Low FPS in DayZ

leekaiwei

macrumors member
Original poster
Jul 23, 2011
34
0
U.K.
I'm getting around low teens in DayZ. I launched ARMA 2 standalone and it's not really any better. Changing graphics don't seem to change that much, perhaps a few FPS at best. I am playing using BootCamp and Steam version of ARMA. I have already tried tweaking with configuration files but FPS struggles to go above 20.
 

twiggy0

macrumors 6502
Oct 8, 2009
352
0
I'm getting around low teens in DayZ. I launched ARMA 2 standalone and it's not really any better. Changing graphics don't seem to change that much, perhaps a few FPS at best. I am playing using BootCamp and Steam version of ARMA. I have already tried tweaking with configuration files but FPS struggles to go above 20.
What laptop/specifications are you running it on... ? (processor, ram, graphics card)

Maybe your computer just can't handle it?
 

archurban

macrumors 6502a
Aug 4, 2004
918
0
San Francisco, CA
before gaming, you need to check your hardware spec. for macbook pro, it's safe to say. 15 inch model is enough capable to play any game. but 13 inch? NO. it has only intel HD share graphic. share graphic can't handle gaming. period. so you need dedicated card like NVIDIA, or AMD.
 

leekaiwei

macrumors member
Original poster
Jul 23, 2011
34
0
U.K.
What laptop/specifications are you running it on... ? (processor, ram, graphics card)

Maybe your computer just can't handle it?
before gaming, you need to check your hardware spec. for macbook pro, it's safe to say. 15 inch model is enough capable to play any game. but 13 inch? NO. it has only intel HD share graphic. share graphic can't handle gaming. period. so you need dedicated card like NVIDIA, or AMD.
Woops silly of me not to have said. Macbook Pro 15"...2011 sometime. Anyway specifications are i7, 4GB RAM and 6750M 1GB. Can handle BF3 at a constant 30 FPS at low settings on a big multiplayer map.
 

Ap0ks

macrumors 6502
Aug 12, 2008
307
58
Cambridge, UK
Have you turned down shadows? They are a FPS killer in most games, also try turning down the post-processing settings in ARMA II, some people have found that turning off post-process gives a nice FPS boost.
 

SlickShoes

macrumors 6502a
Jan 24, 2011
638
0
try these:

Texture Detail: HIGH (just my personal pref.)
Video Memory: Default (using a setting other than Default can be very bad)
Anisotropic Filtering: HIGH (makes things like the lines in the roads less blurry)
Anti Aliasing: OFF or HIGH (find out what works for you)
ATOC: All Trees (this is setting 6 in the .cfg)
Terrain Detail: Normal (that’s what mine is)
Object Detail: Very Low (my attempt to squeeze more FPS out – adjust to your liking)
Shadows: OFF or HIGH
HDR: Normal (supposedly you can set this higher with no FPS hit)
PPAA: FXAA Low
Quality: leave this alone, should say Custom
Interface Resolution: best to set to your native resolution
3D Resolution: same as above
Post Proccessing Effects: OFF (this setting causes major lag)
Aspect Ratio: leave alone (mine says Custom)
Vsync: OFF

The biggest one there is setting memory to default, if you don't then it won't use your full 1GB video memory.

If you find FPS is still low with those settings start turning other bits a bobs down, I have tried to find a balance between having the game look good and be playable. If I turn everything down it doesn't even seem to run that much better and with AA off everything looks utterly terrible. So it's all about compromises, I think mine is just playable at an OK fps, not ideal at all but its playable without looking like ass.

EDIT: I am playing on the same hardware as you but with 8GB being the only difference. Also make sure you get the latest graphics drivers from AMD
 

twiggy0

macrumors 6502
Oct 8, 2009
352
0
Seems like SlickShoes nailed just about everything for you.

There's no reason you shouldnt get nice graphics with a high FPS on a computer like that.
 

leekaiwei

macrumors member
Original poster
Jul 23, 2011
34
0
U.K.
try these:

Texture Detail: HIGH (just my personal pref.)
Video Memory: Default (using a setting other than Default can be very bad)
Anisotropic Filtering: HIGH (makes things like the lines in the roads less blurry)
Anti Aliasing: OFF or HIGH (find out what works for you)
ATOC: All Trees (this is setting 6 in the .cfg)
Terrain Detail: Normal (that’s what mine is)
Object Detail: Very Low (my attempt to squeeze more FPS out – adjust to your liking)
Shadows: OFF or HIGH
HDR: Normal (supposedly you can set this higher with no FPS hit)
PPAA: FXAA Low
Quality: leave this alone, should say Custom
Interface Resolution: best to set to your native resolution
3D Resolution: same as above
Post Proccessing Effects: OFF (this setting causes major lag)
Aspect Ratio: leave alone (mine says Custom)
Vsync: OFF

The biggest one there is setting memory to default, if you don't then it won't use your full 1GB video memory.

