Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

TonnyRat

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    45

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by TonnyRat

  2. Posted

    I have been trying to use the new High Command features in singleplayer but am confused as to how to bring it up. I go to the Communication part of the radio, turn on HQ Radio. It asks me to use the "F -" key to set which players have access to the radio. What is the "F -" key? I have tried the "F" key and "F1-F5" and both do nothing. Keep in mind this is a downloaded mission, do I need to add to it or add artillery pieces/empty helicopter in order to make it work? I'm using CBA, btw.

  3. Posted

    @TonnyRat, nope, there is nothing you can tweak for Zeus AI. It doesn't come with a userconfig file. What you can do is probably reduce the enemy skill in your arma2 settings but I doubt its gonna make much diff. As long as the enemies look in your direction and you are not behind 100% cover (grass is NOT cover. AI look through grass), you will be spotted. Thats the only thing I hate about this game... thats why I run GL4 instead of zeus these days. GL4 enables REAL suppressed weapons effects and enemies won't always look in your direction after seeing their mates drop but will search in all different directions which makes it a lot more realistic.

    I will definitely give it a try. Any suggestions for the config file and how to make it work with ACE?

  4. Posted

    @TonnyRat, the ACE interactive menu fails a lot, especially after reloading a saved mission. What you can try is to use the action menu and choose "Load". Now, the trick is, that menu option doesn't happen all the time either and your positioning needs to be very specific. You need to stand somewhere near, looking at it and off to one side. You need to test and test to see how it works. Its so random I can't tell you specifically how it works too.

    Regarding "silenced" weapons read my post on page 13.

    Good stuff, thanks. I just read your other post, thing is I made sure to use SD ammo so I guess it's a case of the CPU looking in my direction despite using the appropriate ammunition. Thing is it was multiplied a few times when using Zeus AI vs. using regular ArmA AI. Do you know if they have a config somewhere I can tweak?

  5. Posted

    I was playing v1.2 of ST6 2 - ACE earlier today and couldn't load a crew served AGS30. Had the mags with me but I couldn't bring up the ACE Interactive menu because the Wounding Module was removed. Any way around this?

    Also, any suggestions for Zeus AI. When I use it, the CPU can hear me firing a silenced weapon w/ the appropriate SD ammunition from 400 yards away. Mainly in mission 2 or 3 of campaign 2, have to take out 3 guards via stealth before planting C4 on the stockpile. In doing so with a M110 SD, the jeeps 400 yards away instantly turn to my prone position next to a tree and kill me with a DsKM. W/o Zeus AI this isn't a problem but my CPU team acts retarded and is more of a liability than anything.

  9. Posted

    How do you use the rucksack system in ACE2 + this campaign? I add it to the secondary weapon slot and want to add stuff to it that I may need throughout the mission. Also, why can't I sling a one-use AT weapon on my back as with some MP games?

    Aside from these questions, this is by far the greatest campaign I've played. Also, does the ZEUS addon really make a difference?

  10. Posted

    Then clearly you're spending too much time "internet warriorising" and not enough time looking around ;)

    http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?p=1291479#post1291479

    That's already confirmation there of another patch for the German version beside 1.01

    Thanks. I figured a response would be in this thread as it is where all the impressions are contained. Guess I was wrong :)

    I was also hoping for a more explicit response but this will suffice. I will contain my criticism until the 505 version is released.

  11. Posted

    By request, here are some screenshots showing the difference between 100% and 200% fillrate with both low and very high model+terrain details. I took the screens on Utes to show just how much the fillrate affects framerate, at least on my rig. My cat ran away with her tail between her legs...

    I didn't make any thumbnails this time, because it would've been pretty pointless - they all look the same when the size is reduced. :)

    Screens:

    Low - 100% fillrate (45 FPS)

    Low - 200% fillrate (24 FPS)

    Very High - 100% fillrate (30 FPS)

    Very High - 200% fillrate (16 FPS)

    Note the framerate drop with 200% fillrate.

    Edit: With very high models+terrain and 200% fillrate you can essentially see the settings maxed out, except postprocessing which is on Low and view distance, which is 2500m.

    Thanks! Looks like the fillrate is a pretty major determinant in graphics quality. Definitely enables AA like some people said earlier on in the thread.

  14. Posted

    @TonnyRat : "learn to code", which is basically what you say to BI, is not the best way to get your point accross ;)

    I'm sorry it came off that way. I honestly think they can fix this problem with time. I would like to believe this problem is a product of the publishers enforcing a strict release date. Maybe they didn't have enough time to fine tune it.

    What worries me is that nothing has been said on behalf of BIS. This, to me, means that we as a community have to take the game as is. Sure, they're trying to brush up on the AI issues with this most recent patch and are hard at work on the game in order for a smoother release at the end of June. A simple "we're working on it" would suffice. This is often the case when releases don't go according to plan. The public - ie. me - gets a distorted view of the final product. Shouldn't it be in BIS' best interest to fix that by assuring us that it's, at least, considered an issue?

