Specs to run Arma 2 falsely advertised?

[Sniperdoc 0]

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

I am trying... I really am. But it gets really aggravating when I see the texture popping... the slow LOD changes and the overall slowness that happens when the LOD changes.

All in all... it does have great features and it CAN be fun... but man... It's really a pisser when you're trying to just run in one direction, then go 90^0 and your game becomes a slideshow... I get better performance out of Crysis.

Now that I've seen the post about the hard drive access, the AI being having no CPU use issues, etc. It's like, "WTF did they test this game on... the Blue Gene, NECs Earth Simulator or the MDGrape-3?"

There should be no excuse for all these issues because the game should have been optimized to reduce those types of problems.

That's my beef... it's not the fun factor, it's not the amount of people playing, and not that Joe-Schmoe enjoys playing the game at 320x200 CGA gfx if that's what floats his boat.

It's that they advertised these really nice graphics, that the system specs were WAY below what I had, and the game on it's highest settings and even all settings (if you include the 8GB issue) has issues that should not exist because they should have been optimized or resolved. That's my beef with BIS/Arma2.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Sniperdoc

[jw custom 56]

I get better performance out of Crysis... now that I've seen the post about

I get better performance out of Mine sweeper, but with the features ArmA 2 offers i think i can survive with the much lower performance!

[franze 196]

Ok this thread has run it's course.

News flash, people: Computers are finicky things! Software doesn't always work out of the box! Water is wet & the sky is blue!

If you expect anything else from computers and software, then you might be better off getting a console.