ArmA Disappointing

[AdmiralKarlDonuts 0]

After playing a couple more SP missions today I'm not satisfied with the way the game feels like mud when in an infantry firefight. I feel like the weapon sway and recoil make it almost impossible for me to hit anything without taking half a damn minute to line up the shot, hold my breath, and fire. The AI of course does not have this problem and they're all still AK snipers - by the time I get one round off they've already killed half my guys with accurate bursts from 200 yards.

I don't get how their crappy AKs can put three rounds in my head while the bursts I fire from my M4 or M16 are still way off in terms of ROF and the rounds seem to disperse like the old JAM HD weapons. I'd be better off throwing my rifle at the enemy at this rate.

Plus if I go prone the grass obscures my vision - not theirs - and causes lag.

At least in OFP I could hit what I shot at most of the time. What's the magic trick for hitting stuff in ArmA?

[Second 0]

Drop their skill level.

Magic trick is that weapon has to used a new way and with few new rules. To me, it's improved alot.

Toggle grass off by setting terrain detail to very low.

[archsceptic 21]

SEAL84, I might be stating the obvious, but in case I'm not, decrease the mouse sensitivity on the X and Y axis in control options.

Even though I've got a high-res gaming mouse, my aiming was terrible til I did this, my aim always used to jump around several pixels at a time, now it's silky smooth.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I feel like the weapon sway and recoil make it almost impossible for me to hit anything without taking half a damn minute to line up the shot, hold my breath, and fire.

You have missed about 312513 posts explaining the 'render frames ahead'/'flip queue size' options, search them.

[psycosmos 0]

In 3 years time when you're running 5gHzx4 core CPUs with 12xxx series cards and 16GB RAM you'll be able to get all the eye-candy at full res and full speed, and will still feel you're getting something new out of the game even after 3 years.)

No, you won't.

Just like you didn't with Operation Flashpoint.

The limitations are within the engines software code, not the hardware.

It's like smoke grenades on the Unreal engine, whether you use a Geforce 2 with a 400 mhz processor or a quad SLI 8800 Ultra with a 5 GHZ quad core processor.

It will still lag.

Improving your hardware will ultimately only do so much.

This game will never run at high framerates in cities or forests. Never.

It's a limitation of the software.

I've just set everything to very high/2km view distance except AF and AA as they only use GPU power and I've got enough 30+ framerates to not be worried too much about this on my little trip through Corazol and the woods of northern Sahrani (and I don't mean while looking at Walls or trees in closeup). Then I set everything to very low at 1.2km view distance and it took me about 10 minutes to find a place where my fps drops below 30 gently, it's when I fly over Corazol or Parasio. In the forests I usually get between 50-100 fps, in some bad cases below 40, though not lower than 35. At these settings it's of course very plausible that my cpu (3800+ X2) becomes the limiting factor, I didn't even hear the fan of my 8800 GTX turning up once as it would do on high settings. I used the 1.05 beta patch for this, as the 1.07 one still has some problems with the 8800 cards, but I'll give it a try now.

What I'm trying to say is that what was true for Operation Flashpoint isn't necessarily true for ArmA too. If it limits me to 100 fps max. in forests with future hardware, I can life with that!

[AdmiralKarlDonuts 0]

"render frames ahead" was the problem...but there certainly weren't 312513 posts about it............

Feels a hell of a lot better now.

[Baff1 0]

I've just set everything to very high/2km view distance except AF and AA as they only use GPU power and I've got enough 30+ framerates to not be worried too much about this on my little trip through Corazol and the woods of northern Sahrani (and I don't mean while looking at Walls or trees in closeup). Then I set everything to very low at 1.2km view distance and it took me about 10 minutes to find a place where my fps drops below 30 gently, it's when I fly over Corazol or Parasio. In the forests I usually get between 50-100 fps, in some bad cases below 40, though not lower than 35. At these settings it's of course very plausible that my cpu (3800+ X2) becomes the limiting factor, I didn't even hear the fan of my 8800 GTX turning up once as it would do on high settings. I used the 1.05 beta patch for this, as the 1.07 one still has some problems with the 8800 cards, but I'll give it a try now.

What I'm trying to say is that what was true for Operation Flashpoint isn't necessarily true for ArmA too. If it limits me to 100 fps max. in forests with future hardware, I can life with that!

Flying isn't the problem, walking is.

I don't get any FPS trouble flying either. (In fact it's the only way I find this game especially enjoyable).

NB view distance is one of the things upgrading your PC will improve just as it was in Operation Flashpoint. Pay extra for your GFX if you want to be a pilot.

