Horrible Performance...

[bangtail 0]

I'm sorry, mate. But Ethne does have a valid point when it concerns your video card. However, it still doesn't negate the fact that their are some major graphical issues facing the game ATM.

There is an issue with the foliage as you have illustrated I have no doubt it will be fixed expeditiously.

E

[Kevlar2007 1]

I know that he has a valid point concerning my card as also have numerous other people. But it should also possible to play Arma with my card on very low settings near Foliage, I am not expecting to play it with all settings on High.

Fact is that the Game has some serious performance problems in the moment, but anything that people can write is "look at you GFX card is not enough" and blah, blah, blah thats also their right to say what they want. But if they can say what they want I should also say my opinion as I stated before.

@ethne: On my planet weather is sunny! I don't expect to get it free what is good for me cause I don't want to have it.

[bangtail 0]

I know that he has a valid point concerning my card as also have numerous other people. But it should also possible to play Arma with my card on very low settings near Foliage, I am not expecting to play it with all settings on High.

Fact is that the Game has some serious performance problems in the moment, but anything that people can write is "look at you GFX card is not enough" and blah, blah, blah thats also their right to say what they want. But if they can say what they want I should also say my opinion as I stated before.

OK, go try R6 : Vegas or Splinter Cell : DA. Oh, wait, you can't because your card won't even run them. As I said, it's unreasonable to expect to play nextgen games on a 9800XT. That's just the reality of gaming in 2006/2007.

E

[Marines 0]

I'm sorry, mate. But Ethne does have a valid point when it concerns your video card. However, it still doesn't negate the fact that their are some major graphical issues facing the game ATM.

There is an issue with the foliage as you have illustrated I have no doubt it will be fixed expeditiously.

E

Ya know, the majority of my posts are in here, the troubleshooting forum that is. I'm here to help those that are experiencing errors and issues with the game, however, I can't help someone purchase a new GPU. I mean come on. You can't expect to play next-gen games with a card like that.

@ Skull

You should at least attempt to purchase a budget card.

EDIT: At least a X1600, mate.

[Kevlar2007 1]

I can expect to play it on very low settings, as my card is not below minimum configuration needed. But if not it doesent matter I play chess or somethin else.

I am not interested in any nex gen game like splinter cell or whatnot and I don't gonna try it.

[bangtail 0]

I'm sorry, mate. But Ethne does have a valid point when it concerns your video card. However, it still doesn't negate the fact that their are some major graphical issues facing the game ATM.

There is an issue with the foliage as you have illustrated I have no doubt it will be fixed expeditiously.

E

Ya know, the majority of my posts are in here, the troubleshooting forum that is. I'm here to help those that are experiencing errors and issues with the game, however, I can't help someone purchase a new GPU. I mean come on. You can't expect to play next-gen games with a card like that.

@ Skull

You should at least attempt to purchase a budget card.

EDIT: At least a X1600, mate.

There are so many bargains around right now. There is no excuse for not having a decent card.

E

PS : Skull, you're missing the point! Nextgen games don't work well/at all on old hardware.

PPS : Minimum spec means the absolute MINIMUM required to play. It also means terrible performance.

[Kevlar2007 1]

For me my card is decent one, I don't wanna spend my money on any bargin card around only to play game I allready paid for. I will better wait and see how Arma will develop with all the patches, perhaps in 5 Years after Arma is all patched and has a Ton of Add Ons like OFP than I will consider to buy a new card, I have patience.

[bum71 0]

Yeah, Newegg.com has loads of good deals on cheap cards that get the job done. I'd definately head on over there and replace your 9800 expedite, but I doubt you will. Oh well.

I sure hope the BIS devs are reading all these posts about absurd tech problems. I'm not too keen on having to drop another $3000 on a computer just so I can play this..

[bangtail 0]

Yeah, Newegg.com has loads of good deals on cheap cards that get the job done. I'd definately head on over there and replace your 9800 expedite, but I doubt you will. Oh well.

I sure hope the BIS devs are reading all these posts about absurd tech problems. I'm not too keen on having to drop another $3000 on a computer just so I can play this..

