Latest ArmA2 & ArmA2:OA Press Coverage | NO discussion here!

[GoreZiad 0]

I lagged way more in ArmA 1 than in this. You shouldn't worry.

[Guest]

In Crysis, at least 60FPS on MAX settings in most complex scenes

I am sorry, but i cannot and will not believe that. Crysis runs faster on dual core systems than quad cores, as well as it does run faster on single gpu's than sli.

That would make my pc a fair bit faster than yours in crysis, and with everything maxed, 8xAA, as in everything on ultra high, in 1080p, i get 30fps average with lowest of 20fps and highest of 40fps.

There is no proof anywhere of a single pc on this planet that runs crysis maxed at 60fps on max settings, in intense situations.

However: The amazing motion blur leads you to believe that 30fps is 60. Maybe that is your case? If you say you used a program to record the fps i can't believe this.

The 8800gtx is pretty much a low end card now that arma 2 is out, you need a 260-280 or 4870-4890 to run this game on high. My friend has a quad core 8800gtx system, and i run much higher settings than him.

Your CPU would run faster than my E8500 in arma 2 as its well optimized for quads, but your gpu, it will run well but your not going to run maxed.

Sorry for making such a rant, but 60fps maxed in crysis?

What res you running on, 400x600?

[Cellus 10]

It's beyond me why that reviewer thought the game must render at 200% of screen res. It was pre-release anyway, so there have been two patches since and another coming soon I expect. You have an odd system :confused_o: though I know people with your frames in Arma I getting greater frames in ArmA II with the same system.

But now I'm tempted to boot up Crysis and have a look (bought it but never interested me and haven't played it on my new comp).

[EricM 0]

As said before, Arma 2 works and looks better than Arma 1 for most people, but it is also twitchy with some configs and runs bad on some top end machines...

Some people have to revert back to XP or older drivers, or turn hyper-threading off, or rename the exe...

Most bugs though are script-related (in the campaign, the AI), not so much stability or performance related, except maybe in MP.

My bottleneck is the CPU though, with the new AI, but you should be fine.

Edited June 23, 2009 by EricM

[dvolk 10]

ArmA 2 runs much better than ArmA 1.

ArmA 1 engine Sahrani: 1km view distance, everything low-medium, FSAA=0 fps: 10-30

ArmA 2 engine Sahrani: 10km view distance, everything high, FSAA=2, fps: 30-60

[EricM 0]

The 8800gtx is pretty much a low end card now that arma 2 is out, you need a 260-280 or 4870-4890 to run this game on high.

I have a single 8800 gtx and can run on high with VD 1600-2000 no prob @ 1650*1080.

Edit : fillrate 100% and I'm not saying I have 60+ fps either. Around 25+/30, that's enough for me. I do have serious slowdowns in the campaign, but its CPU related.

Edited June 23, 2009 by EricM

[Maddmatt 1]

Bullshit review. Of course turning up fillrate optimiser to ridiculous values is going to kill performance.

[76 0]

I have a single 8800 gtx and can run on high with VD 1600-2000 no prob @ 1650*1080.

This is why ArmA is starnge, ppl with far better card than you won't get the relative fps increase they should.

Give it a 1 or 2 patches and BI will have A2 pretty well optimized and we'll start to see some consistency in regard to similar spec'ed PC's and FPS/performance.

side note: My GTX260-216SP 448bit 896MB destroys my 8800GTS 320bit 640MB, both are from Inno3D.

:)

[zeep 3]

I'm also very concerned reading a lot of bad reviews on arma2 performance.

My current system is: Intel core duo E8400 @ 3GHz, 2GB low latency ram and 9600GT 512mb.

With these specs, i can expect no more than 19 FPS average according to this list!

Taken from the worst review i've read yet.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,685770/Armed-Assault-2-Graphics-card-benchmarks-and-visual-quality-compared/Practice/

I simply have no funds to upgrade at the moment and to be honest, i'm not sure if Arma2 is worth the update. Maybe after a few patches..?

