Request: Alternative vegetation detail

[GLeek 10]

The OP sounds like he's clueless

i think you should reconsider the thing .

i will make a synthese of why i KNOW i'm right about GPU bottleneck and vegetation FPS killer.

[maddogx 13]

Vegetation doesn't cause any problems for me. It's the buildings that cause the worst slowdowns.

[GLeek 10]

now that PROPER REALEASED their PROPER VEGETAION , i can play with very good framerate. 1680x1050 , 3D fillrate 133% . something like 2200x1500. it apply an oversampling , and that 's rocks. with that , i add a 2X msaa , and my picture is sharp as a razor. the graphics settings match almost perfectly the cpu bottleneck. i can lower thing , and i don't have more FPS. i call that "EXPLOITING YOUR GPU"

i made 2 screenshots , wich illustrate my original problem with arma2 vegetation. as you can see on that first picture , which show stock tree and plant , i have 20 fps it's unplayable.

compared with PROPER BI optimization departement KICKASSer VEGETATION TWEAKS LOW VISUAL , the dice has rolled.

there is no rescuing for default vegetation . we should drop it . it sucks framerate , and don't contribute too much to beauty of graphism. i can now play with high detail 3D mesh , see soldier hemlet and glasses , in a nutshell , modern graphics.

the problem i pointed in first post has now disappear. thanks to proper. test it yourself , and see what i'm talking 'bout !

---------- Post added at 10:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 AM ----------

Mmh i think it is not the vegetation itself. If you have a problem in the editor, then the graphicscard is too slow. But the 4870 is not worst at all. Look at me. I have a HD 4850 with 512 MB and I can get 40-60 fps in some mp missions. But when i play sp with ai, I have to play 80% with the fps like you have: 24 fps...although i got a phenom II X4 945, 4850 512MB 4gb ram and XP...

Wait for patches or get a faster cpu.

Even on lowest settings, where the 4850 shouldn't hold the performance back, the cpu seems to be the bottleneck. But my mainboard only allows 95W cpus and i won't buy a 140W cpu! I hope BIS will "fix" or optimize the engine.

dude ,please. stop noobism .

some of scene are cpu limited. some other are GPU limited.

i DIDN'T SPEAK ABOUT CPU BOTTLENECK ,as we ALL know OFP has always been. my 2 screenshot of first post were made on an EMPTY map . 5 soldier , plus the player. i consider that as empty. there is no way you could call that "playing condition" there is simply NOTHING . no script , no group , no action.

i would like to demonstrate the GPU BOTTLENECK . that's why .

and please stop telling me HD4870 1GB is too slow. the upper class cost is nearly 300$.

oh , and another thing , phenom sucks. intel winz.

Edited September 11, 2009 by GLeek

[NeMeSiS 11]

there is no rescuing for default vegetation . we should drop it

No we shouldnt, it works fine for me and i like it. You can already use a mod so there is no need to just randomly delete the highest LODS for everyone. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Oh, and im on a 4870 512mb.

[trickster1982 10]

set your resolution to 1280x1024, video memory to very high, detail levels at normal/high, fill rate 133%, AA on normal or high, view distance between 2000 & 3000 meters (play with it till it runs sweet), de-frag your pc,make sure everything is on the latest drivers & see how it plays then! Thats the settings im running on & the game plays fine for me unless its a user made mission with hundreds of AI on screen at once!

My PC is - AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000, 8800GTX, 2GB RAM, 600GB hard disc, decent enough system, but 2 years old yet im not having any problems playing the game!

[koroush47 10]

If they can make it render farther and cause less lag... Of course!

But Lets not make it look like crap.

Otherwise WHY NOT?

[GLeek 10]

set your resolution to 1280x1024, video memory to very high, detail levels at normal/high, fill rate 133%, AA on normal or high, view distance between 2000 & 3000 meters (play with it till it runs sweet), de-frag your pc,make sure everything is on the latest drivers & see how it plays then! Thats the settings im running on & the game plays fine for me unless its a user made mission with hundreds of AI on screen at once!

My PC is - AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000, 8800GTX, 2GB RAM, 600GB hard disc, decent enough system, but 2 years old yet im not having any problems playing the game!

playing on a 26" display , with resolution of 1280x1024 , is not "decent".

anyway , now it run great ! thanks to PROPER .

[Alex72 1]

Set the fillrate to 100% and go AA instead. Will give you more power. FR is a true FPS killer.

Im way below your specs as well and the game ran fine since day one.

[GLeek 10]

Set the fillrate to 100% and go AA instead. Will give you more power. FR is a true FPS killer.

Im way below your specs as well and the game ran fine since day one.

i said it run great now, with proper vegetation addons.

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

Gleek did you make this entire thread to advertise the proper tweaks? You've been asked many times to post your full system specs and you haven't. Did it occur to you that you might be having problems due to a conflict somewhere?

Basically you're an idiot, I will maintain that opinion until I see clear evidence to the contrary.

Also, if fraps is killing your fps by being on then you have it set up wrong and/or you don't have enough harddrive space.

[Bandito 10]

I remember using Kegetys' Lowplants for ArmA, really helped my framerate (especially on North Sahrani). I think it replaced all vegetation with low shader detail variants that were unaffected by all other graphics settings.

If something like that were made for ArmA II I'd definitely check it out!

