Can this be right?? 25-30+ FPS???

[BeerHunter 0]

Just installed the game (only had the demo before) but have been following the postings about poor performance.

Using FRAPs I see a fairly consistent +30 FPS with some drops down to 25 FPS and <20 sometimes in heavily wooded areas yet according to others with much more powerful systems they are only getting in the mid 20's regularly.

My specs are:

CPU : Athlon 64x2 4200

GPU : ATI 4750 1G

OS Win XP

2 G Memory.

All video options set to NORMAL ,Antisoptric , AA and PP OFF

Shut down all non necessaries (ie anti-virus etc.).

I had planned on an upgrade but maybe wait until this fall if I am actually getting performances like this. Don’t see a need to rush, as apparently, according to others, I’m not going to see a really significant improvement.

Question is .. do these FPS numbers seem reasonable or could FRAP’s be off?

Game runs and looks just fine as it is. Might be nice to use BEST rather than normal but for the cost, hassle and time involved ……….

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Sounds about right to me...

[cropduster 0]

Does it seem laggy to you? I am completely not looking at artificial numbers but judge how the games plays. For me it is smooth and I do not measure my framerates at all.

So, can you play theat game smoothly or not?

Michael

[froggyluv 2136]

I would go by 'playability' rather than fps. I was an FPS whore for the first 2 weeks always trying to find ways to increase it but generally the playability pretty much stayed the same which overall is pretty good. I actually dropped maybe 300-400 points on Arma mark after the 102 patch but in-game I havent noticed much difference and i do like to use lots of AA and high fillrates. Never thought I was a graphics glutten, but damn if Arma2 isn't so much more enjoyable when pimped on high.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

OS Win XP

Seems to be the "key word" from what the ArmA Mark thread reads.

[BeerHunter 0]

Game runs smooth as silk for the most part on NORMAL.

Right about forgetting the FPS hype just that I wasn't expecting anything near that with my system after reading about all the i7 CPU performance issues.

Just gonna play and enjoy for the time being..:)

[Azamato 0]

you think thats weird?

I played on medium 20fps on a Pentium 4 :O

[danowen 0]

it runs better on a 9800GT than other higher spec cards as well .

Edited July 24, 2009 by danowen

[ICE-Raver 10]

With AA, AF and PP off I could believe that. What about shadows?

I get 25-35 on my rig

1680 x 1050 16:10 WS

Texture-High

Video Memory-High

Anti-Aliasing-low

AF-Low

Terrain Normal

Objects Normal

Shadows OFF

Post Processing low

__________________

Edited July 24, 2009 by ICE-Raver

[wooly-back-jack 10]

Beerhunter don't go messing mate, if you can run the game without crashes to desktop all the time just get playing it and enjoy it, performace tweaks in patches will come.....eventually

[the_shadow 0]

Beerhunter..

seams to be a pretty similar rig to mine.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+

AT Radeon EAH 4850 512mb

Win XP pro SP3

2048Mb RAM

and i get about the same performance.

though i have shadows on high and AF and AA both on LOW, PP off

Terrain detail on Low

rest on normal

i will try the AA and AF off though.

i wont lower the shadows though since i just cant stand the "blocky" shadows that you get on Low and normal.

[jch5pilot 10]

Hello,

In my opinion, if the game runs fine and appears to run smooth it doesn't matter what your FPS are. Games that are played more competively such as COD4 for example, FPS do matter and players try to get their frame rates as high as possible to get that slight advantage. ArmA2 as far as I see it is not a competitive game in the same sense, therefore if it runs smooth for you there probably isn't any reason to check FPS.

Anything around 20+ seems to give smooth gameplay on my low end machine.

James

[Barely-injured 0]

well if it is runnig well regardless of FPS then you can just enjoy the game. If you want another way to test your FPS other than Fraps (hopefully less intensive) you could try Deadfast's FPS counter. It is what I use.

[Raficoo 0]

i can't believe that they related the Fillrate with the Resolution >.<

now my Lappy Laggs even everyset set on low.. and fillrate set on 100%(1024X800)

before 1.02.. i always set the fillrate to 100% but the Resolution to 800X600.. and it was really good for me.. now.. its a mess -_-

[BeardPI 10]

Huh?

Interface resolution = resolution

Render resolution = fillrate

So set both of them to 800x600.

Isn't this right?

[Mudkip 0]

Don't worry, I get similar frames to you.

My Specs:

AMD 4000+ @ 3 GHz

2 GB RAM @ 1 GHz

9800 GTX+

My Settings:

Resolution: 1600x1200

3D Resolution: 100%

Visibility: 1000

Textures: Normal

Video Memory: Very High

Anisotropic Filtering: Very High

Anti-Aliasing: 8

Terrain Detail: Very Low

Object Detail: Very Low

Shadows: Very High

Post-Processing: Very High