Waiting for a miracle...

[mr reality 0]

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 actually believe this is the exact problem with my system. I'm no computer expert but isn't SLI the way forward with regards to ultimate graphical performance. And if so, ArmA will never be able to fully use the power of SLI. If this is the case then surely ArmA is a step backwards in terms of gaming. It doesn't support dual core nor SLI  

[baddo 0]

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 actually believe this is the exact problem with my system. I'm no computer expert but isn't SLI the way forward with regards to ultimate graphical performance. And if so, ArmA will never be able to fully use the power of SLI. If this is the case then surely ArmA is a step backwards in terms of gaming. It doesn't support dual core nor SLI

Hi

Well if no one promised NVIDIA SLI or multi-core CPU support being in Armed Assault then this complaint is not valid. I am sure Bohemia Interactive Studio is working hard to make their next-generation game engine multithreaded. As for SLI or ATI's CrossFire, it is a more questionable goal as it will not benefit as many users as multithreaded design will. Many people are reluctant to buy multiple graphics cards, me being one of them. But if they can make that too, it's of course even better.

Best Regards,

Baddo.

[monkeyboy27 0]

I don't think people should be complaining about not being able to run the game with everything on max. You could actually look at it as a good thing. Remember when ofp first came out? Nobody had a computer that could run ofp even remotely near max settings. With terrain detail on max, and the view distance on 5000 at 1600x1200, there are very few pc's today that can run ofp acceptably on max settings. I've got an A64 @2.8ghz, 2gb ram and a 7800gtx 256mb, and it still can't run ofp at an acceptable fps with everything maxed out.

You've just got to think of it a different way. My pc runs everything on normal settings pretty much fine, and the game generally looks a lot nicer than bf2 does on max settings. Its not a crappy badly optimized engine... its the opposite. Its an engine that has far more scalablility than 99% of others.

In 2 years time, I'll have upgraded, bumped up my settings a bit.. and I expect Arma will look almost as good as the games which are still 2 years from release. Just look at the graphics of ofp. Somethings, like the models look shoddy, but with the terrain detail on max, the landscapes still look better than most modern games.

[NorthStorm 0]

You got that right!!! Games like Arma are having a long live. OFP went out in 2001 and even after 6 years, i still was playing at it. So, in 2 or 3 years, my rig should be able to run at a higher settings but, i have to admit that, even at normal settings, the game look very nice.

[mr reality 0]

I don't think people should be complaining about not being able to run the game with everything on max. You could actually look at it as a good thing. Remember when ofp first came out? Nobody had a computer that could run ofp even remotely near max settings. With terrain detail on max, and the view distance on 5000 at 1600x1200, there are very few pc's today that can run ofp acceptably on max settings.

And you think that's a good thing. Then why have max settings ?.

Why not have high as the max and not very high.

Flashpoint couldn't run well on max settings on a uptodate PC because the engine wasn't optimized. I was lead to believe ArmA was a more optimized engine, therfore being able to run on much higher settings.

What's the point of releasing a game that you can never fully max out until 2 years or more have passed. Surely by todays standards if you have max settings you should be able to apply them. I'm not bothered if i can't play this game on max settings, but with my system it would be nice if i could   . I would also like to assume that my PC will be able to play games at very high settings for the next 3 years at least.

[Cobalt_UK 0]

Flashpoint couldn't run well on max settings on a uptodate PC because the engine wasn't optimized. I was lead to believe ArmA was a more optimized engine, therfore being able to run on much higher settings.

What's the point of releasing a game that you can never fully max out until 2 years or more have passed. Surely by todays standards if you have max settings you should be able to apply them.

Hit the nail on the head there. Anyone else who believes otherwise is kidding themselves. The plain and simple fact is Flashpoint and now Arma <unfortunetly> are both constructed on an extremely poor engine.

[Alfie-UK- 0]

I'm with monkeyboy on this issue.

There is obviously still scope for optimisation of the ArmA engine (the view distance optimisation coming in the next patch for instance, in the 'increased view distance' thread), but there is also a large element of future-proofing in the same way as there was for OFP. Max settings are there for future systems, not todays cutting edge systems.

I waited to buy ArmA until the 505 release and 1.05 patch assuming it might be mostly playable by then, but for now it's back on the shelf awaiting a few more bug fix patches.

OFP: Resistance on the other hand plays with everything but terrain on max settings on my rig acceptably, 25-30 FPS on high-intensity, high-unit missions. If I turn a few things down a little bit I can even play with Keygetys DXDLL on and have a great looking game (post processing effects really change OFP).

It's only in the last ~2 years that I've been able to run it at near max, hopefully ArmA will progress in the same way as OFP and we'll still be playing that in 5 years time.

