official complaint to BIS

[ArmaIsKing 0]

i also am VERY upset with this game i loved operation flashpoint and this is just a buggy let down, i personally think that the online system in general is absolutley appaulling, compare it to any other game and you`ll realise. After using the online system its just wierd? "recieving data" i mean how long are we planning on sitting there recieving it for and when we do recieve it your ping seems to be amazing, but no, it completely sucks because the game does to be quite frank. Its damn right laggy and Buggy with sounds, performance and generally the game?

I was seriously looking forward to this game but now i have it im just upset its going to be another BF2 styles game in which they bring out hundreds of patches to fix the crap they made to begin with.

Dont get me wrong it has a HUGE potential to be the best game created, however they need to really see to these problems DAMN fast or im binning it....

btw just to let you all know my rig is this :

pentium 4 3.6 Oced to 4.2GHZ (watercooled)

P5ND2 SLI Deluxe Motherboard

2 GiGs of corsair 800Mhz

X1900XtX Oced

Seasonic 600 watt

and yet game runs poor.....

BIS SORT IT OUT!?!

[bangtail 0]

Guys, I am unhappy as well but at least give them some time to sort it out. It's been out for 2 weeks at the most and BIS are not a big operation. They obviously don't want negative press and they didn't plan this to annoy the whole community.

It needs work but thats all it needs and they are trying to fix it. If its still like this in a few months then maybe it's time to bitch but most of us haven't had it for more than a week. There has already been a patch to fix some issues and even big companies don't always get their patches out that quickly.

Lets stand behind BIS and give them some support. There is a time and a place to call it DOA but 7 days after its release is not that time or that place!

E

[Dudester 0]

Guys, I am unhappy as well but at least give them some time to sort it out. It's been out for 2 weeks at the most and BIS are not a big operation. They obviously don't want negative press and they didn't plan this to annoy the whole community.

It needs work but thats all it needs and they are trying to fix it. If its still like this in a few months then maybe it's time to bitch but most of us haven't had it for more than a week. There has already been a patch to fix some issues and even big companies don't always get their patches out that quickly.

Lets stand behind BIS and give them some support. There is a time and a place to call it DOA but 7 days after its release is not that time or that place!

E

If thats the case why wait 26 pages into the chopper thread and yet still no replay that there even going to look at it.

[Heatseeker 0]

why didt bi used ofp, put some nice BAS addons in it, a few more maps, enable track ir and thats it, that would be all what ofp2 needet.

i played aa now for 1 hour, and thats it, i gona trough it in my rubish bin and never play it again

Well... after reading that i give up .

Can we get a lock in here now? .

[bangtail 0]

Just give it some time!

E

[jono_retard 0]

i played aa now for 1 hour, and thats it, i gona trough it in my rubish bin and never play it again

send your copy to me!! lol

close the thread please

[twisted 127]

i played aa now for 1 hour, and thats it, i gona trough it in my rubish bin and never play it again

send your copy to me!! lol

close the thread please

lol. good idea. you shoudl start an orphaned ArmA thread where all the unwanted version of Arma can find a new loving home.

[nike 0]

well, it seems that many of the complaints lodged towards AA is by people who have either low end computers or a lack of patience.

i just DLed the game and i think that it is very good. yes, there are bugs, but if my memory serves me right, ofp had the same problem.

i also feel that the units could have been done better (lack of difference between various unit models), but the game has just come out and there will be many mods down the road.

be honest, did most of you guys REALLY like the way ofp was when it first came out? the answer is no. the game was good, but the modding community made it great, and the same will happen to AA.

all the complaints are justified, but you should not question your purchase this early of it's release. this game looks and plays better than ofp (in ofp's original state), and the future looks better for AA if the mod community steps up again to provide more content.

I have not bought the game. BUT! If BIS had 5 years to work on this, knowing the probblems they had in the past with OFP. They should have done a better job then. Only 2 islands in the new game. I think they should have recruited from the OFP game community to make Arm A. From what I have been hearing. I will not be buying this.

