1.05. Be happy you have it.

[Possessed 0]

We have bought still a bit raw diamond, that is being cut and polished all the time closer to what we like and what we want.

lifes.

Unfortunately this FREE patch 1.05 turned that raw diamond to dust

[AzzurF 0]

"Unfortunately this FREE patch 1.05 turned that raw diamond to dust "

Really?

The only negative thing I noticed was the "no headshots" bug, but BIS knows the cause and that will be repaired.

1.05 brought sooooo much positive things, and few (smaller) problems.

If that is crumbling the diamond to dust, you just give up too easy, man.

[Possessed 0]

If that is crumbling the diamond to dust, you just give up too easy, man.

Do you read these threads at all?

[funkymojo44 0]

Again, we have another user who simply ignores the simple fact the game was released unfinished and incomplete......

I think the patch is good, but fact is the game is still buggy and the intial release was really bad in terms of bugs.

I like the game, but i think alot of people are fed up buying games that do NOT WORK properly out of the box, instead there is a mass beta stage using the general public and numerous patches.

Thats just not right.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

Girls, I agree that ArmA is a raw diamond, but again, they sold a finished.

@AzzurF: Do you really expect that I would pay for a patch? Or why you stress it is for free?

I guess the best business model for BI would be an annual license fee of let`s say 15-25€/year. That would ensure a constant cash beam on BI and force BI to deliver quality, otherwise users would cancel the contract on next expiry. And it would give them more revenue over the 6 years to the next engine all together :-).

Why I answer? Look at the thread title Victor!

[Gloops 0]

If BIS said last year that they were prolonging the game till May 2007, many people would have gone insane. Frankly we should all be greatful they released the game when they did. The community reports errors, BIS fixes them. From 1.02 to 1.05, 500+ fixes... in a very short time. The constructive criticism helps BIS fix more, faster.

If (like the huge amount of members that joined in Feb. 2007) your complaining.. you have no right.

I hate how everyone is shooting the patch down, non-the-less the game and how 'unfinished' it is. They are working hard, and the community is helping.. but what is not helping is the large number of people who continue to bash the game right after its 400mb+ patch. It would take EA 7 months to do that.

I hate to be negative with my first post, but hang on! Game designers generally pay beta testers, not the other way around! Why should anyone be "grateful" for an unfinished product? If I pay hard earned money for something I expect it to work as advertised. What BIS has is a free Europe wide community of beta testers for the US market (I assume that's their main target audience, as the friendlies are US troops, not a fictional faction like the OPFOR).

Don't get me wrong, I love the free-roaming concept of the game, it's "realism" (in as much as any game can be real), and it's nice looking at high settings (if only), but at the moment it lacks polish and optimization.

This has the potential to be a really great game and even though I've just started it ('Blood Sweat and Tears' was a baptism of fire for sure) it's very enjoyable, in a masochistic sort of way! My immersion is being disrupted a little by wildly fluctuating framerates, triggers that don't trigger (it's hard to know if I'm doing something wrong or it's a bug), and an AI that can spot me sniping from 1000 yards away in cover when they're in the middle of a battle! Damn they're good!

PS: Is it really necessary for butterflies and bees to cast shadows?! It looks really nice as a red admiral flutters in to land, but it must be using some juice. Insects could be 2d sprites without anybody worrying too much I'm sure! Or they could just disappear at lower settings.

[AzzurF 0]

"Do you read these threads at all?"

Do I have to?

All of the "This game is crap! I cant have 60 fps in towns and deep forests with all the settings (very) high and 1682 x 1200 (whatever) resolution and shadows ans postprosessing and aa and af maxed, DAMN!" threads are just funny.

"I NEED my grass and my high shadows ALL the time, or this game is UNPLAYABLE for me!"

And the "Stupid AI!" threads aswell.

Sure there is real problems still, like the texture problem.

But that was a problem before the patch too.

But tell me, what in this 1.05 made You Sooo disappointed?

"Again, we have another user who simply ignores the simple fact the game was released unfinished and incomplete."

I don't ignore the simple fact.

I just can't see the GREAT Problem in that, because we know that we'll get those patches, and STILL most of us can play it and have fun with it, even with few bugs.

PS. The initial release? 1.04 or 1.00?

[Rhodite 3]

...

unplayable for me.  Basically anyone who has built a new machine (with an 8800 and/or dual core) isn't really able to run the game  

Er.. I have a dual core, and the game runs very well.

For interest sake I have the following rig.