ArmA will run more than acceptably on normal settings for me, although texture caching is a bit slow, and I would never have expected to run it on high or max settings on this rig. The only reason I am not playing it now is the remaining bugs, particularly those rendering some campaign missions impossible, as I want to spend some time training in SP mode before moving to MP.

I am slightly concerned that we may not get the continuing support over such a long time as we did for OFP, particularly with 'game 2' development underway, but I feel confident that BIS are continuing to identify/fix known bugs, particularly as they'll want a fairly clean release for the US version after the poor press so far.

[monkeyboy27 0]

And you think that's a good thing. Then why have max settings ?.

Why not have high as the max and not very high.

Flashpoint couldn't run well on max settings on a uptodate PC because the engine wasn't optimized.

What's the point of releasing a game that you can never fully max out until 2 years or more have passed. Surely by todays standards if you have max settings you should be able to apply them. I'm not bothered if i can't play this game on max settings, but with my system it would be nice if i could . I would also like to assume that my PC will be able to play games at very high settings for the next 3 years at least.

Because people might still be playing the game a few years after its released. Surely its better the game still looks good then, than it looks crap and out of date. The thing about flashpoint that was unique, was they did have the higher settings available. You say "why not have high as max and not very high".. well almost every game does this. Thats half of what they mean by "optimizing". They'll take the game, run it on a highspec pc, and then use that to judge various factors. They'd put 4xAA instead of 8xAA as the max setting, because they know nobody's pc will play the game properly with 8xAA. Surely its better to have the game scalable, so if people are playing it with better hardware 3 years down the road. They'll do the same with other stuff, like limit the anisotrophic filtering, disable high/widescreen resolutions, and then shrowd the entire game with a load of fog to reduce the draw distance. Thats what they mean by optimizing. Personally I think it's better to let people choose their own settings like BI do, but 99% of other developers are scared people will whine if they can't "max out", so they put limits on the settings.

Theres no way any PC can run games on max settings for 3 years. 1.5 years is about the lifespan of a gaming pc if you want to be cutting edge. 3 years ago the geforce 6800ultra was the best graphics card you could get. A 6800ultra would struggle to run most games on anything higher than "low" these days.

Ps... sorry for being such a fanboy... I feel a bit ashamed

[dmarkwick 261]

Hit the nail on the head there. Anyone else who believes otherwise is kidding themselves. The plain and simple fact is Flashpoint and now Arma <unfortunetly> are both constructed on an extremely poor engine.

Disagree. For most games sure, the high end machines should play them fine, but there's a small subset of games that require a longer term goal. ArmA is one of course, Flight Sim X would be another. They're made with options that stretch the current high-end beyond endurance, with the knowledge that:

Available technology will catch up and

The game will still be played even after a few years.

Another thing to realise is that ArmA is built not on an ordinary game engine, it's goals and aspirations are different. It needs to handle the entire island all at once, and all the AI all over that island all at once. It's more of an open free world that ANY other game out, at a price. To get the game you want would mean to chop up the game (the campaign) into several episodal chunks, with only small parts of the game world loaded. I think the game is remarkable in it's achievements myself, certainly not the product of an extremely poor engine. It just doesn't do the things YOU want it to do.

[Banzai! 0]

Armed Assault runs smoother on my machine than either R6:Vegas or Caesar IV, so its not that badly optimised. Just don't scope into foilage (although this is less of a problem in 1.05)!!!

[Wobble 1]

there are times when I notice I cant run all games at max settings, that I dont have the latest greated hardware and that I am not the best gamer..

the I realize I have a life.. and go fishing.

[bravo 6 0]

<span style='font-size:19pt;line-height:100%'>I understand exactly what you mean..</span>

Also think ARMED ASSAULT is not fully ready to run on normal computers.. BIS need to optimized it, i guess.

At least i want to believe that way, because if not, it will be a big disapointement for those who have normal computers like mine:

my specs:

* <span style='color:green'>CPU:</span> Intel P4, 3.0Ghz

* <span style='color:green'>RAM:</span> 1.5G ddr 400 (1x1G + 1x512MB)

* <span style='color:green'>Video Card:</span> ATI X1950 pro 512mb ddr3

* <span style='color:green'>Free HD Space:</span> Western Digital Disco Rigido 250gb 16MB Sata II 7200 rpm

* <span style='color:green'>Software:</span> Windows XP Professional SP2

I don't rull all things in normal. If i do.. i lag alittle on heavy fire fight and smoke shells.

I can put all at high even the viewdistance but it will lag alot and hard to play.

