householddog

I think it is going to be a great tactical action shooter. For a start, cover will actually mean something. Unlike most shooters around. Effective cover is something that is essential in a tactical shooter. In most of the mainstream games, if you take cover, you will soon have your head blown off by a sniper. Its a game that will get your blood pumping and make you have to think about strategy. What's so wrong with that? To be honest, ARMA2 has become too bogged down by pedantic "realism freaks" who are more concerned, with the exact ballistics of a .45, than they are with tactics and strategy. Got help you, if you mention, actually enjoying the game you play. Ordered too.

That is my point, however. All the action takes place in town. The countryside you drive around rarely see's that much action, on the servers I play. 32 players solid. In warfare BE it's mainly against bots to begin with. Which is fairly disappointing, considering the LOS issues the game suffers from. I was sitting there letting my ai take out the other bots and I rolled over to see some of them firing at the enemy through tree leaves. So obviously there is some issue there. Maybe I am not playing it right, but perhaps you could instruct me on what I am doing wrong? I like to play infantry, which is where I think this game really shines. For that you need a pretty large squad to remain viable. I had a number of times where I was spending around 7 minutes driving. Which is a bit of a slog, when you are trying to have fun. Again it centres 90% of the combat, in towns. Whereas I would like to see more countryside combat. I have not insulted you, please do not insult me. Lets look at it from this perspective. If we are talking about a real life engagement. How many troops would you send to capture, and hold around about 20 towns, villages and airports? How many troops, would the US send to this situation. I would say 2500 would be a bare minimum. I was on a 32 player server. It was full. games.on.net Again, I must have touched a nerve somewhere. Could you please rephrase this, without insulting me. It's not as if Arma 2 is the only thing in my life, but I have been playing it for a while and can see a few flaws in it. To be honest I find your whole attitude pretty condescending. To anyone reading it, can make their own minds up, as to whether you posts are valid or not. Although I have never really played Team Fortress, you post reminds me of that kind of player. Using video games as some sort of status symbol, then pathetically trying to impress people in a forum with it. Some reading for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensation_(psychology) Sad. (now I have insulted you) Having said that, I am quite happy to debate my post with someone who brings up things, in a reasonable way.

I kind of agree with a lot of the points made. For a start, there are far too few players, even on full servers, to justify the map size. If we were talkign about 2500 a side pvp then the maps would be close to ideal. In order to get a decent pvp experience you really need to limit the map sizes a fair bit. I have been playing warfare BE, a fair bit. I could only say that, after 3 hours of playing, I actually was shot at once, by a human player. For the most part Warfare is bot vs bot. The game becomes, a fairly poor, strategy game, rather than a combat simulator. There is also the huge driving distances too. Which would be interesting, if you might actually be ambushed, or have to fight for the roads. Again though, the map is too large. There are too many opportunities to avoid the enemy, when moving from town to town. There is also no incentive to setup ambushes away from towns, becasue there is a slim chance that anyone will drive by. Again, this would not be an issue on a 2500 player map. This is actually a real disappointment to me, in some ways. The weapon handling, in this game, is excellent. Maybe I am just missing some game modes, that have fallen by the wayside, however. Playing against, or with bots, is very dull.

I really don't think the game is all that accessible. There are too many mods, (already) which means the online community is stretched thin. Its too focussed on simulation rather than tactics. You are too involved in manipulating the interface. The interface is hard to use without stopping. There are some things, that should really be automatic, that are bound to keys. Pub play is a shambles. The sandpit thing means that nobody is working towards a specific goal. People were really pulled in by the graphics, but put off when it turned out their comp won't run it. The people who asked for help, on this site, got slammed by fanboys. They in turn, told their friends, the game is full of a holes. It can take up to 30 minutes before you can get into any sort of firefight.

I think it is realistic to call it a "tactical simulation". You don't need absolute realism to achieve this. Particularly when it comes to infantry.

It was cobble together from 3 other threads, all talking about graphics artefacts occurring after 10 minutes. D3lta really doesn't sound like he knows what he is talking about IMHO. He certainly has no idea about testing methodology. If his overclocked CPU did the trick for him, fantastic. Mind you, somebody who thinks raising the texture details should increase his FPS, probably doesn't know how to overclock, either.

Tell you what Thr0tt, if i am not around to yell them down, you have a go. I think its safe to say the problem occurs on every I/O bus used in the last 6 years though.

I think he was talking about a problem with low FPS, rather than the artefact issue. I use PCIe 1.1 (or 1 can't remember). I get the issues as well. 9.6 came out with some improvements to memory fragmentation. My guess is that BIS used some sort of, non Kosher, work around, that fails to work with the new drivers.

Its a video memory issue. Again if you read the thread, you would have known that. It may well be an issue with Nvidia cards as well. But it has nothing to do with stressing the GPU. If you think otherwise, go out and test it, come back and report your findings. ---------- Post added at 05:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ---------- No that is the way it should work. You are loading larger textures into memory in the first test. IE the transfer is going to take a longer time. Having more memory available is not make that transfer faster. Unless you are going back to areas you have been to before. I don't think the benchmark does this well. Say you drive up a street, come back then drive down it again. Some of the scenery will be in vram already, so it does not have to be loaded again. This would give you increased performance. I am not sure the benchies replicate this well. If you are testing something, you really need to change one thing at a time. Changing too things proves very little.

This one I think. Its more for graphics corruption but it's easy to try.

If its that easy, Kremator, why not post a link, to the post, that fixes this problem? They guys spent his money and it doesn't work, stop bad mouthing him.

Try lowering your graphics memory setting down to medium or low, if you have a 512MB card. If its higher, try high or very high settings.

To extend the analogy though, it's like walking into a maths test where 1+1 =3. :) The game, in itself is pretty good. I really haven't got into the editor though. I really can't see that much difference between it and Armed Assault, in terms of actually gameplay. The community can sometimes get a little anal about realism, hopefully ACE2 will address some of these issues. Sometimes they get a little gear focused rather than tactics focussed. Its really meant to be more of a tactical shooter, rather than a strict reality type game IMHO. In this it excels every other FPS out there. Most proper RL tactics work in this game, overwatch, use of cover,fire teams etc. Which is great! Its just the bugs and performance that are the problems. Lack of feedback from the developers is also a little disconcerting. Try asking what the next patch will contain and see how quickly your thread will be shut down. Its not an unreasonable request as far as I am concerned. Especially since people have been spending money, on hardware, to fix the issues.

What a load of crap. Read the thread properly. Its a memory issue, not a gpu issue. ---------- Post added at 02:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:03 PM ---------- Have you tried lowering your graphics memory setting?

Look guys, people have problems with this game. The "Armaholic Optimisation Thread" has over 100,000 views. There is a sticky for Problems with ATI cards. There is a stick for problems with NVIdia cards. Stickied by the moderators, not the whingers, BTW. So the game has problems with a vast majority of mainstream graphics cards. Looking good so far? BIS might stop some of the whinging if it actually communicated with its customers. Start off by producing a "known issue" list. At least people wouldn't pull their hair out on problems they can't fix. They would also know that BIS is on the job. Telling people that they should be patient is fine, if ARMA2 was a mod, rather than a retail product. People paid for this game and expect it to be able to work. If the game has so many bugs, why didn't it get released as a trial beta? The game itself is pretty good. But it has caused a lot of people, a lot of problems. Threads like this will really annoy these people.