ArmA is just ... disappointing

[bravo 6 0]

every time i go to editor to build a mission or continue old unfinished missions i end up giving up and leaving the game it self due to the lag caused by the vegetation..

i can't remmember how many times i already left the editor and the game it self due to this problem. Its really anoying and for me its the major problem, above all.

[Balschoiw 0]

Settings bravo6 ?

Quote[/b] ]6 - Bugs like the boats not being able to disembark soldiers near the shores, helicopters not attacking ground soldiers properly

Apparently fixed with 1.07

What I don´t understand is that people post some stuff in here, but sometimes fail to do the tests right. Editing - wise some things have changed from OFP to Arma and people do report errors where there are none just because they are using old OFP methods that do not work anymore with Arma.

With OFP it never was an issue that the ingame settings could be adjusted beyond technical possibillities, but with Arma we have a new generation of users who do not understand that while it´s possible to move all sliders to the top this does not mean that up-to-date hardware is able to handle that settings.

Anyone who sets his VD beyond 7000 and the rest on very high

shouldn´t be surprised to get a slideshow.

As if there would be one game on the world that would allow them a VD of 10.000, all the stuff on high and with such object density as Arma has.

Still, they EXPECT it to run that way just because you can push the sliders that far.

Very logical...

[Skaven 0]

I respect your opinion, but I keep most of my complains since they are real and many of them unexcusable.

About the bugs fixed in 1.07, I'm sorry but is it just me or we actually bought a damaged product? Did it worked as well as it should when bought?

Isn't quality one of the first banners of a good enterprise?

I hope my words don't sound harsh, I do love this game but many things have to change to make it better and full playable, if we don't complain we'll never get anything fixed.

[bravo 6 0]

Settings bravo6 ?

Main board: Abit ai7

CPU: P4, 3.0Ghz (no OC)

RAM: 1,5G ddr 400, (1*1G + 1*512mb)

Card: Radeon Sapphire X1950 pro 512 mb ddr3

HD: 250G(or something) sata2

have all at low settings

edit: running 1.07 beta +

[vilas 473]

okay mister "whisper" :

this screen is from 1.07 beta

no textures on ground, than strange rectangles and CTD, i cannot play more than 20 minutes sometimes, this is not my fantasy

rest of screens are from 1.05 final patch

now what ?

although BIS on box says: minimum requirement, 2.0 GHz, 512 RAM, 6800 card,

i have AMD X2 3800, 2*1024 Corsair Extreme DDRII, Nvidfia 7900/256 MB, so far better than minimal requirements !

in HD test i had quite good speed (on this forum there was topic long time ago)

on my old PC 1.6 P4, ATI 7600, 512 ram OFP was working without any problems, COD too, Max Payne 2, and more...

i have problems ONLY with ARMA

1.00 and 1.02 was okay, since 1.05 it is unplayable, i wait what will be in 1.07 final, if it is not okay, i am deinstalling it, like some of my firends did it already

[Balschoiw 0]

Vilas your gfx card texture memory is flooded , that´s why you get the error. Try to reduce texture detail and/or use the embedded flush code from the 1.07 hotfix.

Try using this tool:

Video memory watcher

and check if the memory is filled with Arma running.

You could also defrag the partition Arma is installed on and increase the windows pagefile size.

[vilas 473]

pagefile 3 GB

ARMA 1.075157

PC is new (half year) of course defragmented form time to time, game is not on c:, but e:

options are on LOW already, since 1.02>1.05 i cannot use highest

if my PC is much better than requirements listed on BOX, why the f** i have to turn all to minimum !

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

[mrj-fin 0]

Yep I can just only hope that they have learned from those mistakes and will now understand how important is to release only decent bugfree product. At least I have still same amount of support to them as always before. When there is not a compatision in marketing its britty hard to be avoiding this game and its possibilities.

[sickboy 13]

since 1.02>1.05 i cannot use highest

if my PC is much better than requirements listed on BOX, why the f** i have to turn all to minimum !

Because, and I have repeated this already 20 times; Your PC isn't better than on the box. (Yes you have a dual-core cpu, and the game only supports a single-core cpu. Your cpu is 2.2ghz, so yes, that's 200mhz more than minimum but 800mhz less than the recommended!!)

And because, IF you have "The recommended system", it doesn't mean you can play the game in "All High".

