View Full Version : 1.05. Be happy you have it.
If BIS said last year that they were prolonging the game till May 2007, many people would have gone insane. Frankly we should all be greatful they released the game when they did. The community reports errors, BIS fixes them. From 1.02 to 1.05, 500+ fixes... in a very short time. The constructive criticism helps BIS fix more, faster.
If (like the huge amount of members that joined in Feb. 2007) your complaining.. you have no right.
I hate how everyone is shooting the patch down, non-the-less the game and how 'unfinished' it is. They are working hard, and the community is helping.. but what is not helping is the large number of people who continue to bash the game right after its 400mb+ patch. It would take EA 7 months to do that.
Lesson one in business is not to listen to your customers regarding dates. Companies that succeed don't care much about when their customers want their product to be released.
If your telling me BIS didn't delayed because it feared the customers, lol wtf kind of sick joke is that. That would be the lamest reasons.
When Valve delays, there are thousands of people complaining about delay. Yet when they release, those people buy it anway and are happy with it.
Sometimes, delaying is a necessary thing. Its much more harder to fix the game through patches now.
So you'd rather be lied to http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif
No, I rather be told the game is not finished and needs to be delayed. Where's the lie in that?
Your telling everybody here the game is what you expect a finished product to be?
If you trully expect and desire all the major bugs, BIS shouldn't even make a patch at all for pople like you.
Luciano I'm getting real sick of your negative attitude, you've made your point, everyone knows your stance on the games release, move on or you will find your self not welcomed.
d3dsh33p
Mar 7 2007, 01:29
Luciano I'm getting real sick of your negative attitude, you've made your point, everyone knows your stance on the games release, move on or you will find your self not welcomed.
lol I think you struck a nerve
or mabey its the endless wtf is this crap post, never seen so many in my life http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/yay.gif
If BIS said last year that they were prolonging the game till May 2007, many people would have gone insane. Frankly we should all be greatful they released the game when they did. The community reports errors, BIS fixes them. From 1.02 to 1.05, 500+ fixes... in a very short time. The constructive criticism helps BIS fix more, faster.
If (like the huge amount of members that joined in Feb. 2007) your complaining.. you have no right.
I hate how everyone is shooting the patch down, non-the-less the game and how 'unfinished' it is. They are working hard, and the community is helping.. but what is not helping is the large number of people who continue to bash the game right after its 400mb+ patch. It would take EA 7 months to do that.
(Almost) All very true, but why should a consumer roll over because they are working hard to fix something that is semi-broke when purchased?
I would say anyone with game not functioning (they are way to many to be simple user fault) is entitled to complain, no matter how long they have been members.
Oh, and the community doesnt get any money for fixing the game, or am I wrong?
Everyone is entitled to complain. Use the complaint thread.
churnedfortaste
Mar 7 2007, 03:07
EA don't patch games, they publish them.
If you are reffering to bf2, DICE are the ones who patch it.
Lesson one in business is not to listen to your customers regarding dates. Companies that succeed don't care much about when their customers want their product to be released.
If your telling me BIS didn't delayed because it feared the customers, lol wtf kind of sick joke is that. That would be the lamest reasons.
When Valve delays, there are thousands of people complaining about delay. Yet when they release, those people buy it anway and are happy with it.
Sometimes, delaying is a necessary thing. Its much more harder to fix the game through patches now.
Oh you mean like Playstation 3? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif
Possessed
Mar 7 2007, 05:50
This kind of attitude is quite normal in working places.
The people who complete their jobs before deadlines and do not make mistakes, are not noticed or appreciated. If you want to get respect, you make mistakes and bad work and then fix it by making a lot of overwork and show some personal sacrifice.
Since this game is published on beta level, I don't see any reason to praise the sizes of patches. Especially when they make things worse.
The only reason why people accept this at all is that there is no competition in realistic FPS war simulation gaming. They have to stick with ArmA or start to learn jump-dodging of bullets in BF/CS world.
d3dsh33p
Mar 7 2007, 05:59
This kind of attitude is quite normal in working places.
The people who complete their jobs before deadlines and do not make mistakes, are not noticed or appreciated. If you want to get respect, you make mistakes and bad work and then fix it by making a lot of overwork and show some personal sacrifice.
Since this game is published on beta level, I don't see any reason to praise the sizes of patches. Especially when they make things worse.
The only reason why people accept this at all is that there is no competition in realistic FPS war simulation gaming. They have to stick with ArmA or start to learn jump-dodging of bullets in BF/CS world.
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif
This kind of attitude is quite normal in working places.
The people who complete their jobs before deadlines and do not make mistakes, are not noticed or appreciated. If you want to get respect, you make mistakes and bad work and then fix it by making a lot of overwork and show some personal sacrifice.
1.Since this game is published on beta level, I don't see any reason to praise the sizes of patches. Especially when they make things worse.
2.The only reason why people accept this at all is that there is no competition in realistic FPS war simulation gaming. They have to stick with ArmA or start to learn jump-dodging of bullets in BF/CS world.
1.Relative to what exactly? Relative to Tetris? Yes. To Battlefield? To some degree. To any other game in the genre? Can't be answered... basically, you made a point without realistic premise is what I am trying to demonstrate. It's like trying to compare Apple's with Orange's. Although, I would say this is a subjective issue.
2.Agreed
Possessed
Mar 7 2007, 06:32
This kind of attitude is quite normal in working places.
The people who complete their jobs before deadlines and do not make mistakes, are not noticed or appreciated. If you want to get respect, you make mistakes and bad work and then fix it by making a lot of overwork and show some personal sacrifice.
1.Since this game is published on beta level, I don't see any reason to praise the sizes of patches. Especially when they make things worse.
2.The only reason why people accept this at all is that there is no competition in realistic FPS war simulation gaming. They have to stick with ArmA or start to learn jump-dodging of bullets in BF/CS world.
1.Relative to what exactly? Relative to Tetris? Yes. To Battlefield? To some degree. To any other game in the genre? Can't be answered... basically, you made a point without realistic premise is what I am trying to demonstrate. It's like trying to compare Apple's with Orange's.
2.Agreed
Well this game is still on beta level due the huge amount of bugs and the apparent lack of testing before publishing. In a normal case the serious bugs has been found and fixed in the software before it is published. Being on beta or release level is not a matter of comparison to another software. Software is normally on the release level when the serious bugs has been found through beta testing and fixed and also the number of bugs has been reduced to the acceptable level.
At the moment the software quality and the enormous amount of bugs makes the game almost unplayable. This game is not on beta level if this is the quality standard of BIS release policy. In that case I wonder if BIS has any kind of official quality certificate.
Grassmonkey
Mar 7 2007, 07:35
Ill start by saying hello to everyone.
Ive been reading posts on the forum for weeks now but never joined.
As i did not have the game so had nothing to say about it............ but now ive purchased it.
I dont understand why anyone would be happy in getting something even early if its not finished.
If you got a Film and the end was missing or a album with skipping tracks wouldent you complain.
Well its no different here.
Im not saying that i dont like the game or i would not have got it.
Even after all the reports about how bad it played and the bugs that where there for a lot of ppl.
I played Ofp when it first came out but then put it away as it was unplayable for me at that time.... Just started it (wicked Game http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif ).
Anyway i myself feel that the publishers play a part as with any media as to when things are released to there customers.
I too have problems with this game but after reading a lot of stuff on here there nothing that has not already been talked about.
But if i find something i will tell the world http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif well this forum .... well anyone that will read it http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
But Im not going to get into it now.
Only to say that I agree with stabiz in part.
And say that the world would be a sad place if everyone just rolled over and said nothing.
Armalite666
Mar 7 2007, 07:36
This kind of attitude is quite normal in working places.
The people who complete their jobs before deadlines and do not make mistakes, are not noticed or appreciated. If you want to get respect, you make mistakes and bad work and then fix it by making a lot of overwork and show some personal sacrifice.
1.Since this game is published on beta level, I don't see any reason to praise the sizes of patches. Especially when they make things worse.
2.The only reason why people accept this at all is that there is no competition in realistic FPS war simulation gaming. They have to stick with ArmA or start to learn jump-dodging of bullets in BF/CS world.
1.Relative to what exactly? Relative to Tetris? Yes. To Battlefield? To some degree. To any other game in the genre? Can't be answered... basically, you made a point without realistic premise is what I am trying to demonstrate. It's like trying to compare Apple's with Orange's. Although, I would say this is a subjective issue.
2.Agreed
1.Relative to the other games released by professional game companies that work when you put them in the DVD drive.
However, I think waiting to release would be a mistake, the industry moves that fast you need to release while your still current to catch the passing masses. Fanbois playing for a couple of years don't bring the money.
On the other side of the coin there is a need to release a working product. Getting the balance is difficult. release a crap version early and bomb due to a bad reputation or later and risk the engine being out of date or even worse a competitor beats you to it.
Unfortunately BIS has missed the ideal point. It's wallowing as a multiplayer game so far the numbers are too low. With a bit of luck it'll be working by the time it hits the US. Although that isn't much use to the European mulitplayer community.
U should really give BIS a break here. As I understand this game is they're first release that they have done by themseleves, without big support,like CODEMASTERS. Company's like EA and Valve are HUGE companies, with ten times the ppl that BIS have, thus ten times the more manpower to crush bugs and so forth. Im not saying that the game is perfect, but what do u expect from a small company?http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif I KNOW that ppl at BIS
have put they're heart and soul in to this game, and It's really UNFAIR that ppl bash them, without really even THINKING twice.
Max Power
Mar 7 2007, 08:45
@<hidden>
This is sort of a chicken and egg, thing, isn't it? If major publishers were hot to jump on board this kind of game and BIS got all kinds of funding, then it probably would have been more complete at the time it was published, and it also would have more competition. Unfortunately this is not the case, and I'm not sure you can compare this situation to your hypothetical one.
not meaning to stir things up, but im not really sure whats wrong with 1.05 ??
i see threads about all sorts of 1.05 complaints, but i dont know what the issue is.
1.05 has been fine for me, the game runs a noticable bit faster and all the things on the change log seem to be working as stated.
sounds like im brown nosing, but its true ;-/ downloaded it, installed it, carried on playing. The forum will be full of the people having problems, but its not everyone.
INNOCENT&CLUELESS
Mar 7 2007, 09:13
@<hidden> Victor:
Quote[/b] ]If (like the huge amount of members that joined in Feb. 2007) your complaining.. you have no right.
Stop advising others what they have to expect for their money, it is theirs, not yours, go to a communist country if you like this approach.
To your comments regarding the release date:
I guess BI is aware of the poor condition, their fault from my point of view was to SELL it to early. If they would have released the previous versions as DEMO, nobody would have the right to claim, but we paid, and now we have.
I do not know the business model and how much it would be harmed by a 6 month delay of first revenue according to my suggestion, but the damage (BI language dammage) they made know to their product reputation could eat all the win of the early release.
And I am sure that the community would have been happy to be the tester for BI, but the fact that we have to pay for it...
Armalite666
Mar 7 2007, 09:43
@<hidden>
This is sort of a chicken and egg, thing, isn't it? If major publishers were hot to jump on board this kind of game and BIS got all kinds of funding, then it probably would have been more complete at the time it was published, and it also would have more competition. Unfortunately this is not the case, and I'm not sure you can compare this situation to your hypothetical one.
Yep I assume the point is different for every game and every company.
factors include publishers, customers, competitors, resources and loads of others I haven't thought of.
The compromise may have been a miffed customer base at first or not releasing it.
However, I reserve anyones right to complain if they have parted with cash to own it. Being an OFP fan for a long time (includes me) doesn't give you an automatic right to over ride everyones opinions.
