performance Arma 1 vs Arma 2

[Michael_Wittman 0]

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...  

Sorry but "ARMA I" hardly run good enough high-end rigs(does not support SLI or Crossfire) and of course runs awfull in mid-low budget PCs. My point is that the game...for what it is (regiment/battallion size battlefield simulator)...needs a lot of hardware to run it...so they should take vantage of the current technology develop for die hard gamers with the money. I usually play with mature gamers and barely find kids playing this (to much realism for them maybe)... so I think thats the  common profile of the ARMA gamer. Many of us spend quite some money in our hobby. So we (me among them) expect the game to perform properly when its supposed that my computer is far ahead from good enough to run it.

IMHO the only thing that could make ARMA II be a epic fail is to target console and casual gamer market (basically going into direct competition with BF3 and COD5).

One last thing...I dont think DX10 is useless... At least for what I red the instances rendering was improved significantly...quite interesting when we experience the massive fps loss in dense forests.

[Baff1 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  

If they get anything like as many sales as Crysis got they will be extremely happy.

Crysis by the way is an extremely scaleable software. A Celeron 2.4 with 1GB RAM and a 7600 card will run it.

[Rak 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  

If they get anything like as many sales as Crysis got they will be extremely happy.

Crysis by the way is an extremely scaleable software. A Celeron 2.4 with 1GB RAM and a 7600 card will run it.

. . . and it will looks worse than your average FPS.

[Zippa 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.

I heard that before

[Infam0us 10]

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.

I heard that before

Sauce?

[De_little_Bubi 1]

think it was in an interview at games convention 08.

[Mojo 0]

What did they earn off of arma 1 - 50, 60 million? It is unclear to me if BI Australia is actually a part of BIS, or if it has broken away from the parent company. If BIS and BIA are still divisions of the same company, then they make a great deal more money from the VBS contracts than they do with the commercial software. That doesn't mean ArmA2 isn't important to them, the new engine is core technology for later releases of VBS, and if I'm not mistaken, (which is entirely possible) THAT is why they are working to release arma2, to beta the new engine for their primary market, the various military organizations around the globe.

BIA is in negotiations with several new markets, IDF being one of the more interesting. If VBS3 can bring some better performance to the table in the main, larger servers, they could stand to make quite a bit more money per site. The US Army just shelled out 10.9 million (of a promised 17.7 million) for 70 locations that have 50 clients per location. For a simulation that brings the 'unpredictability of combat' to a unit, to allow them to train in complex tactics and such. 50 clients doesn't seem to be enough when you take into account that there are more than 100 in an average platoon. So, 10.9 million divided by 70 times 50 = 3100 per client seat. Doubling that number of client seats to 7000 means about 21.7 million for that initial payout.

So to bring this back on point, I don't think it matters as much about the requirements for the end user of the commercial release of a crippled military sim, so much as it provides proof of concept for their fully functional mil-spec version.

Do 21.7 million in installation contracts for the US Army, US Marines, ADF, IDF and you are doing more than you make off the comercial software, now add the perpetual support and upgrades and all the other things in the full contract and you're up to over 100 million off of 4 clients. That is a good deal.

[sparks50 0]

If the game was fixed so that I wouldn't have to run it in a window to avoid crashes, it would be a big fps boost for me.

[Pulverizer 1]

What did they earn off of arma 1 - 50, 60 million?

Are you kidding? That would mean like 2M+ copies sold. No way, not even close.

[WhoCares 0]

...  The US Army just shelled out 10.9 million (of a promised 17.7 million) for 70 locations that have 50 clients per location.  For a simulation that brings the 'unpredictability of combat' to a unit, to allow them to train in complex tactics and such.  50 clients doesn't seem to be enough when you take into account that there are more than 100 in an average platoon. So, 10.9 million divided by 70 times 50 = 3100 per client seat. ...

Now, 100 that is a mighty big platoon of yours. Standard platoons are more in the range of 30-50 soldiers, companies 75-200 men.

Regarding the copies sold, if it had reached >1 million I guess we would have heard of it in an announcement as we did with the 1 million copies sold for OFP.

[.kju 3241]

300.000+ was ArmA. They stated in a recent interview.

[carld2002 1]

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.

I can max out arma 1. I expect to max out arma 2.

[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.

I can max out arma 1. I expect to max out arma 2.

Could you do that when it first came out?

That's a foolish expectation in my opinion since everything in ArmA 2 is more complex than ArmA 1.  I have no idea what kind of computer you're running, but at the time when ArmA came out, no computer system that existed could max out ArmA (or so it was often said on these boards). It has been optimized quite a bit, however.

[SASrecon 0]

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.

I can max out arma 1. I expect to max out arma 2.

Could you do that when it first came out?

