FPS problem?!

[killen]

Cavazos;2090392']Once a very long time ago, I would play America's Army 'Bridge' map with only 2.5 FPS. I still killed the enemy.

I think that map is awesome! But a bit too campy

[Cavazos]

It was. I always liked the other more maneuverable maps better. You can still play the original military simulation version and not the AA3 they have now. Just look up America's Army 2.5 Assist. I played it earlier this year and there were still players on it.

[=TTR=]

Okay, i am stubborn as a mule. When i ask in game, everyone tell me: the game is not lagging, mine runs fine. Mine not. When i ask in the forum, someone told me that EVERYONE had problems with this game. 2 days ago i switched to windows 10 (clean install) hoping for some improvement (my old win7 was filled with crappy things). But, my problems are still there.
I run the game fine but when i watch in a precise direction, like west (maybe it is crowd of people), it start chopping.
Why? I really can't understand. My rig is decent .
Thanks guys for answering.

By any chance do you have a Nvidia Graphics Card? If so, did you update to the latest version prior to upgrading to Windows 10?

[ViktorKorsakov]

Clear your shaders after changing your graphics settings, you can find that in the launcher, support button. Surprised that nobody mentioned that.

[CC-Marley]

So, basically saying to get PR to run the best FPS I should fire up the old Dell XPS generation 3 with a P4, 2g ram and an ati 4850? Ah, the good old days of the PR mini mod. I may just have to fire it up to see how well it would play.

[PatrickLA_CA]

If you put in some more RAM it might even work better.

[sgtsev3n]

the problem is the huge detailed maps. the engine is very old and cant handle such huge detailed maps very good + its single core engine. IMO it was a mistake to build PR on the refractor 2 engine.

anyway, if you play vanilla bf2, you see that FPS is good with 64 bots and 64 layer size while in PR, FPS problems appear on the smallest layer size and the graphics & engine are the same + some textures are even lower quality than vanilla bf2 once (to prevent memory issues).

[DesmoLocke]

Curious as to what game engine would have used to make PR on 10 years ago?
(Granted, PR was a very different game back then.)

[PatrickLA_CA]

The problem is that the smallest PR map is still bigger than vBF2 maps. The engine is not cut out for this. But back in 2005, I don't think they had much choice as to what engine to choose and it is really a miracle what has been made from this engine to achieve PR. I remember the excitement when Mosquil made the 3D sights for the grenadiers and then a bit later the BUIS.

[dysin]

and it is really a miracle what has been made from this engine to achieve PR. I remember the excitement when Mosquil made the 3D sights for the grenadiers and then a bit later the BUIS.

a lot of really talented people
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbdfja3qtbY

[PatrickLA_CA]

a lot of really talented people
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbdfja3qtbY

That is from a minimod Combined Arms if I'm not wrong. Would be cool to have some of those features in PR, but nowadays it'll be too much of an overkill with so many assets.

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

And I'm dumbfounded. How? i5 2500k is very much equivalent to FX-6300/6350, yet I fail to have 60+ FPS at all times.

No, your FX-6300 isn't anywhere close to the 2500K. No matter how many slow cores you stick on it, single-core performance matters.

See;
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

This is the same in many other games; Forged Alliance Forever is the same; AMD is useless there in bigger games becaues it sucks on single-core performance. Good thing about PR is that only the AMD users themself suffer, instead of everyone (as in FAF).

Your FX-6300 from 2013 is closer to an Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 from 2008 than it is to the 2500K from 2011

It's the sad reality of AMD on gaming rigs; olders games run very slow, and if you have a budget rig, you're not likely to profit from the bigger amount of cores anyway, because you probably have a slow GPU to go with the budget CPU.

At least if you buy a cheap Intel system you get plenty of single-core performance. Single-core, even a recent Celeron can get equal to the fastests AMD, lol.

[PolishKruk]

At least if you buy a cheap Intel system you get plenty of single-core performance. Single-core, even a recent Celeron can get equal to the fastests AMD, lol.

That is such flawed logic. Entirely missing the point of multi-core processors. No single core, single thread processor will ever match what a multi-core processor can do in terms of real life computing.

But on topic, guys post your full PC specs, maybe there is something else holding you back because I have zero issues with framerate in this game even on max in 1080 and I am using a "trash" amd processor.

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

That is such flawed logic. Entirely missing the point of multi-core processors. No single core, single thread processor will ever match what a multi-core processor can do in terms of real life computing.

But on topic, guys post your full PC specs, maybe there is something else holding you back because I have zero issues with framerate in this game even on max in 1080 and I am using a "trash" amd processor.

If the main thing you do is 8+ year old games that depend on single-core performance, the additional 2 / 4 / 6 cores of an AMD won't help you. Such games are very much real life computing. But yeah, you can get equal with a fast Celeron.