1.05. Be happy you have it.

[BLSmith2112 0]

Give the man a welcome already. Welcome CallMeSir. Find the right crowd to hang with and this game e'll keep you playing for years and years. BIS will always be here to back us up.

[iGnitor 0]

This kind of attitude is quite normal in working places.

The people who complete their jobs before deadlines and do not make mistakes, are not noticed or appreciated. If you want to get respect, you make mistakes and bad work and then fix it by making a lot of overwork and show some personal sacrifice.

1.Since this game is published on beta level, I don't see any reason to praise the sizes of patches. Especially when they make things worse.

2.The only reason why people accept this at all is that there is no competition in realistic FPS war simulation gaming. They have to stick with ArmA or start to learn jump-dodging of bullets in BF/CS world.

1.Relative to what exactly? Relative to Tetris? Yes. To Battlefield? To some degree. To any other game in the genre? Can't be answered... basically, you made a point without realistic premise is what I am trying to demonstrate. It's like trying to compare Apple's with Orange's.

2.Agreed

Well this game is still on beta level due the huge amount of bugs and the apparent lack of testing before publishing. In a normal case the serious bugs has been found and fixed in the software before it is published. Being on beta or release level is not a matter of comparison to another software. Software is normally on the release level when the serious bugs has been found through beta testing and fixed and also the number of bugs has been reduced to the acceptable level.

At the moment the software quality and the enormous amount of bugs makes the game almost unplayable. This game is not on beta level if this is the quality standard of BIS release policy. In that case I wonder if BIS has any kind of official quality certificate.

Like I said, it is also a subjective issue and this would apply for a fair few. Not to say it really is not objective for some because I'm sure it will be.

It's not always easy to test on what is in reality an infinite number of system combos. I'm sure an average system is taken into account during testing at the very least using what would be considered as a mainstream setup. It would be the logical thing to do afterall. If you can understand the issues with releasing a beta to the masses i.e. more than just a small group for the closed beta, you will realise it can create a lot of negative press. A game as complex as this will no doubt be prone to more bugs on intial release with the various systems and scenarios not previously experienced. Yes, more testing can always be done, but there will never be a guaratee of bug free gameplay or major performance issues. Who's to say what systems were used? We don't know for sure, but I know from experience most people got a good version of OFP in the end so I can say with some certainty, the game wouldn't be released with heavy issues, but some smaller ones found are inevitable with the devs knowledge on release. Anything else that develops through time with further patches is just bad luck and I'm sure even after a decent amount of testing is done. These are software professionals afterall and are forced to have decent knowledge of hardware too. No one likes bad press at the end of the day.

There are bugs, but not of the magnitude you describe. Again, this can be subjective.

My initial point was, what sets the bar of what a beta state for this particular game is? I don't believe it's fair to call it a beta by simple definition, rather it should be compared on a relative scale of the same genre, and in this case, few such scales exist.

[iGnitor 0]

1.Relative to the other games released by professional game companies that work when you put them in the DVD drive.

However, I think waiting to release would be a mistake, the industry moves that fast you need to release while your still current to catch the passing masses. Fanbois playing for a couple of years don't bring the money.

On the other side of the coin there is a need to release a working product. Getting the balance is difficult. release a crap version early and bomb due to a bad reputation or later and risk the engine being out of date or even worse a competitor beats you to it.

Unfortunately BIS has missed the ideal point. It's wallowing as a multiplayer game so far the numbers are too low. With a bit of luck it'll be working by the time it hits the US. Although that isn't much use to the European mulitplayer community.

I understand the point you are making and of course it would be an ideal situation, but like I said before, it is not a fair comparison because we are not comparing like for like. This comparison is heading for a very general direction which does not serve the work done here any justice. Simple definitions are exactly that, too simple for such a case and it's a very linear way of thinking. Why don't we compare it to mario land in that case? Would it be fair to do such a thing because that is very much bug free and will never suffer any performance issues.

[BLSmith2112 0]

After reading some replys I firmly believe that many posters should be over in the other 1.05 complaining thread...

