Too bad BI dropped the ball ... great game now.

[Yoma 0]

A person playing say Crysis at 100fps, see the exact same thing as someone on a system that shows 80fps. It's limited by the bottleneck, you're display.

So I chuckle when people say "I can run Crysis at 120 fps." and another guy says, "I only get 75fps, my machine must suck." (then the first guy laughs) No.... you're seeing exactly the same thing if you have the same speed displays.

I'm not a "i want 2000fps" person myself, however you may miss a vital issue there: fps measurements over a period are allways AVERAGE fps's.

So when someone has 75 fps it may very well mean he just has more of the minimum 15 fps and less of 120 fps. So saying "i only need 60 fps" on a 60Hz screen does not really make sense unless you mean "minimum 60 fps". Getting a minimum 60 fps in games means the average fps will probably be at least 120 fps.

Anyway, as long as the action is subjectively smooth fps doesn't really matter that much.

[Placebo 29]

Yeah, BIS did themselves no favors by rushing the game out a few months too soon. On the other hand, at least things will be ready for OA...

The publishers decide when the game is released.

[mr.g-c 6]

The publishers decide when the game is released.

And the buh-man (the German publisher) is already insolvent :rolleyes::eek: Or at least its Mother-Company....

[-Total- 0]

The game was released in much better shape than ArmA 1 was. The things that needed patched we the things that pretty much only those of us really familiar with ArmA 1 would have recognized.

Patched in it's current state, it still would not have anymore of a player base than it does now. It's not a shoot em up console game. Those are what sell and those are what drive the market in the shooter genre (aka MW2, L4D2, etc)

Best we can do is contact old friends who are totally burnt out on run and gun shooters and assure them that they can find a niche in a niche game.

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

I'm not a "i want 2000fps" person myself, however you may miss a vital issue there: fps measurements over a period are allways AVERAGE fps's.

So when someone has 75 fps it may very well mean he just has more of the minimum 15 fps and less of 120 fps. So saying "i only need 60 fps" on a 60Hz screen does not really make sense unless you mean "minimum 60 fps". Getting a minimum 60 fps in games means the average fps will probably be at least 120 fps.

Anyway, as long as the action is subjectively smooth fps doesn't really matter that much.

oh sure, your last line I totally agree. But saying that you're machine ALWAYS get's 70fps, and if your game can't do that, it's "not optimized". How many people REALLY know what goes into graphics optimization anyway. Love it when people throw that into the mix. I mean, I've watched my game go over 40fps, and down to 10 if I'm staring at a wall and turn quickly and it has to load the graphics. But I'm not going to say it runs at 40fps. but I know running around in a warfare game with server full, my fps is in the 30's. which I find totally fine. I realized just how much better my machine ran when I didn't stare at a FPS meter ;)

Edited November 30, 2009 by [RIP] Luhgnut

[sbsmac 0]

Oh, btw, movie film I believe is 24fps +/- (can't remember) and that seems pretty smooth huh? So what's the big deal if it's over movie film speed?

I agree that FPS is massively over-rated by those who claim that unless they are getting 120fps the game isn't optimised. However, there is an important aspect here which is often overlooked. Games are an _interactive_ medium so when people complain about fps they are really complaining about the perceived delay between triggering some action and getting visual feedback. At 20fps you are talking about a worst-case response time of 50ms. To give you something to calibrate against, imagine you were listening to a fast dance tune at 120bpm. In that case 16th notes (eg the hi-hat) are 125ms apart and I guarantee you can tell if someone is playing out of time to the extent of being half-way between those notes. In fact, IIRC a good musician can resolve time down to about 10ms (100fps).

Anyway, that's all a bit OT ;-) FWIW, I think that the OP has a good point. I really hope that Operation Arrowhead is of a high standard on release. It would help BIS no end to have another 'must-buy' or 'game of the year'. In that sense I think the strategy of releasing OA as a separate game rather than just an expansion pack is the right one - it gives the magazines another chance to review it as a full release.

[flocke.le 0]

Yes Arma2 is good playeble after 5 Patches now, but hey....It really should be!!!..I bought the german version on the first day and it was just a nightmare. [...]The Retailversion, was a joke-.-

+1

That's what i think, too. For me Beta 60091 was the first Version i could play the game without FREEZING.

[Colt45_GTO 10]

+1

That's what i think, too. For me Beta 60091 was the first Version i could play the game without FREEZING.

i kept freezing before....

realised the window was open and heating off!

fixed it ;)

:lol:

sorry i had too :p

[STALKERGB 6]

The fact there were alot of bugs in the game at release is, in a way promising. It means BIS aren't settling for something simple, they are/have made something much more complex and ambitious and thats what (to me) is important, the scope of the game.

