Specs to run Arma 2 falsely advertised?

[Sniperdoc 0]

Kind of interesting when players have to run through hoops and handicap their computers to get this game to run properly.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1467099&postcount=1 - 1 AI vs the player and it still runs like garbage?

Or:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1348685&postcount=120 - I mean come on... 20fps??? That's a great rig and 20fps???

Or:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1465516&postcount=1 - An ATI 5870 and STILL runs crappy?

Or:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=88629 - running Arma 2 on a SSD or a RamDrive??? Are you kidding me? You're going to invest up to $800 just to play a game that is designed poorly and scales even worse?

What about the people that have this problem?

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/4141/arma28gb.jpg

I mean seriously... It's been 7 months... a brand new generation of GPU has been released and the game still doesn't perform...? There's a problem here people.

[dmarkwick 261]

I'm sure there's a rule about cross-posting your grievances around the place.

Anyway. I run ArmA2 on a system that nearly 5 years old. Runs fine, on mostly medium settings. What do you have to say about the non-problematic situations, which must surely be in the majority?

Not as much fun as judging something based on the most extreme cases though. As per. Carry on :)

[Godders 10]

This is why there are less than a thousand people playing this game online at any one time (xFire stats); progressively fewer and fewer people are buying into the series because BI's rep for badly coded games has snowballed exponentially over the years.

Simple fact is they don't know how to code properly. The engine was a disaster from day one (with OFP) and no amount of work they've done on it since then has made it run properly. Basically you need a rig with huge grunt to get it to work even half acceptably. Anyone with an average rig is screwed, no matter what settings they use.

But you'll hear plenty of BS from the fan boys, who apparently can play it on low-spec laptops with all settings maxed at 50+ FPS. :rolleyes:

[dayglow 2]

Really BI should have been smarter and renamed 'normal' in the options menu to 'very high', then named 'high' ultra and then extreme at the 'very high settings'.

[dmarkwick 261]

Simple fact is they don't know how to code properly. The engine was a disaster from day one (with OFP) and no amount of work they've done on it since then has made it run properly. Basically you need a rig with huge grunt to get it to work even half acceptably. Anyone with an average rig is screwed, no matter what settings they use.

But you'll hear plenty of BS from the fan boys, who apparently can play it on low-spec laptops with all settings maxed at 50+ FPS. :rolleyes:

Did you even read the post immediately above yours? I can attest first hand that the game runs on at least an average rig. My rig is possibly even less than average by now, and yet I can run the game fine, and even develop on it.

Your post is a lie. As it's your first ever post (at least on THIS account ;)) I might put this down to trolling, duplicate-account-peer-fellating opinion padding.

[Godders 10]

Did you even read the post immediately above yours? I can attest first hand that the game runs on at least an average rig. My rig is possibly even less than average by now, and yet I can run the game fine, and even develop on it.

Your post is a lie. As it's your first ever post (at least on THIS account ;)) I might put this down to trolling, duplicate-account-peer-fellating opinion padding.

You can claim whatever bullshit you like, and if anyone is lying it's you. Too many people (hundreds on these forums alone, never mind elsewhere) have reported dire performance on top spec rigs. There're even now threads recommending the use of RAM drives and SSDs to try and get it performing properly...but there's you with your "average machine" just running it all fine and dandy. :rolleyes:

Do you think we're fools? Keep your trolling BS for the clowns mate, anyone who's not a mindless fan boy knows this game is a performance turkey.

[hamm 10]

If you remember correctly, ArmA performed pretty bad performance-wise until patch 1.8(?) where performance basically doubled for everyone. Hoping the same happens with ArmA2, albeit faster.

[TAW_RiEvEr 10]

This is why there are less than a thousand people playing this game online at any one time (xFire stats); progressively fewer and fewer people are buying into the series because BI's rep for badly coded games has snowballed exponentially over the years.

*yawns*

XFire doesn't reliably detect ArmA2 unless you have the Steam Version - and not many of us bought it there...

I play ArmA2 a lot, but unless I remember to manually start it from the XFire menu, it doesn't register the hours played.

Bit lame trying to use a broken piece of cack like XFire for your stats, isn't it? :rolleyes:

[Rista 0]

I'm sure there's a rule about cross-posting your grievances around the place.

