Question for A2 developers... sysspec

[DarkestKnight 10]

Hey guys, what exactly are the system specs of the computers you tested your game on with Max Visual settings(your final vision) while having completely fluid gameplay?

This should be interesting.

[TimRiceSE 10]

who says they had fluid gameplay?

since we're in troubleshooting, do you have a problem, or just trolling?

[DarkestKnight 10]

i'm trying to ascertain if anyone even understands what it is to have a good business model anymore. this is troubleshooting, wouldn't you like to know what hardware these minimum and recommended specifications were determined on? Or are we just willing to keep doing half of a companies job for free just because we're super interested in the end product? quit settling for garbage up front.

Seems like hardware devs go about their jobs creating what they think software devs could use, while software devs lag behind on their knowledge of what they have to work with. This is one area where the endless competition on terms of many small differences in hardware architecture doesn't do a lick of a damn of any type of good for businesses like this. Cause apparently they just can't adapt quick enough, or efficiently enough to things like 64bit systems, SLI. Yet somehow they still design their product to demand those resources, yet not be able to use them....

I'm struggling to understand why in this day and age of such clear modularity of computer components between basically Intel/Nvidia AMD/ATI that designing an end product with the quality assurance of game consoles is so flargin hard?

You start a damn company to design software, youre going to need computers to design on, and youre going to need to test on hardware. Cut costs and build all your dev computers with a variety of parts and test your product on them! Don't just build your dev comps on the highest grade and let yourself be blind.

It's business, you give your money to a company and then you take your item home only to find that it's missing screws.... well, the company actually want's you to smelt the metal to make the screws then try to figure out the proper threads for the screws to make it fit right.... thats BS. I guess youre fine with that, but I'm getting cheated out of money for my entertainment.

Maybe the company is relying on you to just be addicted enough, to want it enough to do some of their job for them now.... maybe THAT is part of their business model. who are these people, are they German?

[jw custom 56]

After reading your essay i got the feeling the game doesn't run optimal for you. Maybe you should post in the "ArmA 2 (low) performance issues"!

[Colt45_GTO 10]

i heard they tested them on pent III with 128mb radeon vid, 256mb ram on win millenium.

with good results too 'apparently'

[TimRiceSE 10]

@OP.

Youre new around here arent you?

[Defunkt 431]

The fundamental flaw in your position is the assumption that the game should be developed to run maxed-out on today's hardware. This is precisely NOT what a PC-orientated studio ought to be doing, especially with the open-ended life-span that ArmA 2 will enjoy, it's called future-proofing. Having said that, with a modest view distance (2400) I do run the game with everything on Very High and on fairly modest hardware (HD4870, Athlon X2 7750), perhaps you should sort your PC out. Better yet, get a console, you clearly aren't cut-out for PC gaming if you imagine every title is going to run perfectly on the multitude of low-cost components in your average PC.

[DarkestKnight 10]

yea, this future proofing will make a lot of sense when Arma 3 is released. Here you go kiddies, spend another forty dollars and lets work through the problems on this one! WHUP, sorry we neglected to initialized use of any Directx 11 api features, but we did start learning how to write for DX10 FINALLY! ;)

Don't you dare try to tell me what I'm cut out for. I bought a game listing all recommended specs being within the parameters of my system... I got slow performance on what should be acceptable settings, even with minimized visual settings. I only run a core 27 processes in windows at a base start... nothing that should interfere with the ability of every component in my computer to run at optimum performance for a single program.... no virus checks, no energy saver checks. The game just isn't made right. Most of you say that this app is mostly processor intensive, not one core of my processor is ever maxed at 100% even while flying an a-10 in chern with max vis and max settings. I've tried OCing my proc, no worthwhile improvements. I've OC'd my GFX card to 605MHz.... mem clock to 1000.... still not fluid. I've dusted the entire machine, brushed off and blown out all heatsinks. Perfectly acceptable temperatures from CPU and GPU. More than enough RAM at a fast enough speed.

This has nothing to do with me, but the fact that game makers like this, DCS, egosoft, they all switched their quality assurance off and put it on the consumer... I don't have to be of a certain breed to play a damn computer game...

