Jockson

Aside from the obvious reasons why a game like ARMA is not that popular, there is a bit more to it to be honest. The single player is, well, not great. The game is still buggy, performs relatively poorly and feels unpolished overall. The controls are clunky and there are numerous gameplay issues still present since OFP. The multiplayer has the potential for an amazing online experience but is hugely let down by a few big problems. IMO there is a lack of high quality MP missions that ship with the game. Then there's lack of variety as nearly everyone seems to be playing domination or warfare maps, mostly with close to zero teamwork contrary to what you'd expect from a "military simulator". Last and most important, the netcode is just awful. Lagging and warping irrespective of server load and client connection quality has always been a major turn off for many people I have shown the game to. And really, there is excuse as to why even OFP is much smoother online.

It's edge lit LED I believe, yes. Not necessarily "cheapo" though. It's mostly about the resolution for me. I don't really find playing games on my HDTV all that immersive despite the size tbh. A 2560x1600 30" IPS monitor on the other hand is something else.

If you won't settle for anything less than 45fps then ARMA is probably not the game for you. Not that the engine couldn't be more optimized than it is, far from that, but having the sheer size of the game in mind you can't really expect consistently high frame rate. Considering the slow pace of the game, it is not really needed IMO. Either way, just don't force yourself to like it. I am a die hard OFP fan and while I immensely respect ARMA 2 for what it is, I can't say I love it. My advice would be to start without any big mods, play around in the editor and get to know the game and what it is and what it can do. If the whole concept of huge maps with so much freedom and possibilities isn't really your thing or is ruined by performance issues, AI behaviour or whatever then like I said, it just might not be the game for you :)

You mean network lag or FPS issues? Frame rate wise, the game runs relatively well for me with latest patches. Netcode is what needs to be drastically improved and while not unplayable, it's still a pretty big issue in my opinion.

Thanks, you too man :cheers:

I agree. With high FPS I meant 60+ of course. I don't see why would 30fps on a 120Hz monitor feel smoother than 30fps on a 60Hz monitor. There may be less motion blur but it's due to the faster matrix being used rather than 120Hz making the difference. Considering 120Hz monitors require a panel that doesn't exceed 8ms for any color transition, they are equipped with fast panels by default. A reasonably fast 60Hz panel should look the same as any 120Hz panel when the game is running at 30fps.

I can see it making a bit of a difference in gameplay but only with high FPS and only in single player. Will all the lag going on in ARMA 2 multiplayer 120Hz is unnecessary IMO. Which is why I don't fully agree with the "if you are buying now go with 120Hz for sure" statement. All 120Hz monitors use TN panels and cost more than regular LCDs. Many people who don't play games where 120Hz would really show a big difference would be probably better off spending that money on a better quality panel type instead.

Yeah, it should be possible to turn it off on most sets. Look for a feature called MotionFlow, MotionPlus, TrueMotion etc. Some TVs have different levels to choose from, some only have off/on. One benefit of 120Hz is that it makes 5:5 pulldown possible for 24p material since 120 can be divided by both 24 and 30 with an even number of frames. Meaning it gets rid of the 3:2 pulldown judder that you get when watching 24fps movies on a 60Hz TV. Not all 120Hz support this AFAIR and some that do require certain options to be enabled/disabled.

They use motion interpolation. Instead of receiving the 60Hz signal and simply displaying each frame twice, they use video processors to create "fake" frames in between the real ones. This does make the motion look smoother and reduce the perceived motion blur (although it doesn't get rid of it completely because the sample-and-hold problem is still there) but there are a few side effects that make it unsuitable for gaming, the main one being the high input lag. Because the interpolation works by analyzing two frames to generate one in between, the tv needs a certain amount of buffered information to do the processing. This results in an image that is several frames behind which is fine for TV but not good for games. It is this interpolation that does exactly what DMarkwick is describing. When turned on, it makes films look like video. Some people like that some don't. PC monitors work differently. They are able to receive a true 120Hz signal and display 120 frames with some models having zero input lag. It is worth noting that while all 120Hz PC monitors right now are truly 120Hz, there are also 120/240Hz monitors coming that use motion interpolation methods and only have a 60Hz input. This will cause all sorts of confusion when the manufacturers turn it into a "Hz race".

Yep, it's down to the matrix as there are no LED LCD monitors with local dimming on the market. There has been some big improvements in the last couple of years for all LCD techs. IPS no longer have poor black levels, some TNs are actually very good now in this regard. VA panels have an incredible 3000:1 to 4000:1 static contrast ratio now. LED is mostly for power saving and slim profile when it comes to computer monitors.

I mostly agree, yeah. Very few people will benefit from 120Hz with ARMA 2 mainly for two reasons. Even the latest hardware will have a hard time keeping up with such high fps in the game and also ARMA 2 is not really the type of game where all the extra smoothness would really make much difference in gameplay.

I don't have a powerful enough system to run ARMA 2 at over 60fps. All I'm saying that someone who does may be able to spot the difference because it is there even if I don't care for it. It's not a placebo effect or anything. If it's CCFL backlit then it's not LED is it? ;)

Not everyone can notice it but it's pretty simple. The higher the Hz, the higher the possible fps. rickidoo is right when he says what would happen if you were to reduce the refresh rate to 30 then 15. Many people would notice 30fps being less smooth and the majority would say 15fps is slow and jerky. So when does smooth become smooth enough so you can no longer perceive any further increase in frame rate? That seems to differ from person to person. While I can immediately spot the difference, it's not something I really care for especially in a slow paced game like ARMA and especially because 120Hz LCDs are all TN and will be for some time. As for the LED thing, it's only full array LED backlit TVs that benefit from deeper blacks thanks to the use of local dimming technology. Aside from super expensive professional IPS screens, LCD monitors are all edge lit LED which does nothing for picture quality but saves power and allows for thinner design. You are simply seeing better blacks because the LCD matrix used in your monitor is better than your previous monitor. LED vs CCFL by itself makes no difference in static contrast :)

Actually, edge lit LED backlight does nothing for better blacks/contrast ;) Try switching between 60Hz and 120Hz on your monitor back and forth and drag/scroll stuff around in Windows. There should be a noticeable difference in smoothness. Long time CRT users usually immediately notice this when they switch to LCD.

Providing you have a powerful enough system to run games at high fps, every game will feel smoother on a true 120Hz monitor. Even the mouse cursor and dragging stuff around in Windows will feel smoother. I say "true" 120Hz because 120Hz/240Hz TVs still only take 60Hz input and interpolate frames so it's only 120Hz computer monitors that can truly display 120 frames. It's a shame they are all TN panels at the moment though.