ArmA is just ... disappointing

[sickboy 13]

Skaven, if you took my message as offensive; My apologies, it wasn't meant to be written like that. It's possible that in my quick writing I havent used the most tactful words or sentences, not intended!

About the animations of the belts: I put it that way because you put it as the Nr1 on your list, aswell as that you can't understand how a company can't fix those things in 3 patches; I explained

About the "Think" and "Maybe" stuff, I know.... but I especially bolded "Beta-Patch", as I think that they may "Think" and "Maybe" in a beta-patch :P

Btw Skaven, ur right, it is actually useless to discuss opinions... ppl hardly change their opinion anyway, maybe as we're all kinda unknown to eachother without real known credibility, I dunno. Always wicked to learn.

Quote[/b] ]@vilas: Are you somewhat resistant to people who actually take the time to get your issue sorted or are you feeling confortable crossposting your issues over and over again ?

I had that same problem. I see his posts popping up in nearly every thread, and anytime I respond I never get answer, until this time in this thread

Sry for the Off-topic ppl.

Quote[/b] ]According to him all PCs today have only minimum requirements for ARMA cause of his false logic and ignorance.

Not true, overdone statement maybe to prove ur point, doesnt change the fact that it isn't true

Quote[/b] ]It is not only the frequency of the Processor which are important to judge their performance this is stoneage thinking and shows only that he has no idea about the things he is talking about.

That I point out that Vilas CPU isn't twice as good Recommended Spec, doesn't say at all that I'm convinced that ArmA's performance has only to do with CPU

Quote[/b] ]ARMA is not utilizing dual core processor power properly as it should be for an nex gen game.

List me all the next-gen games that "Use Dual Core processor power properly".... (Oh and Only games released before November 2006) When we talk about "properly" I guess you don't mean the 1-5% win that some games have, yes?

Quote[/b] ]So sickboy how would it be for you to visit some other thread an argue in it cause this is thread about disappointment not about discussing, convincing and evangelizing people that are disappointed by ARMA.

It's just in my nature, I can't take it when I read some unfounded crap... If you have something negative to say, then make sure you say something that's correct and not make up that e.g; the rest of the game world is perfect and just ArmA sucks, which is already a wrong detail

Anyway, as stated above to Skaven, he's simply right, but I find it hard to let go/accept 'discussing opinions on a forum usually leads nowhere'

Quote[/b] ] Please go and write something in troubleshooting threads

I'll go where I'll go mate, no worries

Quote[/b] ]and go and convince people how vista is better and DX10 and such crap.

I love Vista. Just played my first DX10 games passed weekend and I nearly shate my pants. Let me know when you tried your first

[Skaven 0]

Quote[/b] ]Skaven, if you took my message as offensive; My apologies, it wasn't meant to be written like that. It's possible that in my quick writing I havent used the most tactful words or sentences, not intended!

It's all ok mate, ty

[Marines 0]

Which is what ArmA is by the way, a ported engine from a console to the PC.

I wanted to reply that the OFPE engine came from the PC version of OFP and that they worked on the engine, its not a direct port, but then i remembered that the whole statement is so useless i decided to write this instead.

No matter what the platform, games, any game is still developed on a PC. However, when you take the primary coding for a PC game and port it to a console, it has to be updated - physics engine or collision detection (and collision response), sound, scripting, animation, artificial intelligence, networking, streaming, memory management, threading, and a scene graph, just to name a few. Essentially at that point, it becomes primarilary a console engine. Using the same engine to then build upon that, and to take said engine over to a PC, then requires a reversal of the of the aforementioned steps. If it isn't done properly, or if the technology for said PC or console is outdated, you then have compatibility issues. ArmA has all the classical wounds and missteps of a ported engine/game.

Ensure that you know what you're talking about next time.

[Naterstein 0]

I have read thru about 7 pages of this thread and most people have covered what I am disappointed by.

1. Performance. I dont have a top of the line machine, but close (2GB RAM, 8800GTS, etc) and the game runs like poo. I can run some real system hogging games with no issue, but not ARMA. I figure this will be fixed. Lot of pple screaming for Dual Core support, but I dont think it is fully possible at this point in development, but it would be nice.