E6600

GeForce 7600 GT

2GB Ram

Now I am not saying people arent experiencing issues, but I would like to point out sweeping statements are incorrect. While some people are having problems others are not.

[Possessed 0]

"Do you read these threads at all?"

Do I have to?

...

But tell me, what in this 1.05 made You Sooo disappointed?

Do you really think that you deserve a separate answer if you are too lazy to read the threads? You can find the answers there.

[AzzurF 0]

"Game designers generally pay beta testers, not the other way around! Why should anyone be "grateful" for an unfinished product? If I pay hard earned money for something I expect it to work as advertised."

Gloops, why don't you just quit playing, wait for another year or so, then get all the patches and the "final, almost perfect" game is yours.

Yeah, you have paid for it!

[whisper 0]

Quote[/b] ]not meaning to stir things up, but im not really sure whats wrong with 1.05 ??

Not so much something wrong with 1.05, but it doesn't fix the issues I had with the game version 1.04. It's still totally unplayable for me. Basically anyone who has built a new machine (with an 8800 and/or dual core) isn't really able to run the game

Correction : it's totally unplayable at max settings.

Max settings that BI explicitely told they could be too high for even today's hardware. But some people feel the need to have everything maxed-out or... I don't know, something crushing their ego, perhaps. I'm still trying to guess the reasons.

I'm 100% sure you can find middle settings that makes your game perfectly playable.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

We bite each other simply because we have all different opinion about "playable" and "quality". But if you just take the time to read through http://bugs.armed-assault.net/view_all_bug_page.php

Just reset the filter and filter then for severity from the highest to the lowest, then you see what I am talking about. If this is for some guys fine, it is also fine for me, I am happy if you are happy. But the thing is this constant advises what I am not allowed to demand.

[whisper 0]

To be clear about my point of view, I'm not of the opinion of OP. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, and ArmA states currently has severe issues.

It's just the things like "totally unplayable" that I find really exagerated.

It's totally unplayable for Sprocklet users with license issues, yes. This is a perfectly valid complaint in my opinion. Now, high end users proclaiming ArmA is not a playable game... I have more than doubts.

[funkymojo44 0]

"Do you read these threads at all?"

Do I have to?

All of the "This game is crap! I cant have 60 fps in towns and deep forests with all the settings (very) high and 1682 x 1200 (whatever) resolution and shadows ans postprosessing and aa and af maxed, DAMN!" threads are just funny.

"I NEED my grass and my high shadows ALL the time, or this game is UNPLAYABLE for me!"

And the "Stupid AI!" threads aswell.

Sure there is real problems still, like the texture problem.

But that was a problem before the patch too.

But tell me, what in this 1.05 made You Sooo disappointed?

"Again, we have another user who simply ignores the simple fact the game was released unfinished and incomplete."

I don't ignore the simple fact.

I just can't see the GREAT Problem in that, because we know that we'll get those patches, and STILL most of us can play it and have fun with it, even with few bugs.

PS. The initial release? 1.04 or 1.00?

V1.04.

What im saying is that the release of the game was not acceptable as a finished product. As a gaming community have we suddenly resigned to the fact that games are released with major bugs?

Why not release the game later?

In v1.04 the campaign was virtually unplayable - the AI and scripts were deeply flawed...

To me that greatly affected the enjoyability of the game. Hey when these problems are (hopefully) fixed then im sure we'll have a great game, but if we are happy to accept a finished boxed copy of a game in the state ArmA was in then we may as well all download BETA versions and test for the developers.

[sirex 0]

oh, well if people are trying to max the settings out, then that's what'll happen. -- expect hardware to be a year or two before you can do that on armed assault.

[AzzurF 0]

"Do you really think that you deserve a separate answer if you are too lazy to read the threads? You can find the answers there."

Funny guy.

I was asking You.

I'm not having major problems, 1.05 made things better for me and Many others.

If you and some are having a difficult time with this patch, be a little more patient or buy some new game.

Maybe the NEXT patch will ease your pain.

[Possessed 0]

Max settings that BI explicitely told they could be too high for even today's hardware. But some people feel the need to have everything maxed-out or... I don't know, something crushing their ego, perhaps. I'm still trying to guess the reasons.

Of course they are too high because ArmA memory optimization does not work right. You need a 10GB video card to play one long mission with high settings because ArmA memory management is unable to reuse video memory effectively. CPU, GPU and graphics memory speed of the top-end rigs can easily cope with ArmA engine.