That's a foolish expectation in my opinion since everything in ArmA 2 is more complex than ArmA 1.  I have no idea what kind of computer you're running, but at the time when ArmA came out, no computer system that existed could max out ArmA (or so it was often said on these boards).

well i can imagine if you're rich enough you could buy yourself a system to max out ARMA2, but if you were that rich then you'd probably be getting someone to type this up for you  

[Pyronick 21]

I think that because SM3.0 hardware is available since april 2004 with the release of the nVidia NV40 (GeForce 6-Series) they were able to drop SM2.0 support and thereby increase the level of fidelity greatly.

By supporting older technologies you need alot of resources in the form of time and money.

And you'll have to split up the game for two different types of hardware, take Crysis multiplayer for example which has different DX9 and DX10 servers.

[POTS 0]

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.

I can max out arma 1. I expect to max out arma 2.

Could you do that when it first came out?

That's a foolish expectation in my opinion since everything in ArmA 2 is more complex than ArmA 1.  I have no idea what kind of computer you're running, but at the time when ArmA came out, no computer system that existed could max out ArmA (or so it was often said on these boards).  It has been optimized quite a bit, however.

ArmA2 most likely will be more efficient than the original arma, giving computers (assuming you have a dualcore minimum) that didn't do so well with ArmA1 decent performance with ArmA2. I currently can max out ArmA1, i'm expecting to max out ArmA2 and to be able to put more units on the map without a drastic performance decrease. Be aware that my computer had cost $750 dollars, i'm reusing the monitor.

[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.

I can max out arma 1. I expect to max out arma 2.

Could you do that when it first came out?

That's a foolish expectation in my opinion since everything in ArmA 2 is more complex than ArmA 1.  I have no idea what kind of computer you're running, but at the time when ArmA came out, no computer system that existed could max out ArmA (or so it was often said on these boards).  It has been optimized quite a bit, however.

ArmA2 most likely will be more efficient than the original arma, giving computers (assuming you have a dualcore minimum) that didn't do so well with ArmA1 decent performance with ArmA2. I currently can max out ArmA1, i'm expecting to max out ArmA2 and to be able to put more units on the map without a drastic performance decrease. Be aware that my computer had cost $750 dollars, i'm reusing the monitor.

It may be more efficient but it will also be more complex.  It may be twice as efficient but if it is three times more complex, then you'll still need a better computer to max it out.  I don't think there is anything that indicates that ArmA 2 will run as fast or faster than ArmA on any given machine. I certainly hope you're right, though.

[De_little_Bubi 1]

Ever seen a game on a newer engine which doesnt need more pc power?

[POTS 0]

Arma 1.15b!

[Dark SudoNix 1]

i dont think they are making arma2 for console. I believe that is what OFP2:dragon rising is for... codemasters... shpppuhhh... I am looking forward to both... so when i go to afganistan I can kick all yor asses from all the way across the other side of the planet... j/k

[carld2002 1]

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.

I can max out arma 1. I expect to max out arma 2.

Could you do that when it first came out?

That's a foolish expectation in my opinion since everything in ArmA 2 is more complex than ArmA 1.  I have no idea what kind of computer you're running, but at the time when ArmA came out, no computer system that existed could max out ArmA (or so it was often said on these boards).  It has been optimized quite a bit, however.

They still say the same about crysis yet many computers (including mine) can.

I strongly doubt that I wouldn't be able to max out arma 2 but we'll see.

Arma 1 only came out two years ago. There were certainly computers that could max it out at that time.

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.

I can max out arma 1. I expect to max out arma 2.

Could you do that when it first came out?

That's a foolish expectation in my opinion since everything in ArmA 2 is more complex than ArmA 1.  I have no idea what kind of computer you're running, but at the time when ArmA came out, no computer system that existed could max out ArmA (or so it was often said on these boards).  It has been optimized quite a bit, however.

ArmA2 most likely will be more efficient than the original arma, giving computers (assuming you have a dualcore minimum) that didn't do so well with ArmA1 decent performance with ArmA2. I currently can max out ArmA1, i'm expecting to max out ArmA2 and to be able to put more units on the map without a drastic performance decrease. Be aware that my computer had cost $750 dollars, i'm reusing the monitor.

It may be more efficient but it will also be more complex.  It may be twice as efficient but if it is three times more complex, then you'll still need a better computer to max it out.  I don't think there is anything that indicates that ArmA 2 will run as fast or faster than ArmA on any given machine.  I certainly hope you're right, though.

No, arma 2 will require more of a system but it won't be rediculous.

[Pyronick 21]

i dont think they are making arma2 for console. I believe that is what OFP2:dragon rising is for... codemasters... shpppuhhh... I am looking forward to both... so when i go to afganistan I can kick all yor asses from all the way across the other side of the planet...      j/k

And if it will be a console title, I really hope it will be a spinoff like Operation Flashpoint: Elite. Which was dedicated for consoles and differed from PC versions.

This way the games won't get tangled up. You won't have a consolized PC game or an over sophisticated console game.

You do need more resource though, but it means both games will stand their own ground and have their own qualities.

Also ArmA2 requires SM3.0 hardware, so if you can max out ArmA on your SM2.0 ATI X850XT PE you cannot play ArmA2.