ArmA 1.08 makes me want to throw up

[sirex 0]

im amazed anyone replied to this at all

[insomnianshadow 0]

What was this thread about again ? Throwing up over what ?

Get a life.

I don't need to get A life.. I have many lives .. I'm a gamer

btw ...

in the changelog it says under "Main New Features"....

-Increased contrast of light for all weather conditions

I actually think quite the oposite is the case .. they have reduced brightness of the Sunlight and increased the overbright values for the HDR effect......

Well anyways .. I think I have made my point of view clear .. Over and Out

[Spectre-63 0]

Admittedly, I haven't had a chance to play at all since 1.08 was released and I find the differences displayed in the 3 versions in insomnianshadow's picture somewhat disappointing. At least for now, though, I feel that the dev's did what they could to respond to many of the community's complaints. We know that the community has been complaining practically since the game was released about the poor graphic performance. While insomnianshadow states that "if it were up to [him] games would always run a bit slower but looking better", I doubt that the majority of the players would agree. As such, the devs responded, dropped some of the graphical "oohs" and "ahhs" down a notch and, as a result, many people are seeing smoother performance in the game. It's always going to be a trade-off - graphic detail versus performance and each individual will have to decide for themselves what they can live with.

A couple of other points:

1.) @insomnianshadow: as others have pointed out, there's little to be gained (other than arguments) from starting a thread the way you started this one...saying that someone's hard work "makes [you] want to throw up" and that they've "turned one of the greatest games into a joke" isn't likely to get you anything but quickly dismissed.

2.) @Marines: I agreed with your point that approaching the topic with tact and maturity was the best way to get things done. Unfortunately, Chops also has a point that referring to someone's post as "speak[ing] out of your ass first, hoping no one will catch the stink" while pointing out the need to approach things with tact and maturity is a bit hypocritical.

3.) @Sc@tterbrain: I don't agree that complaining is ineffective in these parts. From what I've seen so far, the devs have been reasonably amicable to addressing issues that the community brings up, as long as it's done tactfully and with a modicum of maturity. As I pointed out to insomnianshadow though, stamping your feet and throwing a temper-tantrum is more likely to get your points ignored, regardless of whatever validity they may have.

My 2 cents worth...

[Spectre-63 0]

And you're exactly correct. The overall visual quality of the game has been sacrificed for what ever reason/reasons.

Some visual quality was "sacrificed" to improve performance.

I wouldn't consider my computer "high-end", but I can still set many settings to medium or high while retaining a good framerate in 1.08. I took the time to take and upload some example screens, all including framerate overlay. I also included my settings:

<snip>

Screens are all from 1.08 and I don't know what would make me want to throw up here... Performance is great and the visuals are still good. Notice though, that I have brightness and gamma on 1.2.

I'm curious, MadDogX, what kind of system specs are you running on? My settings are very close to yours (I disabled Aniso, preferring to set it in ATITrayTools and set my Shadow Detail and AA to Low)

I run at 1680x1050 on the following hardware:

Intel C2D E6400

4Gig OCZ DDR-II 800

ATI X1950XT 256M PCI-E

Thanks and apologies for the derail.

[insomnianshadow 0]

@ spectre

I think you cannot compare the "investment" of about 20% of the general performace into better gfx with the serious bugs of the early ArmA versions.. I remember 1.02 running just fine for about 5 minutes till obviously caused by a memory leak it started to run abnormally slow.. alt-tabbing to windows magically fixed the slowdown for another 5 minutes (clearing the vram of the gfx card).....

IMHO it simply is a bad thing to lure customers with a demo making them buy the final product and then slowly but surely cutting down one feature after the other with each new patch.. while the reason you actually bought the game was just exactly because of those features ...

[Spectre-63 0]

@ spectre

IMHO it simply is a bad thing to lure customers with a demo making them buy the final product and then slowly but surely cutting down one feature after the other with each new patch.. while the reason you actually bought the game was just exactly because of those features ...

You're making a rather large assumption here though: that everyone else bought the game for the same reasons you did. Yes, the graphics are impressive but, for me, the topic of the game and it's expandability were at least as important. It's entirely possible that the differences in graphics won't be noticeable to at least a part of the community because it's not what they're focused on when they're playing the game. Yes, ArmA's environment is beautiful and I like the graphics but, when I'm in the middle of fighting of a squad of SLA troops, the proper representation of the shadows on the ground isn't my primary focus.

[4 IN 1 0]

And you're exactly correct. The overall visual quality of the game has been sacrificed for what ever reason/reasons.

Some visual quality was "sacrificed" to improve performance.

I wouldn't consider my computer "high-end", but I can still set many settings to medium or high while retaining a good framerate in 1.08. I took the time to take and upload some example screens, all including framerate overlay. I also included my settings:

<snip>

Screens are all from 1.08 and I don't know what would make me want to throw up here... Performance is great and the visuals are still good. Notice though, that I have brightness and gamma on 1.2.

I'm curious, MadDogX, what kind of system specs are you running on?  My settings are very close to yours (I disabled Aniso, preferring to set it in ATITrayTools and set my Shadow Detail and AA to Low)

I run at 1680x1050 on the following hardware:

Intel C2D E6400

4Gig OCZ DDR-II 800

ATI X1950XT 256M PCI-E

Thanks and apologies for the derail.

erm.....he is running on 1024x768......maybe this make the different?

[Major Fubar 0]

There are more than enough 1.08 threads to comment in, not to mention this thread.

There is absoultely no reason for every digruntled member out there to make their own thread. It's a waste of forum space and totally pointless.

Also insomnianshadow, watch the size of pictures you hotlink - 100kb is the limit.

Closing.