Horrible Graphics/FPS

[Canadian Bacon 10]

I'm just curious as to how you got the game if you're in Michigan? The games not released in the USA right?

[OrdeaL 10]

Im also feeling that when theres AI my comp hates life..but in editor it cranks 30-80 FPS usually around 50

[Razorman 10]

I'm just curious as to how you got the game if you're in Michigan? The games not released in the USA right?

Many players worldwide allready have the German download version, me included & i'm in the UK.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Razorman

[funkee 0]

This is wierd, I play at 1200x960, normal to high settings, 100% fillrate, 2.5kmVD, and have beautiful visuals, and pretty smooth gameplay.

hmm... could you put some screenshots? (with framerate of coz).

btw. I've noticed alot of GeForce ppl having performance issues, so maybe there is a problem with nVidia stuff?

[Razorman 10]

GF260 768mb

Quad intel @ overclock of 3.8ghz (445mhz x 8.5) with serious cooling but we won't go there.

4GB Hyper ram

Vista 32

This game is a CPU hog, graphics u can adjust with minor performance increases either way.

The game engine was designed around single core cpu's, it's advertised to utilize multi threading which it does, but only barely if you look at your performance graphs.

If you are running ANY cpu be it dual or quad core,the game (i use the term loosely at this is a simulator) is limited by the cpu speed, if like me you are running multicores @ 3.8ghz per core, in reality the game (as it sees it) is using a single 3.8ghz cpu.

Now in gaming terms a 3.8ghz cpu (for most games) is great, but remember this is built around a simulator, it's doing thousands of cpu calculations per second, more than any other piece of software (in this genre) out there.

i too am dissapointed about performance even on this rig, i know i could grab another 5fps by going up to a 295 or even (wash my mouth out) the fastest ATI card but it's not cost effective.

However i am getting a decent average of 35fps, running @ 1920x1200.with the following:

View 1500m

Fillrate 150%

Just wanted to say you need uber power cpu wise if you want great graphics & gameplay, you can't have both unless you do.

Good luck.

Oh & i'm lovin the ga.... sim too.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Razorman

[vengeance1 50]

Blurry View disappointing.

I am running a Dell XPS720H2C Liquid Cooled Q4 3.0Ghz SLI 8800 Ultra 768MB each.

I can crank up the Fillrate without issues and I have great FPS but it is still blurry, unbelievable! I have changed the settings until I am blue in the face and can not get the game to be as sharp as ARMA1.

I have no idea why this game has such bad graphic detail at medium to long distance. Up close it has great detail, hell you can see the bugs on the bark of a tree but distance is blurry? Wierd.

Any Ideas?

[Razorman 10]

It must be blurred to increase performance, only thing i can see.

[vengeance1 50]

It must be blurred to increase performance, only thing i can see.

Then I guess this is as good as it gets. Thanks for the reponse.

Disappointed, but I love the features over ARMA1

[Razorman 10]

Then I guess this is as good as it gets. Thanks for the reponse.

Disappointed, but I love the features over ARMA1

Exactly.

[Steinfisch 10]

I think it was not the best idea to let the user choose the size of the render target (back buffer) independently of the screen size (the fillreate). If the render surface is smaller than the screen, rendering process is less resource consuming but the surface has to be stretchet to the screen size and so a secondary filtering (loss of sharpness) occurs. in the other case you cannot benefit from the large render target because it have to be shrinked to the screen size too. This is similar to watching a HD film on a PAL/NTSC TV.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Steinfisch

[Helmut_AUT 0]

Okay, for the 9600GT owners here - the recently (May) released 185 drivers give me about 10% more frames (average 22 to 24, low from 16 to 18, max from 29 to 31.

It is not a lot, but basically free - although I saw some people report problems on Vista with that driver (I'm on XP), it's WHLQ and runs nice for me with my main other games too, no problems. In fact Fallout3 and Stalker also got a boost.

Now the next thing I'll try is slap a low-watt 9800GT green edition in (changing the PSU to support more than such a low-watt card would void my warranty on the system) and then I want to see if 112 shaders vs. 64 shaders make a difference, despite slightly lower clock. I think they will, might bring me up to 25 average which would be acceptable.

[Sam75 0]

low FPS comes from chernarus island i think, perhaps taking too much video memory.

[SpiralOut 10]

Even after changing the resolution I still don't get that much better FPS. On a Q6600, 4GB RAM, and GTX260 I still avg a choppy 30FPS. And for some reason I can't change the resolution to 1680x1050, there is just no option. The next step down on the rez that doesn't stretch the screen oddly is 1600x900, and it makes the game look like crap on this screen. What resolution should I be using for a 24" widescreen? Is there a way to manually put it at 1680x1050?