<span style='color:blue'>Shouldn't ARMA run smooth with recommended specs on very high settings?</span>

I DON'T UNDERSTAND why BIS say that ARMA Recommended Specification are these:

* <span style='color:green'>CPU:</span> 3 Ghz

* <span style='color:green'>RAM:</span> 1 GB

* <span style='color:green'>Video Card:</span> Nvidia 6800 and above or Ati x800 and above with at least 256 MB RAM

* <span style='color:green'>Free HD Space:</span> 3 GB (or more as needed for downloadable addons)

* <span style='color:green'>Software:</span> Windows XP and DirectX 9

I JUST HOPE all of this will be FIXED and improved for "these normal" computers!

[Cobalt_UK 0]

Ok if you take into account what is considered a "normal" Pc these days, then yours is definitely "not" normal.

I've posted a link to Valve's hardware survey - which started in November 2006, but for some reason the post got deleted.

Anyway it clearly show's out of survey completed by many thousands of so called PCGamers, the average system used by most people today.

I'm not gonna start rambling through the details, check it out yourself's. Also it's funny that the recommended spec's for the game :-

 * CPU: 3 Ghz

  * RAM: 1 GB

  * Video Card: Nvidia 6800 and above or Ati x800 and above with at least 256 MB RAM

  * Free HD Space: 3 GB (or more as needed for downloadable addons)

  * Software: Windows XP and DirectX 9

is probably gonna result in you selecting most options on the "Low" settings. But yet since they state this is recommended, shouldn't this system or equivalent be able to run perfectly with the GFX settings set to "Normal"

lol very odd, i'd like to know who was responsible for drawing up the minimum and recommended specifications list, cause i think someone was telling pork pie's.

[bravo 6 0]

Ok if you take into account what is considered a "normal" Pc these days, then yours is definitely "not" normal.

you would say what, low spec? very low?

i just dont know anymore whats the normal specifications..

i doubt that a top computer runs ARMA fuild with all settings VERY high with view distance at "30000m", knowing that full viewdistance is buged..

edit: typo.

[Cobalt_UK 0]

no i'd say yours is easily above normal.

[bravo 6 0]

no i'd say yours is easily above normal.

well that said i think the game should run better with all settings selected to normal.

like i said before i can run ARMA with ALL very hight with max full viewdistance but unplayable.

But i still think that the game is not running as it suppose to run with normal settings with 1000m viewdistance.

HOPE BIS FINDS THE WAY..

[Thunderbird 0]

Optimizing the new engine should become a relevant priority to BIS coders, I hope there is currently an ongoing research in this area with the aim to make the new simulator fully enjoyable, and accessible for the "average" system.

But even if there is a risk of a short-term slowdown, BIS coders and engine designer should look at the long-run, since there is a well-based community ready to carry out a plenty of AddOns as soon as the official tools are released, which might consequently, attract more people as it was the case for Operation Flashpoint.

Unfortunately, even if might somewhat sound naive, not all of these people would get the chance to play in a smooth enjoyable way unless a new optimization is performed.

regards,

TB

[bravo 6 0]

Optimizing the new engine should become a relevant priority to BIS coders, I hope there is currently an ongoing research in this area with the aim to make the new simulator fully enjoyable, and accessible for the "average" system.

But even if there is a risk of a short-term slowdown, BIS coders and engine designer should look at the long-run, since there is a well-based community ready to carry out a plenty of AddOns as soon as the official tools are released, which might consequently, attract more people as it was the case for Operation Flashpoint.

Unfortunately, even if might somewhat sound naive, not all of these people would get the chance to play in a smooth enjoyable way unless a new optimization is performed.

regards,

TB

Drop of FPS in vegetation is caused by overdaw, it means that grafic card is not able to draw so many pixels that scene needs. When GC draw scene, it automatically cut hiden pixels, BUT only if this pixels are not alphatransparent. Vegetation is builded from polygons with some opacity textures, so this cuting (early Z test on HW) not work here. There is no simple solution, better performance will be with low shading detail settings (simplified pixel shader), but overdraw is still there. Also using of worst LODs will not help so match, because less polygons means worst tree shape aproximation and final surface (what is most important for overdraw reduction) will be similar. We are still woring on some research in this area.

im not sure but i guess there are diff types of optimization on this matter.

We know that BIS are Working on these kinda optimizations, hopefully they will succeed.

Its just a matter of time, but how far are they "allowed" to go?

[Thunderbird 0]

It seems I missed Ohara's post, thanks for enlightening me.

From some perspective, like everyone here, including the modding boards, I'm for them taking all the time they need as long as they get it right.

I guess there is a lot to be done in this area without sacrificing significant amounts of features or devaluing the world's quality in terms of detail, the involved efforts to balance required system-level performance specifications could become quite demanding.

regards,

TB

[wamingo 1]

Then why have max settings ?.

Why not have high as the max and not very high.

...

What's the point of releasing a game that you can never fully max out until 2 years or more have passed. Surely by todays standards if you have max settings you should be able to apply them.

oh file a class lawsuit already...

