Dragon Rising has been released

[bogdanm 0]

I have some more questions for the guys who own the game:

1) How do the tank battles feel like in DR? I mean do they feel realistic eg. rounds bouncing off the armor until someone score a critical hit? An additional question. Do the armored vehicles have damageable parts?

2)How do the vehicle battles feel like in MP games? Is there a better coordination with the new command system between the commander and the driver/gunner?

It will really be great if someone could make a video showing the new damage system(If there actually is something worth showing).

Actually i forgot to add something

My FPS in Arma2 seams to hover around 27

My FPS in OF:DR = 120 !?!

I was pleasantly impressed by that to be honest.

My FPS in Arma2 seams to hover around 30

My FPS in BF2 = 100 !?! (don't know exactly but it runs flawless with everything maxed)

I'm not really impressed by that to be honest.

Conclusion: I'd rather believe that DR has 2005 graphics than that the CM devs did an amazing job optimizing '09 graphics while almost everything else is CRAP.

Edited October 13, 2009 by BogdanM

[maddogx 13]

My FPS in Arma2 seams to hover around 27

My FPS in OF:DR = 120 !?!

I wouldnt be amazed by that, after all they got much less to handle

It's also very much dependent on graphics settings and which map you're playing. Load up Sahrani in Arma2, set the graphics to medium and you've got similar performance and visual quality.

[Rista 0]

DR still runs a lot better than Sahrani in ARMA 2, at least on my machine. Lots of people complaining about ugly foliage in DR but IMO the vegetation looks more than good enough overall and doesn't cause anywhere near as big of a performance hit as in ARMA.

High-spec machine owners will disagree but unnatural colors and issues like disappearing bushes aside, I'd more prefer it if ARMA looked and ran like that to be honest. A lot more people would be playing it and ARMA's vegetation only really looks great when you're standing still anyway.

[S-M 10]

If i remember rightly, i think i may have enabled v-synch as well, so it may be limited to the 120 figure.

I will check when i get home from work :)

[maddogx 13]

DR still runs a lot better than Sahrani in ARMA 2, at least on my machine. Lots of people complaining about ugly foliage in DR but IMO the vegetation looks more than good enough overall and doesn't cause anywhere near as big of a performance hit as in ARMA.

High-spec machine owners will disagree but unnatural colors and issues like disappearing bushes aside, I'd more prefer it if ARMA looked and ran like that to be honest. A lot more people would be playing it and ARMA's vegetation only really looks great when you're standing still anyway.

When it comes to graphics vs. performance, it's almost always a case of "you can't please everyone". On the one hand you've got people with insanely powerful gaming rigs demanding uber graphics to justify the money they spent - then on the other hand you've got people with humble machines, hoping they can play the game at acceptable quality with playable framerates.

The ideal game would be customizable enough to please everyone - but when you think about it, Arma2 and DR both fail at this. Arma2 looks amazing but is hugely lacking in optimization, as even lowering the video settings doesn't give everyone sufficient performance. DR on the other hand performs great but the visuals are sub-par even at maximum settings, due to low model and texture quality, plus various other issues like the bland colors.

[Bulldogs 10]

Tank battles very fake, the vehicles don't have damageable parts, you destroy them or you don't and it takes about 3-4 grenades to take down a tank

[highfly 10]

I agree, I have a mid machine, only GPU is new, I get 22-30fps in ARMA and 100-120 in OFPDR.

Come one guys, they have done something right, we can admit it, even if that's the only thing. And I don't agree it's 2005 graphics, the graphics event look better than Arma on some points (though I know they don't load the same stuff).

The most disappointing thing for me is the lack of TrackIR and joystick support. This is "foutage de gueule" as we say in french (meaning it's a bad joke).

I should have been suspicious when I read they would release the game for PC and consoles at the same time... cause this is a console game.

Edited October 13, 2009 by highfly

[msy 22]

I hope you can look at thouse pics snaped from of: dr

in conclution, of: dr, from the head to the foot,

if the EGO engine is a so called next gen engine

then other things are from the stone age

so this is called system friendly game?

http://bbs.samren.cn/attachment/60_192_044f2fc6db95bb6.jpg

http://bbs.samren.cn/attachment/60_192_2e1068f77e24df9.jpg

[Deadfast 43]

http://bbs.samren.cn/attachment/60_192_044f2fc6db95bb6.jpg

Reminds me of BF2's 3rd person models on low settings.

[Pyronick 21]

Codemasters could have implemented DirectX 11 spec tessellation to at least make it look less like Battlefield 2 for people who own the new ATI HD 5k series, but they even didn't manage that.

[Rista 0]

When it comes to graphics vs. performance, it's almost always a case of "you can't please everyone". On the one hand you've got people with insanely powerful gaming rigs demanding uber graphics to justify the money they spent - then on the other hand you've got people with humble machines, hoping they can play the game at acceptable quality with playable framerates.

The ideal game would be customizable enough to please everyone - but when you think about it, Arma2 and DR both fail at this. Arma2 looks amazing but is hugely lacking in optimization, as even lowering the video settings doesn't give everyone sufficient performance. DR on the other hand performs great but the visuals are sub-par even at maximum settings, due to low model and texture quality, plus various other issues like the bland colors.

Very true. When I turn down the level of details in ARMA 2 to very low, the game looks crap but doesn't give me enough of a performance boost. DR on the other hand doesn't look great even on highest settings but it runs very, very well and for the most part IMO looks good enough.

I can't speak for everyone obviously but I'd think that "mil sim" crowd would be more into realistic gameplay and features rather than newest and best looking graphics. OFP was never the best looking game around and it's still being played, 8 years after release. Then again, looking at this thread and the amount of people complaining about the graphics in DR, I may be wrong. Personally, I'd rather have simpler graphics that look OK and have no FPS issues but as you said you can't please everyone.

