ARMA2 - out in germany already!

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
zeep

zeep

:(
Feb 16, 2001
1,741
1
36
Visit site
Copied from here & there.

ARMA2

Release dates
DE May 29, 2009
CZ June 17, 2009
SK June 17, 2009
EU June 19, 2009

Improvements over ArmA

* Multicore support
* Bump texture mapping
* Parallax occlusion mapping
* New glass, metal shine and reflections
* Micro AI
* Built in-dynamic conversation system
* Dynamic shadows
* New normalized textures
* New shaders
* New sound engine






Location:
http://www.arma2.com/chernarus_en.html

Weapons
http://www.arma2.com/weaponry_en.html

* Accurate models including graphics, sounds and animations.
* Variants with different scopes and accessories, including collimator sights, optical sights, grenade launchers or silencers.
* Optics have realistic zoom and field-of-view settings and reticles.
* Animated parts for shooting and reloading (triggers, receivers, ammo belts) and eject brass.
* Customized character animations for holding weapons based on inverse kinematics.
* Simulation of bullet ballistics, including material penetration and bullet deflection.
* Ammunition power and magazine compatibility according to the real life.
* Impact effects and sounds for various materials in the environment.
* Tracer rounds are used in a realistic way.
Click to expand...


Vehicles
http://www.arma2.com/vehicles_en.html

Review / Preview
Tactical Gamer.
The ambient wildlife and civilians add greatly to the environments and make the world feel like it is truly alive around you. The cows look up from grazing as you approach... I saw goats, boars, dogs, sheep, rabbits, chickens, cows and horses along with birds and insects..

So, to the infantry experience. On the ground and running and I am happy with the feel. Much more fluid than Arma 1. The running feels like a natural motion and the improved frame rate adds to the experience. All animated sequences such as weapon reload and sight raise, etc are slicker. Close quarter combat was a lot of fun and felt less clumsy than Arma 1. During a mission in a small town my AI team grouped intelligently with me as we moved around and used the terrain and buildings for cover. I even saw an AI comrade leaning from behind a wall to give cover, as another AI comrade ran up the road to the next building.

The new medical assist is a large part of successful gameplay in Arma 2. With multiple injury scenarios. you may need a simple bandage or full medical assistance with morphine injections from your team members. You all have to help keep each other alive in combat and this adds greatly to the drama.

When lying in tall grass areas it is possible to flatten the grass down by moving around to help visibility if trying to aim at the enemy as the grass remains trampled. It is also a good gauge to see if activity has occurred in an area as grass remains flattened when trampled by other troops and vehicles.

Parachuting is improved and a fun experience as we jump from aircraft and freefall. The motion blur effect captures the feeling of speed as we plummet to earth at high speed. I could control my dive rate and glide left and right before I opened the parachute. Then once I deployed the chute, I was able to steer to my preferred landing zone..
Click to expand...


Armaholic.
Rock Paper Shotgun.


Youtube video's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on8Ne1jUf0Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wXx3vMy_AQ


Seems you lucky germans have the game in stores already!!
http://www.tacticalgamer.com/armed-assault-armed-assault-2-discussion/139761-guess-what.html
 
Last edited:
F

-Freshmeat

Eternally noob
Dec 4, 2003
207
0
0
50
Denmark
Visit site
I am stuck with a 9500 GT, so I am wondering if it would be playable for me. Hae anyone heard of low end user experiences coupled with a somewhat knowledge of system tweaking.
 
Last edited:
tomcat ha

tomcat ha

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2002
2,819
56
48
35
Visit site
Well it seems that most reviews are incorrect about arma 2 performance and bugs wise.

You should be able to play it on medium-low with decent fps.
 
Lethal Dosage

Lethal Dosage

Serial Rapis...uh, Thread Killer
Oct 8, 2004
608
0
0
In the back of your mind! Mwah ha ha ha!
Well considering i'm not sure if i can even play ArmA 1 on my AMD 3500+ sporting a 128mb GeForce 6600GT and 1gb ram... i'm definately gonna have to buy a new system soon, there's too many games released in the last year or two that i want to play!

*Someone care to donate me a computer?????*
 
G

GalZohar

New Member
Feb 27, 2008
97
0
0
38
Ramat Hasharon, Israel
On my 7900GS 3400+ computer the game was just a tad under playable performance (which makes sense, as it's under the minimum requirements). Well, it was playable when I lowered the resolution but then I couldn't spot a man beyond 50 meters due to pixelation.

