Possessed

This is just one of the thousand bugs which destroy the whole SP experience. Bugs, friendly AI stupidness and enemy AI wallhacking/aimbotting are the main things to fear, not the enemy itself. It just make me mad when I micromanage a perfect attack and the AI and bugs ruin everything. And of course this happens 10 minutes after the save point.

Tried the new driver 100.87 from Leadtek, fog is still there. No performance boost either.

Well that guy has kept telling last 6 years to his boss and beautiful women that he has played OFP since -01 but he never gets laid or rise in salary. Of course that will make him frustrated and you were the victim. Including me the most of us has had OFP since 2001 but normal people do not get kicks from it. This kind of jerks are as bad as TK's. What Duffers said is absolutely true. I wonder the behaviour of some clans how they treat "external" players. They sometimes except that the non-clan player knows exactly what to do in their self-made mission, the leader do not give orders and when you make a mistake, you are a noob and get all kind of non-compliments.

The title of this thread is a provocative flame war starter. You should be banned Anyway, when Forgotten Hope 2 mod is released it will be most probably the end of my ArmA network playing. Flying as a bird and waiting for the next round to start OR waiting for 8007000 error or other bug is not a worthy way to use your free time.

im using them on my 8800gtx, they work fine, ArmA mark increased 500 points, and just on a sidenote, i get to run Oblivion at max settings without a single hiccup Yeah but did they fix the fog problem? nope, still there at around 3km VD, ill patiently wait for the 1.06 patch Ok good to know, thanks for the information

Yes you have. Never try those automatic overclocking crap tools. Atitool for other uses like manual overclocking is ok, max core search is big no-no.

im using them on my 8800gtx, they work fine, ArmA mark increased 500 points, and just on a sidenote, i get to run Oblivion at max settings without a single hiccup Yeah but did they fix the fog problem?

im using them on my 8800gtx, they work fine, ArmA mark increased 500 points, and just on a sidenote, i get to run Oblivion at max settings without a single hiccup Yeah but did they fix the fog problem?

Anymore 8800 GTX users on a C2D also ok, the original posters problem suddenly looks like a Vista Issue? OK for me too. But I use high textures instead of very high and low postprocessing. With high postprocessing and very high textures all hell breaks loose.

Low resolutions and small view distance. Normally people always forget something from those "all maxed" comments. And I don't believe anyone can use overall high settings AND high postprocessing after 1.05. But anyway there is something wrong in your computer. With the settings you are using I would easily get double framerates compared to your results and GTS vs. GTX cannot be the reason.

The city of flesh and pain for Doom IV!

Again I tried to start to play the campaign (1.04 was far too buggy). In the very first campaign mission when the team go to Corazol to investigate gun shooting, the enemy special forces man (the one who is hiding on the roof) shoots me every time - through the roof when I go to kill him. That was it. No campaign for me. Playing the campaign in 1.04 was a real chore since you did not know when the AI or bugs let you down. The main thing to fear was not the enemy, it were the bugs which will ruin the mission.

...nothing...

I have not tested this forceware version yet but I will not except any kind of relief specially to ArmA performance. The main performance hit with 1.05 came from postprocessing and Nvidia can't fix the BIS patch. The way how Arma uses graphics memory is controlled by Arma.exe not Nvidia forceware. If we don't take the graphical glitches in account, the performance of 8800 in ArmA is comparable to the general performance of 8800 in other games. I have tested ArmA both with X1950Pro and 8800GTX and GTX is about 2.5 times faster. The difference is same in other games. To all the people who wonder why 8800 users are whining: The problem is that 8800 users can put all the settings max (at least with 1.04) and play the game fluently some time before mysterious stutter starts.So they notice a problem which is quite hard to notice with normal or low settings which is usually the choice if you have less powerful card. When I had X1950pro I used normal settings and had no performance degradation problems with it. That does not make X1950pro better than 8800GTX. If I tried Very High settings with X1950Pro the game was total slideshow from the beginning. It's quite hard no notice difference between fps=1...4 and fps=1...3

What is the way you play in single player missions? Do you try to simulate the war battle situation as realistically as possible? Using your own men to plant satchel charges , split your group in two halves to make other group to make diversity attacks through waypoints in the map, let your AA-men to shoot down helicopters etc.. Or do you exploit the weakness of AI and misuse triggers? Attack enemy camps with HE shelling from 1.5km cause you just know the enemy is there and don't fight back since the trigger is not yet on? Do everything more complicated than shooting rifles by yourselves? Shoot airplanes, plant bombs and even drive trucks by yourselves since you don't trust in AI capability to do it? Use your men for carrying your ammo load? So far the only realistic war simulation experience can be found via multiplayer on good closed servers with other war simulation enthusiasts. It seems that succesful single player campaign is all about tweaking triggers and exploiting AI stupidness. If you try to simulate a real battle, you will be dead in minutes. This was the problem with hardest OFP missions but in Armed Assault the AI seems to be so broken that you can't trust your men at all. They could casually stand up if they are ordered to prone and get spotted by enemy. Not good when your last save point was 15 minutes ago

There is always one graphic setting which is dominating the performance and shadows the effect of other settings. For example: If I have Post Processing on with 1.05 it cuts FPS half. The effect of other settings is not important. When I put PP low and get better FPS, then view distance is dominating. Others are not so important. But the view distance dominance is much more logarithmic, it hits harder and faster when I try to use very high distances, 2.5km and so on. When I have set the view distance to acceptable level, shadows are the next dominating thing. On the next round texture settings. etc. It's all about tweaking between speed and beauty. But it has to do with ladders.

