Can't get above 60 fps on dayz

[JaackZee 0]

I was just wondering if there is an fps cap on dayz/arma

My pc specs

Cpu -I7 3930k 4.5 Ghz

Gpu - 2 x 680

and SSD

if there is anyone who can help please do,

sorry if this is on the wrong topic I'm new

[krtshv 362]

Is your Vsync turned on?

Vsync limits your FPS to your screen's refresh rate.

[shiromikan 217]

Talking out of my ass; I believe the FPS is limited to the monster's refresh rate.

[4irwalk 1]

Same here, i think there is a FPS Limiter on, but i dont know how to turn it off ...

Edited August 6, 2012 by 4iRwalK

[facet 66]

I have sometimes 70fps on lower settings. Check your vsync. and settings for g card, control panel, not only in game. Maybe your gpu is too slow.

[JaackZee 0]

Is your Vsync turned on?

Vsync limits your FPS to your screen's refresh rate.

that work, thank you now getting above 200, cheers man

[krtshv 362]

that work, thank you now getting above 200, cheers man

No problem.

Now I'll just sit here and eat my jealous-beans.

[pyroxfire 10]

above 200? you sir suck :P thats okay im happy with my new computer 1920 x 1080 high settings post off no AA and i get a good 30-60 fps :D

[krtshv 362]

above 200? you sir suck :P thats okay im happy with my new computer 1920 x 1080 high settings post off no AA and i get a good 30-60 fps :D

No. You suck.

I'm at 1440x900, everything on low or disabled (except Object Detail which is "high") with my Visibility on 500 and I'm getting no more than 30 FPS, and that's when I'm running in an open field.

[pyroxfire 10]

No. You suck.

I'm at 1440x900, everything on low or disabled (except Object Detail which is "high") with my Visibility on 500 and I'm getting no more than 30 FPS, and that's when I'm running in an open field.

visabilty has no effect in dayz as far as i know. and if it makes you feel better but i got this like 4 days ago i was laying on a macbook air at like 20 fps 640 x 480 XD

[krtshv 362]

and if it makes you feel better but i got this like 4 days ago i was laying on a macbook air at like 20 fps 640 x 480 XD

Actually.. yes, it does make me feel better.

[atlantis_risen 14]

I was just wondering if there is an fps cap on dayz/arma

My pc specs

Cpu -I7 3930k 4.5 Ghz

Gpu - 2 x 680

and SSD

if there is anyone who can help please do,

sorry if this is on the wrong topic I'm new

Are you finding 60 fps too choppy?

[krtshv 362]

Oh, by the way. @OP..

Just so you know, it doesn't matter if your FPS doesn't go over 60, as the human eye can't see anything faster than 60 FPS ;)

[Mos1ey 6301]

Has 2 680s and doesn't know what VSync is? Something is wrong here... o.O

Are you finding 60 fps too choppy?

Higher FPS = more responsive mouse input.

ARMA II is the only game I don't play on at least 200 FPS.

Edited August 6, 2012 by mZLY

[atlantis_risen 14]

Oh, by the way. @OP..

Just so you know, it doesn't matter if your FPS doesn't go over 60, as the human eye can't see anything faster than 60 FPS ;)

This. I don't get the FPS number madness. Just play, and it the FPS drops low, you'll notice visually.

[krtshv 362]

Has 2 680s and doesn't know what VSync is? Something is wrong here... o.O

Not all people build their own computers. Some just get a friend to do it in a specific budget or go to a store and buy the most powerful one they can afford :P

[gambla 118]

You can't see a difference between 30 or 60 fps, afaik the human eye can't recognize above 25-30. That's why TV is / was refreshing at 24 fps, if i remember correctly, more fps is useless. Turning Vsync on results usually in a much better picture as it syncs your VGA card and your monitor, e.g. it reduces the tearing effect. Visit the BI forums, there are thousand threads about this topic. ArmA on max settings is one of a few games that even high end rigs have to struggle with.

[sudZ! 115]

This game is a ridiculous resource hog. I get better frames in BF3 on ultra than in arma II. I completely understand why, it's just a pain in the ass :)

[shiromikan 217]

This game is a ridiculous resource hog. I get better frames in BF3 on ultra than in arma II. I completely understand why, it's just a pain in the ass :)

The game was never very good on Resource Management. It could have ran on less.

[mariush 50]

Oh, by the way. @OP..

Just so you know, it doesn't matter if your FPS doesn't go over 60, as the human eye can't see anything faster than 60 FPS ;)

That's not true.

20-23 fps or so is the minimum frame rate where humans perceive a sequence of pictures as fluid motion, from that point they have hard time telling the frames apart. One of the first experiments regarding this was Eadweard Myubridge horse pictures, where he put several cameras in a row to snap pictures of a galloping horse and prove that the horse's legs are all four in the air at some point. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Gardner_at_a_Gallop

60 fps has nothing to do with the human eyes but rather with the electrical system in US... in US the power in your house is 110v 60 Hz - meaning you have AC current that alternates 60 times a second. In Europe we have 220-240v 60 Hz.

