Will it ever be fixed?

[Bulldogs 10]

I play both arma 1 and 2 constantly, and I can tell you that the difference between the 2 is night and day, and not just for graphics.

That said, arma 2 still using directx 9 which is a limiting factor performance wise.

[Skyline On Fire 10]

What i dont understand about this game, is how i am playing the game perfectly, with a great FPS, zero glitches, zero framerate drops, ive not crashed once, its perfect. But someone with an identical, and i mean identical PC to me, will get the worst gaming experience of their lives on it with the constant issues. I dont understand how this works. Was it like this for ARMA1?

[dannyboyee82 10]

Who is the question at Skyline?

[Skyline On Fire 10]

Open question, so anyone

[flake 10]

Ok, so here I am, roughly a week and half after buying ArmA 2 and I am still tweaking and visiting these forums to find out what is the matter with my game

a week and half lol, it's a good thing you don't play empire total war. it's been 7 months and it's buggier than ever!

[metsapeikkoo 10]

Im sorry but the steep requirements arent justified if you compare A2 with Armed Assault. A 4.0 dual/quad?? What for?

The a.i. is the same, it just uses better pathfinding and cover. Same graphics, same physics, same hitpoint damage system, same everything.

Excuse me, wtf are you talking about?

What i dont understand about this game, is how i am playing the game perfectly, with a great FPS, zero glitches, zero framerate drops, ive not crashed once, its perfect. But someone with an identical, and i mean identical PC to me, will get the worst gaming experience of their lives on it with the constant issues.

Person A maintances his/her PC regularly, he/she gets a good performance.

Person B does not maintain his/her PC at all, he/she gets a piss-poor performance.

[dannyboyee82 10]

it's a good thing you don't play empire total war. it's been 7 months and it's buggier than ever!

I do play Empire Total War, it works perfectly for me!

Person A maintances his/her PC regularly, he/she gets a good performance.

Person B does not maintain his/her PC at all, he/she gets a piss-poor performance.

I maintain my PC on a daily basis, I even go so far as to clean it out every month. I dare say I do more to maintain my PC than most people in this thread.

I'm inclined to be with Skyline On Fire with this one, it varies so much. What flake posted about ETW just proves that it can vary for no reason as I get perfect performance with ETW.

[Zipper5 74]

Im sorry but the steep requirements arent justified if you compare A2 with Armed Assault. A 4.0 dual/quad?? What for?

The a.i. is the same, it just uses better pathfinding and cover. Same graphics, same physics, same hitpoint damage system, same everything.

That's just bullshit. Plain and simple.

The simulation of trees and houses makes A2 run bad, wich is ridiculous.

The houses part I'll agree with. The foliage in ArmA II is completely fine. Much improved over ArmA's and doesn't cause me any lag at all. But BIS did a terrible job with modelling the buildings in the game. They are so poorly optimized. Very noticeable when you're in the larger cities.

The game requires the best graphics card/CPU out there for no reason.

Again, bullshit. I have a GTX 280 and an Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00GHz and I run it at close to full settings at a perfectly acceptable FPS. Granted it's not as high as ArmA's, but I wouldn't expect it to be with ArmA II's improvements.

[Heatseeker 0]

That's just bullshit. Plain and simple.

Can you back that up? What significant improvements are there over A1?

Vehicle simulation? Physics? What? where?

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

That's just bullshit. Plain and simple.

The houses part I'll agree with. The foliage in ArmA II is completely fine. Much improved over ArmA's and doesn't cause me any lag at all. But BIS did a terrible job with modelling the buildings in the game. They are so poorly optimized. Very noticeable when you're in the larger cities.

Again, bullshit. I have a GTX 280 and an Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00GHz and I run it at close to full settings at a perfectly acceptable FPS. Granted it's not as high as ArmA's, but I wouldn't expect it to be with ArmA II's improvements.

Yeah, I'm running an Nvid 9800GTX+ over clocked from the factory, then overclocked (alot) some more.....:p and I'm just peachy with results.

[Bulldogs 10]

Can you back that up? What significant improvements are there over A1?