  15. Posted

    I like how some people are giving excuses that confirms what I have written in this thread.

    1) It's Vista. Ok? PC games are supposed to run on a variety of configurations at relatively the same level. Also, Vista isn't that much of a resource hog that it would make a game unplayable versus XP. Again, other games don't have the benefit of giving the excuse: it runs better on XP, that's why you're getting crappy marks. Why should ArmA 2?

    2) It runs better on old equipment. Again. Why should ArmA 2 run more smoothly on a $50 card than a $350 card? It's not like ATI and NVIDIA reinvented the way graphics cards structure works. New cards have more shader processors, can accommodate higher fill rates and are in compliance with newer graphics standards, ie. DirectX 10.1.

    AGAIN, if these are the problems, the game is not properly optimized.

    Listen, forget all the comparisons to games at twice the resolution with real AA and more intensive graphics demand. Some of you haven't grapsed the problem. Should ArmA have the same FPS as other games? No. It also shouldn't have half the FPS at half the resolution. It doesn't warrant it.

    If a 12 GB RAM, GTX 285 having (because SLI doesn't work properly), Core i7 can't run the game on anything but medium/low settings at 1280x1024 with a fill rate of 200%, what will? This goes back to the point, BIS releases shots to the community using max settings (obviously, what game wouldn't). You go into the game and go replicate a decent gaming experience with the best CPU configuration currently available on the planet. A game that doesn't stress new, ground-breaking graphics features. You get an average of 21 FPS during gameplay at a resolution that is half of what is the industry standard for gaming reviews these days.

    Yes, I may be an ass or a picky gamer when I complain about no being able to play on high settings at a resolution upwards of 1280x1024. BIS does owe me a good experience with graphics mimicking those of the screenshots they released of the past year. It seems some people are ready to give ArmA a free pass just because there is no alternative within this game genre.

    If we don't complain, it won't get fixed. It's pretty simple. I'm not here to openly attack BIS, I'm here to point out what I think is a serious problem with the game. Hopefully if they're aware of it and how serious the community thinks it is, they will find a remedy. Who knows, maybe this is the fault of the publisher? As is often the case, fixed release dates tend to result in buggy releases as has been evident up until this point. Hopefully the 505 and US releases will be more efficient.

    If all BIS needs is more time to fix this, please say so! As of right now, my biggest fear is that the status quo in terms of performance is fine and it will remain this way.

  16. Posted · Edited by TonnyRat

    This doesnt mean anything. Graphics look better than most games Ive played. Tell me another game that has this many objects (Over a million) on the map. Plus AI that no other game has. I have a quad core and it utilizes all 4 cores. It is weird though while the first and last core can almost reach 90% and the middle two get around 70%.

    When ofp came out in 2001 I coudnt hardly play the game. It was ahead of its time. Finnaly after about a year I upgraded but still couldnt have everything on high.

    You will get the best performance with a good CPU. I have a q6600 (OC 3.2ghz) and a gtx285 and im running just a few things on high with fillrate optimizer at 133%.. and averaging 30fps around dense areas. Which q6600 is showing its age. Ive had to sacrifice some eye candy for better FPS. Which I set a few things to normal and I can now get around 50fps. To be honest some things that I set from high to normal I can barely even notice.

    Another thing I did which I feel it helped some, I got Ultimate Defrag and Defrag my drive while placing ArmA2 on the outer rim of HardDrive.

    Also Game Booster helps alot too by turning off processes in VISTA that are not needed. This saved me about 200mb of ram. Its not much but its better than nothing.

    The million objects on the map can't be used as a counter-argument. If it were coded more efficiently, it shouldn't have to matter.

    You prove my point by saying you have a GTX 285 and Q6600 while only getting ~30FPS on non-maximum settings.

    Fallout 3 is a open-type game with various characters and objects everywhere. At 2560x1600 with 8x AA and 16x AF with a GTX 280, it averages 44 FPS with all max settings. FarCry 2 is a visually stimulating game using cutting-edge technology which often pushes the video card industry's boundries. Guess what? 44 FPS on avg with a GTX 280 at the same resolution and maximum settings as above. (http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYzNiw0LCxoY29uc3VtZXIurg==)

    So at pretty much twice the resolution, with more AA and higher quality settings, games using newer and more demanding graphics score much higher than ArmA 2 which uses an older graphics engine and does not have the particle effects the above games tend to overuse.

