ArmA Disappointing

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

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

It's been said quite a few times why Dual-Core won't happen. Will complaining about it at every opportunity change that?

[sandzibar 0]

so splashing out on a quadcore with 2 sli'd 8800 gtx cards would be a waste for arma then?

[vilas 473]

my friend has 2.6 Ghz PIV, card ATI 7600

his PC is from 2005 and he has same FPS as me,

sometimes i have texture missing problems, he says that he has no problems, i have options on low :/

i have AMD X2 3800+ (dualcore), Nvidia 7900, all bought in december 2006 after ARMA PL release

so ?

if in Poland there was an information that dualcore is sensless i would buy other PC or just using my old PC , so much money wasted :/

[4 IN 1 0]

vilas do you try the hot fix yet?

[avi13 0]

The problem with this game is, Its not optimized for the future, you can see that BIS obviously does NOT care what happens to ArmA in a year or two from now.

Why?no dual core optimization while AMD and Intel are focusing solely on dual and quad cores, look at the next generation of AMD cpus, Phenom is the name and its all quad/dual cores, not even one 'single' core cpu in the future.

Also, I'm not seeing any hints about DX10...in a year or two when dx10 becomes standard who will enjoy playing a dx9 game?the dx10 cards wont be optimized as they are right now for dx9 meaning less performance.

Really I don't see any future planning from BIS about the game, There might be one that we don't know about because they fail to communicate with the community but, Its not looking good...

ArmA is limited by itself and not hardware, It barely uses half of my E6300[intel, dual core 1.86ghz] abilities yet the game turn in to a slide show when the AI has to do something.

Another 'funnny' thing, Windows update apparently broke the game and wont let it start and I have yet to find a solution for this, the game doesn't work for many others now...another example of poor optimization/coding.

Meh, I really hope that Game2 will be groundbreaking as OFP, and at least be playable as OFP was out of the box..You cant even finish the campaign in ArmA 1.00 without the use of cheats or extreme luck.

[seba1976 98]

in a year or two when dx10 becomes standard who will enjoy playing a dx9 game?

Hey! I still enjoy the delicate beauty of the Flashpoint engine, so that's not an argument.

OFP was a rare engine though. It wasn't able to take great advantage of today's hardware. You cannot set terrain detail and view distance to the highest, no matter what you have there to try it. So in that aspect, yes, the engine had self limitations that were not forseen. Useless options if nobody will ever be able to use them. But that didn't put anyone away from the graphically realistic atmosphere that defined Flashpoint.

As for Arma, well, it will not be a bright spot in BIS history, most probably, but it will not be because of the graphics.

Cheers.

[Daniel 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

Yeah, I can second that Sugz. (Is Sugz isn't it?)

You hit the nail on the head. Although we have had a few more interesting situations as we make more missions without respawn or JIP. I personally still think ArmA will change for the better once we get mods like FDF and island building tools.

[Daniel 0]

so splashing out on a quadcore with 2 sli'd 8800 gtx cards would be a waste for arma then?

Yeah, I've been running it fine on my AMD Athlon 3800, GeForce 7900 GS and 2GB RAM on all my versions of ArmA, and expect this to get better with 1.07 Final. Might be worth it for other games, who knows.

[alext223 0]

All I have to say is: There has only been one disk in my DVD drive for the past few months, yep you guessed it, ArmA. Every other game is collecting dust.

[Shifty-16AAB- 0]

arma is a piece a of crap. especially the infantry movements.

[MilitiaSniper 0]

Yea.., I was at first excited that it was about to be released. Then all I hopes and dreams turned to big disappointment. But.., I guess you can't win them all?

Sincerely, MilitiaSniper

[mr reality 0]

The problem with this game is, Its not optimized for the future, you can see that BIS obviously does NOT care what happens to ArmA in a year or two from now.

I agree 100%.

I have dual core and quad SLI and i'm getting 25-30 FPS with settings on high. Fanboys have mentioned in other threads about ArmA being a game for the future, because people with machines like mine shouldn't be able to run ArmA with full settings. Not supporting SLI and dual core is a big mistake in todays market. Gamers with the best systems want good results, not to have to tweak the shit out of a game to get a decent frame rate.

I don't even bother with Northern Sahrani, as it's unplayable at times, even for my system.