BIS take care of their customers, they always have. You can be guaranteed that all of the problems that are being experienced will be rectified. However, making a next gen game run well on a 9800XT is not a problem that will ever be fixed, particularly because it's not a legitimate problem.

E

[Marines 0]

Yeah, Newegg.com has loads of good deals on cheap cards that get the job done. I'd definately head on over there and replace your 9800 expedite, but I doubt you will. Oh well.

I sure hope the BIS devs are reading all these posts about absurd tech problems. I'm not too keen on having to drop another $3000 on a computer just so I can play this..

A brand spankin' new PC will not solve your problems. I purchased a new box just to play the ArmA, as I'm a long time OFP player. It still doesn't run the game as it should. It's not my hardware, it certainly has to be the engine.

[bangtail 0]

Yeah, Newegg.com has loads of good deals on cheap cards that get the job done. I'd definately head on over there and replace your 9800 expedite, but I doubt you will. Oh well.

I sure hope the BIS devs are reading all these posts about absurd tech problems. I'm not too keen on having to drop another $3000 on a computer just so I can play this..

A brand spankin' new PC will not solve your problems. I purchased a new box just to play the ArmA, as I'm a long time OFP player. It still doesn't run the game as it should. It's not my hardware, it certainly has to be the engine.

I don't deny there are problems, in a game this complex there are bound to be. I firmly believe that just as in OFP, they will be fixed. When I first purchased ArmA I wasn't happy with it at all but 2 patches later it is shaping up to be every bit as good as OFP. You can be assured BIS will sort the problems out so that everyone can experience the sheer quality of ArmA in all its glory.

E

[Kevlar2007 1]

I hope they will do something about the engine I am satiafied with 25-30 FPS overall performance on my Hardware. It is possible as I have it allmost everywhere but near foliage.

I consider Arma is more mature then other so called NexGen games and it doesnt concetrate on eye candy, that is for me what made BIS games outstanding and not NexGen, so that I can play the game on low settings without probs.

[bangtail 0]

I hope they will do something about the engine I am satiafied with 25-30 FPS overall performance on my Hardware. It is possible as I have it allmost everywhere but near foliage.

I consider Arma is more mature then other so called NexGen games and it doesnt concetrate on eye candy, that is for me what made BIS games outstanding and not NexGen, so that I can play the game on low settings without probs.

I sympathize but ArmA is a next gen game. Graphics quality is not the only catalyst that accounts for it being resource intensive. ArmA models so many real world characteristics that it requires a significant amount of horsepower to run at an acceptable rate.

E

[guttersnipe 1]

"I sympathize but ArmA is a next gen game. Graphics quality is not the only catalyst that accounts for it being resource intensive. ArmA models so many real world characteristics that it requires a significant amount of horsepower to run at an acceptable rate."

Sorry, where did you sympathmize with his position?- I can empathise with people who bought the game, who made sure they had the recommended spec (because that's my position!(actually well in excess of the rec spec) and then felt let down when the game doesn't live up to any normal exceptation having satisfied the spec.

"ArmA models so many real world characteristics that it requires a significant amount of horsepower to run at an acceptable rate."

- fair enough comment - BUT the vast majority of games give a min & recc spec to play the game (at a level which is enjoyable, not endurable...) AT THE TIME OF RELEASE , and not 4 years later when sys specs have all moved on.

Rec spec should provide a decent game at a decent frame rate -REGARDLESS of what the game provides improvement & progression from other games -that's what reccommended spec should mean! Hell -if a game needs a 2000 G of ram etc etc I won't buy it unless I  have a machine with that aboard - but if i do, shouldn't I at least expect a stutter free experience?

Hopefully at some future stage these rec specs will have to pass some level of independant scrutainy...

[bangtail 0]

"I sympathize but ArmA is a next gen game. Graphics quality is not the only catalyst that accounts for it being resource intensive. ArmA models so many real world characteristics that it requires a significant amount of horsepower to run at an acceptable rate."

Sorry, where did you sympathmize with his position?- I can empathise with people who bought the game, who made sure they had the recommended spec (because that's my position!(actually well in excess of the rec spec) and then felt let down when the game doesn't live up to any normal exceptation having satisfied the spec.

"ArmA models so many real world characteristics that it requires a significant amount of horsepower to run at an acceptable rate."