Vehicle simulation? Physics? What? where?

Graphics, a leap ahead of ArmA 1, if you don't believe play Arma 1 and Arma 2 one after the other. The models have a much higher polygon count, the textures look a heck of a lot better.

AI, Arma 2 now uses micro-AI, meaning they can take cover properly, and can be ordered and placed in pin point areas, as oppose to Arma 1's AI that could be sent to a general area.

Amount of AI. Sure, this doesn't affect Scenario's/editor much, but single player campaign ahs roughly 30 times the amount of AI on a map at once than Arma 1 does.

Detailed environment. Even with the grass turned off on Arma 2, the amount of buildings and detail on the building, plus trees, are a lot heavier than Arma 1. There's some heavy vegetation/building custom made islands out there for Arma 1 that run worse than Arma 2 (using roughly the same amount of vegetation/buildings on roughly the same graphics settings). You can also notice this difference when you load CAA mod (Arma 1 islands in Arma 2) and the fps skyrocket due to the lack of complexities that we have in Arma 2 island. Or you could just compare Utes to Chernarus.

I'm sure there's many more, but since you didn't even know about these then I'm guessing you haven't bothered reading any articles about Arma 2, or even playing Arma 1 after playing Arma 2, so I'll let you do some research yourself.

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

I didnt expect A2 to become a benchmark that stresses hardware for no apparent reason but its certainly not the game that will make me upgrade my old 8800 gtx, E6600 and 4 GB of ram.

8800 gtx. It's 2009 dude. you expect to play a current title with that?

The 8800GTX was outdated about a year after it's release. And you are upset that you can't run high graphic settings? Go get current with a state of the art machine and at least a 9800GTX - then you can start worrying if your machine can run it. Your e6600 runs at 2.4Ghz which isn't in the recommended column for Arma2 even.

You're on the serious low end of the spectrum.

Give me a break.

Edited September 28, 2009 by [RIP] Luhgnut

[dannyboyee82 10]

8800 gtx. It's 2009 dude. you expect to play a current title with that?

The 8800GTX was outdated about a year after it's release. And you are upset that you can't run high graphic settings? Go get current with a state of the art machine and at least a 9800GTX - then you can start worrying if your machine can run it. Your e6600 runs at 2.4Ghz which isn't in the recommended column for Arma2 even.

You're on the serious low end of the spectrum.

Give me a break.

Can I just put my pennys worth in? My 8800GTX plays every game I've thrown at it to date, other than ArmA 2. Empire Total War on ultra? No problem! Far Cry 2 high? No worries mate! Crysis high? Easy! GTA IV high? Of course! DOW 2 maxed? Definitely! Need for Speed Shift maxed? Yep! COD World at War maxed? Too true! Dead Space, Call of Juarez, GRID, Fallout 3.. you get the picture!

The 8800GTX is dated now, if you compare it to current cards. A year after its release? Give me a break! This card was one of the most powerful GPUs in its time, rivalled by.. well, nothing. The fact that I can still max out all of those games I mentioned is testament to just how much of a beast it was, and in my mind still is. Have you ever owned one? You would think differently if you had.

It just so happens people, that today I managed to solve all my performance woes with ArmA 2.. by setting the interface size to normal! Yep, it has somehow made the game perform and look like a playable game. Only, it isn't is it?!

There are still the AI bugs to sort out, but I have changed my mind. I am going to persevere, start from the beginning again and see what happens this time round. I have never come across a game that is so good and yet so appalling at the same time.

I'm off to play now, I have a playable frame rate.. and it looks sexy at the same time!

---------- Post added at 09:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:23 PM ----------

Just to bolster my argument 'luhgnut'.. check out the high end GPU benchmark chart, see where the 8800GTX comes?

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

[polecat.uk 11]

Well all i can say on the matter is, everyone should get themselves 3 22" wide screen monitors, a 285gtx oc2 and then just sit back and watch the stunning silky smooth world go bye at 5040x1050 :eek:no problems here but i feel your pain:)

[nkenny 1051]

Ask yourself this. Was arma1 ever really fixed? Did Arma1 ever really see any modifications or expansions of real consequence? Not really. 1.14+ was certainly an improvement, it made the game what it should have been at release day... But consequential? Not really.

