Patch 1.03?

[Scorpius01 10]

Im just wondering if anyone knows when the next patch will be out.

I heared that the demo version of the game is a later version than the currnent retail version.

This game currently runs very poorly on my system even on lower settings and i hope that the next patch will improve performance somewhat.

Im not sure why it runs so bad but ive seen that many ppl have this problem.

My specs are :

Intel C2Q Q6600 overclocked to 3.0Ghz

Sapphire HD4870 X2 Gpu : 780Mhz Mem Clock : 950Mhz

4 Gb DDR2 RAM

Vista 64Bit

[dunedain 48]

There is an updated version of patch 1.02, with improvements from the demo.

[CHB68 10]

...no answer to his question. As far as I remember BIS announced Patch 1.3 with the international release on Jun, 29. And even if there were major improvements in the "patchpatch" the performance especially in the big cities is not poor, its still a disaster.

I know many people trying to sell their copy. Their hardware meet the maximum requirements (recommended) but ArmA2 is not really playable for them. It's a great pity.

[^Th0mas^ 10]

stop wasting time talking about bad performance. The game runs smooth on many computers, so if you have a poor pc its your problem.

[<-Falco-> 10]

stop wasting time talking about bad performance. The game runs smooth on many computers, so if you have a poor pc its your problem.

Your are such an idiot, and totally wrong

sorry

[Helmut_AUT 0]

stop wasting time talking about bad performance. The game runs smooth on many computers, so if you have a poor pc its your problem.

It doesn't run anywhere near playable - in some of the included missions, created by BIS - on a system that exceeds recommended optimum specs.

The PCGamer CPU benchmark shows it needs a very new AMD, or an Intel not older than a year to get 25 FPS in some missions. If you need a system less than a year old to run the included missions at only 25FPS, then yes, you have a performance problem as game developer.

Please don't pretend it's all user imagination, the benchmarks are available.

[thegunnysgt 1]

I run a 3.1 dual core processor, 2GB memory, and can run the game on all High settings with Post Processing disabled smoothly and very playable.

It never fails, BIS releases a patch and shortly after someone comes up and asks about the next one not long afterward. You'll get the same response as we all get usually, it will be done when it is done and announced when they want to announce it. All we can do is enjoy the game and wait.

[longers 10]

stop wasting time talking about bad performance. The game runs smooth on many computers, so if you have a poor pc its your problem.

idiot

[CHKilroy 0]

It doesn't run anywhere near playable - in some of the included missions, created by BIS - on a system that exceeds recommended optimum specs.

The PCGamer CPU benchmark shows it needs a very new AMD, or an Intel not older than a year to get 25 FPS in some missions. If you need a system less than a year old to run the included missions at only 25FPS, then yes, you have a performance problem as game developer.

Please don't pretend it's all user imagination, the benchmarks are available.

I question how intensive their testing was because I've got a CPU that's a couple years old and I've got at least 30fps, including on custom missions. But would I like to see it improved? Why not.

[Undeceived 392]

As far as I remember BIS announced Patch 1.3 with the international release on Jun, 29

As far as you remember. Oh yes... :)

Any sources??

And reading this topic I think that it could be that some warning levels are going to grow soon... :)

Edited July 2, 2009 by Undeceived

[cr0wn3r 10]

Scorpius - I've got very similar specs to you. Except my Q6600 isnt overclocked, and I've got an 8800GTS graphics card. And I'm not having any performance issues at all. I play on 1600x1200 with everything maxed apart from AA.

[11aTony 0]

Well these are major performance killers:

-Big wide screen

-AF

-AA

-Postprocessing Effect

-View distance

Im sure meny of you already tried that but still, disable all of them, view distance lower then 2000, put it lower then 1000 even. If you have 22" or something try it on 19" (if available for you) with res 1024x768. If you are using vista or win7, disable Aero theme. So if you still cant get proper FPS with all of that done then... well I hope you get a solution soon.

[dunedain 48]

The importance of the framerate is very relative to hardware and people ...

For casuals used to low framerate it's not a problem at all, but for many others playing with less than 40fps is nearly unplayable while accurate aiming and effective movements are essential in combat situation..

