Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

An Fiach

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    832

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by An Fiach

  3. Posted

    Have to agree Escobar, the OP was really misleading and for someone who claims to want to help the community by bringing light to a great style of play, he is particularly adversarial and just plain rude.

  4. Posted

    Thats really helpful, i would be eager to look at the manual, but unfortunatly me and a few ten thousand players didnt buy it on steam, but in a retail store.

    And my boxed copy has a short, crappy, usless mini leaflet which doesnt explain anything behind the default keymapping.

    DOn't worry, the Steam manual is just a .pdf of the same thing.

  6. Posted

    What are you on about? Read the thread title. Automatic rudder is applied when flying over 4-500kts. It swings left and right and make you unable to aim straight forward.

    Besides that it crushes OFP and ArmA1 in flight model. Much nicer. It feels like this auto rudder saves you at times. Like auto break for a race sim kinda. But we sure dont want that and when you fly straight forward it should not swing left to right like it does now

    Alex

    Me? I'm on about answering a question from someone.

  7. Posted

    yeah i played alot arcade flight games THEY ALL WERE HUMBLING LEFT AND RIGHT BECAUSE THEY ARE NO FLIGHT SIMS:D

    i heared its impossible to create planes in computergames wich can simple fly straight ahead aslong they are not in a flight sim.

    now im sure you are joking :)

    I wasn't advocating that it be ok for them to poorly implement vehicle controls or physics, just saying it shouldn't be a surprise, however, if it is worse than the previous installments (that I don't own) I can't blame you for your disappointment.

    And no, I wasn't joking. As a combat veteran and a veteran of other tank/plane/naval sims and a sim that has a true ballistic engine I can easily say, that the only thing that is truly real about it is the 'feeling'. IF you didn't get that experience/ambiance people would be far more critical of this game than they are.

    This game is based loosely on the VBS system. Clearly they do not share what might be considered sensitive material between dev teams regarding weapons systems and such so what you get in game will be quite dumbed down. Another important factor to keep in mind is that the VBS system finds its purpose not in simulating combat as realistically as possible but in giving the military a somewhat realistic environment in which to practice coordination, communications and standard procedures without the high cost of deploying all of those troops and equipment to the training field.

  11. Posted

    I want to play on servers with an actual mission and objective not this run to the flagpole/teleport/deathmatch crapfest that 90% of the servers seem to have. I've found some scripted missions that were fun but there is very few of them. I don't understand why so many people just love playing domination and evolution.

    Actually, I think that Domination is really good. It has objectives to be met and gives you the means to do so. It requires players to behave as a team though to make it good. Like most games, it comes down to who you play with online, whether or not it is an enjoyable experience. Give it time though ArmA 2 has that great new logic to make random missions, I'm sure someone will make good use of that.

  12. Posted

    Landmine/Eaglesniper - I'm pretty certain that while it's legal for a civilian to own the equipment to listen in to radio chatter there would be pretty nasty ramifications of recording and distributing the real thing. It would be far too easy to breach the terms of any non-disclosure agreement that eagle might have signed and/or the official secrets act without intending to...

    I'm sure you can do a pretty good effort with soundforge and a slightly broken microphone however.

    I doubt anyone cares about such NDA type things. The greater concern is revealing operational frequencies, code words and the like which could potentially endanger the troops in the field. Bad enough that common troop movement /tactics are published all over. Pretty easy to mess someone up when you know exactly what they will do in a given situation.

  14. Posted · Edited by anfiach

    Please don't do it, it looks awful.

    @wipman I think what you are referring to is the honeycomb anti reflective screen that is used on some optics and this might be visible when looking through those optics with nvg

    And yes if you could do something about that ridiculous flooding of the NVGs whe looking in the general vicinity of a light source that would be great. I mean, it is realistic except that there are no light sources in the game strong enough (that we get close too unless you stand in front of a truck with its headlights on)

  15. Posted

    You know if the game and BIS suck so much why is it that you're wasting your valuable time constantly trolling these forums? I'm getting really tired of seeing snide remark after snide remark from you, if ArmA2 sucks so much, if BIS as a developer suck so much why don't you move on to another gaming community that does everything so much better to make you happy?

    Thought police :j:

    :D

  16. Posted

    Nope, there is a difference regardless your monitor being 60Hz. You will notice the difference, but with a 120Hz monitor you will have it all much more smoother, even 30 FPS is clearly more smoother, and you have way less tearing than with a 60HZ monitor.

    eh it doesnt display over 60 fps/hz so how would you notice the difference?

  17. Posted

    Yea I did some more testing, and while scene rendering obviously makes an impact (ie. barren land vs high density vegetation) I found the biggest performance hog to be the AI. Even with civilians that do absolutely nothing but stand there causes the frame rate to drop. The issue I have with this is that the CPU load isn't the problem because it isn't using the whole cpu and at the same time there is no behavioral decisions requiring faster calculations (e.g. higher processor speeds) like you would expect from opfor in combat.