Operation Arrowhead has been announced. It will apparently bring FLIR to the game... well it certainly looks nice, but will it really have a CONSEQUENTIAL effect on gameplay? Will vehicles still bungle-up driving on roads. Will we be given a STREAMLINED command interface? Will animations and weapon handling be made sensible... Will the AI still fumble with AT weapons, will the AI still have problems with the GL, will the same asinine communication protocol remain?

It certainly seems things will remain exactly as they are.

-K

Disclaimer: I might bring some biting criticism to the table, but don't get me wrong. I've certainly had fun with ARMA and ARMA2. Its just that Operation Flashpoint was and is a better game in all ways but graphics. Give us more stuff like micro-AI, bring us consequential changes, but for the love of god BRING BACK THE GAMEPLAY.

Edited September 29, 2009 by NkEnNy

[Zipper5 74]

...

Yes, ArmA was fixed quite well. v1.16 beta, the last patch to be released for the game, brought it up to an extremely playable state. The engine that was used with ArmA (RealVirtuality2), however, prevented more fixes from being made. ArmA II was able to fix them (RealVirtuality3). Though I myself didn't really enjoy it, many considered ACE to be the most consequential mod of ArmA, and became the main mod used in the MP aspect of ArmA close to the release of ArmA II.

The animations in ArmA II are a significant improvement over ArmA's. The AI also use AT weapons and grenade launchers much more effectively. Personally, I wouldn't want to see a different command interface as I find ArmA II's to suit the type of game that it is perfectly well, and I am quite used to how it works.

And to be perfectly honest, the gameplay in ArmA II is definitely improved over OFP. Though like many people here, I've had much more fun playing OFP than I have playing ArmA II. But that's not to say I haven't had fun playing ArmA II, far from it. I love the game. I just love(d) OFP more. :D

[Herbal Influence 10]

Does anybody really know what the cpu has to do to send all (!) AIs into cover etc. etc. - I mean all of the AI behaviour improvements in AA2?

(Not to mention the better graphics.)

This kind of artificial intelligence of complete "individual" reaction of each single AI to the complete "indidvidual" environmental perspective of each and every single AI in a combat situation is simply cpu (and gpu - just for the visiuality) -demanding.

I love the AIs for it.

They are that "intelligent" that they even have humanlike misunderstanding (friendly fire sometimes) or spontaneous paradoxi - there are many examples in special threads about it.

And I did place intelligence above only in "..." because it's only "simulated" intelligence and not (not yet ;-) ) indeed human intelligence ... ;-)

I vote for intelligence.

Even if I will have more than 40 fraps continously only in my next rig.

I am patient.

I know I will do AA2 the next decade. ;-)

It's simply as that: This game is made for today and (!) for the next decade - like OFP (and AA1) is playable until today with greatest fun.

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

Can I just put my pennys worth in? My 8800GTX plays every game I've thrown at it to date, other than ArmA 2. Empire Total War on ultra? No problem! Far Cry 2 high? No worries mate! Crysis high? Easy! GTA IV high? Of course! DOW 2 maxed? Definitely! Need for Speed Shift maxed? Yep! COD World at War maxed? Too true! Dead Space, Call of Juarez, GRID, Fallout 3.. you get the picture!

The 8800GTX is dated now, if you compare it to current cards. A year after its release? Give me a break! This card was one of the most powerful GPUs in its time, rivalled by.. well, nothing. The fact that I can still max out all of those games I mentioned is testament to just how much of a beast it was, and in my mind still is. Have you ever owned one? You would think differently if you had.

It just so happens people, that today I managed to solve all my performance woes with ArmA 2.. by setting the interface size to normal! Yep, it has somehow made the game perform and look like a playable game. Only, it isn't is it?!

