FPS isn't everything...

[Mavrocket 10]

As a new user to ARMA 2 and a new member of the forums, I'm finding this community to be very similar to the Flight Simulator X(FSX) community in regards to tweaking and framerates...

I see many people obsessed with making sure their FPS is where they want it and if it isn't going to the ends of the earth (and then flaming about the game) to try and get it within their "FPS Tolerance."

Good God people give it a rest! Play the game!

I had the same problem with FSX... I spent more time searching forums, tweaking, and testing than playing the game. I may as well have used the game as a benchmark! Then one day I decided to say screw it and started playing the game and actually enjoyed it!

So everyone take a deep breath, set the graphics settings to playable settings (you aren't going to be able to run the game at 60 FPS with a dual core Athlon, a GeForce 8600 and very high graphic settings, sorry), and PLAY for Heaven's sake!

I know we all want more than we pay for, and I'm sure I'll be applying the next tweak or mod that comes out, but I pledge to play more than tweak!

Happy hunting!

[bangtail 0]

As a new user to ARMA 2 and a new member of the forums, I'm finding this community to be very similar to the Flight Simulator X(FSX) community in regards to tweaking and framerates...

I see many people obsessed with making sure their FPS is where they want it and if it isn't going to the ends of the earth (and then flaming about the game) to try and get it within their "FPS Tolerance."

Good God people give it a rest! Play the game!

I had the same problem with FSX... I spent more time searching forums, tweaking, and testing than playing the game. I may as well have used the game as a benchmark! Then one day I decided to say screw it and started playing the game and actually enjoyed it!

So everyone take a deep breath, set the graphics settings to playable settings (you aren't going to be able to run the game at 60 FPS with a dual core Athlon, a GeForce 8600 and very high graphic settings, sorry), and PLAY for Heaven's sake!

I know we all want more than we pay for, and I'm sure I'll be applying the next tweak or mod that comes out, but I pledge to play more than tweak!

Happy hunting!

QFT!

Eth

[datter 0]

As an avid FSX pilot myself, I must say I've noticed the same thing. Not bad advice this, though it's a harder sell to those who are having actual freezing/crash problems... or FPS so bad they can't play. Still as I've said elsewhere, give it time. These games (OFP/Armed Assault and now ArmA2) get worked out.

datter

Cave of Distraction

Your Thread Sucks

[Nutlink 10]

It can be hard to play a game that's so jerky when you're used to playing games that are so smooth. It's like going from a Ferrari to a Kia. Sure, it works but just feels like crap. That's how I see it at least. I'm enjoying the game just fine, but I'm not too pleased with my E8400@3.8Ghz and GTX 275 puttering along at some points.

[FraG_AU 10]

Sorry, but I personally disagree to some extent .. LOL, if you know something is broken on your system why not try and fix it? I pay huge $$ per year to keep up with the bleeding edge on my PC so that I can enjoy everything in full glory at full speed..

It honestly took me over a week to get this game from avg of ~30 fps to flat tac 60 but it was worth it. I know arma does not need 60fps by any means, but having solid "consistant" fps is important. Anyway what I am trying to say, is if I gave up the game would still run like shit for me.. Obviously bitching and moaning on low->mid systems is futile as some peoples expectation are to high

EDIT: Just to clairfy, I agree that FPS is not everything, but if you clearly have issues dont give up! :) But then again my FPS scale (expectation) is way higher then most people

Edited July 6, 2009 by FraG_AU

[Baxalasse 10]

Good God people give it a rest! Play the game!

Couldn't agree with you more...

[Mavrocket 10]

Sorry, but I personally disagree to some extent .. LOL, if you know something is broken on your system why not try and fix it? I pay huge $$ per year to keep up with the bleeding edge on my PC so that I can enjoy everything in full glory at full speed..

