Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Yapab

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    396

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Yapab

  2. Posted · Edited by Yapab

    AxF FoX play some MP or play the campaign / bigger missions and you will see...

    Also you say with "SLI enabled".... well until today you couldnt enable SLI easily... had to use hacks to get it working.

    Even now a EVGA Hotfix has to be used to get it working and it produces flickering... do you have SLI? Have you tested SLI in it?

    Most of the problems seem to be in the campaign and MP missions, the demo training mission and first missions seem to run fast as they are scaled down.

    This could be a CPU limitation but even i7 CPU's are having these problems so who knows?

  4. Posted

    The problem with ArmA 2 is that even high end cards (GTX295, GTX285, 4870X2) do not give playable fps at High settings.

    Once you actually play the larger maps with more action on the screen these cards cannot deliver playable 30+ fps in most cases... lowering the settings makes the game look crap and worse than other games which run faster.

    Hopefully the game will be optimised further .

    Yapa

  5. Posted

    I think BIS should really concentrate on optimising the game so it runs faster at even the Normal and High modes.

    Also get SLI working for those gamers who have high end systems.... they have these systems so they can play the game at its best...

    I dont think it runs terribly slow but I know more could be extracted from the game in terms of FPS.

    The biggest problem i have is that Normal and High default settings look very ugly and run slower than for example Stalker, Crysis etc...

  6. Posted

    Its nice to see this patch but I have to say around 50 fps with a i7 and GTX295 is pretty bad for those settings with 0 AA enabled (going by screenshot).

    That is pretty much the fastest graphics card you can get and only managing that fps is hmm not looking good for anything less!

    The biggest problem I have with the demo so far is that anything lower than "very high" looks very very blury and ugly... yet still runs rather slow.

    Yapa

  8. Posted

    Well took the demo to my mates place today and installed it on his pretty decent system:

    XFX 780i

    E8400 @ 4Ghz

    2GB DDR2 1066

    2x 8800GT 1GB in SLI

    Win XP SP3

    Nvidia 186.18

    I can confirm that the game does NOT use SLI at all... he has a G15 keyboard and rivatuner configured to show many stats, including both GPU temps and fan speed.

    GPU0 was working hard and fan was at 60%

    GPU1 was idling, fan was at lowest 33.3% and it was at idle temp....

    The game ren ok, about the same as my 8800GTX... so its quite disappointing that such a demanding and new game does not use SLI.

    I hope a patch fixes this or newer drivers enable SLI, if its possible?

    I searched this thread and there is no mention of SLI... so I guess not many here have SLI or tried the demo yet? Is there a known fix or hotfix to get SLI working?

    Thanks,

    Yapa

  9. Posted

    Surprised no one with SLI has tested the demo yet... does SLI/Crossfire work in the demo correctly? Is there a decent increase of fps?

    After playing the demo and finishing all the scenarios, I'm very happy with it and will be buying the game.

    The only thing I would like to see is MORE OPTIMIZATION!!!! make it run faster/smoother as it looks horrible and runs slow on Normal or High settings! As an example, Crysis and Warhead run faster (more fps) than ARMA2 and look better!

    I'm sure there is more fps to be squeezed out!

    Yapa

  11. Posted

    I have an old E6420 overclocked, i just tried the 8800GTX at stock and it was slightly slower....

    Did some AA tests and its not a huge hit:

    Default "High" setting = 33fps average

    Default "High" settings with Antialiasing disabled = 36fps average

    Default "Very High" setting = 28fps average

    Default "Very High" setting with Antialiasing disabled = 32fps average

    ---------- Post added at 04:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 AM ----------

    Can anyone with an SLI system post some results? Is SLI working now?

  12. Posted · Edited by Yapab

    Hi!

    Thought id start the standard benchmark results page so we can get an idea of how the demo build runs on different systems.

    BIS was nice enough to include a good benchmark level in the demo for our testing purposes!