[lexicon66 0]

The only problem with version 1.05 is that performace is degraded about 40% with most systems. I hope they fix this soon they should release a patch just for the performance problems. 1.02 was much better for performance.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ] is degraded about 40% with most systems.

Yeah sure

If there is a common level of performance decrease, it´s about 10 - 20 percent, not the double.

[NeMeSiS 11]

The only problem with version 1.05 is that performace is degraded about 40% with most systems. I hope they fix this soon they should release a patch just for the performance problems. 1.02 was much better for performance.

"70% of all statistics are made up on the spot"

[BLSmith2112 0]

I think those with higher end PC's shouldn't be able to post about saying there isn't a performance decrease, cuz they don't know the difference between 90fps and 82fps

I noticed a slight difference, but it'll definitely keep me playing longer. This patch was the 'make or break' patch I was looking for, and it kept me in.

[weegee_101 0]

I think those with higher end PC's shouldn't be able to post about saying there isn't a performance decrease, cuz they don't know the difference between 90fps and 82fps

I noticed a slight difference, but it'll definitely keep me playing longer. This patch was the 'make or break' patch I was looking for, and it kept me in.

But what about those of us who used to play the game or normal or high settings just fine with above 20 fps then after the patch get barely 15 after 5 minutes of play?

[lexicon66 0]

I think those with higher end PC's shouldn't be able to post about saying there isn't a performance decrease, cuz they don't know the difference between 90fps and 82fps

I noticed a slight difference, but it'll definitely keep me playing longer. This patch was the 'make or break' patch I was looking for, and it kept me in.

But what about those of us who used to play the game or normal or high settings just fine with above 20 fps then after the patch get barely 15 after 5 minutes of play?

This is what's happening with me as well. I don't have a high end system. I have a 3500+ 2GB + 7800GT. Before the patch I was getting smooth game play now after the patch it seems like there is a memory leak or some shadow problem. I have faith that they will fix this but it is in fact about 30-40% decrease in performance. I am sure this varies for most people yet some people say they actually have better performance. Strange.....

[sixer 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.

in the USA that is called fraud if you promise one thing people pay for that, and you do not deliver said thing. in fact i think that this game in the short time it has been out it has broken records for problems. just looking at the forms and how many pages there are and looking at how many people have the game plus you facter in all the people that have not even reg for this site i wold think that about 23% of people have problems now thats just english so look at the other forms and it gos way up to 43% maybe more.

[kishmull 1]

show me a game or application that doesnt have problems of one sort or another?

dont think i can think of any.

in this case i`m prepared to exercise a little patience.

most of us have seen all this before. and from what i have seen of BIS and thier previous game OFP they will sort the problems out even if it takes a while.

[Dallas 9]

There's what OFP was and what it became. ArmA is one thing and will become another. You had to own patience to enjoy OFP, you also have to do with ArmA. All this talk about fraud, must come from someone who never owned another PC game or Windows for that matter. Good luck with the lawsuit.

ArmA is like a fine wine. It's 40 bucks and it'll make you feel great. Screw hiding it in a cellar, I'm enjoying it now.

[lexicon66 0]

I found that performance can be increased by lowering detail levels. In the new patch detail level can actually increase. LOD is increased so the actual functionality of the detail controls gives more diversity. So the "normal" detail level is not like it used to be. I found that lowering some options while keep texture details higher gives my original performance back while still keeping ok graphics. They have tweaked the normal setting to be harder on a system. Although I do think there are some performace bugs that are pretty high on the list to be fixed.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

Hello forums,

having read the above posts in this thread and negative comments in other posts, I'm going to vent my spleen.

1/ Graphical performance, Visual Quality of ARMA:

After patch 1.05 "the game runs crap", or "looks like Operation Flashpoint". Well, it performs great on my machine, yep, I have a "Gaming PC", an 8800 GTX, 2 gig ram etc etc. But as a hardcore gamer, I understand the concept that you have to upgrade every 6-12 months. Or the PC games industry will produce a game that will make your PC run like crap if you dare switch on the "eye candy". It's been this way since games on the 486 processors.

