Arma II is going on the shelf...

[Hammer_RLG 10]

well i can only play single player. it perfomrs fine and i have a 8800gtx, but a pretty beefy cpu (3GHz quad core) running on XP. my issues are network related - get the 'NAT negotiation failed' constantly and can not play MP. the reason i bought this game was for coop in our gaming group - sucks to be left out and not know why. all the others in my group can play on our dedicated server fine, just not me. i can not seem to connect to any server. this game is probably shelved for me as well until this is sorted. sucks, 'cause the game play is great.

[nyran125 10]

Dont throw this game out until youve played around with the editor mode. Performance is WAY better than single player and you get no CTD's in editor and you can make your own missions really easy.

[hrPUFFnSTUFF 10]

I teetered on the edge so many times. I totally understand putting it aside IrishDeviant. I'll be getting OFP2 aswell.

Do one last thing before you toss it out the window. Grab an extra HD and put XP 32bit. Install all your drivers off the web. The newest Nvidia is very important!Old driver New driver. Install Arma2+patch 1.03. put -nosplash -maxmem=2047 in the exe, then try. If it's still Death!! then format c: and fire it off the roof! ;)

I have a Evga GTX285 and it's still chugs sometimes. -maxmem=2047 switch made it so when I alt-tab it's instant, no "receiving" waiting, that was somewhat nifty. Still their is a bit too much for me to tolerate, like the z-fighting. Something I haven't seen not fixable in a long time. Hopefully it gets better optimized in the future.

A clean install will only work for a little while but there is no better way. I think with the map size's and modle count and hungry AI large page file is a big help. optimaly running in RAID, running the game from 4 raptors gave it a massive boost. Sadly I am 1 of very few that I know that can play this game reasonably well. all my mates have shelved Arma2 as the less than a year old machines they mostly all have, run the the game like shit! and as many have stated the tweaking required is extreamly redicules. This would be a truely fantastic game if it used stuff like phisiX and EAX5 and was truely 64 bit coded and really took advantage of heaps of ram. Instead it supports "tracker" Don't we all have 2 of them?? If the game ran as well as it could I would prolly even get1 myself. For now the game is shelved.

[shahin 10]

hi..i have ati 4850 1gig cpu3.4 dual core....fsp 15...xp 32 bit...4gig ram...driver update..is my system not good or something else?..everybody does any suggestion to help me..

[TimRiceSE 10]

Shahin, I have almost the same system as you. I get very very acceptable framerates in almost all situations... However I'm running windows 7 64bit, which for me had a huge performance boost from XP.

[cchance 10]

how is this "not a BIS issue" if you add a limit of 4gb of ram on an 8gb ram system it fixes problems, some people get block boxes instead of trees, these are real bugs that arent fixed...

some people run a game at 800x600 and get 20fp sthen switch to 1650x1080 and still get 20fps how is that not a bug?

[H-street 10]

some people run a game at 800x600 and get 20fp sthen switch to 1650x1080 and still get 20fps how is that not a bug?

This is called being CPU limited, when you are CPU limited it doesn't matter what resolution you are at, the game will run at the same speed. its not a bug, just the way gaming is. You can't look at the game performance as graphics/resolution only.. There is a lot more too it then that.

One interesting article that just came out today was [h]ardocp's performance review for ArmaII

its a good read and should be a good way to guage how well your system is actually performing. [H]

[f2k sel 164]

Dont throw this game out until youve played around with the editor mode. Performance is WAY better than single player and you get no CTD's in editor and you can make your own missions really easy.

So untrue, I get system lockup and CTDs in the editor preview and the 2D mode.

Temp isn't a problem, it doesn't run long enough.

The patch was very disappointing and seems to have mad things worse.

I'm also using XP so that won't help either, I've tried all the so called fixes and haven't found one that made any difference.

Even using the editor I haven't been able to make a mission as it's hard to make an interesting mission that can be played within five minutes.

I did notice that my bug reports are down to be fixed by sept 30th if that means anything.

