ArmA's ballistic system is more complex if I am not mistaken. That alone would make it more demanding on the CPU.
Though yes, ArmA 2 is not optimized very well. I think we can all agree on that.
What is it with soooo many people complaining about how Arma2 is not optimized... Stupid statement! You just can not say that Arma does not run as smooth as BF3 so there fore it's not optimized?????? What???? Learn about this game a little. Please! Arma2 is a very well optimized game for all its capabilities and massive scope and I think we all can agree on that.
Last edited by AJAX420; Jan 26 2012 at 23:50.
- ~The bearly literate pugilist~
MP: Black Amish
Free Tips for your Waiter:
Don't Smoke in Bed
Stay Away from Tattoo'ed Women
Stay Outta Bushes at Night
Never Chew Gum in a PortoPotty
Yes, if you have a google of Dell XPS 17, you will see that its a laptop.
I seem to doubt that you were saying that because you didn't know it was a laptop.
Where's the beef?
I think the; not optimized can be translated to extremely demanding as lowering the ingame settings changes rather little and is down to limiting your view distance, which can gain considerable FPS when i keep it to 3-4k, at least on my rig.
Some tweaks like atoc=0, Vram=default or V-high made quite lot of difference so i guess theres something to it.
Since arma is so demanding even for new-ish HW, I guess BIS might have perhaps overshot the demands and their desire(?) to make the game look great for years to come.
Why they didn't take full advantage of two or more CPU cores and utilize them to the fullest; I do not know
ArmA2: "Doc, I'm wounded, I can barely aim and I'm bleeding badly, come on pull my body out of the harm's way and treat me before I die!"
ArmA3: "You are wounded! Click to instantly regenerate health whenever you feel like it!"
Guess two years post-release aren't enough to make ArmA3 at least half as dumbed down.
Optimiszed - buying a new graphics card.