Worst Performance EVER!

[Sennacherib 0]

Quote[/b] ]ARMA is game with worst performance i ever seen, i hate its HDR

why do you continue to make addons for it?

[Michael_Wittman 0]

Well....as far as I know...and anybody can tell me if im wrong.

Every game takes the content it needs for HD to RAM...it can be in 2 steps o 3 or many..but...when you see the progression bar in arma its the game loading textures, geometry, game...etc.. on the RAM....

So the faster your HD is the faster you load the game NOTHING MORE.

[Guest]

Another thread declaring the dissapointments in Armas lag -

I agree, its not been easy for me, and seems for alot of people to even *get* good fps on a good system without some work fiddling with computer to get it running good -

Ive lost Fps due to 1.05, no idea why that would be, but it is the case.

Im still running a large scale mission, with combat going on nearby at about 20 - 30 fps, in the northern wooded areas, thankfully this is still *acceptable* to me, but its on the fringe of not being so.

Personally I think Oblivion is a good example of a similiar game as far as detail in landscape goes and what lag can be produced by such, honestly Arma really runs better for me than Oblivion considering how much Arma can handle as far as a "ton" of stuff going on nearby, and I tend to notice little fps drop due to it, Oblivion on the other hand, I get 3 or 4 sheep going by and sometimes get a slide show. I think at least Arma seems to handle multitudes of objects moving around nearby really well.

[4 IN 1 0]

well it might be better if they have a bigger beta team to do the test on all sorts of rig, but i dont think they have the money nor the time nor the man power to do so

developers are designing games with their own computer, and most of the time one thing that work a single PC doesnt mean they work on others, and Demo/ public beta means notthing as they are a cut down version of the game, while a fully loaded in house beta team would test it with full beta version.

[Michael_Wittman 0]

And sometimes I think...id thaey remove those stick on roads? and replace it for more not solid buildings?

We are still in the same point.... SLI/Croosfire (more than 600$ non capable of getting smooth game.

And as I told on my early posts...I work on this... and what oyu see every day on TV is 25 or 25 fps (25 at 720x576 PAL)... so if we had that REAL....noone should complain...human eye cant catch anything faster so people saying the get 260 fps....is......

I only need REAL 25 fps..like any movie... JUST REAL.

Cheers

[Marines 0]

Totally incorrect and wrong.

The Human Eye can perceive much past the misconception of 30 FPS and well past 60 FPS, even surpassing 200 FPS.

We as humans have a very advanced visual system, please understand that a computer with all it's processor strength still doesn't match our own brain, or the complexity of a single Deoxyribonucleic Acid strand. While some animals out there have sharper vision than us humans, there is usually something given up with it - for eagles there is color, and for owls it is the inability to move the eye in its socket. With our outstanding human visual, we can see in billions of colors (although it has been tested that women see as much as 30% more colors than men do.

Our eyes can indeed perceive well over 200 frames per second from a simple little display device (mainly so low because of current hardware, not our own limits). Our eyes are also highly movable, able to focus in as close as an inch, or as far as infinity, and have the ability to change focus faster than the most complex and expensive high speed auto focus cameras. Our Human Visual system receives data constantly and is able to decode it nearly instantaneously. With our field of view being 170 degrees, and our fine focus being nearly 30 degrees, our eyes are still more advanced than even the most advanced visual technology in existance today.

The overwhelming solution to a more realistic game play, or computer video has been to push the human eye past the misconception of only being able to perceive 30 FPS. Pushing the Human Eye past 30 FPS to 60 FPS and even 120 FPS is possible, ask the video card manufacturers, an eye doctor, or a Physiologist. We as humans CAN and DO see more than 60-225 frames a second.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

If you got the cash to play with... you can get an athlon 64 4000+ (2,4ghz, 1mb L2 cache) socket 939 and OC it to 3.0ghz (about 200 for CPU/Mobo/Cooler), that along with a decent Nvidia card like  a 7950GT (about 200 bux), a couple gigs of RAM, and some fast SATA HDs, will run just about every game out there right now quite nicely.

If it would be that easy....

I'm running ArmA with:

CPU: AMD A64 3800+ @2900MHz Socket 939

MB: Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe

RAM 2x 1024MB DDR1 400

VGA: GeForce 8800GTS 640MB

SND: Soundblaster Audigy2 ZS

HDD: 2x Samsung 80GB SATAII 7200 - Raid 0

OS: WinXP Pro

As you can see, I have a no dual/quad core, no SLI, no vista no *add fancy modern feature here*, etc....

Tried everything possible, no chance.

ArmA runs sometimes well, often like crap.

Low FPS all the time and FPS drop after some minutes of simple gameplay in the editor. Not huge battles/missions/etc.