Anyway. I run ArmA2 on a system that nearly 5 years old. Runs fine, on mostly medium settings. What do you have to say about the non-problematic situations, which must surely be in the majority?

Not as much fun as judging something based on the most extreme cases though. As per. Carry on :)

Could you please share your system specs? I don't agree at all with the engine being a "disaster" from day one claims but the game does run like ass on my 2 years old machine.

[dmarkwick 261]

You can claim whatever bullshit you like, and if anyone is lying it's you. Too many people (hundreds on these forums alone, never mind elsewhere) have reported dire performance on top spec rigs. There're even now threads recommending the use of RAM drives and SSDs to try and get it performing properly...but there's you with your "average machine" just running it all fine and dandy. :rolleyes:

Do you think we're fools? Keep your trolling BS for the clowns mate, anyone who's not a mindless fan boy knows this game is a performance turkey.

You've got, as I type, exactly 3 posts to your name, each one an obvious troll. You've conveniently "turned up" to pad the opinion of another troll a mere 11 minutes after the original post, and you're decrying anyone with a positive experience as BS. There is seemingly no reason for you to be on these boards with your entirely negative opinions, yet here you are :)

I think I can see what's going on ;)

And yes, I do think you're a fool, seeing as you asked me directly. Hopefully answering a direct question doesn't come under the "personal attack" descriptive :)

---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:17 PM ----------

Could you please share your system specs? I don't agree at all with the engine being a "disaster" from day one claims but the game does run like ass on my 2 years old machine.

Got a AMD 4800+, 2GB RAM, WinXP 32 Pro, 2x 250BG HD, Audigy 2, 320mb 8800GTS. The vid card isn't the card I originally put into the machine, I replaced it 3 years ago. Originally it was a 128mb 6800GT.

All components were thoroughly researched before putting them all together, it has been a great rig for all the time I've had it.

And yes, ArmA2 runs great on it. :) I promise.

Edited October 19, 2009 by DMarkwick

[jw custom 56]

OMFG here we go again... buhuu performance is poor, game is broken, according to xfire nobody is playing ArmA 2..... wahaaaaa!

Take a look around the forums and see how much is going on, people creating mods, maps and missions, tons of people helping eachother with scripting everyday.

[Sniperdoc 0]

What do you have to say about the non-problematic situations, which must surely be in the majority?

Not as much fun as judging something based on the most extreme cases though. As per. Carry on :)

Sure that's why there's what... 400 people playing this game... maybe?? Don't tell me Arma is a niche market... If the game actually worked, I would say more people would play it. More people play IL-2 still to this day than Arma 2... Flight sims are a niche market... FPS... don't think so.

If you remember correctly, ArmA performed pretty bad performance-wise until patch 1.8(?) where performance basically doubled for everyone. Hoping the same happens with ArmA2, albeit faster.

Arma still performs like crap because it still has the LOD/Texture issues that were present when it was released. Funny how that same problem persisted in Arma 2...? The developers surely do care about your gaming experience...

Edited October 19, 2009 by Sniperdoc

[dayglow 2]

I find it intertesting that our friend here, banned twice under the names

Langnasen and Hetzer, claimed when he first posted that he is a mature adult, yet keeps trolling these forums.

My experience is that there will always be whining about performance in any simulation released on the computer. My history is in flight sims and I can remember way back in the day the whining about Falcon 3.0 and how much of a dog it was, needing a 486DX to run the full flight model since it needed a math co-processor. Any sim released in it's day had to wait a few generations of hardware to catch up so you can run it at high resolutions at full detail. Longbow, Longbow 2, EF2000, Falcon 4, Janes F-15, F/A-18E, IL-2, Lock On, etc. They all were system hogs and didn't run at full tilt until years after release.

But guess what? They were enjoyable at lower settings. BI combat simulators are no different to me. The engine has always been a system hog and hasn't ran at full tilt until well after release and a few generations of hardware have come and gone.

Hell even the vaulted Crysis when it came out was ripped on because people jumped in wanting to play at high rez with everything set to very high. It was hammered on it's forums because people had to dial down the detail on their hot-rod rigs. Now a few hardware generations have passed and you are finally getting 30+ fps in very high at high resolutions in the game.

With A2 the underlying simulation of cambat is still very complex and runs very well if you are willing to step back a few notches on the details. That's why we play this game right? The gameplay?