    That being said, the game runs so far perfectly smoothly even online. Fraps tells me I have low frame rates >20 but I have no issues with being able to play. There is definitely an issue with Vista, but that is true for all games. I too was hping ArmA would perform better than the A1 original release but I still rate this as a great game. They just need to address the optimization issues.

    If you game feels sluggish it may be related to fill rate and post render effects, for me it goes into slow motion when I hit single digit frame rates (according to fraps) but reducing those solves the issue.

    ---------- Post added at 06:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:38 AM ----------

    Tested -winxp and -maxmem, actually decreased performance.

  18. Posted

    Fact is, the optimization is lousy. Changing settings should actually do something, but of course they only effect the gfx for the most part, they have to fix it for that and other reasons. Yes Crysis made top end systems struggle, but it was also playable on lower end systems because the scalability was not broken. There is also nothing ground breaking about ArmA2 ,well, nothing that currently works anyway, but nothing that warrants an insane hardware requirement (particularly given the advertised system requirements).

    There comes a point when you have to stop making excuses for your favorite game designers and stop attacking people for having issues with games being released unfinished. If anything it only encourages other game developers to follow suit. Given BIS' history we can be confident that they will address the issues as quickly as they can and this is why I was willing to invest in the game but a company with a history of repeating the same mistakes cannot grow, it alienates the potential customer base and frankly, it pisses people off to purchase an unfinished game.

    Bottom line; The game is broken for a lot of people. The number of those who do not have issues is in fact quite small. We are all waiting for a patch to correct the problem. Personally, I can play and enjoy the game, but I still want the game to work properly, and that includes the optimization issues.

  20. Posted

    Why dont you all turn the FPS counters off and enjoy the game, its perfectly playable at 24fps!

    quite true people that believe games are unplayable at less than 50 fps are people that a)don't understand how computers work and b)have serious bottleneck issues that are causing choppy/stuttering effects

  21. Posted

    Check out the Troubleshooting forums, there's a thread there about optimization. I greatly improved my gameplay by using some of the settings talked about there.

    Problem with that is we shouldn't have to. Goes along with the supposedly intuitive editor which is only intuitive if you know anything about editing from ArmA 1 and the manual does little to explain it. I will eventually figure it out with hlep form the Biki and community, not an issue for me but it is advertised as easy to use and that is only true in the case of the most basic stuff.

  22. Posted

    64 bit is useless to me until there are more programs that make use of it and I know that extra 1G Ram is wasted bit it isn't really necessary anyway. Having a quad chip relatively means little apparently and I know the clock speed makes a difference, the 2 extra cores should make up that gap. SO far I can run with everything set to very high, fill rate 100% and have no issues with the first scenario mission, changing settings has little effect, it mostly shows in the armory. It plays fine unless I bump up the fill rate but then it goes in slow motion but not in a stuttering fashion which usually indicates a hardware bottleneck. Regardless of the system, changing the video options should effect performance predictably and significantly, but so far as I have discovered to this point, they do not. I am led to believe that it is a cpu optimization issue where regular missions contain many scripts, triggers and modules. Next I will go into the editor and spawn an aircraft and observe how performance changes as I add things to the map

  23. Posted

    So I finally downloaded the game on steam and ran some tests. The optimization is terrible. The only adjustments I found that made a real impact was fill rate but this only effected base fps and had no change (comparing 100% and 200%) once the shooting began. The game is only using about 40% of cpu and 30% of ram when compared to normal operation at desktop. (1.5% -40% and 34% -66%)

    I found that explosions/ fireball effect caused the most drop in frame rates and the game crashed after lowering most of the settings to normal after starting at very high.

    I ran my test in the editor placing 24 infantry squads, 6 attack helicopter squads and 4 tank squads.

    q6600 2.4, 9800gtx 512, 4gb ram on vista ultimate service pack 2 32 bit. I had expected my older and slower cpu to be an issue but it is hardly being used. It doesn't appear to be a gfx issue either since the settings didn't have any real effect on performance. I will do more testing using one of the premade missions to see what happens.

  24. Posted

    I think it is more a matter of what servers you join rather than a difference in the game. I think if you like PR over ArmA it is likely an issue of preferring the limited environment and fewer players to deal with which gives it a cozier feel and even need less coordination with the simpler level design.

  25. Posted

    Frederf stated the IN GAME zero's, no one gives a rats ass about what you zero your rifles at.

    The discussion was about whether it was correct, so see yourself to the door.

    From what I am getting is that it seems either different units zero their weapons differently or there are people that have no military experience just repeating what they have read or heard elsewhere. Either way it apears that we won't come to a consensus as to the correct numbers.

    The dot size is about right though obviously it can be adjusted IRL to be less intense I believe BIS went with the best average for visibility purposes.

×