As a foot soldier fighting in towns and forests, view distance is 30 feet maximum, no matter what you set it to in the options menu, due to the nature of the enviroment.

When you are a foot soldier, you can't help but look at the walls and tree's close up, and when you do it's misery, even on PC's larger than yours.

35 FPS isn't very pleasant when you are trying to track and shoot a fast moving target at point blank.

It's fine for long distance sniping or flying or driving, where the changes to your angle of vision are only minimal progressive adjustments, but if you have to spin your view point around 90-270 degrees instantly at that frame rate, it's misery.

If the game was going to limit at 100 FPS in forests on future hardware, I could live with that too.

But it isn't.

My advice to you is not to spend hundreds of pounds chasing this.

I have tested this game on a series of 6 computers ranging from 6600's to 8800's. SLI, Dual core, you name it.

Infantry lag is more or less unaltered no matter how much money I throw at the system. Hardware power is not the solution.

I've doubled my processor speed, doubled my RAM, Quadrupled my GFX power all for no discernable difference to infantry play.

But in all honesty, this game engine is 5+ years old and so is the FPS issue. If future hardware was going to cure it, it would have done already.

Much of whats true for Operation Flashpoint is also true for Armed Assault.

However, software limitations in graphics engines are by no means limited to the Operation Flashpoint engine.

Unreal, Ghost Recon, Soldner, there are no end of engines which have graphics limitations inherant to their software code.

Upgrading your Hardware will only do so much.

[mattxr 9]

I binned my ArmA onto my shelf and branded it "Just another game" untill BIS fix all my problems.. deiced to invest my time else where lol

[Stugwi 0]

How can Armed Assualt be dissapointing?

Its like really cheap - 17.98 UK pounds on Amazon the now

It will last u - long time!

It gets better all the time - priceless!

Multi-player ROCKS - KilJoy's Evolution map is a real showcase for MP ArmA and proves the platforms potential.

U might need a new PC rig to play Arma but then probably u needed to upgrade anyhow I spent 550 UK Pounds for build and happy with performance.

[fitzee 7]

In 3 years time when you're running 5gHzx4 core CPUs with 12xxx series cards and 16GB RAM you'll be able to get all the eye-candy at full res and full speed, and will still feel you're getting something new out of the game even after 3 years.)

No, you won't.

Just like you didn't with Operation Flashpoint.

The limitations are within the engines software code, not the hardware.

It's like smoke grenades on the Unreal engine, whether you use a Geforce 2 with a 400 mhz processor or a quad SLI 8800 Ultra with a 5 GHZ quad core processor.

It will still lag.

Improving your hardware will ultimately only do so much.

This game will never run at high framerates in cities or forests. Never.

It's a limitation of the software.

This is nonsense.

When ofp came out my rig was cutting-edge. I was lucky to get 24 fps in an empty field. Now with my very modest system it easily pushes over 100 fps pretty much anywhere with all kinds of action.

To say that ofp didnt improve with newer hardware is silly.

Im sure ArmA will too.

[SHWiiNG 0]

im not going to compain about the Hardware side of things, (because i have no need to) i think that ARMA lacks a very big chunk of OFP, and that is excitement and tension. I used to really feel the tension in OFP when i was in a forest and see nothing but shapes moving in between the trees, and sound of tank shells whizzing past, explosions that looked decent, MG's that produced recoil and a sense of weight, tanks that were a joy to drive and felt as thought they could mow over anything.

and perhaps more, i just think that ARMA lacks emmersion and tension, i wonder if anyone else agrees, i know a few member of the Rifles Clan do.

-Shwiing

[Second 0]

im not going to compain about the Hardware side of things, (because i have no need to) i think that ARMA lacks a very big chunk of OFP, and that is excitement and tension. I used to really feel the tension in OFP when i was in a forest and see nothing but shapes moving in between the trees, and sound of tank shells whizzing past, explosions that looked decent, MG's that produced recoil and a sense of weight, tanks that were a joy to drive and felt as thought they could mow over anything.

and perhaps more, i just think that ARMA lacks emmersion and tension, i wonder if anyone else agrees, i know a few member of the Rifles Clan do.

-Shwiing

Yes i agree, but... Road to paradise on earth is very rocky and long nowdays, when comparing to time when OFP was fresh and only of it's kind. That belongs to life: My wife isn't as parfect as few years ago when we were fresh couple... But i'm not changing my wife (i could, but i'm too lazy )

I hardly ever get exited in OFP now days... Well last one was when i looked to barrel of (enemy) tiger tank just couple days ago without any weapon to take it out (i was dead short after that )... WW2 setup is great even nowdays, But basic OFP kit with AT-lauchers and stuff is mild because everything that i run upagainst is "been-there-done-that"-experience. And same applies for ArmA... But ArmA sort of lacks WOW-experiences, because they were experienced in OFP already and that is reason why many sees OFP better than ArmA, because of great memories.