2. Friendly AI: Too dumb and not as accurate as Enemy.

3. Enemy AI: Pretty dumb, superstrong as they can fire AK without recoil it seems (sniping full auto AK). I would like to see them more affected by incoming fire (ie running for cover, dropping prone to crawl to cover, mebbe a few indecisives, etc). I would like to see them act as humanly as possible. Other games do it so it should be easy for BIS.

4. Content: So few guns. Some may not think so, but heres what I would like to see even if its limited to multiplayer.

- 1911 MEUSOC or equiv, M11 (Sig P238), and HK Mark23

for US.

- HK pistol for the US Friendly Faction that uses lots of HKs.

- There has to be a better pistol for SLA than the Mak.

MEbbe a CZ75 or something.

This is a start. Mainly its about performance for me, all else can wait. Polygon spikes, Texture bugs/loss, and CTDs are just silly while using a machine that meets and exceeds requirements.

Thanks.

[Kevlar2007 1]

It is true just negating my statements doesn't make your be true.

You have pointed out that his CPU meats only minimum requirements, and that was based only on frequency values, so your statement is not complete and not relevant.

Next Gen games that use DC are already listed somewhere in this thread it should be good for you to start reading the posts instead of flaming here in this thread.

When it is your nature than it is wrong, so how it would be to cool down and stop repeating everything you said over and over just to spam this thread. Could you just accept that there are people with different opinions or you are some egomaniac that must convince everybody to accept your opinion.

There is another thread called ARMA is awesome, I think and this is only my opinion, that you should go there summarize your objections in one post, or better let mods make a sticky out of your opinions so everybody can read it all the time they come in this forums to satisfy your ego.

The fact that you are a Vista lover shows that you are not competent, which DX10 Game are you playing as I know there are no DX10 games out at the moment, that makes you even less credible to me. But perhaps I am not informed that well on that matter.

[sickboy 13]

Quote[/b] ]It is true just negating my statements doesn't make your be true.

Never claimed that, you attacked my post and I replied to your attack, don't imply now that I was trying to prove my own points.

Quote[/b] ]You have pointed out that his CPU meats only minimum requirements, and that was based only on frequency values, so your statement is not complete and not relevant.

Yes, as I recalled, the minimum was 2ghz, and the recommended was 3ghz. The game only supports single core so the game won't perform much more on a dual-core, and as such it's only interesting to count the 1 cpu instead of both. And yes I was wrong myself as well as stated a few posts back, the requirements are listed as 2ghz/3ghz Pentium 4. While we all know that A64 IPC is higher and Core2 is higher than that again.

Quote[/b] ]Next Gen games that use DC are already listed somewhere in this thread it should be good for you to start reading the posts instead of flaming here in this thread.

PLease point out where I started flaming? What I meant with my statement is that the dual-core games that are out there usually dont have much performance boost by it and so it isn't a "proper dual core usage" at all. Apart from that, many of the games got their Dual-Core support built in after months of patching, let's see if that's happening to ArmA though it was kinda said that it would never.

Quote[/b] ]When it is your nature than it is wrong, so how it would be to cool down and stop repeating everything you said over and over just to spam this thread.

Cool down is only nececairy when one is heated. I'm not heated... are you?

Quote[/b] ]Could you just accept that there are people with different opinions

I can accept others to have different opinions, but when I see that those opinions are based on what they call facts, but I see that those facts are wrong (which is not an opinion), then I feel the urge to correct it, indeed.

Quote[/b] ]or you are some egomaniac that must convince everybody to accept your opinion.

I am not, but it is indeed a waste of time to try to convince people that the earth isn't flat, but infact is round )

Quote[/b] ]There is another thread called ARMA is awesome, I think and this is only my opinion, that you should go there summarize your objections in one post, or better let mods make a sticky out of your opinions so everybody can read it all the time they come in this forums to satisfy your ego.

I thank you for your suggestion, though I have no problem with my ego or no need to satisfy my ego pal, but thank you for being so thoughtful

Quote[/b] ]The fact that you are a Vista lover shows that you are not competent

Oh really, the fact that I love Vista makes me not competent, and why would that be?

Quote[/b] ], which DX10 Game are you playing as I know there are no DX10 games out at the moment, that makes you even less credible to me.

Lost Planet: http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=1639

Maybe we can stop boring ppl with this and wrestle nicely on in Private Message, though for me it's unnececairy .

Anyway, it's my last reply to you SkullBurner

[Jambo107 0]

Vilas I hope you can resolve your issues but could your issue be moved to a 'Vlias tech issue' topic in the tech forum?

