Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Graphics & Game Play
Armed Assault Info Forums > English > Armed Assault > Troubleshooting
ps_outrage
Not sure what engine there running but ive seen better richer graphics playing splinter cell Chaos Theory then this and it LAGS. Other then that, when I try and play the first campaign it shows what im looking at but I cant move and it just sits there and ill see a truck driving by after 1 min of it just sitting there, then ill try and play a mission it will work until I die and I just get a black screen, the menu wont load after I can only hear shooting and what not, I don't think the game stop responding I just think it doesn't load the menu.

Anyone else have this problem?

Oh and this game has texture loading problems big time. Textures will not load unless i move real close and even then i have to move up or down for them to load.

And BTW I seen alot of posts stating the game is hardware hungry, I just thought Id mention, this game is old and I have a ati x300 128mb, as I recall the x300 was a med-end card at the time of the release of the game so based of that its the gaming development engine that suks. I guess we'll all be able to play the game on high in the year 2011 when were able to buy a video card with Memory and GPU at blazing GHz Speeds I cant wait.

update: after installing 1.14 its even worse then before lol

update: lol, ok i got the game to run flawless. Overclocked my X300 415/333 I have 2 settings on normal disabled: Shadows, and anti aliasing. Running in 600x480. However I can only update to 1.05. installing 1.08 makes the textures all messed up I dont know why. Anyways the game is awesome when its playable.
Monsoon
I've got really annoying texture loading problems too, since I last played ArmA over a year ago with v1 and v1.05 I've gotten a better GFX card. When I got the game again + QG and installed patch 1.14 in December I've got worse texture loading issues and only sometimes higher FPS. It sucks bad! All other games run better but not so much ArmA, it's mostly the texture issues that get to me and it gets worse the more I play in one session... weirdsmiley.gif
STALKERGB
I think ARMA loves to use tons of RAM and CPU (not sure though) you really need a proccessor at around 3Ghz for any settings to start to go higher and as much RAM as you can get lol!

At the moment i am runnning a Q6600 at 3Ghz (ARMA only uses one core) and 4GB of RAM with a 8800GT 512MB and i can pretty much max out the settings (i do still get the texture problem but very rarely).

On my old comp with a 3Ghz proccessor and 1.5gGb ram with a 7600GS 256MB i could run the game on about medium (view distance around 3000) and i got the texture problem loads when i did that. Shadows is the biggest FPS hog like you probably know, that and view distance anyway.

Might be worth using the lowplants addon cause that gave me a decent boost on my old comp.
ps_outrage
Thanks for the reply's guys.
I just cant understand why this game needs such massive power, I can play any game with settings on med to max with in the same time(2007 i believe) this game was released, its kinda hard to believe that when they released it, at that time the graphics card you had to run this was a $1000 video card.
However yes the patches 1.08-1.14 does screw up the textures pretty bad. Not sure if its because on my ati drivers or what but i can play with patch 1.05 just fine. What suks is that the release info for patch 1.14 says it boost the game fps by 100% and i might just need that 100% lol.
STALKERGB
I think the reason for such high specification requirements is because even though you can only see, say, 3000 meters the whole of sarahni island is able to function (so if you set a convoy moving down the road on one side of the map it will move even if you are 20km away, that kind of thing). And i reckon the AI has tons of complex things to work out (probably wrong though). Either way it does seem to need a heck of alot of hardware to run.
Supr3me KiLL3r
You have to understand that ArmA probably wasn't made with the huge funding you would see in another game. They used pretty much the same engine since Flashpoint because game engines are expensive. The way the game is coded determines how well it runs. Theres no multi core support, and no SLI support, so spending more money on those things won't help you.

The fact that you can get 60 frames a second with 3000 meters of view distance is surprising enough to me not to complain about it. The texture loading issue is a pain in the ass sometimes, but thats what you get for Dynamic level of detail scaling. That pretty much means that it scales the quality based on view distance, the closer the better, the farther the worse. Alot of games do that, Call of duty 4, fallout 3...

Also how you run the game determines how well it runs, turning on things like anti-aliasing x4 means you need 4 times as much GPU speed to run it as AA off

In fact, ArmA runs better than Flashpoint does on my computer, I get less than 30 frames per second on flashpoint.

ps_outrage
"In fact, ArmA runs better than Flashpoint does on my computer, I get less than 30 frames per second on flashpoint."

Thats good, I dont know how you did it but OFP i run with all settings MAXED out even with AA,AF on and I probably get around 70FPS all the time. After playing ArmA the engine runs just like OFP. ArmA uses very high texture images which is probably the problem to the game, im not a game making expert but shouldn't they have let the games engine enhance the textures instead of using high textures images?.
If that made any sence lol.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.