</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For me i never seen the difference betwen Max gemotry detail and minimum[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Then you must be blind or something ´, because when I raised Geometry detail to 8000 and loaded Malden everything was so smooth (terrain detail normal) and those huge cliffs looked very nice. Nogova has already so smooth geometry but for old islands this setting is a must.
don't know about texture resolution, i have try 1024
and 512, and don't see difference, also i play in 512 (OFP default)
It is very strange, i have made 2 screenshot
in 592 geometry detail and one in 54000 geometry detail (the max)
i the 2 screenshot look the same (i have take the SS on the
castle in everon face to the valley)
the more strange is than my game is more smoother with
max geometry detail (the Battlefield mission wasn't playable before)
You say strange? that is really strange
Now that is really strange, because with 6041 the landscape is smooth and realistic (atleast for me). Gotta check how it will look with 54000.
Umm Link, very high detail terrain needs VERY good computer (better than yours) and besides it might look good but it's not good for playability since all vehicles will just bounce all around the islands. Same goes with high detail, game looks good but it's not very playable. Normal terrain detail looks very good IMO and is very playable and runs smoothly.
To L etranger:
I checked out the geometry thing again and yes, you are right it doesn't affect at all. But also I found out something. It seems that Resistance has increased the terrain detail by default (just like BIS said it would). The normal terrain detail setting has better terrain detail than old OFP ever had. Very low terrain detail is the one that can be found from old OFP. Thats why I though that geometry performance had something to do with smoothness. So for those who are having slowdowns with the normal terrain detail drop detail to low/very low. It should make the game run as smoothly as in old OFP.
I have find why my ofp was so slow
my texture was 512x512...
i have changer to 1024x1024 and now the Game is smooth
(Ofp is the stranger game i have ever seen
for all, stay in 1024 if you want best performance
Mine I think.
Can't find it back anywhere either, so I'll just post a new one.
I said in my last post that this games requirements are absolutely TO high.
The game might become unplayable because of the bouncing ( I noticed it ) but I call this making easy money.
BIS is posting around screenshots of Resistance everywhere with the detail on very high, and the game looks awesome. When you buy the game, suddenly it prooves that you need at least 2.8 ghz with aorund 800 mb ram and 128 mb gfx card to smoothly play this game. There are not very many person on the world who have the cash to buy such a monster pc.
I myself am running on a pentium 4 2000 mhz
120 GB hdd
geforce4 4400 TI with 128 mb and 256 ddr ram on it.
OS: windows xp professional with DX 8.0
Even unreal tournament 2003 will run fine on my computer, and now there's some weird game, that realy ain't THAT good looking if you ask me, I mean, it looks nice but I know games what look nicer ( look at the upcoming sea dogs 2 game, unreal 2003, quake 4 ) and still, it asks a pc that's impossible. In my country ( The Netherlands ) we can't even buy 2.8 ghz yet. So if you ask me, BIS is telling and showing us pure shit here. They ask the impossible for maximum performance. You could go and play around with some things to get the performance optimal, but you'll never be able to play this game with the MAX full out unless you have one of those 2.8 ghz machines. To bad, again, BIS is promising things that can't be true.
Jul 6 2002, 21:45
This game's requirements are not too high at all, that's complete and utter nonsense.
Of course to run it on high landscape, high resolution, everything turned up, then yes you need a good quality high spec computer, pretty much the computer you have, from reading what other people have said it sounds like there's something wrong with your configuration and/or drivers.
Of course Bis are going to show it at it's best in screenshots and such, are they stupid? No.
The back of the Resistance case says "Minimum system requirements are equivalent to the original Flashpoint recommended specifications".
Now I appreciate a lot of people on this forum don't have English as their first language, hell my English aint perfect, I just yesterday failed my computer course because I didn't pass the English unit (we'll ignore the irony for now). So here's my simple translation of the above of the box for simple people like me......
The computer that ran Opf really really well, is now the absolute minimum needed to run Opf:R, that's how I read it to mean, maybe someone else reads it differently?
EA in their TV commercial for MOHAA show no ingame footage only CGI, are they cheating?
Has anyone heard the term future proofing? If not go look it up, fascinating subject, IMO that's what Opf:R is, a game that runs pretty damn well on the current average system with a smidge of tweaking, however on the average system in 6 months it will look absolutely stunning, me I can live with that, I know my system isn't staggeringly fast right now, but in 6 months time I will have upgraded and I'll be more than happy to be able to up the eye candy....
Or perhaps people would rather software makers make games for the computer of now and then every six months we not only upgrade our hardware but our software also?
If someone reports an issue/complains about the Alpha etc, replying in the thread "dude it's an alpha" doesn't really help anyone! Point them to the Arma3 Alpha feedback tracker instead please!
Please do not PM or Email me directly about your CD Key issues, follow the guidance in this thread instead.
JUST TO RE-ITERATE:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you have any further suggestions about other bugs, then please post them here - but keep this thread spam free, I will only allow tweaking tips. Other comments will be deleted I'm afraid.
This rule IS being enforced BY ME. If you have a problem about deleted posts, P.M. ME.
Now please don't give me opportunity to delete some more posts. STAY ON TOPIC.
Hmm... dont know what is wrong maybe my cpu is too slow but I bought gf4 4400 and I hoped that it will give me higher fps but I was wrong...
Autodetect gives me 2500scores with tb-1300,512,gf4 4400 (btw it gaved me same score with gf2 ultra so it depends on cpu?)
Geometry performance (or what it is) is 2500
Autodetect gives full textures but I put them
and autodrop 2x
terrain detail is normal
I also set visibility to 1500m and resolution 1024 and 32bit
Now I loaded one saved game (resistance mission) and I noticed that the fps was around 12-17. OK I went back to options and set lower textures like (256,256,64,64,autodrop 4x)
Now I loaded it again and the fps was about 15-19. this maked me mad and I went again to options and changed textures to the higest settings and loaded again. This was the best moment... fps was again around 12-17 and I dropped off on my chair...
So... Can someone please tell me WTF is wrong!!??