Anyone Have Armed Assault

try th new us demo.

it niot like bf2 or any other game though, its quite realistic

Not sure what on earth the above are smoking but anyhow...

Have the game and if you like Operation Flashpoint then ArmA is an easy buy. Patches have helped with the optimization and nearly everything is now tweakable to get a stable performance. If you're expecting a BF2 style of game look elsewhere though...it's more tactical Sim than action game and very different than the Tom Clancy series of games.

Try the updated demo...if its your cup of tea then buy the game. 

That game is so unoptimized it's not even funny. The game looks like it was made way back in 2003 and yet most cards can't run the game properly. Even NOLF2 looks better than this. onemic

no it does not look like its from 2003, it looks great on highest settings

[QUOTE="onemic"]That game is so unoptimized it's not even funny. The game looks like it was made way back in 2003 and yet most cards can't run the game properly. Even NOLF2 looks better than this. Artosa

no it does not look like its from 2003, it looks great on highest settings

I've played it on the highest settings and it looks like utter crap. I will admit the lighting is very well done, but everything else(player models, textures, world models) just scream 2003 era graphics. Plus the game has some serious pop in problems.

I actually gave the game another chance with the updated north american demo, but it's exactly the same as the european one. 100% unoptimized, no option for a dedicated server(Which basically makes the whole demo fail as a whole) and a ton of bugs and glitches. Maybe the retail game is a lot better, but after giving this game two chances with two different demos the chances of me going out to buy it are basically 0%.  

[QUOTE="Artosa"]

[QUOTE="onemic"]That game is so unoptimized it's not even funny. The game looks like it was made way back in 2003 and yet most cards can't run the game properly. Even NOLF2 looks better than this. onemic

no it does not look like its from 2003, it looks great on highest settings

I've played it on the highest settings and it looks like utter crap. I will admit the lighting is very well done, but everything else(player models, textures, world models) just scream 2003 era graphics. Plus the game has some serious pop in problems.

I actually gave the game another chance with the updated north american demo, but it's exactly the same as the european one. 100% unoptimized, no option for a dedicated server(Which basically makes the whole demo fail as a whole) and a ton of bugs and glitches. Maybe the retail game is a lot better, but after giving this game two chances with two different demos the chances of me going out to buy it are basically 0%.  

 whatever, you must be a graphics whore, because it looks fine to me and many other people.

[QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="Artosa"]

[QUOTE="onemic"]That game is so unoptimized it's not even funny. The game looks like it was made way back in 2003 and yet most cards can't run the game properly. Even NOLF2 looks better than this. Artosa

no it does not look like its from 2003, it looks great on highest settings

I've played it on the highest settings and it looks like utter crap. I will admit the lighting is very well done, but everything else(player models, textures, world models) just scream 2003 era graphics. Plus the game has some serious pop in problems.

I actually gave the game another chance with the updated north american demo, but it's exactly the same as the european one. 100% unoptimized, no option for a dedicated server(Which basically makes the whole demo fail as a whole) and a ton of bugs and glitches. Maybe the retail game is a lot better, but after giving this game two chances with two different demos the chances of me going out to buy it are basically 0%.

whatever, you must be a graphics whore, because it looks fine to me and many other people.

Actually I'm really not. Go look at my profile and see what I'm playing right now. I don't think the games that I play are very graphics intensive. ARMA is just an unoptimized game. Couple that with visuals that really don't look so good. If the game could be played on a variety of GPU's I really wouldn't be complaining about the graphics, but when a game that looks like it was made in 2003 eats up everything but the highest of video cards you know there's a problem.  

[QUOTE="Artosa"][QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="Artosa"]

[QUOTE="onemic"]That game is so unoptimized it's not even funny. The game looks like it was made way back in 2003 and yet most cards can't run the game properly. Even NOLF2 looks better than this. onemic

no it does not look like its from 2003, it looks great on highest settings

I've played it on the highest settings and it looks like utter crap. I will admit the lighting is very well done, but everything else(player models, textures, world models) just scream 2003 era graphics. Plus the game has some serious pop in problems.