I run ARMA on a 32" monitor at 1600x1024 16x aa 4x AF GCAA and SSAA turned on, everything set to VERY HIGH, bar, terrain, vis range 3km (30-50 FPS). And I suspect, like a few others, I can see ARMA is at the pinnacle of DX9 games ever produced. There are so many new effects in this game, and general "game firsts", that are so well done, they make ARMA about as clever and pretty as anything ever produced on any platform! Crysis only has: subsurface facial shaders, volumetric clouds, building physics, over the current ARMA engine. ARMA gives Crysis in DX9 a run for its money, better than any game I have yet seen working!

If your using anything other than a Nvidia 8800 GPU or SLI 2x7900 with the lastest Intel Duo CPU, good luck, soon as you start "dialing" down those settings, such as: textures, shadows, object detail, not only does ARMA start to underperform, it doesn't look that hot.

Perhaps Bohemia, should use the same tatic as Gaspowered games have just used for Supreme Commander, and say "ARMA" is built for the next 3-5 years of hardware, if you want it to look as intended, you need the very best current kit. I suspect I see ARMA looking betting than Bohemia did when they made it.

In fact Bohmeia's very own screenshots on the ARMA website put me off the game, they look crap compared to how I see it, in High def, widescreen with high AA settings etc.

ARMA is in Far Cry's position, several years ago, only the lucky few can see how it should really look/perform, and will look in about 12 months time when everybody has upgraded their GPU and CPU's.

Why do you think Crysis is slated for release much later this year? EA have probably bottled it, they know hardly anyone can run it properly, they are waiting for enough people to upgrade, Cryengine 2 has been around for at least 2 years. Crysis, like ARMA will look pretty crap on anything but the latest kit.

If you don't want to/can't afford to upgrade for the "eye candy" in these latest games, at least every 12 months, please go buy a PS3 or Xbox 360 and upgrade that every 5 years or stop whining.

Please understand you can't really put a 8800 in and AMDx2 64 or a P4 and hope to run ARMA or Crysis/Alan Wake etc in HD res with all eye candy. An 8800 card for the new games NEEDS at least an intel duo core CPU, 2 GIG 800mhz ram, for these, you'll normally need a new PSU, remeber how everyone had to upgrade from geforce 3 and 4's a few years back to Geforce FX then 6 series very fast and that upgrade generally meant throwing out your old PC and getting a new one? Well here we go again folks. That's right even an AMD FX 62 and Geforce 7900 SLI machine is gunna start "chugging with this years games and the move the DX10. New PC or Next gen console the choice is yours!

Patch 1.05 performance? You are always free to reinstall the game and revert to patch 1.04 then wait for the next patch if your unlucky, and your hardware doesn't like the latest patch! thats the same for all PC games.

Running ARMA on a 24 month old PC, is like driving a F1 car round a go-kart track!

2/ Bugs and Patches in Games,

I have played games on computers, from the Vic 20 to my latest monster PC, for almost 30 years! I've also worked in the games industry. In the very early days of PC games, only several hundred to thousand lines of code were needed and all the hardware was pretty similar. Now it takes millions of lines of code for one game and there are billions of PC hardware combo's!

World of Warcraft is the most successful PC Game ever made, WOW had an expansion in the last few months, which was beta tested by 30,000 people (erm, thats alot). Blizzard then used a huge amount of coders to make sure the game would be ready in time. Guess what? it wasn't, even when it did come out it was buggy as hell and they are still patching it almost weekly.

If you feel Bohemia Interactive is not listening to users about bugs in ARMA and patching the game as fast as they can. Put your copy on ebay/amazon and sell it, then play games by Ubisoft (GRAW, RB6:V)or EA (BF:2142) etc and find out how the BIG companies treat there customers! Even "nex gen" console games have to be patched constantly now. Just about every title I own on the X360 has had multiple patches, and these games are made for a "hardwired" platform!

Look, even films get patched, ever heard of a directors cut? or a special edition?

ARMA features so many new things, I'm amazed it doesn't blue screen every 5 mins. Games such as BF:1942, Battlefield:2, Joint Op's, BF:2142 in this very same genre, were patched for up to 6 months after release before they became stable, gameplay balanced and/or 95% bug free.

