Shinobi575 10 Posted July 3, 2009 why?? are all your settings on max? mine doesnt do this, i get a little lag in the big cities but not any where near 3-5 FPS on Normal/High Settings, i would try Defragging and cleaning out the spyware/bugs on your pc, if you have any. thats my only piece of advice. it helped me out a bit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricM 0 Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) But its not the woods or the graphics at all. I do have an overall performance of around 35 to 50 FPS, but a soon as I enter Chernogorsk or Elektrozvadlovsk area the frames drop down to 3-5 FPS. Even in smaler villages the frames drop down to 20 or below. I run it on 8800GTX and Q6600 all on high and I get around 28 FPS average. I don't have such dramatic slowdowns. I do lose some FPS in chernogorsk, but 3 to 5 fps ? Below 20 in small villages ? Never had that... Note : I can have a small temp "freeze" from time to time in cities, but then it's back to normal. It's quite different from 3 FPS over a long time period. Edited July 3, 2009 by EricM Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rocksy 11 Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) You got me right ? I don't think so ! Once the woods around Chernogorsk would look like the woods in Crysis I will accept max. 25FPS in ArmA 2. But honestly, there are worlds between the Crysis and the ArmA 2 engine.But its not the woods or the graphics at all. I do have an overall performance of around 35 to 50 FPS, but a soon as I enter Chernogorsk or Elektrozvadlovsk area the frames drop down to 3-5 FPS. Even in smaler villages the frames drop down to 20 or below. I'm glad the woods don't look that good, getting shot through 100 meters of solid rainforest foliage would suck. 1.03, 1.04, 1.05 and so on, there will always be one thing which is totally screwed. Still good though.. Edited July 3, 2009 by Rocksy adding a positive comment :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrcash2009 0 Posted July 3, 2009 Just thought Id say that I noticed setting texture details to Normal and vid memory to very high caused alot less lag/stutter in those large cities. GTX260 OC. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thr0tt 12 Posted July 3, 2009 You got me right ? I don't think so ! Once the woods around Chernogorsk would look like the woods in Crysis I will accept max. 25FPS in ArmA 2. But honestly, there are worlds between the Crysis and the ArmA 2 engine.But its not the woods or the graphics at all. I do have an overall performance of around 35 to 50 FPS, but a soon as I enter Chernogorsk or Elektrozvadlovsk area the frames drop down to 3-5 FPS. Even in smaler villages the frames drop down to 20 or below. Photoshop ftw. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
R3MF 0 Posted July 3, 2009 I have the following hardware running a fully patched game on a fresh Vista 64 install: > 2.66GHz Intel C2Q > 4GB DDR2 800 > Nvidia 9800 GX2 > Asus Xonar At the following settings: > 1920x1200 > 1600m view distance > 4x AA > All settings on HIGH except post processing which is set to LOW and i estimate i get an average of 25 FPS, varying between 20 and 35 frames per second, which i find pretty playable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xxstalker24xx 0 Posted July 3, 2009 idiot Really m8 you dont need to pick up your pitch fork and join in with a pointless post. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Placebo 29 Posted July 3, 2009 It's funny isn't it, when I close these "where is patch blah blah" as soon as they start, I get called a fascist/nazi/despot, then when I leave them open we see what happens. I think it's time to bow to my 8 years experience here and admit I'm always right ok? ;) That's a joke in case anyone's not sure :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites