Waiting for a miracle...

[NorthStorm 0]

First of all, i want to say to the people who won't agree with me that, it's only my humble opinion so, don't crucify me for it.

I'm 41 years old, i've been playing Pc video games since what, around 8 years and, two things that i learned for sure is:

1-You're always spending money annually to be able to play Pc games.

2-When your buying a game that you can't play at full settings, you're praying for a miracle tweak to happen by watching forum posts from others like you.

You see, 4 days ago i posted a topic by saying that i probably founded a miracle tweak by making a .bat file that was suppose to change the processor priority.

I tought first that it was working but i realized soon that was not the fact.

For the last 4 days, i've been trying to tweak Arma so bad. I even tried the NVGO ATI Optimized driver. Yesterday, i decided to overclock my video card and started to use the ATI tools to pick the maximum setting that my card could take. After 3 mins i told myself, if i'm frying my card, i won't be able toù play anymore that for sure so, i stoped the processus and went back to my original settings.

This morning, i did some test with ArmA Mark with the optimize driver. After, i did an uninstall of those and went back with the ATI 7.2 catalyst and you know what??? there were no difference at all!!!

If you have a Pc with the latest harware, you will get the best result. My Pc is 1 1/2 years old and, right now all i can have Arma graphic set to is at normal settings. There is absolutly nothing i can do. This is what i get unless i reinvest into some serious pieces of hardware.

I guess it's like real life. Some can afford to drive a Ferrari, some can afford to drive a Jeep Grand Cherokee and some can afford to drive a Hyundai Accent.

Even if i'm trying to boost my Hyundai injectors, i won't be able to compete against a Ferrari...i can dream of it but, it won't change the fact that i won't pass in front of it. If i try, i take the chance to blow my engine.

So, to all of you like me who are frustrated to see the pictures on the back of the DVD case or some nice pics on various web site of Arma and, you can't get that kind of graphic quality unless you want to play the game like a sliding show, tell yourselves that someday, you will to be able to get those graphics but, there's always gonna be better games graphics coming out.

So, to conclude, there's no miracle in Pc gaming. You get what you get with what you've paid.

Life is life...  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhAjrIAFiJ0

[churnedfortaste 0]

how many other threads like this have been posted....

[Beagle 684]

how many other threads like this have been posted....  

none so far...!

[dmitri 0]

I hear you.

I have separate settings based on whether my mission takes place in a forested area, or whether there are many units or few units. It's what I gotta do to get it running decently on my X2, 2gig, 7900.

[Bram 0]

Theres 1 tweak that will enhance your Arma experience a lot and that is disabling your FPS counter. You wont gain a single frame per second by doing this but what will happen is that you will actually start playing the game instead of always checking the FPS meter to see how well your machine is performing.

[badvok 0]

Theres 1 tweak that will enhance your Arma experience a lot and that is disabling your FPS counter. You wont gain a single frame per second by doing this but what will happen is that you will actually start playing the game instead of always checking the FPS meter to see how well your machine is performing.

Got to agree. I spend more time looking at that than playing the game. I only load it up when i've had a patch or driver update.

[Skaven 0]

I understand your opinion NorthStorm, I have 32 years old and I've been playing games since I was 8 too.

Last year I decided to buy a top notch computer for the first time. I got myself a Dual Core 6600 with 2Mbytes of Team Skill memory (great for overclocking) an ATI X1950XT graphic card and an X-FI Audigy 2 sound card. I have it all overclocked and trust me I don't have my game running better than yours.

As you I also have ARMA's settings all set to normal.

I know a lot of overcloking and of operating systems, I've mounted my entire computer piece to piece, I've changed Vista's services to allow it to run faster and smoother according to my specs and trust me ARMA is a very demanding game.

I think it's the first game I play with my machine where I can't put the settings at the highest values.

I believe that it's due to the size of the Islands and the textures for it. If you make a mission at a smaller Island you'll find your game running a lot better, try it  

As for the pictures you see on the cover and on the internet well... I can take those pictures too, as a matter a fact I do take them, I've even made a wallpaper for me    But trust me, I almost can't move my soldier trying to play with those settings  

[fasad 1]

Quote[/b] ]If you have a Pc with the latest harware, you will get the best result. My Pc is 1 1/2 years old and, right now all i can have Arma graphic set to is at normal settings. There is absolutly nothing i can do. This is what i get unless i reinvest into some serious pieces of hardware.

Is it not acceptable that a game engine has graphical potential that cannot be achieved by current hardware? In a couple of years time the best hardware from today will be completely outdated, but many people will still be playing ArmA.

[NorthStorm 0]

I've changed Vista's services to allow it to run faster

Skaven, i saw that post on GameSpot. Would you mind telling me if it`s true.

http://www.gamespot.com/feature....title;3

That might be the miracle i was waiting for.

Thanks in advance.