The other reason that i'm reluctant to upgrade is that the upcoming game from Blackfoot, Ground Breach, will run a whole lot better on my current system and it will also be more realistic from an infantry pov. The realism and infantry aspects are what i'm looking for in a game anyway.

Edited June 23, 2009 by zeep

[maddogx 13]

I'm also very concerned reading a lot of bad reviews on arma2 performance.

My current system :Intel core duo E8400 @ 3GHz, 2GB low latency ram and 9600GT 512mb.

According to this list i can expect no more than 19 FPS average!

[MG]http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/7766/armaa2gpus1280normal.th.png[/img]

Taken from the worst review i've read yet.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,685770/Armed-Assault-2-Graphics-card-benchmarks-and-visual-quality-compared/Practice/

That was with fillrate on 150%. Leave yours at 100% and your framerates will be a whole lot better.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Placebo

[76 0]

I'm also very concerned reading a lot of bad reviews on arma2 performance.

My current system :Intel core duo E8400 @ 3GHz, 2GB low latency ram and 9600GT 512mb.

According to this list i can expect no more than 19 FPS average!

[im]http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/7766/armaa2gpus1280normal.th.png[/img]

Taken from the worst review i've read yet.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,685770/Armed-Assault-2-Graphics-card-benchmarks-and-visual-quality-compared/Practice/

Mate that's pre 1.02, it is better and will continue to get better, ArmA/A2 are extremely complex so don't be thinking CoD or Farcry cause they are crappy linar games where alot of resources can be spent on pretty textures

If you can manage to stick with ArmA for abit you'll grow to love it, the community and even BI :D...

Give it a go bro, or if you don't wanta waste money wait for it to hit the bargin bin, but I promise you'll find it hard to play anything else after playing ArmA2

Edited June 23, 2009 by Placebo

[huendchen 0]

The chart is misleading, they actually run the game at 1920x1536 and not 1280x1024. A part of the problem is that BIS didn't explain too well what the fillrate slider is doing but they changed that with patch 1.02 which shows you the actual resolution the game is rendered at when you increase the fillrate percentage.

[Amuro 10]

Wondering how it runs on my rig. Hopefully SLI makes a difference.

[Commando84 0]

btw Uk games site gamesradar has a review giving it 7 out of 10

http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/arma-ii/review/arma-ii/a-2009062214117229068/g-20081125165710650093

[rundll.exe 12]

btw Uk games site gamesradar has a review giving it 7 out of 10

http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/arma-ii/review/arma-ii/a-2009062214117229068/g-20081125165710650093

Thats a good and honest review. And the best part:

ArmA II’s interface, while powerful, is as intuitive as shitting in a wind tunnel. Immense reserves of patience are required to get the most out of it.

[ziiip 1]

Nice review but I find it stupid that the difficulty is categorised as a negative aspect. I mean come on, finally a refreshingly hard game after X zillion arcade games.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The Chart battle is on! With just one weekends worth of sales ArmA II has come in at number two.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/a161591/the-sims-3-extends-pc-lead.html

So which will be top of the charts when the week ends?

Kind Regards walker

[Emryse 2]

I am sorry, but i cannot and will not believe that. Crysis runs faster on dual core systems than quad cores, as well as it does run faster on single gpu's than sli.

No need to apologize - I don't get on this forum to lie to people. By the way, Vista treats the Core i7 as 8 processors, not 4.

That would make my pc a fair bit faster than yours in crysis, and with everything maxed, 8xAA, as in everything on ultra high, in 1080p, i get 30fps average with lowest of 20fps and highest of 40fps.

I don't know where you are getting your intel from that as a general rule, Crysis runs faster on dual cores than quads. Not the case. Also, there is really no need at 1080p for you to run 8xAA. Beyond that, I run on a 19" screen, whereas you clearly must be running it on a larger display, and as such, certainly your FPS would be lower, because your CPU/GPU are drawing more data for display.

There is no proof anywhere of a single pc on this planet that runs crysis maxed at 60fps on max settings, in intense situations.

