guttersnipe 1 Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) Hi Two simple requests to the devs/beta testers who helped decide what the recommended min & optimum specifications for the game/packet are : 1) What settings did you use ? (both in game & the 2 fiddle factor config scripts in the user profile)(for both the recommended minimum spec & the recommended optimum spec please) 2) Using these settings, what frame rates did you achieve in the campaign ? (particular in the missions with well forested areas, with a large number of units in action). These are the quoted specs (from the community wiki (same as the specs from the 505 UK version that I bought): Minimal PC Requirements CPU: Dual Core Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz / Intel Core 2.0 GHz / AMD Athlon 3200+ or faster RAM: 1 GB Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 / ATI Radeon 1800 with Shader Model 3 and 256 MB VRAM or faster OS: Windows XP Optimal PC Requirements CPU: Intel Core 2.8 GHz / AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or faster RAM: 2 GB Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT / ATI Radeon 4850 with Shader Model 3 and 512 MB VRAM or faster OS: Windows XP or Vista I think a direct statement from BI/beta tester would be most useful here - there is plenty of information available in the forums as to end user experience, however I'd/we'd like to see what the official result of all that testing was, and also what the justification of choosing these values is. Personally my experience is that of a practically unplayable campaign even at low resolutions, and low settings. My spec meets & exceeds the optimum rec. spec, and I'd like something official to compare performance with ; and from what I've read a lot of people would also like an explanation of the way in which bench mark specs. are chosen. I'd prefer to post my specific woes in the general performance sticky, rather that have this important info from the devs lost in the thread. It's the first piece of info most people will seek when visiting troubleshooting for the first time. I understand that there may well be performance improvements with future patches (still waiting for an official final patch for Arma 1 :) ) however I would think that it is only fair to quote the rec. spec for what you have already developed, and not for what might/might not arrive in the future ... Many thanks. Intel 2 Q9400 quad core O/C @ 3.2 XP SP3 Nvidia 9800 GTX 512 on 186's 4 G DDR 2 Asus PQ-5 latest bios & drivers **edited for spelling** Edited June 22, 2009 by Guttersnipe Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldkid80 10 Posted June 22, 2009 hope you get an answer i'm tottaly agree with you and me also i would like to now about the spec they use Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlackLord 0 Posted June 22, 2009 I'm also curious what specs the devs and beta testers use/used. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Placebo 29 Posted June 22, 2009 Everyone has a different spec, from the individual people at Bohemia, to the developers, to expect a list of everyone's specs is simply not realistic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
guttersnipe 1 Posted June 22, 2009 Thanks for the reply - just to be clear though, I didn't expect a huge list of specs from BI (or even any specs at all) - just a simple, averaged, list of what video settings etc. produce a playable single player campagin game at the rec.min & rec. opt. specs. Presumably there must be some process at arriving at these two group of specs for publication etc and I assume that quality control etc must have used some normalising proccess to produce them . . otherwise they'd be meaningless, even as a guide. I don't think anyone realistically expects every single pc in the spec range to run the game exactly the same, but judging form the number of complains/posts some guidance as to what could be realistically expected from the hardware would be useful. Thanks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shadowze 1 Posted June 22, 2009 Everyone has a different spec, from the individual people at Bohemia, to the developers, to expect a list of everyone's specs is simply not realistic. You are joking ? I dont think what people are asking is unreasonable A couple of the machines used for play testing at BIS , the specs of those would be helpful to people. ( along with what res they were using ) We are not asking for an entire inventory to every nut and bolt as BIS Come one Placebo , your the man with your finger on the pulse at BIS , enquiring minds would like to know :-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frugle 10 Posted June 22, 2009 I pass optimal PC requirements and I get around 20-30 fps even on low settings and it sucks -.- Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnyFrosty 10 Posted June 22, 2009 I agree some info on used specs from some testing machines would be helpfull. I've got a monster pc (in my humble opinion), and I keep crashing from especially online games. Single play is doing ok (without too many crashes and good graphics). cheers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
guttersnipe 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Looks like we're not getting the info then ? Was a pretty humble request & could have helped alot of people .... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Placebo 29 Posted June 23, 2009 Looks like we're not getting the info then ? Was a pretty humble request & could have helped alot of people .... http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1323722&postcount=7 I've also posted my system specs previously in threads. As for which settings I use and the FPS I get, haven't tried retail but using the beta I ran on high and the gameplay seemed smooth enough, I don't bother checking FPS as I find it irrelevant, if the gameplay is smooth I enjoy it, if it's not smooth I find the issue and resolve it (drivers, hardware tweaking, ingame setting lowering etc.) I'm sorry if my answer is of no help to you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
guttersnipe 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Well thanks for posting that much anyway Placebo, appreciate the effort. if the gameplay is smooth I enjoy it, if it's not smooth I find the issue and resolve it (drivers, hardware tweaking, ingame setting lowering etc.) - hopefully if you find it's the software you'll fix that for us too, because while I can do the others, that's a little beyond my scope ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Driscoll 10 Posted June 26, 2009 Hi all, newish to all this. Have used OFP and Armed Assault. Using a HP Pavillion dv6000 laptop. Specs: Processor: AMD Turion 64 X2 Mobile Technology TL-56 (2 CPUs), ~1.8GHz Memory: 2046MB RAM DirectX Version: DirectX 10 NVIDIA GeForce Go 7200 Worked well for Armed Assault but FPS on Arma 2 are very poor even at low settings. Realise computer probably doesn't meet optimum specs. What should i do? Nvidia Graphic card is integrated into motherboard .... up grade motherboard?? Can this be done? Can i use an external graphics card and dual use it with GPU on computer's motherboard? Sell on my copy of Arma 2 on ebay and stick with Armed Assault?? Advice appreciated! D. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PuFu 4600 Posted June 27, 2009 ... wrong thread I don't bother checking FPS as I find it irrelevant, if the gameplay is smooth I enjoy it, if it's not smooth I find the issue and resolve it (drivers, hardware tweaking, ingame setting lowering etc.) I am sorry, i don't get it. What you are saying here is that the game is optimized in your opinion, and the pile of people posting about crappy FPS - read unplayable, numbers don't count, i agree, are one of a kind, weird, and they should be resolving their issues with their PCs (which basically covers the whole range from low to enthusiastic)? I know you have nothing to do with the development of this game, so there is no pun directed to you, i am just wondering what you meant in the quoted post. Br/ PuFu Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