[4 IN 1 0]

well i think its still something related to luck, to put a huge sum of money to buy my rig i now have is something that have think not only twice but step back because of money issus, its those busted DIMM on my old PC which set my through to get a new one, and i am lucky to be able to put my money on the right path and now having a nice ARMA experence that many didnt have, even with same rigs

[dmarkwick 261]

Theres 1 tweak that will enhance your Arma experience a lot and that is disabling your FPS counter. You wont gain a single frame per second by doing this but what will happen is that you will actually start playing the game instead of always checking the FPS meter to see how well your machine is performing.

This is of course the best advice on these boards today

Instead of watching the FPS, I just try to make a judgment on whether or not I can play the game. Sometimes a game needs more FPS, sometimes another game can play with less FPS. I mean I assume this, because I don't log FPS scores, it's just my judgment. Also, the practice of watching every single card and every single driver version for the optimum possible performance is pretty senseless, no-one plays games with 2 machines running parallel so that the deepness of one shadow can be compared with another. I'm pretty sure my graphics have some minor faults but as I'm too engrossed in the game I simply don't care.

In the end it's the game and it's immersion that's important, if you get good immersion then you're getting good performance IMO.

[Skaven 0]

Yes it's true

Just be sure you have ReadyBoost running as a service, and please remember that althrough the results at gamespot seem extremely positive, all computers are different and work differentely. That's why we have so many patches and drivers for everything.

btw: What specs do you have? I'm asking cause upgrading to Vista may not be advisable. Thank you.

[NorthStorm 0]

You see, last year, that computer that i built my self from parts bought at the best price, costed me 3500$

Imagine myself today,telling my wife "Honey, can you unlock me 1000$ so i can buy myself a new preocessor, a motherboard and a X1950 Pro for a Crossfire set up"

I would be able to play Arma at full settings but, i would have to pay a monthly pension too  

Arma is the best combat simulation in my opinion but, i have to respect me by not spending anymore money till those next generation video cards and processor are affordable.

Imagine the wave in December when Microsoft will make the DirectX 10 available. That`s gonna be a lot of dineros who will go for upgrading for a lot of peoples.

I did my share for paying the Research & Developpement fees for new hardware.

After all, like a sage mate said previously "stop watching your FPS and enjoy the game" around that...

For now, that`s gonna be my new motto...

Skaven, my specs are:

Intel P4 Northwood 3.4ghz

ATI X1950 Pro Pci-e 256mb

Audigy 2

2gb RAM DDR2 4300

Mobo Asus P5LD2

[killaalf 0]

btw: What specs do you have? I'm asking cause upgrading to Vista may not be advisable. Thank you.  

From a gamer's perspective I'd say that running Vista at the moment is not advisable at all, regardless the specs.

[Cobalt_UK 0]

Your system would probably run most games available on the market right now at high settings. The problem with Arma is it's an unoptimised piece of sh*t engine.

I love Arma so i ain't bashing it out of pure hatred, i'm just speaking the truth. My system should easily be able to run this at high settings :-

Intel® Core2 CPU 6700 @ 2.66GHz | Asus P5W DH Deluxe 975X PCI-E (Socket 775 | Zalman CNPS9500 LED Ultra Quiet CPU Cooler | GSkill 2*1Gb PC6400 DDR2 HZ | XFX nVidia GeForce 8800GTX 768MB DDR3 Oc'd to 610/1000 | Western Digital 250 GB | Corsair HX 620W ATX2.2 Modular SLi Compliant Silent PSU

But does it really? No...........does it hell. Infact it's a constant jutterfest, especially when i approach any kind of built up area or vegetation.

I use a resolution of 1680 * 1050 because thats the native res of my monitor, anything lower then this simply looks to blurry, and surprisenly in Arma offers zero gain in performance when set lower.

I also have to set most graphic options to Normal, disabled Antialiasing and set Post Processing to Low. Even then where talking minus 25 fps in cities and near folliage.

So don't feel bad about not being able to run Arma on "top" settings, cause right now in it's current state i doubt anyone can. Yea you get people saying they can run the game perfect, but their probably running with seriously poor resolutions, and ignoring the fact that the game is running at -20 fps in crowded situations.

[memnoch 0]

Is it really unoptimised as you say or is it more of a case of it doing a lot that users don't appreciate. Inevitably you would get someone compare it to BF2 or its ilk and ask why it can run at 1600x1200 at 100fps+ and why can't ArmA do the same! Perhaps it has something to do with draw distance etc. Yes, it could be faster, I'd be the first to admit that. I too am disappointed about performance and my spec is a higher than yours but it IS a very complex game compared to BF2.

[Beagle 684]

The Problem these days is that the current hardware can no longer catch the growing requirements of recent gamesoftware.

Gone the time in which processors doubled it's performance all six months...and the prices for six months old hardware was free falling.

Unfortunately this has not come to attention to some of the game developers.

[4 IN 1 0]

Your system would probably run most games available on the market right now at high settings. The problem with Arma is it's an unoptimised piece of sh*t engine.

