Well bugger me!

[Langnasen 10]

After setting the Interface Resolution and 3D resolution the same I have both better graphics AND increased FPS. At 1920 x 1200 I'm seeing highs of 50+ FPS, no lower than 20FPS so far and mostly stays around the low to mid 30s. This is with a GTX8800. AF is on low, AA is disabled, vid-mem on high, texture detail on normal, visibility is at 1600, object detail normal, shadows high, post processing disabled. Compared to the previous blurry mess the image I'm seeing now is superb. There are barely any jaggies to speak of.

Am I supposed to be getting this kind of performance with an 8800?

[kklownboy 43]

sure with normals and no AA no PP. All the bigger cards do is give you more fillters. IMO AA is much better than increasing fillrate.

[Bulldogs 10]

Actually, that's a pretty good framerate for an 8800 (I get lower but probably due to my processor, E7300 @ 3.5Ghz)

As a side note, you can usually increase the AF to very high with little to no loss of performance

[Greg 0]

Now load up campaign mission Harvest Red (same name as the campaign) and from the mission start, look across the city. What is your frame rate now?

Now find a forest near a town and zoom your gun sight to look through the forest toward the town. What is your frame rate now?

You might find these scenarios produce dramatically different performance values. Also you have not mentioned your CPU type and speed for comparison purposes.

[Langnasen 10]

Now load up campaign mission Harvest Red (same name as the campaign) and from the mission start, look across the city. What is your frame rate now?

Now find a forest near a town and zoom your gun sight to look through the forest toward the town. What is your frame rate now?

You might find these scenarios produce dramatically different performance values. Also you have not mentioned your CPU type and speed for comparison purposes.

I'll test Harvest Red tomorrow. :) My cpu is an E8400 @ 4ghz.

[maturin 12]

And I just discovered that my piddly little laptop (which sometimes chugs in scripted missions) can handle hundreds of editor AI with no drop in FPS!

Long live A2!

[Greg 0]

I'll test Harvest Red tomorrow. :)

Thank you, your results will be interesting for comparison. I find it hard to get over 25fps with normal detail here.

My cpu is an E8400 @ 4ghz.

That is helping you a lot! :)

[boneboys 0]

I'll test Harvest Red tomorrow. :) My cpu is an E8400 @ 4ghz.

You have a 33% OC on that E8400 ?

[1longtime 10]

sure with normals and no AA no PP. All the bigger cards do is give you more fillters. IMO AA is much better than increasing fillrate.

Better how? I think fillrate is visually superior. And if your machine is a powerhouse you can also do AA, right?

From what I've seen, even the highest AA doesn't look as good as 200% fillrate... it's just bad for performance.

[kklownboy 43]

Better how? I think fillrate is visually superior. And if your machine is a powerhouse you can also do AA, right?

From what I've seen, even the highest AA doesn't look as good as 200% fillrate... it's just bad for performance.

AA is about removing crawllys and jaggies. When you are already at HD resoultions the need for more fillrate is secondary to the uglys. So for me at 16/12 or above its already sharp, and the other issues can be addressed.High fillrate gives the textures more IQ and the trees are nicer, but there seems to be a slight blur in the air..? But even when i use 200% fill at 2048/1536(thats 4096/3072!) stuff still crawls, only AA can stop the movment, and 2XAA ok, but 4Xaa does the job best, 8XAA will take the twist out of fence rails, No amount of fill can do that. So its a balance. Right now its 20/15 with 4xAA. Looks great plays well. Maybe having 2GB of vram being used gets it done. Edited October 4, 2009 by kklownboy

[lee_h._oswald 0]

After setting the Interface Resolution and 3D resolution the same I have both better graphics AND increased FPS. At 1920 x 1200 I'm seeing highs of 50+ FPS, no lower than 20FPS so far and mostly stays around the low to mid 30s. This is with a GTX8800. AF is on low, AA is disabled, vid-mem on high, texture detail on normal, visibility is at 1600, object detail normal, shadows high, post processing disabled. Compared to the previous blurry mess the image I'm seeing now is superb. There are barely any jaggies to speak of.

Am I supposed to be getting this kind of performance with an 8800?

What is your terrain setting?

With grass/clutter off, I'm getting the same fps.

MfG Lee

[vasmkd 12]

With my system specs i get 20-35fps in chernarus with hundreds of AI and 30+ vehicles with FRAPS

In utes i'm almost always on 45-60 with same amount of AI and vehicles

But this game runs very smooth for me, i don't care what FRAPS says as it probably is reporting slower FPS than there is due to it running

Res 1680x1050

3d res 1680x1050

vid mem = very high

view distance = 2800

textures = normal

terrain quality = high

shadows = high

object detail = high

AA = normal

AF = normal

Post processing = off (i just prefer it off, runs fine with low setting too)

Edited October 4, 2009 by vasmkd

[Langnasen 10]

Now load up campaign mission Harvest Red (same name as the campaign) and from the mission start, look across the city. What is your frame rate now?

Now find a forest near a town and zoom your gun sight to look through the forest toward the town. What is your frame rate now?

You might find these scenarios produce dramatically different performance values. Also you have not mentioned your CPU type and speed for comparison purposes.

I had a go but I couldn't find the specific conditions you asked for. I got to the bit just after we've been landed from helo and are at the "keyhole" with NV. Looking over the village I'm getting around 25fps, looking back into the forest I'm getting around 18fps in the thickest bit, 20 to 25 at the sides.

Boneboys, yes, I have 33% OC.

Lee, my terrain is on 'Normal'. I will, however, have it on low while online, as the grass is totally useless (actually a liability). Tested it already, it gives a bunch more FPS with the grass off. I was hitting 60fps a fair bit, which is maxed-out with v-sync on.

The game looks superb and it's smooth even when the FPS counter (FRAPS) indicates it should be choppy as hell (around 20FPS). I guess I'm missing a fair amount of graphical goodness with such low settings (Normals) but with the way it looks right now I'm not feeling compelled to upgrade the vid-card anymore. :)

Edited October 4, 2009 by Langnasen

[Greg 0]

I had a go but I couldn't find the specific conditions you asked for. I got to the bit just after we've been landed from helo and are at the "keyhole" with NV. Looking over the village I'm getting around 25fps, looking back into the forest I'm getting around 18fps in the thickest bit, 20 to 25 at the sides...

Ok, thanks. That's pretty much what I expected, mid 20s for dense urban and drops to high teens for forests with detail beyond.

I'd show a screen shot but I'm running Win7 at present and screen shots don't work for some reason. No camera handy either.

The campaign mission I'm talking about starts on the roof of a building. It is from that rooftop you can look out over the city.

If you want really smooth gameplay, drop the resolution and still keep 2D and 3D the same resolution.

[Langnasen 10]

Ok, thanks. That's pretty much what I expected, mid 20s for dense urban and drops to high teens for forests with detail beyond.

I'd show a screen shot but I'm running Win7 at present and screen shots don't work for some reason. No camera handy either.

The campaign mission I'm talking about starts on the roof of a building. It is from that rooftop you can look out over the city.

If you want really smooth gameplay, drop the resolution and still keep 2D and 3D the same resolution.

I tried dropping the res on both to minimum but it looked like crap. It's perfectly playable the way it is now, while looking superb at the same time, so I'm happy. :)