- fair enough comment - BUT the vast majority of games give a min & recc spec to play the game (at a level which is enjoyable, not endurable...) AT THE TIME OF RELEASE , and not 4 years later when sys specs have all moved on.

Rec spec should provide a decent game at a decent frame rate -REGARDLESS of what the game provides improvement & progression from other games -that's what reccommended spec should mean! Hell -if a game needs a 2000 G of ram etc etc I won't buy it unless I  have a machine with that aboard - but if i do, shouldn't I at least expect a stutter free experience?

Hopefully at some future stage these rec specs will have to pass some level of independant scrutainy...

Runs 100% fine for me. So no complaints!

E

PS : How many games are released that you cannot play on Max settings for at least a year after their debut. ArmA is not alone in this respect. I direct your attention to FS:X.

[guttersnipe 1]

"I sympathize but ArmA is a next gen game. Graphics quality is not the only catalyst that accounts for it being resource intensive. ArmA models so many real world characteristics that it requires a significant amount of horsepower to run at an acceptable rate."

Sorry, where did you sympathmize with his position?- I can empathise with people who bought the game, who made sure they had the recommended spec (because that's my position!(actually well in excess of the rec spec) and then felt let down when the game doesn't live up to any normal exceptation having satisfied the spec.

"ArmA models so many real world characteristics that it requires a significant amount of horsepower to run at an acceptable rate."

- fair enough comment - BUT the vast majority of games give a min & recc spec to play the game (at a level which is enjoyable, not endurable...) AT THE TIME OF RELEASE , and not 4 years later when sys specs have all moved on.

Rec spec should provide a decent game at a decent frame rate -REGARDLESS of what the game provides improvement & progression from other games -that's what reccommended spec should mean! Hell -if a game needs a 2000 G of ram etc etc I won't buy it unless I  have a machine with that aboard - but if i do, shouldn't I at least expect a stutter free experience?

Hopefully at some future stage these rec specs will have to pass some level of independant scrutainy...

Runs 100% fine for me. So no complaints!

E

PS : How many games are released that you cannot play on Max settings for at least a year after their debut. ArmA is not alone in this respect. I direct your attention to FS:X.

that's not quite my point - how many games would you buy that can't run at even medium settings when you exceed the rec spec from day one - sure they might have a machine in 2 years capable of running  at max ... but that's not what you buy off the shelf when you read the 'packet'   (doesn't do what it says on the tin...)

[guttersnipe 1]

(wiki specs (might be outdated (not by much)

Minimum Specification:

CPU: 2.0 GHz Intel Pentium 4 or equivalent processor

RAM: 512 MB

Graphics card: Nvidia Geforce FX series or ATI Radeon 9500 series or higher (Pixel Shader 2.0)

HD space: 1 GB (or more as needed for downloadable addons)

Operating system: Windows XP or Windows 2000

Recommended Specification:

CPU: 3.0 GHz Intel Pentium 4 or equivalent processor

RAM: 1 GB

Graphics card: Nvidia Geforce 6800 series or ATI Radeon X800 series or higher

HD space: 3 GB (or more as needed for downloadable addons)

Operating system: Windows XP

Just to reinforce my point - if my machine (which eceeds (vastly) the Recommended Specification can't run the game at min res/aa/shadows etc - how is a machine at min spec supposed to be able to play?

[Marines 0]

Comparison wise, if you can even make said comparisons...

R6: Vegas - Total crap in my opinion. It's certainly not the R6 I remember. All of that aside, I run it with full settings.

GRAW - Everything maxed out. Also crap, gameplay aspects only of course. It's no OGR.

Splinter Cell: Double Agent - All settings maxed out.

F4: Allied Force - Maxed out.

Flight Simulator X - Pretty much maxed out.

Varying game complexity and render facets do a a great deal to do with it. However, ArmA seems to contain a highly unoptimized engine in of itself. Some rigs run it just fine, while others seem to struggle with it. These issues are so diverse and complex, I really have no idea where these problems start and where they end.