Here's your proof: http://gizmodo.com/5092059/falcon-northwest-mach-v-fastest-pc-yet-runs-crysis-at-60fps

Oh - and there's no game that uses 12 gigs of memory, or even 6 gigs of memory, and Crysis is much more GPU intensive, so my dual 8800GTX are just fine.

However: The amazing motion blur leads you to believe that 30fps is 60. Maybe that is your case? If you say you used a program to record the fps i can't believe this.

Then there's no point in me debating this further, because you just simply won't believe. 'Nuff said.

The 8800gtx is pretty much a low end card now that arma 2 is out, you need a 260-280 or 4870-4890 to run this game on high. My friend has a quad core 8800gtx system, and i run much higher settings than him.

In what universe is the 8800GTX a "low end card"? I'm sorry, but in the last 2 years, GPUs have NOT advanced all that much. Stop buying the marketed hype; the 8800 GTX is still more than a formidable card for practically all games out there - and especially so when in pairs, if the game is optimized to harness that potential. The real problem isn't inadequate hardware - but rather sloppy or old coding that developers don't want to scrap in favor of more elegant and advanced coding techniques that would better and more efficiently utilize the hardware.

Your CPU would run faster than my E8500 in arma 2 as its well optimized for quads, but your gpu, it will run well but your not going to run maxed.

Thanks for that - hopefully at least this time, BIS did not partner to have an NVIDIA advertisement on startup telling me that was the way their game is meant to be played, when clearly no advanced development towards such an end had occurred.

Sorry for making such a rant, but 60fps maxed in crysis?

Really - it's not a problem; again, I could just be the lucky guy that has a smooth rig for playing the game. Again, 19" native resolution of 1280x1024, at 4xAA on all other maxed settings isn't to hard to believe, given my PC specs.

What res you running on, 400x600?

19" screen native resolution of 1280x1024

[boomar. 10]

The 8800/9800's can run new release games on full settings still, its no doubt a mid end card now, but its still great.

I'm just thinking of the games i'll be getting over the next year or 2 and my 8800 wills till run them on highest settings (diablo 3, starcraft 2, sw:tor etc).

[zeep 3]

Mate that's pre 1.02, it is better and will continue to get better, ArmA/A2 are extremely complex so don't be thinking CoD or Farcry cause they are crappy linar games where alot of resources can be spent on pretty textures

If you can manage to stick with ArmA for abit you'll grow to love it, the community and even BI :D...

Give it a go bro, or if you don't wanta waste money wait for it to hit the bargin bin, but I promise you'll find it hard to play anything else after playing ArmA2

:) Thank you for the reply. I will hold off for maybe one or two patches and buy Arma2 then. Hopefully the demo will take care of my final doubts.

You have fun playing for now!

[Count Sessine 0]

Hi all - Eurogamer.dk have just posted a review of Arma2, and they graded it a well deserved 9/10! It's in Danish so I guess only scandinavians will understand, but the gist is that the reviewer really likes it.

www.eurogamer.dk

[jack612blue 10]

Still waiting for the demo release.

[walker 0]

Hi jack612blue

Just buy the game you know you want it. :)

Kind Regards walker

[CplBlakeman 10]

Hi jack612blue

Just buy the game you know you want it. :)

Kind Regards walker

Not released in North America till friday.

[walker 0]

Hi CplBlakeman

You are talking about the Steam release in the US which is 26th of June.

According to:

http://www.gamershell.com/news_78816.html

And:

http://kotaku.com/5299714/got-game-bringing-arma-ii-boxed-copies-to-north-america

The Got Game The US publisher for ArmA II put the Disks on sale in US shops on the 7th of July. If it is anything like the UK you will need to preorder for the Disk version.

As it is the same simulation engine used to train and rehearse US Army troops, US Marines, US Special Forces and used by the US Secret Service to protect important people; somehow I think it will get a fare bit of publicity.

I wonder if the US President gets to play ArmA?

Kind Regards walker

Edited June 24, 2009 by walker