This is absolutely nuts. I mean I built this computer in November. I have no problems with any other games, completely maxed out @ 1920x1200.

If I can't get this to work I guess I'm throwing this game aside and waiting for OFPDR.

Edited June 11, 2009 by SpiralOut

[BrunoDerRabe 0]

here is some of the testing I did:

Test PC 1:

Intel Q6600@3,0GHz

Asus P5N72-T Premium

A-DATA DIMM 4 GB DDR2-1066 (Vitesta Extreme Edition)@867MHZ due OC of the CPU

2 NVIDIA 260GTX in SLI ( using the renametrick: changing arma.exe into crysis.exe )

1920*1200

Saitek X52Pro

Track IR 4 Pro

Vista Ultimate 64 SP2

1.01 patch installed:

4 cores busy 90-70%

3GB of RAM is used

runs smooth

settings

distance of view: 3902m

fillrate optimization: 150%

quality preference: very high

advanced settings

texture details: very high

grafic memory: very high

anisotr. filter: very high

landscape details: very high

object details: very high

shadow details: very high

post processing efects: very high ( just my personal taste )

resolution: 1920*1200

the framerate with above mentioned settings is about 20-22 fps, running from the green into a village drops it down to 17-19 fps for a few seconds and facing the ground while standing shows the max. with 28-29 fps, benchmarked with fraps in the first singleplayer mission

the impact on the fps by changing the postprocessing effect from low to very high is on the testsystem to insufficient to be mentioned here in numbers

The fps with 2 260GTX in SLI all settings on very high , 3902m , fillrate opt. 100% using the crysis SLI-profile: 25 fps

changing the fillrate optimization to 150%: 24 fps and some visual enhancement ( recommended ) changing the fillrate optimization to 200% screws it up on this system

Upgrading the RAM to 8GB did force me to use the older driverversion 182.5 to avoid the game detecting 256MB VRAM only, this happens with the latest WHQL 185.85 and Beta 186.08 drivers

Using version 182.5 solves the problem for now.

There is an impact on the performance by this upgrade, turning around looks more smooth now. Have a look at the screen please:

Test PC 2:

AMD Phenom2@3,6GHz

Asrock K10N780SLIX3-WiFi

A-DATA DIMM 4 GB DDR2-1066 (Vitesta Extreme Edition)

1 8800GTX ( latest GPU driverversion )

1280*1024

Winows 7 RC1

1.01 patch installed:

4 cores busy 80-60%

settings

distance of view: 3858m

fillrate optimization: 150%

quality preference: very high

advanced settings:

texture details: very high

grafic memory: very high

anisotr. filter: very high

landscape details: very high

object details: very high

shadow details: very high

post processing efects: very high ( just my personal taste )

resolution: 1280*1024

very smooth 17-23fps

I know smooth 17 sounds strange, but that`s the way it is - may be because of the 386bit wide memorybus and the 768MB onboard memory of the 88oo GTX.

Easy to see that the high 1920*1200 resolution is the big impact on the framerate, all the data needs to flow through the PC`s bottleneck, whatever this might be...

Edited June 11, 2009 by BrunoDerRabe
error correcting added screenshot

[Balgorg 10]

anyone tried turning off the grass?

[Razorman 10]

GF260 768mb

Quad intel @ overclock of 3.8ghz (445mhz x 8.5) with serious cooling but we won't go there.

4GB Hyper ram

Vista 32

This game is a CPU hog, graphics u can adjust with minor performance increases either way.

The game engine was designed around single core cpu's, it's advertised to utilize multi threading which it does, but only barely if you look at your performance graphs.

If you are running ANY cpu be it dual or quad core,the game (i use the term loosely at this is a simulator) is limited by the cpu speed, if like me you are running multicores @ 3.8ghz per core, in reality the game (as it sees it) is using a single 3.8ghz cpu.

Now in gaming terms a 3.8ghz cpu (for most games) is great, but remember this is built around a simulator, it's doing thousands of cpu calculations per second, more than any other piece of software (in this genre) out there.

i too am dissapointed about performance even on this rig, i know i could grab another 5fps by going up to a 295 or even (wash my mouth out) the fastest ATI card but it's not cost effective.

However i am getting a decent average of 35fps, running @ 1920x1200.with the following:

View 1500m

Fillrate 150%

Just wanted to say you need uber power cpu wise if you want great graphics & gameplay, you can't have both unless you do.

Good luck.

Oh & i'm lovin the ga.... sim too.

Grass off here, you can see from my shots above.

[Cionara 10]

I have a Q9550 Quadcore to @ 3,8Ghz combined with 4GB Ram and a GTX280 and always have 50-60Fps with amazing graphics.