When television was introduced the standards in US like NTSC set the maximum fields to 60 (30 frames per second, 2 fields interleaved per frame) so that television sets could be made easier, as this way the TV could sync its internal signals to the 60 Hz AC frequency from mains and at the same time, be less affected by the interference coming from the mains.

Similarly, SECAM and PAL in Europe are working at 50 fields (25 frames per second, 2 fields interleaved), because we have 50 Hz AC at the wall socket

Later on, where CRT monitors were designed, it was determined that most people still perceive some flickering at the sides of their view when the frame rate was lower then 60 Hz or so - some of the first CRT monitors (CGA, EGA) were running at 48 Hz or even lower. If you were looking to the right or to the left of a monitor running at such refresh rate, you would see the monitor flickering a bit in the background.

So it was in a way standardized that in order for you to not get tired or bothered by that flicker, CRT monitors should run at 60 Hz or more. Actually, majority of humans still see that flickering up to 85 Hz, so most ergonomy manuals recommend using 85 Hz on CRT monitors.

Higher than that, it usually makes no difference in health, you don't notice flicker anymore, but your eyes will determine (recognize) more information from such framerate up to about 300 Hz (300 frames per second)

With LCD monitors, you no longer have that flicker, because they don't work like CRT monitors. CRT monitors have a ray of electrons that goes from top to bottom "shooting" electrons on the glass to the point where phosphorus on the glass heats up and generates light - that's a pixel on the CRT monitor.

By the time that ray of electrons goes from top to bottom, the top pixels that were heated up start to cool down so the electron gun has to move up again and re-do the whole thing even if no pixels were actually changed.

On CRT monitors, if that ray of electrons doesn't "refresh" each line of the screen about 40-50 times a second, you would notice parts of the screen going darker and brighter several times a second. That's the flicker, the variations in heat of the phosphorus on the glass.

In Contrast, LCD monitors work by changing the density of liquid crystals between two layers of glass. Once current is sent through a cell containing liquid, that liquid becomes opaque/ semi-transparent and remains that way until you send electricity to it again.

Depending on how opaque that cell is, you get a different level of light from the light behind the cells.

So when the LCD monitor receives a frame from the video card, it simply changes the pixels and then unless the pixel changes color, it can leave it like that indefinitely, it doesn't "cool" down, it doesn't degrade like on CRT.

LCD monitors don't have 60 Hz, because they don't HAVE to refresh the screen 60 times, if the video card sends a white screen for a second, the LCD monitor will only set all pixels to white once and then do nothing.

The 60 Hz you see in Windows is just how many times the video card sends picture to the LCD monitor, the LCD monitor analyzes and compares the frame with the previous frame and only changes the pixels it has to.

So with LCD monitors you don't have flicker, therefore you don't have to push up to 85Hz or 100 Hz as you had to push with CRT monitors to get smooth image, so they settled on 60 Hz as "more than enough" for LCD monitors. Another factor for choosing it was because it was the same "refresh rate" as the new HD broadcast standards and bluray and dvd and so on.

tldr: Technically, it shouldn't matter that you play at higher fps, because the LCD screen will only update 60 times a second, but a lot of calculations in the game and network code are done in relation to how many fps you video card produces.

Often you get more updates from the server if you have higher fps, so the game "feels" better because your player's position in the world and all the zombies and enemy in the world can be positioned more accurately in the world due to more updates from the server.

Edited August 6, 2012 by mariush

[Shep1972 1]

visabilty has no effect in dayz as far as i know. and if it makes you feel better but i got this like 4 days ago i was laying on a macbook air at like 20 fps 640 x 480 XD

Not sure if it was a deep desire to play this game, an unwillingness to admit defeat despite having such a poor performing system, you really really really liked the abuse or a combo of all three but you deserve my beans.

[JaackZee 0]

Has 2 680s and doesn't know what VSync is? Something is wrong here... o.O

Higher FPS = more responsive mouse input.

ARMA II is the only game I don't play on at least 200 FPS.

I do know what it is but i thought i had already disabled it.

[gambla 118]

That's not true.

20-23 fps or so is the minimum frame rate where humans perceive a sequence of pictures as fluid motion, from that point they have hard time telling the frames apart. One of the first experiments regarding this was Eadweard Myubridge horse pictures, where he put several cameras in a row to snap pictures of a galloping horse and prove that the horse's legs are all four in the air at some point. See http://en.wikipedia....ner_at_a_Gallop

Ehm, where is he so wrong ? Maybe it's true that the eye as an organ is able to see higher frequencies. But who the f*** cares when your brain can't process that information to any benefit ? Neither your health benefits of it, nor your gaming experience will get noticeably better with FPS above 60. That's a well known gamer's fact.

[HMS 115]

How do you know what your FPS is?

[gambla 118]

Google for FRAPS or MSI Afterburner...