    If the problem is 100 million maps on screen, find a way to efficiently allocate the available resources to boost performance. I don't need scripting and other advanced AI features on units on the other side of the map. That being said, I do not know how they tried to optimize performance. This type of problem plagued ArmA when it initially came out as well. Did it get better after multiple patches? Yes. I'm hoping this is the case and they can pull together a solution in order to remedy this negative aspect of the game/engine. Great graphics doesn't automatically equate to mediocre performance on high-end equipment. Especially when that game is cutting-edge graphics wise, which ArmA 2 certainly isn't.

    edit: For those wanting to read the PC Game and H article, here is the link: Remember to click on High/Very High Settings to get the comparable Avg FPS numbers (the ones in the 20s....) http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,685770/Armed-Assault-2-Graphics-card-benchmarks-and-visual-quality-compared/Practice/

    Also, ArmA 2 isn't ahead of its time. It uses older, standard graphics technology. It isn't in the same league as the Crytek engine visuals nor the Unreal 3 engine. See the article above, they test ArmA 2 on OC'd Core i7s, 12 GB of RAM and GTX 285 w/ 2 GB of RAM. It isn't your CPU holding you back. It's the game. It isn't properly optimized. If the system in that article can't run the game at full settings with a modest resolution of 1280x1024, no one can.

  17. Posted

    @TonnyRat:

    Too much negativity here, I'm sorry.

    * Many have already claimed that Arma2 is much more fluid than Arma. Recent videos show that clearly, especially considering the resources fraps take up.

    * A brand new (and most likely very good) campaign. And that is what defines a 'new game'. Compare to most other FPS, not too much 'new improved features' there either.

    * Many gameplay issues resolved from Arma.

    * Many community proposals already included now, as standard.

    * Completely new sound engine, which I love more and more. And I haven't even tested it yet!

    * Arma2 is a game that will live for many years, unlike most other games I try.

    No, I guess working smoke screens, reload while moving, single shot launchers (whups), climbing obstacles, indirect fire support, doesn't really qualify. Did you expect all changes we've suggested? Some can be modded, sure, but the unity mod ACE does much of this recently for Arma1, at the end of Arma1's lifetime. Now we get all this built in.

    I guess there are no deep changes to the engine either, if you neglect the new scripting commands, function library, editor modules, pluss much more.

    Sure I have my dissappointments as well for some features lacking, but "has not been tinkered with" is just way too harsh.

    @4 IN 1:

    I agree, but the current solution is the best compromise until this part of the engine is upgraded to handle it. Rest assured that backpack scripts will come later, but then the designer gets full control. Arma1's two slot space left us little options except a 'fired EH' that removed the weapon, which was risky at times (CTD). I also got yelled at since I removed something that was possible with the engine. Now I won't :)

    You make good points and I stand corrected. My post was initially about the graphics performance. That is still my major gripe with the game.

  18. Posted · Edited by TonnyRat

    The thing that really worries me is the lack of optimization on the performance front.

    ArmA 2 should not be this power and resource hog as it evidently is in this release. There is really nothing ground-breaking graphics wise and, as such, it shouldn't require the latest and greatest video card to run smoothly. Heck, who am I kidding, not even the latest and greatest cards are able to run this game effectively.

    Honestly, what games as of late really test the newest graphics cards? None. Most reviews show great performance with 2000+ x 1000+ resolution with AA and AF. ArmA 2 can't even get decent performance with top of the line equipment at 1280x1024. I'm sorry, this is borderline pathetic. A HD 4890 can't run ArmA 2 on max quality settings at 1280x1024? Really? This isn't Crysis 2. It doesn't use DirectX 10.

    It can surely, and I hope it will be for BIS' sake, optimized in the future. I haven't read anything on BIS' part indicating this is even an issue. Why do people see this as an acceptable part of the game?

    From what I have gathered so far, BIS has spent all this time trying to, and failing at implementing, shiny graphics and a few AI updates. The core gameplay has not been tinkered with. Evidence of this is the old hit point system where M240's can destroy tanks. This was a well documented irk the community had with the original damage system.

    I'm not trying to troll. I feel as if I have been caught up in the hype that is ArmA 2. The game that was supposed to fix what was wrong with ArmA, not just improve the graphics. g-c put it right early on in this thread, this is more like a expansion pack rather than a completely new game.

    After all the glitz and new toys to play with, I reckon this is nothing more than a more polished version of ArmA. Maybe BIS should take on or outsource some of the improvements to the modders next time. This community has a lot of talent and I hope they and BIS can prove me wrong. I hope that I am wrong for what I want is an enjoyable gaming experience.

    For those who are currently enjoying your gaming experience, kudos to you.

  19. Posted

    I was wondering, considering the similarities in the engine with ArmA, how easily ACEMOD could be transferred over to ArmA II?

    Obviously this would entail removing already existing systems and, of course, the consistency of the scripting language. It would definitely add great depth to the game relatively early on in the game's life cycle.

    Maybe it could be release in steps, first as a weapons/vehicles pack while the team focuses on tuning and reviewing the other features.

    Just curious since I tried to search for this info and found nothing.

×