Players usually are moaning for "never-seen-before"-experiences. And i think that even Game2 can hardly offer new sensational feelings comparing to good-ol'-OFP-times... I atleast was expecting new WOWs from ArmA, when OFP started to feel old and too familiar.

And ofcourse mods have great affect to this: "ArmA is step back from (insert your favorite mod)" statements are quite common.

[Baff1 0]

In 3 years time when you're running 5gHzx4 core CPUs with 12xxx series cards and 16GB RAM you'll be able to get all the eye-candy at full res and full speed, and will still feel you're getting something new out of the game even after 3 years.)

No, you won't.

Just like you didn't with Operation Flashpoint.

The limitations are within the engines software code, not the hardware.

It's like smoke grenades on the Unreal engine, whether you use a Geforce 2 with a 400 mhz processor or a quad SLI 8800 Ultra with a 5 GHZ quad core processor.

It will still lag.

Improving your hardware will ultimately only do so much.

This game will never run at high framerates in cities or forests. Never.

It's a limitation of the software.

This is nonsense.

When ofp came out my rig was cutting-edge. I was lucky to get 24 fps in an empty field. Now with my very modest system it easily pushes over 100 fps pretty much anywhere with all kinds of action.

To say that ofp didnt improve with newer hardware is silly.

Im sure ArmA will too.

And I get 100's more FPS with my new computer when playing Ravenshield, but when I throw a smoke grenade, it still lags.

100FPS looking anywhere doing anything in OPF?

100 FPS looking at the sky more like.

Operation Flashpoint doesn't play like Quake. It will never play like Quake.

(I've never been able to set all the options to full, even to this day).

OPF did improve with newer hardware.

View distances went up.

Anti Aliasing came in.

Screen resolutions got bigger.

More units (polygons) could be drawn on the same screen

Maybe even the textures went up from low to normal.

But it never stopped being horribly laggy as infantry.

The same old CQB lag that is still present in Armed Assault was always there and still is to this day.

[TheReddog 0]

Personally, yes I am disappointed with ArmA quite a bit but at the same time I can still see it is a good game at its core and there is muchos fun to be had with it.

What really annoys me though is the rabid fanboyism that surrounds the game, whether it's people talking it up to a stupid extent or flaming anyone who suggests it is less than sublime gaming perfection. I remember first checking out the forums after it was just released to see how it was being received and hey from what the people were saying in the 'First Impressions' thread it was like the game was the second coming of Jesus (if you believe in such nonsense). It was all "ArmA is incredible", "it needs to be seen to be believed", "best game ever".

It was very misleading to say the least and kind of added salt to the wound when I picked up a German version very cheaply on eBay and found a buggy and largely broken (as in mission script wise) game that barely ran on my system which was around the recommended specs. It was certainly a far cry from what the people in that thread were describing, it was also utterly ****ed, to be unable to progress in the campaign because of a broken script on the second mission. It also did not hold a candle to OFP in many areas like the campaign, weapon handling, sounds, mission design, everything other than the graphics basically felt severely under done. Like BIS had spent the whole time playing with the engine and then thrown together the campaign over a weekend.

I persevered though and it got better with the first and second patch and so eventually I decide to get the Australian release when it comes out. Here I was disappointed again that the Aussie distributors were too bloody cheap to even provide a hard case with the game, I got a box, the manual and the game disc in a paper slip (not BIS's fault though)

What still worries me though is how people misrepresent the game. I sat there watching Dyslexics video of the A10's, as awesome as it makes the game look, chuckling and thinking that someone should make a counter propaganda trailer showcasing the real Armed Assault. It should have things like;

- You knock out a tank with a satchel from hundreds of meters away hidden in bushes and the crew bail and head shoot you in 0.0001 seconds.

- You sit in a truck waiting while the squad leader and a lost squaddie (who's really 20m away in LOS with the leader) yell "Where are you?" and "Position xxxxx", "Mount truck at xxx" at each other for 40 minutes.

- The AI nails you with the 5th round from an AK74 rapidly at 500m at which point it cuts to the player struggling to fire even semi rapidly with the AK's atrocious recoil at a target 50m away. To be even more real the AI's shot should be in the dark and through no less than 12 bushes and other assorted foliage (it should also zoom in on him to show he has no NVG's on).