[4 IN 1 0]

lets just call it Delta force next gen, that would just as good:p

[whisper 0]

The ideal game would be customizable enough to please everyone - but when you think about it, Arma2 and DR both fail at this. Arma2 looks amazing but is hugely lacking in optimization, as even lowering the video settings doesn't give everyone sufficient performance. DR on the other hand performs great but the visuals are sub-par even at maximum settings, due to low model and texture quality, plus various other issues like the bland colors.

Indeed, and when you see what can be achieved as perf boost when using Kju's PROPER performance mods, you wonder why BI didn't made low quality simply use this technique.

[trunkz jr 0]

I agree, I have a mid machine, only GPU is new, I get 22-30fps in ARMA and 100-120 in OFPDR.

Come one guys, they have done something right, we can admit it, even if that's the only thing.

Okay then, I admit the game is nicely optimized for single player. with that being said:

I admit the game has no lean

I admit the game has no dedicated servers

I admit the PC version of the game feels entirely ported

I admit driving anything feels like driving on ice.

I admit the cheating will only grow without anything anti-cheat device.

I admit the game is easily pirated due to no MP CD-key

I admit the spawn camping can be worse then BF2 (yes, I said it)

I admit I can do this all day

Sorry, I followed OFP:DR for so long, info, then screens, then videos, then finally the day it comes out, and WTF? I can't imagine what this game looked like when they wanted to release it June-July. When I revive someone as a medic, I feel like I'm reviving someone in zombie mode from CoD5.

I'm not saying this as a ArmA 2 fan either, I'm saying this as a gamer, they told us this game was made of chocolate and I feel like I bit into a chunk of sh!t.

What makes me mad most of all, is they used the name "Operation Flashpoint" to sell the game, they knew many of us fans of the original would come check their game out, how sad we are.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Trunkz Jr

[bogdanm 0]

I can't speak for everyone obviously but I'd think that "mil sim" crowd would be more into realistic gameplay and features rather than newest and best looking graphics. OFP was never the best looking game around and it's still being played, 8 years after release.

Unfortunately, DR doesn't have the realistic gameplay to compensate for the poor graphics. Also from my point of view when OFP was released it had some of the best graphics around.

Then again, looking at this thread and the amount of people complaining about the graphics in DR, I may be wrong.

People here are keen to mock DR's graphics because some people here and on other forums had the nerves to say that DR has way better graphics than ARMA2. Which is obviously not true...

[william1 0]

DR has by far better graphics than Arma 2 for a military simulator, that's unquestionable, you just have to take a look at the performance difference between one game and the other

[Rista 0]

Unfortunately, DR doesn't have the realistic gameplay to compensate for the poor graphics. Also from my point of view when OFP was released it had some of the best graphics around.

People here are keen to mock DR's graphics because some people here and on other forums had the nerves to say that DR has way better graphics than ARMA2. Which is obviously not true...

Oh, don't get me wrong, I totally agree when it comes to realism, DR doesn't come even close to the original OFP, let alone ARMA 2. People who say the graphics in DR are better either have older machines or are simply too much of fanboys to admit it's not true.

What I meant was, "2005 graphics" or not, the game looks OK to me and unnatural colors and some issues aside, I'd rather ARMA 2 looked like that if it meant the performance would be significantly higher.

[bonchie 39]

DR has by far better graphics than Arma 2 for a military simulator, that's unquestionable, you just have to take a look at the performance difference between one game and the other

Laughable.

[TimRiceSE 10]

DR has by far better graphics than Arma 2 for a military simulator, that's unquestionable, you just have to take a look at the performance difference between one game and the other

you know... by that logic... im sure i can get several thousand FPS in wolf3d..........

[4 IN 1 0]

I downloaded the music pack on CM forum and try to see if I like it as some others likes. I know it is based of personal taste and every people are different, in OFP:DR case, I didnt like it at all...

[jw custom 56]

DR has by far better graphics than Arma 2 for a military simulator, that's unquestionable, you just have to take a look at the performance difference between one game and the other

Simulator or not i'd choose ArmA2's graphic over DR's anyday :cool:

[CybrSlydr 0]

You guys ever think that OFP2: DR is the best thing to happen to ArmA 2? It's gotta be pushing fence sitters who were waiting to see which is better to ArmA 2. I hadn't bought it because I was waiting. After buying OFP: DR, now I want ArmA 2.

[enforcer1975 0]

Haven't found much simulated in OFP DR. Yes, they have better physics with vehicles, it would be a shame if they hadn't considering the engine was used for a racing game...

Simulation of the rocket launchers is great, too. But that's no innovation, AA already had this feature and the IR feature isn't that real as well. You can still see the cones of light on the floor and walls.

What doesn't make the game a simulation mainly on the infantry side is: you don't have a physical body like in ArmA 1-2 or OFP 1. You just have a weapon with two arms attached to it and even the reloading animation of the M16/M4 has a flaw.

This makes the game an action shooter without bunnyhopping. In this state OFP DR is right now i'd even prefer CoD when not playing ArmA.

[CybrSlydr 0]

You mean when they pull the "charging hammer" (is that what it's called?) when they still have one in the chamber after reloading when you didn't empty the magazine?

[whisper 0]

You guys ever think that OFP2: DR is the best thing to happen to ArmA 2? It's gotta be pushing fence sitters who were waiting to see which is better to ArmA 2. I hadn't bought it because I was waiting. After buying OFP: DR, now I want ArmA 2.

Not that I want to down BI sells :) But BI is going to release OA (Operation Arrowhead) next year, with some features like FLIR that would fill the few missing gaps between A2 and DR.

Depending on what you can afford, you may want to wait for OA