Jump to content





Sign in to follow this  
Jimlad

View Distance / Mountain Glitch

Recommended Posts

10FPS is alot for players that play around 30-40 fps on avg, and when you go into bigger towns missions it is even worse for them, i can understand the issue with the hills and such, but you learn to adapt to them, when i played on Altis and Panthera i had the same issues but i learnt to adapt to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to adapt to being in cover on your pc and being exposed due to a glitch. 

 

I do get the FPS issue. But people really can do stuff themselves to improve FPS. Lots of guides on YouTube for optimisation of not only arma but windows. 

 

You can certainly reduce your view distance for example this will give you a lot more fps and not punish players who have a suitable pc to play the game. 

 

Also people who love arma like many of us know the demands. 

 

You need a SSD, you can overclock your CPU ect ect.  You don't need high end you just need to configure a mid range gaming pc.  

Edited by Jimlad
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, PLEASE do something about it. I don't understand really who you are catering to, who is not able to play with grass on ultra/high? I get that some ppl have old PCs and on chernarus the case may be true that they need that extra boost. But in all fairness i think most people just like to bipod in the grass or spot players through hills. Abramia is a map kinda like Takistan, whereas you want to get the high ground and snipe people or unload LMGs from afar. But you know people will spot you first so why bother.

 

Surely the vast majority of players (at least 90% of us?) wants to force the grass on, we have seen it asked a million times. I dont see many servers that allow you to change it at all, and nobody is complaining there?

 

Hope you find a solution @Sean  much love for your hard work!

Edited by Homeslice
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 years old or not this game engine will still bring 80% of current rigs to their knees, graphics this game isn't about it's all cpu.

 

As for forcing settings which will nerf those 80% of rigs is probably not the best idea? Imho..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Razorman said:

5 years old or not this game engine will still bring 80% of current rigs to their knees, graphics this game isn't about it's all cpu.

 

As for forcing settings which will nerf those 80% of rigs is probably not the best idea? Imho..

It won't nerf 80% of the rigs on the server get a grip man. I play on a 5 year old 4770k (never over clocked) and get same fps, sometimes even better on ultra. Same goes for others too as this thread shows.

 

1 hour ago, Rosco Coltrane said:

Thing is it is not 90% who wants this, last time we did a vote it was about 50/50 

 

Let Sean try and find a solution to it please

I understand that people don't want grass on Cherno as you can go prone and bipod anywhere without getting your view obstructed, and you will be able to see people easier in CQC, but that is rarely the case on Abramia anyway so among those 50% that voted no on Cherno im guessing there are a few who didn't vote due to their rig being poor but out of convenience. It could be that a vote would end very differently on Abramia due to the different types of maps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't find the edit button:  Also most "cough" players that frequent the servers know jack about rig configs or tweaking, getting them to understand your in the main valid point would is like trying to ask cavemen to fly an air-plane. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So because I see a lot of numbers thrown around I decided I have very little to do with my life and went ahead and tested it properly. Below you can see a comparison of 3 different positions and environments on Isla Abramia, this was done while the server was at capacity and shit was going down. Keep in mind this is testing with the normal amount of grass applicable to all terrain settings, as you can find it on the server currently. Turning down grass density for them all may or may not increase performance, though I would suspect it would from the drop of FPS in Low to Standard. I have obviously also turned off all admin tools, as they are known to dump FPS out the window. lul

 

Settings: What I believe to be the most optimal settings for gameplay on my machine, I.E. the settings I always use when playing or otherwise, all settings except terrain will remain the same throughout the testing so should not impact performance or cause any variations that wouldn't otherwise be there due to terrain. Not 100% scientific but a whole lot better than just taking a rough number from a random point on the map. 

 

Hardware: Intel i7 4770k @3.9GHz (Because I is stupid and lazy)
                 GTX 1080ti
                 16 GB RAM
                 SSD

                 1440p 140Hz Monitor

 

 

Location: 076085
View: Looking NNW 320 degrees, both a mountain and large amount of grass in frame.


Low terrain:            Average of about 49 FPS, lowest point 45 FPS.
Standard terrain:    Average of about 44 FPS, lowest point 42 FPS.
High terrain:           Average of about 44 FPS, lowest point 42 FPS.
Very High terrain:   Average of about 44 FPS, lowest point 41 FPS.
Ultra terrain:           Average of about 40 FPS, lowest point 38 FPS.

 

 

Location: 008075
View: Looking E 90 degrees, big mountain, a town, a river, and small amount of grass in view. Generally very a busy scene.


Low terrain:            Average of about 33 FPS, lowest point 29 FPS.
Standard terrain:    Average of about 32 FPS, lowest point 31 FPS.
High terrain:           Average of about 32 FPS, lowest point 30 FPS.
Very High terrain:   Average of about 32 FPS, lowest point 30 FPS.
Ultra terrain:          Average of about 30 FPS, lowest point 28 FPS.