Then, for almost 1500$ (would probably be quite less in the US, Israel prices suck) I bought an HD4890 with i7-920, and on view distances of ~2500~3500 with ALL settings maxed (except post processing OFF because it doesn't really do much other than blind you imo) it's totally smooth, unless you load up a couple hundred AI, and even that is probably only a problem because the AI run only 1 thread (uses 1 core to max and uses the other cores to about 1/2), which may or may not be optimized later. Also don't even try much higher view distances - units don't get drawn above 2000m or so even if you set view distance to 10,000. Again something I hope they will fix at which point I will consider another HD4890 if they're cheap enough by then.

If your CPU doesn't suck and does have HD4890 (which imo is actually a GREAT buy for performance per cash), you'll be able to enjoy this game on all levels. So a 2000$ computer should be a giant overkill for this unless you live in a country where a computer is way more expensive than here... A 1000$ computer with a quad core or high speed dual core and even a card lower than HD4890 would do great with this game, just not at totally maxed settings.

Keep in mind the benchmark you linked above uses windows vista, which is known to greatly hurt Arma 2 performance. If you use XP (or some say windows 7, though I hadn't tried myself), quite better fps to what they listed. Also they used low resolution with 200% fillrate which is kinda confusing. Fillrate above 100% (currently patched in the options to be called "render resolution" or something) doesn't really add anything to the picture quality in my experience. I'm getting smooth FPS (enough that I didn't check the exact amount) with their same settings but 1680X1050 resolution (both, so effectively 100% fillrate), windows XP, and maximum anti-aliasing (which wasn't available at 1.00), as well as post processing OFF which they didn't list at all. Bottom line - 200% fillrate and vista made this benchmark give lower fps numbers than you should expect! It helps to see what a benchmark does before you look at how many FPS it gives ;)


As for the game itself, it's pretty awesome. While it has a ton of flaws (not so THAT many bugs, at least not offline), it's the best thing I've played since infiltration, and probably the best thing I'll play until Sky Gods.

I even made a random assault mission, inspired by DTAS, but no server would even test it :(
 
Snakeye

Snakeye

Mk82HD
Jan 28, 2000
1,966
0
36
46
Klagenfurt, Carinthia, Austria
Visit site
GalZohar said:
On my 7900GS 3400+ computer the game was just a tad under playable performance (which makes sense, as it's under the minimum requirements). Well, it was playable when I lowered the resolution but then I couldn't spot a man beyond 50 meters due to pixelation.
Click to expand...
I'm astonished you even got it to work with that setup, since I consider my system to be well above the minimum requirements although below what is euphemistically called "optimal" system requirements.

For those interested I'm on a Core2 Duo T9300@2.5GHz, 4GB RAM, 2x8800M GTX in SLI. So my CPU is below the recommended 2.8GHz (although it's stated as Core and not Core2, which does make a heck of a difference at same clock speed - but I doubt BIS is competent enough to get that right) and the GPU is slightly below the recommended 8800 GT, but then I've got two of them which should bring it about on par (assuming the SLI fix for ArmA2 that nVidia provided in their latest driver actually works). BUT I'm well in the clear from the minimal requirements - and as I take it minimal should translate to "playable but ugly" and optimal to "no probs with standard settings". Having framerate drop because a little AI is present doesn't count as playable in my world. Also graphics wise it seems fine since patch 1.02 - so I assume the AI routines are fucked up. But as the die-hards in the forums claim: this will be fixed in the next few patches - nice, I've always wanted a game that I bought now to work properly in a few months. At least BIS cured me from the early-adopter syndrome - as I surely won't be buying any of their products early after release..

GalZohar said:
Keep in mind the benchmark you linked above uses windows vista, which is known to greatly hurt Arma 2 performance. If you use XP (or some say windows 7, though I hadn't tried myself), quite better fps to what they listed. Also they used low resolution with 200% fillrate which is kinda confusing. Fillrate above 100% (currently patched in the options to be called "render resolution" or something) doesn't really add anything to the picture quality in my experience. I'm getting smooth FPS (enough that I didn't check the exact amount) with their same settings but 1680X1050 resolution (both, so effectively 100% fillrate), windows XP, and maximum anti-aliasing (which wasn't available at 1.00), as well as post processing OFF which they didn't list at all. Bottom line - 200% fillrate and vista made this benchmark give lower fps numbers than you should expect! It helps to see what a benchmark does before you look at how many FPS it gives ;)
Click to expand...
Wasn't my link but just to add: the fillrate thing is apparently supposed to be some poor-mans anti-aliasing (or idiots aliasing if you lower it below 100%) and [in patch 1.01] isn't even properly done at 100% since it still has a different resolution (+/- a few pixels) from your actual screen size in the ini. If I understood correctly fillrate increased (and for idiots decreases) the resolution that's rendered which is then calculated back to the actual resolution - [in theory] resulting in a smoother picture (or horrible aliasing for the idiots).

