Specs to run Arma 2 falsely advertised?

[Tobie 10]

Jesus, why does everyone think that the number of players playing a game makes it better than one that has less people playing it?

the more players playing a game the more servers there are. and the more variety you have. that makes it better i think^^

[kklownboy 43]

hmm game runs great on my rig, i guess if i was a flyboy and had issues id be a cryboy...There are expectations, and the whole i get 20/30FPS it sux crowd, but its about being smooth. 25 smooth is fine, better than 60fps and stutter... as for only thinking Steam has the players... there are numerous non Gamespy/Steam/default ports games running, that with you attitude will never be able to enjoy. Then there is the http://arma2.swec.se/server/list for the gamespy ports. If you expect MOHAA type numbers... never going to happen even if it could run at a 100fps with a 6600gt.

[thepiespy 2]

wow the billionth rant thread bitching about performance and calling anyone who disagrees with them or tries to help them a "BIS Fanboy"

My game runs fine on med-high settings on a rig that costs about $1300

No DX11 cards, no SSDs, no 4ghz quad core

[Zipper5 74]

the more players playing a game the more servers there are. and the more variety you have. that makes it better i think^^

Fair point. But for me, multiplayer is a very, very small portion of the entire game. Modding is where most of the action is at. Be it mission making, or addon making, or both. Fiddling with the game is what I enjoy to do.

[fincuan 0]

For my part I'll confirm that the requirements aren't bloated at all, they're pretty spot on. I've been running Arma2 on what could be classified as a pretty shitty rig by today's standards, it was assembled half a year before the release of A1 after all, and it's easily playable with medium-low settings. FPS varies between 15-60. Outside the big cities I can even record video with FRAPS while playing.

C2D E6400 @ 2.77ghz

2x Radon X1950Pro 256 mb

4gb ram

Win7 RC1 x64

[jw custom 56]

the more players playing a game the more servers there are. and the more variety you have. that makes it better i think^^

But again it depends on which type of players playing. Some games got really many players/servers but most of them are filled with kids, cheaters and whiners. So more is not always better.

Another thing making ArmA 2 great is the community and it's players, this game attract more mature players which shows ingame, sure there's always an idiot around but overall it's a good crowd :cool:

[maddogx 13]

I just took the time to do a quick player count. On all servers visible to me in the MP browser, I'm seeing over 800 players. If I filter out everything that's passworded, has less than 2 players or a ping >100 I've still got around 40 servers with a total of ~300 players to choose from. I (like many others) don't play on public servers, but if I did I'd say I have enough to choose from.

Not that it matters either way, but the 400 number is bollocks,

[Sniperdoc 0]

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

K... even if that's sales.. how do you explain ~400 people playing MP? (Ok according to MadDog it's 800... still a bit off from 50,000)

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

No... because it's observable fact. (then every time I'm on, EST in the evenings must be a lull in Arma time)

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

You like having to compromise to play a game? Ok... if that's your gig... I'm cool with that. Personally, I don't want to have to compromise to play a game. It advertises specs, I'm well above those specs, and I can't max out the game? What's the point in having better hardware then... every other game out there at least scales well with better hardware. This one... not so much.

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.

I don't just look at the negatives... I don't. Like I stated, I see good in Arma 2 (sound like frickin' Obi Wan... wtf), but I don't understand how BIS could be so blind as to not have resolved issues that have been prevalent in previous versions. Instead they "prey" on the die-hards to buy more of their stuff. They continue to propagate garbage, and the die-hards are eating it up fine because they say "it's good enough". How about that for some esteem issues? Get the damn thing fixed. It's your right as a human being to have a fully functional and working product. If you're compromising because you say "this is good enough for me" then you are one of the people contributing to the software industry's decline in quality control.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Sniperdoc

[dmarkwick 261]

I don't just look at the negatives... I don't. Like I stated, I see good in Arma 2 (sound like frickin' Obi Wan... wtf), but I don't understand how BIS could be so blind as to not have resolved issues that have been prevalent in previous versions. Instead they "prey" on the die-hards to buy more of their stuff. They continue to propagate garbage, and the die-hards are eating it up fine because they say "it's good enough". How about that for some esteem issues? Get the damn thing fixed. It's your right as a human being to have a fully functional and working product. If you're compromising because you say "this is good enough for me" then you are one of the people contributing to the software industry's decline in quality control.

LOD switching is a visual annoyance, but not exactly a gamebreaker. Not being able to max the settings might make you annoyed, but it's hardly a fucking human right. That is perhaps the most dumb thing I've ever seen on these boards, and I've seen some amount of dumb. As such, I cannot really in all good conscience carry on this discussion much longer.

Sniperdoc, ArmA2 isn't for you. There is a game engine perfect for you, it's called Crytek. It gives you excellent single player experience, centered around you the player exclusively. In multiplayer, there's no physics and no true free-roam freedom, but apparently that doesn't matter.

You're after a player-centric engine, which ArmA2 is not. Simple as, mate. You're simply looking in the wrong place for the wrong thing.

