FPS isn't everything...

[MPBR 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.

Wow, you mad much ?

Seriously, thanks but I work for all my toys / hobbies / life expenses (you know things like House / Cars / Bills /Holidays etc).

Maybe try working or get some qulifications so you can work and pay for all your toys.

[Mavrocket 10]

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.

At no point did I attack anyone... I'm simply trying to help people enjoy their game they spent hard earned money on... geez man take it easy!

I haven't checked my FPS but on my system listed in my sig it runs plenty good enough to play it...

I just don't base my enjoyment on a Framerate counter...

Try it sometime bro!

[Jackdaniels 10]

Mavrocket - Hold on... You come to a trouble shooting forum to tell people to give it a rest? Good joke that one... You were joking right? After all, this game isn't Flight Simulator X. Infact your comparisons couldn’t be further apart. Take Flight Sim x. Where all you have got to worry about is sitting with a joystick in hand for hours on end while you fly the world. Or should I say press the auto pilot button and just sit there staring at your monitor for hours doing nothing. It’s no wonder that Fps don’t really matter in a game like Flight simulator x. I found 25 fps in that game enough for what there is to do in the game.

Now take Arma 2, drop yourself in the middle of a battle and remind me that Fps doesn’t count in a game like this. Anybody who knows anything about gamming knows. That a game, like Arma 2, has to have an acceptable fps. I would say anything dropping below 35 Fps for a game like this is unplayable. It’s hardly alot of fun when you feel like you are running through treacle, and it's even worse trying to target the enemy in slow motion.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Jackdaniels

[Mavrocket 10]

Mavrocket - Hold on... You come to a trouble shooting forum to tell people to give it a rest? Good joke that one... You were joking right? After all, this game isn't Flight Simulator X. Infact your comparisons couldn’t be further apart. Take Flight Sim x. Where all you have got to worry about is sitting with a joystick in hand for hours on end while you fly the world. Or should I say press the auto pilot button and just sit there staring at your monitor for hours doing nothing. It’s no wonder that Fps don’t really matter in a game like Flight simulator x. I found 25 fps in that game enough for what there is to do in the game.

Now take Arma 2, drop yourself in the middle of a battle and remind me that Fps doesn’t count in a game like this. Anybody who knows anything about gamming knows. That such a game, like Arma 2, has to have an acceptable fps. I would say anything dropping below 35 Fps for a game like this is unplayable. It’s hardly alot of fun when you feel like you are running through treacle, and it's even worse trying to target the enemy in slow motion.

Couldn't agree with you more about FSX... it's very true that FPS do not matter as much in flying an aircraft as in a firefight (although you could argue that having less than 20 FPS bringing a 747 in for a landing in a 30kt crosswind in zero visibility is like combat...)

I think FPS's need good FPS's (I know, I'm not clever...). I play them all, much like you do it sounds, and I will agree that trying to play Crysis, Fear, L4D, TF2, Stalker (one of my favs), etc at less than 30 FPS SUCKS!

But how about we stop arguing and get back to playing eh?

[Yapab 10]

Cant agree with the OP..... when your playing on low settings and the game looks like crap... and you trying to aim at a distant object at <25fps you start to get bored with the game.

Sure if it ren at <25 fps but looked as good as it does on V.High then you could accept it... but its just lame playing at unplayable FPS (hard to aim) and looking at very dated graphics.

Besides I think its very hard to aim and fire correctly with less than 30fps...

[Kenjineering 10]

It was suicidal of you to make this thread in a trouble shooting forum. lol

Edited July 7, 2009 by Kenjineering

[Kabolte 10]

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.

Wow thank you so much!:)

[harveysimpson 15]

It was suicidal of you to make this thread in a trouble shooting forum. lol

He made a very good point.

If we use our common-sense then its obvious he didn't mean it would be acceptable to play this game at 5 FPS, did he?!

He was just stating that there are way too many fanboys who see Arma 2 as more of a benchmark than a game - at least that is the way it seems to me from this area of the forums.

Oh, and another thing:

IF I WAS BOHEMIA I WOULD RELEASE THIS GAME IN ITS BETA STAGE...WHY??

BECAUSE THERE ARE LOADS OF CHUMPS LIKE YOU GUYS READY TO TEST IT ALL WEEKEND!!

LOL ...PLAY THE DAMM GAME AND GO AND WHINGE TO YOUR MUM INSTEAD.

