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

[walker 0]

Hi all

As you pointed out in your youtube info post; he had emptied his ammo at your gunner.

The brave general promptly empties all his weaponry at the tank, killing my gunner

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jagJhwi3Jw

A bit of a "Saving Private Ryan" maybe got one through a vision slot, he did not have anymore bullets,

He then kept facing the primary threat, a big ass tank.

Refused to surrender, available as a game logic now?

Maybe that AI deserves a medal.

Kind Regards walker

[dvolk 10]

but still, calling ARMA2 is unplayable is a bit too much dont you think?

There are tons of other issues.

It starts falling apart by the second mission. Here's a vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2klEgqI5rk. Later the campaign falls apart completely due to the sheer buggery.

I'm not sure about MP. Deathmatch seems to work fine, but my attempts to play COOP were frustrating to say the least.

[nodunit 397]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw-G2aroqlc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fuser%2FJohnnyBoy755&feature=player_profilepage

Another video from Rick James5591 demonstrating a cosmetic (although visually aiding at night) enhancement/correction over OFP1 and Arma1.

This will definitely make a night out much more enjoyable. :D

[Curious 0]

Its cool, but why take out the little bird and strikyer out :(

[nodunit 397]

Because they are US Army equipment, not USMC.

[Nicholas 5]

Yes :( I want my littlebird back, the "Egg", for those pesky special operations when you gotta land in someones backyard, can't do that with a seahawk/blackhawk/huey. Only the egg...

[st!gar 3]

4200+ OC and OC, 3GB, MSI 9800GT

winW=1280;

winH=960;

winDefW=1280;

winDefH=960;

Render_W=1920;

Render_H=1440;

And set video opinions all VeryHigh, framerate 7-30, Just simple scene in editor.

If I want it playable... framerate 30+ etc, Must set them lower and lower

He optimized the settings for taking still pictures.

I doubt that you can play with settings like that.

First i found the performance bad (and i still miss the normal aa as said above), but i found out that object detail and terrain detail on low give you a giant boost, if i put them both on low i gain like 15 fps (20-25 --> 35-40)

Okay, the comments about the performance in ArmA 2 scared the crap out of me. I was able to play ArmA 1 on high settings on my last computer, and my current computer plays Far Cry 2 and Empire Total War with litterally every graphic setting maxed out, and the resolution set to 1680 X 1050, with the FPS rarely going below 40. And with all the money I've spent on my computer, I wouldn't have had it any oher way. You guys make it sound like I can play ArmA 2 at Medium - Low at best. If that's so, I'd rather go buy Crysis Warhead and play it with everything set to highest, like I'm used to.

Edited June 2, 2009 by St!gar

[walker 0]

Hi dvolk

You shot your own wounded guy 4.23 that was why you lost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2klEgqI5rk

Kind regards walker

[whisper 0]

Okay, the comments about the performance in ArmA 2 scared the crap out of me. I was able to play ArmA 1 on high settings on my last computer, and my current computer plays Far Cry 2 and Empire Total War with litterally every graphic setting maxed out, and the resolution set to 1680 X 1050, with the FPS rarely going below 40. And with all the money I've spent on my computer, I wouldn't have had it any oher way. You guys make it sound like I can play ArmA 2 at Medium - Low at best. If that's so, I'd rather go buy Crysis Warhead and play it with everything set to highest, like I'm used to.

Then by all mean, don't buy it, if lowering 1 or 2 parameter a little freaks you out that much and you think BI owe you a game you can run all maxed out whatever the case on screen

[st!gar 3]

Then by all mean, don't buy it, if lowering 1 or 2 parameter a little freaks you out that much and you think BI owe you a game you can run all maxed out whatever the case on screen

Ah. So that's a "yes", then? Fuck. :j:

I'd just make it clear that if I have no real problem "lowering 1 or 2 parameters a little", but that highly depends on what I'm lowering. I can't understand people who find it acceptable to play with the detail on the people set to Low or Medum. Some of those YouTube videos I've seen had the soldiers look like they were made out of clay, or something.

[whisper 0]

I find it acceptable because I'm not playing for eyecandy. To each his own

[st!gar 3]

Eyecandy? I certainly want the game I've bought to look like it does on those official screenshots that the entire forum was drooling over. If my game ends up looking worse than ArmA 1, even though my computer can handle just about any other game I can think of on maximum, I really haven't gotten my money's worth, and something's fundamenally wrong. If I had a low to mid-range computer, then sure. But it's not.