I actually gave the game another chance with the updated north american demo, but it's exactly the same as the european one. 100% unoptimized, no option for a dedicated server(Which basically makes the whole demo fail as a whole) and a ton of bugs and glitches. Maybe the retail game is a lot better, but after giving this game two chances with two different demos the chances of me going out to buy it are basically 0%.

whatever, you must be a graphics whore, because it looks fine to me and many other people.

Actually I'm really not. Go look at my profile and see what I'm playing right now. I don't think the games that I play are very graphics intensive. ARMA is just an unoptimized game. Couple that with visuals that really don't look so good. If the game could be played on a variety of GPU's I really wouldn't be complaining about the graphics, but when a game that looks like it was made in 2003 eats up everything but the highest of video cards you know there's a problem.

[QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="Artosa"][QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="Artosa"]

[QUOTE="onemic"]That game is so unoptimized it's not even funny. The game looks like it was made way back in 2003 and yet most cards can't run the game properly. Even NOLF2 looks better than this. Makari

no it does not look like its from 2003, it looks great on highest settings

I've played it on the highest settings and it looks like utter crap. I will admit the lighting is very well done, but everything else(player models, textures, world models) just scream 2003 era graphics. Plus the game has some serious pop in problems.

I actually gave the game another chance with the updated north american demo, but it's exactly the same as the european one. 100% unoptimized, no option for a dedicated server(Which basically makes the whole demo fail as a whole) and a ton of bugs and glitches. Maybe the retail game is a lot better, but after giving this game two chances with two different demos the chances of me going out to buy it are basically 0%.

whatever, you must be a graphics whore, because it looks fine to me and many other people.

Actually I'm really not. Go look at my profile and see what I'm playing right now. I don't think the games that I play are very graphics intensive. ARMA is just an unoptimized game. Couple that with visuals that really don't look so good. If the game could be played on a variety of GPU's I really wouldn't be complaining about the graphics, but when a game that looks like it was made in 2003 eats up everything but the highest of video cards you know there's a problem.

The only difference is that games like supreme commander, far cry, and oblivion all look superbly better than ARMA and can run well on more types of hardware than this game can. Oblivion is generally known as an unoptimized game and it can scale much better than this game can, not to mention the visuals alone blow this games graphics out of the water.  

[QUOTE="Artosa"]

[QUOTE="onemic"]That game is so unoptimized it's not even funny. The game looks like it was made way back in 2003 and yet most cards can't run the game properly. Even NOLF2 looks better than this. onemic

no it does not look like its from 2003, it looks great on highest settings

I've played it on the highest settings and it looks like utter crap. I will admit the lighting is very well done, but everything else(player models, textures, world models) just scream 2003 era graphics. Plus the game has some serious pop in problems.

I actually gave the game another chance with the updated north american demo, but it's exactly the same as the european one. 100% unoptimized, no option for a dedicated server(Which basically makes the whole demo fail as a whole) and a ton of bugs and glitches. Maybe the retail game is a lot better, but after giving this game two chances with two different demos the chances of me going out to buy it are basically 0%.  

but wait... if it's so horribly unoptimised... how are you able to 'play' it well on highest settings for it to look crap? 

I have it. I played it for about a week before deeming it garbage and uninstalling it.Johnny_Rock

agreed, but i only played it for about an hour :9 getting killed from about 80miles away is a tad unrealistic...1shot too. 

[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="Artosa"][QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="Artosa"]

[QUOTE="onemic"]That game is so unoptimized it's not even funny. The game looks like it was made way back in 2003 and yet most cards can't run the game properly. Even NOLF2 looks better than this. onemic

no it does not look like its from 2003, it looks great on highest settings

I've played it on the highest settings and it looks like utter crap. I will admit the lighting is very well done, but everything else(player models, textures, world models) just scream 2003 era graphics. Plus the game has some serious pop in problems.