Edit/ I even tested my rig out with Flashpoint, settings all on high. It stuttered to hell. ArmAs engine isn't a fantastic new super dooper one. It's an optimized flashpoint engine, so basically it's gonna run piss poor on the next gen systems.

[4-Eyes 0]

I don't know what everyone is so dissapointed at? The ballistics are great, the soldier movements are great, the atmosphere is great, there's going to be massive user support for the game, the multiplayer is awesome. The only thing that bothers me personally is the singleplayer part, as the story is full of holes, and is too short, but I'm willing to let that slide. Why? Because of the first firefights i had in ArmA. It was intense, bullets whizzing past, riccocheting off walls, comrades dying right there, I mean, how could you not love it?

[4 IN 1 0]

I don't know what everyone is so dissapointed at? The ballistics are great, the soldier movements are great, the atmosphere is great, there's going to be massive user support for the game, the multiplayer is awesome. The only thing that bothers me personally is the singleplayer part, as the story is full of holes, and is too short, but I'm willing to let that slide. Why? Because of the first firefights i had in ArmA. It was intense, bullets whizzing past, riccocheting off walls, comrades dying right there, I mean, how could you not love it?

they are dissapointed because its OFP 1.96 with tons of addons,

and the fact that it didnt fullfill all their wants from start off,

and the fact that the perforemce are not good at all,

and the fact that the game have been rush,

and the fact that ...............

really what am i doing here, i didnt feel the most of them(only get the perforemce and the rush part)

well, just play

[seba1976 98]

I don't know what everyone is so dissapointed at? The ballistics are great, the soldier movements are great, the atmosphere is great, there's going to be massive user support for the game, the multiplayer is awesome. The only thing that bothers me personally is the singleplayer part, as the story is full of holes, and is too short, but I'm willing to let that slide. Why? Because of the first firefights i had in ArmA. It was intense, bullets whizzing past, riccocheting off walls, comrades dying right there, I mean, how could you not love it?

they are dissapointed because its OFP 1.96 with tons of addons,

and the fact that it didnt fullfill all their wants from start off,

and the fact that the perforemce are not good at all,

and the fact that the game have been rush,

and the fact that ...............

really what am i doing here, i didnt feel the most of them(only get the perforemce and the rush part)

well, just play

I'm not dissapointed because the lack of addons. I'm a mission maker and the great OFP addons are excelent to make different campaings, that's for sure. But I'm dissapointed comparing bare OFP to bare ArmA. I still make multiplayer missions using vanilla OFP, and the atmosphere is excelent. It's not the lack of addons, it's the hardcoded parts that bothers me the most. Even shooting an M4 is not as rewarding in ArmA as it is in OFP. You can't hardly assure a first shot first kill in ArmA, unless you're shooting at 10 mts. away, and still you can't be sure. How can you deal with it. If you add to that the horrendous red aiming dot of the sight, which blocks the size of 3 of 4 bodies at 50 meters, it just ruins your experience man.

Good for you if ArmA was what you expected, but do not over simplify the facts.

Cheers.

[4 IN 1 0]

I don't know what everyone is so dissapointed at? The ballistics are great, the soldier movements are great, the atmosphere is great, there's going to be massive user support for the game, the multiplayer is awesome. The only thing that bothers me personally is the singleplayer part, as the story is full of holes, and is too short, but I'm willing to let that slide. Why? Because of the first firefights i had in ArmA. It was intense, bullets whizzing past, riccocheting off walls, comrades dying right there, I mean, how could you not love it?

they are dissapointed because its OFP 1.96 with tons of addons,

and the fact that it didnt fullfill all their wants from start off,

and the fact that the perforemce are not good at all,

and the fact that the game have been rush,

and the fact that ...............

really what am i doing here, i didnt feel the most of them(only get the perforemce and the rush part)

well, just play

I'm not dissapointed because the lack of addons. I'm a mission maker and the great OFP addons are excelent to make different campaings, that's for sure. But I'm dissapointed comparing bare OFP to bare ArmA. I still make multiplayer missions using vanilla OFP, and the atmosphere is excelent. It's not the lack of addons, it's the hardcoded parts that bothers me the most. Even shooting an M4 is not as rewarding in ArmA as it is in OFP. You can't hardly assure a first shot first kill in ArmA, unless you're shooting at 10 mts. away, and still you can't be sure. How can you deal with it. If you add to that the horrendous red aiming dot of the sight, which blocks the size of 3 of 4 bodies at 50 meters, it just ruins your experience man.