And because, IF you buy a computer 6 months ago, it doesn't mean that you have a super or fast computer. You can buy a computer of 400 EUR, 800 EUR, 1200 EUR and 2000 EUR etc.. A "new computer" doesn't say anything other than the AGE of your pc, nothing at ALL about performance or whatsoever.

Buying "A new Computer" is NO guarantee WHATSOEVER about it's performance, especially when ur not looking at the high/top-end market, but the budget-mid-end market.

Besides, have you ever heard of anything else than "Everything High" or "Everything Low"... There is also a: "Textures Low", "AntiAliasing Off" "AF Filtering Medium" "Rest Medium" and many of the million different combinations...

A video card can be strong in many things and weak in some... Few Examples would be:

Video/System Memory:

Object Detail, Texture Detail

Video Processor:

Shader Quality, Post Processing, Shadow Detail

Some stuff might also take more from your CPU of course..

Some settings use different shader technology, shadow features, etc. etc. Your card can be weak at it, strong at it, weak at some things strong at others... it's very dependent and up to you to find the right settings... DONT put all to high, or all to low, work per feature.

Quote[/b] ]2 - The textures on most of the soldiers could have been a lot better, 75% of the re-textures made by addon makers beat BIS work big time, 70% of the addon makers ain't even professionals.

You sure this isn't cause the lods are different setup or so? My BIS soldiers look great, though all my settings are at "Very High".

Quote[/b] ]3 - Having such a big island which lags the game big time for most of the players doesn't make much sense to me, it would have been a lot better for example to release 3 smaller Islands like Jungle, Winter and Desert, more diversety and better gameplay for all.

You make an ungrounded conclussion here; What is your proof that the size of the island is the cause of the low performance etc? I say unoptimized and bugs, as the streaming engine is capable of pushing out a lot higher performance compared to OFP when it comes to Island size etc...

Quote[/b] ]1 - Unaceptable having the M249 and PK with the belt animation running the wrong way, the weapon is feeding the box on both of them. How could this not have been spotted? And how can it still be happeing after 3 patches, it's unbeliavable, I don't think I ever saw such a mistake in a game.

If for you the faith of a game is hanging on the animation direction of a belt on 2 machine guns inside this game, then we differ very much in opinion; what do I care about an animation direction not running the right way; we want first better performance and more important *broken* things resolved instead of some belt-animation

Quote[/b] ]9 - How can they already be posting the next Operation Flashpoint's screenshots instead of making this one (ARMA) actually playable full time and working with as few bugs as possible.

Please show me those pics. Mind you though, if you are referring to OFP2, then I must disappoint you; OFP2 is not being created by BIS, but by Codemasters and a TBA developper; nothing related to ArmA or BIS. In that case; do some background checks in the future before making conclussions, it works better than imagination

Quote[/b] ]7 - How is it possible to have the community actually fixing the game instead of the guys that actually made the game, tracers and sounds are a good example of it.

Sounds is a personal Choice. Tracers is not a bug, they simply choose to do it this way. Instead of saying that it's bad that there are choices of addons available to satisfy a broader public, I would say it's a good thing! Oh and another thing, they're prolly fixing bugs and performance issues; a lot more important that those tracers imho.

So I dont mind that 'We', the community work out the stuff that BIS decided either not to make, not to make yet or make simple

Quote[/b] ]8 - How can a professionional enterprise release patches that fix some bugs and than open new ones. For example how can the G36 since 1.07 have the scope zoomed and how can the RACS Vulcan be invisible in the Editor?

They changed the parameters for scopes and simply forgot to update the G36 scope (BETA-Patch), while they updated all the other scopes. The RACS Vulcan is a question for me aswell, maybe they rewrote that part of the config and either forgot to include or re-add the stringtable entry. (again, BETA-patch)

Quote[/b] ]To me the problem here was lack of organisation and lack of time. Releasing this game at the same time as Vista was a big mistake, probably lack of time and money I don't know.

The Release of Vista; who cares. But yes, ArmA was released too soon to get money because they had huge problems with the money, letting the bigger publishers away, if I find the link to the interview, ill add it

Quote[/b] ]5 - Too many bugs for both ATI and GeForce cards, how can a top graphic card have so much problems in a game, again I don't remenber seeing a game being released with so many bugs.

Altough I agree that there have been too many bugs in this area... Stalker and many many many other games show same problems, and especially at the top-end ATI and Geforece cards; this doesn't make it all fine, but it shows that BI is not alone. You should've seen Gothic and other games at Release, you maybe dont hear so much about it, it very much depends on how many games you play, which type/brand etc.. but the game-market kinda sucks.

