ARMA 2 DE 1.01 (final) Impressions - Post ALL Impressions/Videos/Screenies Here

[CarlGustaffa 4]

@TonnyRat:

Too much negativity here, I'm sorry.

* Many have already claimed that Arma2 is much more fluid than Arma. Recent videos show that clearly, especially considering the resources fraps take up.

* A brand new (and most likely very good) campaign. And that is what defines a 'new game'. Compare to most other FPS, not too much 'new improved features' there either.

* Many gameplay issues resolved from Arma.

* Many community proposals already included now, as standard.

* Completely new sound engine, which I love more and more. And I haven't even tested it yet!

* Arma2 is a game that will live for many years, unlike most other games I try.

The core gameplay has not been tinkered with.

No, I guess working smoke screens, reload while moving, single shot launchers (whups), climbing obstacles, indirect fire support, doesn't really qualify. Did you expect all changes we've suggested? Some can be modded, sure, but the unity mod ACE does much of this recently for Arma1, at the end of Arma1's lifetime. Now we get all this built in.

I guess there are no deep changes to the engine either, if you neglect the new scripting commands, function library, editor modules, pluss much more.

Sure I have my dissappointments as well for some features lacking, but "has not been tinkered with" is just way too harsh.

@4 IN 1:

I agree, but the current solution is the best compromise until this part of the engine is upgraded to handle it. Rest assured that backpack scripts will come later, but then the designer gets full control. Arma1's two slot space left us little options except a 'fired EH' that removed the weapon, which was risky at times (CTD). I also got yelled at since I removed something that was possible with the engine. Now I won't :)

Edited June 2, 2009 by CarlGustaffa

[binkster 0]

The thing that really worries me is the lack of optimization on the performance front.

ArmA 2 should not be this power and resource hog as it evidently is in this release. There is really nothing ground-breaking graphics wise and, as such, it shouldn't require the latest and greatest video card to run smoothly. Heck, who am I kidding, not even the latest and greatest cards are able to run this game effectively.

Honestly, what games as of late really test the newest graphics cards? None. Most reviews show great performance with 2000+ x 1000+ resolution with AA and AF. ArmA 2 can't even get decent performance with top of the line equipment at 1280x1024. I'm sorry, this is borderline pathetic. A HD 4890 can't run ArmA 2 on max quality settings at 1280x1024? Really? This isn't Crysis 2. It doesn't use DirectX 10.

It can surely, and I hope it will be for BIS' sake, optimized in the future. I haven't read anything on BIS' part indicating this is even an issue. Why do people see this as an acceptable part of the game?

From what I have gathered so far, BIS has spent all this time trying to, and failing at implementing, shiny graphics and a few AI updates. The core gameplay has not been tinkered with. Evidence of this is the old hit point system where M240's can destroy tanks. This was a well documented irk the community had with the original damage system.

I'm not trying to troll. I feel as if I have been caught up in the hype that is ArmA 2. The game that was supposed to fix what was wrong with ArmA, not just improve the graphics. g-c put it right early on in this thread, this is more like a expansion pack rather than a completely new game.

After all the glitz and new toys to play with, I reckon this is nothing more than a more polished version of ArmA. Maybe BIS should take on or outsource some of the improvements to the modders next time. This community has a lot of talent and I hope they and BIS can prove me wrong. I hope that I am wrong for what I want is an enjoyable gaming experience.

For those who are currently enjoying your gaming experience, kudos to you.

This doesnt mean anything. Graphics look better than most games Ive played. Tell me another game that has this many objects (Over a million) on the map. Plus AI that no other game has. I have a quad core and it utilizes all 4 cores. It is weird though while the first and last core can almost reach 90% and the middle two get around 70%.

When ofp came out in 2001 I coudnt hardly play the game. It was ahead of its time. Finnaly after about a year I upgraded but still couldnt have everything on high.

You will get the best performance with a good CPU. I have a q6600 (OC 3.2ghz) and a gtx285 and im running just a few things on high with fillrate optimizer at 133%.. and averaging 30fps around dense areas. Which q6600 is showing its age. Ive had to sacrifice some eye candy for better FPS. Which I set a few things to normal and I can now get around 50fps. To be honest some things that I set from high to normal I can barely even notice.