I mean one guy was on here going 'great game' and he didn't even own a copy?http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif?http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif???
Quote[/b] ]not meaning to stir things up, but im not really sure whats wrong with 1.05 ??
Not so much something wrong with 1.05, but it doesn't fix the issues I had with the game version 1.04. It's still totally unplayable for me. Basically anyone who has built a new machine (with an 8800 and/or dual core) isn't really able to run the game http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif
"nobody would have the right to claim, but we paid, and now we have."
I can't really see the problem.
We have the game NOW, we have PAID for it ALREADY, and we ARE getting FREE patches.
I&C would rather wait for another year, and maybe having to pay some more money for it, noticing STILL some bugs that the few beta testers didn't, waiting for patches...?
It's not like we have bought something broken, and have to pay for repairs.
We have bought still a bit raw diamond, that is being cut and polished all the time closer to what we like and what we want.
And still this is early days, the addons and mods will make this diamond even brighter.
I have got my money's worth.
Yes of course there are few bugs, but I bet BIS already know about them and repairs are on the way.
These pathological whiners really need something new in their lifes.
VictorFarbau
Mar 7 2007, 10:13
Yet another "OH MY GOD ARMA IS NOT PERFECT" thread. Can a moderator maybe just close or move this?
I think really all possible views from "BI lover" to "customer from hell" have been exchanged.
Yes, I am selfish but I don't want to see interesting threads being pushed down just because another bozo opened the next complaints thread. Either you submit error reports or bugs with facts and reasonably skilled testing procedures being done or you are allowed to remain silent and wait for the next patch.
Cheers,
Victor
Yet another "OH MY GOD ARMA IS NOT PERFECT" thread. Can a moderator maybe just close or move this?
I think really all possible views from "BI lover" to "customer from hell" have been exchanged.
Yes, I am selfish but I don't want to see interesting threads being pushed down just because another bozo opened the next complaints thread. Either you submit error reports or bugs with facts and reasonably skilled testing procedures being done or you are allowed to remain silent and wait for the next patch.
Cheers,
Victor100% Agreed on this. Maybe this post should be sent to Shadow, Raedor or any of the other mods, "Ask A Mod Thread" etc?.
Altough if it would only be all in 1 thread, I wouldnt mind if they wish to continue ranting http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Possessed
Mar 7 2007, 10:16
We have bought still a bit raw diamond, that is being cut and polished all the time closer to what we like and what we want.
lifes.
Unfortunately this FREE patch 1.05 turned that raw diamond to dust http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
"Unfortunately this FREE patch 1.05 turned that raw diamond to dust "
Really?
The only negative thing I noticed was the "no headshots" bug, but BIS knows the cause and that will be repaired.
1.05 brought sooooo much positive things, and few (smaller) problems.
If that is crumbling the diamond to dust, you just give up too easy, man.
Possessed
Mar 7 2007, 10:28
If that is crumbling the diamond to dust, you just give up too easy, man.
Do you read these threads at all?
funkymojo44
Mar 7 2007, 10:30
Again, we have another user who simply ignores the simple fact the game was released unfinished and incomplete......
I think the patch is good, but fact is the game is still buggy and the intial release was really bad in terms of bugs.
I like the game, but i think alot of people are fed up buying games that do NOT WORK properly out of the box, instead there is a mass beta stage using the general public and numerous patches.
Thats just not right.
INNOCENT&CLUELESS
Mar 7 2007, 10:39
Girls, I agree that ArmA is a raw diamond, but again, they sold a finished.
@<hidden>: Do you really expect that I would pay for a patch? Or why you stress it is for free?
I guess the best business model for BI would be an annual license fee of let`s say 15-25€/year. That would ensure a constant cash beam on BI and force BI to deliver quality, otherwise users would cancel the contract on next expiry. And it would give them more revenue over the 6 years to the next engine all together :-).
Why I answer? Look at the thread title Victor!
If BIS said last year that they were prolonging the game till May 2007, many people would have gone insane. Frankly we should all be greatful they released the game when they did. The community reports errors, BIS fixes them. From 1.02 to 1.05, 500+ fixes... in a very short time. The constructive criticism helps BIS fix more, faster.
If (like the huge amount of members that joined in Feb. 2007) your complaining.. you have no right.
I hate how everyone is shooting the patch down, non-the-less the game and how 'unfinished' it is. They are working hard, and the community is helping.. but what is not helping is the large number of people who continue to bash the game right after its 400mb+ patch. It would take EA 7 months to do that.
I hate to be negative with my first post, but hang on! Game designers generally pay beta testers, not the other way around! Why should anyone be "grateful" for an unfinished product? If I pay hard earned money for something I expect it to work as advertised. What BIS has is a free Europe wide community of beta testers for the US market (I assume that's their main target audience, as the friendlies are US troops, not a fictional faction like the OPFOR).
Don't get me wrong, I love the free-roaming concept of the game, it's "realism" (in as much as any game can be real), and it's nice looking at high settings (if only), but at the moment it lacks polish and optimization.
This has the potential to be a really great game and even though I've just started it ('Blood Sweat and Tears' was a baptism of fire for sure) it's very enjoyable, in a masochistic sort of way! My immersion is being disrupted a little by wildly fluctuating framerates, triggers that don't trigger (it's hard to know if I'm doing something wrong or it's a bug), and an AI that can spot me sniping from 1000 yards away in cover when they're in the middle of a battle! Damn they're good!
PS: Is it really necessary for butterflies and bees to cast shadows?! It looks really nice as a red admiral flutters in to land, but it must be using some juice. Insects could be 2d sprites without anybody worrying too much I'm sure! Or they could just disappear at lower settings.
"Do you read these threads at all?"
Do I have to?
All of the "This game is crap! I cant have 60 fps in towns and deep forests with all the settings (very) high and 1682 x 1200 (whatever) resolution and shadows ans postprosessing and aa and af maxed, DAMN!" threads are just funny.
"I NEED my grass and my high shadows ALL the time, or this game is UNPLAYABLE for me!"
And the "Stupid AI!" threads aswell.
Sure there is real problems still, like the texture problem.
But that was a problem before the patch too.
But tell me, what in this 1.05 made You Sooo disappointed?
"Again, we have another user who simply ignores the simple fact the game was released unfinished and incomplete."
I don't ignore the simple fact.
I just can't see the GREAT Problem in that, because we know that we'll get those patches, and STILL most of us can play it and have fun with it, even with few bugs.
PS. The initial release? 1.04 or 1.00?
...
unplayable for me. Basically anyone who has built a new machine (with an 8800 and/or dual core) isn't really able to run the game http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif
Er.. I have a dual core, and the game runs very well.
For interest sake I have the following rig.
E6600
GeForce 7600 GT
2GB Ram
Now I am not saying people arent experiencing issues, but I would like to point out sweeping statements are incorrect. While some people are having problems others are not.
Possessed
Mar 7 2007, 11:08
"Do you read these threads at all?"
Do I have to?
...
But tell me, what in this 1.05 made You Sooo disappointed?
Do you really think that you deserve a separate answer if you are too lazy to read the threads? You can find the answers there.
"Game designers generally pay beta testers, not the other way around! Why should anyone be "grateful" for an unfinished product? If I pay hard earned money for something I expect it to work as advertised."
Gloops, why don't you just quit playing, wait for another year or so, then get all the patches and the "final, almost perfect" game is yours.
Yeah, you have paid for it!
Quote[/b] ]not meaning to stir things up, but im not really sure whats wrong with 1.05 ??
Not so much something wrong with 1.05, but it doesn't fix the issues I had with the game version 1.04. It's still totally unplayable for me. Basically anyone who has built a new machine (with an 8800 and/or dual core) isn't really able to run the game http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif
Correction : it's totally unplayable at max settings.
Max settings that BI explicitely told they could be too high for even today's hardware. But some people feel the need to have everything maxed-out or... I don't know, something crushing their ego, perhaps. I'm still trying to guess the reasons.
I'm 100% sure you can find middle settings that makes your game perfectly playable.
INNOCENT&CLUELESS
Mar 7 2007, 11:14
We bite each other simply because we have all different opinion about "playable" and "quality". But if you just take the time to read through http://bugs.armed-assault.net/view_all_bug_page.php
Just reset the filter and filter then for severity from the highest to the lowest, then you see what I am talking about. If this is for some guys fine, it is also fine for me, I am happy if you are happy. But the thing is this constant advises what I am not allowed to demand.
To be clear about my point of view, I'm not of the opinion of OP. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, and ArmA states currently has severe issues.
It's just the things like "totally unplayable" that I find really exagerated.
It's totally unplayable for Sprocklet users with license issues, yes. This is a perfectly valid complaint in my opinion. Now, high end users proclaiming ArmA is not a playable game... I have more than doubts.
funkymojo44
Mar 7 2007, 11:20
"Do you read these threads at all?"
Do I have to?
All of the "This game is crap! I cant have 60 fps in towns and deep forests with all the settings (very) high and 1682 x 1200 (whatever) resolution and shadows ans postprosessing and aa and af maxed, DAMN!" threads are just funny.
"I NEED my grass and my high shadows ALL the time, or this game is UNPLAYABLE for me!"
And the "Stupid AI!" threads aswell.
Sure there is real problems still, like the texture problem.
But that was a problem before the patch too.
But tell me, what in this 1.05 made You Sooo disappointed?
"Again, we have another user who simply ignores the simple fact the game was released unfinished and incomplete."
I don't ignore the simple fact.
I just can't see the GREAT Problem in that, because we know that we'll get those patches, and STILL most of us can play it and have fun with it, even with few bugs.
PS. The initial release? 1.04 or 1.00?
V1.04.
What im saying is that the release of the game was not acceptable as a finished product. As a gaming community have we suddenly resigned to the fact that games are released with major bugs?
Why not release the game later?
In v1.04 the campaign was virtually unplayable - the AI and scripts were deeply flawed...
To me that greatly affected the enjoyability of the game. Hey when these problems are (hopefully) fixed then im sure we'll have a great game, but if we are happy to accept a finished boxed copy of a game in the state ArmA was in then we may as well all download BETA versions and test for the developers.
oh, well if people are trying to max the settings out, then that's what'll happen. -- expect hardware to be a year or two before you can do that on armed assault.
"Do you really think that you deserve a separate answer if you are too lazy to read the threads? You can find the answers there."
Funny guy.
I was asking You.
I'm not having major problems, 1.05 made things better for me and Many others.
If you and some are having a difficult time with this patch, be a little more patient or buy some new game.
Maybe the NEXT patch will ease your pain.
Possessed
Mar 7 2007, 11:28
Max settings that BI explicitely told they could be too high for even today's hardware. But some people feel the need to have everything maxed-out or... I don't know, something crushing their ego, perhaps. I'm still trying to guess the reasons.
Of course they are too high because ArmA memory optimization does not work right. You need a 10GB video card to play one long mission with high settings because ArmA memory management is unable to reuse video memory effectively. CPU, GPU and graphics memory speed of the top-end rigs can easily cope with ArmA engine.
When there are 10GB video cards, we will have photorealistic games with unimaginable HDR effects and no-one remembers ancient ArmA.
Max settings that BI explicitely told they could be too high for even today's hardware. But some people feel the need to have everything maxed-out or... I don't know, something crushing their ego, perhaps. I'm still trying to guess the reasons.
Of course they are too high because ArmA memory optimization does not work right. You need a 10GB video card to play one long mission with high settings because ArmA memory management is unable to reuse video memory effectively. CPU, GPU and graphics memory speed of the top-end rigs can easily cope with ArmA engine.