Patch 1.05beta so far gives the best performance for me, but it's still FAR AWAY from beeing playable, considering huge missions like "Evolution", MFCTI, etc.

I'm trying to get this game running well since 30. November 2006

How long do I(we) have to wait to play ArmA with better fps and no fps drop or lod/texture bugs, etc?

Patch 1.07?

Or 1.15?

Maybe 1.96 in the year 2008?

How long does it take to find out, what's the problem with this game, when other "modern" games running nice and fast.

...

MfG Lee

[novatekk 0]

human eye cant catch anything faster so people saying the get 260 fps....is......

Why would you spread false information man? Do some research before you state ridiculous things like that or go read one of the hundreds of articles on the internet that cover this misconception and you might learn a thing or two.

[Rommel 2]

I get around 19-25 FPS on a 7600GT, Intel P4 3.0ghz and... 2gb o' RAM.

Some of the stuff runs badly if I have it on low, but well on medium Lol?

Its a great game.

Hell with some things in OFP I got worse FPS, its just because it has to render so many objects that are individual and have the possibility to have load 1000 more in half a second, unlike most games.

EDIT: The problem with games is that it could depend on your motherboard, could be anything, as the market is so broad and they can't set the configuration of the game to over this amount, memory allocation is just too complex for it.

[Kode 0]

human eye cant catch anything faster so people saying the get 260 fps....is......

Why would you spread false information man? Do some research before you state ridiculous things like that or go read one of the hundreds of articles on the internet that cover this misconception and you might learn a thing or two.

true, the human eye can catch a lot, but your brain needs to be ab le to process it , look at the example of subliminal messages. You can see it, but the brain filters it out, so that only subconscious can see it.

Anyway, as long as the image is fluid, what would it matter to have some couple of frames more, the screen is the limit, and is normally 30 to 60 fps, not more. So 260fps is indeed ridicilous as you can't see them on a screen

[Michael_Wittman 0]

Novatek and Marines....I bet the house I show you 5 seconds of video at 200 fps and other at 30 fps and I repeat I bet the house you cant tell the difference. Or for example....I put a frame in black in a 25 fps and you will see it....I put it in 200 fps and will will have no clue.

I have composite quite a lot of videos from still images and be sure I know what I say.

200 or even 1.000 fps is bullet time and do any of you can see a bullet shot in mid air? ... aha...

[novatekk 0]

I guess there goes your house then Michael.

Honestly I don't have a clue what you're talking about with your bullettime gibberish. Anyway to you and all others that still believe in that "you won't notice anything beyond 24fps" crap, go download this program and see for yourself ok? Did it never occur to you that there is a difference between cinema, tv and video games? I can't believe how ignorant some people in this world are.

Oh and Kode I was never talking about 260 fps, just stating that the human eye can see the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps.

Just download the program ( it's only 10kb ) and find out for yourself.

Can't argue with the truth now can we...?

[Marines 0]

human eye cant catch anything faster so people saying the get 260 fps....is......

Why would you spread false information man? Do some research before you state ridiculous things like that or go read one of the hundreds of articles on the internet that cover this misconception and you might learn a thing or two.

Thanks for the link mate! I forgot to throw it in.

[Michael_Wittman 0]

Novatek...sry m8 but your link goes to a "tweakguide" page with some updates codecs etc but no such programs.

Anyway I dont need that...do this is you have a decent video editing program.

Pick 10 seconds of video (PAL) thats 250 frames then retime it 1 seconds. Then see the video of 10 secons at 25 fps and see it at 250 fps... thats all.

[Dwarden 1124]

you can easily test it yourself ...

go into dark room and then show picture e.g. on wall for only 1/50, 1/100 etc. of second

You can easily catch the picture if Your eyes are "ok" ...

[Swedish_-_M@ssacre 0]

*lol*, i would never have imagined that this thread would be so popular , it's sad however that many have such bad performance, and we can be sure of to have to live with it quite some time.

Even if BIS will fix the performance issues with arma, there's still the prob with the microcode issue for "INTEL" dual cores, i myself have a evga motherboard, and theres no light on the horizon.

Sudden crashes and frequent CTD, that's a pain in the ass, cause u have to SAVE more often than before.

But to be frank, BIS have other things on their mind right now, cause they try to sell OPF2, so Arma is history.

There surely will be patches once and a while, but no true SUPPORT!

Well, as for now B.I.S can kiss our future business goodbye which includes myself, my friends and clan of +60 peepz.

Sad but true, and it's a real shame, over 30 peeps have already dropped ARMA like the plague, and they have almost the same specs like me.