Edited June 2, 2009 by St!gar

[NeMeSiS 11]

Sometimes i think that BI should just rename the 'very low, low and medium' settings to 'low, medium and high', then, once the hardware is capable add the 'high and very high' options and call them 'very high and ultra high'. It would suck for the people who want the ability to play with the settings as much as possible, but it would save me reading ridiculous posts about how people can play game x/y on the highest settings but not ArmA(2). It just means that those other games need higher settings, not that you should be able to play ArmA(2) on the highest settings.

[whisper 0]

Eyecandy? I certainly want a game I've bought to look like it does on the official screenshots that the entire forum was drooling over. If my game ends up looking worse than ArmA 1, I really haven't gotten my money's worth.

To be more precise : I play this because medic heals my wounds instead of being simply lying dead there, because animations are more playable than ArmA1, while still offering the scale I'm used to in ArmA (and not used to in any other game), because it still has this unique openness in almost every facet of it (during missions, in editor, etc...), with additional usefull stuff (combat Env, etc...), because hopefully (not tested yet), the campaign will make me immersed like OFP of old did, because AI, at first look, seems to be miles higher than what we've seen before, and I certainly miss many reasons.

If for this, I've to give up some graphical things, I definitely will

[ThePainkiller 10]

Now i know what "Mikro AI" means:

Tank Pathfinding

doh!

Again, the tanks feel not very heavy and every tree or small rock stops them and flips them over.

Another example for the idiocy of the AI is that they attack a tank with rifles first and then try to use AT launcher but fail, becacuse the tank already spotted the shooters.

Edited June 2, 2009 by ThePainkiller

[st!gar 3]

To be more precise : I play this because medic heals my wounds instead of being simply lying dead there, because animations are more playable than ArmA1, while still offering the scale I'm used to in ArmA (and not used to in any other game), because it still has this unique openness in almost every facet of it (during missions, in editor, etc...), with additional usefull stuff (combat Env, etc...), because hopefully (not tested yet), the campaign will make me immersed like OFP of old did, because AI, at first look, seems to be miles higher than what we've seen before, and I certainly miss many reasons.

If for this, I've to give up some graphical things, I definitely will

Oh, that greatly, greatly depends on exactly what I'm giving up on.

I'm not all that pessimistic, though. Looking back a few pages, you also have people say how awful ArmA 1 ran on their computers, and, like I described, I never had any real problems with ArmA 1, even on an earlier, (and weaker!) computer, and with high > max settings. And from what I've seen, the graphics in ArmA 2 aren't that radically different...

The point is; I just recently preordered ArmA 2 from Play.com, and I'm not sure if that was such a good idea, based on some of the user comments I've read. Right now, I'm just frantically hoping I've made the right choice, and so, the whole optimization controversy is quite disturbing. I would really, really like a demo, to be quite rank.

Edited June 2, 2009 by St!gar

[whisper 0]

Yes, AI still suffering in vehicles.

On foot, though, definite improvement

[whisper 0]

Oh, that greatly, greatly depends on exactly what I'm giving up on.

I'm not all that pessimistic, though. Looking back a few pages, you also have people say how awful ArmA 1 ran on their computers, and, like I described, I never had any real problems with ArmA 1, even on an earlier, (and weaker!) computer, and with high > max settings. And from what I've seen, the graphics in ArmA 2 aren't that radically different...

The point is; I just recently preordered ArmA 2 from Play.com, and I'm not sure if that was such a good idea, based on some of the user comments I've read. Right now, I'm just frantically hoping I've made the right choice, and so, the whole optimization controversy is quite disturbing. I would really, really like a demo, to be quite rank.

What I've read so far is a bit like : "if you keep the same quality in ArmA2 than you had in ArmA1, you'll gain in performance."

But I think pushing the limits will results in bad things (I've allready got some, but I've a low end system), even impacting non graphical parts of the game (perhaps even AI)

[[aps]gnat 28]

Nice lights !

Vast improvement

[TonnyRat 0]

I like how some people are giving excuses that confirms what I have written in this thread.

1) It's Vista. Ok? PC games are supposed to run on a variety of configurations at relatively the same level. Also, Vista isn't that much of a resource hog that it would make a game unplayable versus XP. Again, other games don't have the benefit of giving the excuse: it runs better on XP, that's why you're getting crappy marks. Why should ArmA 2?

2) It runs better on old equipment. Again. Why should ArmA 2 run more smoothly on a $50 card than a $350 card? It's not like ATI and NVIDIA reinvented the way graphics cards structure works. New cards have more shader processors, can accommodate higher fill rates and are in compliance with newer graphics standards, ie. DirectX 10.1.

AGAIN, if these are the problems, the game is not properly optimized.