When there are 10GB video cards, we will have photorealistic games with unimaginable HDR effects and no-one remembers ancient ArmA.
Ah. So it's BI bad programming skill that is the cause of all top end hardware issues.
And you know that how, exactly?
So, Possessed, do you think that this is unsolvable problem, BIS should have waited for the 10 Gb video cards or what Do you think?
"BIS sucks"?
"A bunch of incompetent fools"?
Possessed
Mar 7 2007, 11:48
Max settings that BI explicitely told they could be too high for even today's hardware. But some people feel the need to have everything maxed-out or... I don't know, something crushing their ego, perhaps. I'm still trying to guess the reasons.
Of course they are too high because ArmA memory optimization does not work right. You need a 10GB video card to play one long mission with high settings because ArmA memory management is unable to reuse video memory effectively. CPU, GPU and graphics memory speed of the top-end rigs can easily cope with ArmA engine.
When there are 10GB video cards, we will have photorealistic games with unimaginable HDR effects and no-one remembers ancient ArmA.
Ah. So it's BI bad programming skill that is the cause of all top end hardware issues.
And you know that how, exactly?
Read "Patch 1.05 causes performance hits" in troubleshooting area and "Broken Game" in general discussion. ArmA starts to use slow system memory after it fills up graphics card memory. Look who told this. Marek Spanel. Do I need to say more.
And Assurf, I have not in any case made such personal assaults against BIS on this forum. The way you express yourself makes you even worse than BIS hater Ange1_of_Death
Robert(UK)
Mar 7 2007, 11:52
Personally, I think that 1.05 rocks. It fixed some annoying bugs for me, and my FPS also improved... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Now the only thing I am waiting for is a patch that will remove the TKing morons, and will make joining a server faster...
Max settings that BI explicitely told they could be too high for even today's hardware. But some people feel the need to have everything maxed-out or... I don't know, something crushing their ego, perhaps. I'm still trying to guess the reasons.
Of course they are too high because ArmA memory optimization does not work right. You need a 10GB video card to play one long mission with high settings because ArmA memory management is unable to reuse video memory effectively. CPU, GPU and graphics memory speed of the top-end rigs can easily cope with ArmA engine.
When there are 10GB video cards, we will have photorealistic games with unimaginable HDR effects and no-one remembers ancient ArmA.
Ah. So it's BI bad programming skill that is the cause of all top end hardware issues.
And you know that how, exactly?
Read "Patch 1.05 causes performance hits" in troubleshooting area and "Broken Game" in general discussion. ArmA starts to use slow system memory after it fills up graphics card memory. Look who told this. Marek Spanel. Do I need to say more.
And that proves... what, exactly? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif Apart from explaining how the engine works, ofc.
Victor, nice post, you are absolutely right.
Guys, do you have any other commercial tactical shooter of such scale to play with? And Im afraid that we will not have it in nearest future since this genre is not so profitable as RTS games or ordinary shooters like quake etc. Big publishers do not want to deal with more or less hardcore simulators and tactical shooters - responsive audience is too small for big profit, production schedules are too long, risks are too high.
So we have to help BIS to improve ARMA with constructive posts but not whine around forums all day long.
PS sorry for my english :-)
Dear Possessed, remember this?
"Unfortunately this FREE patch 1.05 turned that raw diamond to dust "
Well, I don't think so.
As I said, it brought a lot of Good for all. And some little Bads for some.
And that is hardly turning a diamond to dust.
Possessed
Mar 7 2007, 12:01
And that proves... what, exactly? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif Apart from explaining how the engine works, ofc.
Other games can reuse video card memory. Arma don't. That's the reason why all the textures shown during a long mission have to be stored in video memory if you want to keep performance high the whole time. In a long mission there are multiple gigabytes of texture data on the screen if you are using high or very high texture settings.
If you don't understand this I can't help you.
And that proves... what, exactly? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif Apart from explaining how the engine works, ofc.
Other games can reuse video card memory. Arma don't. That's the reason why all the textures shown during a long mission have to be stored in video memory if you want to keep performance high the whole time. In a long mission there are multiple gigabytes of texture data on the screen if you are using high or very high texture settings.
If you don't understand this I can't help you.
What Maruk wrote :
Quote[/b] ]This indicates that your textures are probably no more fitting on the main memory of the graphics care and are stored in the main system memory which is way slower. After reset of graphical device (which you can achieve by alt tab or changing the in game settings) the textures get again to the main memory but after while this is again no longer sufficient.
And your conclusion after reading this is : "ArmA can't reuse Video Memory" ?
All I read in Maruk post is : "the amount of video memory needed to show all the scenery texture is too high for your Video Memory. Lower the amount of needed VRAM (ie lower texture quality) and ti'll be OK". Certainly not that VRAM is unusable after having been filled once.
Possessed
Mar 7 2007, 12:30
And that proves... what, exactly? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif Apart from explaining how the engine works, ofc.
Other games can reuse video card memory. Arma don't. That's the reason why all the textures shown during a long mission have to be stored in video memory if you want to keep performance high the whole time. In a long mission there are multiple gigabytes of texture data on the screen if you are using high or very high texture settings.
If you don't understand this I can't help you.
What Maruk wrote :
Quote[/b] ]This indicates that your textures are probably no more fitting on the main memory of the graphics care and are stored in the main system memory which is way slower. After reset of graphical device (which you can achieve by alt tab or changing the in game settings) the textures get again to the main memory but after while this is again no longer sufficient.
And your conclusion after reading this is : "ArmA can't reuse Video Memory" ?
All I read in Maruk post is : "the amount of video memory needed to show all the scenery texture is too high for your Video Memory. Lower the amount of needed VRAM (ie lower texture quality) and ti'll be OK". Certainly not that VRAM is unusable after having been filled once.
Then why it is not used? Instead of it ArmA starts to use system memory. Why it is so hard to understand it?
Your questions start to be comical. You just don't want to understand this simple thing or you just do not want to give up. One childish internet bullshit debate again.
And that proves... what, exactly? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif Apart from explaining how the engine works, ofc.
Other games can reuse video card memory. Arma don't. That's the reason why all the textures shown during a long mission have to be stored in video memory if you want to keep performance high the whole time. In a long mission there are multiple gigabytes of texture data on the screen if you are using high or very high texture settings.
If you don't understand this I can't help you.
What Maruk wrote :
Quote[/b] ]This indicates that your textures are probably no more fitting on the main memory of the graphics care and are stored in the main system memory which is way slower. After reset of graphical device (which you can achieve by alt tab or changing the in game settings) the textures get again to the main memory but after while this is again no longer sufficient.
And your conclusion after reading this is : "ArmA can't reuse Video Memory" ?
All I read in Maruk post is : "the amount of video memory needed to show all the scenery texture is too high for your Video Memory. Lower the amount of needed VRAM (ie lower texture quality) and ti'll be OK". Certainly not that VRAM is unusable after having been filled once.
Then why it is not used? Instead of it ArmA starts to use system memory. Why it is so hard to understand it?
Your questions start to be comical. You just don't want to understand this simple thing or you just do not want to give up. One childish internet bullshit debate again.
Because *gasp* the rest of the VRAM is ALSO in use (ie, on screen), don't you think?
And before you ask "why does the issue only appear after a while", and seeing you don't like the question/answer system http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif , just remember the changeable view distance (ie potentially huge need for "static" VRAM, ie textures immediatly used) and the streaming engine.
It's not as simple as it seems, and certainly not a matter of "hey, game X or Y does it, why not ArmA?". Or, at least, it's not a certainty the issue lies there. It's not like me, you or any1 outside of BI had ever saw a line of ArmA code.
ArmA is not game X or Y, and, for exampe with the streaming engine, is not at all built in the same way.
@<hidden>&CLUE:
"@<hidden>: Do you really expect that I would pay for a patch? Or why you stress it is for free?"
?
I was just asking that what's the Problem.
Patches are coming and they do not cost us extra money, so it's not like we have lost something here.
And we have a nice game already.
And, if you were ready to wait 6 - 12 months to get your game to be a bit better, you still can wait.
You don't HAVE to play it now, angry and disappointed for whatever, try again next year.
Get the patches and imagine that you just bought the game.
The rest of us, more satisfied customers, keep playing it though.
Then why it is not used?
Because the video RAM is already full. If all the texture data needed to display the scene do not fill into the local video RAM, you can't display the scene correctly (i.e. texture errors) of fill the non local video RAM and take a performance hit.
It bogs me that ArmA needs that much space for its textures, but that's the way it is. Simple tests can prove that, and using some tools to monitor memory usage (like RivaTuner) corrobrates that. I find it hard to believe but that's the way the game is right now. I don't know if there's a way to improve that (i.e. lower video memory needed for ArmA's textures) as I am no BiS coder/graphist.
I can confirm that ArmA reuses video memory by playing a very long mission (~1 hour) with lots of "moving" and seeing textures loaded on the fly while there is no performance hit (except for the streaming needed).
It appears ArmA does have some difficulty handling "non local video ram" efficiently, but this doesn't change the fact that one way or another, the textures are just too big for your "local video ram". Lower your texture settings and the game shall play smooth, with little to no texture errors, while retaining pretty decent visual quality.
Ever seen a game where you can't push all the video sliders to the max without turning into a slideshow ? Now you have seen one. Of course, it IS disappointing. But hey, "disappointing" does not equal "unplayable" in my vocabulary.
Ok explain to me how I get massive texture corruption with Textures set to Normal, on a 640MB 8800 then? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif
Some people seem to think others are whining, but a lot of those same people are in denial about the major problems that some are having with ArmA. Myself and others with cards that have 640-768MB video memory, experiencing massive texture problems and poor performance even having reduced the detail. Don't think that these issues are simply because we are too ambitious with the settings http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
There is another spin to this debacle that I have just recently thought about, and by no means am I in any position to verify it...
Perhaps BIS *wanted* to wait. Perhaps, as they were signing publishers, those publishers gave them dates set in stone for release. Perhaps, they did all they could before they had to ship, or lose the publisher. Everything else gets sorted afterwards.
From what I've seen in the patches, the interactive bug-tracker with the feedback between the devs and the public, I think we've got ourselves a damn good deal and a little bit of patience never killed anybody.
INNOCENT&CLUELESS
Mar 7 2007, 13:14
@<hidden> AzzurF:
Quote[/b] ]And, if you were ready to wait 6 - 12 months to get your game to be a bit better, you still can wait.
You don't HAVE to play it now, angry and disappointed for whatever, try again next year.
Get the patches and imagine that you just bought the game.
It is hard to get it into your head. I try it in another way:
CASH ->>> BI
time delay: few days to deliver the box, for downloads: immediately
Customer<<<<-ArmA
What we have currently:
CASH ->>> BI
time delay: meanwhile more then 80 days.
Customer<<<<- non-working ArmA, hence partial delivery
If the supplier would gently ask me to postpone the final delivery or to give me a discount on a future product, I would not cry.
But if the supplier decides alone when and what he will deliver...strange.
The thing is with all the fanboys like you, that you grant this exception in business behavior only to the game industry or maybe only to BI.
I would like to see the reaction of guys like you if:
- you buy a train ticket for the complete town, you give the money and then you get handed out a ticket for next 3 stations? And the advise to come back in 3 weeks, then you MIGHT get the rest.
- you buy a car and you do not get the ordered interior and features, also no date when you will get it and that car stops itself randomly and they can not get it fixed over weeks
- you pay for a blo* jo*, and the lady stops JUST before you come, she turns and tells you that she MIGHT continue in a few weeks
Sure you will understand all that. Perfect Victim
Ok explain to me how I get massive texture corruption with Textures set to Normal, on a 640MB 8800 then? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif
What resolution do you use ? It's pretty easy with all the buffers needed to hit a 100MB mark just for your "display".