[zoog 18]

Yeah, but it was expected. I mean, it happened three times in a row by then. There's always bound to be teething problems, BI products just have huge teeth.

Because it was expected doesn't make it right or hurt sales less. Personally I think many potential buyers were lost which are very very hard to get back again. I'm sure most of them won't even try OA, even if it's 100% polished. Once you have a certain name....

But I LOVE ArmA, I think it's great!

[Colt45_GTO 10]

after thinking about this for oh 3 seconds....

BIS got crafty! instead of releasing a game later in the year or early the next, they said....buggerit lets send it out now and work with the players, this way we can perfect the game and make it exactly the way they want it!

[Yoma 0]

They allways worked like this as far as i can remember :D

[Sirex1 10]

You people forget some things when talking about gaming.

Avreage FPS does not equall all the time good view. A low avreage FPS like 40 may in reality mean that the overall game expericen will be poor becouse your somputer will in severeal times during the game drop down under 25 FPS, very appearent in fast FPS games. So a higher avreage FPS means a better overall expericen. This is also why in modern graphiccard/CPU test the lowest and the highest FPS is also meseaured, the lowers is extremly importan in notacing which hardware actually is the best. For example one graphic crad may produce a higher higest FPS but a lower lowest FPS then another card, then the second card is better since the main thing is to "avoid" lowest minium FPS. This is also why large memory on graphic crads are importan, if i have 1 gig memory on my card the game will not load as often as with 512 and thus give a overall smoother game experience.

Thus having a higher avreage FPS usually means you have a higher buffer when the game gets hardware heavy. Also it is a good value to measure agaisnt other hardware.

So claming that high FPS is irrellevant is batently wrong. High FPS is very importan in measuring hardware against each other and to see which hardware can keep the highest lowest FPS. Even if a computer system can produce an avreage 80 FPS in a game it propabbly will produce a lowest FPS between 10-40 FPS, this is important!

[Colt45_GTO 10]

my head hurts!

i know i said somewhere that spelling and grammar isn't important on forums but damn man please check your spelling, that is really hard to read. you have all the time in the world to reply.

[An Fiach 10]

That's only relevant when choosing hardware.

[Sirex1 10]

That's only relevant when choosing hardware.

Or tweaking your setting for getting more FPS which was on of the topic discussed during the thread.

[KeyCat 131]

Who uses a CRT anymore?

More than you expect I guess, I'm still using my old 21" Hitachi CRT, it's chunky but great and will serve me until I can't repair it anymore.

/KC

[NeoNiels 0]

after thinking about this for oh 3 seconds....

BIS got crafty! instead of releasing a game later in the year or early the next, they said....buggerit lets send it out now and work with the players, this way we can perfect the game and make it exactly the way they want it!

Publishers determine release dates, not the developer.

[Sniperdoc 0]

Luhgnut;1500067']What?!? Like the same reviewers that RAVED about Dragon Rising? Who cares?

Actually PC Gamer did not rant and rave about it. Rather even tore them a proverbial new one.

[kklownboy 43]

Luhgnut;1501470']heh' date=' my point, ok so you have a CRT at 75Mhz. so your fps is at 75Mhz, but it's not as bright and crisp.[/quote'] My CRT is much better than a LCD, My Dp is .22, 100hz at 19/12...

Luhgnut;1501470']

...

...

...

And I"m on a little Athlon 4400XP ... so I'm happy. You don't need a monster rig for Arma2 contrary to what people say. They are basing their judgment on what they THINK is good game optimization.

Its all about the low frames, the dips. a average of 30 means you hit some real lows... But then its all about the smoothness.... If your game is smooth then fine. Or its all about the IQ, if you can get nice AA and AF with all the rest maxed then fine, or its all about the "all" as in all of the above. Or more like this thread, its stupid:confused:

[S-M 10]

Its the texture streaming, you can run the game fine on max details, 200% screen res and only get a "fps" of 25

On the stock game, this will run like absolute arse for the majority of gamers, due to the stuttering and general clunkiness, with the recent beta patches, it will still run like a 25 "fps" game, but a smooth 25fps game.

Well that's how mine ended up anyway, it runs pretty sweet now, although i still don't gain much in framerate by turning the graphics right down, nor did i lose much by under clocking the cpu back to stock settings, but maxing everything out and using a 200% screen res and still getting a smooth 25-30fps in multiplayer? i can handle that no problems at all! i don't mind the little daft bugs that have the wrong bullets for a gun, etc etc etc

What i did mind was the fact that my PC was struggling to run the game, and it should have been fine (once again, despite what the chumps would have tried to tell me :D )

My only problem at the moment is that the multiplayer seamed pretty deserted last time i was on my favourite server :(