Edited July 7, 2009 by harveysimpson

[FlunkyMonkey 10]

Understandable bud.

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

Eth

As belligerent as BIS has been with letting their community know what is going on, I have faith. I just upgraded my sys. about a year ago, so I am playing through ArmA for the first time :)

[Kenjineering 10]

He made a very good point.

If we use our common-sense then its obvious he didn't mean it would be acceptable to play this game at 5 FPS, did he?!

He was just stating that there are way too many fanboys who see Arma 2 as more of a benchmark than a game - at least that is the way it seems to me from this area of the forums.

Oh, and another thing:

IF I WAS BOHEMIA I WOULD RELEASE THIS GAME IN ITS BETA STAGE...WHY??

BECAUSE THERE ARE LOADS OF CHUMPS LIKE YOU GUYS READY TO TEST IT ALL WEEKEND!!

LOL ...PLAY THE DAMM GAME AND GO AND WHINGE TO YOUR MUM INSTEAD.

Some how I think you mis-interpreted my comment.

I wrote that after reading people's negative replies to him. Now, re-read my comment and see if anything you directed at me is based on any fact or based on your assumptions. You should come to the conclusion that I was having a laugh at how he unwittingly walked into negative feedback heaven.

Troll somewhere else. Your post is just one big whinge? Look at all that CAPSLOCK rofl.

" there are way too many fanboys who see Arma 2 as more of a benchmark than a game - "

Daft.

Do you know why people started posting benchmarks in the first place?

Do you know how valuable raw data is compared to someone's opinion, "it runs good"?

How can you sit there and presume what other people think?

Why are you even on these forums?

BTW, you are talking to someone who doesn't care so much about FPS being soley for the sake of being a benchmark.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Kenjineering

[FraG_AU 10]

He made a very good point.

If we use our common-sense then its obvious he didn't mean it would be acceptable to play this game at 5 FPS, did he?!

He was just stating that there are way too many fanboys who see Arma 2 as more of a benchmark than a game - at least that is the way it seems to me from this area of the forums.

Oh, and another thing:

IF I WAS BOHEMIA I WOULD RELEASE THIS GAME IN ITS BETA STAGE...WHY??

BECAUSE THERE ARE LOADS OF CHUMPS LIKE YOU GUYS READY TO TEST IT ALL WEEKEND!!

LOL ...PLAY THE DAMM GAME AND GO AND WHINGE TO YOUR MUM INSTEAD.

Wow, 3rd post and already a troll. Really why bother to start arguments? Grow up mate.

As for this topic, I seriously doubt anyone would care about fps for a "e-penis" reason and obviously their reasons for trying to sort out this is due to the fact that it is unplayable for their tastes... Perhaps when you play the game you will come to the same conclusion.

[harveysimpson 15]

Wow, 3rd post and already a troll. Really why bother to start arguments? Grow up mate.

As for this topic, I seriously doubt anyone would care about fps for a "e-penis" reason and obviously their reasons for trying to sort out this is due to the fact that it is unplayable for their tastes... Perhaps when you play the game you will come to the same conclusion.

Comment wasn't aimed at Kenjineering in particular - I just used his quote as a starting point.

I've been playing the game for a couple of weeks now and I'm loving it - the FPS situation is ok - it's smooth enough unless I play Warfare which can get a bit jittery to say the least.

My point is that some spoilt brats on here allow their enjoyment of the game to become diminished due to an obsession with FPS.

In theory there are many many AI bots doing there thing out there- transport - urban battles - support etc etc etc - combine that with the effects - shoot a tree and leaves fall out - leaves blow when the wind picks up - dust gets kicked up while driving...and you expect all this to run smoothly....hmmmm.

My suggestion is enjoy the experience if you can achieve around 30 fps and stop worrying about that extra 30 you could get.

This game is a huge step forward in immersing the game player ; And all you guys do is whine...

To all you demanding little school children who must have their 60 FPS or somebodies going to damm well know about it, I ask one question...

Where were you when Wing Commander blew us all away?

(In nappies I bet)

Edited July 7, 2009 by harveysimpson

[rekrul 7]

I think FPS's need good FPS's (I know, I'm not clever...). I play them all, much like you do it sounds, and I will agree that trying to play Crysis, Fear, L4D, TF2, Stalker (one of my favs), etc at less than 30 FPS SUCKS!