I can't see me being here by then as I have better things to do than reboot the PC every few minutes.

[superweapons 10]

@OP

I'm on a similar build and experience no problems at all (aside from having to restart the campaign early on while I was playing on my laptop). I haven't gotten a CTD or any kind or error/bug since then.

Intel Q6600 @ 3.0GHz

XFX GTX 260 Core 216

4GB Kingston HyperX T1

Windows 7 RC1 x86

ForceWare 190.56

ArmA 2 1.03

ArmA 2 plays great at all very high with a view distance of 3600. You can acquire the 190.56 driver here.

[lowang 2]

Shahin, I have almost the same system as you. I get very very acceptable framerates in almost all situations... However I'm running windows 7 64bit, which for me had a huge performance boost from XP.

Really?? Can you be more specific with that performance boost? You mean more fps or less stuttering or loading? I guess video drivers will be the cause more then an OS.

---------- Post added at 10:38 ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 ----------

superweapons I have actually a better system then you but my performance is really not that great! And I have visibility about 2800. Unfortunatelly I could not install 1.03 yet because of some error so tell me - did this patch make the game run better for you? I know it depends highly on the CPU frequency for me, so it will be better when I get my water cooling mounted and OC my CPU to 4GHz :)

[datter 0]

I don't hate ArmA2 nor do I hate BIS despite what people seem to think based on my recent blog post. I bought OFP on day one, and enjoyed it and Armed Assault for years and was one of the many people here and elsewhere telling those with problems to stick with it. I would explain that although the road is bumpy, it goes to a place few other games try to so it's worth making the journey. As it happens, despite all my posts along those lines and near fan-boyism that went back to the old days... I'm starting not to believe it myself anymore.

Currently I have ArmA2 running acceptably on the rig in my sig... or did anyway until upgrading to Win7 64bit with 8GB of ram. Now there are new problems to sort out, like my local vram not being detected properly, and SLI no longer providing any benefit where it once did etc etc, odd graphic glitches and crashes, an unplayable campaign due to CTD's I no longer want to cope with. Etc.

That last line is the thing though, "problems I no longer want to cope with". The years of same-ness with regards to BIS games and problems like these have apparently worn me down, and it's only happened very recently. It seems that where even weeks ago I was willing to spend an evening tweaking my system and ArmA2, then writing a blog or forum post to help people out (like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and even this) now, I'd just rather play something I don't have to screw with. Hell, I went back to playing Empire Total War and that's not exactly a bed of roses either.

I fear the trend of putting up with the bumps to take a unique journey is about over for me, or very close to it as I haven't touched ArmA2 in a couple of weeks now and that's too bad. If there weren't alternatives on the horizon my sticktoiveness might be a bit stronger, but I find myself wandering in both thought and intention as to where my future milsim free time will be spent.

Edited August 21, 2009 by datter

[Zipper5 74]

Once more, isn't the impressions thread more suited for such discussion?

[datter 0]

Fine, I'll reposted mine there if that helps you out in some way.

[wingtip 11]

bought the game, ran like crap

upgraded the vid card, ran like crap

upgraded the cpu, ran the same, like crap

bought a new hard drive since the old was full, still runs like crap...

I give up, arma 2 performance aint even close to what their specs say will run it..

usually run in 1280x768

rig is currently spec'd as follows:

AMD 6000 X64 3.01 Ghz dual core

GTX280/1 gig memory

680watt supply

4 gigs low latency corsair ram

asus crosshair mb

vista enterprise x64

tried updating drivers,

tried several differnt tweaks and peaks

tried settings all up , all down, no shadows, no post proc, everything on low

tried playing with nvidia settings panel

just standing still looking around and zooming in on some trees the frame rates get to choppy to even look around... its just bullshit...

i could get 16 at best and 4 by just looking left or right...

just bs

Edited August 21, 2009 by wingtip

[datter 0]

just bs

You forgot the "i". :P

[TimeDeatH 10]

i get NONE of the problems you guys are having. However , turn Post-processing on low and everything else to normal and AA OFF. there is NO computer out there in this currant generation of cards , processors, that can play this game with smooth frame rates on high graphic settings. It is future proofed to hell. Just like Oblivian before it, just like no one could run Crysis until the 8800 series of cards came out. In 2 years time with hardware 2 years from now, you WILL be able to run Arma 2 in all its glory , but right now the game looks great on normal and AA OFF and its too good a game to worry about stupid little things like window textures flickering.