Good for you if ArmA was what you expected, but do not over simplify the facts.

Cheers.

do you see the dot dot dot at the last sentence?(and what this mean, in english)

maybe not

i understand that whats you guys talking about, orthrough i disagree

[churnedfortaste 0]

Well.... Fanboyism and denying problems is counter-productive and it doesn't help at all....

[4 IN 1 0]

Well.... Fanboyism and denying problems is counter-productive and it doesn't help at all....

no its not denying problems, there are problem and they needed to be sort out, but almost everybody here are just bitching instead of start cracking the problem then tell BI "we want this", what can it be good for?

most of my problems are already been on the BTS, some of them being taken care of, some of them still needs time to sort, and thats OK, as long as the company is still there and wanted to sort things out.

but you know what i piss the most? its their 2 years of hard working in exchange of a total waste of time because of things that i couldnt even count as "faults"

edit: when i said somethings couldnt even count as "faults", i didnt say there aint any faults, there are faults that even i cant stand, but i dont what to bring that up just because it have been saying over and over and over again

nitpicking'ism is what makes things wrost

[churnedfortaste 0]

It isn't our responsibility/fault whether the game is good or not, and saying that ArmA is great or has nothing that would be considered 'faults' is setting your standards low, and if people set their standards low, then I don't know if BIS would try as hard or push themselves as much to make the next patch/game way better than ArmA is...

EDIT: Just to make it clear, Armed Assault has a way better concept and vision than all the other tactical shooters around, it's just frustrating that it isn't finished and could be so much better whilst sticking to the concept...

[Heatseeker 0]

I think one really must play both games (OPF and Arma), to realise how much better Arma is and how "going back" is completely out of the question (unless im feeling nostalgic or something).

I look around and i dont see any game touching my Arma experience so far, none in the horizon too...

There are major improvements/features and smaller ones that when put together make a huge diference. There are faults but the game has improved tremendously with patches.

Fanboy'ism and denying problems might be counter productive but so is complaining and nitpicking for the sake of it!

It creates a bad atmosphere and takes away merit from the game. Some people are so obsessed with negativity that they deliberatly overlook the good things about Arma.. that one could only dream of having in OPF .

[churnedfortaste 0]

I'm not comparing ArmA to OPF, I am considering the capabilities of the current engine and the concept of the large scale and realism,

and thinking it could be a lot more....

Apart from the movement being factually slower than real life, even with the heavy gear, the majority of my dissapointment would be un-remediable, as it is basically the AI and some object related things that exist because of the scale of the combat and probably because of today's current limited technology...

I'm sorry, but living in the real world, I do not take developers feelings into account when stating what I think could change with the game or what is wrong with it.....

Yet I do honestly think they are heading in the right direction and doing an amazing job with what they've got...

[Sand Flea 0]

All I can say is... Baby Steps. I really hated the demo, but I'm a realism fanatic and the games I love are being gobbled down the mainstream shit-funnel to whiny l33tpwnrs. I seriously see potential in ArmA like no other. Just a few glances through the screenshots and in-progress mods can really show where this can shine. I operate a realism unit in Red Orchestra: Ostfront, and the realism community is shrinking and the game in general is losing interest.

I have faith in BIS. Despite my hate of the demo, I still shelled out for the game at $40 on Amazon. I want to work with community and BIS to make it better.

This is a battle in the gaming industry between the realism niche and the shit. If we can make ArmA work, it will be Godly. If we fail, EA wins. It doesn't matter to me, by the time the results of this struggle are settled, I'll be at Parris Island.

[Zorbtek 0]

The game is not for everyone, just as OFP was not for everyone. There is no game developer out there that can satisfy everyone. They set out to make a combat sim, many people ate it up, others went back to playing Battlefield.

I'm not dissapointed by the game at all. But it was most certainly rushed out the door in time for the holidays in other countries loaded with some issues.

The only thing I could be dissapointed with is the Campaign. It was a little too military for me. I liked the Resistance campaign with the pretty cutscenes and interesting storyline.

We'll probably see an ArmA campaign like Resistance whenever the expansion comes out.

[russin 0]

the more you play it the more you will >>>>

[shataan 1]

" It was a little too military for me. "

Really? I am happy to hear that actually.