Author Topic: DAY Z MEGATHREAD - OP finally gets this mod.  (Read 136272 times)

hahahahh half life one textures HAHAHAHAHAHA

oh god please get a real video card
I have an extremely high-end computer. I am not impressed by the texture quality of the game.

I have an extremely high-end computer. I am not impressed by the texture quality of the game.

What is your graphics card?

And what video settings do you have?

GeForce GTX 560m

Ambient detail is fine, but the characters (especially the zombies) remind me of the Sims mixed with HL1.

GeForce GTX 560m

Ambient detail is fine, but the characters (especially the zombies) remind me of the Sims mixed with HL1.

GTX 560m is equal to like a desktop 540/550

I asked what settings low medium, high, very high.

And whats your texture detail. Video options in menu

The textures in Arma II for players and houses are crap on max settings.

DayZ is boring without people to play with.

Are you really going to argue with me ad nauseam about the exact details of my config?

I have a computer that can play every game on the market on medium at least, usually high or very high. I play Arma 2, a 3 year old game, and it's slow as stuff. It's exclusive to Arma 2. I look at the GFX details, and they're not that good.

1. My computer is the same computer as it is when playing other games.
2. The computer game Arma 2 is not as visually exciting as other games.
3. The computer game Arma 2 is not as well running as other games.

So, this means to me, that Arma 2 is providing less visual detail while consuming more resources.


I'll give it a better chance when I can actually sit down and commit to it. I really dove in with the overly hopeful idea that this was going to be the best thing ever and I ended up disappointed.

IMO, the players look fine, sure they're not Crysis 2 style detailed, but I like the simplicity.

1. Arma 2 is poorly optimized, you should know that mid end builds will not be able to run the game that well.
2. Visual exciting, blah blah blah, is everything about graphics these days? Sure the graphics are not super calibre, but the gameplay makes up for it, too bad you don't like the gameplay since you don't like slow paced gameply.

Basically all I'm saying is you should've researched carefully and well thought about it before going on a limb and buying Arma 2, I did that and Im loving it and having fun.

Visual exciting, blah blah blah, is everything about graphics these days?
I play and develop add-ons for a game called "Blockland" made with a decade old engine that utilizes a 3D model format that's been antiquated for just as long. I guess you've really solved what drives me to purchase and play something on a deep, fundamental level.

The difference between Blockland and Arma 2, however, is that Blockland both looks super basic and runs at 500FPS.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2012, 02:06:58 AM by Lunatic »

I'll give it a better chance when I can actually sit down and commit to it. I really dove in with the overly hopeful idea that this was going to be the best thing ever and I ended up disappointed.
Same exact situation as me.

I watched a bunch of videos of people fighting off zombies, crawling past enemy people and killing them. Camping on rooftops and killing people in the night. But when I finally bought Arma II combined operations I ended up with the, "Run aroundcrawl at .5 MPH for 2 hours before finding a weapon" simulator.

I play and develop add-ons for a game called "Blockland" made with a decade old engine and populated with a 3D modal format that's been antiquated for just as long. I guess you've really solved what drives me to purchase and play something on a deep, fundamental level.

The difference between Blockland and Arma 2, however, is that Blockland both looks super basic and runs at 500FPS.

I know what Blockland is lol.

Blockland is way more simple graphics than Arma 2, can you not see the difference? Let's just say this, the 3d models in Arma 2 are 100x more complex than the ones in blockland

I know what Blockland is lol.

Blockland is way more simple graphics than Arma 2, can you not see the difference? Let's just say this, the 3d models in Arma 2 are 100x more complex than the ones in blockland
Complex as in what? Polycount?

I can get a blockland minifig to have a million+ polygons in it by just subdividing it over and over in blender.

That's not the point, what I'm trying to say is that you're comparing way different games. That's like saying Crysis 2 gets 40fps while CS:S gets 150fps, Crysis 2 sucks in performance then!

That's not the point, what I'm trying to say is that you're comparing way different games. That's like saying Crysis 2 gets 40fps while CS:S gets 150fps, Crysis 2 sucks in performance then!
I'm not comparing games. Re-read our names. The person arguing with you is Lunatic not me.

I'm not comparing games. Re-read our names. The person arguing with you is Lunatic not me.

I directed that at him.

I have an extremely high-end computer. I am not impressed by the texture quality of the game.
It's a military simulator and not some loving super overhyped first person shooter which lures people with it's "super awesome graphics". If you seriously think that the graphics of a game matter then you are an idiot.  I cannot even spot any "Half-life" textures in the full game.

Arma 2's map is poorly optimized for most computers. It can happen that your "super awesome high end gaming computer" cannot handle it. Especially if you set the graphics options to the maximum.
Operation Arrowhead's map is much easier to run and can be played much more fluently than Chernarus , too.

Oh and you should also take in account that Arma 2's map is 225 km² large. This might also cause the drop of your FPS if you set your view distance to maximum. But then again you are not even telling us your graphics settings.
Comparing Arma 2 to another game is dumb. You should rather compare it to another millitary simulator with a similar sized map and similar content. It's not an action game , not an FPS , not an TPS - it's a simulator and it's loving fun ontop of that.