[GLeek 10]

I remember using Kegetys' Lowplants for ArmA, really helped my framerate (especially on North Sahrani). I think it replaced all vegetation with low shader detail variants that were unaffected by all other graphics settings.

If something like that were made for ArmA II I'd definitely check it out!

it's there ! check it the "low" version.

---------- Post added at 07:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 AM ----------

Gleek did you make this entire thread to advertise the proper tweaks? You've been asked many times to post your full system specs and you haven't. Did it occur to you that you might be having problems due to a conflict somewhere?

Basically you're an idiot, I will maintain that opinion until I see clear evidence to the contrary.

Also, if fraps is killing your fps by being on then you have it set up wrong and/or you don't have enough harddrive space.

don't need to know my system specs. this addons give +50% perfs boost.

[Tankbuster 1746]

Your GPU isn't the bottleneck. What's your CPU, Ram, OS etc.

/me nods

[GLeek 10]

/me nods

why you think that ? enlight me please ...

[Tankbuster 1746]

Unless you're driving the shaders REALLY hard with a big resolution, this game really doesn't stress GPU's. The vast majority of performance related problems here are not down to the GPU. Usually, they are down to the choice of OS or a weak CPU, or the 8GB RAM problem.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I guess I like grass as much as anyone ;) But the main problem I have about it is that it is controlled through the terrain detail setting. You really don't want to have this below the high setting. The image below shows what I mean. Furthermore, the fire geometry is not adjusted, so no matter what you set it to, you're forced into making a headshot. You'll be wasting a lot of ammo (forget one shot kill), and giving away your position as you shoot. Funny though how the AI doesn't even seem to respond to the fire geometry taking shots right in front of him, but I guess that's another complain :)

Btw, there are some differences in terrain detail between very low and low, but they didn't make it into this cropped version. Also, sorry for the additional sharpening, I didn't know what the size reduction would do.

Edited September 25, 2009 by CarlGustaffa

[Tankbuster 1746]

Blimey. That's pretty conclusive evidence. I'm setting TD to high right away.

This explains why my rounds fired close to the horizon behave like they are hitting terrain when they appear to be aimed well above it.

[.kju 3244]

CarlGustaffa I made a ticket here for the issue.

Can you please attach your test mission to ease the testing for BI. ty

Bug #4852 Terrain detail changes terrain height at distance

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I'm not sure what you mean by "Exp:Terrain detail does not influence terrain height at all." It does affect terrain detail, and I think it works as designed, by lowering the polygon count. Although it naturally is a problem that the fire geometry is not influenced, it is a problem most of us can live with. I have no significant dropdown in frames anymore for using grass, like I had in Arma1. Given my computer specs, I guess most people are able to run with this slider maxed.

The biggest problem, as you hinted, is that you can't get rid of grass without causing the bad geometry problems. I don't want grass (anymore), but I'm forced to due to the hopelessness of a shared slider. If there was a single button to control grass, I could turn grass off and have the best terrain detail which eliminates the problem.

I would like to hear the devs input on this. Maybe there is a reason that it has to be like this that I can't think of. I'll see if I can whip up a simple mission to replicate it.

Edit: Added a mission file on DH.

Edited September 28, 2009 by CarlGustaffa

[Rapier 10]

I guess I like grass as much as anyone ;) But the main problem I have about it is that it is controlled through the terrain detail setting. You really don't want to have this below the high setting. The image below shows what I mean. Furthermore, the fire geometry is not adjusted, so no matter what you set it to, you're forced into making a headshot. You'll be wasting a lot of ammo (forget one shot kill), and giving away your position as you shoot. Funny though how the AI doesn't even seem to respond to the fire geometry taking shots right in front of him, but I guess that's another complain :)

Btw, there are some differences in terrain detail between very low and low, but they didn't make it into this cropped version. Also, sorry for the additional sharpening, I didn't know what the size reduction would do.

I have noticed this as well. You know this would only be valid, if the AI really couldn't see you , but again, we are talking about a solid land there, which changes height with the detail settings and that's just a serious bummer.

[GLeek 10]

Unless you're driving the shaders REALLY hard with a big resolution, this game really doesn't stress GPU's. The vast majority of performance related problems here are not down to the GPU. Usually, they are down to the choice of OS or a weak CPU, or the 8GB RAM problem.

what make you think orange tree and orange bush arent pushing shading unit hard ?

ps:my actual resolution is 1920*1080. the one on make PROPER screenshot was 1680*1050. and difference was frankly visible.

ps2: as i already say , as soon as you begin to use sniper riffle , this problem is crystal clear. GPU limit .

ps3: problem was recurrent in ARMA1 , yes, and proper plant for ARMA1 solved the problem. HELL YEAH ! PROPER PRESIDENT !

Edited October 3, 2009 by GLeek

[Tankbuster 1746]

That's not quite what I said, or at least not what I meant.

This game uses much less GPU than people think. The lag (and the LOD switching) caused by those bush details is caused by the data being grabbed from the hard disk, not by a GPU rendering them.

If we accept that most people's hard disk speeds are pretty much the same and so isn't an issue when comparing performance, the last remaining factor is the CPU. This game works the CPU quite hard so that's where many people can find performance gains.

Edited October 3, 2009 by Tankbuster

[GLeek 10]

That's not quite what I said, or at least not what I meant.

This game uses much less GPU than people think. The lag (and the LOD switching) caused by those bush details is caused by the data being grabbed from the hard disk, not by a GPU rendering them.

here again you are wrong.