BeerHunter 0 Posted July 24, 2009 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 ………. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Dawg KS 6 Posted July 24, 2009 Sounds about right to me... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cropduster 0 Posted July 24, 2009 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
froggyluv 2135 Posted July 24, 2009 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SWAT_BigBear 0 Posted July 24, 2009 OS Win XP Seems to be the "key word" from what the ArmA Mark thread reads. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BeerHunter 0 Posted July 24, 2009 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..:) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Azamato 0 Posted July 24, 2009 you think thats weird? I played on medium 20fps on a Pentium 4 :O Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
danowen 0 Posted July 24, 2009 (edited) it runs better on a 9800GT than other higher spec cards as well . Edited July 24, 2009 by danowen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ICE-Raver 10 Posted July 24, 2009 (edited) 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wooly-back-jack 10 Posted July 24, 2009 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the_shadow 0 Posted July 24, 2009 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jch5pilot 10 Posted July 24, 2009 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barely-injured 0 Posted July 24, 2009 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Raficoo 0 Posted July 24, 2009 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 -_- Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BeardPI 10 Posted July 25, 2009 Huh? Interface resolution = resolution Render resolution = fillrate So set both of them to 800x600. Isn't this right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mudkip 0 Posted July 25, 2009 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites