Red Harvest FPS versus OA main campaign ?

[cartier90 0]

I was wondering what kind of framerate people are getting on average in the campaign bearing in mind patch 1.07 and perhaps running ACE2 - Im getting 25-30 , which I find too unbearable tbh.

I have a I7 with a average card GTS250 1GB - I am guessing that realistically expect much more optimisation ? , I was actually rather pleased with the performance of my game with say 50 units in the editor in Chernarus getting about 40fps on average, there just seems to be too much going on in the campaign for a smooth framerate.

I have been put off getting OA from reports of worse fps than A2, particularly in the cities - is this the case ?, can anyone recommend some framerate friendly campaigns that dont have so many extraneous units and unrelated background scripts..?

I am hoping that the lack of vegetation in OA makes things a little smoother.

[Nicholas 5]

You need to know how to properly set up video options ingame, would you mind taking a picture of them? I could help you out. Do you have everything set to "Very High"?

[Arasaka 10]

Strangely I found performance to be better after installing OA and the 1.52 patch.

That said, when issuing orders, Coopers voice had changed so in order to continue I had to go back to loading the original ArmA, but that's a separate issue.

But in terms of performance I have found OA to be superior, and when playing in Chernarus using the Combined Operations version, the same applies.

[cartier90 0]

Phantom - I have 100 percent fill rate 1750 view distance , high shadows normal terrain no aa no blur ...dragged drive which has helped - said fps of 25-30tends to be on the more demanding missions.

[Nicholas 5]

Fill this in for me cartier:

View Distance:

Interface Resolution:

3D Resolution:

Texture Detail:

Video Memory:

Anisotropic Filtering:

Antialiasing:

Terrain Detail:

Objects Detail:

Shadows Detail:

Postprocess Effect:

Interface Size:

Aspect Ratio:

[cartier90 0]

View Distance:1749

Interface Resolution:1680 * 1050

3D Resolution:1680 * 1050

Texture Detail: Normal

Video Memory: Normal

Anisotropic Filtering: Low

Antialiasing: Disabled

Terrain Detail: Normal

Objects Detail: Normal

Shadows Detail: High

Postprocess Effect: Disabled

Interface Size: Very Small

Aspect Ratio: 16:10

Thanks for trying to help - but I dont believe that the fps I'm getting is particularly bad for the campaign ?, getting mid 40s in editor with lots of action going.

[rautapalli 10]

Operation Arrowhead is generally running better for me, except for the bigger towns like you mentioned. Those seem to run worse than they used to in ARMA 2.

[cartier90 0]

Raut - I bought arrowhead today - reasonable fps in the country and small towns - zagrab though lol - really just lol ...great potential

though - will keep game got 2 yrs time when i've bought another rig and optimistion has happened.

[ediko911 10]

I was wondering what kind of framerate people are getting on average in the campaign bearing in mind patch 1.07 and perhaps running ACE2 - Im getting 25-30 , which I find too unbearable tbh.

I have a I7 with a average card GTS250 1GB - I am guessing that realistically expect much more optimisation ? , I was actually rather pleased with the performance of my game with say 50 units in the editor in Chernarus getting about 40fps on average, there just seems to be too much going on in the campaign for a smooth framerate.

I have been put off getting OA from reports of worse fps than A2, particularly in the cities - is this the case ?, can anyone recommend some framerate friendly campaigns that dont have so many extraneous units and unrelated background scripts..?

I am hoping that the lack of vegetation in OA makes things a little smoother.

25-30 fps is unbearable for you? Stop whining. My fps NEVER exceeds 20 and I don't mind. My pc isn't the worst either. Try 15 FPS which is average for me most of the times and then well talk.

I will just never understand those FPS addicts that can't enjoy a game without 300 FPS :( .

Anyway, campaigns lag because of the big quantity of scripts, triggers, objectives, objects etc. I once tried to open the campaign in the editor and I was shocked by the amount of stuff there. It's more like 300 units in the editor, not 50 as you mention. Just lower the graphics when playing campaigns as I do.

[Nightrain 10]

Zargabad runs great for me, so does open areas on Takistan. However larger towns on Takistan with lots of vegetation lag like they do in Chernarus.

I have hard time getting enough fps to play the Fourth mission of the campaign:

Where you have to assault the airport

[cartier90 0]

Ediko - fair one .. I know a lot of people have to do with a lot fewer fps. I suppose as you say it's the huge number of units on the map. The '50' I was referring to was opening that many in the editor - and getting mid 40s.

[EricM 0]

Im getting 25-30 , which I find too unbearable tbh.

That's what I have with a gtx8800... and I'm happy with it.

With similar settings as yours, I get 41 fps in the benchmark. You should get more.

But did you disabled HT on your CPU ? It can bottleneck your system...

[ediko911 10]

Ediko - fair one .. I know a lot of people have to do with a lot fewer fps. I suppose as you say it's the huge number of units on the map. The '50' I was referring to was opening that many in the editor - and getting mid 40s.

It's not just the units. There is also a huge amount of scripts, triggers, waypoints, all the voices need to be triggered, units spawned, removed etc etc there really is a lot of stuff going on in the background.

Pretty much the only way you could play it all without lags is to lower the graphics even more. I know it looks awful, I tried it myself and I better tolerate some lag than make my eye's hurt with those graphics. BTW different missions handle differently. For example you might get more FPS in the first one's and less in the last few missions, which have a lot of units. Sorry I can't be really helpful here.

Have you tried gamebooster btw? I use it since arma 1 and it's the only thing that keeps my FPS at least playable, well that and my cooler which barely keeps my notebook cool :D .

BTW. OA is really strange. It works better for some and it decreases performance for others. Well it does both of those at the same time for me. It has flawless performance in the desert, and all takistan cities but performance really drops in green zones and Zargabad. Campaign worked perfectly except the mission in Zargabad which lagged a lot. All in all I would recommend you to get it. It's much more enjoyable in the editor anyway.

Edited July 16, 2010 by ediko911
OA

[cartier90 0]

Eric - can't disable with my comp ...looked around bios

and the option is not there ..64 bit vista.

Ediko - yes I could lower settings more , truth be told I can run

some fairly 'large' missions with a good

framerate - just badlands and final missions that lag. I will have to try gamebooster - I bought OA and it runs ok , but I'm

stickin to the desert and small villages - hope patches will up the fps

by 25 percent ish in the future .

[Katrician 0]

Having updated to 1.52 I got 46FPS with the benchmark mission 08 and 47FPS if I enable ATI Overdrive. Post process is off.