Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Eelis

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    5

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Eelis

  1. Posted

    Thank god there are still people that are not hung up on numbers...

    Obviously one's enjoyment ultimately just depends on whether the experience is subjectively "smooth". But as it turns out, different people need different FPS levels to get that experience. Hence, if the topicstarter declares his experience as "smooth", that doesn't actually tell us anything about the game's performance on his machine, because we don't know whether he's one of those lucky people who only need 20 FPS for a smooth experience, or one of those unlucky people who need 60 FPS for a smooth experience.

    Consequently, for any meaningful performance indication, objectively quantified data is simply a necessity, and has nothing to do with being "hung up on numbers".

  2. Posted

    I too have wondered about this.

    Text-to-speech technology is becoming quite good these days. By comparison, ArmA2's simplistic robotic cut&paste speech is a complete embarrassment, especially considering that it only needs to do a very small amount of fixed words and sentence structures.

    Unfortunately, I think the chances that they can fix this in a patch are remote, since most likely all the voice acting would have to be re-done.

  3. Posted

    Better performance, better optimization...thats all I want in patch 1.03.

    +1. I'd gladly give up all else if we could only get the performance we ought to have.

    Then again, I guess I should consider myself lucky that the game runs stable for me at all. In all honesty, the dreadful stability problems so many people experience should probably take precedence, even over the game's abysmal performance.

  4. Posted

    Considering the human eye sees things quit smoothly at 23 FPS (hence movies , TV's etc are shown at 23 - 24 FPS) anything much higher (ie 40 - 80) has more of a placebo effect.

    The user only THINKS he's seeing things smoother when in reality , he's not.

    So you honestly believe that in a properly conducted scientific experiment, I would be unable to consistently tell apart video fragments shown in, say, 30 and 80 FPS?

    I find that remarkable, because I'm perfectly confident that I would pass such a test utterly effortlessly.

    My best guess is that there's simply a biological and/or subjective difference causing some people to require fewer frames per second for comfort and smoothness than others.

  5. Posted

    I do not understand at all that so many people find 30 FPS comfortable. For me, 50 FPS is really the bare minimum. Below that, the choppiness just looks awful.

    (And since I basically need to turn the graphics all the way down to get >50 FPS in ArmA 2 (even on my perfectly respectable machine), the game looks about as ugly as Ghost Recon 1 for me. :( )

×