performance Arma 1 vs Arma 2

[Zippa 0]

I was deeply dissepointed about Arma 1s performance, it seems like Arma was a step behind compared to ofps performance when it orginally were released, even tough I brougth sonys new top model laptop I only gained a few extra fps, I figured it was the shadows draninning the system for resources, but come on BIS, you can do better!

[Kristian 47]

Well as far as my eyes see, ArmA II looks visually more detailed, and starts shaping up 'n' looking good we must notice that Island is going to be big so it takes memory too...

[The Masta 0]

I bet they're working hard on the optimisation to make it run as smooth as baby skin.

[Pyronick 21]

Armed Assault was basically Operation Flashpoint: Resistance built for Shader Model 2.0 (with bits of Shader Model 3.0 support for HDR rendering use only) and higher resolution textures as far as I know.

Armed Assault 2 will have multi-threading support (not sure how the engine is written to use it) and will at least need a Shader Model 3.0-able graphics accelerators.

Graphics accelerators built with SM3.0 support are the ATI R500 and nVidia NV40, both are very powerful and can run Armed Assault with ease.

I don't think Armed Assault 2 is that much more demanding, except on the shader part.

[max power 21]

My expectations are that ArmA 2 will have greater hardware requirements but will be more efficient. I doubt any computer in the world will be able to run it on max settings when it comes out, as with ArmA, but you'll get more bang for your buck in terms of minimum requirements and that sort of thing. So, the minimum requirements for ArmA 2 will only be a 1500 dollar computer instead of a 2000 dollar computer.

[maxqubit 1]

I thought the 'min' spec would be a $200 Xbox 360 ... i could be wrong though

(i am curious what the FIXED 360 spec and ARMA2 with hopefully enough optimisation from BIS results in)

[POTS 0]

I asked them the question in the radio interview, and they said arma2 will have better performance than arma1. As long as you have at least a dualcore and at least and 8600gt graphics card or above.

I also have to ask why do people want a new game to require the same hardware? You should expect to have a small upgrade for a sequel

[max power 21]

I thought the 'min' spec would be a $200 Xbox 360 ... i could be wrong though

(i am curious what the FIXED 360 spec and ARMA2 with hopefully enough optimisation from BIS results in)

Ports are not necessarily the exact same program. For instance, some Need For Speed games were parallel developed on the major consoles, plus the Nintendo DS or PS Portable or whatever. Obviously, the DS version is not the same program that runs on the PC. The PS2 version of Chaos Theory had none of the graphics excellence of the Xbox version, and GRAW was completely different on the consoles. The min spec requirements for the TBA 'Next Gen' console version may not be the exact same program as the one we will see on the computer.

[Michael_Wittman 0]

Arma performance is good taking into account its supposed to be around 150-300 characters online with viewdistance of 3.000m ,,,, but,,, as this game is on the "most demanding hardware" now and then...I would find non-official SLI/Crossfire official support a big NO IM NOT BUYING THIS (I´ll give it a try but downloading this from any P2P .

Maybe its just me, but its obvious whats wrong in render...first the ultra/heavy/transparency rendering and second tracing shadows inside meshesh (buildings) maybe its the self-shadow issue....I cannot say...

Maybe they should make a decission acording to current hardware...coz many ppl has top of the line and still dont get it...dont we?

So...here it comes the ugly list:

- real pyshics (no more tanks doing pingball)

- reasonable transparency renderer

- reasonable AI....no more "enemy standing in front of me not shooting"

Well maybe thats 3 simple questions that are difficult to address (not speaking on the others like vehicles and so on) but "I say again",

If you have the rig to run this you have the money to buy 3 copys of this.

If you spend money on a rig cappable of running this wether you blaim the hardware or the software.....

If this company is willing to grip on their client they should start which are they in first place.

All that said I would like to say that I´m not trying any burn, polemy or anything of the kind.

Regards,

Me

[maxqubit 1]

I thought the 'min' spec would be a $200 Xbox 360 ... i could be wrong though

(i am curious what the FIXED 360 spec and ARMA2 with hopefully enough optimisation from BIS results in)

Ports are not necessarily the exact same program.  For instance, some Need For Speed games were parallel developed on the major consoles, plus the Nintendo DS or PS Portable or whatever.  Obviously, the DS version is not the same program that runs on the PC.  The PS2 version of Chaos Theory had none of the graphics excellence of the Xbox version, and GRAW was completely different on the consoles.  The min spec requirements for the TBA 'Next Gen' console version may not be the exact same program as the one we will see on the computer.

If i won't be a simultaneous release (and the signs point in that direction with the TBA stuff for console) then probably you are right, and ArmA2 gets the 'Elite' treatment.

Couldn't hurt for the quality of the console version , but the wait will be (too?) long:(

[Pyronick 21]

I think that developers should be quick to make multi-threaded processors the mandate and to not accept singlethreaded hardware anymore.

It is unlikely that people will still be able to play Armed Assault 2 with an old Athlon 64 or Pentium 4 as they would bottleneck the graphics accelerator considerably aswell.

[wamingo 1]

I think that developers should be quick to make multi-threaded processors the mandate and to not accept singlethreaded hardware anymore.

Although more threads creates more overhead, multithreaded applications technically should run fine on single core processors. Everything is inherently sequential so any thread should run on any core.. on a pc.. still.