Another thing I did which I feel it helped some, I got Ultimate Defrag and Defrag my drive while placing ArmA2 on the outer rim of HardDrive.

Also Game Booster helps alot too by turning off processes in VISTA that are not needed. This saved me about 200mb of ram. Its not much but its better than nothing.

[binkster 0]

I guess there are no deep changes to the engine either, if you neglect the new scripting commands, function library, editor modules, pluss much more.

I guess some people dont look at the positives. You point out the obvious. I would like to add something too.

The game engine is basically the EXE right? ArmA1 EXE is 6mb while the ArmA2 Game engine is 16mb.... Almost 3 times the size. Can you imagine all the coding along with that. Not to mention all the addons/scripts/strings....

[chrismvts 10]

Here another Vid:

Why did the team keep repeating itself? Do they call out each enemy seperately not just call out the group?

[Scrub 0]

German release, 1.01 beta patch

Phenom X3 2.1ghz

ATI HD3850

4gb ram

Creative audigy2 gamer audio

Most everything on high, low post process. Normal AAF. 3000m VD

Comfortably smooth, no substantial lag. Could be quicker, but good enough to snap off accurate rounds and have good chance of hitting a perpendicular moving unit 300m away. To those calling this a resource hog, I have much more going on, more beauty, features and function, than Arma 1... And significantly more frames per second. Not sure what is going on with your rigs/settings/expectations, but 30-40 FPS in this game is good enough for me.

My opinion,

If you look at all the pieces as individuals, yup. It's pretty good, but still lacking in some indistinct way, kinda like raw ingredients for a good chili. However, in the middle of a firefight, when you're getting suppressed, your AI teammates are fighting as hard (harder?) than you, it all blends and melds into a fine, addictive, totally saturating experience.

The way the player moves is viscerally satisfying, the 'body' is present and shifts the screen with it's positionings. And it is agile. I've been able to dodge or pull back when getting suppressed. Sounds are really good. The voices are a mixed bag. Some sound proper for the level emotional state of the story, others sound like they just did them quickly in the bathroom. Haven't played much with the vehicles, flew the civ MI-8 in the Armory, which is another great piece of kit that absorbed several hours as I had many engrossing challenges and checked out many weapons.

AI in the 1.01 is hard to compete with. Aggressive, sneaky, organized. I love it when my teammate tells ME 'I gotcha covered, go go go!' and proceeds to lay down fire. I feel very comfortable with them now.. When they are not leaving me in the dust. They move both fast to take up distance, and from cover to cover. I find myself supporting them more than the other way around. A fantastic challenge, trying to keep up. We all get wounded, they Med me, I Med them. Finished one mission carrying Robo for about a half hour.. The guy could crawl and fight, he was just damn SLOW, lol. was at the rear of the pack, and dumped him when the contacts were made... Definitely one of those 'I'm not leaving you behind, man!' moments. Again.

Sum up:

-Look into the individual pieces and pick it apart, because you can. Or enjoy the whole thing roasted over a freakin warfire.

-Ingame presence, graphics, sensation of 'being there' is excellent.

-Sounds and ambiance are awesome. Voices, some good some bad, mostly acceptable.

-AI is challenging, diverse, competent enough to start trusting them to do their part, and then some.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Scrub

[TonnyRat 0]

@TonnyRat:

Too much negativity here, I'm sorry.

* Many have already claimed that Arma2 is much more fluid than Arma. Recent videos show that clearly, especially considering the resources fraps take up.

* A brand new (and most likely very good) campaign. And that is what defines a 'new game'. Compare to most other FPS, not too much 'new improved features' there either.

* Many gameplay issues resolved from Arma.

* Many community proposals already included now, as standard.

* Completely new sound engine, which I love more and more. And I haven't even tested it yet!

* Arma2 is a game that will live for many years, unlike most other games I try.