My specs 8800 GTS 512mb, 2 gb ram, intel core 2 duo processor 2.66Ghz. Runs at 35 fps consistently on normal graphic settings and post processing on low. YES i get textures popping in and out , and yes some of the missions need to be explained ALOT better by the developers in briefings like , you can only do ONE artillary strike THAT...IS...IT(Its not a bug) and if you stray to far away from your mission you will get shot by invisible enemies.

Heres a tip :>:>:> When pc gaming remember this "ONLY UPGRADE YOUR PC a YEAR OR TWO AFTER a game that stresses your hardware out actually comes out, then upgrade to new graphic cards and processors etc. Never upgrade your computer before a game comes out, because it is INSTANTLY OBSOLETE".

IF you think just because you have a nividia 295GTX and the latest crap windows7 system for gaming and you can run Arma 2 with everything on very high with the latest hardware you have been duped by nividia and Bohemia into buying stuff prematurely. If games come out and you can run them sweet, why upgrade computer?, unless you cant run games anymore?

What you are trying to do is future proof YOUR computer without any needing to. However its not your computer that needs future proofing, because games will come out eventually that only can be played on high graphics, 2 years down the track, its a fact, because games are always trying to push the boundaries of graphics and lighting and are always trying to future proof it for the NEXT GENERATION of video cards and processors NOT this generation (Nividia 295gtx for e.g.) Because if they didnt do that, why would Nividia and Intel support the gaming industry with hardware later on $$$$$$$$$$$$?

You think They do this to video cards for people that like watching movies?. GET REAL, they do it to get the money off gamer's in the future. Why buy something if you dont need it yet. There is no game out at the moment apart from Arma 2 that requires anything higher, spec wise, than a single 8800GTS 512mb card and a intel core 2 duo 2.66Ghz. However now i know (because a game like Arma 2 has come out) in a years time, probably 2, i will need to upgrade my system. Why before, when its not necessary? XP still runs games better than vista its a fact. SO why bother?

There is ALWAYS a series of video cards that come out in a years time or 2 years time that magically make all the latest games like Arma 2, run really well all of a sudden. Its like magic, when 8800 series came out all of a sudden Everyone could run Crysis and Oblivian , its like magic. LOL. :):):):):) remember WAIT for the magic to happen, before YOU try and make the magic come prematurely when upgrading your pc. Because you will get duped over and over and over and over again. Wai tfor that special game like Arma 2 or Crysis to come out, Wait a year or 2(Preferably 2) Then go all out and upgrade to ALL the latest stuff.

However i do agree that the spec system NEEDS to change on game boxes to stop this bs that has been happening with future proofing games on pc's for the last 10 years,well since 1995. There needs to be minimum requirements, medium requirements, developer requirements and FUTURE requirement specs so people know they cant run a game properly on high graphic settings and have good performance aswell before they buy the game on all the latest hardware.

That isn't true, just because your system doesnt run it doesnt mean they should lower the standards, in fact if they did it wouldn't be as good, there is hardware out there that can play this game on full, just because YOU don't have it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Also just because it says reccomended hardware doesn't mean you'll be able to max your settings and be able to play without lag, I used to have a lower grade laptop where I've run into this problem alot, but I just played the game on medium and was happy to except that I can't play on maxed. Quit with the conspiracy garbage, and read up on the latest hardware... I have all settings as high as they can go with no lag, but view distance at default and 3d resolution at 1680x1050 , reason why is because I have a quad core that's running at 2.4 ghz, if I had one that was running at 3.0 ghz + I'm sure it would be running fine with maxed everything.