Even at Low texture setting I get frequent streaming on a 256MB card. I wouldn't be surprised if the game needs 500MB+ for all it's textures especially when using long view distances (3000m+) and High object detail.
I am not saying this is normal, I am saying this is the way the game is in it's current state, and I don't know if this can be improved with patching (and not by tricking the user by lowering texture quality at the same setting).
Also, you have to understand that the 8800 is brand new and that it's drivers are obviously in an incomplete state. Don't blame BiS, blame nVidia for releasing a product with crappy drivers (or ATI for that matter, they're all the same).
Edit : As for your edit, I am not denying there are specific problems for some configs. I'm just trying to make my point clear about the fact that this game needs insane requirements to run on High or Very High settings.
Chris Death
Mar 7 2007, 13:19
@<hidden>:
As i can see in your system specs you got that 8800 GPU,
which is 'the one' card having those issues where you need
to alt-tab twice to refresh the VRAM.
Maybe there are a few exceptions where other cards do have
the same issue but i can't remember having read about them.
Now did you ever consider that the source of the problem
comes from somewhere in the near of GF8800 and not from
BIS?
Now it's the question: should BIS wait releasing ArmA until
the 8800 series gets fixed to refresh the video memory or
shouldn't they?
Or should they spend another year just to find out at the end
it's the graphics card's fault and not theirs (not saying that
it's for sure GPU's fault here) and release the game one year
later with a non explainable delay.
The so called 'payed BETA testers' might be a rumor since
they usually don't get paid but benefit in other ways - earlier
releases for them or other goodies.
The only BETA tester that really can uncover all of them bugs
is (sad but true) nowadays the end user.
Nowhere in the world you'll get so many different system setups and experiences of gameplay together as with the mass of the end users.
I'm working as a system administrator for mainframe at a big
european bank and even there where it's about big money,
nothing gets released bugless nowadays - it's not possible
to make the perfect software for your customer until the customer have had his experiences or problems with it - even
if there are other customers who in theory would have the
exact same expectations and systems and reported the software being ok.
I've seen a lot of complaints about bugs in ArmA which later
were solved by new drivers or open GL or direct x version but
not the half of the ppl whining and screaming onto BIS had the balls to show their respect and apologies afterwards since
it's 'their right' to complain about not working software. ts ts ts http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif
btw - ArmA doesn't need a 10gb GPU to run on high settings
since i got a 7950 GT KO 512mb and it's running fine from
1.00/01 (since 01 was released too soon for me to test 00
too long). No Alt-tab'bing necessary for me to clear VRAM
it just works like it should.
1.05 is not totally unplayable - hell it's even not near to
unplayable if ArmA is running on the right rig.
If the rig is not fine for ArmA but from specs it should be,
then there's still a big chance of rig's fault and not software's
since on some constellations it works fine.
~S~ CD
INNOCENT&CLUELESS
Mar 7 2007, 13:35
I mean I would never blaim BI for HW or driver bugs. I even try to nail down HW bug reports in the BTS like "my Gcard is somehow not working". We might leave some reports in if there is a generic problem with a certain product e.g. ArmA would not run on any G80 based card, and this just with the spin to ask BI gently if they could provide a workaround.
This is a generic problem where I do not have an exact solution for how to deal with all those "my one does not work at all" vs. "mine runs perfectly".
Only a few users are able/willing to deliver with a HW/system-bug report a complete HW+SW/driver description of their rig. Hence trouble shooting is in many cases just guessing and useless trying of different solutions.
It would be cool if someone could suggest a tool, that gathers the complete system HW+SW environment and the ArmA logs(I know they contain a lot of info, but not all that might be necessary) and stores it into a file ready to upload.
Even the laziest user could deliver good stuff for analysis and BI/we would be able to approach bugs in a statistical manner by reading the logs (which have all the same structure) into a database and run analysis on that.
Some effort initially, but I am sure it pays back on the long run.
andersson
Mar 7 2007, 13:44
I have a C2D E6600 and a GF8800GTS (+2 gig ram, raid, all the latest drivers and so on..). I can play arma with full settings, but I "only" have about 22FPS when there are multiple units fighting in wooded areas. I have turned down terrain and objects to normal, and shadow and AF to high. Now I can play with ~32FPS in forrest ranging up to ~80 in desert (1204x678). Nothing is overclocked.
I do not experience any texture bugs. I havent yet experienced any bigger bug playing the campaign.
I play 1.05....
Yes, I feel lucky to be able to play arma as it was ment to! But my point is, you cannot rule out dual cores or 8800s.
INNOCENT&CLUELESS
Mar 7 2007, 14:52
Umm, andersson you are a lucky one, you must have the golden setup. Is it also as good when you are on MP servers with lots of players? I had only those graphical issues when it became very busy or when I return to ArmA with ALT-TAB.
I ordered recently a rig for ArmA testing, that insane 4500€ thingy quadCPU; dual 8800GTX everywhere water pipes and so on.
I returned that one due to the advice of one friend since he told me that ArmA can not utilize more then 1 CPU and out of those 2 8800 cards in total only the 768MB of 1 card effectively. Hence I ordered with the same ASUS Stryker just your 6600 C2D CPU, only one 8800 GTX and 4GB RAM and I pray that this would be now the one for further testing. So 2600€ now. But still a lot of dust and I would not understand it if I can't play ArmA now on medium settings.
I to am lucky enough to own a E6600 processor and a 8800GTX + blah blah. To be honest it doesn't bother me to much that I'm only getting 20 or so fps as I've been brought up on budget graphics card/PC's. It's just a fact of life if you own a PC and get the latest hardware that there are various bugs. Normally i alway buy the cheaper tried and tested hardware (ie over 6 months old) which works well. New games always have some bugs, Dark Messiah of Might and Magic crashed many times but i don't mind this if i can play as soon as possible.
The bottom line for me is I'd rather play it now with bugs than in 2 years time. Apart from that, we can look forward to new patches with excitement, treat them like little Christmas presents.
INNOCENT&CLUELESS
Mar 7 2007, 15:37
Quote[/b] ]treat them like little Christmas presents
You mean not paying for presents as usual? And throwing into trash bin if I do not like it? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Quote[/b] ]treat them like little Christmas presents
You mean not paying for presents as usual? And throwing into trash bin if I do not like it? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
No, more like when you install the patch and run the game for the first time it's like the moment when you open the present. If all goes well, that's the point where you like the present. If the patch doesn't do much then it's the same as getting a toy without batteries. The fact is because more patches will be available there's always going to be highs or maybe lows (ie disappointment).
I'm going out on a limb here but...
No patches = No Christmas
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
froggyluv
Mar 7 2007, 15:50
Umm, andersson you are a lucky one, you must have the golden setup. Is it also as good when you are on MP servers with lots of players? I had only those graphical issues when it became very busy or when I return to ArmA with ALT-TAB.
I ordered recently a rig for ArmA testing, that insane 4500€ thingy quadCPU; dual 8800GTX everywhere water pipes and so on.
I returned that one due to the advice of one friend since he told me that ArmA can not utilize more then 1 CPU and out of those 2 8800 cards in total only the 768MB of 1 card effectively. Hence I ordered with the same ASUS Stryker just your 6600 C2D CPU, only one 8800 GTX and 4GB RAM and I pray that this would be now the one for further testing. So 2600€ now. But still a lot of dust and I would not understand it if I can't play ArmA now on medium settings.
You'll run it fine with that rig. I've probably dopped a good $2500 in total to get this game/upgrade/dsl and I'm very happy with it.I've got the ASUS Commando and like Stryker, it's an OC dream. Right now I'm getting 40-50fps in almost all situations with settings set to med/high;res:1440/900
Specs:Commando
e6400 oc'ed 3.3
7900 gs oc'ed 650/1.5
2 gig teem xtreem ddr2 667 oc'ed of course
ocz 700 PSU
I hope this makes your Arma more enjoyable as Im having a blast
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
andersson
Mar 7 2007, 15:57
Umm, andersson you are a lucky one, you must have the golden setup. Is it also as good when you are on MP servers with lots of players? I had only those graphical issues when it became very busy or when I return to ArmA with ALT-TAB.
I did spend over 2 months just reading about parts before buying anything, so I know the parts do work together.
I havent tried it in MP. But I have done alot of ALT-TAB without any problems.
Good luck with your next rig!
*sh~*dont tell anybody that i have 8800 GPU and i can run the game pretty good. no just dont tell anybody!
@<hidden>&CLUELESS:
It's hard to get in Your mind.
I've tried, but I just can't see what's buggin you So much.
"- you buy a train ticket for the complete town, you give the money and then you get handed out a ticket for next 3 stations? And the advise to come back in 3 weeks, then you MIGHT get the rest."
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
You have bought a train ticket to get place B.
You may not have the most comfortable train, but still you are moving and getting there.
Maybe the train has to stay on the stations a bit longer for the repairs occasionally, but you'll be moving most of the time.
I guess what you wanted, was to wait on a station for a new and polished Train of all Trains, fast and pretty.
Waiting and not knowing when the train might come, and when it finally comes, you may still not like the seats or the smell of it.
The train ticket cost is still the same, or maybe higher.
This is not too serious, you haven't been robbed or violated.
You are just wasting your time with that 'overreacting'.
PS. "Fanboy"? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
If you like this game for some reason, you are a "fanboy"?
What are you then? A "hateguy"?
Dear Bohemia Interactive Studios:
I think you have done a very good job in customer support for this game Armed Assault. I am an original OFP'er since the days of the demo for OFP. I bought the game as soon as it was released. I have been gaming on the PC since the day of duke nukem, wolfenstein 3d, chuck yeagers air combat, etc. I play all current games too such as the BF2 series, counter strike source, etc.
I must admit I have never played a game the gave me the feelings that the OFP series gave me. It has not been surpassed by any other game. When I tell other gamers about the OFP series my face lights up as I tell them about the best game ever made.
So now that you know that I love your game, I really see better customer support from BIS than any other game studio. The presence on the forums from BIS and the buglist and such just shows your dedication to your game. Please dont let the negative comments make you feel overwelmed. Many love this game and the ones who love it dont have the time to post about it because they are too busy playing. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
The latest patch has addressed so many issues and when I first loaded the patch and started playing I was so pleased with BIS and what they have accomplished in so little time. The patch is excellent and soon the game will be ready for the US release. I cant wait for the next patches.
I am aware that some new bugs have been introduced with the new patch, but the same can be said for BF2 and other MAJOR popular games. Its the nature of the beast. But where BIS shines is that they listen to the community and work with them to improve the game.
Thanks BIS.
Now all bow down the the king of all military style games
BIS and the OFP and ArmA series!! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif
as Czech user i'm very happy that we got already v1.05 (most of these who started with 1.04 or 1.02 can't imagine what was 1.00 about http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
patches resolved tons of issues ...
yet IMHO same number of issues needs to be fixed before i can say bugs are not limiting my gameplay ...
considering time for development and size of team we got ArmA in state as it is (worktimes, team sizes used for titles like Crysis or Stalker are x times bigger, same goes for budget)
not to mention size of game world results into huge complexity,
if You familiar with game projects You sure aware there are thousands to tens thousands bugs
even AFTER game going gold (let say with minimum (dozens) gamebreaking ones , usually on rare conditions)
now for bigger ttles add one or two more nulls to that number...
that's why it's nice to see that BIS continue to fix (instead of take money and run), improve and add ...
sure, noone will argue that BIS made some new mistakes or repeated some mistakes from OFP but noone is perfect ...
as it was said another milestone will be US release and i myself hope at that time ArmA will be stable brand in large areas FPS tactical gaming community ...
as user if You keep reporting BUGS via bug tracking system, posting "usable" wishes for game improvement on BIKI and discussing (not whining) on this forum
then You get even better improvements over future patches
benreeper
Mar 7 2007, 20:00
I'd like to ditto the first and last two posts and also state that if you are trying to play the game at it's maximum (or near maximum) settings and are complaining about framerates, then the game isn't your problem: you have other issues.