On topic:

I keep hitting on the animations; I think for me (and this is purely my opinon) that animations & sound (with a semi decent) graphics engine go a long way in creating convicing atomsphere. Take the example of the Full spectrum Warrior games. Though a different genre and gametype still a similar theme (modern armed forces) If you watch the animation for they way they move, attack and so on its truely is amazing. (IMO it was crying out to be an FPS)

I mention this because if memoary serves alot of the animations where motion captured, I mention in my other thread about Sanctuarys amazing work he did with the animation packs for Flashy; that'd be a good example of what is possible in Arma. I never played SLX mod (though I always wanted to ) But they was at least the opening of doors on vehicles.

In reguards to physics theres a number of open source physic engines heres one http://www.tokamakphysics.com/ I'm not an expert in programming but maybe its something the dev team can consider testing? Even basic ragdoll and vehcile physics would go long way. Hopefully keep Arma and BIS alive in the face of direct competetion of there previous publisher. The way I see its a race to make Arma the best possible game while preserving all that made it great in Flashy before Codemasters release there game.

[Marines 0]

anyone has any idea how many copies of ARMA have been sold? I just hope BIS will not run out of monay b4 they get everything fixed up!

I'm not sure as to the actual numbers according to revenue, but these represent the top sellers.

UK Sales

TW TITLE PUBLISHER

1 COMMAND & CONQUER 3: TIBERIUM WARS EA GAMES

2 THE SIMS 2: SEASONS EA GAMES

3 S.T.A.L.K.E.R. SHADOW OF CHERNOBYL THQ

4 FOOTBALL MANAGER 2007 SEGA

5 WORLD OF WARCRAFT: THE BURNING CRUSADE BLIZZARD

6 THE ELDER SCROLLS IV: SHIVERING ISLES 2K GAMES

7 THE SIMS 2 EA GAMES

8 THE SIMS 2: PETS EA GAMES

9 THE COMPLETE COLLECTION OF THE SIMS EA GAMES

10 THE SIMS: LIFE STORIES EA GAMES

11 MEDIEVAL II: TOTAL WAR SEGA

12 THE SIMS 2: OPEN FOR BUSINESS EA GAMES

13 FIFA 07 EA SPORTS

14 THE SIMS 2: NIGHTLIFE EA GAMES

15 BATTLEFIELD 2142 EA GAMES

16 SUPREME COMMANDER THQ

17 THE SIMS 2: UNIVERSITY EA GAMES

18 THE ELDER SCROLLS IV: OBLIVION 2K GAMES

19 SILENT HUNTER 4: WOLVES OF THE PACIFIC UBISOFT

20 AGE OF EMPIRES III MICROSOFT

21 COMMAND & CONQUER: THE FIRST DECADE EA GAMES

22 GUILD WARS: NIGHTFALL NCSOFT EUROPE

23 ARMA: ARMED ASSAULT 505 GAMES

24 BRIAN LARA INTERNATIONAL CRICKET 2007 CODEMASTERS

25 BATTLESTATIONS: MIDWAY EIDOS

26 CHAMPIONSHIP MANAGER 2007 EIDOS

27 AGE OF EMPIRES III: WAR CHIEFS MICROSOFT

28 BATTLEFIELD 2: THE COMPLETE COLLECTION EA GAMES

29 WARHAMMER 40,000: DOW DARK CRUSADE THQ

30 ROME: TOTAL WAR ANTHOLOGY GSP

Australian Sales

1. The Sims 2: Seasons

2. World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade

3. The Sims 2: Pets

4. World of Warcraft

5. Supreme Commander

6. The Sims 2

7. The Sims 2: Life Stories

8. The Sims 2: Open For Business

9. ArmA: Armed Assault

10. Age of Empires III

[vilas 473]

edit;

this application is not working , readme in deutsch

it show error 0xc0000135

somebody said that in february there was new DX 9C, i cannot find any DX9C from 2007, in the many websites there are 9C from 2005

and once more things not answered:

i don't see ANY difference between 2 situations in performance:

1) just playing ARMA, net off, all antivirus software disabled before reboot in msconfig,

2) playing ARMA, uploading files to FTP using Totalcommander,downloading files using firefox, listening music from my mp3 files using WMP player 10 (so many other processes in back including AV, firewalls)

and WHY 1.02 version was working quite good on highest ?

problems are since 1.05

[shadow 6]

sickboy you are for me only small, arrogant boy flipping around on this forums, spreading nonsense,

SkullBurner, you are for me only a small member with 3 warning boxes, going on the 4th if you keep on flaming.