I have: Q6600 quad core @ 2.4ghz, 4gb of ddr3 1600 corsair xms3, vista ult. 64, 1 wd caviar green 640 gb, sapphire hd 4870x2, etc..

Either way I have shelved it till 1.4, only one reason and that was an in game issue. I was making my mission (which requires many soldiers to be transport unloaded) and when I finally got to making the opfor side, they shot at the helis, and the helis wouldnt continue with their waypoints (tried behaviour careless) but just leave the entire battle. this thing took me about 18 hours total just to have one bug ruin it. Don't worry people, the 1.4 beta patch is up for download so I'm sure the 1.4 patch will be released soon.

Edited September 2, 2009 by TimeDeatH

[W0lle 1052]

Either way I have shelved it till 1.4, only one reason and that was an in game issue. I was making my mission (which requires many soldiers to be transport unloaded) and when I finally got to making the opfor side, they shot at the helis, and the helis wouldnt continue with their waypoints

That is not a bug, but a feature. It's normal that the enemy is shooting at your helicopter and it's also clear that the helicopter pilots evade instead of being shot down.

[TimeDeatH 10]

That is not a bug, but a feature. It's normal that the enemy is shooting at your helicopter and it's also clear that the helicopter pilots evade instead of being shot down.

http://dev-heaven.net/issues/show/3919

It is not a feature if you have the waypoint set to careless, there is also 2 more bugs with helis in that link. This was considered a bug to ArmA 2, because it is fixed in the beta patch apparently, but I will not download that because in order to get rid of it you have to uninstall the whole game, and I have the steam version on a satelite internet.

[W0lle 1052]

http://dev-heaven.net/issues/show/3919

It is not a feature if you have the waypoint set to careless, there is also 2 more bugs with helis in that link. This was considered a bug to ArmA 2, because it is fixed in the beta patch apparently, but I will not download that because in order to get rid of it you have to uninstall the whole game, and I have the steam version on a satelite internet.

The beta patches are installed in Modfolders, you can use them as any other Mod. No need to uninstall ArmA2 to get rid of beta patches. Not 100% sure though if that goes for the Steam version too.

As for helicopters: Agreed. With behaviour set to careless they should continue their way. Another option would be to set the helicopters to captive so the enemy doesn't shoot them at all. But that should be posted in the editing forums.

[shataan 1]

I`m with TimeDeaTH. Infact I AM running all maxed settings at 1680x1050x32 @ 120 hz, no AA/AF tho. I upgraded for ARMA 2. But I needed to upgrade anyways as my 5 year old 8800 GTX system was not cutting it. So it was time. ;p

[Bulldogs 10]

For Steam, just delete the beta folder (steam\steamapps\common\arma2\beta) and the beta shortcut.

[nyran125 10]

well im running arma 2 fine on the nividia GTX 512 mb card. No issues at all. On normal settings of course. But dont expect a massive performance increase if you upgrade your card to a 200 series card if you already have a mid range to high end 8800 or 9800 card. Im getting 25-50 fps throughout, without any crashes at all obviously using xp, practically having to use the same setting as a person with a 200 series card.

I just think people upgrade thier systems prematurly before the actual games that really need a hardware upgrade come out and expect thier hardware to run the game maxed out. PC gaming has never EVER worked that way and probably never will. It always takes a year or 2 years before hardware catches up to the more powerful released games. Im not saying that Arma 2 is anything special graphically its more to do with the processor and it being able to handle everything than the gpu but why upgrade before?, arma 2 is the ONLY game that people are having trouble with SINCE the 8800GTX or 9800 cards were released provided you had a cpu anything higher than a intel core 2 duo 2.66Ghz. Crysis was the last one and Oblivian before that. IN future i just suggest to you to WAIT till the hardcore game comes out before upgrading your computer, IF you are running all your games well anyway, thats all.

The grass is NEVER greener on the other side with pc gaming,lol :).

