Hardware and settings for ArmA

[hamis 0]

Why not to use 1.16?You can download fraps or use ECS-mod to see your fps.

[Soulfly 10]

I'll try fraps,

Thanks!!

Does 16 really applay to me? I thhought it was more for ATI users.

I'll dl today.

[GLeek 10]

i notice that ATI 9.5 drivers support arma antialiasing aside HDRprecision=16.

it's new for me . all ATI player might try that settings.

[Siddern 10]

I have a laptop with a core 2 duo @ 2.00ghz, 3 gig RAM and a Nvidia Geforce 8600m GS. Shouldn't that be enough for running ArmA on medium or low? I don't get it. When I'm playing I only get about 10 fps or so... Is there something wrong, or is my computer that crappy? :/

[ArmaPog 10]

Hello

I would like to buy the Arma Gold pack, and was curious about the ability to change the key bindings, ie, can I set my mouse to do the walking and firing for ex?

[ArmaPog 10]

I'm still here:D:D

I just want to know whether I can unbind WASD keys and use the mouse and up/down arrows for moving and firing.

I'm a lowly Ghost recon player, so I need all the help I can get:butbut:

[kklownboy 43]

I'm still here:D:D

I just want to know whether I can unbind WASD keys and use the mouse and up/down arrows for moving and firing.

I'm a lowly Ghost recon player, so I need all the help I can get:butbut:

yes you can

[ArmaPog 10]

yes you can

Thanks.

I just installed the Arma1 demo as it turns out, so I'll get a better idea of what I'm up against later on.

I'm at 1920x1200 + CCC maxed.

[SpecOp9 0]

I did the maxmemory thing and it worked wonders.

[mauricio14 10]

Hey guys...Was wondering if my specs can run ArmA, I dont care if I have to set every thing on low.

4 processors running - AMD Phenom 9150e Quad-Core Processor

1.81 GHz Performance Rated at 4.61 GHz

Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium Edition, 64-bit (Build Service Pack 16001)

NVIDIA GeForce 6150SE nForce 430

[franze 196]

That is adequate to run ArmA, but if you need conclusive evidence, try the demo. The demo does not run very well but if you can run it, you know you can run the full game.

[mauricio14 10]

That is adequate to run ArmA, but if you need conclusive evidence, try the demo. The demo does not run very well but if you can run it, you know you can run the full game.

Thanks a bunch. Sorry about making a reply here then creating a thread. after posting I saw that the last reply was about 2 weeks ago....:)

Oh i tried the demo but it turns out it wont run well with vista 64-bit(black screen) and yet the regular game does....This is what I have found researching the web from numerous people.

Edited July 22, 2009 by mauricio14

[haroon 10]

Walk under the trees or some thing that have complex shadow structure and you'll notice the difference between shadows set to low and high

[mauricio14 10]

Ok, I have read before that this game wont run on a Quad Processor, is that by any means true? and that you have to turn 2 of them off so you can play it?

Another thing while researching is that this game will get considerably high amount of lag/Low FPS even on an NVIDIA GeForce 9800GT?

I am also noticing that those who have the most trouble are the ones with Vista 64-Bit....can anyone verify this for me...Thanks much Appreciated :)

[desertjedi 3]

Ok, I have read before that this game wont run on a Quad Processor, is that by any means true? and that you have to turn 2 of them off so you can play it?

That's totally true - if you try to launch Arma while running a quad-core cpu, your PC will immediately burst into flame!

You don't need to do anything if you have a quad-core cpu to run Arma.

Another thing while researching is that this game will get considerably high amount of lag/Low FPS even on an NVIDIA GeForce 9800GT?

That should be a decent card for Arma. The problem for so many peeps is that they combine that with a weak cpu and that's the kiss of death for Arma. The more posts I read, the more I think that much of Arma's poor performance on some people's PCs is more related to their cpu than their video card.