When there are 10GB video cards, we will have photorealistic games with unimaginable HDR effects and no-one remembers ancient ArmA.

[whisper 0]

Max settings that BI explicitely told they could be too high for even today's hardware. But some people feel the need to have everything maxed-out or... I don't know, something crushing their ego, perhaps. I'm still trying to guess the reasons.

Of course they are too high because ArmA memory optimization does not work right. You need a 10GB video card to play one long mission with high settings because ArmA memory management is unable to reuse video memory effectively. CPU, GPU and graphics memory speed of the top-end rigs can easily cope with ArmA engine.

When there are 10GB video cards, we will have photorealistic games with unimaginable HDR effects and no-one remembers ancient ArmA.

Ah. So it's BI bad programming skill that is the cause of all top end hardware issues.

And you know that how, exactly?

[AzzurF 0]

So, Possessed, do you think that this is unsolvable problem, BIS should have waited for the 10 Gb video cards or what Do you think?

"BIS sucks"?

"A bunch of incompetent fools"?

[Possessed 0]

Max settings that BI explicitely told they could be too high for even today's hardware. But some people feel the need to have everything maxed-out or... I don't know, something crushing their ego, perhaps. I'm still trying to guess the reasons.

Of course they are too high because ArmA memory optimization does not work right. You need a 10GB video card to play one long mission with high settings because ArmA memory management is unable to reuse video memory effectively. CPU, GPU and graphics memory speed of the top-end rigs can easily cope with ArmA engine.

When there are 10GB video cards, we will have photorealistic games with unimaginable HDR effects and no-one remembers ancient ArmA.

Ah. So it's BI bad programming skill that is the cause of all top end hardware issues.

And you know that how, exactly?

Read "Patch 1.05 causes performance hits" in troubleshooting area and "Broken Game" in general discussion. ArmA starts to use slow system memory after it fills up graphics card memory. Look who told this. Marek Spanel. Do I need to say more.

And Assurf, I have not in any case made such personal assaults against BIS on this forum. The way you express yourself makes you even worse than BIS hater Ange1_of_Death

[robert(uk) 0]

Personally, I think that 1.05 rocks.  It fixed some annoying bugs for me, and my FPS also improved...  

Now the only thing I am waiting for is a patch that will remove the TKing morons, and will make joining a server faster...

[whisper 0]

Max settings that BI explicitely told they could be too high for even today's hardware. But some people feel the need to have everything maxed-out or... I don't know, something crushing their ego, perhaps. I'm still trying to guess the reasons.

Of course they are too high because ArmA memory optimization does not work right. You need a 10GB video card to play one long mission with high settings because ArmA memory management is unable to reuse video memory effectively. CPU, GPU and graphics memory speed of the top-end rigs can easily cope with ArmA engine.

When there are 10GB video cards, we will have photorealistic games with unimaginable HDR effects and no-one remembers ancient ArmA.

Ah. So it's BI bad programming skill that is the cause of all top end hardware issues.

And you know that how, exactly?

Read "Patch 1.05 causes performance hits" in troubleshooting area and "Broken Game" in general discussion. ArmA starts to use slow system memory after it fills up graphics card memory. Look who told this. Marek Spanel. Do I need to say more.

And that proves... what, exactly? Apart from explaining how the engine works, ofc.

[Javdet 0]

Victor, nice post, you are absolutely right.

Guys, do you have any other commercial tactical shooter of such scale to play with? And Im afraid that we will not have it in nearest future since this genre is not so profitable as RTS games or ordinary shooters like quake etc. Big publishers do not want to deal with more or less hardcore simulators and tactical shooters - responsive audience is too small for big profit, production schedules are too long, risks are too high.

So we have to help BIS to improve ARMA with constructive posts but not whine around forums all day long.

PS sorry for my english :-)

[AzzurF 0]

Dear Possessed, remember this?

"Unfortunately this FREE patch 1.05 turned that raw diamond to dust "

Well, I don't think so.

As I said, it brought a lot of Good for all. And some little Bads for some.

And that is hardly turning a diamond to dust.

[Possessed 0]

And that proves... what, exactly? Apart from explaining how the engine works, ofc.

Other games can reuse video card memory. Arma don't. That's the reason why all the textures shown during a long mission have to be stored in video memory if you want to keep performance high the whole time. In a long mission there are multiple gigabytes of texture data on the screen if you are using high or very high texture settings.

If you don't understand this I can't help you.