Minimum GFX settings PLEASE! - FAO Rocket

[DemonGroover 8836]

Call me stupid but if i play a game i usually want it to look as good as possible. Disabling some things because your rig can't handle it is one thing but lowering everything for a tactical advantage? What pros!

I never really thought about it much before but i think a minimum setting needs to be implemented. Being able to disable everything shouldn't be allowed.

[Feral (DayZ) 622]

Exactly, I'm really sorry that some people can't afford high tech stuff(even I have a 5+ y old pc, will probably have to upgrade) but a line has to be drawn somewhere. In the past I sometimes couldn't play some games and just had to wait to get a better hw, I didn't get jealous and accuse people of being rich assholes...

What is the point in improving graphics if people will use the lowest setting? It's like the win xp people complaining new games should support it.

Agreed. PC gaming is unlike other types of gaming, it's more complicated and those of us who prefer this area have a responsibility to keep up with, even push forward the gaming worlds progress, not hold it back and developers need to grow some gonads. If the game is good enough then folks will upgrade. Those that are unable to afford an upgrade will just have to make do with Frankie videos until their circumstances change.

[Mos1ey 6301]

I've been playing 1920x1080, texture detail - 'very high' and everything else turned down as low as it can go lately for the FPS boost. Sue me.

There's nothing like running around in a 60/60 server with 100 FPS. xD

[DontTrustPubs 17]

Settings should definitely be locked, server side. Grass, Trees, Terrain, View Distance should all be locked.

[lachlan04@live.com.au 37]

Something definitely needs to be done, it's not enough to just say "some people have lower end rig's deal with it"

Otherwise the purpose of hiding in foliage is completely ruined because who knows if the next person comes along and spots you because of your settings. I hope that everyone can agree that this at least requires some sort of solution.

[wooly-back-jack 294]

surely viewdistance would compensate?

My rig is fairly old (phenom x4 3.6, 4 gig ram, 2 x 5770) and I agree with enforcing at least medium settings, If you struggle a bit on medium you could just sacrifice some viewdistance?

Edited June 2, 2013 by wooly-back-jack

[enforcer1975 1111]

wont happen close thread.

people with low spec pcs need lower setting also it needs to run on consoles comfortably when it comes out on them when released.

Guess why a lot of people buy consoles? They think they can get good graphics in a cheap package, the only thing that is true is the cheap part, but the games are very expensive.

Prices on hardware are so low almost everyone should be able to afford decent hardware and i'm not talking about some i7 / GTX6xx / 256GB SSD / 16 GB RAm rig. A rig about the strenght of an i5 with a GTX 5xx series and 4-8 GB can do the job well enough to play on medium to high settings, with similar AMD hardware it's even cheaper. Even i had decent second hand hardware over 20 years ago and i could only afford it by pocket money and it was 1-2 generations behind what was state of the art at that time. That was a 486 DX/2 66 btw.which was 1 yo.

[Felixthefriendlycat 92]

In a leaked video Somewhere on the internet a guy played the standalone with a GT320 and a very old dual core he stated. he was able to run that old build from the standalone on very high with a view distance of 500 meters above 30 fps. It's no guarantee of course but it is looking like standalone is going to be quite well optimized. With such a performance gain certain low graphics specs could be disabled. I do not like the idea of "locking" graphics settings to 1 preset. However I would like to see some very low settings gone, such as disabled shadows and anything under normal object quality.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Felixthefriendlycat

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

Hardware HAS to get to a point where it's no longer supported, but locking settings isn't the answer in all cases. Gamma/Max view distance yes, but texture/object detail etc. have to be tuned per machine.

Look at ATOC in ArmA3 before you start judging this stuff. The foliage transparency doesn't have anywhere near as much advantage-giving difference as ArmA2.

Every time I see this topic, or one similar, I just see a lot of fuss about nothing.

[irzero 56]

The minimum graphics settings should be Medium or High. No need to lock. Basically they need to make sure people cant turn down the grass and trees so people cant hide.

Hiding is a big part of this game. People need to hide.

Edited June 2, 2013 by irzero

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

The minimum graphics settings should be Medium or High.

"Why don't you just make 10 louder?"

"But... This one goes up to 11."

I get what you're saying, but that was a herp-derp way to put it. ^_^

ArmA2 is 4/5 years old. It's safe to assume graphical quality, LoD and optimisation in the SA will be better than the mod.

The devs are well aware of the grass-drawing and ATOC issues.