I actually gave the game another chance with the updated north american demo, but it's exactly the same as the european one. 100% unoptimized, no option for a dedicated server(Which basically makes the whole demo fail as a whole) and a ton of bugs and glitches. Maybe the retail game is a lot better, but after giving this game two chances with two different demos the chances of me going out to buy it are basically 0%.

whatever, you must be a graphics whore, because it looks fine to me and many other people.

Actually I'm really not. Go look at my profile and see what I'm playing right now. I don't think the games that I play are very graphics intensive. ARMA is just an unoptimized game. Couple that with visuals that really don't look so good. If the game could be played on a variety of GPU's I really wouldn't be complaining about the graphics, but when a game that looks like it was made in 2003 eats up everything but the highest of video cards you know there's a problem.

The only difference is that games like supreme commander, far cry, and oblivion all look superbly better than ARMA and can run well on more types of hardware than this game can. Oblivion is generally known as an unoptimized game and it can scale much better than this game can, not to mention the visuals alone blow this games graphics out of the water.  

Shure there are games with better graphics than Armed Assult but there are no other games out there that can do what it does. That is place dozens of ground, armoured and air units in a 3D enviroment hundreds of miles in size. You mention Oblivion being much better visually than ArmA. Thats just rubbish. The face details are about on par with each other and both are worse than Half Life 2. The environment detail in ArmA is in many ways better than Oblivion. The view distance in ArmA can be up to 10 km, much greater than Oblivion and thats showing real detail not the soup that Oblivion renders too. Also the lighting in ArmA is much better than Oblivion.

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]I have it. I played it for about a week before deeming it garbage and uninstalling it.gamerchris810

agreed, but i only played it for about an hour :9 getting killed from about 80miles away is a tad unrealistic...1shot too.

[QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="Artosa"]

[QUOTE="onemic"]That game is so unoptimized it's not even funny. The game looks like it was made way back in 2003 and yet most cards can't run the game properly. Even NOLF2 looks better than this. GenTom

no it does not look like its from 2003, it looks great on highest settings

I've played it on the highest settings and it looks like utter crap. I will admit the lighting is very well done, but everything else(player models, textures, world models) just scream 2003 era graphics. Plus the game has some serious pop in problems.

I actually gave the game another chance with the updated north american demo, but it's exactly the same as the european one. 100% unoptimized, no option for a dedicated server(Which basically makes the whole demo fail as a whole) and a ton of bugs and glitches. Maybe the retail game is a lot better, but after giving this game two chances with two different demos the chances of me going out to buy it are basically 0%.

but wait... if it's so horribly unoptimised... how are you able to 'play' it well on highest settings for it to look crap?

You do know there's something called experimenting with the video settings right? Just put them all the way up to its highest settings and play. Then see your FPS drop to around 10FPS even though the game looks like it was made in 2003.  

[QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="Artosa"][QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="Artosa"]

[QUOTE="onemic"]That game is so unoptimized it's not even funny. The game looks like it was made way back in 2003 and yet most cards can't run the game properly. Even NOLF2 looks better than this. Spindry69

no it does not look like its from 2003, it looks great on highest settings

I've played it on the highest settings and it looks like utter crap. I will admit the lighting is very well done, but everything else(player models, textures, world models) just scream 2003 era graphics. Plus the game has some serious pop in problems.

I actually gave the game another chance with the updated north american demo, but it's exactly the same as the european one. 100% unoptimized, no option for a dedicated server(Which basically makes the whole demo fail as a whole) and a ton of bugs and glitches. Maybe the retail game is a lot better, but after giving this game two chances with two different demos the chances of me going out to buy it are basically 0%.

whatever, you must be a graphics whore, because it looks fine to me and many other people.