[Marines 0]

I don't give a damn about the supposed lack of features, not enough playable units, shitty controls, etcetera etcetera. This is not OFP, this is Armed Assault.

Now, what does tick me off, is the awful overall preformance I get out of the game. I'm mean damn, I spent upwards of $1600 upgrading my box in an attempt to exceed the recommended requirements of ArmA. Do I exceed them? By far, that I can assure you. Yet, for some strange reason, my frame rate will totally drop to around 10-17 FPS at times while running it at 1024 x 768, with the settings configured at their default 'Normal' levels.

Now that is just ridiculous.

[jaguax 0]

Yeah the performance is atrocious. I can get decent gameplay out of my rig but what pisses me off most is that those with medium end rigs, which is a large majority of the PC gaming community, are going to be getting crappy performance which will lead to less people playing/buying the game.

[Avena Quaker 0]

Ouch ! All these threads make me think.... where there any beta testers during the development of ARMA ? if positive, what were they ? monkeys ? It's plain ridiculous, and irresponsible, that they had rushed the game knowing the awful list of bugs it has.

I was looking forward to ship the game from EU but my interest is done with it since I have barely over the recomended requierements and people here are getting very poor performance with it. At least I could have dealt with bugs alone...

Also, I find really strange that most here assume that Arma has to "necesarily" follow the same kind of "post relase development" that OFP had... thats not right... OFP started from scratch, for ARMA they already had a pretty darn good base to keep improving...

Now to sleep... dirt bike tomorrow yeeha !

[Marines 0]

Yeah the performance is atrocious. I can get decent gameplay out of my rig but what pisses me off most is that those with medium end rigs, which is a large majority of the PC gaming community, are going to be getting crappy performance which will lead to less people playing/buying the game.

My system

AMD 64 X2 5000+

3 Gig RAM

Radeon X1300

EDIT - I've played ArmA on several systems, and have to say that a dual-core box seems to handle it best. One CPU dedicated to the game itself, while the other handles the background tasks. The game appeared to run much more smoothly. I will also add that my previous more expensive card, a X1900 with 256 memory ran ArmA far less efficiently. I eventually downgraded to a X1300 with 512 memory and found that it ran a little smoother.

Odd. Considering the advanced features the 1900 uses.

[aus_twisted 0]

The main problem causing such big FPS drop is the detailed trees and bushes, whenever there's to many trees around my FPS goes to crap, and everytime I get close to a single bush and look into it my FPS drops so much along with a huge amount of lag.

[Marines 0]

The main problem causing such big FPS drop is the detailed trees and bushes, whenever there's to many trees around my FPS goes to crap, and everytime I get close to a single bush and look into it my FPS drops so much along with a huge amount of lag.

The first major FPS drop I noticed was while playing around with the editor. I inserted myself, along with five 'empty' helos. My FPS was fine until I hit V for the scoped mode and focused upon one of the birds.

It went from good to horrid.

[Teliko 0]

Did you patch your version?

[Zorbtek 0]

There should have been a public beta, if you would like to sum all this up in 7 words

[Teliko 0]

Well the least you can do about is is report bugs and not whine.

This is how to report a bug:

 "Urals sometimes bounce when they fall off bridges"

This is how NOT to report a bug:

 "OMG for gods sake urals are bouncy! I cant believe this how could you release it like this? FIX IT NOW!!"

Unfortunatley most of you are posting with my second example. Change it please.

[Zorbtek 0]

I don't even have the game, so I'm not really complaining about anything.

[Messiah 2]

I have not bought the game. BUT! If BIS had 5 years to work on this, knowing the probblems they had in the past with OFP. They should have done a better job then. Only 2 islands in the new game. I think they should have recruited from the OFP game community to make Arm A. From what I have been hearing. I will not be buying this.

they havnt had 5 years to make this... go do some research... work out that between the release of OFP and Arma they weren't working on Arma, Arma was announced until about 2/3 years ago... they had ofp patches, resistance, elite etc filling up the 2 years after OFP.