It honestly took me over a week to get this game from avg of ~30 fps to flat tac 60 but it was worth it. I know arma does not need 60fps by any means, but having solid "consistant" fps is important. Anyway what I am trying to say, is if I gave up the game would still run like shit for me.. Obviously bitching and moaning on low->mid systems is futile as some peoples expectation are to high

EDIT: Just to clairfy, I agree that FPS is not everything, but if you clearly have issues dont give up! :) But then again my FPS scale (expectation) is way higher then most people

I completely agree and I too have tweaked my game in order to play it (the -winxp trick for my 4850x2 was essential!) with good FPS. I posted for those who spend more time tweaking then playing.

[Bad Pilot 0]

Frankly, I don't see why I don't get the same fps in Arma2 as in Quake2 - it's just a damn picture ffs!

:D

[Mavrocket 10]

ROFL! I actually booted up the original Quake (on Steam) the other day and started the single player... It amazes me to remember what "awesome jaw-dropping graphics" used to be!

FYI: I remember tweaking and overclocking to get that game to run good on my 486!

[evlbond 10]

Your right.

Althow when FPS drops low(when i say low i mean under 25fps slideshow) even when you put everything on minimum you know somethings not right. Id like a consistant 25-30 even on the worst gfx settings. I get same fps on highest and lowest settings odd no? :S

[thr0tt 12]

Why not just post a thread saying 'I have a superior system and can run the game so I am not interested in the other 80% of folk who isn't a spoilt brat and cannot afford to upgrade every component to play the game'. ?

Thanks for the really useful advise.

[bangtail 0]

Why not just post a thread saying 'I have a superior system and can run the game so I am not interested in the other 80% of folk who isn't a spoilt brat and cannot afford to upgrade every component to play the game'. ?

Thanks for the really useful advise.

You do know that some of the people with the best systems are having problems and I'd really like to know where you got 80% from?

Way to fabricate things :rolleyes:

Eth

Edited July 6, 2009 by BangTail

[Mavrocket 10]

Why not just post a thread saying 'I have a superior system and can run the game so I am not interested in the other 80% of folk who isn't a spoilt brat and cannot afford to upgrade every component to play the game'. ?

Thanks for the really useful advise.

Whoa buddy let's not turn this into a grudge match!

My system is mediocre at best (see the cpu OC I had to do to try and keep up with the crowd)... My FPS hover between 20-30 depending on which cardinal direction I am facing and what's around to render! I'm not running an i7, 12 GB of DDR3 and two GTX 295s in SLI (although I sure wish I could afford it!).

And my wife would agree with you that I am spoiled... I get to budget in my computer upgrade every other year...

Sorry if I offended anyone, I'm just trying to help people enjoy their game.

BTW it's spelled "spoiled" not "spoilt"

Edited July 6, 2009 by Mavrocket

[kegetys 2]

What I find annoying is that the fps varies so much when playing - I can get over 60fps when flying or looking at open terrain, and then suddenly have the FPS drop to 30 when looking towards some bushes. 30 FPS would be enough for me for the game to feel smooth, but the drop from 60 to 30 makes it seem worse than it actually is. Even worse, the mouse speed seems to vary alot as the FPS goes up/down.

To cure this I made a simple FPS limiter DLL that I use to limit the FPS to 40, playing feels a bit better with it (not a big difference though). The DLL is available here in case anyone wants to try it, put it to the ArmA2 directory and then add -fpslimit=40 parameter to the shortcut to use.

[Mavrocket 10]

I use something similar with Flight Simulator for the same reasons. I'll have to give this a shot, thanks!

[madrussian 347]

IMHO, FPS is not the only thing... instead it is the basis for everything else!

It's clear some of us can enjoy playing games at a low FPS... and I do not begrudge nor pity them. In fact, one of my best buddies can play games this way!

I, on the other hand, have needed a new PC (or new video card at least) once every two years to keep my FPS at an acceptable level. Now that this financial crisis has hit though, devs in general have at least slowed their relentless pursuit of ever-more-resource-intensive games, and started making games more adjustable in terms of lower settings (to maximize fan base and thus income). So my trusty 8800GTX has been treating me well for some time now. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite cut the mustard for ArmA2 though.