And no i'm not 12, i'm 35 years of age, and i've also have spent eons of time with computers and electronics, remenance the days of Spectrum and Commodore 64 / Amiga 500 / 1200, that were computers that worked i every weather, and the games was FUN!

Arma is one of the greates Simulators up to date, shame we can't play it as it was mentioned.

This is no RANT thread, i thought it was in proper procedure to tell the folk about what worx and whats not.

If anyone think that's a waste of time, or that u don't have the stamina to read through.

Well, go do something else or shut the **** up!

For everyone else, keep posting, maybe BIS get a wakeup call and do something about it!

/SM

[Dwarden 1124]

Quote[/b] ]Even if BIS will fix the performance issues with arma, there's still the prob with the microcode issue for "INTEL" dual cores, i myself have a evga motherboard, and theres no light on the horizon.

that's problem of motherboard manufacturer (it's over month since Intel released that update)

so why not kick EVGA into balls to release bios update with microcode fix? point of crying here about?

Quote[/b] ]But to be frank, BIS have other things on their mind right now, cause they try to sell OPF2, so Arma is history.

OFP2 is CodeMasters project and BIS got nothing with it ...

BIS next project Game2 was and is developed concurently same as VBS2

Quote[/b] ]

There surely will be patches once and a while, but no true SUPPORT!

what's then true support ? release miniexpansions for 20 bucks like EA?

RANTs about "omg our l33t huge clan leaves ArmA you f00ls eat that etc." are old like CS ...

for some reason same clans keep playing CS and CSS for years after "leaving" it 4ever

[LoFFeN 0]

Swedish_-_M@ssacre:

I'm sure after some Patches from BIS and new Drivers from Nvidia, will eventually fix the Performance problems. Atleast I hope...

Anyway I can understand your frustration especially when you have kickass Setup, and ArmA won't run smooth.

----------

Cheers.

[novatekk 0]

Novatek...sry m8 but your link goes to a "tweakguide" page with some updates codecs etc but no such programs.

All you had to do was right-mouse click on it and "save target as".

I strongly suggest you to check it out though because I got this feeling we're talking about two different things here.

[SlurrpyChillyFries 0]

you do not have enough brain power to go much above 60 fps. at least i dont.

this is why in any high speed racing class, they always teach you to steer your car towards the crash, its because your brain cant process the visual images quick enough so by you trying to avoid the crash in front of you, you end up hitting those cars because the accident has already moved a great deal from where your brain perceives the accident, ask any racer, i work with 40+ of them once a month at the drag track.

[Michael_Wittman 0]

I finally did it. Cool app. but those are not real FPS...if they where real try to imagine looking at action movie with fast camera movement at that framerate...LOL what a headache!

The final point is. That if we had real 25 fps like any PAL movie we should see it as good and smooth as any movie.

[Cam51 0]

I finally did it. Cool app. but those are not real FPS...if they where real try to imagine looking at action movie with fast camera movement at that framerate...LOL what a headache!

The final point is. That if we had real 25 fps like any PAL movie we should see it as good and smooth as any movie.

Your making the mistake that higher FPS's means that the speed of the video is increased, making things move at 900mph, this is not the case.

Video recorded at high frames per second allow for a much more natural movement in display. An example of this would be a bullet camera, which records so at such a high FPS that you can see the bullet when the video is put into slow motion, but you can still play 100+ fps of recorded video at regual speed, but your not going to miss some of the things you could miss in a video shot at only 30 fps.

Movies use around 30 FPS because you can't really notice a difference at higher settings, and plus its cheaper than high speed cameras.

But games shouldn't be associated with movies when it comes to FPS. FPS can change depending on the detail being displayed. You can have 200+ fps looking at a wall, but if you turn around and look at a vast forest it'll drop to around 20-50 fps.

BF2 runs at 200 fps b.c it has a view distance of 15 meters (this is exagerated, but its the reason I couldnt stand the BF series). A small view distance removes the distant detail to compinsate for performance.

[dmarkwick 261]

Any FPS above your monitor refresh rate is a waste of performance

Also, to get 25 fps to be as effective as a TV film you'd need to process motion blur, DX10 might do this but we won't see any of that 'till next year.

[Dwarden 1124]

sure ... but i will be fine with 300Hz ultra HD monitor and 300fps sync on it stable

[Cormega 0]

It's a shame that the poor performance made me stop playing this game.

But let's hope that BIS or NVidia or whoever will fix this in the very near future.

Yeah, sadly i'm at that same point, guess i'm gonna uninstall, shelve ArmA till they sqwash most of the bugs and hardware has advanced a bit more!

BI: Fix the damn gunsight lag!!! I can play fairly well (not much lag, but when I look thru the sight of a gun, jeeez! Lag Central! WHY?