Is my FPS good?

[WMike20052 0]

I run Fraps to check my FPS ingame and get 60 frames when i load up an Island by myself.

Now, i like to do big battles. I usually stack around 100 AI against eachother and come out with anywhere between 20-40. Usually sticks around 20-25 until about 1/3rd of the AI is dead.

All my settings are on Very High, with 1080 resolution on both interface and 3D. 1500-2000 viewdistance or more depending on map.

Specs: HD4890 1Gig

i7 920 ~4.0ghz

Anyway my question is are these good framerates? If im only doing 2 or 3 squad battles in the editor then im easily above 30-40.

I only dip under 20, lowest it gets is like 17, when i have numerious amounts of AI (like 50 on both sides) coupled with tanks and maybe a heli or two. Also i put in civilian cars and other nonsense to up the ambience.

Im am also running SLX mod lately with CAA1, JTD Fire and Smoke.

[no use for a name 0]

that sounds about right...more ai = more cpu resources

[EDcase 87]

Yep, By yourself or with a few AI the FPS depends solely on the GPU.

With lots of AI more load goes to the CPU and that will become the bottle-neck.

I'm a bit surprised that your i7 is that affected by 200 AI but I suspect its because of the graphics card. Reduce your graphic settings a bit as the 4890 is not a top end card.

Try these settings and see if it looks OK:(viewdistance around 4k)

Normal___________High

Very High________Normal

Normal___________High

Normal___________High

With these settings on a GTX285 I get around 40-60fps alone on Utes (~150fps when I look up or down). Things slow down with lots of AI because I only have a Q6600 (2.4GHz)

[maturin 12]

With 60 fps at 2000 view distance it seems like you should be able to crank that setting up quite a bit (on a relatively empty map) and still run reasonably well. The human eye can't distinguish between 60 and 30 fps.

[Dead3yez 0]

With 60 fps at 2000 view distance it seems like you should be able to crank that setting up quite a bit (on a relatively empty map) and still run reasonably well. The human eye can't distinguish between 60 and 30 fps.

mine can

[-=seany=- 5]

Mine too. 30 fps to 60 fps is the difference between night and day for me, any game is way more fluid. I can tell the difference between 60 and 120 fps also. When you get near 200, then I'd say the human eye cannot distinguish.

[Inkompetent 0]

Mine too. 30 fps to 60 fps is the difference between night and day for me, any game is way more fluid. I can tell the difference between 60 and 120 fps also. When you get near 200, then I'd say the human eye cannot distinguish.

You know most computer screens can't upate faster than 75 times a second, right? ^^

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

You know most computer screens can't upate faster than 75 times a second, right? ^^

This is absolutely correct. First time I've heard someone state this in a long time. If you have a 60Hz monitor, the very BEST you'll ever see is 60 cycles a second or 60 monitor refreshes a second. 75Mhz is usually the top of the scale. People that claim they get 125 FPS in Quake (for example) only really "see" at most 75 FPS. Someone that get's 75FPS or 125 FPS in FRAPS is the exact same. Although the game is displaying 125FPS to the monitor, the monitor can't keep up, so you get no matter what, you get 75 FPS. Or 75Hz.

I applaud Incompetent for pointing this out. I've been saying it for a long time, not only with A2 but any game.

Some peoples eyes (not mine cause I'm ancient) can pick up differences in say 25 fps and 35 fps. Is it game breaking? No.... but I wish I could see the differences.

[Inkompetent 0]

Well, there *is* a certain point in having higher FPS than the screen can has update frequency, since LOTS of calculations in games are done at a per-frame basis, which means the game overall will run smoother. So the game might *feel* smoother, but visually it shouldn't do any difference. :)

[Bulldogs 10]

Luhgnut;1438607']This is absolutely correct. First time I've heard someone state this in a long time. If you have a 60Hz monitor' date=' the very BEST you'll ever see is 60 cycles a second or 60 monitor refreshes a second. 75Mhz is usually the top of the scale. People that claim they get 125 FPS in Quake (for example) only really "see" at most 75 FPS. Someone that get's 75FPS or 125 FPS in FRAPS is the exact same. Although the game is displaying 125FPS to the monitor, the monitor can't keep up, so you get no matter what, you get 75 FPS. Or 75Hz.

I applaud Incompetent for pointing this out. I've been saying it for a long time, not only with A2 but any game.

Some peoples eyes (not mine cause I'm ancient) can pick up differences in say 25 fps and 35 fps. Is it game breaking? No.... but I wish I could see the differences.[/quote']

Most people can detect differences up to 55, with the gifted detecting 100, but as mentioned, most monitors now days run at 75Hz max.

Although running a monitor at 75Hz doesn't automatically make you see 75fps if your game go's over 75fps, technically the video card still sends the information to the monitor at it's maximum frame rate and the monitor spits it out at 75 frames. What this means is that if the game is running at 100fps the monitor will not be able to print every frame so instead many frames will print have of one frame and another half of another frame (it attempts to print the frame before the frame has fully been written over)

This is called Frame Tearing, which is why V-Sync was introduced. V-Sync buffers the frames and tells the DX Api that it can't send frames faster than the monitors refresh rate. This means that if you have over 75 fps then it's limited to 75fps. This is all good except for the fact that if it go's under 75fps then it can't print at 75 fps (due to limitations in double-buffered V-Sync), so instead it sends the frames at half the monitors refresh rate (37.5 fps), of course if your game drops below 37.5fps then it prints even slower and as such has to cap your frame rate even lower.

This is why forcing V-Sync off often helps frame rates, because it removes the frame cap at the sacrifice of having some frame tearing, which most people won't detect above 30fps anyway.

[-=seany=- 5]

You know most computer screens can't upate faster than 75 times a second, right? ^^

I have a 120hz LCD ;)

And as Bulldog says, You can display over your refresh rate in FPS, but you will get screen tearing. If you turn on Vsync...then you are limited by your refresh rate.

For me, running Arma2 at 120fps compared to 30 fps would be a major difference

Edited September 15, 2009 by -=seany=-

[Dead3yez 0]

Most people can detect differences up to 55, with the gifted detecting 100, but as mentioned, most monitors now days run at 75Hz max.

It is possible to detect 200FPS, even compared to 60FPS and your monitor may be 60Hz.

These people are indeed the gifted as they have very acute senses. FPS counters take the average/exact amount of frames over a given period time, frames are not fed through the screen at a constant rate, each frame hangs depending on the stress of the system. If you have a Monitor of 60Hz and you have frames which are hanging over 16.7milliseconds (1Hz) then yes, technically it is 'noticeable' (not sure on the threshold etc of the monitor as to which frame it will take). If you have an FPS of 60, then there is a good chance there is going to have more than a few hanging frames whilst, shorter frame times are making up for the average FPS count (but you cannot see most of these frames because of the monitors refresh rate). If your framerate is higher then there is less chance of hanging frames. People do not see over 60Hz (in this case), but they see a more fluid video output the higher the FPS due to less hanging frames with higher FPS.

(finally edited it right) tired :D

Edited September 15, 2009 by Dead3yez