[qwertz 10]

I am GLAD that BIS made the decision to not optimize for the lowest common denominator and delivered a game that is taxing for most rigs for quite some time.

Let's face it: the Arma franchise is doing something that NO OTHER game developer has achieved so far. A vast, open world with incredible detail and graphic quality. You don't get that for free.

They could have done what all other developers have done so far: make sure that it runs on your average rig (or a console), so no open worlds, blurry textures, dumb scripted gameplay, bad graphics etc.

These are all design decisions (as opposed to incapabilities of the programmers) and I am happy that BIS is going for the max here. So we can be sure the game looks fresh even in a few years when the next generation of hardware is out.

Until then, I just had to use the info on this forum and some of my time and my own research to find ways to play the game completely smooth on max, even on today's hardware.

[Nanthaka 10]

The arma community has probably older people playing than other gaming communities and therefore have families and nagging wives, coupled with work, to contend with. Also the kick ass mission editor sort of takes players away from the online aspect of the game as people are tinkering and practicing their flying etc.

Take these factors into account along with the biggest and brightest, friendliest modding community bar non.

No mom jokes or "you teh suck n00b !" have I ever witnessed in any of the Arma servers. I'm sure there are people that do, but the average player is far more composed than your average CSS player. True maybe the majority of the Arma community fail at twitch shooters as its not their cuppa tea. Some of us can hold our own mind you, despite being older :)

I admit the game runs like crap but I am positive BIS will sort these problems in no time. They really do look after their community and other devs should take their stance into account. Infinity Ward want to butcher dedicated and modded servers and use some kind of match making for the next CoD game. I like CoD, many people here do not but if IW path is the future of online gaming they ain't getting my money.

[Zeron 10]

The good community never replaces or compensate the errors,mistakes caused by the underequipped and staffed developers.

But really, why we act like this is something new. Arma1 was a disaster in the same way Arma2 is. Of course the devs promised Arma2 will be what Arma1 should have been.

Its enough to say how the servers die when someone joins. Bad netcode, we could go on. Still we like this game and play it for what it offers, but we play this game because this is the only one offering these features, not because its such a masterpiece or because its well programmed, we know its not. ;)

So really you knew what to expect after Armed Assault 1, you decided to buy this product, and you probably will purchase the next Arma as well.

[Sniperdoc 0]

Not being able to max the settings might make you annoyed, but it's hardly a fucking human right. That is perhaps the most dumb thing I've ever seen on these boards, and I've seen some amount of dumb. As such, I cannot really in all good conscience carry on this discussion much longer.

If a game promises to deliver a maximum setting experience and it fails on a system that's 4x more than what is advertised I would hardly call that dumb.

You're after a player-centric engine, which ArmA2 is not. Simple as, mate. You're simply looking in the wrong place for the wrong thing.

Actually I'm after a graphically whole experience. Arma 2 was touted to offer that, and it did not and as several high spec rig people are posting on the forum. The game fails to deliver at the settings they stated using the recommended specs. So, to speak up because of this is wrong?

I can guarantee you there's not a single person on this forum getting smooth gameplay using max settings, using a rig specd to their "recommended settings".

Edited October 19, 2009 by Sniperdoc

[Zipper5 74]

The game is far from mediocre. Given that you've just made that statement, you've just confirmed what DMarkwick said - this game is not meant for you. If all you're looking for in ArmA II is a "graphically whole experience" then you could do much better.

Also - you may have a rig above the recommended specs, but on quick inspection I can tell that you can't blame poor performance in games with your specs. You have many configurations that are known to have compatibility issues with many games, not just ArmA II. SLI, for example.

[jw custom 56]

Actually I'm after a graphically whole experience. Arma 2 was touted to offer that, and it did not and as several high spec rig people are posting on the forum.

Too bad for you it didn't deliver what you expected, but we are actually quite a few who are satisfied.

[dmarkwick 261]

If a game promises to deliver a maximum setting experience and it fails on a system that's 4x more than what is advertised I would hardly call that dumb.

Sorry guy but your comment is quoted for posterity :) I wouldn't be surprised if JW Custom adds it to his sig :D

I don't think ArmA2 promised that you can max your settings and get great performance from the optimal rig setup. The optimal rig setup gets you good gameplay at good performance, and as always more hardware is better. If you bought the game hoping for flawless max settings and cannot get around the fact that you have to *shudder* compromise and tweak something, well try making a typical ArmA2 mission in Crytek and see how far that gets you. Seriously, try it. Won't happen.

Actually I'm after a graphically whole experience.

That says it all. Everything you've been moaning about makes sense. You wish for a pretty game. ArmA2 offers a certain amount of graphical quality, but the real meat of the game engine is not revealed graphically. I guess people have been trying to tell you this for a while now, but you're relentlessly graphics-centric and so cannot appreciate any other quality. Crytek is made for YOU.

Edited October 19, 2009 by DMarkwick

[maddogx 13]

I can guarantee you there's not a single person on this forum getting smooth gameplay using max settings, using a rig specd to their "recommended settings".