- Trying to turn your chopper 10 degrees only to have it execute a perfect 180 degree barrel roll twist and dive.

- Assigning your AI co-pilot a target which he promptly misses badly, expending all your FFAR's in the process.

- Turning a corner and having a nice 30 second preview of the games LOD system at work from point blank range.

Also rather than having that NIN song as a sound track it'd have to have the Benny Hill theme. I wonder if BIS would post it on the site as well

Ok I am rambling now, but I guess all in all I could say ArmA is underwhelming if not a bit disappointing, especially for someone who wanted to have a decent SP experience out of the box instead of having to wait for a good mod team to make one. Though it'll likely get better, but please fanboys learn to accept some criticism and not jump all over anyone that talks negatively about ArmA.

[Guest]

Hi all very new here, but I do have to say I am Very Happy with ArmA.

I guess if it has a fault is that Dule Core is not supported, but apart from that its 1 million % over all the others out there.

Multiplay is the bees knees!

Thanks

[sv5000 127]

no

[psycosmos 0]

I've just set everything to very high/2km view distance except AF and AA as they only use GPU power and I've got enough 30+ framerates to not be worried too much about this on my little trip through Corazol and the woods of northern Sahrani (and I don't mean while looking at Walls or trees in closeup). Then I set everything to very low at 1.2km view distance and it took me about 10 minutes to find a place where my fps drops below 30 gently, it's when I fly over Corazol or Parasio. In the forests I usually get between 50-100 fps, in some bad cases below 40, though not lower than 35. At these settings it's of course very plausible that my cpu (3800+ X2) becomes the limiting factor, I didn't even hear the fan of my 8800 GTX turning up once as it would do on high settings. I used the 1.05 beta patch for this, as the 1.07 one still has some problems with the 8800 cards, but I'll give it a try now.

What I'm trying to say is that what was true for Operation Flashpoint isn't necessarily true for ArmA too. If it limits me to 100 fps max. in forests with future hardware, I can life with that!

Flying isn't the problem, walking is.

I don't get any FPS trouble flying either. (In fact it's the only way I find this game especially enjoyable).

NB view distance is one of the things upgrading your PC will improve just as it was in Operation Flashpoint. Pay extra for your GFX if you want to be a pilot.

As a foot soldier fighting in towns and forests, view distance is 30 feet maximum, no matter what you set it to in the options menu, due to the nature of the enviroment.

When you are a foot soldier, you can't help but look at the walls and tree's close up, and when you do it's misery, even on PC's larger than yours.

35 FPS isn't very pleasant when you are trying to track and shoot a fast moving target at point blank.

It's fine for long distance sniping or flying or driving, where the changes to your angle of vision are only minimal progressive adjustments, but if you have to spin your view point around 90-270 degrees instantly at that frame rate, it's misery.

If the game was going to limit at 100 FPS in forests on future hardware, I could live with that too.

But it isn't.

My advice to you is not to spend hundreds of pounds chasing this.

I have tested this game on a series of 6 computers ranging from 6600's to 8800's. SLI, Dual core, you name it.

Infantry lag is more or less unaltered no matter how much money I throw at the system. Hardware power is not the solution.

I've doubled my processor speed, doubled my RAM, Quadrupled my GFX power all for no discernable difference to infantry play.

But in all honesty, this game engine is 5+ years old and so is the FPS issue. If future hardware was going to cure it, it would have done already.

Much of whats true for Operation Flashpoint is also true for Armed Assault.

However, software limitations in graphics engines are by no means limited to the Operation Flashpoint engine.

Unreal, Ghost Recon, Soldner, there are no end of engines which have graphics limitations inherant to their software code.

Upgrading your Hardware will only do so much.

You maybe misunderstood part of my post, most likely because I should have pointed out that I did all those "tests" while on the ground as a soldier. The "took me about 10 minutes" part was also when I decided to try it flying because I didn't manage it to go below 30 fps on the ground after that time. But that doesn't matter anyway as it isn't really related to the problem you describe later in your post. Just wanted to mention it.

I've also noticed that the fps appear to scale better in forests than they do in citys using different settings, but with my little knowledge I could only asume why that is.

I can see where your getting at, but as I'm not really in a position to verify myself if I could reach more than those not very pleasant 35 fps in said situations due to my "limited" hardware, I have to asume that what you said is true (not that I doubt it).

Well, yeah, then this is an issue, that, personally I can live with, others probably have more problems with it. There aren't much alternatives to the game, especially when Operation Flashpoint gets ruled out too because of similar limitations. That might have an impact on how good one can endure this.

