Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

t1337Dude

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    43

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by t1337Dude

  6. Posted

    Trust me, I have all the mouse acceleration stuff in Windows turned off. It's detrimental to gaming leaving those options on. I play Counter-Strike competitively and have for years, and when something is hindering my ability to aim, it's a huge turn off. I want to have rewarding gameplay by actually attempting difficult shots, not by attempting to "beat" the games controls. I hate to seem picky, but this game is the only one I've played to force mouse acceleration on me, and it's unbearable.

  7. Posted

    Alright, setting my maximum ore-rendered frames to 1 in my NVIDIA Control Panel actually nearly fixed the mouselag. There's a little bit left, but 90% of it is gone. Great, right? Well, I guess that wasn't the only reason why it wasn't enjoyable. Turns out there's a crazy amount of mouse acceleration I'm noticing. Not even including the previous mouse lag, that truly makes aiming a bitch. Any idea on how to turn that off?

  9. Posted · Edited by t1337Dude

    Crysis is nowhere close to as CPU dependant as A2 and what "looks better" is entirely subjective.

    Like many before you, you tried to make the point that "Crysis runs fine, so why doesn't A2".

    That is why my info is totally relevant. You say you get ~50 FPS in Crysis @ High settings (you don't supply a resolution).

    My point remains. Crysis requires a beastly machine to run well @ Max settings/Eye candy/Resolutions, so does A2.

    Eth

    Crysis requires a $600 (maybe even $500) for High Settings at 1680x1050. For $600, ArmA 2 struggles at medium settings. Doesn't look as good as Crysis. My point is that the game would more likely be the problem.

  10. Posted

    Very relevant as YOU chose to try and use it as a comparison.

    :p

    It is a good comparison. Crysis is a much better looking game, and much better running too. Aside from ArmA 2 and Clear Sky, it's one of the toughest games to run. Yet the information you provide isn't relevant.

    Your post: computers get 50 FPS on Crysis at 1920x1200 with 16x AA in DX10 with maxed settings.

    How exactly does that relate to my comparison, or more importantly, the optimization problems with ArmA 2?

    ---------- Post added at 01:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:39 AM ----------

    I'm actually running the same specs as the OP (with a lesser card: 8800GTS).

    Playing fine here. Some hits near the port city, but the last nVidia drivers actually helped a bit there.

    Things could always be better, but...playing fine none the less.

    Such is the nature of computers, I guess.

    What settings are you using? And most curiously - which 3d Resolution?

  11. Posted

    Hmm. Actually, you cannot give yourself that apparently. Most of us get along fine. Then the newbs come over and bitch about how Arma 2 sucks, is terrible, etc... When they won't seem to give it the time of day apparently. It is not a 'mainstream gaming' kind of game. I have never had any kind of mouse lag in it on my system, many people don't complain about it because they never had it. This is probably on YOUR END. Not Arma's considering. (Yes it should be optimized better, but this a full head and shoulders above any other game out there currently. I'm willing to give up amazing performance on the get-go for great and unique gameplay.)

    Oh and the Crysis benchmark seems to be abit of a joke. (I don't know if you used that) I get about 20FPS higher in that than most places in the game with maxed out settings.

    Arma 2's benchmark is also abit of a joke. Don't go by that. Use fraps or some equivalent, then check ingame.

    Try turning Vsync off for starters. If your feeling in the mood, check the optimization threads around.

    If you've played the other games of this series and enjoy them, then stick with Arma 2 and make it work. With this game you will either 'hate it or love it'. It will provide better gameplay than anything if you enjoy it.

    Finally the game currently is very particular on a 'per system' basis. Different systems that are nearly the same performance wise in other games could have a huge gap between their performance in Arma 2. Sometimes even systems which are almost identical perform differently.

    This community seems so dead set on the "hate it" or "love it" concept. So black and white to you guys. I like the gameplay, but hate the game's optimization. I honestly would love to go ahead and spend money on the game, but I can't do that knowing the game is going to lag even at modest settings.

    And another thing. I know it's not just me. I played the demo with my clan, all with with systems varying from medium end to ridiculously high end. We all had the same complaint : poor optimization and input lag.

    I was hoping maybe there's some odd thing I can change in the game's configuration, or some setting that bugged the game out that I could change, and all would be well.

  12. Posted

    Even the fastest PCs going (4Ghz i7, Tri/Quad SLI etc) can't run Crysis @ 1920 x 1200 at much over 50 FPS or 1680 x 1050 at much over 70 FPS. I've posted on this before (with links).

    Keep in mind that the machines they were using to get that 50/70 FPS were the best you can buy and then OC'd quite substantially.

    Eth

    Cool information, but hardly relevant. :p

  13. Posted

    As far as this whole crysis thing goes, everyone seems to go on about how they max crysis at 50-60fps. I don't know if you meant high, or maxed, but i have never heard of a pc with your specs achieving anywhere near an average of 50fps in crysis, maybe reconsider what you said.

    I clearly said run Crysis on High, 1680x1050. Many PCs have been able to do this with no problems since early 2008. Perhaps you misread what I wrote.

    And as for it being a problem with my computer - the demo does the exact same thing on my 2nd computer, which is an E5200 (@3.2ghz), 3GB of RAM, and a Radeon 4850. So I have a hard time believing it's my two specific computers.

    I'm not asking for amazing settings. I just want my native resolution, and low/medium (which is kind of a joke considering I breeze through any other game). But ArmA 2 can't even seem to give me that.

  14. Posted · Edited by t1337Dude

    Not sure where this thread goes, but I figured I'd give it a try. I downloaded the ArmA 2 demo and the game concept is fun and all - but it's practically unplayable. The input lag is atrocious. Even in the benchmark it says I'm getting 30+ FPS, I can barely navigate around due to the game's laggy nature. For shits and giggles, I set everything to lowest except for my resolution, and there's still a hint of mouse lag. How do I fix this? I get 50+ FPS on Crysis on high settings. I don't see why this game should run so poorly.

    - Running Windows XP SP3, just reformatted last week.

    - 4GB if RAM

    - E8400 @ 3.5 ghz

    - 9800GTX Overclocked

    I couldn't imagine this game ever working for the 360.

  16. Posted

    I'm not going to be using any foreign files. So it would work? I've been playing OFP since I've been 6, but that doesn't automatically make this game worth full price. The demo didn't provide sufficient gameplay for me to judge if it's worth the money or not. The demo doesn't tell me if the game's campaign is broken, or if the editor is bugged. Things like that.

    EDIT: Ok. I'll wait until the game drops in price then. Thanks!

×