No, I guess working smoke screens, reload while moving, single shot launchers (whups), climbing obstacles, indirect fire support, doesn't really qualify. Did you expect all changes we've suggested? Some can be modded, sure, but the unity mod ACE does much of this recently for Arma1, at the end of Arma1's lifetime. Now we get all this built in.

I guess there are no deep changes to the engine either, if you neglect the new scripting commands, function library, editor modules, pluss much more.

Sure I have my dissappointments as well for some features lacking, but "has not been tinkered with" is just way too harsh.

@4 IN 1:

I agree, but the current solution is the best compromise until this part of the engine is upgraded to handle it. Rest assured that backpack scripts will come later, but then the designer gets full control. Arma1's two slot space left us little options except a 'fired EH' that removed the weapon, which was risky at times (CTD). I also got yelled at since I removed something that was possible with the engine. Now I won't :)

You make good points and I stand corrected. My post was initially about the graphics performance. That is still my major gripe with the game.

[an_enlarged_stomach 1]

Hey guys I have a small question about the AK's sights. I've noticed that in every BIS game, the two outer "rings" on the front side of the AK is covered by the back sight, and the middle block on the front sight is slightly below the top flat notches of the back sight.

I always thought that in a AK sight, you are suppose to have the two outer rings protrude out and up the back sight, and have the middle part align horizontally with the rear sight notches. Which is the correct way?

Also, I've noticed that the recoil values seem to make the gun go up too much (rise up) and never to the back (kick back to you). How do you guys feel about the recoil.

Anyways, fantastic game!!

Edited June 2, 2009 by an_enlarged_stomach

[Trauma.au 10]

Is the dirt bike in A2 is worth the time of day? Actually can someone comment on the overall physics while driving in rough terrain?

Edited June 2, 2009 by Trauma.au

[TonnyRat 0]

This doesnt mean anything. Graphics look better than most games Ive played. Tell me another game that has this many objects (Over a million) on the map. Plus AI that no other game has. I have a quad core and it utilizes all 4 cores. It is weird though while the first and last core can almost reach 90% and the middle two get around 70%.

When ofp came out in 2001 I coudnt hardly play the game. It was ahead of its time. Finnaly after about a year I upgraded but still couldnt have everything on high.

You will get the best performance with a good CPU. I have a q6600 (OC 3.2ghz) and a gtx285 and im running just a few things on high with fillrate optimizer at 133%.. and averaging 30fps around dense areas. Which q6600 is showing its age. Ive had to sacrifice some eye candy for better FPS. Which I set a few things to normal and I can now get around 50fps. To be honest some things that I set from high to normal I can barely even notice.

Another thing I did which I feel it helped some, I got Ultimate Defrag and Defrag my drive while placing ArmA2 on the outer rim of HardDrive.

Also Game Booster helps alot too by turning off processes in VISTA that are not needed. This saved me about 200mb of ram. Its not much but its better than nothing.

The million objects on the map can't be used as a counter-argument. If it were coded more efficiently, it shouldn't have to matter.

You prove my point by saying you have a GTX 285 and Q6600 while only getting ~30FPS on non-maximum settings.

Fallout 3 is a open-type game with various characters and objects everywhere. At 2560x1600 with 8x AA and 16x AF with a GTX 280, it averages 44 FPS with all max settings. FarCry 2 is a visually stimulating game using cutting-edge technology which often pushes the video card industry's boundries. Guess what? 44 FPS on avg with a GTX 280 at the same resolution and maximum settings as above. (http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYzNiw0LCxoY29uc3VtZXIurg==)

So at pretty much twice the resolution, with more AA and higher quality settings, games using newer and more demanding graphics score much higher than ArmA 2 which uses an older graphics engine and does not have the particle effects the above games tend to overuse.