But how about we stop arguing and get back to playing eh?

Can't we do both? :)

Seriously though, many of us are quite used to new releases from BIS and can live with the bugs, the crashes, and so on and we know it will be resolved in a 6-12 months timespan, it's just that many of us invested a lot of dough into new HW to get better performance and don't.

None of us are really asking for 120 FPS with maximum settings, most are trying to get a playable experience (20-30 FPS) with kickass HW and that isn't too much to ask for. The unfortunate situation this creates is that many new players think "screw this" and move on to other games or doesn't buy it at all.

[Mavrocket 10]

Where were you when Wing Commander blew us all away?

Trying to blow away Kilrathi and defend the Tiger's Claw! Hell Yeah!

In regards to this thread I knew what I was getting into. This thread wasn't created so people could argue, I was just presenting a viewpoint on the state of the ARMA 2 Community when it comes to playing the game...

To those who cannot achieve good FPS I hope that someday you will be able to enjoy the game like those few of us who do now.

[Kenjineering 10]

I actually deleted my original thesis of a reply.

Let's all agree. Be contempt with what you have and recognise just how spectacular everything is ..if you get too caught up in hard to attain FPS you might miss out on the experience that the developers intendid.

I personally can't explain how much I love the game.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Kenjineering
stuff and things

[Ghillidude 10]

BIs has to sort out the code problems and tweak it and all will be good! /pray

[bender316 10]

I dont think any 1 is asking for 120 fps. But any game under 35 -40 fps isn't fun to play .

The low fps and sloppy mouse is why i didn't buy the game.

[igeighty 2]

LOL ...PLAY THE DAMM GAME AND GO AND WHINGE TO YOUR MUM INSTEAD.

no good whinging to me, Im busy playing the game. :)

[7SD-Toker 10]

Well, I wish I could play the game sporting a Intel Q9650 an ATI 4870 1Gb and 6Gb of RAM. I´m getting low FPS ~20-25 that makes the game stutter. I also get flickering that messes up my eyes. Nomatter what settings I use, the result is almost the same +-3-4 FPS and still flickering. Flickering and stuttering makes the game unplayable for me. The game is broken for me.

I would like nothing else than be able to play this otherwise supersweet game. If they just fixed the reported graphics errors/bugs ALOT of people are reporting about i´m sure that more people would be playing right now. Sadly I´m beeing forced to lay this game on rest to wait for a "miracle patch".

[ta.maximus 10]

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.

Hi Kegetys,

I've tried your limiter DLL but unfortunately the game won't start up and just crashes after the little checkbox load screen pops up. I'm running the game on WinXP SP2 and using the Steam version. Shortcut is set to:

D:\Games\Steam\Steam.exe -applaunch 33910 -fpslimit=40

And I'm running ArmA II version is 1.02

Anyways, just though I'd let you know.

[SnakeGRNET 10]

Same here... :/

Nothing after the check boxes...

[ta.maximus 10]

datter from these forums posted an alternative version, I haven't tried it out yet though, will do so tonight. Read this:

http://www.caveofdistraction.com/2009/07/22/fps-limiter-smoother-gameplay-in-arma2-and-other-titles/

[Sabbath 10]

My first online gaming experience was with CSS, I enjoyed playing the game until someone pointed out what FPS they were getting, I inquired as to how they could see thier FPS. What followed for me was a total obsession with FPS, I was never satisfied and kept tweaking and tweaking trying to get higher and higher FPS, it totally ruined the game. Since then I have never bothered about FPS, if the game runs smooth then that does me. I cannot play the single player mission because of shocking frame rate but the online game hardly skips a beat.

I commiserate with all the people that are unable to play this game due to poor frame rate but after reading a lot of these posts about bugs, poor FPS, type of GFX card, type of Processor, version of operating system, how much memory, yada yada yada all I can say is ........it makes no difference, this is a BIS problem, there is nothing 'we' can do to make the game play better. IMO there is not a computer built that could run this game to its full potential because the game is not finished. I know a lot of people want to show there discontent with this game and this is the place to do it, I am sure BIS are not holding back on the next patch just to pi** us all off but with all the problems this game has it could be a while. I for one am happy with the game bugs and all because I can finally throw BF2 in the bin. :D

[Skylin3 10]

Well it's not easy to enjoy a game at 10 FPS