Im not even trying to be opinionated, but your wasting your time. Youll probably go out and buy the next gen card anyway, wont you, even if you do have a nividia 200 series card,lol. Well, i dont blame you, the 200 series card wasnt good enough in the first place. With pc gaming its sometimes just best to enjoy what you have, until the better cards running that game you want to play, actually come out. Crysis IS a perfect example. nobody had issues with Crysis at all after the 8800 series card. All the cards before the 8800 series couldnt run the game on medium or low very well. So im just stating history really. Nothing more. I dont want to offend anyone. its just what ive learnt over the years. operation flashpoint the original Still stutters in places but runs a HELL of alot better these days, than it did when it was released same with BF2 when the 9800 radeon xt's and pentium 4 single processors were out. Even DOOM3 had settings that couldnt be used with the 9800xt's of that time till 2 years later. That setting was Anti Aliasing X16. The option in DOOM 3 was there but anytime you tried to use it the game either crashed or glitched out really badly. 2 years later hardware with 16x aa came out and hey presto , eveyone ran the game great. Im not trying tottalk rubbish, its just the reality.

Just one more thing, it wouldnt be very realistic if enemies DIDNT shoot your copter down. You should make the copter go a different way. If they are getting shot down , its because thats what they should do. I wouldnt find the game realistic if the enemy didnt shoot down my copters at all and just let them do whatever they like. I know i would shoot down a helicopter if i KNEW there were enemy guys onboard, wouldnt you? look at Normandy, how many planes got shot down just trying to get guys parachuting out of it, there were farm fields littered with downed planes. If you dont want the enemy to shoot you at all, just put them on Never fire. EVER. or give them all no ammo. Then place a trigger tht gives them ammo AFTER you want them too when youve reached a certain destination. Or put ammo crates around that they have to rearm at , when you have reached a certain point or waypoint in your mission. Id try the no ammo thing. Give your enemies No AMMO, until you want them to have it.

Edited September 3, 2009 by nyran125

[ICE-Raver 10]

. there is NO computer out there in this currant generation of cards , processors, that can play this game with smooth frame rates on high graphic settings. It is future proofed to hell.

As usual you are wrong and have come out to bash 200 series GPU's and praise the almighty 8800.:rolleyes:

I run this game with all settings set to Very High 1680 x 1050 , INCLUDING AA and AF + FULL grass and the game runs VERY SMOOTH on my rig.

Typically I get around 30-50 fps with these settings.

The only time I dip below 30 frames is in Electrovodsk and I think there is just something wrong with that area.

Could it be done with a single GPU? I doubt it, but you shouldn't say no computer out there is capable at running this game maxxed out.

---------- Post added at 12:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 AM ----------

AMD 6000 X64 3.01 Ghz dual core

GTX280/1 gig memory

680watt supply

4 gigs low latency corsair ram

asus crosshair mb

vista enterprise x64

Your biggest problem is your amd 6000. I was running an amd 5600 when this game came out and I can tell you after upgrading and going back and forth that the 5600 struggles on this game. The 6000 isn't much better than the 5600 is. The game is very very cpu intensive and the 5600/6000's just barely cut it.............and I mean barely.

I would also get rid of vista if I were you and go to windows 7. It made a huge difference for me.

---------- Post added at 12:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 AM ----------

Intel Q6600 @ 3.0GHz

XFX GTX 260 Core 216

4GB Kingston HyperX T1

Windows 7 RC1 x86

ForceWare 190.56

ArmA 2 1.03

ArmA 2 plays great at all very high with a view distance of 3600.

Really now? All settings maxxed out with a single 260 and a 6600 and the game runs great? It's not that I'm doubting you, but if your serious you should sell your pc to NASA.

[sempavieh 10]

Im still laughing about all those guys who have such Bignutskickass PCs and cant run ArmA2 properly ... im getting back online now though ... because the game runs fine for me since version 1.0 :D (about 5 crashes atm ... no real bug experienced yet)

cya

[TimeDeatH 10]

well im running arma 2 fine on the nividia GTX 512 mb card. No issues at all. On normal settings of course. But dont expect a massive performance increase if you upgrade your card to a 200 series card if you already have a mid range to high end 8800 or 9800 card. Im getting 25-50 fps throughout, without any crashes at all obviously using xp, practically having to use the same setting as a person with a 200 series card.