There is no such thing as a 100% bug free game. How many years did it take for Microsoft to make XP reliable? If you want bug free games, buy a console, then use your PC for web browsing and lower your stress. Because PC gaming is NOT for you.

FRAUD? Oh please install VISTA anything, because your games will run faster, and all your current hardware and software will work better according to the ad's I've seen across the web and media. This will be true in 6-24 months but run VISTA now. Then we can chat about the word Fraud.

3/ "OMG it's so HARD", "the AI is dumb":

Hard? It's a Military Simulator FFS! If you want Johnny Rambo "pew pew laser gun" action, play Counterstrike, Battlefield:2, Both require great skill and tatics and teamwork to suceed and "be the best", but, they are NOT simulators. Ok , Bohemia should of perhaps included a dumbed down "jonny rambo mode" (500% more health, no bullet physics, everyone on the players side has +100% godlike auto-aim to hit, all the CPU players can't hit a barn door at 3ft etc) for single player and multiplayer. This would make ARMA appeal to the broadest fanbase. But wait a bit, the very talented mod community for this game will probably knock this mode out soon.

BF:ARMA anyone?

AI dumb? Well consider it a miracle that the AI players in ARMA don't just all run round in circles all the time (BF:1942, BF:Vietnam). Can the AI flank you in ARMA and generally surprise you? Well, yes! From what I have seen. Is it perfect? no, but please name a sandbox game were it is? You want a challenge with tatics? Then it has to be multiplayer vs real people. Isn't the single player game there for you to practice your skills for multiplayer? The AI in ARMA appears to me at least as good as the AI for units in Far Cry, that's enough for me (for now) for some single player fun.

Summary:

ARMA is a fantastic "genre changing" sandbox military sim, if you get the right PC kit and have faith in Bohemia and the talented "mod squad" this game has, then your in for a treat for years to come. Yes it's OPF with a new pretty engine and improvments, isn't that what we wanted???

If you don't understand much of the above, then frankly you don't deserve to be playing PC games. Wait for ARMA on the X360/PS3. I mean it, buy a "next gen" console, be happy! The latest consoles are great, require zero upgrades and you can just buy software and run it out of the box and have no hassle 99% of the time!

Right I'm off to order a Track:IR because then I can tell Wii users were to stick there remote's (Plus wouldn't Track:IR make browsing web porn hands free? Then read up up what the cost of getting triple head monitors to work!

To the half of you I made laugh or smile, gratz, I look forward to shooting you / having you on my team in ARAM MP soon. To the half I upset, feel free to PM me Logical arguements.

[hbk 0]

The "Easy Rambo Mode" is already there, it's not even hidden.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

The "Easy Rambo Mode" is already there, it's not even hidden.

You mean regular mode with all the helpers turned on? For anyone who didn't play flashpoint or is used to Counterstrike/BF2, I wasn't joking, a big health boost, auto-aim, complete destruction to an Ai unit being able to spot you and are aim at you, is needed as a intro.

For the non flashpoint players, ARMA regular is like Realistic/God mode in any other FPS.

One thing that is missing is about another 10 training missions on how to play ARMA if your used to BF2 etc.

ARMA must be soul destroying for the BF2, CS gods who load it then try a mission and go WTF I run in and died!.

[Jezz 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Perhaps Bohemia, should use the same tatic as Gaspowered games have just used for Supreme Commander, and say "ARMA" is built for the next 3-5 years of hardware, if you want it to look as intended, you need the very best current kit. I suspect I see ARMA looking betting than Bohemia did when they made it.

this would be a good argument if arma had been designed to run on multiple core cpu's but saddly it anit, where as supreme commander can use multiple cores

[dirtylarrygb 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Perhaps Bohemia, should use the same tatic as Gaspowered games have just used for Supreme Commander, and say "ARMA" is built for the next 3-5 years of hardware, if you want it to look as intended, you need the very best current kit. I suspect I see ARMA looking betting than Bohemia did when they made it.

this would be a good argument if arma had been designed to run on multiple core cpu's but saddly it anit, where as supreme commander can use multiple cores

Currently, Supreme commander is ONLY optomised for Dual Core CPU's. SC cat eat a quad core intel with 8800 SLI thats overclocked on HIGH settings with to many units. Quad core support is there to be fully added and refined in future patches. Quad cores run Sc fast, but the real code to make it run properly on all 4 cores aint there yet no matter what the hype says.