I can give you the advice, first turn the fillrate down to 100%, 150% isn't neccessary and kills performance, then turn Objectdetail to very low/normal and landscape to low because it doesn't make a difference in the look but my fps improved from 28 to 60 all the time. And using the startparameter -winxp gave me 5fps.

And I have no patience for the people who want to play with everything on very high, fillrate 200% even if it doesn't make a difference (objectdetail and landscapedetail to very low/low, just try it) and then they cry about bad FPS.

Also on 100% fillrate it will be sharp as it could be, 150% will only round up the edges a little little bit and cost a lot of performance.

Here's a little comparison with the landscape-details:

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4457/arma22009061019305532.gif

My Settings:

1920'1080

Fillrate 100%

Objectdetail: very low

LandsacpedetaiL: low

Shadows: Normal

Rest is very high.

Like I said i always have 50-60fps even in the big cities.

Made some screens of my graphics yesterday;

They're even looking better but had to lower the quality because of the forum rules.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Cionara

[dvolk 10]

Vegetation looks much better on high object detail. Likewise, shadows look terrible on normal or lower.

Not much point in using high post-processing though, since it looks worse than low and makes things hard to see.

[Cionara 10]

I like the high postprocessing it makes it more realistic if you look at things near you and i don't look at shadows that much but that's a matter of taste...

I made a comparison for you with the settings which I though meet your demands the best ;-)

The first screen is with my settings (52 Fps), the 2nd without postprocessing,

better shadows and better vegetation like you wantet it (44Fps), the 3rd has landscape and objects at very high (28Fps).

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2256/armavergleich.gif

So you could play with best looking settings at good performance even in big cities (screens at Electrozavodsk, in smaller towns performance will be better 50-60 fps), because objectdetail from normal to very high or landsacpe from low to very high doesn't make any difference except for 3 meters more grass and loosing a lot of performance.

greetz Cionara

Edited June 11, 2009 by Cionara

[funkee 0]

If you are running ANY cpu be it dual or quad core,the game (...) is limited by the cpu speed, if like me you are running multicores @ 3.8 ghz per core, in reality the game (as it sees it) is using a single 3.8 ghz cpu.

This is not true. There is a significant difference between 1, 2 and 4 cores. Look at this thread (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=73663&highlight=multicore):

Ok, here is my next batch of results. This time the CPU is running at the intended 3.4GHz. I did only test at 2 and 4 cores, as those are the most common configurations anyway. As usual my test are run twice to avoid HDD loading lag. The result you see is the second run.

Specs:

CPU - Intel Core2Quad Q6600 @ 3.4GHz

RAM - 4GB DDR2

GPU - NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 (896MB VRAM)

OS - Windows 7 x64 RC

Resolution - 1680x1050

Results:

2 Cores - 2537

4 Cores - 4342

This time I also made CPU utilization graphs. On 2 cores we get almost 50% usage (50% line marked in red):

With 4 active cores the performance improves a lot. But as you see on the "CPU - Total" chart, the CPU utilization is not going much higher than 50% (marked again in red):

As you can see, there is about 100% increase from 2 to 4 cores.

[BrunoDerRabe 0]

Thank you funkee for this very good post, would be nice to see Razorman to edit his last post regarding the CPU usage/ multicore usage , so forumuser don´t learn things wrong...:bounce3:

Edited June 11, 2009 by BrunoDerRabe
spelling

[funkee 0]

your welcome :P

[Razorman 10]

Much happier now with performance & visuals, mmmm sniper heaven.

Oh btw, should be better with new 1.02 patch coming this week.

Game still needs major optimization from BI but i beleive we'll get it.

Oh, & i still stand by my original post.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Razorman

[moosenoodles 0]

I still stand by the fact your viewpoint is aiming at the sky to reduce clutter rendering below, thats why ur seeing those high frames :D I know cause I can pull that off also :p

Oh and your facing the sea in those ruined church shots :D

Go do some fps shots on say loading up 1-10 coop woodland and see what they are in the base there where you start.. that is what sort of test I want to see. Could you add some weather into it as well so its not just a pure blue sky, cheers..

Edited June 14, 2009 by moosenoodles

[bangtail 0]

I will chime in here as well.

I have 3 x 280 and an i7 975.

Fillrate is the big FPS killer here. At anything over 100%, there is a noticeable loss of performance and even though I can still get 35 - 50 @ 1680 x 1050, there is noticeable input lag (can't really describe it better than that).

Good luck,

Eth

PS : Trying to crank settings up on a 9600 GT or 8800 probably isnt a good idea. While they are decent cards, they are at best mid range.