So ive spent more time tweaking than playing...

[njmatrix 2]

I upgraded to the rig in my sig and now I average a whopping 30 fps 25-35

That is worth the money you spent? If it didn't get 50-60 at least it woulda ticked me off. Wow that is utterly amazing you think that little bit of performance was worth a major overhaul.

I'm sorry I can't see dropping 500+ dollars into a rig to get 30 frames.

[arthur666 10]

This game is MUCH more than the campaign. Play in the editor, load some custom maps, have fun.

In my opinion the 'product' is not broken. It just needs a few tweaks. Please continue to check for patches - we don't want to lose the members of this community that are having trouble.

However, a machine a few years old just won't cut it I'm afraid.

+1, definitely not broken. Just demanding.

Started with version 1.02 and I have not had one major problem with Arma2, BUT, I haven't touched the campaign. I have been playing my own misions made with the incredible editor. Battles sometimes as large as 14 squads + armor and air, runs well enough for fun gameplay. No, not 60 fps, but the gameplay more than makes up for it. The framerate has never ruined a mission experience for me, except that time I tried 800 units at once. :P

I feel like the campaign is an afterthought, something tacked onto a civilian version of the VBS just to make it marketable. The editor and multiplayer is really where this game shines. Unfortunately, I did have to upgrade for this, but I'm glad I did. I have no complaints.

My specs: Q8200 quad @2.33GHz + 4GB 1.33GHz RAM, GTX260, WinXP 64bit.

[ICE-Raver 10]

That is worth the money you spent? If it didn't get 50-60 at least it woulda ticked me off. Wow that is utterly amazing you think that little bit of performance was worth a major overhaul.

I'm sorry I can't see dropping 500+ dollars into a rig to get 30 frames.

Well I was dipping into single digit FPS with the old setup so..........:rolleyes:

It was so bad that all the vehicles clipped and aircraft skipped across the sky. Forget about going into Electrovodzk or Chernogosk.

But yea, I spent 850 bucks on a new cpu, ram, mobo, cpu cooler, HD and vista 64 with free windows 7 upgrade from newegg.

Still running the same video card though. I thought about adding another and going sli but I would need a PSU and another card. IE another 500 bucks or so.

I can live with the framerate I'm getting now.

I bumped everything to high a couple of hours ago, with aa and AF on normal and I get between 20 & 30 fps usually. Game runs smooth but I expected more.

[Eremitt 10]

Theres no room for amateurism in the game industry anymore!

Enough of this free worldwide players Beta test cr*p!!!

I agree with you.

It seems there are some few that does this over and over again, and gets away with it.

[Bulldogs 10]

Seems like the whole industry does it now days.. viva revolution.

They need to tweak the game industry so developers aren't under so much pressure to push a game out.

It's kinda annoying. As soon as info is leaked about a game the publishers know the concept doesn't have long to live so they pressure the developers to push it out by a due date, ready or not. It's the price of progress.

[novafluxx 10]

Yeah, all the issues people are having are causing me to wait to purchase the game. I'm enjoying ArmA and the ArmA 2 demo for now!

[wooly-back-jack 10]

It would be nice for officials to enter the debate on some of these threads (without just posting a generic response and locking thread I mean)

[thr0tt 12]

It would be nice for officials to enter the debate on some of these threads (without just posting a generic response and locking thread I mean)

Would either defuse the situation or increase it ten fold, hmmm, a sticky with weekly updates would work for me with some answers to some questions posted on the forums which seem to be void of BI devs now.

[mad rabbit 0]

I'm in full agreement with the sentiments of this thread.

I too have spent more time trying to tweak this game than actually playing it. The frustrating thing is that most of the players of ArmA2 are dedicated fans who have been playing since OFP and see the potential in this game to be something great.

Moreover, because of this loyalty, the majority of us have made sure that are computers are above minimum, if not at recommended specifications prior to purchasing this game.

I too feel cheated.

Perhaps BIS rushed this game to get an early jump on OFP-DR. However because of this rush, the poor performance in this game is making me think of purchasing OFP-DR, which I was loath to do before.

Better to have a game that's below your expectation but works = OFP-DR...

than game that could potentially exceed your expectations but is unplayable = ArmA2...