If the problem is 100 million maps on screen, find a way to efficiently allocate the available resources to boost performance. I don't need scripting and other advanced AI features on units on the other side of the map. That being said, I do not know how they tried to optimize performance. This type of problem plagued ArmA when it initially came out as well. Did it get better after multiple patches? Yes. I'm hoping this is the case and they can pull together a solution in order to remedy this negative aspect of the game/engine. Great graphics doesn't automatically equate to mediocre performance on high-end equipment. Especially when that game is cutting-edge graphics wise, which ArmA 2 certainly isn't.

edit: For those wanting to read the PC Game and H article, here is the link: Remember to click on High/Very High Settings to get the comparable Avg FPS numbers (the ones in the 20s....) http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,685770/Armed-Assault-2-Graphics-card-benchmarks-and-visual-quality-compared/Practice/

Also, ArmA 2 isn't ahead of its time. It uses older, standard graphics technology. It isn't in the same league as the Crytek engine visuals nor the Unreal 3 engine. See the article above, they test ArmA 2 on OC'd Core i7s, 12 GB of RAM and GTX 285 w/ 2 GB of RAM. It isn't your CPU holding you back. It's the game. It isn't properly optimized. If the system in that article can't run the game at full settings with a modest resolution of 1280x1024, no one can.

Edited June 2, 2009 by TonnyRat

[Laqueesha 474]

Actually can someone comment on the overall physics while driving in rough terrain?

You drive slower on dirt and it is harder to control your vehicle in ArmA 2.

It is easier to control a vehicle and drive faster when on paved roads in ArmA 2.

[dvolk 10]

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

German release, 1.01 beta patch

Phenom X3 2.1ghz

ATI HD3850

4gb ram

Creative audigy2 gamer audio

Most everything on high, low post process. Normal AAF. 3000m VD

Comfortably smooth, no substantial lag. Could be quicker, but good enough to snap off accurate rounds and have good chance of hitting a perpendicular moving unit 300m away. To those calling this a resource hog, I have much more going on, more beauty, features and function, than Arma 1... And significantly more frames per second. Not sure what is going on with your rigs/settings/expectations, but 30-40 FPS in this game is good enough for me.

My opinion,

If you look at all the pieces as individuals, yup. It's pretty good, but still lacking in some indistinct way, kinda like raw ingredients for a good chili. However, in the middle of a firefight, when you're getting suppressed, your AI teammates are fighting as hard (harder?) than you, it all blends and melds into a fine, addictive, totally saturating experience.

The way the player moves is viscerally satisfying, the 'body' is present and shifts the screen with it's positionings. And it is agile. I've been able to dodge or pull back when getting suppressed. Sounds are really good. The voices are a mixed bag. Some sound proper for the level emotional state of the story, others sound like they just did them quickly in the bathroom. Haven't played much with the vehicles, flew the civ MI-8 in the Armory, which is another great piece of kit that absorbed several hours as I had many engrossing challenges and checked out many weapons.

AI in the 1.01 is hard to compete with. Aggressive, sneaky, organized. I love it when my teammate tells ME 'I gotcha covered, go go go!' and proceeds to lay down fire. I feel very comfortable with them now.. When they are not leaving me in the dust. They move both fast to take up distance, and from cover to cover. I find myself supporting them more than the other way around. A fantastic challenge, trying to keep up. We all get wounded, they Med me, I Med them. Finished one mission carrying Robo for about a half hour.. The guy could crawl and fight, he was just damn SLOW, lol. was at the rear of the pack, and dumped him when the contacts were made... Definitely one of those 'I'm not leaving you behind, man!' moments. Again.

Sum up:

-Look into the individual pieces and pick it apart, because you can. Or enjoy the whole thing roasted over a freakin warfire.

-Ingame presence, graphics, sensation of 'being there' is excellent.

-Sounds and ambiance are awesome. Voices, some good some bad, mostly acceptable.

-AI is challenging, diverse, competent enough to start trusting them to do their part, and then some.

Wow... i have same card ,4gb of ram but a 3.3ghz dual core processor.., would you mind to show me some screenshots of your performance and graphics. Its hard to believe you get 30+ FPS??, cause most people with higher end cards ive talked to have had less fps and trouble with the game itself..

[dvolk 10]

Must be a pretty awesome 3850!

I have a Q6600 (4x2.6ghz) and HD4850 with 1GB video ram and 4GB system ram running XP, and I get mostly 20-30fps on all normal, 2km VD and 89% fill rate at 1650x1080!

