ernesto

I'm using FreeTrack and know the issues with NP TrackIR, but someone can tell me If the same questions about need of changes in TiR software are also needed in FreeTrack or BIS can support FreeTrack use in ArmA3 64 bits without changes in FreeTrack software itself?

ArmA II is not a FPS with some simple vehicles (like BF2) with a larger map and more realistic settings and AI units? I like to compare with any FPS with vehicles... FarCry2 seems to be a good comparsion... DCS:BS - reallistic FM and avionics, lots of ground units with accurate physics and ballistics, with on the fly AI... good terrain, large cities, low level flight, no "action bubble"... Maybe a "decent benchmark" for CPU load?

I experience this too. But I never see any decent feedback by BIS in this forum... and I smell memoy leaks... But maybe is "my rig"... or "drivers problems"... the perfects excuses for bad optimization/massive bugs... These "troubleshooting forums" sponsored by game companies today are lke: - Please! Another costumer with a bug like mine can help? Great support and feedback... Thanks! I know the "open forum" is for user to user talk, but an improved feedback in another part of site, or in a "sticky" topic sounds good...

Well... They CAN run the game... But if he WILL run the game, is another question! :) I can run (in some parts, really bad) the game with a lower rig... ArmA II is full of bugs and bad optimization... That's the problem: - Noboby knows if your rig WILL run the game! But the fanboys will tell you another tale... "it's your hardware..."

I can set the the view distance to 5km in game and fly with a chopper and the LOD and texture loading are beutifull implemented in ArmA II. But when I'm in an empty city, with nothing really forcing the rendering capacities of my hardware, I experience a lot of issues. I'm comparing FarCry2 rendering in this situation, not the "10km open-field rendering"... When in a city I don't see "10km away"... The ArmA II engine handles well open fields and a lot of units, but is bugged as hell in cities, need a lot of optimization. And I don't comparing the quality of the static obejcts renderend in FarCry2 Dunia engine with the simplier used in ArmA II... or the physics... I don't know if it's because the focus of the engine is open fields or something, but if a company put big cities in a game, need to improve the logic of LOD/loading textures in this situation. Finally, Dunia engine supports longer rendering distances... not only up to 200m... Even in FarCry2 I can sniping far away...

You will not run well. SP you will suffer in any city bigger than 10 buildings, even with the lower settings. MP you can run well in open fields. Be prepared.

My rig do not "barely meet the minimun requirements". I have more CPU power and memory. And my VGA lies between minimum - recommended. People with 2GB high-end VGA (over-over recommended) have similar problems. The problem doesn't "lie on my machine". Crysis "breaks" 50FPS in my machine. I don't speak "all sliders up", but DECENTE PERFORMANCE WITH REALISTIC SETTINGS FOR MY RIG! I really hate this type of nihilistic answers to questions about bugged or non-optimized software... :( If my "minimum rig" can handle the rendering of FarCry 2, why can't handle ArmA II? Even talking about DX9... The CPU power is enough for the much more complex DCS environment processing... Sounds ilogic to me. I do not see where goes my resources in this game...

I try everything. It's a game engine problem. I don't want to hear we consumers trying to find a "magic solution", but a word for the company. I search the official forums and nothing... A little respect for our consumers will sound good... I have a mix of "minimum specs" and "recommendade specs", and run the game with unbeliave flaws in visual and performance... ---------- Post added at 11:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 PM ---------- Is this type of answer relevant? If a company want to sell a tilte, do not lie about the recommended specs... By recommended specs I undestand a rig capable to run the game with no big issues... ArmA II isn't "BF2", but isn't DCS:Black Shark, FarcRy 2 or Crysis either... BS uses a LOT of CPU with all the "balistics", "massive units", etc, with good performance, huge map, beautifull visuals... The other two titles don't have all the "sim factor", but a far better and stable graphics engine... So... what the point?

I really want to hear some feedback for the devs. My rig is really "modest" for the high-end today standards, but can run other FPS titles with long view distances like FarCry2 with no problems, good performance and visuals. ArmA II is great at screenshots, but I really don't undertand the drop in performace and glitches even looking at simple scenes. It's obviously not "my rig's fault"... I bought a game with a system with almost all specs better than these: "Recommended specs: • Quad Core CPU or Dual Core CPU (Intel Core 2.8 GHz, AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or faster) • 2 GB RAM • GPU (Nvidia Geforce 8800GT / ATI Radeon 4850 or faster) with Shader Model 3 and 512 MB VRAM • Windows XP or Windows Vista • DVD (Dual Layer compatible) • 10 GB free HDD space" Why I can't have decent performance - even lowering the graphic settings to unbeliave simple for my rig - in the 1.02 patch? It'll be fixed or I must ask for a refund?

For me too, but only after above two seconds looking at the same direction and enjoyed all the drawing of my player model and weapon after zoom out, or a 5m away building or tree... :) Some feedback of the devs if is it normal? As a consumer, I'm curious if this flaw will someday be fixed, assuming it's a engine peculiarity and not a simple bug in rendering.

My system: X2 6000+ 4GB RAM HD 3850 256MB Vista x64 I know: low video memory = more need to texture loading "on the fly". But I want to know why ArmA II graphic engine uses a "strange" logic to priorize what and when load LODs/textures... I can see near 3d objects with no texture, simple LOD, and far ones all rendered and with all polygons. Is it a bug or simply the way the engine handle rendering/load? In modern games I do not see this kind of behavior. I think it's must be a bug. I don't bother to have LODs and textures loading in front of me, like in FarCry 2, etc, but with a little improved logic: far = simple LOD and minor priority in loading texture. Anything I can do? People with a lot of VRAM have the same problem... Sounds ilogic to me... Thanks!