[Wupjak 0]

Have you tried the latest beta? I run XP32 SP3, have the same processor as you (at 3.4 ghz), slower ram and a GTX260 at stock speed and I get 40+ fps with everything very high 1680x1050 (100% fill) playing Seal Team 6 or 50+ dinking around in the editor with SOM.

If you're playing the campaign, don't. That's an exercise in frustration, I agree.

Oh, and drop the attitude if you want anyone to help. If you're just here to troll, knock yourself out, but expect to be shown the door.

[Defunkt 431]

Consoles were created to address a certain market, you are that market, get one. Of course you won't be able to play ArmA2 or most other titles with an ounce of ambition but you'll have (and pay extra for) all the QA anyone could possibly want. Go knock yourself out.

[DarkestKnight 10]

yes, i have been using the latest beta. you know what, I roll off a pretty decent amount of play with it... all settings maxed. not fluid and never actually fluid despite lowering settings at times which is why i'd rather leave them maxed. I'm just not going to sit down and invest time on a mission that can just slip out of my hands in a blink on some random crash, basically making the prior moments a waste of effort. the shoddy lingering documentation on mission editing and scripting also dissuades my from getting involved in that. so bam. i'll do what i can do. i'm not happy about this surprisingly supported trend in computer gaming however.

yes, i do have higher standards for how I spend my time. Being right here right now, arguing with subserviant consumers doesn't fit in with my concept of a well spent night. PEACE!

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

you wont get any positive responses to this thread with you attacking the developer and its community.

and that comment 'are they German?' borders on racism.

If I was German I would be quite offended.

you aren't cut out to be a member of this community...:rolleyes:

[mr burns 132]

-Ziggy-;1502178']If I was German I would be quite offended.

lol' date=' could´nt care less :D

People like him vanish in a matter of weeks anyway.

Funnily he´s exactly the kind of person i´ve been refering to just a few minutes ago in the not 100,000 playing Arma2 thread (w/o reading here first).

[dm 9]

... all settings maxed... ...i'd rather leave them maxed.

So if you bought a BMW M3 or an Audi A4 you would drive it around at the "max setting" of 155 MPH all the time?

Being right here right now, arguing with subserviant consumers doesn't fit in with my concept of a well spent night.

Then dont, dont come to the forum, spend your time "better" by doing other things instead of coming here, complaing that the game doesnt run maxed on your [average] rig, then bitching when people tell you otherwise...

@burns, nice man, nice :D

[Colt45_GTO 10]

So if you bought a BMW M3 or an Audi A4 you would drive it around at the "max setting" of 155 MPH all the time?

Then dont, dont come to the forum, spend your time "better" by doing other things instead of coming here, complaing that the game doesnt run maxed on your [average] rig, then bitching when people tell you otherwise...

@burns, nice man, nice :D

Quite true.

if your car had a turbo and you pulled the actuator pipe to run full boost......it wont last long!

this game is way better than any pc, it proves that software can out fox hardware . BIS out foxed computer parts manufacturer's and said ''Hey we we can creat something that you cant match'' :lol:

just play the game dude quit the bellyachin

[jw custom 56]

yes, i have been using the latest beta. you know what, I roll off a pretty decent amount of play with it... all settings maxed. not fluid and never actually fluid despite lowering settings at times which is why i'd rather leave them maxed.

LOL maxing out settings with the rig you got is quite ambitious :p No offence :)

My box run ArmA 2 very nicely

[bangtail 0]

yes, i have been using the latest beta. you know what, I roll off a pretty decent amount of play with it... all settings maxed. not fluid and never actually fluid despite lowering settings at times which is why i'd rather leave them maxed. I'm just not going to sit down and invest time on a mission that can just slip out of my hands in a blink on some random crash, basically making the prior moments a waste of effort. the shoddy lingering documentation on mission editing and scripting also dissuades my from getting involved in that. so bam. i'll do what i can do. i'm not happy about this surprisingly supported trend in computer gaming however.

yes, i do have higher standards for how I spend my time. Being right here right now, arguing with subserviant consumers doesn't fit in with my concept of a well spent night. PEACE!

