:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
            Can't wait
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
(06-01-2009, 07:30 PM)Pulverizer link Wrote: [ -> ]Performance is not good on a Core2duo 2.4GHz + 2GB + hd4850, but that was expected.
I don't understand this. Your hardware is from graphics card better then mine, and I can play smooth with 20-30 FPS.
As you have learned from OFP and ArmA1, this game will not run with all settings on very high. So lowering the settings will give you a better game experience.
This game is not made for high end superior graphics. It's a military simulation.
If I want superior graphics, I play games who are optimized for this. Or I spent 2000+ Euro for High-End PC with all top hardware. That's my opinion. Maybe other people think different and wants superior graphics in all games with hardware that's 5 years old.
I remember good old C64 times, where you have simple pixel-graphics :-) And it was fun playing! hmm.... just remember we had some game-console before C64 where graphics were much bader than with C64. Simple Pong game but fun to play also at this time.
I'm not saying it's unplayable. I say it's not good because it's 2009 and I don't consider 20-30 fps smooth anymore, nor do I want to be looking at gfx resembling lego blocks on a 25" full hd monitor. But I'm not complaining unless it's not significantly better once I upgrade to a bit more modern set up.
In my opinnion, you can see from the art that "functionality" is not the top priority. It is made to look as good as possible, with bump mapping, shader fx, post processing and whatnot, unlike VBS2 where all that unneccessary eye-candy is left out.
I think it's a game made to be ran at at least normal settings or not at all. Turning down the settings will make the game look horrible and broken, way older than it actually is, just like Crysis. That's what I like about stuff like Valve games for example, they don't look like ass even when you set everything to minimum.
Quote:Produktnummer Beskrivelse Antall Stykkpris BeløpÂ
21735 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ArmA 2 PC Â 1Â Â Â Â Â 263.20 Â Â Â 263.20
              MVA (25 %)                   65.80
              Frakt                        79.00
Betalt                                     408,00
Oh, the alcohol taxes in Norway is a story best told alone:
The Famous Grouse (Whisky) 100 cl Kr. 439,90 (that's 55 â¬),
Moselland Riesling 2007 75 cl Kr. 79,90 (10 â¬)
Overlord....That Euro Value Added Tax puts a damper on things.
I can say from the video clips I've seen the sounds don't impress me much. The movement speed looks to be better than Arma1. Only after upgrading to an nvida 8800 GT 320mb did Arma1 become playable. I wonder how Arma2 would do on my current system?
I am looking at upgrading to:
Intel Core 2 Duo 3.16ghz E8500 (6 mb internal cache)
Asus Rampage Extreme MB
4gb DDR3(1800 overclock) memory
GTX 285 video
  * Dual Core CPU (Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz, Intel Core 2.0 GHz, AMD Athlon 3200+ or faster)
  * 1 GB RAM
  * GPU (Nvidia Geforce 7800 / ATI Radeon 1800 or faster) with Shader Model 3 and 256
  * Windows XP
  * DVD (Dual Layer compatible), 10 GB free HDD space
Optimal PC System Requirements
  * Quad Core CPU or fast Dual Core CPU (Intel Core 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or faster)
  * 2 GB RAM
  * Fast GPU (Nvidia Geforce 8800GT or ATI Radeon 4850 or faster) with Shader Model 3 and 512 or more MB VRAM
  * Windows XP or Windows Vista
  * DVD (Dual Layer compatible), 10 GB free HDD space
I believe this might be another case of "more power? yes please" but luckily there is a [b]demo out now
Overlord....That Euro Value Added Tax puts a damper on things.
I can say from the video clips I've seen the sounds don't impress me much. The movement speed looks to be better than Arma1. Only after upgrading to an nvida 8800 GT 320mb did Arma1 become playable. I wonder how Arma2 would do on my current system?
I am looking at upgrading to:
Intel Core 2 Duo 3.16ghz E8500 (6 mb internal cache)
Asus Rampage Extreme MB
4gb DDR3(1800 overclock) memory
GTX 285 video