If you find FPS is still low with those settings start turning other bits a bobs down, I have tried to find a balance between having the game look good and be playable. If I turn everything down it doesn't even seem to run that much better and with AA off everything looks utterly terrible. So it's all about compromises, I think mine is just playable at an OK fps, not ideal at all but its playable without looking like ass.

EDIT: I am playing on the same hardware as you but with 8GB being the only difference. Also make sure you get the latest graphics drivers from AMD
Have you turned down shadows? They are a FPS killer in most games, also try turning down the post-processing settings in ARMA II, some people have found that turning off post-process gives a nice FPS boost.
Seems like SlickShoes nailed just about everything for you.

There's no reason you shouldnt get nice graphics with a high FPS on a computer like that.
Wow this is horrible...getting 3 FPS after I did all that. I had a look at GPU-Z and surprise surprise it was at 0% load. The funny thing is, on the main menu, where the background is playing, it is perfectly fine getting into over 100 FPS and with normal GPU load. What is going on here?
 

Fynd

macrumors 6502
Aug 11, 2010
426
223
What's going on here is that the game/engine are horribly made. Arma2 is a resource hog and just completely unoptimized.

It runs like **** on my RMBP w/ 1GB 650m OC'd in Windows 7, 16GB RAM, i7. It runs like **** on my friends gaming tower with a 7950.

It runs like **** period.
 

SlickShoes

macrumors 6502a
Jan 24, 2011
638
0
Try turning everything as low as possible and if its still really LOW fps then I have no idea, turn it all off and work your way up the settings.

Its a weird engine that is not well optimised at all like the person above me said. For instance, the FPS difference between having shadows on LOW or HIGH is negligable, so you may as well put it on high or off as the only settings worth using.

Same with AA, and the memory usage thing is pretty weird default uses all your cards memory but Very High only uses 512mb.

I got the game running OK, it looks nice and runs at around 20fps, sometimes more depending on where I am in the world.

All we can do is hope that ARMA3 engine will be more of a massive fix for the ARMA2 engine rather than a whole new thing with the same crap optimisation.
 

leekaiwei

macrumors member
Original poster
Jul 23, 2011
34
0
U.K.
What's going on here is that the game/engine are horribly made. Arma2 is a resource hog and just completely unoptimized.

It runs like **** on my RMBP w/ 1GB 650m OC'd in Windows 7, 16GB RAM, i7. It runs like **** on my friends gaming tower with a 7950.

It runs like **** period.
Try turning everything as low as possible and if its still really LOW fps then I have no idea, turn it all off and work your way up the settings.

Its a weird engine that is not well optimised at all like the person above me said. For instance, the FPS difference between having shadows on LOW or HIGH is negligable, so you may as well put it on high or off as the only settings worth using.

Same with AA, and the memory usage thing is pretty weird default uses all your cards memory but Very High only uses 512mb.

I got the game running OK, it looks nice and runs at around 20fps, sometimes more depending on where I am in the world.

All we can do is hope that ARMA3 engine will be more of a massive fix for the ARMA2 engine rather than a whole new thing with the same crap optimisation.
Godamnit what a waste of money...and I thought GTA was bad...Thanks guys. Guess there really isn't a fix.
 

Fynd

macrumors 6502
Aug 11, 2010
426
223
Godamnit what a waste of money...and I thought GTA was bad...Thanks guys. Guess there really isn't a fix.
It's a shame. The worst is that people like me continue to play it because the concept of Day-Z is just too good to pass up.
 

SlickShoes

macrumors 6502a
Jan 24, 2011
638
0
It's a shame. The worst is that people like me continue to play it because the concept of Day-Z is just too good to pass up.
People like me too, I am hoping that when it goes stand alone they can fix a lot of things.
 

leekaiwei

macrumors member
Original poster
Jul 23, 2011
34
0
U.K.
It's a shame. The worst is that people like me continue to play it because the concept of Day-Z is just too good to pass up.
People like me too, I am hoping that when it goes stand alone they can fix a lot of things.
Yeah I have been trying to play with a friend at 10FPS before, it was horrible but still played on. I think I might have found a slight solution. Apparently DayZ is heavy on your hard drive. Seeing as mine is only 5,400RPM, it would make a lot of sense why I was only getting 3FPS. So the solution would be to create a virtual hard drive within your RAM which of course would allow transfer speeds to soar. Now I can play with hmm..15-20FPS? Not ideal but definitely playable (for DayZ standards anyway).