rickidoo

Bangtail, Fraps doesn't know what the monitor is, and the effect I am referring to has nothing to do with FPS. It's not something I could screenshot because a screenshot just takes a picture of the video card output. In an earlier post I gave a link which went to a non-arma page which explained why there is less ghosting on a 120 monitor (and 120 tv, too), and therefore a sharper image, during times when the screen is moving rapidly. As I mentioned before, the sharpness increase is only under certain circumstances. Granted they are extreme circumstances.. normally I don't play Arma 2 spinning my character around. Still, there are those hectic moments when I am looking rapidly for an enemy, and under that scenario, the 120 htz monitor does benefit Arma gameplay. All the best, Rick

This is all good information. But the bottom line is this: Under certain circumstances... theory or no theory... a 120 Mhz monitor offers a more realistic and pleasing view to the eye. I have a dual monitor setup. One is 1900 x 1200 60hz and the other a 120 Mhz 1080. I can run one or the other in ARMA2. When I compare the two, the 120 Mhz looks more fluid when the picture is rushing by, such as when you spin your character with a mouse left to right, or right to left etc. (It is only under this scenario that I notice a difference). I have 16Gig ram, a 480 Nvidia and an I-950. The difference is noticeable whether I have graphics settings up or down. >>>There is just something about a rapidly changing picture that is handled more smoothly by a 120 Mhz.<<< Maybe it's the ghosting issue, or maybe its an interference between two rapidly changing visual elements - the draw of the picture itself as determined by the math of the calculations behind them, and the draw of the picture as determined by the monitor's mechanics. Don't know. All I know is this: I have two monitors side by side, and the 120 Mhz is simply smoother under certain circumstances. But not all. Don't throw away your 60Mhz monitor, but when you do upgrade, go to a 120Mhz unit. As many have written elsewhere, "once you go to 120Mhz you will never go back to 60". I did not "get" those statements before, but I do now. Rick

Now I understand why the 120 Mhz looks so good.... Read this article - look down about half way on the page where it talks about LCD "ghosting" on a 60 VS 120 system: http://www.digitalversus.com/guide-120-hz-screens-article-502.html My take away from that is that given two identical monitors, one with 60hz and one with 120mhz , the 120 will have less "ghosting" which to the eye looks sharper when objects are moving.

No, for sure, not. What I meant is that here-before, improvement was measured in more textures, more details etc. An increased refresh rate doesn't help that. There hasn't been a lot of discussion in the ARMA community about 120 Mhz monitors, but there are discussions elsewhere for other games. I'm not the only one seeing a difference. Take it the other way - reduce the refresh rate from 60 to 30 then to 15. What would happen? Your eyes would see a change in smoothness. Now take it the other way.. faster. I'm not saying its night and day different. I'm just trying to get out to the community that 120 Mhz monitors are worth looking at. Now, back to my game, which was already in progress....

OK, on 11/20/2010 I posted a question regarding if ARMA played "smoother" on a 120 Mhz monitor: "...for those who have a 120hz monitor, did you notice an improvement in rendering "smoothness" when you rotate the players view?" There were a number of replies, ranging from "it has nothing to do with the monitor" to a suggestion that I turn down my anti-alias settings. No one really answered my question, but I can now, since I did buy a 120 Mhz monitor. Specifically an ASUS VG236 with a native resolution of 1920 x 1080. Arma 2 was the first game loaded, in all flavors : arma 2, OA, PMC, and British. Note that I do not have the 3d glasses. This post is all about a normal presentation on a 2D monitor. My prior monitor was a ASUS as well, 1900x1200 native resolution. I am happy to report that the visual improvement is noticeable in a very subtle kind of way. It is most apparent when the view is changing quickly in an angular sort of way - when the view is "spinning". It's just "smoother looking". Please note: I am not referring to FPS - I am referring to something you can't quite aim your finger at, but your brain clearly knows that the pixels are lighting up at a much higher rate - and your eye interprets that as "smoother". I'm delighted that I bought this monitor, because it did improve my Arma experience.

bardosy - very well done campaign. Really immersive, and well executed. Thanks!!!!

I know its hard to describe in words what I am seeing, but it has nothing to do with the textures. I mean, I have a SSD, 16Gig ram, a 480 Nvidia card and an I950. The two hard drives that I do have are top of the line Raptor drives. It really doesn't get that much stronger than that. Perhaps I should reverse the question a bit: is there a visual benefit to a 120hz monitor for fast action sequences in Arma, over an 60hz. Do any of you that have a 120hz monitor notice any kind of a difference over the 60hz monitor. How much of a difference? Is it worthwhile updating from a perfectly good 24" flatscreen 60hz monitor to a 23.6" 120hz monitor if realism is increased by this. Now, people who sell TV's that are 120hz (and now, 240hz) will try to convince you that the tv can more quickly update its picture when there is fast motion moving across the screen. For slow moving images, or static images, my own eyeballs tell me there is no difference between a 120hz and 60hz tv. It does seem that there is a difference when high speed motion across the screen is happening. But my interest is with Arma specifically. Any of you with 120hz monitors see much a difference when there is lots of motion across the screen? (Such as when you spin the view of your soldier). Rick

I was hoping someone who plays Arma2/OA and uses a 120hz monitor (*without* 3d glasses) can answer the following question. With my 24" 60hz monitor, Nvidia 480 graphics card and I950 processor, I get silky smooth frame rates even with all settings maxed out (except post-processing is set to off and I keep the rendering distance to about 1500 yards.) When I rotate my player's view using the mouse, its not as silky smooth as I would like it to be. (Even if I knock down the graphics quality settings). I think I am hitting the boundary's of the refresh rate for my monitor... So my question is, for those who have a 120hz monitor, did you notice an improvement in rendering "smoothness" when you rotate the players view? If that is the case, I may be buying one. BTW, I am not talking about 3d glasses here. Just plain 2d on a 120hz monitor. All thoughts appreciated.