So I think the important thing to realize is that people are different, and their tollerance levels for various things (including FPS) are also different. Overall, to each his own!

edit:

Cool sounding program Kegetys... gotta check that out!

Edited July 6, 2009 by MadRussian

[kanotson 2]

So everyone take a deep breath, set the graphics settings to playable settings (you aren't going to be able to run the game at 60 FPS with a dual core Athlon, a GeForce 8600 and very high graphic settings, sorry), and PLAY for Heaven's sake!

I have a dual core Athlon and a GeForce 8600, and I'd like to be able to run the game at 30 fps at low settings. It only reach 30 fps in the armory.

I am enjoying the game at 10-25 fps, but I'm waiting some performance patch or the time I upgrade my pc. My only complaint is that 505 games put in the game box this:

Recommended hardware:

-Quad Core CPU, or fast dual core CPU, Intel core 2.8 Ghz or AMD Athlon 64 x2 4400+ very fast

-Ram: 2Gb

-Gpu: Fast Nvidia Geforce 8800GT or ATI Radeon 4850 or very fast with shader model 3 and 512Mb vram

-Windows XP or Vista

Note that they say recommended, not minimum :confused:

I tried the demo before and saw that it was not true, but I am a fan of the saga and know that I will play after some years (with better rig!)

[FlunkyMonkey 10]

You do know that some of the people with the best systems are having problems and I'd really like to know where you got 80% from?

Way to fabricate things :rolleyes:

Eth

It is clear from your troubleshooting forum posts that you have no problems running this game, so why do you troll around and argue with people when they say others are having problems? Why don't you go play the game like I wish I could? :(

Ah sorry Eth, I pulled the trigger early on this one, im just frustrated :(

Edited July 6, 2009 by FlunkyMonkey

[nuggetz 0]

I agree and disagree. First of all, if your FPS are below 20, YOU CANNOT PLAY, at least you wont find me playing at that FPS. On the other hand, if your FPS are at least averaging 30, then it's totally playable. I think that you can be obsessed about FPS to a point but you should stop obsessing when you tweak the game and your system and achieve something playable. I myself have stopped running the stupid benchmark .pbo after I made some headway with my drivers, profile, and game tweaks. I spent the entire weekend tweaking when A2 came out and you don't even wanna count all the pieces of paper I have scattered around my room with FPS scores and notes from the benchmark. Forget it. The game isn't optimized and still has issues that I hope will be resolved. nVidia has it's own share of problems too. But for the time being, I'm gonna play for a change. Those of you with decent rigs, you should NOT accept anything below 30FPS and I think you should continue to pursue a framerate that at least allows you to play the game without having to resort to 1024x768 with all details set to low. I myself play at 2560x1600 so I had a lot of tweaking to do. Running any other resolution on my 30 inch LCD looks like XBOX 360 graphics. Screw that. Sure my SLI'd 8800GTX aren't tops anymore but I managed to squeeze acceptable FPS out of the game for now. I'm hopeful of a patch. BIS has done it with ARMA 1 and I hope they optimize A2 too.

---------- Post added at 09:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 PM ----------

What I find annoying is that the fps varies so much when playing - I can get over 60fps when flying or looking at open terrain, and then suddenly have the FPS drop to 30 when looking towards some bushes. 30 FPS would be enough for me for the game to feel smooth, but the drop from 60 to 30 makes it seem worse than it actually is. Even worse, the mouse speed seems to vary alot as the FPS goes up/down.

To cure this I made a simple FPS limiter DLL that I use to limit the FPS to 40, playing feels a bit better with it (not a big difference though). The DLL is available here in case anyone wants to try it, put it to the ArmA2 directory and then add -fpslimit=40 parameter to the shortcut to use.

