA (which is an eye-pain on any screen larger than 17") I can't see how this is acceptable image quality to you.

Anyway, we're getting off-topic here. Seems to me there's no way to disable PP, which seems like a rather crude implementation of new graphical features into an old engine.

Full spectrum warrior II ?

Resolution and antialiasing can make Arma run slower if the HW is not up to the job, Arma is not Doom3, in Arma you are surrounded by a high detailed, object dense and vast environment, its not the same as using AA in a scene with half a dozen walls and few squary models/objects.

If you set it low PP becomes disabled, you are mixing PP with HDR... Afaik you cant disable HDR, you can change the values in the config but i dont recomend it since it wont have any positive effect (performance or visual), the constant and sudden light/dark transitions were sorted in the beta patch.

In my experience using high PP makes Arma run better, smoother and with more stable fps. PP+anti aliasing = visual and performance perfection.

You can complain and diss the game all you want but you will love it after/if you upgrade, i can promiss you that .

[Helmut_AUT 0]

Suma, thanks for taking the time to reply. It's a welcome and refreshing thing to see lead programmers replying in trouble-shooting boards.

Madmatt - that was my point: Lowering settings hardly did anything for my framerate. Like I said, 2xFSAA at 1600x1200 has been proven (on this rig) to be hardly any more demanding than 1024x768 at 4xFSAA. So it can't be the resolution alone.

Oh well - in some areas of the map, it works better than in others, so I can play a bit - and it isn't all bad. There's a diamond in the rough here, I just hope the US release and subsequent patches will get it up to the polished standard OFP had (arguable it took till Resistance to get there).

[Raj 0]

Quote[/b] ]Your rig is seriously underpowered, Raj. 512 MB RAM is not much, and that 5200, well, lets face it, it was a lowend card when it came out, what, 3-4 years ago.

Don't know your budget, but you should be able to get a 6600GT or a 9800pro pretty much dirt cheap by now. I'd also recommend to get another 512 MB RAM. That's it basically, short of a complete system overhaul.

my budjet is of about 5000 rupees with makes about 78  pounds

1 rupee = 64 pounds !!!!!! just IMAGINE

i intend to buy a gigabyte geforce 7600gs 512 mb.. hmm is that going to make it???

[Mr_Tea 0]

I have an MSI GeForce 7600GS with 512mb.

It runs Arma in 1280x1024 in medium to high settings, viewdistance

around 2000 meters, good but not perfect of course.

[Raj 0]

Quote[/b] ]1 rupee = 64 pounds !!!!!!

my mistake!!!

actually 1 pound = 64 rupees!!!!

Quote[/b] ]I have an MSI GeForce 7600GS with 512mb.

It runs Arma in 1280x1024 in medium to high settings, viewdistance

around 2000 meters, good but not perfect of course

well i think i will be able to manage with ARMA with that 7600. that's the only card i can afford with my budget right now..

i will go for the 7600GS then thks for the help!!!

[nth1739 0]

@ Helmut_AUT - Try limiting your view distance to 1200 or so. Also the AI is a big factor in performance especially when you have the viewdistance cranked up. The AI is CPU intensive, not GPU intensive. If you play missions with alot of AI you are going to get sluggish performance even on higher end dual core CPUs.

I too played Oblivion, but Oblivion does not allow HDR and AA at the same time, so that might explain some of your better performance.

Another tip - Download FRAPS (fps utility) and load up a typical mission. With fraps running you should see your frames per second in your top left corner. Go to your Video settings and start playing around with all the options while keeping an eye on your fps in the top corner. I did this last night and ended up finding a great combination of video settings that surprisingly gave me better performance along with better visuals. The benefit of fraps is that it allows you to see fps performance without having to toggle back and forth between the game and the video settings, which makes tweaking much less of a pain.

[Dwarden 1125]

Oblivion supports HDR+AA via Chuck patch in ATI drivers ...

in short it's possible ...

and of olders cards it's possible too via complete shaders replacement mod ...

in short i really hope when tools for ArmA are out we can replace any shaders (and more...) same way like in Oblivion and Stalker