My system specs for the record:

Alienware m15x Laptop

1920x1200 native resolution, 15inch montior

Intel® Core2 Duo CPU T9300 @ 2.50GHz

NVIDIA GeForce 8800M GTX @ 800Mhz Mem/500Mhz Core (180.7 Drivers)

4GB DDR2 RAM @ 667Mhz

Windows Vista SP1

ArmA1 runs fairly well on high settings, 2500m view distance and 1920x1200 @ 30+ FPS but without Anti-aliasing.

------

ArmA2 Minimum & Recommended System Requirements from http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA_2

Minimal PC Requirements

* CPU: Dual Core Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz / Intel Core 2.0 GHz / AMD Athlon 3200+ or faster

* RAM: 1 GB

* Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 / ATI Radeon 1800 with Shader Model 3 and 256 MB VRAM or faster

* OS: Windows XP

Optimal PC Requirements

* CPU: Intel Core 2.8 GHz / AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or faster

* RAM: 2 GB

* Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT / ATI Radeon 4850 with Shader Model 3 and 512 MB VRAM or faster

* OS: Windows XP or Vista

Edited July 25, 2009 by mad rabbit

[bono_lv 10]

I'm also frustated by tweaking this game. I just can't get it playable online and in campaign (15-25fps). Acceptable frame rates (for me it's 40+) i get only in boot camp and in armory. To be honest, i stoped playing it. I'll wait for patch... If that will not fix performance - I will be very very dissapointed.

My system is not bad at all:

Q9550

3GB ram

HD4870x2

[Joe_M. 10]

...a sticky with weekly updates would work for me with some answers to some questions posted on the forums which seem to be void of BI devs now.

I would appreciate this very much!

But I doubt very much that this will happen. Since they don't even give an estimation for the release date of the next patch, I start believing, that the problems are worse than expected. Which means the patch won't be released in the next weeks or even months - they are just afraid of telling us.

[Malecite 10]

Wow, unfortunately I was called way and couldn't comment on this thread. But the fact that so many people feel the same way isn't suprising. I have yet to actually complete a single multiplayer mission without a CTD or such stuttering that I just alt tab and quit out. It would be sort of nice to hear from the devs on this subject, but either way the game is what it is, hopefully I remember to check back for a patch in the months that this will gather dust.

[Bulldogs 10]

You could look through the threads and see several post from mods showing a partial list of changes as well as posts stating that the patch should soon be ready but feel free to ignore those and jump to conclusions telling everyone that a patch is months away.

In all honesty, just have some patients. It sucks not being able to play but get outside and get some exercise, come back every 1-2 days and you'll soon find a patch, of course, maybe bis will cave and release the patch before it's ready just for you, it may not fix anything but you seem like you want a patch regardless if it's ready or not.

[mad rabbit 0]

I'm somewhat in agreement with Malecite.

I've been a big supporter of BIS since back in the OFP days and have purchased every development (aside from VBS) since then.

However as a paying customer I'm infuriated that they have released recommended/optimal system specifications that fall well below what is required to play this game a decent level.

This is not about bugs in the campaign, or one set of GFX cards from a manufacturer that don't work with the game due a driver issue etc. Problems of this nature do require patience as they are unexpected, and do not impact on the game nor the community as a whole.

However the poor performance of ArmA2 on numerous systems, as reported throughout this forum, that are very equal to or well above what was recommended by BIS prior to release of the game, does impact on the enjoyment of the game and the community as a whole.

The key words here are 'recommended' and 'prior'.

As a result it does not become a matter of patience from the customer, but quality from the developer BIS, whether that be through foresight via more rigorous testing or honesty in terms of what they cannot predict...or failed to deliver.

In a normal situation where the product has already been purchased and is grossly not working as expected it would be returned with a full refund given. In this case ArmA2 has been described in numerous reviews and throughout this forum as 'not working as expected'/hoped despite the customer doing everything in their power to help this process i.e. recommended system specifications.

It seems developers now-a-days complain about piracy yet expect customers to pay for a product that is not working as expected through no fault of their own.

Some analogies would include:

- making sure I got my feet measured (system specs) for shoes that the producer (BIS) only gave me one of the pair...but promised to give me the other shoe later (patches)

- ordering a cake where I specified all my allergies and the amount of people eating etc. (system specs) when the chef (BIS) gives me 3/4 of the cake...but promised to give me the other 1/4 later (patches)

----

Now I've been very harsh.