[Zarkan 0]

lets say next things:

1.graphic performance

2.wher is the T80??

3.LOD for textures need somn time to look ok

4.Multiplayer Instability

End more staff need to fix...

[leckig 0]

I'm not sure as to the actual numbers according to revenue, but these represent the top sellers.

UK Sales

TW TITLE PUBLISHER

1 COMMAND & CONQUER 3: TIBERIUM WARS EA GAMES

.

.

.

23 ARMA: ARMED ASSAULT 505 GAMES

Australian Sales

1. The Sims 2: Seasons

.

.

.

9. ArmA: Armed Assault

well, that looks pretty good! Just guessing - must be over a million?

[whisper 0]

edit;

somebody said that in february there was new DX 9C, i cannot find any DX9C from 2007, in the many websites there are 9C from 2005

Install the latest one (April 2007), it can't be bad anyway :

http://www.microsoft.com/downloa....lang=en

[vilas 473]

yes, yes, i will , but what with second questions :

about performance with/without applications

and 1.02>.105 (in 1.02 i had all on highest) and only from time to time there was missing textures, after 45 minutes of gameplay, and all was returning after 0.5-2 sec to good

and why my friend with NV7600/128, P4 2.4 socket 478 as i remember and 512 DDR1 memory as i remember (mabye DDR2) have better stability, but not in PL box version ?

is Starforce in PL version f*** so much ?

[maddogx 13]

yes, yes, i will , but what with second questions :

about performance with/without applications

and 1.02>.105

and why my friend with NV7600/128, P4 2.4 socket 478 as i remember and 512 DDR1 memory as i remember (mabye DDR2) have better stability, but not in PL box version ?

is Starforce in PL version f*** so much ?

Yes, Starforce is f***ed big time.

[vilas 473]

so if yest, that once again i am in the ass (in Polish language we say that, i don't know how should i say in english) for buying legal soft :/

if i bought from russians it would EU version without starforce :/ ?

untill 1.05 sometimes because of it game was starting after 8-12 retries :/

since 1.05 it starts for the first time

[sickboy 13]

yes, yes, i will , but what with second questions :

about performance with/without applications

and 1.02>.105

and why my friend with NV7600/128, P4 2.4 socket 478 as i remember and 512 DDR1 memory as i remember (mabye DDR2) have better stability, but not in PL box version ?

is Starforce in PL version f*** so much ?

I have the Czech version and it runs fine even with Starforce.

Which can still mean that Starforce on PL version + possibly pc configuration can cause slowdowns though.

Btw Vilas, as suggested it might be a good idea to continue in a troubleshooting thread with Whisper, Balschiouw etc. etc. on ur performance issues.

[whisper 0]

yes, yes, i will , but what with second questions :

about performance with/without applications

ArmA on 1 core, leaves your second core free for other applications to run smootly.

Continuation through PM, perhaps?

We're badly spamming here

[Jambo107 0]

This is unbelievable, are you guys trying to de-rail this thread? (Which you already done) This is our one chance to let the devs know how we feel and now its ruined by fanboys and people who having nothing better to-do then get one over someone else.

Now I'm asking, anyone (including sickboy and Skullburner) Stay out the bloody thread unless you have anything negative[/] to say about Arma that will help the devs. Or better yet take it up in PM as one rule abidding memember did with me (top hat to him!

Skullburner and Sickboy should be warned and should remain out of the topic!

[Rhodite 3]

sickboy you are for me only small, arrogant boy flipping around on this forums, spreading nonsense,

SkullBurner, you are for me only a small member with 3 warning boxes, going on the 4th if you keep on flaming.

Ooooh sorry your highness, you are for me big, important Moderator, only warning me(and with reason! not the spamers around here.

But who am I to complain to you as small member, I will just follow your orders!  

Good to see your treating the Moderation team with respect..

Have a Box and a 48hr PR to cool down

One more box after this is a perm ban.. consider that on your brief break.

[Mora2 0]

[

Because complainers are always more vocal than the satisfied croud, in some cases they also manage to pull more bs out of their arses .

Well turns out most of the BS in this thread is deleted by the mods.