I just think people upgrade thier systems prematurly before the actual games that really need a hardware upgrade come out and expect thier hardware to run the game maxed out. PC gaming has never EVER worked that way and probably never will. It always takes a year or 2 years before hardware catches up to the more powerful released games. Im not saying that Arma 2 is anything special graphically its more to do with the processor and it being able to handle everything than the gpu but why upgrade before?, arma 2 is the ONLY game that people are having trouble with SINCE the 8800GTX or 9800 cards were released provided you had a cpu anything higher than a intel core 2 duo 2.66Ghz. Crysis was the last one and Oblivian before that. IN future i just suggest to you to WAIT till the hardcore game comes out before upgrading your computer, IF you are running all your games well anyway, thats all.

The grass is NEVER greener on the other side with pc gaming,lol :).

Im not even trying to be opinionated, but your wasting your time. Youll probably go out and buy the next gen card anyway, wont you, even if you do have a nividia 200 series card,lol. Well, i dont blame you, the 200 series card wasnt good enough in the first place. With pc gaming its sometimes just best to enjoy what you have, until the better cards running that game you want to play, actually come out. Crysis IS a perfect example. nobody had issues with Crysis at all after the 8800 series card. All the cards before the 8800 series couldnt run the game on medium or low very well. So im just stating history really. Nothing more. I dont want to offend anyone. its just what ive learnt over the years. operation flashpoint the original Still stutters in places but runs a HELL of alot better these days, than it did when it was released same with BF2 when the 9800 radeon xt's and pentium 4 single processors were out. Even DOOM3 had settings that couldnt be used with the 9800xt's of that time till 2 years later. That setting was Anti Aliasing X16. The option in DOOM 3 was there but anytime you tried to use it the game either crashed or glitched out really badly. 2 years later hardware with 16x aa came out and hey presto , eveyone ran the game great. Im not trying tottalk rubbish, its just the reality.

Just one more thing, it wouldnt be very realistic if enemies DIDNT shoot your copter down. You should make the copter go a different way. If they are getting shot down , its because thats what they should do. I wouldnt find the game realistic if the enemy didnt shoot down my copters at all and just let them do whatever they like. I know i would shoot down a helicopter if i KNEW there were enemy guys onboard, wouldnt you? look at Normandy, how many planes got shot down just trying to get guys parachuting out of it, there were farm fields littered with downed planes. If you dont want the enemy to shoot you at all, just put them on Never fire. EVER. or give them all no ammo. Then place a trigger tht gives them ammo AFTER you want them too when youve reached a certain destination. Or put ammo crates around that they have to rearm at , when you have reached a certain point or waypoint in your mission. Id try the no ammo thing. Give your enemies No AMMO, until you want them to have it.

I don't see upgrading my video card for another year, due to the fact its a Radeon 4870X2. Also with the realistic of being shot at it in a heli, have you ever heard of an lz getting hot? I have, and also I have the waypoint set to careless so it should be landing regardless of anything at all. Also, I want them to be firing at the helis for realism, I mean I could understand if the heli couldnt land because it was torn down by an rpg :rolleyes: , but just from gunfire is another story. Also at normandy they had aa guns, there are no aa guns here, so if you would like to take out the aa guns and put in mp40s I think that would match my situation, also there is a big difference between those two guns if you dont know.

Quit trying to prove you are right, because you are very wrong.

Also (to the community) haven't you guys ever heard of ATI lol, I've had much better luck with their cards, except the fact they update the driver constantly. I forgot to mention, both of my AA and AF is maxed.

To W0lle: The readme gave me the impression, in order to get rid of the beta I have to get rid of the game, but I think I'll wait for 1.4 anyways, because it should be close to being done I believe.

Edited September 3, 2009 by TimeDeatH