--Ben
INNOCENT&CLUELESS
Mar 7 2007, 21:40
@<hidden> Dwarden: Do you try to suggest that the customer has to bleed for the mistake of the developer that he approached a huge project with a to small team in a to ambitious time frame? I knew it, and I took it as an explanation, not as an excuse.
I would not call it money making if BI would have cut the project into smaller chunks and implemented the main features one by one so that always a stable version would be available and a demo version with the next feature set. They even could charge me an annual fee for continuously working on quality insurance and further development.
So if they would charge me 20€ a year they would have every 2 years that what they charged me now and maybe for another 5 years.
If many of us easily spend 700€ for a watercooled BlackPerl or 1400€ to have 2 in SLI we could JUST pay also this.
What still brings me to the top, I do not care about the money for the 3 licenses, is that they were not honest to me about the condition what they sold to me, those things I take very serious. And I am sure they were hiding it on purpose, even a totally disabled person could not overlook these many bugs in the early versions sold.
In my opinion BI burned within days a lot of reputation and trust with that odd move. If they couldn't get it ready in November, they would have survived also a start of the cash flow now or in a few month. We could then betatest the 1.0x for free but would buy it for shure.
@<hidden> benreeper: If I manage to assemble til next week my rig and I can not get 25 FPS on 5000m and medium settings, would I get your permission to say something?
5000m? Remember that this game is far far far far advanced compare to any hardware available. So maybe you should try 2500m
5000m in 10 years, this game is far ahead of its time. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif
d3dsh33p
Mar 7 2007, 21:51
I'm sorry I wasn't able to read all the post but I think a simple beta version long before actual release would have been very helpfull.
The community here seems really strong and I'm sure there would have been plenty of people to beta test that are "trustable" enough to do it.
@<hidden> Dwarden: Do you try to suggest that the customer has to bleed for the mistake of the developer that he approached a huge project with a to small team in a to ambitious time frame? I knew it, and I took it as an explanation, not as an excuse.
I would not call it money making if BI would have cut the project into smaller chunks and implemented the main features one by one so that always a stable version would be available and a demo version with the next feature set. They even could charge me an annual fee for continuously working on quality insurance and further development.
So if they would charge me 20€ a year they would have every 2 years that what they charged me now and maybe for another 5 years.
If many of us easily spend 700€ for a watercooled BlackPerl or 1400€ to have 2 in SLI we could JUST pay also this.
What still brings me to the top, I do not care about the money for the 3 licenses, is that they were not honest to me about the condition what they sold to me, those things I take very serious. And I am sure they were hiding it on purpose, even a totally disabled person could not overlook these many bugs in the early versions sold.
In my opinion BI burned within days a lot of reputation and trust with that odd move. If they couldn't get it ready in November, they would have survived also a start of the cash flow now or in a few month. We could then betatest the 1.0x for free but would buy it for shure.
@<hidden> benreeper: If I manage to assemble til next week my rig and I can not get 25 FPS on 5000m and medium settings, would I get your permission to say something?
who said it was excuse, i simply said facts (note that line about same mistakes like with prior games http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif ...
if You dislike ArmA then return it to store where You bough it and get refund ...
for me BIS reputation is approx same as in days of OFP ... guess most of people forget early OFP problems already , same goes for OFPR ...
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif
Do you even play this game or do you spend all day shitting up threads on this forum? Just curious.
I only have an GeForce 7600GS with 512MB vram, and i`m not getting that texture errors.
Those of you that are using an 8800 series card, should keep in mind that they are using another video driver.
That alone can produce errors, that me and others don`t have.
All in all, Arma works better on my rig than on some high-end rigs. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
Why? Maybe it`s Win2K Prof with SP3, instead of WinXP, or shutdown background tasks?
Maybe the fact, that i didn`t buy the cheapest hardware.
Hell knows why, but Arma works good on my sytem. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif
INNOCENT&CLUELESS
Mar 7 2007, 22:41
@<hidden> Dwarden: have you ever seen a junky returning his cocaine to the dealer even when it was stretched or dirty? I would rather rape BI and steal a VBS2 copy! No, I insist on getting clean, white powder, no ugly black bugs inside.
I am addicted to this kind of sim and I am currently on detox because of all those bugs.
andersson
Mar 8 2007, 10:08
Umm, andersson you are a lucky one, you must have the golden setup. Is it also as good when you are on MP servers with lots of players? I had only those graphical issues when it became very busy or when I return to ArmA with ALT-TAB.
I had to Quote you one more time http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
I played MP yesterday and yes, I get the texture bugs. I played for a long time without problems until I got more and more often bad LOD textures and models. It wasnt too bad but it wasnt as it should be. As you said, in a heavy MP-environment.
Umm, andersson you are a lucky one, you must have the golden setup. Is it also as good when you are on MP servers with lots of players? I had only those graphical issues when it became very busy or when I return to ArmA with ALT-TAB.
I had to Quote you one more time http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
I played MP yesterday and yes, I get the texture bugs. I played for a long time without problems until I got more and more often bad LOD textures and models. It wasnt too bad but it wasnt as it should be. As you said, in a heavy MP-environment.
Same, it takes very very long before I get long texture loading bug. Since 1.05, the HDD access after long time of playing is more visible, and brutal change of object (typically with a respawn or setPos) makes the texture loading too slowly.
But, even on High settings for Shading and textures, on my X1800XL, it takes long before it's itching.
and btw, thanks for the transports yesterday Andersson http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif (if you are the one piloting our Blackhawks last night)
I can only agree with the original poster: "1.05 - be happy you have it."
I find it rather amusing to read all these posts with people complaining about BIS' business strategy, or even comparing it to buying a train ticket and getting only half way...
Come on! We've been given a chance to help in the development of this game. If you can't be bothered to do that - fine. Put it on the shelf and wait a few months. It won't go away. But please stop whining about the bugs, or how you have paid your hard earned money for an unfinished product. If you had pre-ordered the game and it wasn't released yet, you would still have to wait until it's finished. Only this way you get to try it out early - sort of like a beta. And you can pitch in your ideas. We wouldn't have free-aim-iron-sights if it weren't for that.
Hanging around these forums, bashing ArmA and BIS in every second post is not doing anything for anyone. You're just annoying those of us who seriously want to contribute to this community. So I ask you, kindly: Get over it or go somewhere else.
And before you comment on it, yeah I'm a big fanboy. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/inlove.gif
INNOCENT&CLUELESS
Mar 8 2007, 12:31
@<hidden>:
I am happy that I can give you some entertainment. And I bashing rather fanboys then BI more often.
@<hidden> anderrson: Hm that explains that I have it much earlier, my pipe HDD->VRAM is much slower then yours currently.
im happy that BIS released this new patch.
Im also happy that they continue to work on this project called ARMA.
From the posts we read BIS are looking and working to improve the game that was released in december.
Im glad that i have the game and patchs will continue to rain..
GO BIS! This crappy mission maker loves your work http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/inlove.gif
(the game is better and better every month)
andersson
Mar 8 2007, 13:58
@<hidden> anderrson: Hm that explains that I have it much earlier, my pipe HDD->VRAM is much slower then yours currently.
I have 3 maxline III, 16mb cache, in a raid 0 so yes, it can be.
@<hidden>: No, I was the recruit with no AT http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif I had the bootcamp weapontraining with the pilot.. But I am a good pilot http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif Old sebnam veteran with joystick!
lexicon66
Mar 8 2007, 14:16
I think ArmA is great there is nothing wrong with it but minor bugs that people blow up to be a major deal. They are fixing it I don't mind the bugs because I understand that they have issues to work out.
The game has various problem with diffrent systems because of the engine. Just wait a few more patches to work every thing out.
5000m? Remember that this game is far far far far advanced compare to any hardware available. So maybe you should try 2500m
5000m in 10 years, this game is far ahead of its time. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif
Although its always nice to read your sarcasm ( http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/yay.gif ), you more or less speak the truth this time, the maximum graphic options are far ahead of their time, even in OFP you cant play with 5000m on very high terrain detail, BI is just so nice to let those slider go way too far up http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
INNOCENT&CLUELESS
Mar 8 2007, 14:35
@<hidden>:
Quote[/b] ]there is nothing wrong with it but minor bugs that people blow up to be a major deal
You have no clue what you talking about.
Fortunately most bugs are minor or cosmetic, but there are still heavy show stoppers to be solved.
http://bugs.armed-assault.net/view_all_bug_page.php
Check this out and come back.
Note: There are some bugs with a to high severity and priority in my opinion, but most assignments are correct.
lexicon66
Mar 8 2007, 14:46
I already saw that list before you posted and I still think ArmA is fine. Minor problems that most very high end or low end users have.
CallMeSir
Mar 8 2007, 15:11
I have had the game since Mon [505 uk boxed version]and applied 1.05 before playing and all I can say is, it's great. I'm working through the campaign (upto sanatizing mission), and have played several of the standalone missions and a little MP.
I can honestly say I've not had one problem yet, everything has been very smooth, including the performance.
Now I don't know what it was like without the patch, but I feel pretty sure it can't have been better. Obviously some people are having issues, which I'm sure BI will fix, but so far I've been lucky.
I'm running the game with
X2 3800 oc'ed to2.5ghz
2GB PC3200
7600Gt
With everything on normal cept post-processing on low at 1024x768 - and it still looks great. FPS generally 35+ but drops to 20 at times in forrests in the grass, which for what it's doing seems ok to me.
Very happy. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif Oh and this is my first post here, so hello everyone http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Heatseeker
Mar 8 2007, 17:34
Im happy with 1.05, game is stable and they didnt just fix problems but introduced new features, content and many improvements too.
And on top of that BIS are colecting bug reports to improve the game further, you can use this oportunity to help or whine like an useless idiot.. but keep in mind that there are people working hard to make things better, i think they deserve our full respect and support.
With all the dificulties BIS had to publish im very happy they are still developing comercial games.
I've waited years for a good game and that game is Arma!
benreeper
Mar 8 2007, 17:36
A viewdistance of 5000! I play at 1200 and that's what I expect it to run expectable at. My previous post stands as confirmed.
--Ben
INNOCENT&CLUELESS
Mar 8 2007, 17:44
@<hidden> benreeper: in the past I did it like you, 1200-1500m in OFP. When crCTI from DVD was available with VD2500 I got to often a shot from the fog, there was always a sniper happy to kill moving pixels. So if now there is a server permitting VD5000, are you not afraid to be just good for target practice of all the snipers? With the M107 they should snipe you even out of your car.
benreeper
Mar 8 2007, 17:49
That does not change anything. If the game is playable for you at 1200m (the default setting I believe) then it is not a performance problem of the game but your preferences.
If that'a the problem then maybe BI should remove the option to change your view settings, like a console would do and set it for the lowest common system.
--Ben http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
That does not change anything. If the game is playable for you at 1200m (the default setting I believe) then it is not a performance problem of the game but your preferences.
If that'a the problem then maybe BI should remove the option to change your view settings, like a console would do and set it for the lowest common system.
