OFPDude

the video card causes bottlenecks in framerates and the cpu will cause bottlnecks for the AI. For best performance you should have at least a 256bit/256mb video card (7900,8800). The 7600GT can run ArmA reasonably well (i have one) but the 128bit memory interface struggles to process the intense graphics. I would'nt expect more than a couple of fps increase with a dual-core processor but a much bigger boost in AI/loading etc.. download the new drivers from nvidia and make sure you enable the Threaded optimization in the Performance and Quality settings.

what does 'wots' mean

i've run some directx9 HDR shader tests to compare directx9 performance under both vista and xp....the differences are huge with xp outperforming vista by 40-50% in framerates. You can easily test this yourself by downloading and running the program below under vista and xp and compare the FPS: Real-time HDR IBL maybe should answer many of the performance issues with arma and vista...is it video card drivers ?? or is it directx9 emulation in directx10 ??

as I have also contributed to the I feel I should also give some credit here as I cannot find the thread Since 1.08 i've noticed much improved LOD performance especially in larger cities. lighting effects much improved too and overall framerates are much smoother.....these improvments are beginning to outweigh the annoyances, so I will keep using the 'teething gel' until version 1.10 or maybe 1.20 The subtle appearance of mosquito's, birds and flying leaves when aircraft is in sight really makes the realism in this game...many times I have wasted a magazine on these things....awesome work

after a few months of solid arma action, the game is already slowly starting to wear out.... I've been waiting for this huge update 1.08 and now its arrived I find that many bugs are still not fixed and even old bugs have reappeared (switching to gunner or ejecting from a tank will send the tank into an endless spin )......ammo crates, bunkers are immune to direct shelling from tanks.....RPG's do little or no damage to foot soilders....trees fall like paper with no sound or effect on vehicles.....repetitive and predictable ai....flying vehicles.....there's more but I guess you know what I mean. I guess the above annoyances mean nothing to a newcomer to this type of game, but for the ex-pat OFP players it's hard to dismiss. I agree alfish...to look at the attention to detail and animation effects of the mosquito's and leaves and compare it with damage effect to vehicles The graphics and detail of models in arma are awesome but I have to say that sadly it is lacking in gameplay and feels more like a shootem-up battlefield type of game.....I won't say I'm totally dissappointed, It's obvious alot of time and programming skill has been used to create arma but I guess a few more updates are in the pipeline before it gets to OFP status

no....the nv goggles are powered by solar power

i think you have to press alt+f4 to activate the download link

well you can't disable the page file, it's always in use (try delete it....I bet you can't). I still think it's an overheating issue, arma really pushes your components to their limits...whever I zoom into dense bushes all the fans in my system go into high rpm.

who cares if the reviewer liked the game or not, you can't force someone to eat spinach if they don't like it....even though it's good for you you can stick with your burger and fries whilst I eats me spinach

if you have been overclocking then it seems to me you may have caused some heat damage to either the video card or some other components on the motherboard.....try the following: 1. swap out the video card with another. 2. reset bios to defaults. bad system ram is usually detected at bios boot phase, so are most catastrophic hardware failures. Overclocking components can cause artifacts and intermittant hardware failures under load. why are you messing with the page file ? you can't disable it no matter how much you try

maybe original games fade too now where is that reciept......

sure the 2 10,000 rpm drives running as RAID-0 should in theory be much faster than a single SATA2 drive. But performance is highly dependent on the type/size of files be accessed that said....as for game performance....IMO any game that struggles to keep up with a harddisk is poorly developed. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not pointing my finger at ArmA...the developers have made quite an amazing game, hiccups here and there are not too surprising to me. If you visit the FSX forums you will find many posts about poor performance in flight simulator X and scenery loading causing issues. After the SP1 release a few days ago, many people are now seeing upto 50% performance increases with much higher graphical settings. just goes to show that lazy unoptimized code can leave many people thinking thay have a slow system which needs upgrading. how many games are being sold with requirements for a SATA2 drive

stick with your ATA133, you won't see much if any performance difference in drive speeds. SATA 1 and 2 speeds are only really effective for RAID and only then when using two drives. there are no hard drives in existance that would increase the performance of a video game.....spend your money on a memory upgrade instead

why don't you all go back to v1.04 as this seems to be the only version with much less issues.....i had no problem with version 1.04....I was only forced to update for multiplayer games.

probably becuase it's not possible to get a perfect circle radius on a widescreen without squashing it into an oval.....but yeah that looks pretty silly to me reverting to 4:3 for scope view