When you watch tv commercials you'd think the lightly dressed women would come with the products too, right? Yeah I can see this becoming good business...

Those screenshots on the back of the box are for show. It's common business practice to show off the maximum performances/qualities you got regardless of factors - and it's not just the game industry that does it.

I'm sorry but I just find people moaning about not be able to run at the same quality as the box screenshots are just so.. aggrevating..

I can't receive the graphics on the FRONT of the box! What are you going to do now?

Though still, unless BIS releases game2 very soon - AND it's going to be an ofp/arma game because for all we know it could be a MMORPG space invaders pinball game - arma may well live beyond a good while (years). By then we will appreciate the Higher Setting features... Didn't you catch that the first time? Until then you can "choose" which high settings you like. Eg someone running at 1024x768 on a 19" may like high AA to smoothe the image while someone who craves 1600x1200 doesn't need AA at all and may prefer lower shaders, shadows and other resource hogs.

[Fiasco 0]

Hit the nail on the head there. Anyone else who believes otherwise is kidding themselves. The plain and simple fact is Flashpoint and now Arma <unfortunetly> are both constructed on an extremely poor engine.

Disagree. For most games sure, the high end machines should play them fine, but there's a small subset of games that require a longer term goal. ArmA is one of course, Flight Sim X would be another. They're made with options that stretch the current high-end beyond endurance, with the knowledge that:

Available technology will catch up and

The game will still be played even after a few years.

Another thing to realise is that ArmA is built not on an ordinary game engine, it's goals and aspirations are different. It needs to handle the entire island all at once, and all the AI all over that island all at once. It's more of an open free world that ANY other game out, at a price. To get the game you want would mean to chop up the game (the campaign) into several episodal chunks, with only small parts of the game world loaded. I think the game is remarkable in it's achievements myself, certainly not the product of an extremely poor engine. It just doesn't do the things YOU want it to do.

OPF and ArmA don't hold a candle to the much earlier released Falcon 4.0 as far as large scale battlefield simulation. Falcon 4.0 simulates an ongoing battle over the entire Korea region if you are there to see it or not and we are talking about a game that came out 5 or 6 years BEFORE operation flashpoint.

You are way overstating the demands of simulating an "entire island" and all that AI. Falcon 4.0 also gave you the game without having to chop up a campaign into pre-scripted episodal chunks.

ArmA is no better an "open free world" then Far Cry. (Except Far Cry has actual physics)

[esti_the_big 0]

sadly enough I have to agree with fiasco. People are overstating Armed Assaults (and ofps) role of simulating a whole war. Theres nothing truely dynamic about AAs campaign. When you take a look at a typical mission of AA, theres not that much actually going on as many people might assume. theres AI (100+ if it gets big...), and a big island. I'm pretty sure theres enough engines out there that can handle it exactly the same way if not even better as AA engine does. AA might have been a positive thing 2 years ago. in 2007, with game engines like cryengine 2 coming (And 100% sure cryengine 2 can do everything the AA engine could do as well, just a lot prettier and more realistic...), its pretty much a disappointment.

[mr reality 0]

Though still, unless BIS releases game2 very soon - AND it's going to be an ofp/arma game because for all we know it could be a MMORPG space invaders pinball game - arma may well live beyond a good while (years). By then we will appreciate the Higher Setting features...

The reason i don't get the idea of not being able to play with max settings is because I don't think ArmA will last anywhere near as long as Flashpoint has. IMO ArmA is just a stopgap before game2 is released. Ok, we don't know how long that'll be, but if it's not within 2 years then alot of people will get bored with ArmA, me included. Fanboys see ArmA as a fantastic new game, i see ArmA as a reskinned Flashpoint. I'm waiting for game2 which i hope to be released within 2 years ( ). My copy of ArmA will be uninstalled and binned, will you continue to play ArmA when game2 is upon us.

Actually i've had an evil thought....What if game2 is waaaay behind schedule and it wont be anywhere near completed until atleast 5-6 years. And that's why BIS decided to make ArmA.  

[baddo 0]

Hey,

the game has "NORMAL" settings! If you use settings above "NORMAL" then you go to an area where your complaints about not being able to play the game because the settings are too demanding for your computer, are ridiculous.

Think about it now, for a few minutes at least. "NORMAL".

<span style='font-size:23pt;line-height:100%'>NORMAL</span>

Cheers,

Baddo.

[mr reality 0]

Think about it now, for a few minutes at least. "NORMAL".

Lets define Normal.

Standard, average, not the best, mediocre, plain and boring are a few that spring to mind.....

Normal is a setting for those that have a average PC and it makes them feel better to not run on low settings. High is a setting for those (me included) that have a very powerful PC.