Anyway where did it I say you had to explain in total detail what is wrong??

Maybe some of my posts are not as detailed as they should but the points are true( im not the only one pointing them out )

Quote[/b] ]

What you are trying to do is turning the thread your way, or make it look like everyone who posted disapointment for the game did it for the same reasons as yours, wich is far from true..

 

Sorry thats a bit childish.

But no, im not.

Quote[/b] ]

The eye candy doesnt drop performance here and while it might not be better than some games (for obvious reasons) it is better than many games. OPF never really looked very hot and in 2001's systems it performed quite bad, Arma looks incredible and runs well if you have the HW, it also ships with a very generous amount of playable content (weapons, vehicles, etc).

Thats Not true

I could play OFP at max 1280x1024 with a geforce 2 GTS and a 1100 MHz 256 SDRAM system. And that wasnt by far the best system in that time.

Right now not only this game lacks Dual core support ( awright many games doesnt) also but it also lacks SLI support ( Many games DO support this )

Quote[/b] ]

The playability is the same with new aditions, it moves like flashpoint and it shoots like flashpoint, they improved it some:

- Leaning around corners.

- Avoid incoming fire with combat rolls.

- 3D sights.

- Better animations.

- Walking and shooting is smoother/less jumpy.

- Free aim is adjustable.

- Crouch walking is possible.

- Better key binding options.

Again no its not the same, OFp was much more dynamic.

Those features you mention are fine but they are not improvements, those are must haves that nearly every game has, AND  in fact walking/shooting isnt by far less jumpy, everyone is complaining about how clunky the system is.

i dindt see anyne saying that about OFP.

Quote[/b] ]

Other than that its much like good old OPF... a little more challenging maybe but definetly true to its roots. I dont think these minor improvements changed the game so deeply, if you could play OPF and cant handle Arma you have to look somewhere else other than the game.

*cough* stupid breathing system*cough*

Dont dismiss what is convenient for you in the discussion please.

Fact is game playability has change in an inmense size to fit what coopers want. ( nothing agains coopers though )

And thats a dead sentence for nearly any game cause it doesnt appeal to nearly anyone, and sadly to say, making games isnt free and what gives money to make the game is a big comunnity.

Quote[/b] ]

MP is a great success compared to OPF, (wich didnt even ship with playable MP) 1.96 was good but im JIP'ing persistent servers in Arma, its crazy.

Compared to OFP MP any game is a success. Truth is  the majority of servers are playing crap COOp because its what is this game is oriented for. It lacks appeal in CQB battle, you cant make successive supressing fire cause the way the soldier handles is pure trash and aiming proly sucks not only because of its clunkyness but also because of that stupid aiming system.

On the other hand large scale areas have to limit to the ground because dogfighting has been totally erased, and air combat in any forms is just for joystick users, making the task not only a casual job but also very unuser friendly for the common gamer, which in the end is the one that makes a game a success.

Quote[/b] ]

Arma is OPF with much better graphics, more optimised, improved and capable of handling more load.

The physics arent there but i dont think you will see a physics intensive, large scale game in a while...

Again, False, those graphics are NOT optimised, Just dont lie because you fail in what you criticise, dropping BS out of your ass.

That people with 4000+ Processors / 2 GB and 7950 Geforces arent playing this game at least in mid-high settings isnt optimization.

Just open your eyes and read the boards.

I would expect that  from a GAme like Crysis which his graphics are beyond anything seen at the moment, not from a game that has graphics more than a year old. and in fact hasnt got better graphics than games a year and a half old.

[Mora2 0]

The reason is in his sig "100% fanboy".

Editing to clear it up.

Damm, should´ave read that before loosing 5 minutes of my time.

Yes, because it's quite difficult to resist when you see something FALSE written (like the point that DeadMeat talked about) as an argument to put the game to trash.

False written?? maybe i didnt expand myself enough but the points are true.

INTOH what he said about MP being a success, Game playability not being changed and graphics being optimised is in fact false.

[whisper 0]

The reason is in his sig "100% fanboy". But fanboys can't read and comprehend they are like preachers that must come everywhere and write everywhere that game is good and has no problems. This is the best approval for the fact that game is not good because then there would be no reason for fanbois to come in wrong thread explaining everybody how good the game is.

Damm, should´ave read that before loosing 5 minutes of my time.

well, you could use these 5 minutes to in fact play the game instead of dissing the wrong things.