But I think a lot of loyal fans from back in the OFP days would agree that had ArmA2 been released after OFP then indeed patience would've most certainly have been given. But given that ArmA1 was so transient...lacking...even a disappointment in some regards, I for one have run out of patience.

And at least ArmA1 ran to spec!

In conclusion, I have every faith in BIS in terms of if it's patching philosophy & quality, community support, vision, etc. And I'm sure in time they will get ArmA2 working to recommended system specs...or at the very least ammend these, admit their failings in this area...soemthing.

But please, please, please don't ask for patience. Some of us as you can clearly see are all out.

[SemiFrank 10]

However the poor performance of ArmA2 on numerous systems, as reported throughout this forum, that are very equal to or well above what was recommended by BIS prior to release of the game, does impact on the enjoyment of the game and the community as a whole.

The key words here are 'recommended' and 'prior'.

Well said, totally agreed. Patience is something a customer should reserve for improvements, or additions to a game, paid or free. Fixing something that is broken is not something I should "go outside and get some excersize" for.

While the game might run fine on your system, or his system, doesn't matter. You can debate all day whether the game is broken or not if you'd like, but the answer is clear: This game is broken. Like the previous poster said, it's not about the bugs, it's about the fact that the game does not perform on the minimum and recommended specs posted on the manufacturers website, and on the game box. Adding to this: the demo that ran *great* on minimum/recommended specs, but did not represent the actual game itself.

I'm not making any accusations, but if my company had a deadline, and our unreleased game was performing horribly, and we needed the initial sales real bad, and I was underhanded, I'd release a demo that ran great on real low specs to boost sales too. Then the next thing I would do is not acknowledge the problem. The game has been out for what, almost 2 months in germany, there must have been these issues overthere as well, have they seen a patch?

I'll wait untill mid-august, if nothign has happened by then (acknowledgement or patch from BIS) I'm writing to steam today to demand a refund, if they don't give me my money back I will start a petition and if that doesn't work i'm reporting fraud to my credit card company.

[mad rabbit 0]

Don't you know the golden rule? If you want to enjoy the Arma series you must buy the game a year after it comes out~!

LOL I missed this when I read through the thread initially!

Perhaps BIS products are like fine wine.

You buy them in the hope of drinking them at a later date.

But when the ArmA1 year is slightly sour, you just want to get drunk on ArmA2...vintage be damned!

*crosses fingers for 1.03*

[kklownboy 43]

well a whole 20~ people agree with the OP... thats sure is a big sample... and most have less than 8 posts?( guessing)

anyhoo ,was playing online ( for hours! again) running all VHigh except PP...@ 1600/1200 hmmm smooth and awesome. Great game, if you get past the campaign issues... MP is nothing like the SP, But the SP was fine too with some real boggs... To enjoy the game i suggest you get a realistic veiw of your HW and Display... but some wont understand that... i see some posters use lil cards with a rez over 1200/1024.... DUH... anywho not much to say except it runs great. Like most advanced deferred lighting/HDR bloom games with insane map size( oh wait there isnt any?) or just leave out the huge fricking map part and chk GRAW ,when it came out was the suck ( still is) for Hardware, and they dont even offer AA, just that lame peanutbutter NVDA smear... Then there is Crysis... OH yeah that was the cats meow for FPS and old small cards...NOT, took patches and years to get upto midline HW to play it on MEDIUM and low rez...nobody would think of 1920/1200,24in LCD as a playable Display.. and you still need uber Hardware to run Crysis at that rez... Why do so many posters think they can run ARMA2 with old or midline spec H/W at above 1200/1024... OH yeah the price of LCDs came down... To Play, you got to Pay.

[SemiFrank 10]

well a whole 20~ people agree with the OP... thats sure is a big sample... and most have less than 8 posts?( guessing)

Every message board is filled with elitist post count crap, maybe your opinion counts for more when it comes to forum/game related content stuff, but since i have like what, 8 posts my concerns are no longer valid.. what is this? sherdog.net?

As far as realistic views of HW, MY CPU is my bottleneck, fine i understand that, but i have played this game on 800x600 with everything turned off and i still see the same horribly crap framerate. It's not chipset/video drivers, or windows updates, or my os, or a fragmented HD.. I have install this on 4 fresh os installs on various newly full formatted drives, with all SP's and drivers up to date and i still see the same problems.