    To access the benchmark incase you cant find it, go to Single Player > Scenarios > Benchmark, it shows the avg fps at the end.

    Here are my results and system for comparison, it runs better than I expected going by the initial posts around the web.

    Core2Duo @ 3.44ghz

    4GB DDR800

    8800GTX overlocked to Ultra level

    WinXP SP3

    Nvidia 186.18 WHQL

    Benchmark results at 1680x1050

    Default "High" setting = 33fps average

    Default "Very High" setting = 28fps average

    If everyone could keep the same format so its easy to compare and compile.. also dont forget to post your resolution as this makes a big difference.

    IMPORTANT ***** Changing the video settings to "high" changes the resolution also so try to use the same resolution for both tests!

    yapa

  13. Posted · Edited by Yapab

    Just tried the demo for about 30 mins, just in boot-camp etc....

    Have to say I never played ARMA1 (just the demo) but this feels a lot better than the ARMA1 demo! It feels more real and refined, well done!

    The performance is not too bad, however once you turn the settings up higher past the default "Very High" you really see some low fps, but this is to be expected.

    I think a bit more optimisation will help this game a lot, gamers usually dont like a game if it runs badly!

    I have to say the graphics settings for "High" are very ugly and dated, they also seem to blur the distance a lot which is unplayable.

    Very High settings are nice and ok, with only a small hit in performance.

    For all who havent seen, there is a "Benchmark" mission under Single Player > Missions.

    I will post my results:

    Core2Duo @ 3.44ghz

    4GB DDR800

    8800GTX overlocked to Ultra level

    WinXP SP3

    Nvidia 186.18 WHQL

    Benchmark results at 1680x1050

    Default "High" setting = 35fps average

    Default "Very High" setting = 28fps average

    Not much different but it looks much better... have to say in the open field area in the benchmark it goes down to 19fps which is unplayable unfortunatelly...

    Yapa

  14. Posted

    The question is why no official big release in Australia? We shouldnt have to hunt around for the game... it should be released just like any other game and easily obtainable.

    The aussie community wont be big if the average gamer cant just walk into a computer shop or even JB (which sell many games now) and pick it up of the shelf going by the box... many communities grow in this way.

    Not everyone is hardcore and researches the game before it comes out, like us :)

    So I'm hoping it will be out here and easily purchasable so the Aussie community grows!

    Last I heard the official release date here was 23rd of June? ... this is where it was listed but NOW i see it has been moved into the 2009 unknown slot? :( disappointed!

    http://games.on.net/filelist.php?mode=releasedate

    Yapa

  15. Posted

    I think the problem with discussing ARMA2 systems specifications is that no one here knows or can legally talk about how ARMA2 actually runs on a specific set of hardware.

    So people obviously ask how their system will run the game or what system is best to run the game.. but no one can answer those questions!

    The closest thing we've had to a real ARMA2 system specification discussion is dyslecxi's comment that his system with a Quad Core @ 2.66ghz, GTX285, WinXp, 4GB ren the game fine with "High" settings at 720p (1280x720).

    Now this is considered a very low resolution in PC gaming (standard res in console gaming!) so its not really a good indication of how the game will run.

    Dyslecxi's system is quite powerful and he did mention that it runs the game at 1920x1080 quite well (assuming also "high" settings).

    What we dont know is how "high" the settings can go.. is there a "Very High" or "Ultra/Maximum" setting which would bring his pc to its knees?

    Does he use any AA?

    I would say if your shopping around for new hardware or system... buy the most expensive system you can afford, at least then you'll know you couldnt run ARMA2 any faster with your budget anyway :) or save up longer!

    Yapa

  16. Posted

    Hello and welcome to the forums!

    I'm pretty new too but I've been reading the forums for a few days now.

    1) Dont know, as I'm a PC gamer. There is an XBOX360 thread which is very long, you might want to have a look at it.