 

 

Location: 016063
View: Looking NNW 340 degrees, mostly only buildings and a town view, slight bit of grass and mountain in the background.


Low terrain:            Average of about 35 FPS, lowest point 33 FPS.
Standard terrain:    Average of about 34 FPS, lowest point 32 FPS.
High terrain:           Average of about 33 FPS, lowest point 32 FPS.
Very High terrain:   Average of about 32 FPS, lowest point 31 FPS.
Ultra terrain:          Average of about 30 FPS, lowest point 28 FPS.

 

 

From what I can tell from these tests and on my computer, the best option would probably be Very High terrain with modified grass, turned down as far as it'll go. A compromise to try and fix the terrain bug, as well as minimizing the amount of performance hit that Ultra brings for not too much benefit. That is if anything is to be done to begin with.

 

help me.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "You will get used to it/adapt to it" argument is bullshit in my opinion. Metaphorically speaking, if you were only allowed to eat shit, you would eventually get used to it, but that doesn't change the fact that you would still be eating shit. :7_sweat_smile: Same goes for the glitchy mountains, they are shit, and they will still be shit even though you get used to it. 

 

You have to opportunity to please both audiences, by having one server for potato pc's (Cherno) and one server for people who bought their computer after 2010 (Isla Abramia). Cherno was still playable with low settings, Abramia suffers a lot due to it. 

Edited by Lithit
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MrAndy said:

So because I see a lot of numbers thrown around I decided I have very little to do with my life and went ahead and tested it properly. Below you can see a comparison of 3 different positions and environments on Isla Abramia, this was done while the server was at capacity and shit was going down. Keep in mind this is testing with the normal amount of grass applicable to all terrain settings, as you can find it on the server currently. Turning down grass density for them all may or may not increase performance, though I would suspect it would from the drop of FPS in Low to Standard. I have obviously also turned off all admin tools, as they are known to dump FPS out the window. lul

 

Settings: What I believe to be the most optimal settings for gameplay on my machine, I.E. the settings I always use when playing or otherwise, all settings except terrain will remain the same throughout the testing so should not impact performance or cause any variations that wouldn't otherwise be there due to terrain. Not 100% scientific but a whole lot better than just taking a rough number from a random point on the map. 

 

Hardware: Intel i7 4770k @3.9GHz (Because I is stupid and lazy)
                 GTX 1080ti
                 16 GB RAM
                 SSD

                 1440p 140Hz Monitor

 

 

Location: 076085
View: Looking NNW 320 degrees, both a mountain and large amount of grass in frame.


Low terrain:            Average of about 49 FPS, lowest point 45 FPS.
Standard terrain:    Average of about 44 FPS, lowest point 42 FPS.
High terrain:           Average of about 44 FPS, lowest point 42 FPS.
Very High terrain:   Average of about 44 FPS, lowest point 41 FPS.
Ultra terrain:           Average of about 40 FPS, lowest point 38 FPS.

 

 

Location: 008075
View: Looking E 90 degrees, big mountain, a town, a river, and small amount of grass in view. Generally very a busy scene.


Low terrain:            Average of about 33 FPS, lowest point 29 FPS.
Standard terrain:    Average of about 32 FPS, lowest point 31 FPS.
High terrain:           Average of about 32 FPS, lowest point 30 FPS.
Very High terrain:   Average of about 32 FPS, lowest point 30 FPS.
Ultra terrain:          Average of about 30 FPS, lowest point 28 FPS.

 

 

Location: 016063
View: Looking NNW 340 degrees, mostly only buildings and a town view, slight bit of grass and mountain in the background.


Low terrain:            Average of about 35 FPS, lowest point 33 FPS.
Standard terrain:    Average of about 34 FPS, lowest point 32 FPS.
High terrain:           Average of about 33 FPS, lowest point 32 FPS.
Very High terrain:   Average of about 32 FPS, lowest point 31 FPS.
Ultra terrain:          Average of about 30 FPS, lowest point 28 FPS.

 

 

From what I can tell from these tests and on my computer, the best option would probably be Very High terrain with modified grass, turned down as far as it'll go. A compromise to try and fix the terrain bug, as well as minimizing the amount of performance hit that Ultra brings for not too much benefit. That is if anything is to be done to begin with.

 

help me.

with all these numbers that said i still get around 60 fps with terrain on ultra whilst on low terrain i get around 40 fps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The terrain has now been forced to Very High with modified grass to (hopefully) improve performance even more than in my benchmark. Let's see how this works out. :)

  • Like 6
  • Love it! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×