[guttersnipe 1]

"Comparison wise, if you can even make said comparisons..."

yep same with my system - can max them all out -- and ok most gameplay is crap (graphics are what they where menat to be though) ..... BUT can at least be played @ min spec , and at a reasonable frame rate as the designers intended @ the rec spec (sorry to keep harping back to it, but what else do we as pc gamers have to hold onto? (unless we all want crapy x360 etc etc ... choose..)

the designers of the above games all had a min & rec spec which left a PLAYABLE game - don't really care about the differences in complexity etc, game area etc (thought that was the point of the new game engine ('new environments up to 400km2 seamlessly etc - well I'd rather have 150km2 Nogova at 70fps than an unplayable (oh yes, I will -at rec spec) 100m2....:

- if the game needs more hardware, then have the decency to state the same on the box... simple as that.

[bangtail 0]

"Comparison wise, if you can even make said comparisons..."

yep same with my system - can max them all out -- and ok most gameplay is crap (graphics are what they where menat to be though) ..... BUT can at least be played @ min spec , and at a reasonable frame rate as the designers intended @ the rec spec (sorry to keep harping back to it, but what else do we as pc gamers have to hold onto? (unless we all want crapy x360 etc etc ... choose..)

the designers of the above games all had a min & rec spec which left a PLAYABLE game - don't really care about the differences in complexity etc, game area etc (thought that was the point of the new game engine ('new environments up to 400km2 seamlessly etc - well I'd rather have 150km2 Nogova at 70fps than an unplayable (oh yes, I will -at rec spec) 100m2....:

- if the game needs more hardware, then have the decency to state the same on the box... simple as that.

You can max FS:X. Absolute BS. (Maybe at 640 x 480). I know you are disappointed by ArmA's performance but don't start lying.

E

[guttersnipe 1]

"You can max FS:X." - nope, I can't - don't own the game , must have missed that in your post - not my intention to ly about anything.......*crawling into range* - but... can you play it at a reasonable frame rate on your system or not?....... thought so!

I'm a big fan of the OFP & have been waiting for Armed Assault for a couple of years - I don't want to bitch about the game, I just either want to be able to play it or, *sniff* not - like anyone else I look to the specs on the box for an indication as to whether it'll run adequately on my sys or not.

I've mucked about with the settings again and have found a +5 fps gain using the 'max frames render ahead' (or whatever it's called) set to zero - well worth checking out for those with probs. Still, on the 64 player map, anywere near a vehicle and F********** down to 5-10 fps - ie unflyable (hey maybe I'll get that FS:X instead?)(not likely, I'm hanging in there for a AA ptach/fix...

"However, ArmA seems to contain a highly unoptimized engine in of its" -- yeah that's kinda my point isn't it? Should it have been optimised PRIOR to release? No idea hopw old you are - old crock at 35 myself - but games companies used to release a 'finished product', and not let the public pay for/be their R&D... e.g.

R6:Vegas - a patch released on the same day it was first availible in the UK

[lee_h._oswald 0]

ArmA is making me ill....

I can play on highest settings, but only for 1-3 minutes, then the fps are low like hell. After Alt+Tab or change of ingame options to get the scene reloaded frames are high again. Then another playing for 1-3 minutes.

At the moment ArmA is no fun. I'm TIRED of trying 10000000 things out to check if this is the one, that makes ArmA run stable.

I really hope this performance HELL will find an END! Soon!

MfG Lee

[bum71 0]

Yup Lee, sadly your problem is not unique. A friend of mine needs to alt tab every few seconds to get the game to run stable as well.

Look on the bright side, at least you can get the game to run for 1-3 minutes...

[OFP_PUPSI 0]

"Look on the bright side, at least you can get the game to run for 1-3 minutes..."

Hahaha Sorry, I just had to laugh a bit because same problem here.

Imagine what you would say if you buy a new car, kitchen utility/TV/radio or whatever, and the sales person is telling you to do this and that or another trick, or whatever .... and you think "at least I can drive my car/mixer/TV/radio/whatever for 1-3 minutes".

@Lee/bum71: Always look on the bright sight of life ... dumdum...didumdidumdidum

[lee_h._oswald 0]

Played Rainbow 6 Vegas and ArmA with a friend yesterday...

Seeing HORROR games like R6V is the reason to stay with ArmA and hope/wait for another "wonder"-patch.

To sad I can't play Armed Assault now.

MfG Lee