Forum Jump :

Author Message


Posts: 20251
Rank:


Level: Super Admin

Country: nl
Location: The Netherlands
Occupation:
Age: 41
In-game name: Foxhound

 
#61 Posted at 2009-06-06 22:57        
     
Hehe :)

I am glad I did not add a pic of me during that test drive (those pics I took during the test drive).

Its indeed a dyna, streetbob 2009.
I liked the rocker a lot (softail), but that one was just to expensive for me, and this bike I really liked since the first time I saw it anyway.
Although I like speed a lot I prefer the easy riding, always liked Harley so I am sure I will take it easy and drive it how it should.
And if i want to ride fast I borrow my sisters bike ;)

Visit my family webshop desteigerhoutshop.nl.

Author Message


Posts: 431
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: pt
Location:
Occupation:
Age: 38
In-game name:

 
#62 Posted at 2009-06-06 23:44        
     
The rocker is the one with no stop light and that weird atachable back seat.. if it is i prefer your slick looking dyna (streetbob indeed), i like the look of simple/straight bikes more than of pretty show bikes.

Back on topic IGN had a preview wich stated:
And the good news is that it ran well at very high detail settings with an 8800GTX, which is practically a mid-range graphics card now.

Very.. high.. detail? I think something went terribly wrong.


Advertisement


Author Message


Posts: 20251
Rank:


Level: Super Admin

Country: nl
Location: The Netherlands
Occupation:
Age: 41
In-game name: Foxhound

 
#63 Posted at 2009-06-07 08:57        
     
Heatseeker : Back on topic IGN had a preview wich stated:
[quote]And the good news is that it ran well at very high detail settings with an 8800GTX, which is practically a mid-range graphics card now.

Very.. high.. detail? I think something went terribly wrong.
[/quote]


Thats what we played in London as well. And yes, something has gone wrong somewhere. We just need to try for ourselves to see where it all goes wrong and how to fix it :D


Check this post, no i7 core and XP OS:
http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1301846&postcount=162

This post was edited by Foxhound (2009-06-07 09:29, ago)

Visit my family webshop desteigerhoutshop.nl.

Author Message


Posts: 150
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: be
Location:
Occupation: dasquade
Age: 38
In-game name:

 
#64 Posted at 2009-06-07 10:34        
     
'Hi' Heatseeker, nice you are still around (noticed Junker is also still around on the BIS forums).

I had just wrote a review, but i was timed-out and lost it. Ohwell....
Lets just say, i give it a 6-7/10. 5 point for the new stuff....and 1-2 for the fact i feel it hasn't changed that much compaired to previous engines and knowing what it is realy capable of (but that is an other story).
But offcourse i'm a bit biased (lol...if i spelled that word correct it has bia in it :p) and i look at the game from a modelers point of view.

Hm, there seams to be indeed something wrong if you mention the reviewed 505 version ran very good (even with a 8800GTX?) and if you compair it with the current build. Afaik the current build should be the same if not better then the 505 review one.

Somehow i think BIS should of picked an other map. We all know that dense forrest and grass equals lower performence. I'm sure the engine is better then when we would have this map in arma1. But still, i think on that part BIS overdone itself. Imho they had better invested in something else, like in elements that add more gameplay/features witch will result in long lifetime of the game itself.


Author Message


Posts: 431
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: pt
Location:
Occupation:
Age: 38
In-game name:

 
#65 Posted at 2009-06-07 16:28        
     
Hey there DS.
The direction BIS took seems more of a high end graphics simulator than anything else, maybe the competition with Dragon Rising made them go over the top, if the game doesnt scale down very well chances are it will be like Crysis and sell poorly.
Core gameplay and simulation seems about the same to me (a.i. tactics, vehicles, weapon systems, etc).

I noticed some nice little details that i like, like vehicle windows now take independant damage, finally!
The environment and arsenal look like a big improvement over Arma and i like forests/woodland landscapes of Chernarus.