Also claiming that using Vista for the benchmark is wrong is a tad strange to me. Many people use Vista (as it's NOT offering worse performance in most other games) and so it is absolutely correct to use it for benchmarking - adding an XP benchmark would've been nice too though. Also what are Vista users (who get same performance in other games) do when one game suddenly has worse performance? Warez an XP copy - or even worse buy one? So you can have a nice dual boot system because of one [poorly optimized and prematurely released] game?

GalZohar said:
As for the game itself, it's pretty awesome. While it has a ton of flaws (not so THAT many bugs, at least not offline), it's the best thing I've played since infiltration, and probably the best thing I'll play until Sky Gods.
Click to expand...
Well, I'll hold my final judgement until it's playable and I had a few missions, but from what I read on their forums there's so much borked right now I'm unsure it will ever live to the expectation I get when reading the line below the title on their box. It boldly states "The Ultimate Military Simulation" (translated from German, so might be different in English) and from all I could see up to now it miserably fails at this - as will every game in the next decade that tries to get infantry, tank and airial combat in one package. As far as I could gather the tank/vehicle damage models suck, as do their targeting systems. And while I won't be flying in this game ever (hopefully) I'm really interested what a jet fighter does on a 225km² map (=15x15km) - hell an AH-64D with Hellfires would be overpowered for that. It might be an interesting infantry combat "simulation" - although [as mentioned above] I'll need to be able to play it before I can judge this..

GalZohar said:
I even made a random assault mission, inspired by DTAS, but no server would even test it :(
Click to expand...
Start up your own server you lazy bum :p
I'd give it a try in 3 to 4 patches, I hope :D
 
G

GalZohar

New Member
Feb 27, 2008
97
0
0
38
Ramat Hasharon, Israel
I agree it's far from "the ultimate combat simulator". However, even with all the flaws it's still way better than any other game in the market when it comes to realistic combat. That's why I have no doubt Sky Gods will kill Arma 2 in the nuts when it's released, but until then, there's really nothing better. Even Infiltration has many flaws, to the point where I'd rather play Arma 2 (without taking into account the player base).

Using vista as a benchmark might not be outright "wrong", but it is misleading, as you wouldn't expect XP to give so much better performance.

Currently most issues in multiplayer are caused by mission design and bugs introduced by mission makers, not issues with the game. Of course there's also the "X is unrealistic / simulated improperly", but the "unrealistic" in Arma 2 is still more realistic than any other game I know (unless you compare Arma 2 tanks to tanks from a tank simulator, or Arma 2 aircraft to aircraft from a flight sim). Sure they could do a whole lot better and I'm pretty mad at the fact that they chose not to, but all these flaws aren't enough for me to choose another game over it. Other "realistic" games simply have so many more flaws than Arma 2, at least compared to what they try to simulate.

If you want performance in Arma 2, you really should install *some* kind of winXP (or at least not Vista) :(

As for hosting my own server, I can MAYBE hold 4 players on my 0.23mbit upload... And even that I'm not sure it can handle. As for buying one - too expensive just to test a mission, not to mention I'm not going to pay for a server in europe that will give me >100ms ping, and I'm not going to pay for a server in Israel that will be empty 99% of the time. Laziness is the last thing that's stopping me from starting my own server.
 
Last edited:
Snakeye

Snakeye

Mk82HD
Jan 28, 2000
1,966
0
36
46
Klagenfurt, Carinthia, Austria
Visit site
GalZohar said:
If you want performance in Arma 2, you really should install *some* kind of winXP (or at least not Vista) :(
Click to expand...
As mentioned I don't intend to make my system dual-boot just because of ArmA2; the last and only dual boot I had was a Win2k/XP because Win2k couldn't play Steel Panthers :D. Don't get me wrong, if ONE game has worse performance in Vista I'm not going to blame Vista for it..

Also a bit late: what kind of takes do you have in Israel? The prices are outrageous..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom