Unable to get more than 23fps

[zoog 18]

Guys, I think this might be a loop scripting error. Ever tried creating a loop that cycled too fast? Try it and you'll know what I mean. Dont have a delay in the loop and it will crash. Have a .5 - 1 second delay and you'll notice no performance difference. Have a small enough decimal and you can cap the frames really low.

Interesting. Might be just that. In community missions (of course way less AI) I get between 55 ~ 70 FPS.

[Skeptic 10]

I suspect it's a streaming issue Zoog.

My suggestion, (and I've yet to try it myself but plan to imminently), is to buy an SSD drive and install ArmA to that.

I suggest that the game lags when it has to load a lot of textures and graphics direct from the harddrive to the game. Streaming. At this point frame rates should radically drop and towns are where I would expect this to occour more.

SSD drives are RAM not harddrives, the access speed is 0.01-0.03 ms as opposed to 5.8-6.1 ms on a mechanical hard drive.

Any old cheap one will do. This will also increase your frame rates for other streaming games loaded onto it, such as World of Warcraft or Crysis.

This won't increase your frame rates overall but only during the streaming moments. The frame rate drop outs. Your peak FPS will be the same, your average FPS will be higher as will your minimum FPS.

Hardware review tests on Crysis have produced increased frame rates of up to 25 depending on the SSD manufacturer (Intel being the best but most expensive by a factor of about double). I intend to pay about £150 (OCZ Vertex) for an upper end 60GB drive, tested to improve Crysis frame rates by 20 during streaming. If nothing else the LODs will fill themselves in much faster.

Even though SSD won't help with SP low FPS in MP I really love my RAID-0 Vertex 2x30Gb. Bought them for Arma1 and it helped a lot to remove LOD pop-ups and delayed texture loading with M107 scope.

[Negativx 10]

I have..

6400+ amd x2 - 3.2ghz

4870 Toxic sapphire 1g graphics card

4g ram

vista 64 bit

I am stuck at 22-23ish frames aswell. High - Low setting doesnt seem to bring any more fps. I thought I had over recomended system reqs even though i dont have a quad core cpu.

Is there any thing i can do on my end to help.

Also based off another post i did revert back from the newest ati drivers to the 9.6 didnt notice a change though. On the main menu I do get around 58-65 ish fps

thanx

[nominesine 0]

I have a low end computer and runs the game on low-normal settings. I get 20-30 fps in open areas and 10-15 fps in forrested areas or cities. The game runs very smooth even at low fps though. Normally I would consider 10-15 fps unplayable. ArmA2 runs perfectly nevertheless. Even in MP. Very little lag and no CTDs.

My point is: I don't think that fps is all that important in ArmA2. On the rare occasions that I've experienced stuttering and lag, my fps count have been high (25-27 fps).

[r3volution 0]

Well I'm one more on the vast horde of 'the game tops out at 22-23 fps average, no matter how far down I put the options' crowd. Now my PC isn't great, but its disconcerting to see how poorly it runs (even getting down to 13-14 fps or lower if stuff is happening).

This is running on

c2d 6550 2.33ghz

2gb ddr2 800mhz

inno3d 8800 GTS 640MB OC (forceware 185.15)

win xp32 sp3

Its a bastard cause I love the game, but its next to impossible to play in some crucial bits because the framerate lags so much. Even with various of the fps saving addons to nerf the grass I still get so much lag its not funny. Bring on the next patch I say.

[ProfTournesol 956]

I have..

6400+ amd x2 - 3.2ghz

4870 Toxic sapphire 1g graphics card

4g ram

vista 64 bit

I am stuck at 22-23ish frames aswell. High - Low setting doesnt seem to bring any more fps. I thought I had over recomended system reqs even though i dont have a quad core cpu.

Is there any thing i can do on my end to help.

Also based off another post i did revert back from the newest ati drivers to the 9.6 didnt notice a change though. On the main menu I do get around 58-65 ish fps

thanx

9.6 is the latest ATI driver, 9.7 is only RC for XP, as you got vista i'm quite frightened.

[Bulldogs 10]

As far as Campaign gos, it seems that the FPS issues seem to be CPU related (or possibly motherboard bottleneck)

I did some testing an overclocked my video card (a lot) but didn't get any increase in framerate. I overclocking my CPU and got a 5fps increase, but that was a relatively small overclock.

As far as Intel chipsets go. I've noticed that most of the people who are mentioning the frame rate cap are running a sub 3GHz CPU (dual core, quad core, whatever), as for AMD's, I've noticed the problem mentioned on 3+GHz CPU's so I don't know about AMD.

[S-M 10]

Bump for this!