[Scrub 0]

Very strange, since I simply have scaled up models of your components (4400x2,7950gt,2gb OCZ) and have not had any large issues, even though I recently changed out my 6800gs.. I think that is the most frustrating, and difficult to track. Two identical computers side by side, yet one will run it, and one will have issues. THAT's disappointing.

[sickboy 13]

Very strange, since I simply have scaled up models of your components (4400x2,7950gt,2gb OCZ) and have not had any large issues, even though I recently changed out my 6800gs.. I think that is the most frustrating, and difficult to track. Two identical computers side by side, yet one will run it, and one will have issues. THAT's disappointing.

Reasons for "Same Rig, Different Performance"

[*] Driver Versions: Chipset, Videocard, Audiocard

[*] Harddrive Speed and Fragmentation

[*] Different Game Versions

[*] Installed Software and running programs

- Virusses/spyware

etc. etc.

So if ur disappointed about the above facts, I think this is the wrong thread, as this is a thread about what's disappointing specifically in ArmA and not about the logical implications of different driver versions and windows installations

[Marines 0]

There will always be problems porting an engine from one platform to another. Which is what ArmA is by the way, a ported engine from a console to the PC.

[NeMeSiS 11]

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.

[whisper 0]

@Vilas : Chill out, I'm not denying and saying you are stating fantasy, I just say : I don't get anything you mention on my own computer, so I can't say, like you do, "ArmA is a pile of crap".

And when I say so, some people see fanboism in my behavior. It is not. That is all.

About you issues, I think you've already tried all, but I'd verify and change a few things. FYI I've a video card rather equivalent to yours, and a processor slightly better.

I won't go into nVidia drivers thingy, I don't know (I'm ATI atm), but trying different ones may help.

1st, try to use HDRPrecision=8.

2nd, make sure your sound is done OK : no hardware acceleration, OpenAL up to date.

3rd, install the latest instance of DirextX. Directx9c version from February 2007 at least (there are earlier version of DirectX 9c giving errors in ArmA)

4th, use parameter -maxmem=512

5th, disable shadows, your system should not be able to handle them

6th start from settings on all very low, put yourself in the nightmare environement (forest with AI & vehicles), up settings 1 by 1 until you begin to see the issues appearing. Change non-impacting settings 1st : object & terrain details, then work on harder ones, post-processing (I find the effects ugly on my system so I let it on low), texture quality (I think your card should have it on normal and not above, like mine, we are limited by 256M VRAM "only"), and finally shading which is the main parameters affecting FPS (and visual quality also, sadly).

I used this method until I started to feel low FPS effects (mainly "mouse lag" near bushes) before finding the correct parameters.

Do all that with a view distance near 1200m.

For me, optimal is terrain & detail on high, texture & shading on normal, postprocess on low, shadow disable, AA&AF on low, 1280x1024, I get never under 20 FPS, rarely under 25, average is 35 under combat situations (heavy number of units tests)

After that, up the VD until you begin to feel some effect. With 1.07 beta, I began to see FPS drop (minus 3 FPS, not that a big deal) at 4500m VD roughly.

This is way better than OFP graphics in the end, uncomparable view distance, and the number of units battling is also not on the same scale. THAT are for me some of the major advance over OFP. But it is not the thread to talk about that, is it?

With all this, I never get what you get but for one occurance : sudden load of a whole scene (typically, player setPos somewhere else, or respawn/change character to another location suddenly), which sometimes can, yes, take up to 5 seconds to load, during which I see ugly textures and models. But it's what? Once or twice per play session?

I'm confident that if I've been able to pull it off, the majority can. Apart perhaps from specifics, like Vista + 8800 or 8800 alone.

[sektor 2]

This is my list of things that suck:

1. ArmA lost the lovely feeling. It doesn't have that thing OFP had. I think it's because it gives impression of deja vu and doesn't have the fresh feeling OFP had. Over the years OFP grew in quality and addons, we all came trough that once before. Waiting couple of years for something we used to have just doesn't sound inspiring. And rain sucks big time, too.

2. AI is a disaster. I'm no programmer so i don't know how difficult it is to program it or what it's all about, but Space Invaders have better tactics. You all know what i'm talking about.