[dmarkwick 261]

Sure that's why there's what... 400 people playing this game... maybe?? Don't tell me Arma is a niche market... If the game actually worked, I would say more people would play it. More people play IL-2 still to this day than Arma 2... Flight sims are a niche market... FPS... don't think so.

Meaningless idiocy. I can snap my fingers and say, with as much authority as you, that there are in excess of 20,000 people playing ArmA2.

[Alex72 1]

Playing the game very well here too. And so does everyone i know. There are videos showing good systems playing ARMA2 extremely well, and then there are some people complaining with the same systems...

Calling us "liars" because the game runs fine on our systems - wonder who the troll is.

Maybe take a course in PC knowledge - basic course.

[Sniperdoc 0]

But if the gameplay suffers because of texture popping, intermittent lag because of LOD loading, etc... I mean come on... you can't fool anyone that the Dev's system (mentioned in one of the posts) that was a Q6600 (non-overclocked) with 2GB of RAM with a 8800GT ran this thing maxed?

Did the developers say: "Oh well, the game is just laggy and has poor texture/LOD loading issues because we coded the game with the future specifications in mind"?

I mean seriously... the same problem in Arma 1 present in Arma 2??? What kind of slap in the face is that? Running a single AI on a map and experiencing slowdown?

I don't see godrays, high dynamic shadows, great physics consuming gpu power here...?! What is making it run like crap? Can't be the view distance as after 500m's all the sprites pretty much disappear... so wtf is the issue?

This game has maybe 400 solid players... MAYBE... you don't think there's issue with that?

As far as the Longbow 1 & 2, EF2000, etc comment... those were the days when games worked. I never had a problem running any of the games using the specs advertised on the box... this is one of the few (aside from Crysis) that doesn't and requires an SSD/RamDrive, only 2GB of RAM, and Windows XP 32-bit to play. Instead, people that run specs well beyond that have all kinds of issues... that's really great scaling... :(

[jw custom 56]

and requires an SSD/RamDrive, only 2GB of RAM, and Windows XP 32-bit to play. Instead, people that run specs well beyond that have all kinds of issues... that's really great scaling... :(

Wuhuu i'm on Windows XP 32-bit without a SSD(for now) and i can run ArmA 2 very nicely

[dayglow 2]

But if the gameplay suffers because of texture popping, intermittent lag because of LOD loading, etc... I mean come on... you can't fool anyone that the Dev's system (mentioned in one of the posts) that was a Q6600 (non-overclocked) with 2GB of RAM with a 8800GT ran this thing maxed?

Did the developers say: "Oh well, the game is just laggy and has poor texture/LOD loading issues because we coded the game with the future specifications in mind"?

I mean seriously... the same problem in Arma 1 present in Arma 2??? What kind of slap in the face is that? Running a single AI on a map and experiencing slowdown?

I don't see godrays, high dynamic shadows, great physics consuming gpu power here...?! What is making it run like crap? Can't be the view distance as after 500m's all the sprites pretty much disappear... so wtf is the issue?

This game has maybe 400 solid players... MAYBE... you don't think there's issue with that?

As far as the Longbow 1 & 2, EF2000, etc comment... those were the days when games worked. I never had a problem running any of the games using the specs advertised on the box... this is one of the few (aside from Crysis) that doesn't and requires an SSD/RamDrive, only 2GB of RAM, and Windows XP 32-bit to play. Instead, people that run specs well beyond that have all kinds of issues... that's really great scaling... :(

really? You were ever on their forums when they came out? Pretty much the same here. Many people enjoying the game and people with uber rigs complaining that it doesn't run well. Many posts saying the specs on the box are lies, that they can't start the game, it crashes constantly, etc. Really nothing has changed on online sim forums in the last 15 years :cool:

Strange I don't need a RAM drive or a SSD to play ArmA2. Do have have stuttering from texture load? Every once in awhile, but it's not like I'm having micro pauses constantly. I all honesty I have for the most part a very good gaming experience. Couldn't tell you what my fps are, because I don't play a fps counter. My preseption is that it is pretty smooth unless there is a lot of action and explosions on screen at the same time. And these slow downs pass just as quickly as they set on.

The game runs fine. I've had to dial back some of my settings from very high to high and normal, but the image quality hasn't been hurt too bad by it. I simply don't expect it to run at full settings out of the box on my rig. Hopefully in a year or two after some upgrades to new technology it will run at very high across the board at high resolution ( and triple screens if I can every get that past the wife :D )

As of now, I've had to make some consessions to play it. I don't feel cheated because of it because it still looks amazing and plays well on nomral and high.