Increasing fillrate to 100% drops me to 10-20fps, and doesn't look as good to me anyway.

The experience when I'm 'looking around' seems to be really choppy, at least in towns, but the effect of motion blur helps mask this for the most part.

Here's how it looks.

[im]http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8756/arma22009053022070721.jpg[/img]>100kb

I can tolerate the not-so-great performance, but look at the machine gun in this screenshot.

This is the buggiest computer game I have ever played. Some of the bugs are amusing like this machine gun, but many of them are really serious game-breaking bugs.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Placebo

[jakerod 254]

BI is normally good about fixing them. I wish their games never got released with bugs but they are a smaller developer with some damn ambitious games so I give them a break. They are very very good when it comes to patches.

[Placebo 28]

Please don't hotlink images greater than 100kb.

[EricM 0]

It's obvious that Arma 2 has been greatly optimized over Arma 1. There's so much more going on, and it runs globally faster than Arma 1 on the same machine (see the videos and comments).

Though it seems to me that the people with G9800 and 8800GTX + fast dual cores or Q6600 get better performance than people with brand new i7 and GTX280 SLI...

BIS developped Arma 2 on those slightly older platforms and managed to squeeze all the juice out of it. It's just a matter of time for them to get to know better the more recent drivers and hardware specificities (Maruk stated in one of the threads that they didn't have the time to test on the very last nvidia drivers, and that it was probably a better idea to stay on the next-to-last version at the moment).

It was the same for Arma 1 : people with G7900 had better results AT FIRST than people with 8800 (the unfamous fog problem!). It has changed a lot since...

[nodunit 397]

http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f194/anatolyjevesanje/?action=view&current=arma22009-05-3110-49-48-06.jpg

Wooo trippy, reminds me of the good ole days of tranquilizer fights in Perfect Dark.

[Arrowhead 0]

Fallout 3 is a open-type game with various characters and objects everywhere. At 2560x1600 with 8x AA and 16x AF with a GTX 280, it averages 44 FPS with all max settings. FarCry 2 is a visually stimulating game using cutting-edge technology which often pushes the video card industry's boundries. Guess what? 44 FPS on avg with a GTX 280 at the same resolution and maximum settings as above. (http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYzNiw0LCxoY29uc3VtZXIurg==)

Fallout 3 is an RPG with no vehicles and highly scripted, practically lifeless NPCs(unless you run into them and either talk to them or fight them). There's many more things going on under the hood of Arma 2 like tactical AI, vehicle physics, projectile physics etc. It's like comparing apples to oranges I'm afraid.

[HauptmannT 0]

The thing that really worries me is the lack of optimization on the performance front.

ArmA 2 should not be this power and resource hog as it evidently is in this release. There is really nothing ground-breaking graphics wise and, as such, it shouldn't require the latest and greatest video card to run smoothly. Heck, who am I kidding, not even the latest and greatest cards are able to run this game effectively.

Honestly, what games as of late really test the newest graphics cards? None. Most reviews show great performance with 2000+ x 1000+ resolution with AA and AF. ArmA 2 can't even get decent performance with top of the line equipment at 1280x1024. I'm sorry, this is borderline pathetic. A HD 4890 can't run ArmA 2 on max quality settings at 1280x1024? Really? This isn't Crysis 2. It doesn't use DirectX 10.

It can surely, and I hope it will be for BIS' sake, optimized in the future. I haven't read anything on BIS' part indicating this is even an issue. Why do people see this as an acceptable part of the game?

From what I have gathered so far, BIS has spent all this time trying to, and failing at implementing, shiny graphics and a few AI updates. The core gameplay has not been tinkered with. Evidence of this is the old hit point system where M240's can destroy tanks. This was a well documented irk the community had with the original damage system.

I'm not trying to troll. I feel as if I have been caught up in the hype that is ArmA 2. The game that was supposed to fix what was wrong with ArmA, not just improve the graphics. g-c put it right early on in this thread, this is more like a expansion pack rather than a completely new game.

After all the glitz and new toys to play with, I reckon this is nothing more than a more polished version of ArmA. Maybe BIS should take on or outsource some of the improvements to the modders next time. This community has a lot of talent and I hope they and BIS can prove me wrong. I hope that I am wrong for what I want is an enjoyable gaming experience.