3. Sounds are mostly lame, especially driving and shooting sounds. And environment too. And planes. Jesus, the planes. Sounds are important for the game just as the vision or controles. Or FPS. I think it's because OFP and ArmA are created from simulators and are not made for fun but for education ( and this doesn't mean i dont like realism or think there is too much realism ).

4. I skipped campaign. I just didn't play so i don't know how much it sucks. From what i'we read it sucks mucho.

In Conclusion

We expected something new, with great AI and maybe cool conflicts and urban warfare and who knows what ( i, for example was hoping for wind effecting the balistics, but no way )

And we got deja vu, lame AI, trash sounds and low FPS for most users.

Will i wait 2 years so i can play it for real? 60 to 40 i will not. Damn.

[vilas 473]

i have terrain on LOW, models on medium, AA , AF off, posteffects off, textures medium, other things on low (shadows, shaders)

whisper:

1) hdr=8 was much much worse than 16, 16 is more fluent, on 8 i couldnt play, because in vehicle all guns was almost silver, in open field all was so dark, precision =16 made game a little better (sun is not working now and not blinding eyes, funny)

2)i have drivers of soundcard from mainboard Asus M2N E SLI or M2N (i am in office) C-media onboard sound (sometimes sound of engines of tanks is farting)

3) i haven't got knowledge that on februry is new 9c, i will try, i have 9c from box of ARMA

4)i have - maxmem 512

5) disable shadows ? - than game bacame shit, uninstal it

i havent seen difference in FPS between 1200 meters and 3500 meters i have now

in OFP viewdistance was so much influent on performance

[sickboy 13]

...

Nice so how about some reaction to me Vilas, about your "new" computer which doesn't hit the recommended specs, altough you claim it to do Not that it changes much, but it would be handy to know that you don't have the Recomended spec PC, but 800mhz less!

[vilas 473]

about new computer Sickboy, okay:

usualy monthly paiment in PL is about 350-400 euro (including big companies buisness), but this is not mediana, this is aritmetical value of all tax income paying people

usual people earn from 250-300 in the country, electronics is 10% more expensive in PL than in west EU (like cars)

my auntie after 20 years of work as doctor in hospital has 300 EU to hand, policeman has the same money

my mother has 250 as retired military worker, people in supermarket some times earn 170-210 euro to hand

my friend who is over-commisar of Criminal Squad(nadkomisarz, 4 stars on badge) of Police has 450

to buy my new PC i had to resign off vacations in mountains (all my savings 300), i had to take credit in bank for 400 euro

this are realities why my new PC is like that

in this year i don't go for vacation because of it (money)

if PC fulfills minimum requirements software should work , maybe slower, maybe lags, but not CTD, or such hdr issues

Nvidia 7900 is not shit

AMD i have overclocked 10%

if my friends , people from PL with NV 7600, 1 GB of DDR (not DDR2) and P4 2.4 have good performance , maybe ARMA works worse on dualcores  ?

i know people with worse PC s but with better performance than me, some of them with not box PL versions of game ?

maybe Starforce makes so much problems ?

or maybe PL version of ARMA is f**, becaue people who bought european version pirated have no problems

i don't know, but this software must work

my sister which lives in Belarus earn 50 EU, usual Russian earns maybe 100 EU by the way

ARMA listed specification should give us warranty - you fulfill requirements, software works ok

and one more about dualcores:

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)

is it normal ?

[sickboy 13]

I'm sorry Vilas but I have little use for all your information (don't get me wrong). I can understand easily that such PC is more expensive for one person or the other. That doesn't change the fact that you can't make a Ferrari from a Trabant. A ferrari is a ferrari, a trabant is a trabant.

Your PC meets the minimum requirements, which indeed SHOULD mean:

- No CTD's when not using any addons (Addons can cause CTD's)

- You can just play ArmA, but only on a low resolution and low graphics-settings

Recommended Requirements is usually to play the game in a nice way without slow downs but doesn't mean you can put everything on high or very high!

Anyway, there's no use in repeating "I don't understand why even though my PC is better than the requirement, I can't play my game on high settings" ... as it's a totally useless saying cause 1: ur PC isn't the recommended spec, and 2: Even if ur PC makes the recommended spec, it doesn't guarantee in any way that you can play on "high" or "very high".

Don't get me wrong; ArmA has bugs, and loads of them, but let's keep it to that and not make up things that aren't true

I agree that things like HDR should've worked better since the start (at least, for the ppl that have issues with it).