All settings maxed on that antique?

No point in listening to anything else you have to say tbh.

You lambast the developers and the industry in general while ignoring the fact that your box is mid range (at best).

Subservient consumers? Get off your high horse donkey dipshit.

Edited December 1, 2009 by BangTail

[Colt45_GTO 10]

what tickles me is the fact that darkwassit cant play a game on his system at maxed everything.

i have always considered my pc's to be adequate for gaming. yes years ago when i earned a pretty penny i kept ontop of my game where the pc was concerned, having the latest everything, infact i think i was one of the first in the UK to own an ASUS crossfire mainboard. that thing cost me a fair packet. and it worked well.....for a few month, i had the AMD Athlon XP 6000+ CPU in there too. it was all top notch at the time...or so i thought? i also had some wild Nvidia based vid card too with 4gb ram.

i couldn't ever run any game maxed out. always run xp home edit and always the latest drivers. and these were games like CoD2 and BF2 etc.

my system now is less spec than the OP's and it runs the game near on flawlessly on high settings (not max) but runs it better on medium settings and tbh when i set things to max i really cant see much difference. i have the draw distance set to 1/3, there is no point having it set to maximum, a human can not see that distance anyway (clearly) and there is always some mist/fog/smog to lower that distance IRL so why have it maxed?

the game was purchased by many because its a mil sim, it runs a real world engine. so play real world graphics. take a look out the window and see how far you can actually see without being obstructed by trees, buildings or hillsides. and also if you can se a hill in the far distance....can you physically see a farmer walking on it? he would look more like an ant. and with a sniper rifle he would be well over 2 mile away.....the bullet wouldn't travel that far or have the kinetic energy to do anything.

i think the OP needs to rethink what he's saying and look in real terms!, this is a mil sim not an arcade game.

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

Does anyone know if Maruk or Suma have actually stated what their computer specs were during game development? Can you quote them, please?

I can only assume it was something similar to recommended system requirements...

[Deadfast 43]

This screenshot was snapped on these settings by Jan Prazak on this PC.

(Original post)

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

ahh, thanks very much Deadfast. thats helpful. I never would have found that.

I wonder though, how much development was done on Jans computer? ;)

Has Suma mentioned his specs anywhere? reviewing his and Maruks latest posts for an hour did not reveal to me the answer. I hope the OP puts as much effort as I did in finding the answer to his own question... :lookaround:

[Deadfast 43]

It's not his PC, it's one of the computers BIS owns. Jan was just the one to get in touch with Tiscali Games about it :)

I believe Maruk once revealed a screenshot that was supposedly taken on a 8800GT. I'll see if I can find it.

EDIT:

Found it.

Core2Duo 6750 2.66 GHz + GF8800GT/512 + 2 GB RAM

Edited December 1, 2009 by Deadfast

[kklownboy 43]

Hey guys, what exactly are the system specs of the computers you tested your game on with Max Visual settings(your final vision) while having completely fluid gameplay?

This should be interesting.

Do a search on the Devs, they have already posted there specs. And what is Max? 10000VD?, 200%@2048/1536?, 8XAA?

Game runs great with less than that "max"

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

I believe Maruk once revealed a screenshot that was supposedly taken on a 8800GT. I'll see if I can find it.

EDIT:

Found it.

Core2Duo 6750 2.66 GHz + GF8800GT/512 + 2 GB RAM

ahh, thanks again.

There you go OP, I hope you appreciate the effort to answer your question as do I.

I believe this thread has achieved its intended goal...:j:

[=wfl= sgt bilko 10]

... by Jan Prazak on this PC.

(Original post)

I got same reply when I asked what they used on the computer showing of those ArmA2 Dev Diary movies on their official youtube web:

"As requested in previous comments please find the HW configuration of the PC on which we are capturing the Dev Diaries:

Intel® Core2 Duo CPU, E8600 @ 3.33GHz (2 CPUs), ~3.3GHz

2046MB RAM

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260