For those who are currently enjoying your gaming experience, kudos to you.

Kudos for saying what needs to be said TonnyRat.

People are either failing to realize or BI is either neglecting to confront a very real, if not the most important problem of these two games; optimization. It was ignored in the first game and apparently, I fear, has been ignored once again. If you need the top-dollar video card and processor of the day to run it just somewhat respectively, something is wrong!

I trust BI will work digilenty towards fine-tuning their product and I think a few patches down the road and about a year or so after us schmoo's have the money to buy the technology needed to run it; Armed Assault 2 will be a hit!

For now, BI should forgo the work on all the pleasant niceties, such as shiny HDR graphics, uber-AI, kewl scopes on your M4, paint color of the tanks and just make the game run well!

[whisper 0]

Fallout 3 is a open-type game with various characters and objects everywhere. At 2560x1600 with 8x AA and 16x AF with a GTX 280, it averages 44 FPS with all max settings. FarCry 2 is a visually stimulating game using cutting-edge technology which often pushes the video card industry's boundries. Guess what? 44 FPS on avg with a GTX 280 at the same resolution and maximum settings as above. (http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYzNiw0LCxoY29uc3VtZXIurg==)

Some people that keep coming with other games comparison should once, just once, ask themselves this question : these other games, despite claiming large environnement, never, ever, come close to the scale provided by BI engine (FC2 view distance, please?). It's not like they don't seem to want to, as they claim for large environnement, but they don't do it. Question : why? Imho, this point is simply the most impacting feature in the engine (and coincidentally, it's also what makes OFP/ArmA what it is) for simple reasons like having to account of the possibility to have more units in range than expected, etc... (it's very like MMO way of thinking, I guess)

If no other do it, there's a reason.

@Hauptmann, exageration ftw it seems. It needs top notch hardware to run at full settings. Nobody forces people to play at full settings.

The too few I've been able to play it :(, it runs flawlessly

[dvolk 10]

There's many more things going on under the hood of Arma 2 like tactical AI, vehicle physics, projectile physics etc.

None of which are run on the graphics card.

I looked at the CPU graph, and it was used 60-70% per core, so the game logic obviously isn't a performance factor.

[EricM 0]

If you need the top-dollar video card and processor of the day to run it just somewhat respectively, something is wrong!

If you would read this thread and many others and check the user videos, you would see that it's actually the opposite.

The optimum machine at the moment is probably a G9800GT and a 3Ghz Dual Core (as seen in the recent 505 London presentation, with PC provided by nvidia), NOT an i7 and G285 SLI.

At the moment, brand spanking new hardware gives (seeminlgy) inferior results... (or at least not much better. Extensive comparison still needs to be done properly).

Edited June 2, 2009 by EricM

[ScorpionGuard 10]

I notice someone put togather a nice F-35B demo. Can we also get a demo of the AV-8B, A-10, and the C-130J etc. Thx

[Arrowhead 0]

None of which are run on the graphics card.

I looked at the CPU graph, and it was used 60-70% per core, so the game logic obviously isn't a performance factor.

Well I can't argue with you. You're obviously an expert on how games get processed in a computer...

[HauptmannT 0]

I read the threads, I read the reviews/comments, and I watched the videos. And I deduced from all those that there is still an optimization problem that many of you are failing to come to terms with, and that's okay. It may be better than Arma but not good enough, and Arma isn't much of a benchmark considering how horrible it was in that department.

I'm not looking for BI/Arma to fail, but it hasn't found it's stride just yet. Like I said, down the road with patches and cheaper prices for better computer parts, ArmA2 will be a hit with many.

@Whisper,

Running it is one thing, running it well at graphic settings (with a respective FPS) that one deems acceptable is entirely another. Playing at 1024x768 at medium settings may be a-okay for you, but not for me.

I think this is a fair assessment that maybe you are choosing to ignore; http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,685770/Armed-Assault-2-Graphics-card-benchmarks-and-visual-quality-compared/Practice/