But the above stated facts dont magically turn your computer from a minimum requirement to recommended requirement specs

Quote[/b] ]Sickboy get off your highhorse and read the tech support forums,alot of people are having the same problem reguardless of Computer setup.

I never said ArmA doesnt have bugs or doesnt have low performance. All I am saying is that all the "wrong/false" details should be kept away, as it pollutes... Vilas doesnt has a PC above recommended spec, so then simply don't claim it to be!

Quote[/b] ]Conversely this is not 'I'm here to defend ARMA thread' It is the Complaints thread so take your infomation and post in the Praise thread. All your doing here is fustrating people further.

Ur for real? People in here claim a million things, and half of them is utter bullshit, not ArmA Related, not true, or different... If you guys have the right to crap out garbage, then I have the right to correct you.

Anyway, as these threads really seem to just annoy me generally as it's usually built up by people who barely know how to turn on their PC, probably don't work with Computers, or simply like to complain about anything that's not made by their own because they can do that freely on the internet without 'reprecussians' etc. etc. I indeed feel the urge to agree with you to stay away from these threads; imo you people are simply lost, no matter how the things really are

[Jambo107 0]

You do but you wouldn't be correcting me only giving your opinon, but not in this thread. In private or on another topic.

On topic.

Being runover, that has to be one of the worst bit of animation in any game. Thats something that needs to be improved.

Sickboy implying people are stupid or are idiots is akin to flaming and is not very nice.

[scruffy 21]

Sickboy, even if you ignore the second core Vilas CPU were a A64 3400+ and that is above recommended requirements. If you are so strict only one Athlon, the 6000+, would be good enough and all the new Core 2 Duos on the market until now are to slow. I think in fall the first C2D with 3000Mhz will be available

Then again it's common for the printed requirements to be way of mark

[sickboy 13]

Sickboy, even if you ignore the second core Vilas CPU were a A64 3400+ and that is above recommended requirements. If you are so strict only one Athlon, the 6000+, would be good enough and all the new Core 2 Duos on the market until now are to slow. I think in fall the first C2D with 3000Mhz will be available

Then again it's common for the printed requirements to be way of mark

Core2 Duo has a higher IPC than Athlon 64, whereas Athlon64 has a higher IPC than Pentium 4.

Just checked the specs, I didn't notice the 2.0 / 3.0ghz were for Pentium 4

So in that case I was wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that Recommended Specs are nothing to guarantee "High or Very High" settings whatsoever.

Quote[/b] ]Sickboy implying people are stupid or are idiots is akin to flaming and is not very nice.

I agree with the fact that implying that people are stupid or are idiots is asking for flaming and isn't nice.

But I disagree with your total statement, as I nowhere wrote or imply that people are stupid or are idiots.

Not knowing isn't stupidity or being an idiot. At least not in my books. I just tried to throw up some reasons why the replies are unfounded and what's the hardest in such threads 'people that just like to complain'. --> So the conclussion is that it's simply not a thread for me

[Skaven 0]

I'm not going to start a war in here because that isn't my type of aproach inside a forum, I will however anwser some of the issues that have been pointed from my first post, this topic is called "ArmA is just ... disappointing" and it's pefect for complainning about what should have been fixed.

Quote[/b] ]You sure this isn't cause the lods are different setup or so? My BIS soldiers look great, though all my settings are at "Very High".

Well you tell me, if I install an addon and it looks a lot better than BIS ones you think LODs only work on original addons 3d files? Like you I also have almost everything set to very high,the addons we have so far, most of them ain't even properly mapped for the textures they use and the textures are applied to a model not made by us, so yes, I'm pretty sure about this.

Quote[/b] ]You make an ungrounded conclussion here; What is your proof that the size of the island is the cause of the low performance etc? I say unoptimized and bugs, as the streaming engine is capable of pushing out a lot higher performance compared to OFP when it comes to Island size etc...

The proof is simple, try any small island and see the difference. In the future when custom Islands come out you will understand my opinion here.

Quote[/b] ]If for you the faith of a game is hanging on the animation direction of a belt on 2 machine guns inside this game, then we differ very much in opinion; what do I care about an animation direction not running the right way; we want first better performance and more important *broken* things resolved instead of some belt-animation

Well, I never said that the faith of the game is hanging on animation I don't even know where you got this idea from, and since I don't argue in a forum cause it's a waste of time, I will not anwser this one I gave 2 examples I can give 20 more, the important is the idea not the animation itself, please don't make wrong and agressive conclusions, stay calm.