[Zipper5 74]

I wouldn't call my rig top end, but it's a damn good rig. It runs ArmA II excellently. Never goes below 30 FPS on full settings (view distance not included, obviously). I think the issue is more on the users end, not the developers. Though, of course, there is still some improvements that need to be made, and will be made (knowing BIS), to the game's performance. If you came here expecting your rig to produce 70 FPS+, then of course you're going to be let down. It's a much more demanding game than other mainstream titles, not because of coding, but because of what it is calculating.

Edit: Lol, forgot to include my specs.

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00GHz

nVidia GeForce GTX 280

2GB DDR2 RAM

Windows XP Professional SP3

Edited October 19, 2009 by Zipper5
Specs included.

[froggyluv 2136]

Agree with Dayglow.

I guess different people see the same sh#t differently. Me? I'd rather have an ambitious highly enjoyable wide-world mil-sim in need of performance tweaks and bug hunting, than a dainty, little, highly optimized 1000 FPS reaching scaled down "Tac-shooter' with no new features. That polish comes at a price too steep for my interest.

WTF people? Who else has done it? CM? If thats your thing than by all means go for it. The fact is the only game i know of this scale that runs smooth is Arma1, and that took time -so give this one some to.

[zeep 3]

Look, it's namecalling what derails this thread. Whether or not you agree with the OP, or what you think of him, i'd like this thread to remain on topic and see arma2's performance problem(s) discussed and adressed by a dev for once.

Every time a thread like this is started i secretly hope a dev will finally post his thoughts on the issue, but then the thread derails hopelessly.. Can you two parties stop bashing heads now? There are people who are ok with how the game runs, and people that are not. Period. If it runs for you, fine. If it doesn't, good luck.

I'd like to know if BI acknowledges the performance issues (for a part of their users) and if they plan to fix them. What place does it have on their To-Do list? What are their thoughts regarding it?

Maybe a more realistic question would be: Is the engine even capable of delivering more performance?

[Sniperdoc 0]

Meaningless idiocy. I can snap my fingers and say, with as much authority as you, that there are in excess of 20,000 people playing ArmA2.

Meaningless idiocy eh? Everyone on these boards has touted the MP aspect and how great it is right? So, how come, in MP I see about 400 - 450 people playing... and that's it? Friggin' christ... come on... I'm even being generous here. Look at the Steam stats: http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

Arma 2 is 4th from the last with less than 100 players and a max of 200 in the last 48 hours. That's just using Steam statistics. What about the others that used physical media or other e-media. Lets be generous... 1000 if you're lucky???

No idiocy there DM... I mean come on... NBA2K9 has twice as many players listed and that's a niche MP market. America's Army with almost 3 times the amount of players? Half-life 2... 10x the amount of players... and it's how old? So, who are you trying to fool? This game should be well in the 10,000's of players. But...

There is an inherent flaw with Arma 2 and people are tired of it. That's why the MP is usually only filled with ~400 people. It's a broken game, and all of you are making excuses for having to use extra hardware, software fixes, special switches, etc etc... Hell, if I have 4GB of RAM my game should run better right? If I have two GTX280s vs one 8800GT it should run MUCH better right? But it's almost the opposite with Arma. Those with 8GB of RAM have nothing but issues.

So, if you want to use HIGH settings on a medium/low end rig... you make the excuse that you can't run it cause your rig is only average. But those people that WANT to use high end settings CAN'T even though the specs are WELL 4x beyond what is required by the Recommended Specs on the box??? How is that right?!

This isn't frickin' linux... You paid for a product... it shouldn't be the communities responsibility to fix this game... if you don't see that the supporters of Arma 2's success are in the MINORITY... then... I don't know what else to say.

This is about making BIS wake up and smell the coffee. That they should be doing better and should be doing for the community. Instead they're coming out with an expansion instead of fixing the inherent flaws that have existed since at least OFP and Arma 1. Instead they've done nothing but propagate the issue instead of mitigating it. That's my ultimate problems and the consistent reason why I keep coming back.