There are tons of tutorials, a Wiki, and an army of players willing to help other players get more out of Arma. With so much information, it's easy for little tips to get lost in the mix. I'd like to start a thread here on Arma 2 tips, but each tip can only be a single sentence long. You can follow it with an optional 'benefit' statement, also one sentence long. Here are a few that have helped me. 1. When interacting with foreign language locals, turn 'subtitles' on so you can see a translation of what is being said. Benefit: It sure beats having to read the chat log for the English interpretation. 2. If you are in command and are in a helo looking for ground installations, turn up the video settings to see far distances (even if it slows framerates), and use the command view key ('del') to get a seller world view. Benefit: You really get a great 'lay of the land' view and can use the helo patrol to pick up valuable intelligence. 3. Select a color team (e.g, red) by Shift and selecting one member of the team. (e.r., Shift F2) 4. When assigning members to a team color, team members 2,3,4 are always the leads. Benefit: makes it very easy to select a team *single handed* with Shift-F2, Shift-F3, Shift-f4 etc.

1.14 graphics are noticably smoother - I can crank most settings up and get a silky smooth response. BUT what I REALLY LIKE in 1.14 the most is a better balanced AI. Finally, finally, finally gone is the "expert vision" of the AI enemies even at low skill levels. And so I started the base campaign all over again. I may be better at it the 3rd or 4th time, but it simply seems like the AI is much more realistic. AI does't zero in on me with the first shot from amazing distanaces. This would not be possible in real life and I am very happy it is no longer happening in Arma. This revised AI translates into one thing: More fun, and actually more of a challenge as we now must be more skillful in balancing agressive actions and exposure. Whereas before, we would be visually ID'd no matter what we did. Arma's fun level for me now exceeds OFP. Way to go BIS. Wish you great success! Rick

I love Armed Assault and before it OPF - I want to see ARMA 2! But BI you need to do at least a minor amount of site updating. It still says Queens Gambit will be hitting the shelves September 28 at the top of the home page. If a total newbee comes to your home page, I think it a high probability that they may think it September 28, 2008! Then again they may see the "last updated date" of September 2007 and think "this company has vaporized". Change the intro text on the home page to almost anything more current, and you'll be golden.

One MAJOR difference with the US version (I purchased via download from Atari) is the back story. I also own the german version. So far at least (I'm several missions into the US version), there are no newscasters telling the story. Instead, it's mostly an audio backstory with still pictures of a us trooper - I think Will Porter - describing what's happening from his boots on ground perspective. So far at least I like this approach better than the newscaster backstory, which I alwys felt was a bit cartoonish and definately 3rd person. They bypass the whole cartoonish issue now by having the story told mostly via audio, and Will Porter's telling of the story on the ground is much more first person. I like it. Rick

With the patch to 1.05 from 1.02, one is now able to set enemy AI to expert while in the easy mode of the difficulty settings. (I just need unlimited saves so I play in easy mode and try to simulate the more difficult aspects of expert mode.) With the Enemy AI set to expert, it's a whole new game in my opinion. Enemies are much more aggressive. They will flank much more forcefully. I guess what I value in a shooter game is loosing the sense during gameplay that it's a shooter game, and feeling instead that I am out their on the ground trying to stay alive from these people who want to put me under. I can't claim that every mission does this for me, but the 1.05 enemy movement often results in a "suspension of disbelief". By the way, I did not see any loss of smoothness going from 1.02 to 1.05. (7600GT, 2.4 P-4, 1 Gig Ram). I love playing without the grass, it makes missions much more doable. Just my thoughts, Rick

I just played a mission which found me hiding in a building. I was wearing headphones and using a new Xfi SOuindcard. The sounds of people approaching looking for me were about as realistically scary as a game can get. Â In those few minutes I was no longer in a game, I was in a situation trying to survive with my life. Quite spectacular. Rick

I love AA, and am a long time player of OFP. I have the German version patched to English. In so many ways AA has refined the experience of OFP. But in two ways I wish AA was more like OFP. I base this on going back to OFP to do a comparison, and also pulling out my trustee (real) rifle and putting it through some test aimings. I am former military and have shot M16 (3 expert ribbons) , too. 1. In OFP, when you go to aim, there is almost no delay in bringing the stock up to your eye. This is a touch too fast, but it makes for rapid game play. But in AA, there's a lag that just a touch too slow. My scoped rifle (the real one) seems to come up to the eye and get settled on a target quicker than AA, but slower than OFP. This is more a minor annoyance than a problem. My system is a P4 2.4 Gig Nividia 7600 2. The real issue and one that I consider an outright drag on the game "fun level" is the aiming. When I pull my (real rifle) up, it takes what feels like a few milliseconds to get a bead. But in AA, it feels like the mass of the rifle is some 20-30 pounds. And so when you aim it roams around the target more than I think it should. A related issue is shooting at close quarters. If my rifle is spraying bullets I should not have an issue hitting a target only 20 feet away. In comparison trials with OFP, I have confirmed to my own satisfaction that the gameplay is definately off kilter in this regard. Here's crossing my fingers that BI will work on these issues, both of which have been discussed elsewhere on the board. Â But I thought my experiments with a real rifle (empty, 'tho), might add something. Rick