There are still the AI bugs to sort out, but I have changed my mind. I am going to persevere, start from the beginning again and see what happens this time round. I have never come across a game that is so good and yet so appalling at the same time.

I'm off to play now, I have a playable frame rate.. and it looks sexy at the same time!

---------- Post added at 09:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:23 PM ----------

Just to bolster my argument 'luhgnut'.. check out the high end GPU benchmark chart, see where the 8800GTX comes?

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

Hey my 486 was the SHNITZ! I'm just really cheezed off at BIS for making a game that it can't play. Will they ever fix it so I can with 256Meg of shared video ram?

Just because a card was super hot FOUR YEARS AGO. Doesn't mean a hill of beans with a next gen game. So you look at a chart that has a benchmark. You're card is ranked 28th. TWENTY - EIGHT. and you're proud? But still can't run the game without a HIGH END card that's ranked 28th?

They sampled many many cards, and flavors and so forth just because it's SORTA near the top doesn't mean you're anywhere near cutting edge.

[kklownboy 43]

well he(dannyboyee82) doesn't seem to think that A2 is the most demanding game out there. More than Crysis...And if you cant run it well then you cant see why it is demanding.. Most complaints are about the Campaign... and it will forever be that way for players who only buy games for the ingame content...But the vast majority of ARMA players are not doing the campaign (maybe once) but are playing online or downloading missions. It doesn't make it right for the ingame only players, and you will never ever please them, so they will complain and complain, then go on to a new game, and come back here to complain some more, Because they just don't get it.

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

Can I just put my pennys worth in? My 8800GTX plays every game I've thrown at it to date, other than ArmA 2. Empire Total War on ultra? No problem! Far Cry 2 high? No worries mate! Crysis high? Easy! GTA IV high? Of course! DOW 2 maxed? Definitely! Need for Speed Shift maxed? Yep! COD World at War maxed? Too true! Dead Space, Call of Juarez, GRID, Fallout 3.. you get the picture!

The 8800GTX is dated now, if you compare it to current cards. A year after its release? Give me a break! This card was one of the most powerful GPUs in its time, rivalled by.. well, nothing. The fact that I can still max out all of those games I mentioned is testament to just how much of a beast it was, and in my mind still is. Have you ever owned one? You would think differently if you had.

It just so happens people, that today I managed to solve all my performance woes with ArmA 2.. by setting the interface size to normal! Yep, it has somehow made the game perform and look like a playable game. Only, it isn't is it?!

There are still the AI bugs to sort out, but I have changed my mind. I am going to persevere, start from the beginning again and see what happens this time round. I have never come across a game that is so good and yet so appalling at the same time.

I'm off to play now, I have a playable frame rate.. and it looks sexy at the same time!

---------- Post added at 09:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:23 PM ----------

Just to bolster my argument 'luhgnut'.. check out the high end GPU benchmark chart, see where the 8800GTX comes?

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

Oh... BTW... that hotshot E8400???? I checked on overclockers and guess what it's best framerate was for Crysis at a decent resolution? 22FPS on Crysis. And that's at medium quality settings. And obviously A2 is more brutal than Crysis. And that's with an Asus EN8800GT TOP. So yeah, you say you can play other games to date.... barely.

[trickster1982 10]

Im sorry but the steep requirements arent justified if you compare A2 with Armed Assault. A 4.0 dual/quad?? What for?

The a.i. is the same, it just uses better pathfinding and cover. Same graphics, same physics, same hitpoint damage system, same everything.

A2 runs bad because its poorly optimised/developed, same reason there is no scalability whatsoever.

The simulation of trees and houses makes A2 run bad, wich is ridiculous.

The game requires the best graphics card/CPU out there for no reason.

I'd have to disagree there, im running it fine on a two year old system!admittedly it was absolutely top of the market when i bought it,but its probably only around mid range now!

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

I'd have to disagree there, im running it fine on a two year old system!admittedly it was absolutely top of the market when i bought it,but its probably only around mid range now!

Yeah, I had an 8800GTX+ Overclocked. (Which is faster than this guys). But I didn't marry it.