FYI viewpoint is not attached to weapon anymore. But you must know better that we do, as obviously you test things before talking.... not.

I particularly like the "Dont dismiss what is convenient for you in the discussion please" just after. Irony 101.

ofc, I await the fanboy label, as usual. The logic of people on Internet, I don't even try to understand anymore

EDIT because Mora edited :

Where, anywhere, where did I say otherwise about gameplay and performance? Nowhere. I even start BTS reports about anymation issues, FFS!

BUT, when in the middle of a list of aknowlegable BAD points of ArmA, I see something wrong, I point it out (and others do, like DM did in my quote you used). It doesn't mean we don't agree with the other points, but as we DARE not say something bad about that game, we're immediatly put into the fanboy list, and whatever we write, it'ts fanboy crap. It's not only irritating, but utterly stupid and bordering to trolling sometimes (nota before angry reply : it doesn't necesseraly applies to this discussion)

[dm 9]

Yes, because it's quite difficult to resist when you see something FALSE written (like the point that DeadMeat talked about) as an argument to put the game to trash.

False written?? maybe i didnt expand myself enough but the points are true.

Hehe, in this particular case, rather than trying to defend yourself or your point of view, it would do you well to read the posts

The points which I talked about (and discounted) were simply lumped in with the rest of his negative points (many of which WERE legitimate) in order to pad out his post/ make his complaints seem greater or somehow more worthwhile.

When these complaints can be discounted with some proven facts and figures, I would say that is the right time for us "fanboys" (wow, that lable/excuse for not presenting a well thought out rebuttal is getting REAL old now ) to post in ArmA's defence, wouldn't you think?

[baddo 0]

Recommended specs refer to running an app at a 'reasonable' (read: midrange or a little above) level. My specs for running Solidworks (a professional 3D design app) loaded down were at 'recommended' level, and working on it was not what I'd call totally enjoyable. A year and a half later, after upgrading my workstation to the max, it is now at a satisfactory level when loaded down. Just a (possibly unfair) comparison.

For applications like Solidworks, Catia V5 etc., the amount of Random Access Memory (RAM) is crucial for having good performance. 2 gigabytes a minimum in practice, but the performance really skyrockets when memory is boosted to 4 gigabytes, according to my experiences. Compared to having only 1 gigabyte of RAM (256 MB is actual minimum req. for Catia V5): a large 3D model assembly (hundreds of different models, multiple instances of many models) can take even 20 minutes to generate a drawing from or save when only 1 GB RAM is available. With 4 GB the same assembly could be generated into a drawing or saved in 1-2 minutes. There is a huge difference in between how the minimum requirement system performes and what kind of system actually works satisfactory in practice. Differences calculated in tens of minutes during one working day will add up quickly to the costs of running a commercial company. From a personal point-of-view, I will never ever again do such work with a "standard setup" computer (the 1 GB RAM computer was such "approved" system), such painful and annoying the experience was.

I think the same goes for computer games. What is stated to be a minimum requirement, is what the devs promise to get the game working on but doesn't speak about the visual quality or frames-per-second achieved with that setup. In case of professional CAD software, minimum requirements make it possible to use the application but if you are actually going to work with it 8 hours a day 5 days a week for years, you'll definitely want much better hardware than what the minimum requirements say.

I think where the game developers could do better would be to more clearly state what kind of computer allowes what kind of game settings to be used with satisfactory performance. The settings screen in ArmA should tell people clearly that "if you adjust this setting to high even when we say you shouldn't, it's your problem then".

Maybe if the game devs took more control of what settings are adjusted, according to a performance result from an automatic benchmark run, there could be much less complaints here. For hc-users there should be the possibility to take control of the whole process but they would then be forced to read a warning in big red letters that they are stepping into something the game devs take no responsibility of.

Currently I have a under-minimum-specs computer for ArmA, and it does not run with satisfactory performancem which is not a surprise. But I can play it. I'll wait and see if it is worth to buy new hardware for ArmA only. The latest public beta patch has serious problems, I can't use it at all as the game either has serious graphical problems or it just crashes, unlike earlier versions.

Also, I have become more convinced that the consoles are a much easier platform to develop games for. One stable setup of hardware versus the complete mess we have with personal computers. Even though I have always owned only a PC, not consoles, if I were to start game development as a business, I would seriously consider forgetting the whole PC scene and concentrate on consoles.