You seem to be under the false impression that you should be able to max out the game just because your system meets the "recommended" specs. Have you ever read the recommended specs on a game like Crysis? "DirectX 10 gfx card with 512MB VRAM". Hell, I should be able to max it out with an 8400GS...

[EricM 0]

When the game doesn't CTD (warfare!), it runs great on medium/high settings on Q6600 and G8800GTX here, that's about the recommended specs. I can't max it out all the time (except maybe on Utes) but most of the time it's quite enough.

Minimum specs = the game will load !

Recommended specs = the game will run ok on normal settings, not Maxed

[RN Escobar 0]

This OP smacks of someone that has popped over from the CM forums where there is currently a petition of sorts to get CM to o something about the false advertising on their box regarding dedicated servers.

Now as to the number of active players/servers at any one time i use this site

http://arma2.swec.se/server/list

and as i type this it shows 430 servers and 702 players, not great numbers and they don't compare to the likes of COD, BF etc etc but its a different type of game.

If as i suspect this OP is trolling as some kind of revenge for CM i will ask only one question, how many dedi servers are there for DR right now, oh yeah, none thats right since CM are not even developing one. You really think BIs do such a bad job looking after their community? at leat they had the foresight to release a dedi server package, and the scripting tools.

As for the client side, i have no issues running the game with everything except textures maxed 4000+m VD @ 1920x1200 on my 24" WS fraps reports a solid 50+ excpet in cherno where it drops to around 30FPS and sometimes stutters lower for a second or so.

everything at stock

Q9450, 4870X2, 4GB, option of vista64 or win7, i could list the rest but whats the point

[Alex72 1]

Yeah OP is being a dick.

Recommended specs is an indication - not a truth. This has been the case with many games. You know why? Because PC's are setup by folks who know and folks who dont know shit. There is a huge difference.

[ICE-Raver 10]

Game is running great for me since I upgraded my rig.

However I agree with the OP that the hardware specs for this game were mis-stated. I don't know whether that was intentional or not, but anyway. I got alot of my squadmates to play this game initially that had the "recommended specs" and out of about 12 guys only 1 still plays it. The others gave up within a week of trying to get it to run right. I myself had to tweak forever and spend alot of cash to get it to run right and I was above the recommended specs to begin with.

Edited October 19, 2009 by ICE-Raver

[Sniperdoc 0]

I don't think ArmA2 promised that you can max your settings and get great performance from the optimal rig setup. The optimal rig setup gets you good gameplay at good performance, and as always more hardware is better. If you bought the game hoping for flawless max settings and cannot get around the fact that you have to *shudder* compromise and tweak something, well try making a typical ArmA2 mission in Crytek and see how far that gets you. Seriously, try it. Won't happen.

Interesting... MSSQL 2008 states multiprocessor optimization and optimization for a cloud network environment. So X company buys MSSQL but finds it performs worse on a multiprocessor server environment... hmmmm who is at fault... the company that bought MSSQL or MS for presenting a product with X capabilities and then doesn't deliver?

Do they have the highest settings in there just so you can take nice looking screenshots or what? I mean seriously...

If as i suspect this OP is trolling as some kind of revenge for CM i will ask only one question, how many dedi servers are there for DR right now, oh yeah, none thats right since CM are not even developing one. You really think BIs do such a bad job looking after their community? at leat they had the foresight to release a dedi server package, and the scripting tools.

You make a lot of assumptions there. I'm actually impressed what CM has done with OFPDR considering they put it on a console and designed it for the console. Is it worthy of the type of PC games nowadays... no, by far not even a chance. But I also didn't have expectations of OFPDR since I knew they were making it for the consoles.

Of Arma 2, I also had no expectations other than "Hope they fixed Arma 1's problems". But that wasn't the case.

As for the client side, i have no issues running the game with everything except textures maxed 4000+m VD @ 1920x1200 on my 24" WS fraps reports a solid 50+ excpet in cherno where it drops to around 30FPS and sometimes stutters lower for a second or so.

Hmm considering I have better specs than you, I'd be curious to know if you get texture popping and LOD issues.

Yeah OP is being a dick.

I appreciate that observation. I speak my mind and people resort to name calling... very mature and against TOS.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Sniperdoc

[Tankbuster 1747]

duplicate-account-peer-fellating opinion padding.

Ouch!

[AndresCL 10]

Sniperdoc, have you ever tried to actually enjoy the game? With its flaws and all? It may not be perfect, but it is the best MILSIM we got

[dmarkwick 261]

Interesting... MSSQL 2008 states multiprocessor optimization and optimization for a cloud network environment. So X company buys MSSQL but finds it performs worse on a multiprocessor server environment... hmmmm who is at fault... the company that bought MSSQL or MS for presenting a product with X capabilities and then doesn't deliver?

That doesn't even have an analogy in this discussion. I have no idea what you're trying to say. Are you saying that better hardware makes NO difference in ArmA2?

I understand that you're distraught that you cannot whack the settings sliders all the way up to max. I understand that you find the LOD swapping a distraction to the exclusion of everything else. I'm sorry you cannot appreciate what the game CAN do :)

Anyway. Good luck with your struggle for.... dunno. Human rights? :D (Still funny.)