I am also noticing that those who have the most trouble are the ones with Vista 64-Bit....can anyone verify this for me

I think for maximum Arma enjoyment one should use the following:

Vista 64-bit

8 or 16GB of RAM

Two ATI video cards in Crossfire

That way, something is sure to go wrong!

I'm sure there are peeps that run Arma fine in Vista 64-bit. I can't speak for Vista but Arma runs great in Windows 7 64-bit.

[mauricio14 10]

Ok in some sentences I don't know if your being sarcastic or What lol.

I have 7 GIGS of RAM and was wondering how much the Video cards would cost?

[raedor 8]

Are you talking about A1 or A2? (I know, we're in A1 forums here, but your questions sound like A2.)

[desertjedi 3]

Mauricio,

Arma should run fine on a quad-core. 9800GT should be fine for Arma but Arma requires a very powerful cpu. I can't say for sure about Vista 64-bit but I would think it would work fine considering that Arma runs great on Win 7 64-bit.

We can't answer your video card question because it's not specific enough - and we don't even know what country you're from.

Also, welcome to the forums - hopefully we can convert you into another Arma addict.

[M9ACE 0]

mauricio14, I am running a 9800GTX+, 2GB of RAM, and a FX57 (a single-core processor) and I can run both ArmA1 and ArmA2 well enough with this combination. My NVIDIA driver version is 185.85 on Windows XP Pro (32 bit currently).

[mauricio14 10]

Thanks for the support everyone. Ok to answer some questions. I am talking about ArmA 1, I am from the United States and my CPU is an AMD Phenom X4 9150e

If anyone needs anymore info about my comp just ask. And i will research a bit more on the Vista 64-bit situation. If I am held back and put on a stranglehold, then I Guess I will have to go with the New Window 7.

[Antigoon 10]

I heard there were a few graphics issues with ATI cards in the 1.14 patch, something about memory leaks, iirc. However the server I mostly play on is 1.14 and as I am about to receive a new pc with a HD 4890 card, I am wondering if this problem still exists? Or are the GCards drivers updated to eliminate this problem? (i used nVidia for the longest time so have no exp. with ATI)

[Qxs 10]

Just wanted to report that a Sapphire ATI Radeon HD 5750 1GB video card works great with v1.14

**EDIT**: Usually ~34-50 fps, ultimate low of 16 in one mission while attacking convoy w/Helo (dropping settings did not affect this strange low framerate).

Settings:

Highest possible, except Post Process = Low (what a ridiculous setting)

View Distance ~3000, will run 10000 but has slight jerkiness as you spin around.

No garbage programs running in the background.

Specs:

Win 7 64 bit (Home Premium)

Asus M4A78-EM Motherboard

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5000+ 2.60GHZ

2GB RAM

Sapphire ATI Radeon HD 5750 1GB (GDDR5) @1280x1024 (17" NEC LCD1715)

w/ATI Catalyst 10.2, Catalyst AI Disabled

Antec EA-380 Power Supply (2 SATA, 1 CDRW, 1 DVDROM)

I haven't measured FPS, but I started on my previous 'low' settings (onboard ATI 3200 video), and stepped everything up on the 'Convoy Mission' and I found no problems.

Also, multiplayer tested on Evolution Blue V2, max ~20 players, ~4 hours.

Absolutely pleased with going all AMD/ATI.

Looking forward to trying Arma 2 sometime this summer.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Qxs

[Tom1 10]

would a NVIDIA GT220 (1GB) 2.8Ghz Intel Core Duo and 2GB RAM run this game on medium, im thinking of getting it.

[Tom1 10]

WTFudge?! how did you know?! Yea im actually getting a Duel-Core AMD arthlon 2 - 2.8Ghz but everything else stays the same. Will this run ArmA at a resonable fps, i dont care much for gfx, CWC was playable for me.

[Canaris 10]

I have :

Intel Core 2 Duo e4500 2,20 Ghz

2 Gb ram

Nvidia Geforce 8600 GT 256mb

What settings i should have ?? Is there a chance for something other than everything on low/minimum/off ??

EDIT : never mind :P

Edited December 17, 2010 by Canaris