Quote[/b] ]Please show me those pics. Mind you though, if you are referring to OFP2, then I must disappoint you; OFP2 is not being created by BIS, but by Codemasters and a TBA developper; nothing related to ArmA or BIS. In that case; do some background checks in the future before making conclussions, it works better than imagination

I accept your judgement on this one, I saw some pictures I thought it was related to BIS and it's not it's infact related to codemasters only (apperentely) but your words again seem a little bit too harsh

Quote[/b] ]Sounds is a personal Choice. Tracers is not a bug, they simply choose to do it this way. Instead of saying that it's bad that there are choices of addons available to satisfy a broader public, I would say it's a good thing! Oh and another thing, they're prolly fixing bugs and performance issues; a lot more important that those tracers imho.

So I dont mind that 'We', the community work out the stuff that BIS decided either not to make, not to make yet or make simple

Well if they are indeed fixing major things, than in a way you are helping me on the animation problem, after all we somehow feel this game as bugs some of them a lot bigger than the G36, Vulcan, Tracers and Sounds, performance issues as you said, so I guess we agree on this one but on a different perspective, nothing to comment here.

Quote[/b] ]They changed the parameters for scopes and simply forgot to update the G36 scope (BETA-Patch), while they updated all the other scopes. The RACS Vulcan is a question for me aswell, maybe they rewrote that part of the config and either forgot to include or re-add the stringtable entry. (again, BETA-patch)

Indeed, after all this is the quality I have been talking about, that "forgot" thing and the "maybe" make all the difference we also agree on this one again each on their own perspective.

Quote[/b] ]The Release of Vista; who cares. But yes, ArmA was released too soon to get money because they had huge problems with the money, letting the bigger publishers away, if I find the link to the interview, ill add it

No comments here, in here we agree tottaly.

Quote[/b] ]Altough I agree that there have been too many bugs in this area... Stalker and many many many other games show same problems, and especially at the top-end ATI and Geforece cards; this doesn't make it all fine, but it shows that BI is not alone. You should've seen Gothic and other games at Release, you maybe dont hear so much about it, it very much depends on how many games you play, which type/brand etc.. but the game-market kinda sucks.

Well, I have 32 years old and I play games since the old 48k spectrum, so it was like 20 years ago maybe? Because I am lucky I can afford to buy games so I know all the games you are talking about and many others, if I am here in this forum it's because this game in my opinion the best ever made. However it could have been done a lot better, that's why I complain, I know BIS can make this game a lot better if I didn't knew that than I would not even be posting anything here because it would be a big waste of letters.

Thank you

[Scrub 0]

Sickboy, even if you ignore the second core Vilas CPU were a A64 3400+ and that is above recommended requirements. If you are so strict only one Athlon, the 6000+, would be good enough and all the new Core 2 Duos on the market until now are to slow. I think in fall the first C2D with 3000Mhz will be available  

Then again it's common for the printed requirements to be way of mark

Core2 Duo has a higher IPC than Athlon 64, whereas ur right that Athlon64 has a higher IPC than Pentium 4.

Just checked the specs, I didn't notice the 2.0 / 3.0ghz were for Pentium 4

So in that case I was wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that Recommended Specs are nothing to guarantee "High or Very High" settings whatsoever.

Quote[/b] ]Sickboy implying people are stupid or are idiots is akin to flaming and is not very nice.

I agree with the fact that implying that people are stupid or are idiots is asking for flaming and isn't nice.

But I disagree with your total statement, as I nowhere wrote or imply that people are stupid or are idiots.

Not knowing isn't stupidity or being an idiot. At least not in my books. I just tried to throw up some reasons why the replies are unfounded and what's the hardest in such threads 'people that just like to complain'.

Minimum specs mean it wil function.

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.

[Balschoiw 0]

@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 ?

1. Have you used the tool I linked to see if your memory of the gfx card is flooded ?

2. If so, reduced your texture detail to LOW ?

3. Turn off your shadows and you will IMMEDEATELY see a performance rise that is a big one !

4. Did you install the the hotfix for 1.07 beta and did you at least TRY to use the embedded flush command ?

In my opinion something IS wrong with your comp as the pumping HDR effect issue you report over and over again is something that to my knowledge NOONE else apart from you has reported.

Sometimes trying to help those guys with issues is like running against a wall