In the stream of countless OFP patches we saw patches which fixed AI to drive very well. Some patches broke the AI driving capabilities so bad that the car was always off the road and driving 12 oclock meant driving 01 first, stopping then driving 11oclock stopping etc. Fortunately in 1.96 the AI driving is on good level. Its a shame that AI driving is so bad in ArmA. BUT:At least tank drivers follow tank commander orders now! It seems that tank driver AI does not use his I at all

Well without FRAPS results, testing methods, system specs and ArmA settings these results are completely useless. Here's mine now: Resolution=1680x1050 (native resolution, the only acceptable option with TFT as you know) Draw distance=2000m Terrain: High Objects: High Textures: High Shading: High Postprocessing: Low Anisotropic filtering: Very High Shadows: High Antialias: Normal (no need for better with 1680x1050) Forceware Anisotropic sample and filtering optimizations: On. First I tested with forest-town-forest trips and there were no long time FPS degradation. FPS was 30-50 in forests, 40-60 in towns and over 60 on desert areas. In massive armored battles FPS tends to drop near 20 but that is acceptable. No FPS drop during long missions. No graphical glitches.

I made more testing also last night and found the optimal settings: Resolution=1680x1050 (native resolution, the only acceptable option with TFT as you know) Draw distance=2000m Terrain: High Objects: High Textures: High Shading: High Postprocessing: Low Anisotropic filtering: Very High Shadows: High Antialias: Normal (no need for better with 1680x1050) Forceware Anisotropic sample and filtering optimizations: On. First I tested with forest-town-forest trips and there were no FPS drop. FPS was 30-50 in forests, 40-60 in towns and over 60 on desert areas. Then I put AI to drive HMMMW (with me onboard) through Sahrani and went to drink some coffee... when I came back the AI driver had made a handbrake turn to the wall in Corazol but anyway, the FPS was on the same level. These are the graphical settings which I can use to play the game fluently. In massive armored battles FPS tends to drop near 20 but that is acceptable.Hopefully we will get back those great postprocessing effects of 1.04 without 1.05 performance loss.

I really believe that the vast majority of the OFP players has bought the game. That is something we cannot usually say about other PC games. Now with ArmA the buyers have to be beta testers and they have to suffer from Securom shit. What do you think what happens when Game 2 hit the stores? No, people don't trust BIS anymore when the time comes. They will "try before buy" like they do with the other games. And if Game 2 is on beta level and the fixing takes a long time, they forget that "buy" from it. For the most of the people, the main Game 2 source will be P2P, not Sprocket or game stores. It's a shame but that's the way it goes. It is really important to keep the reputation among the customers when you are a small game company making mainly PC titles.

You should tune down your shadow settings because Armed Assault is just too demanding even to the fastest home PC systems of today. There is nothing wrong in the 1.05 patch, shame on you

Other games can reuse video card memory. Arma don't. That's the reason why all the textures shown during a long mission have to be stored in video memory if you want to keep performance high the whole time. In a long mission there are multiple gigabytes of texture data on the screen if you are using high or very high texture settings. If you don't understand this I can't help you. What Maruk wrote : And your conclusion after reading this is : "ArmA can't reuse Video Memory" ? All I read in Maruk post is : "the amount of video memory needed to show all the scenery texture is too high for your Video Memory. Lower the amount of needed VRAM (ie lower texture quality) and ti'll be OK". Certainly not that VRAM is unusable after having been filled once. Then why it is not used? Instead of it ArmA starts to use system memory. Why it is so hard to understand it? Your questions start to be comical. You just don't want to understand this simple thing or you just do not want to give up. One childish internet bullshit debate again.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "never", one doesn't know what the future might bring, with quantum computing power etc... And a good graphics card will at least enable you to play with nice frame-rates at high resolution (1600 x 1200), something not all weak graphic cards are able to pull off. That is absolutely true that the new cards help with high resolutions. Of course. I would be sceptical about quad processors and OFP. It will depend about the performance of one single processor of those four.

Other games can reuse video card memory. Arma don't. That's the reason why all the textures shown during a long mission have to be stored in video memory if you want to keep performance high the whole time. In a long mission there are multiple gigabytes of texture data on the screen if you are using high or very high texture settings. If you don't understand this I can't help you.

Of course they are too high because ArmA memory optimization does not work right. You need a 10GB video card to play one long mission with high settings because ArmA memory management is unable to reuse video memory effectively. CPU, GPU and graphics memory speed of the top-end rigs can easily cope with ArmA engine. When there are 10GB video cards, we will have photorealistic games with unimaginable HDR effects and no-one remembers ancient ArmA. Ah. So it's BI bad programming skill that is the cause of all top end hardware issues. And you know that how, exactly? Read "Patch 1.05 causes performance hits" in troubleshooting area and "Broken Game" in general discussion. ArmA starts to use slow system memory after it fills up graphics card memory. Look who told this. Marek Spanel. Do I need to say more. And Assurf, I have not in any case made such personal assaults against BIS on this forum. The way you express yourself makes you even worse than BIS hater Ange1_of_Death