Listen, forget all the comparisons to games at twice the resolution with real AA and more intensive graphics demand. Some of you haven't grapsed the problem. Should ArmA have the same FPS as other games? No. It also shouldn't have half the FPS at half the resolution. It doesn't warrant it.

If a 12 GB RAM, GTX 285 having (because SLI doesn't work properly), Core i7 can't run the game on anything but medium/low settings at 1280x1024 with a fill rate of 200%, what will? This goes back to the point, BIS releases shots to the community using max settings (obviously, what game wouldn't). You go into the game and go replicate a decent gaming experience with the best CPU configuration currently available on the planet. A game that doesn't stress new, ground-breaking graphics features. You get an average of 21 FPS during gameplay at a resolution that is half of what is the industry standard for gaming reviews these days.

Yes, I may be an ass or a picky gamer when I complain about no being able to play on high settings at a resolution upwards of 1280x1024. BIS does owe me a good experience with graphics mimicking those of the screenshots they released of the past year. It seems some people are ready to give ArmA a free pass just because there is no alternative within this game genre.

If we don't complain, it won't get fixed. It's pretty simple. I'm not here to openly attack BIS, I'm here to point out what I think is a serious problem with the game. Hopefully if they're aware of it and how serious the community thinks it is, they will find a remedy. Who knows, maybe this is the fault of the publisher? As is often the case, fixed release dates tend to result in buggy releases as has been evident up until this point. Hopefully the 505 and US releases will be more efficient.

If all BIS needs is more time to fix this, please say so! As of right now, my biggest fear is that the status quo in terms of performance is fine and it will remain this way.

[4 IN 1 0]

from recent video, it seems that the AI simply dont know they are in a car/tank/plane instead of on foot, as you can see they always stop and go, turning left and right, then end up stoping/slow moving on the hard shoulder

[whisper 0]

@TonnyRat : "learn to code", which is basically what you say to BI, is not the best way to get your point accross ;)

[Scrub 0]

...If my game ends up looking worse than ArmA 1, even though my computer can handle just about any other game I can think of on maximum, I really haven't gotten my money's worth...

I can see your point, however:

1- It's not 'any other game'. Far more massive and featured than any other, which is why most are playing it.

2- It's JUST started to get upgrades/patches, it's not finished yet. When the version number on the purchased disk doesn't change anymore, it's final release IMHO. You will only get a better and better game. You won't lose anything.

(not @ you St!gar) People are whinging about crap like 'Oh Noes!!11!! It'll never be right!! We're doomed, it'll perpetually suck!!!' Fail to see what the first patch has already done. Night and day. If there are compatibility/hardware issue, then of course that's totally understandable. I'm just not understanding how my machine (medium to low spec) can run acceptably with high to very high, and a few normal, settings - while a much greater machine cannot. Has to be insanely frustrating.

[TonnyRat 0]

@TonnyRat : "learn to code", which is basically what you say to BI, is not the best way to get your point accross ;)

I'm sorry it came off that way. I honestly think they can fix this problem with time. I would like to believe this problem is a product of the publishers enforcing a strict release date. Maybe they didn't have enough time to fine tune it.

What worries me is that nothing has been said on behalf of BIS. This, to me, means that we as a community have to take the game as is. Sure, they're trying to brush up on the AI issues with this most recent patch and are hard at work on the game in order for a smoother release at the end of June. A simple "we're working on it" would suffice. This is often the case when releases don't go according to plan. The public - ie. me - gets a distorted view of the final product. Shouldn't it be in BIS' best interest to fix that by assuring us that it's, at least, considered an issue?

[sic-disaster 311]

I have been playing all day yesterday and though i most definitely need a new pc to get good framerates, i have not encountered a single bug so far.

Everything is more streamlined then ArmA (not meaning making it more mainstream, but better playability and functions in general), AI seems to be great considering all the stuff it has to be able to do (fly heli's/planes, drive tanks etc).

And if the first mission of the campaign is any indication of how the rest of the campaign is going to be, we will be reliving the glory days of Operation Flashpoint without a shadow of a doubt!

As for St!gar, it isnt surprising ArmA 2 is heavier on a pc then most other games.

And the reason behind it is simple, because no other game presents you with 225 square km of land to play on, with up to hundreds of AI and where every bullet has a calculated trajectory that can even ricochet, and all of this with (imo) next-gen graphics.

Crysis may look just as nice or maybe a bit nicer for example, but it doesnt have all those other things that need to be calculated + a much smaller world which makes it easier to render all that stuff.

Edited June 2, 2009 by SiC-Disaster