Beta or Realese

[DragonFly 0]

The recent, ungoing, and overwhelming compatability issues that ArmA seems to have with it users and their systems. It is questionable why Bohemia would release it for sale with so many bugs and compatability issues.

   ArmA should have been left in Beta. Now Im out some cash for a game that I can't even run. Is not that my system is not to specs because its is. ( of course is not the ferrari of Pc's but its a least it can hold its own).

   Seriously I have to take some cool point for letting it go on shelf so early. It better to wait and have a great idea with quality coding and plenty of testing. Then to release it and find from your customer that it is FBAR.

   ArmA is by far the best battlefield gaming software ( that I can see, not play ) to ever been developed. So there is no question that the the core of the team is the best out there. But the desision to release it who ever made that desision need to be fired because by his or hers actions you have ruin your standing with a least one customer Me.

  An the next time Bohemia whips out another great gaming software I will wait because I know from experience that the first realese of there software is riddle with bugs.

  Im sure that if im actually talking about this someone it the company must of gotten an earful about it already.

Note: I am in no part involve with Bohemia or any of there employes. Im simply a PC gamer looking for the best.

Specs:

AMD XP 3400+ 64bit CPU

GeForce 6800 Ultra 256mb have used Ver 100.65 Int 64bit and  Ver101.41 64bit

Creative Sound Audigy soundcard with most recent update

1.5GB Ram

Windows Vista 64bit

ArmA 1.05

DirectX 9.0c

[Garbol 0]

Windows Vista 64bit - why in God's name are you using this crappy system!?

BTW Vista dosent have DX9 it has DX10 so there is your problem :P

[NeZz_DK 1]

Windows vista has both DX10 and DX9 as a matter of fact it uses a special version of dx9 named DirectX 9.0L to render the Aero UI

but some of the problems could be in 64bit and the lag of propper drivers for it.

and if you think you will ever get Arma to run 100+ fps then you are wrong, even OFP cant run that on normal systems. Armed Assault is an simulation not a quake clone.

its a complex system, and complex systems need patching especially if you dont have a load of $$ for testing and development.

[Metal Heart 0]

Nope. Your system doesn't quite match with the recommendations:

Quote[/b] ]Recommended specifications

* 3 GHz or better Intel or AMD processor, or equivalent of.

* 1 GB memory

* nVidia 6800 or better, with at least 256 MB of onboard RAM.

* ATI X800 or better with at least 256 MB of onboard RAM

* 5 GB of Disk space(or more as needed for downloadable add-ons)

* Windows XP.

* DirectX 9.0c

(hint: <span style='color:white'>Windows XP</span>)

[Luciano 0]

Quote[/b] ]Nope. Your system doesn't quite match with the recommendations:

Quote

Recommended specifications

* 3 GHz or better Intel or AMD processor, or equivalent of.

* 1 GB memory

* nVidia 6800 or better, with at least 256 MB of onboard RAM.

* ATI X800 or better with at least 256 MB of onboard RAM

* 5 GB of Disk space(or more as needed for downloadable add-ons)

* Windows XP.

* DirectX 9.0c

(hint: Windows XP)

Any software that works in XP should work in Vista with no problem. So you wrong.

Its like saying you can't run Withdows ME games on XP.

[shooter6065 0]

Nope. Your system doesn't quite match with the recommendations:

Quote[/b] ]Recommended specifications

   * 3 GHz or better Intel or AMD processor, or equivalent of.

   * 1 GB memory

   * nVidia 6800 or better, with at least 256 MB of onboard RAM.

   * ATI X800 or better with at least 256 MB of onboard RAM

   * 5 GB of Disk space(or more as needed for downloadable add-ons)

   * Windows XP.

   * DirectX 9.0c

(hint: <span style='color:white'>Windows XP</span>)

wrong..........it easily meets the requirements.

They have dropped the ball on this since people can't run it with well over the minimum specs, and in many cases the well over the recommeded specs.

To be completely honest, I am not sure the problems they have can be corrected with patches.

These are not "patch" problems or simple "gliches".

There are people on here with 8800's that have horrible framerates in this game.

If they turn the detail too far down, the graphics are not much better than OFP.

[W0lle 1052]

It's funny to see that people complain how buggy ArmA is and that it never should have hit the stores and bla bla bla

And then when they reveal their system specs it mostly just meets the minimum requirements, probably also with all details set to max.

Like the guys before me said, it's developed for Windows XP, not Vista which eats most of your resources alone just to run the cool GUI.

From my own experience I can tell you that Vista (especially Vista 64) is the worst system you can run ArmA on.

Quote[/b] ]Any software that works in XP should work in Vista with no problem. So you wrong.

You said it: should, not it's guaranteed.

Quote[/b] ]Its like saying you can't run Withdows ME games on XP.

Infact I had a lot of games which are not working in XP or only in compatibility mode.

I'm running ArmA here on 3 machines with XP and there are none to little problems, apart the usual ones almost every one has.

[Metal Heart 0]

Quote[/b] ]Any software that works in XP should work in Vista with no problem.

Yeah right. Good one. Just like everything for 3.11 should work perfectly in 95?

Quote[/b] ]it easily meets the requirements.

If they say it requires 2000 or XP then Vista doesn't meet the requirements, it's very simple.

[Luciano 0]

Edit....................................... Better not say it, I might get banned

Quote[/b] ]You said it: should, not it's guaranteed.

Thats pretty much a guarantee right there. Tell me of another software that runs on XP but not on Vista. No such thing exists.

But why the heck are you even talking about this? If it wouldn't have ran in Vista, the symptom would be a black screen. Or not being able to start.

Instead, he is talkign about performance problem. Also a geforce 6800 ultra isn't such a bad card, in fact its in the recommended requirements.