[chichakman 2]

For those of you that think its easy for some people to get a new rig, you are right to an extent, but consider the average college dorm student. I have the money to buy a decent rig (I'm probably a bit better off than the average dorm student then...) but I just don't have the space to place a pc in my room. I am definitely not going to buy a high end laptop because the manufacturers rip you off, so I have to deal with my run of the mill laptop that is slowly going obsolete.

That being said, I believe that the best option is to allow servers to give setting requirements so as to provide fair gameplay for the players. This seems to be a better solution rather than locking out players unable to get a decent rig.

[irzero 56]

For those of you that think its easy for some people to get a new rig, you are right to an extent, but consider the average college dorm student. I have the money to buy a decent rig (I'm probably a bit better off than the average dorm student then...) but I just don't have the space to place a pc in my room. I am definitely not going to buy a high end laptop because the manufacturers rip you off, so I have to deal with my run of the mill laptop that is slowly going obsolete.

That being said, I believe that the best option is to allow servers to give setting requirements so as to provide fair gameplay for the players. This seems to be a better solution rather than locking out players unable to get a decent rig.

You can get a Laptop with a decent GPU for £900. Seen them even with 7970m's. Also you can make a PC based on micro ATX or mini ATX form factor.

[enforcer1975 1111]

You can get a Laptop with a decent GPU for £900. Seen them even with 7970m's. Also you can make a PC based on micro ATX or mini ATX form factor.

Those laptops are shit. I thought my work mate got a good PC with an i5 2,6-3?GHz, a GTX 630 and 8GB RAM. I told him he could get a decent desktop with the money he spent on the laptop...Now he found out that the laptop actually sux bewause the mobile versions of the desktop hardware usually have a lot lower performance than a full blown system. One thing because the laptop was never meant to be played on in the first place and another the heat management, once it heats up the performace goes down. You can get the same performace on a laptop for 3000€ for half on a desktop PC plus you can upgrade the desktop as often as you like because it's 100% modular. You only have that amount of space in a laptop and afaik changing parts is either impossible or comes with high costs.

[simfreek@hotmail.com 48]

From looking around the forums. It would look like many of the players, for this kind of subject want you to have a GTX660 card. Then lock the settings so that is the "optimized" graphics that every one plays on is about 30 fps. So, if we were going to run with this, and assuming you had the CPU to keep the bottle neck to a minimum. You would need to have this kind of benchmark or better for your card.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/660?vs=540

Go ahead and change the HD 6870 setting around to what kind of card you are currently using. If you do not meet the minimum requirements of the GTX 660 benchmark, you will need to upgrade to play this game. I use the 6870, and you will see I will have to also upgrade as well.

Cost of a GTX 660 as of June 02, 2013 = USD $214.99

Don't forget the CPU new mobo and RAM if you are on a really old system. As that will be your bottle neck and not the video card.

I used to play using a HD 4870... interesting thing is, it fried while i was playing DayZ. It was an old card, but still...

[Lidskjalf 132]

wont happen close thread.

people with low spec pcs need lower setting also it needs to run on consoles comfortably when it comes out on them when released.

No. No consoles tyvm.

[enforcer1975 1111]

From looking around the forums. It would look like many of the players, for this kind of subject want you to have a GTX660 card. Then lock the settings so that is the "optimized" graphics that every one plays on is about 30 fps. So, if we were going to run with this, and assuming you had the CPU to keep the bottle neck to a minimum. You would need to have this kind of benchmark or better for your card.

http://www.anandtech...duct/660?vs=540

Go ahead and change the HD 6870 setting around to what kind of card you are currently using. If you do not meet the minimum requirements of the GTX 660 benchmark, you will need to upgrade to play this game. I use the 6870, and you will see I will have to also upgrade as well.

Cost of a GTX 660 as of June 02, 2013 = USD $214.99

Don't forget the CPU new mobo and RAM if you are on a really old system. As that will be your bottle neck and not the video card.

I used to play using a HD 4870... interesting thing is, it fried while i was playing DayZ. It was an old card, but still...

If you can afford a next gen console with 2 pads and whatever has to be bought with it ( KINECT etc. ) you can also afford a PC upgrade package. Costs about the same. It's german but you should be able to google translate it: The 300€ pack would be my choice if i am on a tight budget + an affordable GTX 500 ( 560+ ) series GPU which is more than enough to play on the ArmA 2 engine. http://www.gamestar....pgrades_p2.html

Edited June 3, 2013 by Enforcer

[irzero 56]

AMD quad or hex core 4ghz and a 7870 2GB is easily enough and really cheap.