Actually I'm really not. Go look at my profile and see what I'm playing right now. I don't think the games that I play are very graphics intensive. ARMA is just an unoptimized game. Couple that with visuals that really don't look so good. If the game could be played on a variety of GPU's I really wouldn't be complaining about the graphics, but when a game that looks like it was made in 2003 eats up everything but the highest of video cards you know there's a problem.

The only difference is that games like supreme commander, far cry, and oblivion all look superbly better than ARMA and can run well on more types of hardware than this game can. Oblivion is generally known as an unoptimized game and it can scale much better than this game can, not to mention the visuals alone blow this games graphics out of the water.

Shure there are games with better graphics than Armed Assult but there are no other games out there that can do what it does. That is place dozens of ground, armoured and air units in a 3D enviroment hundreds of miles in size. You mention Oblivion being much better visually than ArmA. Thats just rubbish. The face details are about on par with each other and both are worse than Half Life 2. The environment detail in ArmA is in many ways better than Oblivion. The view distance in ArmA can be up to 10 km, much greater than Oblivion and thats showing real detail not the soup that Oblivion renders too. Also the lighting in ArmA is much better than Oblivion.

The only thing ARMA is better than doing in oblivion graphically is its lighting. Other than that oblivion wins hands down. Sure the view distance might be larger, but the fact that many times you can't even see object come into detail until you're about 10M away from it basically negates oblivion low level detail at certain distances. Ther's also BF2 which allows you to see a ton of people a far distances(Even more so with project reality mod) and the LOD basically stays the same. Not only that, but the game looks better and performs better. The funny thing is, is that BF2 is widely known as an unoptimized game. 

You can also get a number of LOD add-ons for oblivion that makes the detail practically stay the same.

Show me one ARMA screenshot that actually looks better than this:

or this

or this

Ok you got it.

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIqhMKE1j38

That's running at 1280x1024 with most settings on high using a 7600GT card.

You keep referring to 2003, well here's what Flashpoint looked like in 2001:

The game definitely isn't for everyone as it is a much more hardcore military sim. It does have a TON of multi-player options (including Camel dogfights lol). I would suggest playing the demo first and seeing if you like that type of play and if your machine can run it at high enough detail for you to enjoy it fully.

 

That's running at 1280x1024 with most settings on high using a 7600GT card.

DirtyboyXL

Strangely enough, I have the same graphics card along with 3gb of RAM and I tried the same resolution. Sadly, I was met with horrible framerates in the demo.

[QUOTE="DirtyboyXL"]

 

That's running at 1280x1024 with most settings on high using a 7600GT card.

Oolark

Strangely enough, I have the same graphics card along with 3gb of RAM and I tried the same resolution. Sadly, I was met with horrible framerates in the demo.

Same thing with me. It's either that the whole game is unoptimized or it's just the demo. Sadly, the people who own the game don't want to say which it is.  

I love people with mid-end systems complaining they can't max out a completely brand new game.

I max out it fine on my 8800 and the game looks and plays great. It's a great game too. 

I love people with mid-end systems complaining they can't max out a completely brand new game.

 

I max out it fine on my 8800 and the game looks and plays great. It's a great game too. 

GodLovesDead

You love people with Mid End Systems? So you're a people person I take it...

[QUOTE="Oolark"][QUOTE="DirtyboyXL"]

That's running at 1280x1024 with most settings on high using a 7600GT card.

onemic

Strangely enough, I have the same graphics card along with 3gb of RAM and I tried the same resolution. Sadly, I was met with horrible framerates in the demo.

Same thing with me. It's either that the whole game is unoptimized or it's just the demo. Sadly, the people who own the game don't want to say which it is.

I'm running it on high on an ATI X800 at 1152 x 864 and getting good FPS rates.bogaty

Are you playing the retail game or the demo? If it's the demo I really can't believe that.  

[QUOTE="bogaty"]I'm running it on high on an ATI X800 at 1152 x 864 and getting good FPS rates.onemic

Are you playing the retail game or the demo? If it's the demo I really can't believe that.

Retail UK version patched up to 1.05.