I too am unable to get more then 23-25 FPS in the manhatten mission

I get 23fps on max settings (including 200 fillrate) @2000 view distance, or 25fps on low settings (100% fill rate)

that is insane!?!

---------- Post added at 10:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 PM ----------

Just started the "trial by fire" scenario (max settings) and i am getting much better results, 35-40fps average and the lowest it ever dipped to was 29fps, much more like it!

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

Bump for this!

I too am unable to get more then 23-25 FPS in the manhatten mission

I get 23fps on max settings (including 200 fillrate) @2000 view distance, or 25fps on low settings (100% fill rate)

that is insane!?!

you have been given suggestions to help and you ignore it ... :j:

[S-M 10]

-Ziggy-;1450476']you have been given suggestions to help and you ignore it ... :j:

I am not ignoring it!

The fact still remains that on this mission running everything on low gives me around 25 fps

And whacking everything right up gives me only 2 fps less, something is not quite right with this mission.

So if i take the "suggestions to help" and say nothing, i gain 2fps?

Not really much help is it ?:j:

[telejunky 0]

Is is definately cpu related. The more faster cpu you get the more min fps you will play with. Even on lowest setting i only get 28-30 fps in singleplayer missions (e.g. the first on utes). And this with a Phenom II X4 945 with 3ghz.

You better get a fast intel core i5 or i7, or oc a Q9650 or the fastest X4 965 and even overclock this. ArmA 2 is very demanding ;)

[S-M 10]

Is is definately cpu related. The more faster cpu you get the more min fps you will play with. Even on lowest setting i only get 28-30 fps in singleplayer missions (e.g. the first on utes). And this with a Phenom II X4 945 with 3ghz.

You better get a fast intel core i5 or i7, or oc a Q9650 or the fastest X4 965 and even overclock this. ArmA 2 is very demanding ;)

No, you dont seam to understand, i have a 3.3ghz QUAD, why can i play other missions and get /reasonably good fps with my setup, but Manhatten caps me at around 23-25fps no matter what i put my settings at ?

Going from max low, to max high settings (on Manhatten) robs me of a mere 2fps, that to me would suggest that the system is being held back on this mission only.

On other missions this problem/bug does not present itself (i have not tested every mission yet, but tested around 3 last night)

Are you suggesting that a 3.3ghz quad will only ever give 23-25fps on this mission as it is under powered ? no matter what you set the graphics to?

[vilas 477]

seems that this game behaves stupid on some strong and newest PC

i will tell what i have:

PC from 2007-2008 for Arma 1 (than i bought better CPU and VGA)

Asus manufactured NVidia VGA 8800 GTS 512 MB

CPU AMD6000+

Asus M2NESLi mainboard

2*1024 RAM

my resolution 1280*1024 to fit 100% 19 inch LCD resolution (option 100%) , shadows middle, textures and models max, landscape low, distance ca. 2000 m, i hate postefects, so disabled, AA low

in Beta patch 1.03 58899 i have in forests 27-28 FPS

my FPS oscilate between 21-29 on Chernarus, looking in the air or small objected areas i have even 33-35 FPS from time to time

in intro (air ship) i have 42 FPS as i remember

i can't remember what FPS i have on Utes, must check

but my test scene on Chernarus was :

somewhere between Chernogorsk and forests , 4-5 teams of soldiers and armored infantry around

comparing to Arma1 (1.16b), my FPS count is worse in A2 for ca. 10-12 FPS

Edited September 29, 2009 by vilas

[Bulldogs 10]

I'll try to explain it in basic form. Basically the CPU handles ai, physics, any variables (anyhting changeable in the game) and many other things. The campaign has a massive amount of ai going on in some missions, each of these ai are carrying out scripts and calculations. This puts a heavy strain on the CPU. So while you're seeing a couple of boring things in front of you, there's still a lot going on in the background.

To setup a scenario that will allow you to understand it better, goto the editor and create a set of 3 squads on each side and give them waypoints to attack each other, then setup a squad of your own far away from the battle then play and check your fps.

Now goto the editor again and add another 20-30 squads around the map having battles of their own, then load up and see how it effects your fps.

Now, imagine putting a lot of triggers and scripts on top of that and your game is going to crawl.

Another way to look at it is to think of the largest battle you had in crysis. Now that battle is the only thing going on with the game (as crysis is a linear game that only loads the small area around you), imagine that battle going on 10 times over all around the area, think if your computer would keep running.

Hope that helps understand why CPUs are suffering from the arma 2 campaign

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

lol !