My birthday is coming up and my wife has been kind enough to spring for a Q9400 - so that should inprove my performance by about what, 2% over my current athlon X2 64 4800+?

[wooly-back-jack 10]

well a whole 20~ people agree with the OP... thats sure is a big sample... and most have less than 8 posts?( guessing)

anyhoo ,was playing online ( for hours! again) running all VHigh except PP...@ 1600/1200 hmmm smooth and awesome. Great game, if you get past the campaign issues... MP is nothing like the SP, But the SP was fine too with some real boggs... To enjoy the game i suggest you get a realistic veiw of your HW and Display... but some wont understand that... i see some posters use lil cards with a rez over 1200/1024.... DUH... anywho not much to say except it runs great. Like most advanced deferred lighting/HDR bloom games with insane map size( oh wait there isnt any?) or just leave out the huge fricking map part and chk GRAW ,when it came out was the suck ( still is) for Hardware, and they dont even offer AA, just that lame peanutbutter NVDA smear... Then there is Crysis... OH yeah that was the cats meow for FPS and old small cards...NOT, took patches and years to get upto midline HW to play it on MEDIUM and low rez...nobody would think of 1920/1200,24in LCD as a playable Display.. and you still need uber Hardware to run Crysis at that rez... Why do so many posters think they can run ARMA2 with old or midline spec H/W at above 1200/1024... OH yeah the price of LCDs came down... To Play, you got to Pay.

I agree with the OP.

incidently I have got mine working, in a fashion...much faffing (since release) and altering of not only driver and game settings but settings in the bios, settings I'm not even sure are safe for my old socket 939 system lol.

still doesn't look like what I'd expect for a card you can still throw almost anything at (at low resolution of course, I only play in 1280x1024 anyway cos I only have a 19" non widescreen TFT) I am on all lows and very lows and all effects and filtering disabled.

I would expect a bit more than that for a card that is on the "Optimal" list being on a low resolution. Yes it is an old card, some say I may need to upgrade.. but why the hell is it on the optimal list? surely if I can only play LEGO-ARMA it should be on the MINIMAL list? so yeah it needs optimising.

At the moment I am happy I can actually last in a game now online without CTD (so far! - 2 full sessions!) but I expect a bit of tweaking and stability from the game so that I can then put my system back to settings I am happy with.

BI have got work to do and problems to solve, people are wasting their own money and own time just to get a badly optimised game to work which they paid good money for.

And don't give it all the "oh well it's only £24.99, I throw that much away on blah blah..." tell you what, I'll give you my paypal and if all you fanboi's aren't arsed about your money you can throw it my way and I'll put it to good use :)

[RGN07 10]

It's too choppy to enjoy! Even with the patched version.

[-TwK-Danny 0]

If Crysis Warhead runs great (28-45fps on _all_ levels including ice ones) on my PC, i do NOT expect ArmA2 to run with 5-15fps on LOWEST settings looking uglier than Operation Flashpoint (some campaign missions).

This is not right, no matter what. I have a HD4890 1GB.. Im sorry but if i get 5-15 fps, then ArmA2 should not have been released - or al least they should have provided minimum specs that state you need to wait a couple of generations of CPUs/GPUs just to play it on lowest settings.

[Razorman 10]

Don't any of you read these forums?

What part of this game needs a monster cpu to run well don't you understand?

Please, this game runs great for many on these forums, you are making out the sim is broken, it's not.

Sure it uses a lot of resources to run & is buggy inplaces BUT it runs great on the right rigs.

[-TwK-Danny 0]

Dont you look outside these forums? This game gets so much shit because it doesnt run properly. The performance in the SP campaign is nothing short of terrible.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2009/06/ArmaA2-CPUs-1280.png

and here with the latest patch

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/original/2009/07/ArmA2-v102-CPUs-1280.png

Reviews are showing that powerful GPUs coupled with Core i7 CPUs still only achive 30fps.. at 1280X1024 with normal details. HD4890s with Core i7s!

Cool story.

[Razorman 10]

Why would i look outside of these forums, when these are the game forums attended by the game developers?

I'm not saying the game has no issues i'm saying quit bitching when trying to run it on a sub par cpu.

[Joe_M. 10]

What part of this game needs a monster cpu to run well don't you understand?

I do have an i7 920 OCed to 3,6 GHz. I would consider this to be a 'monster CPU'. This is faster than anything avalilable from stock and yet insufficent? DOH!