--Ben http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
4000m typical here. (I like to watch the columns of armor approach and set up for the assault on my army.) http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Could the issues of bugs with hardware partly be caused by the evolution to DX10 that occured during ArmA's development? Could the issues of spotty problems that may or may not appear on similar setups be because of the dramatic differences and customability of PCs? (EDIT:) That BIS and many others do not have available the time or recources to really check out, except for releasing the best they can do, and fix the infinity of issues that may come up? Microsoft does this in EVERY product.. If those deep pocketed bast*@<hidden>#@<hidden> need to do it, imagine BIS.
@<hidden> I&C: When you do something that no one else has done, and there's no existing template to guide by (Read: R & D). How do you know your level of incompetence? It is easy to critique anothers work, but to go the original path means point at a goal and go for it. You may go over, you may do what BIS has done which is go high enough to grab ahold and climb over, or you may miss. But please don't think that you can take an idea and direction and put a value or date on it. Estimation is about all you can do, and is by nature error prone. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Could the issues of bugs with hardware partly be caused by the evolution to DX10 that occured during ArmA's development?
ArmA is a DX9 game, no elements of DX10 at all, or all us "lowly" XP users wouldnt be able to play it at all http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
INNOCENT&CLUELESS
Mar 8 2007, 18:57
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
Quote[/b] ]@<hidden> I&C: When you do something that no one else has done, and there's no existing template to guide by (Read: R & D). How do you know your level of incompetence? It is easy to critique anothers work, but to go the original path means point at a goal and go for it. You may go over, you may do what BIS has done which is go high enough to grab ahold and climb over, or you may miss. But please don't think that you can take an idea and direction and put a value or date on it. Estimation is about all you can do, and is by nature error prone.
Never said that? It is about being honest.
Right I was one of them even in 2004 asking for a kind of "OFP2". This one could have contained much less then in the white book of ArmA. What makes me angry is that they tried to leave the impression they are ready in Nov/Dec2006 and they 2000% knew in which condition the game is. I repeat it again:
If BI, facing the fact that it had in NOV06 did NOT reached GOLD, would have put it for download as a DEMO, nobody could say anything.
I honor the insane work on OFP BI did, I honor the ideas behing ArmA and how far they pushed it with those few peps.
What I can not believe is that they did not knew what they sold, hence I assume it was on purpose, they sold their strongest supporters half finished ***** without saying anything - sorry, I can't stand it, it is cheating. Sure that I want to see now what they suggested is in the box - entertainment SW. I mean, those flying tanks are somehow entertaining, I had honestly some fun with it http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
I&C
Quote[/b] ] Do you try to suggest that the customer has to bleed for the mistake of the developer that he approached a huge project with a to small team in a to ambitious time frame? I knew it, and I took it as an explanation, not as an excuse.
Sorry, (old post) X (speed reading at work) = misunderstanding http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
To your latest post, yup. They knew it. They also knew there was a forum of ravenous wolves waiting for ANY bone to be thrown to them, so they did. Many cheered the bone, many thought the bone was supposed to be the finished game (and FEEL boned), and now we are here - where ever this is on the roadmap. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
At DMXM2: I was meaning some of the quirks the 8800 users have. I'm just throwing related ideas out hoping that others will see a connection. I think we should have a form for us to list our specific setups, if we OC'ed or opened pipelines, OS and patches, if we have a problem or not, and compile the data into a simple graph. Just seeing the distribution and being able to sort it by those details might give insight to parts of the problem that BIS has control over, and those they don't (worked for me in a meeting this morning http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif )
At DMXM2: I was meaning some of the quirks the 8800 users have.
Ahhh, yeah. Makes sense I suppose. That is the lottery you play with PC's, with so many different types of hardware, and then so many different manufacturers, and on top of that so many different drivers versions, its no wonder that a portion of the users will have a problem.
That is, as far as i'm concerned, the only advantage of consoles - you know you've got the same deal as everyone else (although with "core", "basic", "advanced" and whatnot versions becoming more common, that is becoming an issue now too.
Give the man a welcome already. Welcome CallMeSir. Find the right crowd to hang with and this game e'll keep you playing for years and years. BIS will always be here to back us up. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
This kind of attitude is quite normal in working places.
The people who complete their jobs before deadlines and do not make mistakes, are not noticed or appreciated. If you want to get respect, you make mistakes and bad work and then fix it by making a lot of overwork and show some personal sacrifice.
1.Since this game is published on beta level, I don't see any reason to praise the sizes of patches. Especially when they make things worse.
2.The only reason why people accept this at all is that there is no competition in realistic FPS war simulation gaming. They have to stick with ArmA or start to learn jump-dodging of bullets in BF/CS world.
1.Relative to what exactly? Relative to Tetris? Yes. To Battlefield? To some degree. To any other game in the genre? Can't be answered... basically, you made a point without realistic premise is what I am trying to demonstrate. It's like trying to compare Apple's with Orange's.
2.Agreed
Well this game is still on beta level due the huge amount of bugs and the apparent lack of testing before publishing. In a normal case the serious bugs has been found and fixed in the software before it is published. Being on beta or release level is not a matter of comparison to another software. Software is normally on the release level when the serious bugs has been found through beta testing and fixed and also the number of bugs has been reduced to the acceptable level.
At the moment the software quality and the enormous amount of bugs makes the game almost unplayable. This game is not on beta level if this is the quality standard of BIS release policy. In that case I wonder if BIS has any kind of official quality certificate.
Like I said, it is also a subjective issue and this would apply for a fair few. Not to say it really is not objective for some because I'm sure it will be.
It's not always easy to test on what is in reality an infinite number of system combos. I'm sure an average system is taken into account during testing at the very least using what would be considered as a mainstream setup. It would be the logical thing to do afterall. If you can understand the issues with releasing a beta to the masses i.e. more than just a small group for the closed beta, you will realise it can create a lot of negative press. A game as complex as this will no doubt be prone to more bugs on intial release with the various systems and scenarios not previously experienced. Yes, more testing can always be done, but there will never be a guaratee of bug free gameplay or major performance issues. Who's to say what systems were used? We don't know for sure, but I know from experience most people got a good version of OFP in the end so I can say with some certainty, the game wouldn't be released with heavy issues, but some smaller ones found are inevitable with the devs knowledge on release. Anything else that develops through time with further patches is just bad luck and I'm sure even after a decent amount of testing is done. These are software professionals afterall and are forced to have decent knowledge of hardware too. No one likes bad press at the end of the day.
There are bugs, but not of the magnitude you describe. Again, this can be subjective.
My initial point was, what sets the bar of what a beta state for this particular game is? I don't believe it's fair to call it a beta by simple definition, rather it should be compared on a relative scale of the same genre, and in this case, few such scales exist.
1.Relative to the other games released by professional game companies that work when you put them in the DVD drive.
However, I think waiting to release would be a mistake, the industry moves that fast you need to release while your still current to catch the passing masses. Fanbois playing for a couple of years don't bring the money.
On the other side of the coin there is a need to release a working product. Getting the balance is difficult. release a crap version early and bomb due to a bad reputation or later and risk the engine being out of date or even worse a competitor beats you to it.
Unfortunately BIS has missed the ideal point. It's wallowing as a multiplayer game so far the numbers are too low. With a bit of luck it'll be working by the time it hits the US. Although that isn't much use to the European mulitplayer community.
I understand the point you are making and of course it would be an ideal situation, but like I said before, it is not a fair comparison because we are not comparing like for like. This comparison is heading for a very general direction which does not serve the work done here any justice. Simple definitions are exactly that, too simple for such a case and it's a very linear way of thinking. Why don't we compare it to mario land in that case? Would it be fair to do such a thing because that is very much bug free and will never suffer any performance issues.
After reading some replys I firmly believe that many posters should be over in the other 1.05 complaining thread...
lexicon66
Mar 9 2007, 06:46
The only problem with version 1.05 is that performace is degraded about 40% with most systems. I hope they fix this soon they should release a patch just for the performance problems. 1.02 was much better for performance.
Balschoiw
Mar 9 2007, 07:03
Quote[/b] ] is degraded about 40% with most systems.
Yeah sure http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
If there is a common level of performance decrease, it´s about 10 - 20 percent, not the double.
The only problem with version 1.05 is that performace is degraded about 40% with most systems. I hope they fix this soon they should release a patch just for the performance problems. 1.02 was much better for performance.
"70% of all statistics are made up on the spot" http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
I think those with higher end PC's shouldn't be able to post about saying there isn't a performance decrease, cuz they don't know the difference between 90fps and 82fps http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
I noticed a slight difference, but it'll definitely keep me playing longer. This patch was the 'make or break' patch I was looking for, and it kept me in.
weegee_101
Mar 9 2007, 15:44
I think those with higher end PC's shouldn't be able to post about saying there isn't a performance decrease, cuz they don't know the difference between 90fps and 82fps http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
I noticed a slight difference, but it'll definitely keep me playing longer. This patch was the 'make or break' patch I was looking for, and it kept me in.
But what about those of us who used to play the game or normal or high settings just fine with above 20 fps then after the patch get barely 15 after 5 minutes of play?
lexicon66
Mar 9 2007, 18:20
I think those with higher end PC's shouldn't be able to post about saying there isn't a performance decrease, cuz they don't know the difference between 90fps and 82fps http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
I noticed a slight difference, but it'll definitely keep me playing longer. This patch was the 'make or break' patch I was looking for, and it kept me in.
But what about those of us who used to play the game or normal or high settings just fine with above 20 fps then after the patch get barely 15 after 5 minutes of play?
This is what's happening with me as well. I don't have a high end system. I have a 3500+ 2GB + 7800GT. Before the patch I was getting smooth game play now after the patch it seems like there is a memory leak or some shadow problem. I have faith that they will fix this but it is in fact about 30-40% decrease in performance. I am sure this varies for most people yet some people say they actually have better performance. Strange.....
If BIS said last year that they were prolonging the game till May 2007, many people would have gone insane. Frankly we should all be greatful they released the game when they did. The community reports errors, BIS fixes them. From 1.02 to 1.05, 500+ fixes... in a very short time. The constructive criticism helps BIS fix more, faster.
If (like the huge amount of members that joined in Feb. 2007) your complaining.. you have no right.
I hate how everyone is shooting the patch down, non-the-less the game and how 'unfinished' it is. They are working hard, and the community is helping.. but what is not helping is the large number of people who continue to bash the game right after its 400mb+ patch. It would take EA 7 months to do that.
in the USA that is called fraud if you promise one thing people pay for that, and you do not deliver said thing. in fact i think that this game in the short time it has been out it has broken records for problems. just looking at the forms and how many pages there are and looking at how many people have the game plus you facter in all the people that have not even reg for this site i wold think that about 23% of people have problems now thats just english so look at the other forms and it gos way up to 43% maybe more. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif
kishmull
Mar 11 2007, 02:39
show me a game or application that doesnt have problems of one sort or another?
dont think i can think of any.
in this case i`m prepared to exercise a little patience.
most of us have seen all this before. and from what i have seen of BIS and thier previous game OFP they will sort the problems out even if it takes a while.
There's what OFP was and what it became. ArmA is one thing and will become another. You had to own patience to enjoy OFP, you also have to do with ArmA. All this talk about fraud, must come from someone who never owned another PC game or Windows for that matter. Good luck with the lawsuit.
ArmA is like a fine wine. It's 40 bucks and it'll make you feel great. Screw hiding it in a cellar, I'm enjoying it now.
lexicon66
Mar 11 2007, 09:42
I found that performance can be increased by lowering detail levels. In the new patch detail level can actually increase. LOD is increased so the actual functionality of the detail controls gives more diversity. So the "normal" detail level is not like it used to be. I found that lowering some options while keep texture details higher gives my original performance back while still keeping ok graphics. They have tweaked the normal setting to be harder on a system. Although I do think there are some performace bugs that are pretty high on the list to be fixed.
dirtylarrygb
Mar 11 2007, 12:24
Hello forums,
having read the above posts in this thread and negative comments in other posts, I'm going to vent my spleen.