I don't know how really optomised ARMA, is for AMDx2 or Intel duo's. What I do know is Intel duos are starting to struggle with 8800 SLI AMDx2 already bottleneck, so Quad may really be required soon. Infact QUAD SLI systems are starting to post obscene 3D marks now (17k+). And that I'm sure over time genuine, quad support may be added to ARMA and other games. Will dual processors even exist in 12 months time as anything but a budget CPU? Will "Hi-spec'" be quad/octo?

I don't think the DOD or MOD etc will run ARMA on a P4, the dev work Bohemia may do for that in the not so distant future will hopefully trickle down to us the games player.

[Jezz 0]

i seem to remember suma or marek saying its not optimsied for dual or quad core and to do so would take alot of work, which makes the realist in me think were not likely to see any change

[dirtylarrygb 0]

i seem to remember suma or marek saying its not optimsied for dual or quad core and to do so would take alot of work, which makes the realist in me think were not likely to see any change

Not that many games really are, WOW was patched so AMDx2 don't crash it anymore, thats it's level of real dual threading Vista and XP patches and DX9/10 upgrades may take care of some of this for games creators.

Supposedly the 8800 GPU in DX10, can do the physics for the game instead of of your CPU etc. Though with quad core ain't that much need for it.

Real x2 x4 support will happen over next 6-24 months, many games will never get it.

The genuine reason for an ARMA fan to install a quad core is to run a dual 8800 gtx SLI setup with track IR for HD ARMA even a triple head setup. Or so he can play ARMA and burn a dvd in the background while downloading a file and not blow up his pc...

[-Puma- 2]

in the USA that is called fraud if you promise one thing people pay for that, and you do not deliver said thing.

But in game indsutry this happens all the time...

[sle 0]

Hi there, I've just registered to chime in here really in what seems to be a really negative atmosphere surrounding this much anticipated game. I bought ArmA on autopilot, without reading any reviews until I got it home. I just had to buy it - being a diehard OFP veteran.

While it was installing and patching (1.05) I looked around for info and opinions and was gobsmacked (and worried) at the horrendous, mean spirited bitching. For one thing, I'm running a 2800+ Sempron SocketA, 1gig of 333Mhz ram and a 6800 vanilla; and I have 1024x768 going on with no lag, mostly "Normal" and "High" (view distance @2500).. For once I seem to be doing better than people with super-duper PC's! I don't have an FPS counter to make me cry though, and just take it as it comes. All in all this game is running like silk, sorry.

Anyway, heh, the only problem I'm having so far is getting stuck so much, this game is fiendishly hard! I think what I like best about this series is than I can just open the editor, stick a sedan car and a rifleman down and drive around, THAT'S what i think makes these games. Have people looked around? The island is massive! There's tons of fun to be had without even touching the campaign, because the mission editor is so easy to use. Anyway, clunk go my 2 cents, I just wanted to report a positive experience and await a campaign walkthrough by someone who can play better than me

[hbk 0]

You mean regular mode with all the helpers turned on?

No, I mean setting Enemy AI slider down to Zero

Not really "fun" if you ask me, but it works, I tested it

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

Best thing about OFP and ArmA is the strong community. Honestly, I'm glad they released when they did because the community at large is much better at finding and pinpointing bugs than a small team of beta testers.

1.05 is excellent already. 50+ players on an urban mission with tanks, choppers, jets--and all without lag is amazing. There are still definite issues, like needing a gunner to properly rearm a vehicle in some cases, and much-needed dual core support--but this already blows OFP 1.96 out of the water gameplay-wise. And I played OFP since the Euro 1.00 release. Hell, MP didn't even work properly in OFP until the US 1.20 release. Well, technically it wasn't perfected until 1.46 IMHO.