rbutters

I'm downloading the beta hotfix right now. I guess I should have noticed the thread right there talking about it. =) Thanks again, I am really hoping this justifies my 13 hour digital download.

I'll look for the newest patch and hotfix, hopefully it will help. Thanks for the guidance. I am at 1.06 now, and thought that was the latest.

And your post is helpful or relevant... how? Great, I hadn't seen posters like you in these forums. Until now.

8800 works great in most games, but it seems that in ArmA it is crap. I am uncertain if my experience is completely normal, but I am lucky to get 20 fps out of SLI'd 8800 GTS OC 320's when I am even down to 800x600 resolution. It's completely rediculous. I get monster fps out of most games, so I know its not my system. Just be wary of dropping the sort of cash necessary for an 8800 if the reason is to play this game. If its gaming in general I think its a great buy. But likely other modern gpu's will be a better deal, and give better performance for this game than an 8800. Hope this helps. Edit: Apparently the 1.07 beta hotfix addresses some 8800 series issues. If so my initial impression of 8 series performance on ArmA is probably flawed. I'm downloading the hotfix now, so I don't know yet. =)

I have to say that I am extremely disappointed with ArmA so far, and it's basically unplayable for me. My computer is more than capable of handling the latest games. I have an Athlon X2 4200+, 4GB of memory (in win xp 32, so only 3.25gb available), SLI'd 8800 GTS factory overclocked, audigy 2 ZS, and dedicated sata hdd's for OS and games. I get awesome fps in just about everything, from Oblivion to S.T.A.L.K.E.R., at my native resolution of 1680x1050 with most bells and whistles on and maxed. Then comes ArmA. The game seems awesome. But even at 800x600 level resolutions and with gfx turned down to low-med settings, I get an average of 20 or so fps outdoors, and it dips down to 12-15 or so fps in town. This is completely unplayable for me, and for the life of me I can't imagine why a game released in 2007 is so completely incapable of handling the most modern hardware. I'm not saying utilizing to maximum efficiency, I'm talking about simply handling. I feel like I am playing on a Pentium 3 with a 64MB GeForce 2. I have tried tweaking, I have the latest nvidia release drivers, all my chipset drivers are up to date, etc etc etc. I'm no spring chicken and my system is pretty well set up. Like I said, it handles everything else brilliantly. I even get 50 fps or so in Company of Heroes at native res with almost all eye candy. I see 8 series issues represented in these forums but seriously, I am shocked at the performance I get from this game. I hope it improves, as I really want to play ArmA.

I am currently downloading ArmA from direct2drive, so I figure I will be able to play it in about a week. =) I have browsed these forums and examined a lot of screen shots and movies and the game looks very good from what I have seen. I am wondering though what kind of system is required to really push the gfx. In particular, if my system will be able to. I have an Athlon X2 4200+ on a solid gaming mobo, 3.25GB of DDR2 667 Mhz memory, a pair of 8800 GTS OC 320MB in SLI mode, an Audigy 2 ZS, a pair of SATA hdd's (one running OS and one for games), and plenty of juice for the whole bag in an 850w psu. Oh and I try to game at 1680x1050 widescreen whenever possible (anything less starts to fuzz, at least I tell myself it does) It's cutting edge, but not bleeding edge, and it runs things very well for me generally speaking. Will it, however, be able to push ArmaA's graphics? Or is ArmA a game that requires hardware that hasn't been released yet to enjoy all the bells and whistles? I appreciate any observations or comments, and I look forward to playing. =)