[stisoas 0]

Yeah the performance is atrocious. I can get decent gameplay out of my rig but what pisses me off most is that those with medium end rigs, which is a large majority of the PC gaming community, are going to be getting crappy performance which will lead to less people playing/buying the game.

My system

AMD 64 X2 5000+

3 Gig RAM

Radeon X1300

EDIT - I've played ArmA on several systems, and have to say that a dual-core box seems to handle it best. One CPU dedicated to the game itself, while the other handles the background tasks. The game appeared to run much more smoothly. I will also add that my previous more expensive card, a X1900 with 256 memory ran ArmA far less efficiently. I eventually downgraded to a X1300 with 512 memory and found that it ran a little smoother.

Odd. Considering the advanced features the 1900 uses.

lol forget about it !!

an X1300 is RAPPED by a X1900.

just set an appropriate settings for texture quality .

256MB = normal or even low if you want vsync + tripple buffering...

[Frans 0]

I don't know what you people are doing to your high-end systems, but ArmA is running far beyond my expectations on my outdated rig. I don't know the frame rate, but it's perfectly playable.

Resolution 1024x768

View distance 4000 m

Terrain detail Normal

Object detail Normal

Texture detail Low

Shader Very Low

Postprocessing Low

Anisotropic filtering Low

Shadow detail Low

Anti Aliasing Disabled

Blood detail Low

P4 3,2 GHz, 800fsb, 512 cache

1024 DDR400 Dual Channel Memory

2x 120 GB HD in RAID 0 configuration

ATI 9800 Pro 128 MB

[desertfox 2]

Armed Assault runs perfectly smooth on my rather old PC.

AMD 2.8 GHz

Asus AN8X-X / nForce2 chipset

15000 MB RAM

ATi X850 gfx card

I'm running it with medium-high settings on 1280x1024 pixels resolution.

The framerates are way above what they were when OFP came out. Also I can not find any 'serious bugs that make the game unplayable'.

If you think your performance is weak, I strongly recommend updating ALL drivers ( including your mainboard chipset drivers ) and getting rid of everything that hogs system resources. But I think that has been said in countless threads prior to this one.

I admit there's glitches and quite some minor bugs, of which I am certain they will be addressed in the upcoming patches, but basically ArmA meets my expectations as OFP player. I would buy it again, given the choice.

I simply know what BIS and the community have made out of OFP back then, and I do not have the tiniest doubt that we will experience something similar with ArmA.

Anyway, what the heck is up with all the people who come to this message board and post whiny complaints about tiny glitches in a way that BIS can never make use of them.

Please use the bug reporting form for reporting bugs. Without precise sys-specs, a precise description how to reproduce the bug, and maybe even a dump file, the developers won't even take notice of what you are on about.

Arma's a great game. What's not great yet, will be made great in the future. Heh. Period.

[Placebo 28]

If thats the case why wait 26 pages into the chopper thread and yet still no replay that there even going to look at it.

Because we're an exceptionally small team working on:

Patches for released versions

MP Demo

SP Demo

Dedicated Servers

UK/EU version with extra content and features and such

There is simply no time to run around forum threads acknowledging this, that or the other, if bugs are reported with clear reproduction steps into the wiki (just like I said some time ago in the bug thread) then they will be noticed way more likely than random rantings in a forum thread, if the general consensus is that the flight model is so flawed it's tantamount to a bug then it should be reported as such.

[whisper 0]

Ex-ac-tly like it was when OFP then Resistance were out, Placebo. People simply NEVER learn. It's so easy to whine endlessly on a forum.

[Frans 0]

Armed Assault runs perfectly smooth on my rather old PC.

AMD 2.8 GHz

Asus AN8X-X / nForce2 chipset

15000 MB RAM

ATi X850 gfx card

Fifteen THOUSAND megabytes? No wonder it runs well.