I love Arma so i ain't bashing it out of pure hatred, i'm just speaking the truth. My system should easily be able to run this at high settings :-

Intel® Core™2 CPU 6700 @ 2.66GHz | Asus P5W DH Deluxe 975X PCI-E (Socket 775 | Zalman CNPS9500 LED Ultra Quiet CPU Cooler | GSkill 2*1Gb PC6400 DDR2 HZ | XFX nVidia GeForce 8800GTX 768MB DDR3 Oc'd to 610/1000 | Western Digital 250 GB | Corsair HX 620W ATX2.2 Modular SLi Compliant Silent PSU

But does it really? No...........does it hell. Infact it's a constant jutterfest, especially when i approach any kind of built up area or vegetation.

I use a resolution of 1680 * 1050 because thats the native res of my monitor, anything lower then this simply looks to blurry, and surprisenly in Arma offers zero gain in performance when set lower.

I also have to set most graphic options to Normal, disabled Antialiasing and set Post Processing to Low. Even then where talking minus 25 fps in cities and near folliage.

So don't feel bad about not being able to run Arma on "top" settings, cause right now in it's current state i doubt anyone can. Yea you get people saying they can run the game perfect, but their probably running with seriously poor resolutions, and ignoring the fact that the game is running at -20 fps in crowded situations.

resolutions might seems to be problem, but trust me i have tested my rigs on different size monitors(plus my 24" LCD TV at my living room) and i didnt get that much FPS drops, still getting some 30s at forest area, and my spec didnt match up to yours i am now only running at my old 15" as my desk cant fit a huge ass monitor and i dont want to play in the living while being yell at by my family that i stop them to watch TV/movie, and i have a nice 40 some FPS with that

[mr reality 0]

I'm in the same situation. I have a a pc that should be able to run Arma twice but i'm only able to run it on normal to high settings. I have QUAD SLI NIVIDIA 7950GX2. That's 4 7950s, each with 512MB and i still can't run it on very high. To say i'm unhappy about this is a f***ing understatement.

To be honest though, i only bought ArmA as a kind of gesture of goodwill for the hundreds of hours of fine gaming with flashpoint. After installing ArmA on my pc i've only fired it up a couple of times...I think because of the problems i'm having running it i've gotten a bit sick of it all really. I hate to admit it but i'm back on my 360, at least i know i can play the game without the worry of tweaking  

[EricM 0]

Quote[/b] ]have QUAD SLI NIVIDIA 7950GX2

Maybe quad SLI is just not supported, or it a driver thing like in some 8800 series, so that you actually LOSE GPU and CPU power trying to dispatch the data to four cards, then get back the information, see that there was a problem, repeat etc...

I know people with a single 7900 that can run it fairly well on all high... Mind you : I am happy playing on most things normal with 6600GT.

If you standard expectation for "optimized status" >120fps in dense forest with a 100+ IA, then that's a whole other debate. Highly subjective.

[Skaven 0]

NorthStorm you may install Vista with your hardware it will work well , but don't expect a great improovement it might even be the other way around, in my case it was at least when playing games the rest works more or less the same.

Look at Cobalt_UK's specs, he's got a really impressive machine and still can't go more than normal settings. Althrough he could overclock the CPU and he plays at a pretty high resolution, but for his specs he should at least be able to play with everything high and with antialising on a normal game.

So to conclude, this game is perfect but we pay the price of needing to have a high spec to enjoy it at full potential.

btw: Cobalt_UK try do take the shadows off and than increase the rest like antialising and texture quality, I've tried it and at least in my machine I am able to use antialising and all the rest at normal/high settings.

[baddo 0]

I have QUAD SLI NIVIDIA 7950GX2. That's 4 7950s, each with 512MB and i still can't run it on very high

Just a sidenote:

To my knowledge, NVIDIA SLI works so that if you have two graphics cards, 512 MB VRAM in each, you only have 512 MB of VRAM of total to be used by programs.

Reference: http://developer.nvidia.com/

Best Regards,

Baddo.

[CallMeSir 0]

I totally love this game and it runs very well with normal setting, it doesn't even looks that much better with higher setting. So why do I find myself constantly fiddling around trying to get a few more frames, or pushing up the detail.

It was/is the same with FSX. I sometimes find myself spending more time reading and fiddling than playing.

It's a madness, but for some reason I love it and it's why I'm a PC gamer rather than a console gamer.

[NorthStorm 0]

FSX is a great exemple of a game that you're spending your time trying to optimizing it and, at the end of the story, the same result happen as Arma...no gain.

The other game i had that kind of deception was Boiling Point Road to Hell. Same as Arma...a 450 km2 map with one loading stage. Boiling Point was a great looking game 2 years ago.

[Heatseeker 0]

Im about to upgrade because of Armed Assault, i dont play many games so i cant say i upgrade very often and therefore spend money on HW every year.

You know the trend...

"This is the best graphics solution ever!"

*purchases*

6 months later...

"This is the greatest graphics solution ever!"

*uh! Already!?*

I bought a mid range GF6 when Doom3 came out... it served me fine untill now since the games that came out after didnt justify buying anything newer and better.

Now that Arma is here im investing on a decent PC wich will do for a while. And no, i wont be switching to Vista anytime soon.