[Game] The Armed Assault thread

  • Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Xendance

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
4,484
572
0
33
Elitist Prick Club RS Branch
I get 30 fps with my 7950 GX 2. That's with everything on medium (except post processing on low), shadows maxed out and resolution is 1920x1200. AA off and AF on medium.

If I put everything on lowest possible I get 40-60 fps. So something is wrong with his game or setup :p
 

Soviet

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 23, 2007
216
0
0
"Looks almost like OFP". This is true if "almost" means way way better.

I have a 7600gt and I set everything to low except terrain and get around 30 fps. This still makes for a game that looks quite a bit better than RO in some ways, especially terrain and object models. Structures seem to be a bit of a afterthought. Overall I give the graphics a thumbs up and am just dumbfounded by people who say they suck. Go find the Arma combat photography thread to see why.

Arma netcode still needs some serious work. Joining a game is hit-or-miss, not to mention rampant lag issues. But then again a lot more is being stored, calculated and transmitted on an Arma server than a typical fps shooter, especially in CO-OP games.
 

Murphy

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
7,067
743
0
35
liandri.darkbb.com
Good graphics are more than just good visuals. They are a combination of looks and performance and as far as I can tell, the graphics of ArmA are mediocre at best.
 

Pycckuu

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
481
14
0
33
Good graphics are more than just good visuals. They are a combination of looks and performance and as far as I can tell, the graphics of ArmA are mediocre at best.
But it allows for an 80+ man engagements and ~4km visual distance on my 3 year old computer. I'd say I'm happy enough with the graphics.
 

Soviet

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 23, 2007
216
0
0
Murphy try playing the game. If you can stand RO's player animations you will have no problem with Arma's graphics.

There are moments in Arma where you survey the battle scene stretching several kilometers in front of you and the sense of immersion is total. It goes beyond visuals though, the supersonic bullet crack and following boom from incoming fire can be used to determine the range and direction. Sound occlusion muffles the engine noise of vehicles behind buildings. HDR is used to just awesome effect in nightvision and indoor-outdoor transitions.

Then the poor netcode kicks in and distant players start warping around killing the illusion. But overall the game rocks and is imho money well spent supporting the kind of developer whose work elevates the PC over other gaming platforms (like Tripwire/Epic).
 

Soviet

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 23, 2007
216
0
0
I don't mean the actual sounds, but the way sounds are modeled. The default sound package is acceptable (and from talking to a couple vets who play the game very realistic), but there are a couple really good sound mods out there that are a little more hollywood-esque.
 

Murphy

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
7,067
743
0
35
liandri.darkbb.com
But it allows for an 80+ man engagements and ~4km visual distance on my 3 year old computer. I'd say I'm happy enough with the graphics.
You must have baught one hell of a computer back then. Of course there are explanations for the sluggish performance. The reasons you mentioned and faulty optimization being only a few of them, while the latter is getting better from patch to patch.

I'm not saying the graphics are bad and even if they were, what choice do you have, really? If you want to play that kind of game you can only chose between Operation Flashpoint and Armed Assault. Both lack in the optimization department and OFP looks really really dated by todays standards, still they are a one-of-a-kind.

My golden rule of graphics: Graphics only need to be as good as they need to be to immerse you.

According to that even OFP's graphics qualify as good enough. How could ArmA's possibly fail?

I just feel strange whenever I see people drool over high-res screenshots with maxed out details, full AA and AF that would require an Alien sci-fi pc to run half-smooth.
You can see what computers are able to do if you go to the theater and watch a movie. 300 for example, Lord of the Rings or The Matrix. Its just that those movie-effects aren't rendered in real-time and if you look at some of the screenshots of ArmA you could say (with a satirical note of course) they aren't either.
Before a game can claim to have good graphics it has to prove that the performance is good too (relative to the graphics) and in this relation ArmA is just mediocre in my personal opinion.
 
Last edited:

Lt_Kettch

FNG / Fresh Meat
arma-qg-5_0_3954.jpg


This really sucks
:D
 

KrazyKraut

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
1,848
69
0
Beer capital of the world
Yeah performance increase is a must. I don't get why they spent so much time on performance-eating effects like the sound dampening stuff when the game runs so crappy on normal rigs.

Then the mouse lag.... is this a feature? It makes proper aiming a total pain in the ***... I understand aiming is too easy in any FPS as compared to real life, but this horribly overdone inertia just isn't the way to go imo.

And then there's some things that just could've easily been done way better: The voice commands seem still as artificial as in OFP ("ALL...get in...HUMVEE", "OH NO,... three,...is down)... some explosions are ugly and overall movement could feel a lot less sluggish. The game is full of great ideas though.