So with my computer, "C2DE8400 2xHD4850 4x1Gb ram and raid0 velociraptor" I can't run the game smoothly on all High settings except fillrate at 100% and visibility 2400. I don't enable msaa cause as a cost for actual good graphics it drasticaly kill the framerate on my machine. "And that in the editor, alone in the middle of Chernarus"

Note that my specs are enough to run smoothly Crysis warhead at maximum settings with aa4x in 1440*900 ..

My point is not to blame Bis, but it's obvious there is some serious performance issues according to what hardware you own.

I'm sure Bis will improve performances in futur patches. But arguing that, right now, Arma2 runs systematically smoothly with something equivalent to recommended requirements is just a big lie from some pathetic egocentric guys.

Edited July 2, 2009 by dunedain

[dyscr33t 10]

I'm pretty surprised at how well the game runs on my computer. I run everything on normal except for terrain and shadow detail which is set at high and post-processing at low, resolution is 1680x1050. View distance is a little over middle range.

Intel Core 2 Duo 7200 @ 3.0ghz

Gigabyte EP35

3.5gb G.Skill DDR2

MSI HD4850 OC

Just bought a Q9550, gonna see how much of an improvement I get with it at around 3.5-4.0 ghz.

[kylania 568]

I know many people trying to sell their copy. Their hardware meet the maximum requirements (recommended) but ArmA2 is not really playable for them. It's a great pity.

Send these people to the Troubleshooting forums! There are 2-3 very minor config changes you can make with your video card drivers and arma2.cfg which can drastically improve performance.

[longers 10]

Send these people to the Troubleshooting forums! There are 2-3 very minor config changes you can make with your video card drivers and arma2.cfg which can drastically improve performance.

link to such threads ?

i have looked but couldn't find these 2-3 very minor changes

[spandrel 10]

Some of the campaign missions do chug like an MF. My system is dualcore, Geforce 8800GTS, 4 gigs RAM. Meanwhile Fallout3 with far more cluttered graphics runs very well. The map where it chugs the most that I've seen is the "Find Lebedev" mission.

This engine is not optimized. The graphics are nowhere near good enough to justify how slow it runs. Pixelated trees, jaggy graphics.

Personally I don't give much of a hoot about graphics as long as the gameplay is there which it certainly is in spades, but the performance issue is another kettle of fish entirely and needs to be fixed.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I am guessing any 1.03 patch is going to be after or around the time of the US DVD release which is July 7th.

Kind Regards walker

[CHB68 10]

Well, I'm sorry. I thought the US release would be on June,29.

Anyway, I'm still optimistic that 1.03 will also correct and improve the game. After all we are at 1.02 and it works...more or less.

It can only become better, patch by patch ;)

Edited July 2, 2009 by CHB68

[Erius 10]

I think stating that the game running at 40 fps is unplayable is fairly ridiculous. And also Recommended settings for a game is not the specs required to run at max graphics, it's the minimum required to play the game effectively where as minimum is the base required to run the game at all. But there does seem to be some compatibility issues with drivers or some certain hardware, as for the lower end of computers I have Arma 2 running fine on my break computer at work which is an iMac with dual core intel @ 2.66ghz, 2gb of ram, and a radeon 2600HD mobile.

[11aTony 0]

Yeah, improve the game too. Especially campaign with still not moving razor team mates. Dogs of War...

[longers 10]

link to such threads ?

i have looked but couldn't find these 2-3 very minor changes

anyone ?

[-SONAF-Rebel 10]

Well... I think 28-27 FPS is more than enough to play the game smoothly - assuming that you do not loose more than 1 FPS in any situation.. - when you enter a town, or get into a big firefight, in this case you would not realize that the game is not running smoothly.

You said 40 FPS is playable... its because the FPS drops from 25-28 by almost 10 percent, it can make the gameplay annoying and unplayable. But when you got 40 FPS, that FPS drop is not significant and does not affect your gameplay.

In addition I have heard somewhere that our eyes see in the real world only 25 FPS.

[Shinobi575 10]

listen, if your PC cant handle this game than quite frankly you shouldnt be playing it. I have a Dual Core AMD 64 Athlon x2 3800 + 2 Gigs of memory, MSI ATI Radeon 4850. my PC is about 4 years old and i can run this game on Normal/high settings, you ppl should stop bitching about it and just wait for the patch like good, normal people. I get about 30-40 FPS on my system, if your getting anything less than my system then LOL @ you~

[Fabregas 10]

A 4 year old 4850? You really must have had friends in exceptionally high places!