Yeah, I asume BIS didn't have much alternatives than to use the old engine due to limited resources, developing niche games and having only a small team when compared to the big shots in the business and all that stuff. Of course I'm happy about any dev that decides to deal with games that never will be as popular as those especially designed to please the masses. I also have to say that I was pleasantly surprised when I saw how good the game, built on that old engine, can look on highest settings. Of course also using some good AA (nvidias 8xS in my case), best with some super sampling or transparency anti aliasing, the vegetation just loves that (generaly oposite to the performance of course), plus good AF.

Don't worry, I will not sink too much money into this, but my cpu eventually has to be upgraded for different reasons anyway. I'm just waiting to see if AMD comes up with something interesting in the next couple of months or will get a Core 2 duo CPU and mainboard then. I also never was that type of gamer that always gets high end hardware, mainly because you had to pay a lot extra for just a bit more of performance. Didn't have much choices left when I wanted a good card without the AA with HDR problem of the older nvidias (also, I have enough ATI cards allready), that will keep me happy for some time, and with the low availability/high price of the 640 mb GTS models around that time, the GTX probably was the best choice for me in the end. It's mostly as performant as it was expensive, I'm fine with that.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, I asume BIS didn't have much alternatives than to use the old engine due to limited resources, developing niche games and having only a small team when compared to the big shots in the business and all that stuff. Of course I'm happy about any dev that decides to deal with games that never will be as popular as those especially designed to please the masses. I also have to say that I was pleasantly surprised when I saw how good the game, built on that old engine, can look on highest settings. Of course also using some good AA (nvidias 8xS in my case), best with some super sampling or transparency anti aliasing, the vegetation just loves that (generaly oposite to the performance of course), plus good AF.

I would not say it is a niche game, since due to the open engine you can make 100 other games out of it. BI is just to small to keep the development speed of the rest of the industry.

[BraTTy 0]

So I am a fanboy its called

I think some people get too upset at minor bugs,how many games have I played and often the bugs add a certain strategy

And with a Bis game you just have to wait a bit,they religously update their games.

People play many todays games and then complain about Arma's performance.I realize the view distance and mapsize must have the most to do with it.Maybe I don't understand because I don't have a super computer by no means.

I am not complaining of the performance and am running it on a laptop...XP4000+,1 Gig ram,ATI x600 256meg video

Maybe Bis should limit the view distance and chop some of the settings so its comparable to most other games.

Then people could run it at MAX and be happy

Maybe sell 2 versions kinda like XP Home and Pro

One has all the settings

[xnodunitx 0]

Well they could always set the viewdistance to 1km or so and then they can play it just as easily as they play these other games such as bf2 on max settings, but you won't see anything.

So generally it all lies in what you want..the best graphics or the best viewdistance or in between? Personally I prefer to go in the midground area, that way I get viewdistance, good graphics and good performance all around.

[Gaizokubanou 0]

I am disappointed in single player section but because of that disappointment I am trying to get into the multiplayer aspect.

[4 IN 1 0]

no body saids it is the best engine for eye candy out there, but its the only engine ever attemp this scale of world, and that if you have the money and the time, you could try to fine tune the game to look as good as it can do

[froggyluv 2136]

Personally i think this 'Fanboy' and 'Crybabies' argument is just ridiculous. I've been called both. Fanbaby? Cryboy?

Stupid labels that aren't really accurate for the majority of posters here. Most people have reasons for liking/loving Arma and reasons for wanting to punch their computer in the face.

At first I liked Arma with reservation but now I love it unabashedly  The thing I find funny are people who rip Arma a new one, proudly boast of how they use their DVD for frisbees, coasters and orgies, then come back daily to bash it some more  

[Gobbs 0]

Previously I had posted that I was disappointed in ArmA after spending some time attempting the SP missions. I finally decided to mess with the editor and see what I could come up with. Many of you will be happy to know I can no longer say that I am disappointed with the package as a whole. MP is definitely better.

So, my disappointment is now become wishing for 2 "fixes", mainly the ability to make the AI even less accurate than the zero setting available in the editor, (perhaps behavior and accuracy should be different adjustments?), and I'd like to see some detailed documentation for the editor.

I do now think ArmA is worth the money spent. I see a lot of content in-game and there seems to be a ton of community stuff already. It's definitely not for the Quakers or BF types, but I am starting to see just how great and configurable ArmA can be.

[vilas 477]

when BIS will add dualcore support or will be ever made ?

if not ...

than this engine is not modern

and people with cheaper PC will have better performance than people with top new PC