1/ Graphical performance, Visual Quality of ARMA:
After patch 1.05 "the game runs crap", or "looks like Operation Flashpoint". Well, it performs great on my machine, yep, I have a "Gaming PC", an 8800 GTX, 2 gig ram etc etc. But as a hardcore gamer, I understand the concept that you have to upgrade every 6-12 months. Or the PC games industry will produce a game that will make your PC run like crap if you dare switch on the "eye candy". It's been this way since games on the 486 processors.
I run ARMA on a 32" monitor at 1600x1024 16x aa 4x AF GCAA and SSAA turned on, everything set to VERY HIGH, bar, terrain, vis range 3km (30-50 FPS). And I suspect, like a few others, I can see ARMA is at the pinnacle of DX9 games ever produced. There are so many new effects in this game, and general "game firsts", that are so well done, they make ARMA about as clever and pretty as anything ever produced on any platform! Crysis only has: subsurface facial shaders, volumetric clouds, building physics, over the current ARMA engine. ARMA gives Crysis in DX9 a run for its money, better than any game I have yet seen working!
If your using anything other than a Nvidia 8800 GPU or SLI 2x7900 with the lastest Intel Duo CPU, good luck, soon as you start "dialing" down those settings, such as: textures, shadows, object detail, not only does ARMA start to underperform, it doesn't look that hot.
Perhaps Bohemia, should use the same tatic as Gaspowered games have just used for Supreme Commander, and say "ARMA" is built for the next 3-5 years of hardware, if you want it to look as intended, you need the very best current kit. I suspect I see ARMA looking betting than Bohemia did when they made it.
In fact Bohmeia's very own screenshots on the ARMA website put me off the game, they look crap compared to how I see it, in High def, widescreen with high AA settings etc.
ARMA is in Far Cry's position, several years ago, only the lucky few can see how it should really look/perform, and will look in about 12 months time when everybody has upgraded their GPU and CPU's.
Why do you think Crysis is slated for release much later this year? EA have probably bottled it, they know hardly anyone can run it properly, they are waiting for enough people to upgrade, Cryengine 2 has been around for at least 2 years. Crysis, like ARMA will look pretty crap on anything but the latest kit.
If you don't want to/can't afford to upgrade for the "eye candy" in these latest games, at least every 12 months, please go buy a PS3 or Xbox 360 and upgrade that every 5 years or stop whining.
Please understand you can't really put a 8800 in and AMDx2 64 or a P4 and hope to run ARMA or Crysis/Alan Wake etc in HD res with all eye candy. An 8800 card for the new games NEEDS at least an intel duo core CPU, 2 GIG 800mhz ram, for these, you'll normally need a new PSU, remeber how everyone had to upgrade from geforce 3 and 4's a few years back to Geforce FX then 6 series very fast and that upgrade generally meant throwing out your old PC and getting a new one? Well here we go again folks. That's right even an AMD FX 62 and Geforce 7900 SLI machine is gunna start "chugging with this years games and the move the DX10. New PC or Next gen console the choice is yours!
Patch 1.05 performance? You are always free to reinstall the game and revert to patch 1.04 then wait for the next patch if your unlucky, and your hardware doesn't like the latest patch! thats the same for all PC games.
Running ARMA on a 24 month old PC, is like driving a F1 car round a go-kart track!
2/ Bugs and Patches in Games,
I have played games on computers, from the Vic 20 to my latest monster PC, for almost 30 years! I've also worked in the games industry. In the very early days of PC games, only several hundred to thousand lines of code were needed and all the hardware was pretty similar. Now it takes millions of lines of code for one game and there are billions of PC hardware combo's!
World of Warcraft is the most successful PC Game ever made, WOW had an expansion in the last few months, which was beta tested by 30,000 people (erm, thats alot). Blizzard then used a huge amount of coders to make sure the game would be ready in time. Guess what? it wasn't, even when it did come out it was buggy as hell and they are still patching it almost weekly.
If you feel Bohemia Interactive is not listening to users about bugs in ARMA and patching the game as fast as they can. Put your copy on ebay/amazon and sell it, then play games by Ubisoft (GRAW, RB6:V)or EA (BF:2142) etc and find out how the BIG companies treat there customers! Even "nex gen" console games have to be patched constantly now. Just about every title I own on the X360 has had multiple patches, and these games are made for a "hardwired" platform!
Look, even films get patched, ever heard of a directors cut? or a special edition?
ARMA features so many new things, I'm amazed it doesn't blue screen every 5 mins. Games such as BF:1942, Battlefield:2, Joint Op's, BF:2142 in this very same genre, were patched for up to 6 months after release before they became stable, gameplay balanced and/or 95% bug free.
There is no such thing as a 100% bug free game. How many years did it take for Microsoft to make XP reliable? If you want bug free games, buy a console, then use your PC for web browsing and lower your stress. Because PC gaming is NOT for you.
FRAUD? Oh please install VISTA anything, because your games will run faster, and all your current hardware and software will work better according to the ad's I've seen across the web and media. This will be true in 6-24 months but run VISTA now. Then we can chat about the word Fraud.
3/ "OMG it's so HARD", "the AI is dumb":
Hard? It's a Military Simulator FFS! If you want Johnny Rambo "pew pew laser gun" action, play Counterstrike, Battlefield:2, Both require great skill and tatics and teamwork to suceed and "be the best", but, they are NOT simulators. Ok , Bohemia should of perhaps included a dumbed down "jonny rambo mode" (500% more health, no bullet physics, everyone on the players side has +100% godlike auto-aim to hit, all the CPU players can't hit a barn door at 3ft etc) for single player and multiplayer. This would make ARMA appeal to the broadest fanbase. But wait a bit, the very talented mod community for this game will probably knock this mode out soon.
BF:ARMA anyone?
AI dumb? Well consider it a miracle that the AI players in ARMA don't just all run round in circles all the time (BF:1942, BF:Vietnam). Can the AI flank you in ARMA and generally surprise you? Well, yes! From what I have seen. Is it perfect? no, but please name a sandbox game were it is? You want a challenge with tatics? Then it has to be multiplayer vs real people. Isn't the single player game there for you to practice your skills for multiplayer? The AI in ARMA appears to me at least as good as the AI for units in Far Cry, that's enough for me (for now) for some single player fun.
Summary:
ARMA is a fantastic "genre changing" sandbox military sim, if you get the right PC kit and have faith in Bohemia and the talented "mod squad" this game has, then your in for a treat for years to come. Yes it's OPF with a new pretty engine and improvments, isn't that what we wanted?http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif??
If you don't understand much of the above, then frankly you don't deserve to be playing PC games. Wait for ARMA on the X360/PS3. I mean it, buy a "next gen" console, be happy! The latest consoles are great, require zero upgrades and you can just buy software and run it out of the box and have no hassle 99% of the time!
Right I'm off to order a Track:IR because then I can tell Wii users were to stick there remote's (Plus wouldn't Track:IR make browsing web porn hands free? Then read up up what the cost of getting triple head monitors to work!
To the half of you I made laugh or smile, gratz, I look forward to shooting you / having you on my team in ARAM MP soon. To the half I upset, feel free to PM me Logical arguements.
The "Easy Rambo Mode" is already there, it's not even hidden.
dirtylarrygb
Mar 11 2007, 13:32
The "Easy Rambo Mode" is already there, it's not even hidden.
You mean regular mode with all the helpers turned on? For anyone who didn't play flashpoint or is used to Counterstrike/BF2, I wasn't joking, a big health boost, auto-aim, complete destruction to an Ai unit being able to spot you and are aim at you, is needed as a intro.
For the non flashpoint players, ARMA regular is like Realistic/God mode in any other FPS.
One thing that is missing is about another 10 training missions on how to play ARMA if your used to BF2 etc.
ARMA must be soul destroying for the BF2, CS gods who load it then try a mission and go WTF I run in and died!.
Quote[/b] ]
Perhaps Bohemia, should use the same tatic as Gaspowered games have just used for Supreme Commander, and say "ARMA" is built for the next 3-5 years of hardware, if you want it to look as intended, you need the very best current kit. I suspect I see ARMA looking betting than Bohemia did when they made it.
this would be a good argument if arma had been designed to run on multiple core cpu's but saddly it anit, where as supreme commander can use multiple cores
dirtylarrygb
Mar 11 2007, 14:06
Quote[/b] ]
Perhaps Bohemia, should use the same tatic as Gaspowered games have just used for Supreme Commander, and say "ARMA" is built for the next 3-5 years of hardware, if you want it to look as intended, you need the very best current kit. I suspect I see ARMA looking betting than Bohemia did when they made it.
this would be a good argument if arma had been designed to run on multiple core cpu's but saddly it anit, where as supreme commander can use multiple cores
Currently, Supreme commander is ONLY optomised for Dual Core CPU's. SC cat eat a quad core intel with 8800 SLI thats overclocked on HIGH settings with to many units. Quad core support is there to be fully added and refined in future patches. Quad cores run Sc fast, but the real code to make it run properly on all 4 cores aint there yet no matter what the hype says.
I don't know how really optomised ARMA, is for AMDx2 or Intel duo's. What I do know is Intel duos are starting to struggle with 8800 SLI AMDx2 already bottleneck, so Quad may really be required soon. Infact QUAD SLI systems are starting to post obscene 3D marks now (17k+). And that I'm sure over time genuine, quad support may be added to ARMA and other games. Will dual processors even exist in 12 months time as anything but a budget CPU? Will "Hi-spec'" be quad/octo?
I don't think the DOD or MOD etc will run ARMA on a P4, the dev work Bohemia may do for that in the not so distant future will hopefully trickle down to us the games player.
i seem to remember suma or marek saying its not optimsied for dual or quad core and to do so would take alot of work, which makes the realist in me think were not likely to see any change http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif
dirtylarrygb
Mar 11 2007, 14:20
i seem to remember suma or marek saying its not optimsied for dual or quad core and to do so would take alot of work, which makes the realist in me think were not likely to see any change http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif
Not that many games really are, WOW was patched so AMDx2 don't crash it anymore, thats it's level of real dual threading Vista and XP patches and DX9/10 upgrades may take care of some of this for games creators.
Supposedly the 8800 GPU in DX10, can do the physics for the game instead of of your CPU etc. Though with quad core ain't that much need for it.
Real x2 x4 support will happen over next 6-24 months, many games will never get it.
The genuine reason for an ARMA fan to install a quad core is to run a dual 8800 gtx SLI setup with track IR for HD ARMA even a triple head setup. Or so he can play ARMA and burn a dvd in the background while downloading a file and not blow up his pc... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
in the USA that is called fraud if you promise one thing people pay for that, and you do not deliver said thing.[/QUOTE]
But in game indsutry this happens all the time...
Hi there, I've just registered to chime in here really in what seems to be a really negative atmosphere surrounding this much anticipated game. I bought ArmA on autopilot, without reading any reviews until I got it home. I just had to buy it - being a diehard OFP veteran.
While it was installing and patching (1.05) I looked around for info and opinions and was gobsmacked (and worried) at the horrendous, mean spirited bitching. For one thing, I'm running a 2800+ Sempron SocketA, 1gig of 333Mhz ram and a 6800 vanilla; and I have 1024x768 going on with no lag, mostly "Normal" and "High" (view distance @<hidden>).. For once I seem to be doing better than people with super-duper PC's! I don't have an FPS counter to make me cry though, and just take it as it comes. All in all this game is running like silk, sorry.