According to steam statistics, 37% still have single cores as of december 2008. Losing 1-3% per month to dual cores and above, my take is it'll be around 20-25% by the end of 2009 as the pace will slow (natural decline + financial crisis).

And not everyone uses Steam so the number is very likely to be higher.

And then there's the underpowered multicores...

Overall my take is that the average computer is not really that great. Developers would probably do wise not to push too hard.

[Pyronick 21]

I think that developers should be quick to make multi-threaded processors the mandate and to not accept singlethreaded hardware anymore.

Although more threads creates more overhead, multithreaded applications technically should run fine on single core processors. Everything is inherently sequential so any thread should run on any core.. on a pc.. still.

According to steam statistics, 37% still have single cores as of december 2008. Losing 1-3% per month to dual cores and above, my take is it'll be around 20-25% by the end of 2009 as the pace will slow (natural decline + financial crisis).

And not everyone uses Steam so the number is very likely to be higher.

And then there's the underpowered multicores...

Overall my take is that the average computer is not really that great. Developers would probably do wise not to push too hard.

Sequential queuing is still (if the multithreaded software is properly scalable) a factor of simultaneous thread processes slower.

Also, the fact that 37% still has single core processors also is intimately linked with diehard CounterStrike 1.6 gamers.

And of those single core Steam users, a fair share is Hyperthreading-enabled.

It's just a bummer that id Software pulled the plug out of SMP support for the id Tech 3 engine.

If they did continue, it would probably ended up with the Source engine being natively multithreaded and Unreal Engine 2.0 aswell.

Does anybody know if Armed Assault 2 will have support for 64-bits memory addressing?

[Commando84 0]

yeah if you push to hard you will get a crysis situation with not as good sales as expected due to very high hardware demands

[Pyronick 21]

yeah if you push to hard you will get a crysis situation with not as good sales as expected due to very high hardware demands  

Which is beneficial for computer hardware vendors.

They could have implemented DirectX 6 support if they wanted, but the video game world is big business.

Only if hardware and operating systems weren't so bloody expensive...

[Deadfast 43]

Only if hardware and operating systems weren't so bloody expensive...

If only ArmA ran on OpenGL, because then you wouldn't have to worry about the second part

[Michael_Wittman 0]

They did choose DX instead of OpenGL...heaven knows why... ATI cards do awesome with OpenGL and are cheaper.

And then...they say ARMAII will not be DX10...I really dont know what this means.

I think that although Windows XP has been an excelent OS (at least compared to older versions) but its now on its last legs. Every single computer sold right now comes with Vista and very few ask license exchange. Vista is suppossed to be worth billions dollars invested and in this particular case no matter what market say as its a monopoly.

Vista of course is hardware demanding and a rough step for low-budget users.

I think this game is not for the casual gamer market but for the simulator market. On its day LOMAC had painfull hardware requirements and jet people still play it.

So wether you try to get new players tired of the bunny hoping and shooting wether you try to hook teenagers seeking action...if they are considering the second group I think they are way out of course.

So how many people playing arma have a rig (without screen) under 1.000$??

Thats it.

[Deadfast 43]

Well, the whole rendering is based on DirectX ever since the Poseidon I believe.

Changing to OpenGL would mean rewriting it all and I in no way dare to blame BI for not wanting to do so.

DirectX 10 is useless.

I'm sure BI is not crazy enough to say "bug off" to everyone who doesn't have Vista and/or GPU support for DX10.

Therefore there would still need to be the backwards support for DX9.

And because DX10 doesn't bring that much innovations the trouble is far from worth it.

DX10 simply has no future, especially not with Windows 7 (which is what Vista always should have been IMO) behind the corner with its DirectX 11.

[Pulverizer 1]

Well, the whole rendering is based on DirectX ever since the Poseidon I believe.

Nope. OFP has 3dfx Glide renderer as well as Direct3D. There just might've been a software renderer as well during early developement as OFP was in the works for 4 years.

[max power 21]

I remember reading in the OFP post mortem that the direct x implementation was the last thing they got working properly before the game shipped... or something like that.

[Lou Montana 101]

I remember reading in the OFP post mortem that the direct x implementation was the last thing they got working properly before the game shipped... or something like that.

IIRC it was Hardware T&L... yup, got  it : linky

[Dark SudoNix 1]

well if you want bohemia to have an EPIC FAIL then you'd probably want them to make a game that only people with high end machines can play... you know, only the rigs that cost way too much money and only 5% of the earths population can afford... otherwise, im betting that they will optimise it to better fit the economy and the demand. just because your computer is shit hot and you know you can run it, so you dont care, doesnt mean the next guy is the same or has the same computer... why only go for 5% when you can go for 50% and make a way larger profit?!?

lets not forget that bohemia is still a business and intends to stay a business...

[POTS 0]

It's been said by BIS that an 8600gt will probably let you run ArmA2 at medium with great performance (assuming you have a dualcore), so i don't know why people are so scared.

[Dark SudoNix 1]

i was stating that to the nimrods that dont think outside the box they have around themselves.

[Vultar 0]

I heard that Arma2 requires DirX9, so what's the problem?

Im going to wait and in 2010 buy a notebook with some powerful stuff inside (no, I don't mean cocaine) for lower price.

And then Arma2 full details ; P