Would -fpslimit=25 also work or does it have to be 40?

Edited July 6, 2009 by nuggetz

[bangtail 0]

It is clear from your troubleshooting forum posts that you have no problems running this game, so why do you troll around and argue with people when they say others are having problems? Why don't you go play the game like I wish I could? :(

Ah sorry Eth, I pulled the trigger early on this one, im just frustrated :(

Understandable bud.

Just hang in there as I'm sure that there will be some good news in the near future.

Eth

[Duxa 10]

Yes FPS is everything when its playing at 5FPS, vesus playing at 30 fps...

you cant play with 5FPS... and thats what I get in some parts of the game with a Quad core Q9550 and Dual GPU 295 GTX 2GB and 8GB of DDR3 ram.

[Zipper5 74]

and thats what I get in some parts of the game with a Quad core Q9550 and Dual GPU 295 GTX 2GB and 8GB of DDR3 ram.

Then you have something very, very wrong. I have a setup worse than yours and only when I've put over 1000 units on a map do I get framerates that low. Otherwise it's a silky smooth 20 to 80 or-so FPS.

[rekrul 7]

I have Quad core Q9550 @ 2.83GHz, 4GB RAM and 2 x 4890 (crossfire not working) and I get 40-60 FPS on the intro and 1-21FPS in the woods with Normal/high settings. The graphics are fine but I would like to get 20+ FPS and really long view distance.

[CommDante 10]

Not everyone has a quad-core ... and even on quad-cores performance doesn't seem to be that scaleble. At least campaign doesn't, what I've read the problematic fps has mostly to do with the buildings in a city/big town. I've got a decent setup (listed below), more than listed as recommended at least ... an it doesn't really matter what I do (graphic wise, 500 miles, all low ... or all Very High with 3.000+ miles ... 5 fps difference at best, not even avg). Untill the 5th mission orso (Razer 2, when you get heli support), I had a minimum of 30 FPS (weirdly enough, very playable, experience says 45+ orso). There, I get 15 though ... I can hardly move around the base, let alone fight. It doesn't even seem to be the AI, but more all the (possible to) destructible buildings in the area. Now I'm not much of a game programmer, but I HAVE been following alot of "these bloatware topics". Imo: all these buildings are bloatware: they're being watched ALL the time while not even being in "the slightest of danger". Once "in the wilderness"/out ot town, I've got about 30-40+ FPS...which is very playable with this game. So, imo: it isn't just the AI ... it's the towns/buildings.

Offcourse I can be wrong, but imo 180+ trees should put more drain on a GPU than watching to the sky/ground (while in a town/city) on a CPU (with running AI etc).

The game seems to be quite fine in general, being a SIM; it's really playable with 25+ FPS (prev 30+ offcourse) ... but 15 in campaign :? without even a real good reason? Imo that should be fixed, it's killing this game and there isn't even a good reason for it. If it's the AI, then why is the FPS 30+ out of big towns/cities?

System:

x2 6400+, 4GB, 4890 1Ghz/1Ghz/1GB, 2x640GB RAID stripe, 1440x900.

[Brew Crew 10]

So everyone take a deep breath, set the graphics settings to playable settings (you aren't going to be able to run the game at 60 FPS with a dual core Athlon, a GeForce 8600 and very high graphic settings, sorry), and PLAY for Heaven's sake!

Here is the flaw in your comment. Many people CAN'T get a playable frame rate in the campaign regardless of the graphics settings used. I am one of those people. I have an i7 920, with dual GTX 295s and can't get above 27 fps for an average on LOW settings. Clearly not acceptable. I would be ecstatic with an average of 35-40 fps on normal settings.

Before you start attacking those of us in the community who are expressing our dissatisfaction due to the fact that we can't even play the game, maybe you should educate yourself on the issues people are having. Now go back to playing your copy of Arma 2 that clearly works on your pc at a playable frame rate, as you clearly have nothing of value to add to the troubleshooting board.