I will assume its cpu bottleneck. I havent played the manhatten mission, perhaps I will go do that and report ;)

[lee_h._oswald 0]

I'll try to explain it in basic form. Basically the CPU handles ai, physics, any variables (anyhting changeable in the game) and many other things. The campaign has a massive amount of ai going on in some missions, each of these ai are carrying out scripts and calculations. This puts a heavy strain on the CPU. So while you're seeing a couple of boring things in front of you, there's still a lot going on in the background.

To setup a scenario that will allow you to understand it better, goto the editor and create a set of 3 squads on each side and give them waypoints to attack each other, then setup a squad of your own far away from the battle then play and check your fps.

Now goto the editor again and add another 20-30 squads around the map having battles of their own, then load up and see how it effects your fps.

Now, imagine putting a lot of triggers and scripts on top of that and your game is going to crawl.

Another way to look at it is to think of the largest battle you had in crysis. Now that battle is the only thing going on with the game (as crysis is a linear game that only loads the small area around you), imagine that battle going on 10 times over all around the area, think if your computer would keep running.

Hope that helps understand why CPUs are suffering from the arma 2 campaign

And if you ask me, there is another big problem with arma2.

I did following:

Put me as an infantrymen on chernaurus with 3750m viewdistance in the editor. No other units/scritps/etc are active:

Normal shitty 26fps...

Then looked in the sky and zoomed in:

99FPS, nice!

==========

Then back in the editor I placed far away from my position 5x Russian motorized infantry squads(12 men and a truck), which are doing absolutely nothing:

Again, the normal shitty 26fps...

Then looked in the sky and zoomed in:

50fps, what the??

====================

And what is this? 60 infantry men and 5 trucks that do nothing cost us so much performance? Why?

This game has some serious problems..

MfG Lee

[ProfTournesol 956]

And what is this? 60 infantry men and 5 trucks that do nothing cost us so much performance? Why?

This game has some serious problems..

MfG Lee

As long as i don't feel sick, i don't monitor my body temperature to avoid hypocondriasis. To you really notice FPS troubles without monitoring it, or does the monitoring give you the feeling there are FPS troubles ?

[lee_h._oswald 0]

You can try this on Utes.

Put yourself on the island and place a lot of motorized infantry squads, ~10 -15 far away from your position.

Then look into the sky, zoom in and move the mouse.

You will feel and see stutter.

MfG Lee

[kklownboy 43]

whats odd is when i do that and get the first stutter, i do a 360* turn, and all my stutters are gone and i go on playing. I have 2GB of VRAM on fast GPUs... maybe that is a issue for some. But it ALWAYS gets smooth again...The FPS lowers with lots of AI ect, but it runs steady no huge ups and downs.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

I have another "funny" test for you all.

Place yourself on utes as US infantry man, go in third person, look in the sky and zoom in.

What's your fps?

Now place yourself as a civillian man in the editor, go in third person, look in the sky and zoom in.

What's your fps now?

This is getting really funny! :D

MfG Lee

[ProfTournesol 956]

I have another "funny" test for you all.

Place yourself on utes as US infantry man, go in third person, look in the sky and zoom in.

What's your fps?

http://lee.plankton.ch/A2_AI_test_005.jpg

Now place yourself as a civillian man in the editor, go in third person, look in the sky and zoom in.

What's your fps now?

http://lee.plankton.ch/A2_AI_test_006.jpg

This is getting really funny! :D

MfG Lee

Mmm...the civilian model must be far less detailed than the soldier one.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

And if we say 230fps is 100%.

Then 75% is 172,5fps.

Something on this ONE US infantry man cost us 25% performance(in this specific test).

But it's still everything ok with this game?

Of course it is!

MfG Lee ;)

[ProfTournesol 956]

And if we say 230fps is 100%.

Then 75% is 172,5fps.

Something on this ONE US infantry man cost us 25% performance(in this specific test).

But it's still everything ok with this game?

Of course it is!

MfG Lee ;)

Nah, i'm not saying it's ok, i'm just trying to find an explanation...:)

[NeMeSiS 11]

At such high FPS's the hit of a few poly's more is much bigger.

The difference between drawing 100 or 300 poly's is more then the difference between 2000000 and 4000000. (Unless ofcourse you hit some kind of bottleneck along the way)

[S-M 10]

Just UNDERCLOCKED my cpu from 3.31 ghz to 2.66ghz

FPS at the beginning of the manhatten mission = 21-23fps on the highest settings, to be honest i never even bothered trying to turn them all down as i know fine well what result i would get.

Can all the people who waffle on about my CPU being underpowered, go and give themselves a shake in the corner ;)

Same results from 2.66ghz quad on the manhatten mission, as a 3.3ghz quad.

now please excuse me while i reboot and crank the FSB back up ;)