Anyway, heh, the only problem I'm having so far is getting stuck so much, this game is fiendishly hard! I think what I like best about this series is than I can just open the editor, stick a sedan car and a rifleman down and drive around, THAT'S what i think makes these games. Have people looked around? The island is massive! There's tons of fun to be had without even touching the campaign, because the mission editor is so easy to use. Anyway, clunk go my 2 cents, I just wanted to report a positive experience and await a campaign walkthrough by someone who can play better than me http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
You mean regular mode with all the helpers turned on?
No, I mean setting Enemy AI slider down to Zero http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
Not really "fun" if you ask me, but it works, I tested it http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
KaRRiLLioN
Mar 11 2007, 16:39
Best thing about OFP and ArmA is the strong community. Honestly, I'm glad they released when they did because the community at large is much better at finding and pinpointing bugs than a small team of beta testers.
1.05 is excellent already. 50+ players on an urban mission with tanks, choppers, jets--and all without lag is amazing. There are still definite issues, like needing a gunner to properly rearm a vehicle in some cases, and much-needed dual core support--but this already blows OFP 1.96 out of the water gameplay-wise. And I played OFP since the Euro 1.00 release. Hell, MP didn't even work properly in OFP until the US 1.20 release. Well, technically it wasn't perfected until 1.46 IMHO.
INNOCENT&CLUELESS
Mar 11 2007, 19:31
Quote[/b] ]50+ players on an urban mission with tanks, choppers, jets--and all without lag is amazing.
Humans connected to the server? Or few humans rest AI to total of 50?
KaRRiLLioN
Mar 11 2007, 22:28
50+ Human players, no AI. That was for a Cap & Hold.
For a coop, the most players + AI was on Onslaught. There are about 12 enemy choppers filled to the max with AI paratroopers, 10 BMP2's and 2 KA-50's. So easily over 200 AI.
We played it with about 27 - 30 players without desynch or lag. I checked.
I can't speak for individual FPS, however. I have a pretty fast rig and I run at 2560x1600 without frame loss unless I enter a forest. Nobody else complained about frame loss though. Of course maybe they were too busy fighting for their lives.
dirtylarrygb
Mar 11 2007, 22:33
You mean regular mode with all the helpers turned on?
No, I mean setting Enemy AI slider down to Zero http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
Not really "fun" if you ask me, but it works, I tested it http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Skill = zero for AI units.
Hell I didnt try that, I kinda thought they were turn into BF:Vietnam zombies and run in circles.
Ok will try that tomorrow and try how many things can I blow up in a stunt helicopter crash. Bit like that EA xbox 360 game with bigger toys.
dirtylarrygb
Mar 11 2007, 22:44
Hi there, I've just registered to chime in here really in what seems to be a really negative atmosphere surrounding this much anticipated game. I bought ArmA on autopilot, without reading any reviews until I got it home. I just had to buy it - being a diehard OFP veteran.
While it was installing and patching (1.05) I looked around for info and opinions and was gobsmacked (and worried) at the horrendous, mean spirited bitching. For one thing, I'm running a 2800+ Sempron SocketA, 1gig of 333Mhz ram and a 6800 vanilla; and I have 1024x768 going on with no lag, mostly "Normal" and "High" (view distance @<hidden>).. For once I seem to be doing better than people with super-duper PC's! I don't have an FPS counter to make me cry though, and just take it as it comes. All in all this game is running like silk, sorry.
Anyway, heh, the only problem I'm having so far is getting stuck so much, this game is fiendishly hard! I think what I like best about this series is than I can just open the editor, stick a sedan car and a rifleman down and drive around, THAT'S what i think makes these games. Have people looked around? The island is massive! There's tons of fun to be had without even touching the campaign, because the mission editor is so easy to use. Anyway, clunk go my 2 cents, I just wanted to report a positive experience and await a campaign walkthrough by someone who can play better than me http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
I have to say this but right now ARMA is the best open "Sandbox" ever seen in a PC game.
Your only limit is your imagination. Crysis is NOT a Sandbox. Its a FPS doom HL stule engine with outdoor enviro's that have small highly detailed areas and really nice physics and indoor lighting. It best for small to meduim highly detailed Linear work.
Try making a flying/driving game that will look as good on the big Crysis map, I dare you.
ARMA has 400 sq KM of med-high outdoor detailed areas ready for you to populate with army missions OR mod and make driving racing games, CS, BF2 clones, film-rip off's, well hell you name it.
A massive Zombie survival game?
A knock off of Battle Royal with melee weapons, like Castaway with guns?
Whatever it will happen!
I hate to say this but single/multiplayer ARMA is great, but I look forward to the mods just as much. I bought ARMA as a Sandbox engine that has single and multiplayer fun to keep me going with WOW and BF2 till some talented people makes some mods with the Sandbox that could shake the Games industry.
Halflife was great, but counter strike {MOD!} changed online gaming. BF:2 is based on a mod more that BF:1942.
Wake up, smell the ARMA!
dirtylarrygb
Mar 11 2007, 23:41
in the USA that is called fraud if you promise one thing people pay for that, and you do not deliver said thing.
But in game indsutry this happens all the time...[/quote]
In politics it's called "getting votes" and for just about everything else were you pay for somthing, it's called marketting!
The biggest "lie" in the games industry is either the Xbox 360 halo 3 "Superbowl trailer" which does not state, rendered by digital domain on Big PC's, this IS NOT the game running (great trailer though).
Or the one that gets me, almost every PC game's box and tech blurb on a game say. MIN specs for running the game (which means you might just be able to run it, fingers crossed eh! and it will look crap!http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif to "recommended spec" (it should work, on low to medium settings). Note they never put "runs fabbo on a £2-4k custom gaming rig and looks uber, thats how we did the screenshots on the box"
How many times have you seen a trailer for a film, then gone to see the film and it was rubbish but wasn't the trailer good?
Did you sue the filmaker and say "that was crap? I want my ticket and popcorn money back"
"The way it's mean't to be played" translates to, the best GPU and CPU out now can see stuff the developers of the game didn't. Everyone else, Anti Alias and "eye candy" off please, if you want sensible FPS.
Yes, you paid for the game, I agree it should work out of the box on systems recommended on the box. You then click a license agreement (which in general says, "if this screws your PC it's not our fault and we promise nothing"). If the game won't load ever, yes install latest drivers, do a virus scan, spyware check. Try again. Reinstall windows and direct X etc, Still no joy?
If it play but crashes, it's NOT ALWAYS the game it's often your hardware or software. ARMA can crash on my PC but I know its my 8800 GTX drivers, they are not perfect yet and I accept the fact they won't be for awhile but in general my 8800 allows me to run stuff 2x faster than before so it's a tradeoff.
Little things like, is your soundcard OpenAL compatable? If it aint, ARMA is not the only game your gunna have technical fun with soon. Onbaord sound on a motherboard is like onbaord graphics. CRAP! get a Xifi they start a 30 pounds.
Still no joy? Ask your place of purchase for a full refund, they might, most say "get lost". Then, either place your ARMA box to one side (keep it safe) play some other games, and patches or new hardware you might buy for vista other games etc may fix any problems you now have soon. ARMA and the modders will still be here and it will just get better and better by the time you get back.
A windows re-install with the latest drivers and a flashed bios cures about 80% of hardware issues. The amount of crap we install on our PC's and things install we are not even aware of can really hurt your PC. A fresh install is often a great fix, if you have a spare hard drive you can even install XP on that in about 1 hour, then install the game and if it works, then you validate XP and reinstall your other stuff and see if the game keeps working.
Or plonk it on ebay for sale, or wrap it and give it someone as a pressie.
This isn't WOW, Bohemia are not asking you for £30 for the game then £30 for the expansion then £10 a month to play.
If the above sounds like hassle, or you SHOULD NOT have to do any of that ever, then PC gaming is not for you, buy a PS3, Wii or X360 and have almost hassle free funtastic gaming.
NOTE: MIN specs on ARMA UK box, says 2ghz cpu, 512 ram, geforceFX (5 series) with 128 meg vram, XP, DX9.
Those specs won't run, halflife 2, doom 3 far cry (2 year old games) properly with eye candy AA high res etc, at which point did you think the new game would make your PC produce pretty GFX or have a zippy FPS?
Most modern games suck with anything less than 2 gig ram. A 7600+ series GPU and a 3-4 GHZ CPU.
Case-in point: Want to play Modern Games? Get a modern computer. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif
INNOCENT&CLUELESS
Mar 12 2007, 05:42
@<hidden> : musst be very server related. I was on several server, always laag, but could be that simply server connection and/or server performance was to slow. To me it seems even that slow clients still can slow down the complete game. I would rather allow the server by pre-defined settings to disconnect clients and replace the bots with AI.
lexicon66
Mar 12 2007, 14:00
I found a cure for the performace problem and this is to turn the post effects to "low". I get 30 FPS with out this enabled and it does not seems to affect visuals.
Robert(UK)
Mar 12 2007, 14:18
Also be aware that alt+tabbing out of this game seems to cause problems. The game runs fine for me if I don't alt+tab out, but if I do, several minutes later it'll crash with some dumb memory error...
Mr Fenix
Mar 12 2007, 14:57
ArmA is the first game I've ever bought for which I am quite content to put up with bugs - on the understanding that they'll be fixed later.
I read that it was a shortage of funds that led BIS to release ArmA Czech version. Given a choice between giving programmers money for food and Ferraris before they finish programming ArmA, or not giving them money having and them dying of starvation before they've finished.., I'm perfectly happy in this case to buy an unfinished game.
Also, this buggy version of ArmA gives me a whole lot more pleasure and challenge than all the Battlefield games ever did together. (yeah, I missed out on OFP... just didn't like the name so never tried it!http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif.
-Fenix out.
ArmA is the first game I've ever bought for which I am quite content to put up with bugs - on the understanding that they'll be fixed later.
So i guess this is the first game u ever played?
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
dirtylarrygb
Mar 13 2007, 00:21
ArmA is the first game I've ever bought for which I am quite content to put up with bugs - on the understanding that they'll be fixed later.
I read that it was a shortage of funds that led BIS to release ArmA Czech version. Given a choice between giving programmers money for food and Ferraris before they finish programming ArmA, or not giving them money having and them dying of starvation before they've finished.., I'm perfectly happy in this case to buy an unfinished game.
Also, this buggy version of ArmA gives me a whole lot more pleasure and challenge than all the Battlefield games ever did together. (yeah, I missed out on OFP... just didn't like the name so never tried it!http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif.
-Fenix out.
Yeah I agree, BHI now have the dosh to keep developing by next december they can go all "Blizzard" and drive their sports cars, as for the peeps who said wait for Operation FP 2,
Erm did you play "IGI 2?" Did the bugs in that EVER get fixed?
Also PLEASE, I mean it, please, name a recent hi-tech game that works out the box right now, that is not being patched?
BF:2142, Company of heros, Supreme Commander, Rainbow6:vegas, GRAW:2 all brand new, all being patched alot all have bugs/issues. Some much worse than even the "bad" ARMA bugs. And all of the above by mega rich games companies and distributors (EA and THQ and UBI etc).
How many patches you need for WOW:TBC so you can play online (alot more than ARMA I can tell you).
The guy who said "buy a modern PC to play modern games", that's about as accurate a comment as any. It's a bit like the people who say the web is slow and use 56k modems still in 2007 on P2's with win 98.....
Anything below a 7800 GT 256vram, P4 3GHZ 2 Gig ram, "Mate" you have a "56k modem". A xbox 360 will be much better than your PC at games.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.