In terms of design Arma II looks like an improvement over Arma, the Sahrani conflict was just awfull but down to its bare bones its the same game with a few improvements, new setting and a facelift.

Im mostly concerned about the performance, all footage on YT shows me bad frame rates, stuttering and texture/lod issues even on good rigs, not a good sign.

@Foxhound:
That performance boost is most likely due to the fact that his rig (as sweet as it is) only has 2 GB of ram, wich might cut it for XP but wont do for Vista no way.. i know this because i upgraded to Vista a while ago and the first thing i realised was that all the new games i tried would stutter like mad, with 3 GB of ram my PC is performing just how it performed with XP with 2, maybe even a bit better in some cases ;) .
Vista is not all that bad it just needs 3 GB of ram to game with. Some ram intensive games seem to perform better in Vista, like the stalker games, i also believe Vista has better compatbility with new HW, like quad cpu's, etc.


Author Message


Posts: 55
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: us
Location: Missouri
Occupation: Classified
Age: 25
In-game name:

 
#66 Posted at 2009-06-07 18:19        
     
So is ArmA II hard on your PC because it of its detail and performance? Or is it because BIS simply hasn't patched the game up fully yet cause I've seen complaints of even nice PCs taking a hit from running it.

Headshots...those who can...will....those who can't...complain

Author Message


Posts: 431
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: pt
Location:
Occupation:
Age: 38
In-game name:

 
#67 Posted at 2009-06-08 16:13        
     
I've been out of the loop when it comes to HW... just checked my local store's web for some parts and prices.
Intel quad's for socket 775 are not that expensive anymore, seen the Q9550 2.83GHz for about 250 €, still beasty proc.
Nvidia's 200 series depend alot on manufacturer, seen a GTX260 for about 180 €, thats like almost given away.

And this is without any real price searching, an affordable upgrade without spending too much.

Im still emotionally attached to my 8800 GTX, back then this bitch was around 700 € :eek.

There are a few good games to come this year, i dont know if i would upgrade just for Arma II honestly..


Author Message

laggy  



Posts: 52
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: se
Location: Right behind you
Occupation: Rembrandt/Spielberg wannabe
Age: 44
In-game name: laggy

 
#68 Posted at 2009-06-09 22:15        
     
Dell XPS 420
Windows Vista Home Premium 32 bit
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850, 3.0 GHz
3.00 GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX (182.50 drivers)

Installed the game tonight :D

German version.
Patch 1.01
No mods or tricks (no blurr, maxmem etc.)
Graphics settings only set in option menu.

VD 2000+
Fill rate 100%
Everything on Normal except:
Shadow detail - High
PP - Low
AF - Low

Haven't tried ArmA Mark yet, but it seems to run OK.

- Not as detailed as I can run ArmA1 (all on very high) but still overall nicer looking.
- Campaigns first couple of missions are very playable as well as the SP missions I've tried.
- Textures loading slow sometimes, just like ArmA1.
- Editor test: Total of 8 groups fighting (3 infantry and 1 armored/side) + 1 player in Chernogorsk is playable but quite laggy.
- 4 hours of testing and NO CRASH so far, more stable than ArmA1...

Kind of what I expected and will probably be better after some tweaking, don't understand why so many are panicking about the performance, a few more patches and VOILA!!!

Laggy

And I looked and behold a pale horse and his name that sat on him was Death and Hell followed with him.

Author Message


Posts: 431
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: pt
Location:
Occupation:
Age: 38
In-game name:

 
#69 Posted at 2009-06-10 19:51        
     
laggy : Dell XPS 420
Windows Vista Home Premium 32 bit
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850, 3.0 GHz
3.00 GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX (182.50 drivers)

German version.
Patch 1.01
No mods or tricks (no blurr, maxmem etc.)
Graphics settings only set in option menu.