You guys are just embarassing youselves. It shows how much you know about computers.

It pisses me off when people lie like this. And they act as if they know.

[Dr. Mojo- PhD 0]

Luciano, stop being an asshole to everybody without provocation. I could understand if people kept jerking your chain or something, but Jesus man, calm down.

As for the backwards compatibility -- one, I don't know how stable XP and Vista will run in a dual-boot config. Troubleshooting my friend's Vista/XP dualboot machine led me to a page specifically saying Microsoft does not support Vista/XP dualboots. It may be that this is causing general system instability.

Two: Vista does in fact use a significantly different framework than XP (different APIs, different kernels, etc.). Backwards compatibility in this case can't be 100%.

While we can say that NT/ME/XP will all be compatible to some extent, this simply isn't true with windows XP to Vista. In fact, even in versions which SHOULD have been backwards compatibility (such as 95/98/98SE) programs would often not run properly on later systems due to changes.

A similar problem existed in the changeover from DOS/WIN3.1 to Windows 95, where Windows 95 was unable to run DOS or Win3.1 enhanced programs on its dos emulator.

Trust me, I had the misfortune of working end-user technical support for a long time. Backwards compatibility never is.

(edit: as an example, one of my favourite games of all time, Myth: The Fallen Lords doesn't work at all on an XP system, and X-Com: UFO Defence (aka UFO: Enemy Unknown) requires a lot of jiggering to get it to work even on a Win95 machine.)

[Metal Heart 0]

Quote[/b] ]Instead, he is talkign about performance problem.

Exactly, performance problem, caused by Vista. How come games run consistently worse on Vista and it's the games' fault?

Quote[/b] ]It pisses me off when people lie like this. And they act as if they know.

Now you know how everyone feels whenever you post.

[Danbri 0]

Noone can say that its just Vista users that are having this problems. Are so many members here payed by BI or what is this?

I´m just a few Hz from the RECOMENDED specs (by BI that is) and the game is almost unplayable with all this graphical problems. This IS a badly tested product. Period.

P4 2.8C

ATI X800PRO 256MB

AUDIGY 2

450W PSU

WINDOWS XP (WITH ALL UPDATES THERE IS)

1BG RAM DUAL CHANNEL

100GB OF FREE HARDDRIVE SPACE

[sir fragalot 0]

@Luciano:

fyi

http://www.twitchguru.com/2007/03/01/vista_offers_nothing_to_gamers/

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/

[Messiah 2]

Quote[/b] ]Tell me of another software that runs on XP but not on Vista. No such thing exists.

Quote[/b] ]It shows how much you know about computers.

aaah the irony of that post.

do some research, there are a vast amount of games that suffer horrendous performance loss due to being run on vista, because they were not designed for vista and vista isn't as backwards compatible as the MS PR department would have you think.

[MamiyaOtaru 1]

Tell me of another software that runs on XP but not on Vista.  No such thing exists.

You've overplayed your hand. It's now rather obvious you are either a troll or underinformed and in no position to be talking about performance issues.

I wish MS had bit the bullet and gone 64 bit a long time ago. We might almost be through the transition by now! As it is, 64 bit is not the way to go for most games right now, esp 64 bit Vista.

[Monkwarrior 0]

Sorry to hear that Dragonfly.

I'm almost certain that your 64 bit version of Vista is causing this.

Looking at the various forumposts regarding vista 64 bit that could be your problem.

Suggestions:

1) go back to XP

2) reinstall Vista but 32 bit this time

3) wait several months until better 64 bit drivers are released

For your information: the company never mentioned Vista as being a possible gaming platform for arma, so I'm guessing they didn't test it on vista extensivly. This doesn't mean it cannot run on vista but there are no garantees it will.

Good luck with reinstalling, I'm sure you'll try it out for such a promising game.

Monk.

[desertfox 2]

Buah buah I installed the game on my Linux box and it does not run !! Buah buah !!

[Control 0]

Thats pretty much a guarantee right there.   Tell me of another software that runs on XP but not on Vista.  No such thing exists.

This Luciano dude does not live in the same reality as I am.  

[DragonFly 0]

After reading the many post the only option I have left seems to be re format and got back to Windows XP 32bit with a fresh start.

It is a really a painful desision. Have to install everything again and organize and re config all over again. The time it takes to install all my programs and drivers. I get a headache just thinking about it.

Or should I wait and leave ArmA alone until a possible new patch some where in Vista, the graphic card or software come in and fixes the issue. But then I will be without playing ArmA for a while and that alone would kill me.

If I go back to Windows XP it could very well fix issues that I may come across in the future with other software. but then again may be going back would hurt me for the future. Man I really wish I had another system with XP on it.

I guess this are the desision a gamer needs to make. Im really undesided. but Im leaning more with ReFormating rather then wait it out. I think ArmA is worth it.

What do you think?

[Mr_Tea 0]

The 64 bit version of Vista is known for driver problems, that may stay over a longer time.

Arma works good with Vista Home Premium 32 bit for me, but better with Win2K Prof. SP3.

[Luciano 0]

You guys are funny, no idea what your talking about. Its even more funny since there are people on the board running ARMA on Vista with no such problem.

The reason people run some games slower in Vista is obvious. Vista takes way more resources than XP. So if your PC can't handle it, of course other applications will run slow. None of your Einsteins could have figure that out.

What I'm trying to say is that ARMA is compatible with Vista or it wouldn't have run at all.

I have no idea why you guys are insisting that Vista causes performance drops when clearly it happens on XP computers too. So If you have a computer strong enough for Vista, it shouldn't be a problem

[BroK3n 0]

anyways..

@Dragonfly

mm how abt you try dual booting your system?

You need not reformat your entire hard drive too if you had your hd partitioned beforehand.

Hope that helps im drunk.