Settings...

[Mr Sarkey 0]

Ok I basically got a dual core processor running at 3 Ghz (does ArmA support dual core?) and a 256 mb card.....why cant I play with half decent settings. All drivers are up to date. I got German version patched to 1.01. Best fps is 20 and most things are on normal.

Specs:

Operating System Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 2 (Build 2600)

System Memory - 1024mb

Processor Speed - 3.04 Ghz

DirectX Version 9.0c

Display Device - Inno3D GeForce 6500 (256mb)

[van Nistelrooy 0]

Yeah everybody knows that ArmA doesn't work very fine. Except BIS...

[olemissrebel 0]

It does work fine, open your ArmA cfg, and change the color settings from 32 to 16, save it, and make the cfg file 'read only.'

Make sure you have AA, AF, and shadows off, as well as post processing, and you WILL be able to run it well. You can't expect to run it at high settings with a rig like that, it's not BIS's fault. Would you all rather them make a game that could run on any system that looks like ass? If so, go play OFP. Even then you won't be able to run OFP at full settings.

[van Nistelrooy 0]

Make sure you have AA, AF, and shadows off, as well as post processing, and you WILL be able to run it well.

For sure. And so what ?

Look at this. It's in the ArmA official website: "ArmA is a first person tactical military shooter with large elements of realism and simulation."

Do you think "realism and simulation" means "no shadows" ?

In 3 weeks we will be in 2007. Who wants to play a game that can't work properly with shadows on ?

Look at my config and try to think why I'm frustrated.

[olemissrebel 0]

We all feel the same way you do man, it sucks. Would you rather have ArmA in it's present state, or no ArmA at all? Exactly

[van Nistelrooy 0]

For sure. But do you really think you'll win 20-30 FPS just with a patch ? I'm not very optimist...

[norsu 180]

For sure. But do you really think you'll win 20-30 FPS just with a patch ? I'm not very optimist...

Well the first patch already removed one performance hogger . Maybe (most likely) there are others too.

[NeMeSiS 11]

For sure. But do you really think you'll win 20-30 FPS just with a patch ? I'm not very optimist...

Do you need an extra 20-30 FPS? If so, you are just a stupid whiner, i play with just those 20-30FPS on my low/mid end system with med/low settings and it runs quite stable.

Do shadows have anything to do with realistic gameplay? No not at all.

Just play ArmA on normal settings..

Remember Far Cry? Remember how it used to be the one of the heaviest games out there on high settings? Now imagine a 'ultra-leet high' setting that no PC would be able to run back in 2004 when FC came out. Ok? Well, thats the '(very) high' setting in ArmA, its a setting that shouldnt be touched yet until we have those 'ultra-leet' PCs, especially not if your a 'fan' (read 'Whiner' ) of high FPS (40+).

[van Nistelrooy 0]

Can you really play at 20 FPS ? It's not very playable.

Now, if you enjoy playing in 1024x768 with all details on normal and shadows off, it's good for you. I don't need a game that looks like Oblivion, but for me, a game must be a minimum beautiful to be interesting. And shadows are fore sure important to add realism !

I'm agree with you about Far Cry. But when it came out, it was the beautifulest game, even with details on normal. That's not the case for ArmA. In med settings, it looks like a 2003 game. I add that in 2003, you were able to play with shadows on on games.

We are (almost) in 2007. That's a shame to have to turn shadows off to play a game at this time.

The game runs perfectly in desert and in towns. The only problems are bushes and grass. I really don't know why it kills computers like that. Why did BIS put grass ? It's completely useless !

Of course I like ArmA. Of course I'm happy to play with it. But I'm frustrated to see that the game is not 100% playable in very good conditions.

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

van Nistelrooy i see in your sig your computer specs the following.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+, Corsair TwinX 2048Mo PC3200, Leadtek 7950GX2 1024Mo, Asus A8N-E, Western Digital Raptor 74Go 10KRPM 8Mo SATA, Maxtor 80Go 8Mo SATA, Windows XP Pro SP2

And I can't run ArmA properly with good graphics...

If i had the issues you were having i would make sure i had the current drivers for the following.

Motherboard Chipset

Nvidia Video Card Drivers

Direct X 9.0c with the 10/10/2006 Update

you also dont list what type of power supply you have, nothing saps a video card performance by not having a correct higher wattage power supply with a dedicated 12v rail to supply it. Nothing else on the rail but the video card pluged in.

[van Nistelrooy 0]

Of course I have all last drivers. And my power supply is a 385W. The video card is perfectly plugged. Don't try to make me believe that this is the reason of why ArmA runs bad when I'm near foliage.

[Chris Death 0]

Of course I have all last drivers. And my power supply is a 385W. The video card is perfectly plugged. Don't try to make me believe that this is the reason of why ArmA runs bad when I'm near foliage.

hmm - my GeForce 7950 GT KO has a minimum power supply

requirement of 450 W - are you sure your 385 W are enough?

Off course i can't tell what yours require, just guessing from

mine which is very similar.

~S~ CD

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

A 385 Watt Power supply is not enough to power your video card correctly, trust me when i say that you need at least a 600 Watt with a dedicated 12v rail. You will notice a big improvement in your Armed Assault.

Also another big thing to do is never plug your computer into a outlet strip. Plug it directly in to the wall outlet to get the correct wattage to your power supply.