what do you think they should fix first

[goldkid80 10]

i'm just getting bored with thoose perf issues

[ybbor 10]

I think the first thing is the "Team switch" function that after patch 1.2 does not work anymore after first die in editor missions

[PuFu 4600]

the real show stopper, although the game still has a lot of bugs, undocumented features etc is the performance everyone seems to be getting it, or in fact the lack of it due to un-exsiting optimization, as well of lack of scale down ability this game has.

Just look in this part of the forums what a heap of post got made regarding performance since it's release...Does that mean no-one is able to work the settings out to get a decent/smooth gameplay, or is it due to the game being such a resource hog for no-real reason? <- that is a rhetoric question

[trickster1982 10]

I think a big effort on optimising the visuals would halve the complaints on this forum,ive found a sweet spot now that my pc will run the game well at but its taken a lot of tweaking & its far from perfect!at the end of the day we've all paid out good money for this game so we all deserve to play it at a decent level even if our PC's are a couple of years old now! Thats not a dig at BIS though,this game as it stands now is a huge achievement & i love it,it just needs a few bits fixing which im sure they are working hard on as we speak

[Nickos 10]

They should first fix THE RANDOM LOCKUP issue

[B-oodThorn 10]

Fixing the performance issues i think is the key issue for me.

[pauliesss 2]

Fixing the performance issues i think is the key issue for me.

+1 better performance and better optimization.

[LEEROY_UK 10]

Yes better Game Engine optimization needed plz devs !

Better Crossfire support as the game runs better with one HD4870 than it deos with two in Crossfire mode !!?

[Potatomasher 0]

+1 better performance and better optimization.

+1

It's better now than 1.01 version, but a little more is needed. 25 fps completely minimum would be enough for me. So around 5-10 fps more is needed. So definetly performance optimizing is the most important for me before i can fully enjoy playing this.

And before anyone yells that i should upgrade i say shove it up your...

Arma runs very high settings so should this run with normal details. This isn't looking so much different than that and AI calculations aren't that different i presume.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Potatomasher

[Yapab 10]

This is a pretty serious FPS game and to play an FPS nicely you need at least 30 fps and over.. anything less than 30fps and you cant hit/aim/play properly.

After extensive tests on two machines (SLI and non sli) I can see that there is some problem with the CPU being over stressed in some areas of the game, such as towns... could it be the micro code for the AI which is new to the game.

The game is GPU intensive but not as much as CPU intensive... you can lower the visual details and get more fps in forest areas... however when your in a town you will still bottom out below 30 fps... even on a 4ghz dual core or a fast 3+ ghz quad core.

Something is not right.... so the first thing should be:

+2 better performance and better optimization.....

[thr0tt 12]

Performance increase would be nice yes but really first things to fix are the faults not performance. You could say that is a type of fault but if the game doesn't work in the first place then what is the point of a high performing game if it can't be run ?

[kremator 1065]

I found that the newest 1.02 patch has improved performance a little for me.

I would like more information to be given on the undocumented features that we can then use in users missions.

[Potatomasher 0]

Performance increase would be nice yes but really first things to fix are the faults not performance. You could say that is a type of fault but if the game doesn't work in the first place then what is the point of a high performing game if it can't be run ?

I don't know about others, but for me the game isn't crashed once. I mean not once ! With a shitty CPU like i have that's a pretty good sign.

[Yapab 10]

I have to agree, the actual game seems to be very stable for a new release... most games when they are first released are plagued by crashing, lockups etc... apart from a dxupdate issue the game has crashed/locked up for very few.

The majority of complaints are about performance, which doesnt do the game justice.

[dvolk 10]

most games when they are first released are plagued by crashing, lockups etc... apart from a dxupdate issue the game has crashed/locked up for very few.

The majority of complaints are about performance, which doesnt do the game justice.

Quite frankly I don't know what you're talking about. I've had more problems (gameplay issues mostly) in ArmA 2 than all the problems in all the games in over a decade that I've been playing games, and that includes OFP and ArmA 1.

[thr0tt 12]

I don't know about others, but for me the game isn't crashed once. I mean not once ! With a shitty CPU like i have that's a pretty good sign.

Well then for you everything is fine, so we should just concentrate on your requirements ? Great it hasn't crashed for you... sorry but it has and does crash for countless others.

[Dwarden 1125]

i think this thread is not supposed to be in troubleshooting

[f2k sel 164]

They should first fix THE RANDOM LOCKUP issue

+1

Asap.

[Alex72 1]

People partly have problems setting it right i think. Was the same for ArmA1 tbh. I think ARMA2 like ArmA1 has to be messed with in the settings until you get to the good performance. Not like you need to "find" the best settings, but rather that the engine NEEDS to be messed with through the options before straighten itself out.

ArmA1 i had bad performance in the beginning. Without any patches and a lot of messing in the settings plus playing a lot even though it wasnt that good ultimatelly led to better performance. After a while i was playing at high wich was not happening at first. And i hear my friends say the same about ARMA2. Some of them have lesser rigs than many hear and yet they say ARMA2 has great performance. They are also aware of this little mess around that many might not be.

The second factor would also be that some people know how to care for their hardware like knowing to use DriveCleaner before installing new drivers, and also how to set their OS to run only necessary programs. I have to agree that even amongst my friends i have some with monster rigs that complain over that ARMA2 doesnt run fine while others with much lesser systems think its awesome.

I seriously think that you with bad experiences need to mess with the settings - play a bit and mess again. Try to find good performance and then slowly step by step increase options. But be aware of that this IS a new game and quite heavy and hearing that some say "ArmA1 played so good on my machine and ARMA2 doesnt so they have to optimize it so it runs the same" is ridiculous. If i play Far Cry 1 i can max it, but if i play Far Cry 2 my pc burns up. Tell the FC devs to optimize it so it runs like FC1 is kinda stupid. It isnt possible.

Having said that i tknow BIS can optimize the ARMA2 engine more and im sure they are in the middle of it as we speak. They always comes through helping us as much as they can. There is always ways to optimize a game, but to have it run like a 3 year old game is not gonna happen.

At least test changing graphics down - even resolution - play some and then change 1 or 2 settings to one step higher and play again. Test doing that until you find where it flows best. This is at least what you can do until BIS releases more optimization patches.

:)

Alex

[Heatseeker 0]

Performance and scalability.

[Nickos 10]

Hey, let's not say random lockup issue, but THE RANDOM LOCKUP issue

[FraG_AU 10]

++++++++++++++1

Performance. Sorry the game does not use 70% of my PC's resources and it runs like a dog.

Works perfect in Armoury, but in game runs like a pig. CPU usage never hits over 35%