I see nothing but good in this game, but because of whatever reason, it's being held back. I'm no coder, but a large amount of posts on this forum just point to inherent flaws in this game that need to be fixed.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Sniperdoc

[Zipper5 74]

Jesus, why does everyone think that the number of players playing a game makes it better than one that has less people playing it? Must be something to do with disgruntled users of the CM forums coming over here to vent or something, bringing their ideas of what makes a game good (yeah, we all saw how that turned out) with them.

BIS got extremely good sales with ArmA II as far as I am aware. Higher than ArmA got in the same amount of time after release. Don't know if it's gotten more than OFP did, I doubt it. But I wouldn't doubt it eventually selling more either.

But that's beside the point. What makes a game good is the game. Not how many people have bought it and are playing it. :j:

And BIS fix their games more than any other developer. Period. I don't get why you think they don't. Maybe it's because your specific issue hasn't been fixed. Not like BIS can cover everyone's problems.

Edit: Oh, and people aren't tired of the game. Maybe you are, but many others aren't. The BIS community is probably the most active modding community there has ever been. People are still making mods of OFP, 8 years after it's release. ArmA and ArmA II are also continuing the trend.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Zipper5

[dmarkwick 261]

But if the gameplay suffers because of texture popping, intermittent lag because of LOD loading, etc... I mean come on... you can't fool anyone that the Dev's system (mentioned in one of the posts) that was a Q6600 (non-overclocked) with 2GB of RAM with a 8800GT ran this thing maxed?

I mean seriously... the same problem in Arma 1 present in Arma 2??? What kind of slap in the face is that? Running a single AI on a map and experiencing slowdown?

This game has maybe 400 solid players... MAYBE... you don't think there's issue with that?

Guy, you keep dredging up exactly the same crap that people have already addressed. I don't believe you are taking in what people are replying to you. And not just me BTW, even I have seen several answers to EACH of those points myself, and I'm not even the one raising them. It's clear you cannot learn anything new, or take on board new information, or indeed make judgments with any kind of perspective.

[dmarkwick 261]

Meaningless idiocy eh? Everyone on these boards has touted the MP aspect and how great it is right? So, how come, in MP I see about 400 - 450 people playing... and that's it? Friggin' christ... come on... I'm even being generous here. Look at the Steam stats: http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

You see what I mean? You're still dredging up stuff that people have adressed already.

Arma 2 is 4th from the last with less than 100 players and a max of 200 in the last 48 hours. That's just using Steam statistics. What about the others that used physical media or other e-media. Lets be generous... 1000 if you're lucky???

Physical media, oh you must mean the single most sold kind of media about. Yeah, let's attach a figure from my ass here... 1000 if I'm lucky?

Tell you what, another figure from my ass is 50,000.

No idiocy there DM... I mean come on... NBA2K9 has twice as many players listed and that's a niche MP market. America's Army with almost 3 times the amount of players? Half-life 2... 10x the amount of players... and it's how old? So, who are you trying to fool?

Erm, if you're deciding to change the discussion into "what game is most played" all of a sudden I don't know what to say to that. Not what the discussion is, sorry. You need another kind of straw man.

There is an inherent flaw with Arma 2 and people are tired of it. That's why the MP is usually only filled with ~400 people. It's a broken game, and all of you are making excuses for having to use extra hardware, software fixes, special switches, etc etc... Hell, if I have 4GB of RAM my game should run better right? If I have two GTX280s vs one 8800GT it should run MUCH better right? But it's almost the opposite with Arma. Those with 8GB of RAM have nothing but issues.

That 400 figure is really hardwired into you isn't it? I'm betting that no information you will ever read will shift that.

The "inherent flaw" that puts so many people off (as you think) is possibly the same "inherent flaw" that many more people find attractive.

So, if you want to use HIGH settings on a medium/low end rig... you make the excuse that you can't run it cause your rig is only average. But those people that WANT to use high end settings CAN'T even though the specs are WELL 4x beyond what is required by the Recommended Specs on the box??? How is that right?!

*shrug* some people do. Cannot explain it.

This isn't frickin' linux... You paid for a product... it shouldn't be the communities responsibility to fix this game... if you don't see that the supporters of Arma 2's success are in the MINORITY... then... I don't know what else to say.

The way I see it, many more people are happy with the game. I guess it depends on what attracts your eye maybe, if you choose to lurk in the troubleshooting forum, that's all you'll see. I hang about in the other forums, and I see an entirely different picture.