Patch 1.05 Graphics Issue!

[Scrub 0]

Just noticed many who have this issue have 1gb of ram. Any truth to that?

[OFPDude 0]

try adding

Quote[/b] ]-maxmem=512

to the end of the shortcut comamnd line.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

AMD Athlon 2800+

1 GB RAM

X800 Pro 256mb Videocard

x800 pro should be able to handle this game at medium settings. I can play Oblivion, FEAR, Prey ect. at high graphic settings with no problem - there's absolutely no reason it shouldn't be able to handle Armed Assault's rather simplistic graphics

i've already got on pretty much low settings, only 1024x768 resolution (on a 19" monitor :-/) Terrain: low, Objects: low, Texture: normal (but ive tried low aswell, dont even tell me to use Very Low)

nothing makes a difference. Did you not read the part where i said i've already tried playing with all the graphics settings? IVE TRIED EVERYTHING

and i cant afford to upgrade either

feel like this game was a waste of money

x800 runs Oblivion high???

X800 as in the ATI rival to the 6800? 2 years old card???

i bloody doubt that card can run Oblivion maxed out or even fear fully high maxed out without lagging like mad. Cripes anti alias is something that happens for other people if you have a x800 and you run oblivion on it. unless you have Liquid hydrogen cooling and have overclocked beyond imagination. I mean whats you 3d mark 06 score 1500?

I would suggest an X 800 sets everything LOW in arma and disables shadows,PP, blood. you will miss the pretty FX, but run smooth and be able to enjoy the gameplay. View Distance 800 meters.

X800 is now a VERY slow GPU. A 7900 or an ATI 1950 would be 4-8x more powerful. And they struggle to max arma with AA and PP on at better than 1280x1024 res.

As for simplistic GFX, ROFL x 1000

Add fear to oblivion then you get close to the amount of data ARMA is throwing at your CPU and GPU. Arma is at least 2x more complex than oblivion. The view distance set to 10k makes even an 8800 GTX groan and stumble.

Please view the photo thread you will notice the GFX in ARMA in the new beta produce screenshots that rival crysis/alan wake.

Set everything low, get fraps check your getting better than 30 FPS. If you are graz then start messing about with sliders moving from LOW.

ARMA looks amazing on new kit, its looks like OP:F with better textures on 2 year old kit (yep thats your PC).

ARMA should run on your kit, but simplistic graphics is NOt the game its your PC.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

1.05 sucks…??! OF COURSE!!!!

As I already said, I find scandalous that BIS does not declare officially that the version 1.05 suffers from a serious graphic problem!

I am on Vista X86 with one 8800 gtx and Core Duo 6600, in short a "good†configuration… It is inadmissible to be unable to make simply function the plays in HIGH because of an error of update!

THEREFORE, once again, PLEASE BIS, give us an official message and STOP believing that a new Nvidia driver will correct the problem!

PS: I've uninstall the game...

"I'm on vista"

And were did it say Vista on the box?

Did you install XP SP2 and try it?

You have unistalled?

I ran the programme on a non supported os then suggested people boycott the game?

I'm running same config as you slighty faster GPU slower CPu and have no issues running MAXED OUT in 105 or beta. but then I'm using Xp....

[Guest]

I notice that alot of these threads, including mine seem to go from "problems with new 1.05 patch" to "problems in general with performance" - then end up closing after 10 posts regarding Arma performance in general -

These topics are directed towards performance losses/graphical degredations due to people switching to 1.05 from 1.02, 1.04, whom normally had acceptable gameplay, then lost an amount of that.

This is clearly not a PC issue, but a problem with the new patch, theres prolly been what, 500 posts since 1.05 about performance losses?

Ive lost about 5 - 10 fps due to the patch, on a moderately modern computer/6800 Geforce, used to run at 25 - 35, sometimes now I dip down below 20 on 1.05.

[Teox 0]

try to use beta patch....