    2) As above :)

    3) No news about a demo, everyone wants one but the general consensus is that we wont see a demo before the game is released.

    I'm also looking forward to OFP:DR but will get into it closer to release date.

    Yapa

  17. Posted

    I was about to say the same thing Potatomasher.... something is not right.

    Sinistercroc... are you sure your PSU can deliver enough power for your video card? Did you know that if there is not enough power the GPU can clock down which affects performance.

    Sometimes if your PSU is just a bit under powered it wont crash or trigger the safety switch.. but your GPU will clock down giving you low fps.

    Your PSU has 2x 12v rails which are 20amps for CPU and 18amps for all peripherals and your GPU! 18amps is not enough for the 4870X2 :)

    Yapa

  18. Posted

    ARMA1 demo couldnt have been after 108 as the latest demo is 106... and there are even earlier demos I think 102 etc...

    I hope a demo comes out before release... but I will be buying the game buggy or not.. it cant be worse than ARAM1 which I think is great... as was opflash1.

    If you buy it on release date you will support the devs and get more patches out... its all about $$$.

    Yapa

  20. Posted

    Im looking forward for arma 2 release, and im just wondering will my pc be able to run it smoothly?

    Currently im running with:

    intel core2 6600 2,4ghz

    2gb ram

    Nvidia 8800 gts 640mb

    Asus p5b motherboard.

    Your CPU is good, you can easily overclock that CPU to over 3.2ghz and it will be fast enough for a GTX285 which would be perfect for ARMA2 at high settings.

    I have the same motherboard as you and the lower end E6420 CPU, its currently at 3.44ghz without any problems on air (with aftermarket cooler, cheap tho).

    I say wait to see how the game runs, it should run "ok" on medium settings, however I think that you will have trouble running "high" settings with any AA as the 8800GTS 640mb is quite a bit slower than an 8800GT which is officially recommended.

    Upgrade GPU to GTX275, GTX285 or an ATI4870/4890.

    Yapa

  21. Posted

    Betsalel, its hard to know what the game will run like... but the official recommended specs are an 8800GT or above.

    Now an 8800GT is slightly slower than a HD4850, that means you will just be in on the recommended specs. Also remember that those recommended specs are usually much under what you really need to turn on all the settings.

    I would not go with anyone lower than a HD4870. With games (and ARMA2 in no exception) you really need to invest most of your $ into the GPU/Video card.

    Buy the most expensive video card you can afford to play ARMA2 at its best settings.

    Yapa

  22. Posted

    Haven't played ARMA but played OFP1 and yes it was not totally linear but it did have a set campaign/story that progressed from mission to mission etc.. unlike here where you can have a few missions and choose which one you do.. how you get there etc :)

    I've been reassured by another poster about the games warfare mode too and this is good, I welcome this "base building" and it could be a lot of fun but overall I prefer traditional campaign!

    Yapa

  23. Posted

    Thanks for clearing that up MadDogX :) I'm new to ARMA and have heard about Warefare but dont know much about it... it looks interesting but I would probably rather play the campaign without base building.

    Although if they had one missions for example... "seize this area, hold and build a temporary base for further expansion" then it would be cool :)

    I played with the map/mission editor in OFP1 and it was good fun, I built small bases and made the enemy AI attack while we would hold of a few waves of various types :)

    Yapa

  24. Posted

    The more videos I see, the more posts and previews I read the more the game changes from my original take on it!

    Now in another new video posted in the "news" thread... I see you have base building... with the following buildings:

    Barracks (US) - $300

    Light Factory (USMC) - $400

    Heavy Factory (USMC) - $600

    So now we have base building with units... you can even choose where to place the buildings and rotate them! Now this is very cool but I'm not sure where the game is heading... I hope they dont try to do too much and it becomes a bit of a mess?

    So from my original take which was a linear realistic infantry combat sim ( like opflash1) to some RPG elements and now base building!

    Yapa

×