VD 2000+
Fill rate 100%
Everything on Normal except:
Shadow detail - High
PP - Low
AF - Low

That sounds good, what display resolution may i ask?
I think you could increase AF without much of a performace hit.


Author Message

laggy  



Posts: 52
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: se
Location: Right behind you
Occupation: Rembrandt/Spielberg wannabe
Age: 44
In-game name: laggy

 
#70 Posted at 2009-06-10 23:16        
     
Hi Heatseeker (OK song by AC/DC :D)

Res: 1680*1050

Tried ArmAIIMark (See BI Forum) and got score 2536, which is not high but playable :)
The campaign works fine, but I guess heavy "put all the stuff in there" missions in Chernogorsk would be unplayable though.

Note: Setting everything to high (except PP) only resulted in ArmAIIMark score lowered to 2309, which seems to imply that the processor (3.0 GHz) is the bottleneck at this point, future patches will hopefully improve it.

Laggy

And I looked and behold a pale horse and his name that sat on him was Death and Hell followed with him.

Author Message


Posts: 431
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: pt
Location:
Occupation:
Age: 38
In-game name:

 
#71 Posted at 2009-06-11 01:32        
     
laggy : Hi Heatseeker (OK song by AC/DC :D)
Res: 1680*1050
TY.
That is my monitors native res too :yes .


Author Message

vikk  



Posts: 317
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: us
Location: The American Suburbia, South Carolina
Occupation: vikk
Age:
In-game name:

 
#72 Posted at 2009-06-11 05:46        
     
will i be okay?


Dell XPS 420
9800 GT
CORE 2 QUAD 2.40 GHZ
64BIT VISTA

Former Armaholic Team Member
Vikk[TG-Regular]
Killing bad guys one bullet at a time

Author Message

laggy  



Posts: 52
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: se
Location: Right behind you
Occupation: Rembrandt/Spielberg wannabe
Age: 44
In-game name: laggy

 
#73 Posted at 2009-06-11 08:06        
     
vikk : will i be okay?


Dell XPS 420
9800 GT
CORE 2 QUAD 2.40 GHZ
64BIT VISTA

You should be, considering my specs which are quite similar. Your quad could be faster but should be OK, my "dual only" 3.0 GHz is working acceptably. 18 months ago I actually decided to go with a faster dual (rather than quad) when ordering from Dell, just because ArmA1 wasn't using multi cores. Guess now we will see what's best for ArmAII :)

I would say: don't expect stunning performance (in this early version), but it will be playable.


Questions:

Have seen many posts on BI forum showing that XP is much better vs Vista when it comes to running ArmAII. FPS sometimes almost doubling...

Can you have TWO parallel operating systems on your PC to bypass the (obviously insanely) resource consuming Vista?
Is it complicated to do?
Any other Vista tricks that might help?

This post was edited by laggy (2009-06-11 08:18, ago)

And I looked and behold a pale horse and his name that sat on him was Death and Hell followed with him.

Author Message

Booga  



Posts: 8
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: uk
Location:
Occupation: Solar Engineer,
Age: 30
In-game name:

 
#74 Posted at 2009-06-11 08:19        
     
Well if your thinking of running both Vista and XP on one pc, then you might as well consider using Windows 7 instead. It's a lot lighter then Vista and there is talk about having a XP mode, so if windows 7 can't run a program, you can always trust on your handy 'FREE!' copy of XP hidden inside your Windows 7.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/whats-new.aspx


Author Message

laggy  



Posts: 52
Rank:


Level: Member

Country: se
Location: Right behind you
Occupation: Rembrandt/Spielberg wannabe
Age: 44
In-game name: laggy

 
#75 Posted at 2009-06-11 08:22        
     
Thanks,

Well I guess I would have to pay $$$ for Windows 7, while I probably have an XP disc lying around somewhere.

And I looked and behold a pale horse and his name that sat on him was Death and Hell followed with him.