Finally Got Decent, Stable Framerate!!

[mcallon 10]

Hi all. I had the same FPS probs as others have reported: I was able to play for a while with decent FPS, but then it all went to hell and started chugging along, especially in the third mission. I tried some of the suggestions like playing around with graphics settings, rolling back drivers, following the ARMAholic's optimization guide, etc and nothing seemed to help, but then I decided to download the current build of Windows 7 64bit (I had been playing on Vista 32bit) and up my system memory from 3GB to 4GB and it worked like a charm!!! I have been playing for a few hours smooth as butter through parts that chugged like hell previously.

I haven't benchmarked the fps to give you hard numbers, but the game runs like it should. I have all the settings on high, except for shadows, which is on "Normal". View distance is 3000. Res is 1680x1050. I will play around with higher settings and see what happens.

I am sure the extra gig of memory is helping, but, somehow, I think the Windows 7 RC has more to do with the smooth framerate. I don't know if this message will help anyone, but you might try Windows 7 if you're currently on Vista and having FPS, as it may help. The key here may be that, compared to Vista, Windows 7 is less demanding on your system resources.

In case you're interested, here are my specs:

AMD 64 X2 6000+ 3.0GHZ (Stock Speed)

4GB RAM

Windows 7 (Current RC Build) 64-Bit

EVGA GTX 260 (Stock Speeds); 186.18 Geforce Drivers (64bit)

Western Digital 640 GB HDD

Cheers!

Edited July 5, 2009 by mcallon
Adding info about drivers

[Jackdaniels 10]

I haven't benchmarked the fps to give you hard numbers, but the game runs like it should.

Can I suggest you do benchmark the fps before declaring that you have a stable frame rate. I did what you did and although the game did appear to be smoother at first, I later found out after using Fraps, that I was infact still only getting 18 - 27 FPS. Try joining a 30 player Evolution server and see if it's still so smooth. I also thought I had found a fix untill I tried the things I have mentioned.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Jackdaniels

[Kenjineering 10]

Good for you mcallon..

But yeah Jackdaniels is correct, benchmarks would be nice. Fraps used in Razor two in the cities or in the mission before that one. And the Arma2 mark..

Do a few tests with 100%Fillrate, 1680x1050 res.. All settings on normal. but Postprocessing on low. (this is a standard test many have been doing for the sake of comparison)

And then do a few tests with your normal settings.

[mcallon 10]

Hi guys. I'll try doing a few benchmarks and then posting, but, truthfully, I don't care what the numbers are....as long as it plays smooth, I'm a happy camper. Before, it would chug like crazy, even when I lowered the settings, but now I can keep them on high and get to business. :)

I'll post the test results ASAP.

Mike

[Baxalasse 10]

Hi guys. I'll try doing a few benchmarks and then posting, but, truthfully, I don't care what the numbers are....as long as it plays smooth, I'm a happy camper. Before, it would chug like crazy, even when I lowered the settings, but now I can keep them on high and get to business. :)

I'll post the test results ASAP.

Mike

Thank god there are still people that are not hung up on numbers...

[Cpt.Goose 10]

Numbers are only going to tell what you could be getting compared to his computer. He's not going to go back and do what he was doing before take a bench with fraps post it and then put the ram back in, reinstall Win 7 and do it all over again so that's not really going to give anyone a sense of the performance difference HE got.

[Eelis 10]

Thank god there are still people that are not hung up on numbers...

Obviously one's enjoyment ultimately just depends on whether the experience is subjectively "smooth". But as it turns out, different people need different FPS levels to get that experience. Hence, if the topicstarter declares his experience as "smooth", that doesn't actually tell us anything about the game's performance on his machine, because we don't know whether he's one of those lucky people who only need 20 FPS for a smooth experience, or one of those unlucky people who need 60 FPS for a smooth experience.

Consequently, for any meaningful performance indication, objectively quantified data is simply a necessity, and has nothing to do with being "hung up on numbers".

[lowang 2]

you know what's interesting? That even with fps around 30-40 the game seems smoother and mouse reaction faster after I lower postprocessing from high to low. How is it possible? I think like there is not only the fps problem, but also a reaction delay can be bigger if you have too high settings...

[kremator 993]

Post-processing makes the world look horrible. Even MY eyes aren't THAT bad ! Anyways always set it to low.

Glad things are smoother for you.

[ryan80 10]

i just downloaded and installed windows 7 rc. indeed performance seems better.

[Kenjineering 10]

Numbers are only going to tell what you could be getting compared to his computer. He's not going to go back and do what he was doing before take a bench with fraps post it and then put the ram back in, reinstall Win 7 and do it all over again so that's not really going to give anyone a sense of the performance difference HE got.

Yes I know numbers will only tell me what the performance is in regards to his computer and that is why I requested them.

No one expected him to revert back to his old system for us and noone uttered anything of the sort!?

I personally want to see what he considers "good" and relate it back to some set reference that we can all compare to (Binkster's Standard). I haven't yet installed windows7 so I want to see how his computer performs in the previously sluggish areas. Any measurement of FPS in those areas will at least give me an indication that of what "smooth" is.. and if I can relate to his view then I can reasonably assume what not smooth is. Sure that is a crude analysis but it's an analysis none the less.

And anyway, we might find someone on http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=73610 who has a similar set up and compare results that way. And if say the operating system is the only differring feature, then we can inform that person of these results. (I am not saying it will fix theirs but it's nice to give someone else a heads up)

Edited July 5, 2009 by Kenjineering
wasn't happy enough

[shadylurker 0]

This is the benchmark mission on the demo version

Vista x64 17 FPS avg ( I cant remember exact number it was in the teens though)

Windows 7 x64 build 7100 38 FPS avg

game went from totaly un playable to my 38fps avg with high settings and aa / af on veryhigh

I almost shelved this game....I have noticed an increase in FPS all together with win 7, I pre ordered it after using it for 45 min.

Q6700 OC 3.33

9800 GX2 oc

8gb 800mhz ddr2

running off of a 750gb WD HD

Edited July 6, 2009 by shadylurker

[FraG_AU 10]

This is the benchmark mission on the demo version

Vista x64 17 FPS avg ( I cant remember exact number it was in the teens though)

Windows 7 x64 build 7100 38 FPS avg

game went from totaly un playable to my 38fps avg with high settings and aa / af on veryhigh

I almost shelved this game....I have noticed an increase in FPS all together with win 7, I pre ordered it after using it for 45 min.

Q6700 OC 3.33

9800 GX2 oc

8gb 800mhz ddr2

running off of a 750gb WD HD

^^ Win 7 obviously enabled SLi. Though having installed this on a few fresh installs win 7 7232 has been by far the best performing for me.