Few questions to devs.

[jw custom 56]

Few questions to developers.

Question 5

My system is a XPS M1730 Laptop with Intel Core 2 Duo T7300 2.0 GHz + 4 GB RAM + SLI 8700M GT 256 MB (it's 512 MB in SLI) running Windows Vista 64. Will I be able to play the game on medium up to high settings?

Just have to get my LOL in before this thread get's locked for OP behaving poorly :)

Here it comes..... LOL

[txalin 2]

it's does not support a majority of graphic cards <---- ????????

not so advanced (it's only DX9 so year 2005 at most) <----- ????????

Don't feed the troll....

[cm. 10]

Seriously guys, as much as the OP is a little mis-guided, I think some of the replies are a bit uncalled for. I thought this was a mature community?

Goodwork to the devs for replying though!

[jw custom 56]

Seriously guys, as much as the OP is a little mis-guided, I think some of the replies are a bit uncalled for. I thought this was a mature community?

Well there's only so much one can bare to hear :)

[mr burns 131]

Few questions to developers.

Question 1

If ArmA2 perform so badly on so many machines with different configuration, how do you expect me to buy the game and get pissed off that I can't play it with proper settings?

Question 2

If the game performs so bad, for me it looks like you released a game on an engine that isn't finished neither compatible with broad range of specifications that are available on the market these days and that you expect me to do the testing for you. Why was it released before all the tweaking and tuning was done?

Question 3

I read a lot that the game performs better on Windows XP. How come you released the game that it's not compatible with up to date systems like Windows Vista and 7?

Question 4

How come the game supports only 2 GB of RAM and is so dependent on processor power?

Question 5

My system is a XPS M1730 Laptop with Intel Core 2 Duo T7300 2.0 GHz + 4 GB RAM + SLI 8700M GT 256 MB (it's 512 MB in SLI) running Windows Vista 64. Will I be able to play the game on medium up to high settings?

sry, could´nt resist

[maturin 12]

Why did Lunch make you smarter?

[Zipper5 74]

I don't see how you expect BIS to test the game with Windows 7 when Windows 7 wasn't even released when ArmA II was. The beta or release candidate may have been, but it's very unprofessional in my eyes to design a game around unfinished operating systems. And Vista... Well... Is Vista. It's nearly impossible to make a game flawless with that operating system, or any software/hardware for that matter.

Perhaps you'll be able to play ArmA II at medium settings with that laptop, but not too well. ArmA II doesn't perform badly on all systems. For example, mine runs almost constantly between 40 and 60 FPS on very high settings. In fact, it performs to a reasonable level for most people on this forum who have a mid-to-high-range system, so don't make such wrong generalisations based on your own performance, and the performance of those who have mid-to-low-range systems expecting to max the game out. Yours is falling into the mid-to-low-range category.

Here's my system specs in case you cared:

nVidia GeForce GTX 280

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00GHz

2GB DDR2 RAM

[metsapeikkoo 10]

I think almost all of you guys are full of bullshit.

Read the 140 pages of troubleshooting and you will see where I'm coming from.

The game engine is advanced, but.... not so advanced (it's only DX9 so year 2005 at most) it does not utilize 4+ GB RAM which is bad because it comes at a cost of loading most of the textures straight up from the hard drive and it's does not support a majority of graphic cards as well it's not utilizing the newest technologies and operating systems.

The engine code itself is fcuked that's why it utilizes so much of the processor.

My laptop which I briefly described at the beginning of this post is nothing comparing to the high end desktops that are at the market at the moment.

I never sad it is or whatsoever but from what the recommended setting says it's enough to run the game on medium details.

This machine managed to run with decent fps all of so called by you "arcade games" on high details in resolution 1440x900 which I find acceptable for a 17" screen.

I know ArmA2 is different I know it's a SIM.

Thou when I read comments of textures flickering on desktops better than my laptop while set to lowest resolution and lowest details than it's obvious it's not the hardware or the drivers but the game itself that dose the magic.

Some of you find yourself lucky enough to play this game without a problem and you go around this forum posting you silly opinions about which I don't really give a fcuk that's why my question was directed to dev.

Anyway there is only one or two replies in that big wall of bullshit you posted that really answers some of my questions.

Still the main one stays mystery.

Will I be able to play it with some decent details, because running around in a world of blurry textures and bear land or whatsoever is not really my thing.

I love the idea of ArmA and OF because that's what the games should really look like these days - as most realistic as possible but still....

P.S. 1 Scrub you say "Latest betas makes #4 irrelevant" does it means the game now supports more than 2 GB of ram?

P.S. 2 Don't tell me to go read the forum because that's what I did.

Then why the hell did you even bother to ask the people that actually have the game for their opinions if you have allready decided yours BEFORE you made the damn topic?

Also, maybe you should create a game-engine, and then start to make it 64bit versions with DX11 implimentation. (Also, whats even the point to bother with DX10 since it doesn't bring any significant changes whatsoever.)

And I would suggest you go and buy Call of Duty since it works so well on your laptop.

Not to mention that most of us find us "lucky" to be "able to play withouth problems."

Another suggestion; Sell your laptop, buy Xbox 360 and go play some COD.

[jw custom 56]

Why did Lunch make you smarter?

sushi :D

[cossack8559 10]

Use this to see if you can run arma2!

http://cyri.systemrequirementslab.com/srtest/

[FGM 10]

Question 1

• I don't think ARMA 2 goes so badly. However, it's easy to drop down FPS significantly by wrong graphic settings which might be the most common issue people have.
  
• Please, do try ARMA 2 demo which contains the benchmark mission to test your hardware.
  

Question 2

• Real Virtuality 3 is definitely the most advanced engine for a military sim game ever made. It's being constantly developed and enhanced for last 10 years.
  
• Learn more about Real Virtuality 3.
  

Question 3

• ARMA 2 is fully compatible with Windows XP, Vista 32/64 and Windows 7 (with the latest beta patch)
  
• Please, check the ARMA 2 Beta Patch download page.
  

Question 4

• ARMA 2 supports 2+ GB RAM on 64bit systems. For Widows 7 install the latest beta patch.
  
• Please, check the ARMA 2 Beta Patch download page.
  

Question 5

• Most probably the limit of your computer is the processor. I recomend at least core 2 duo 3ghz and GF8800 for fluent gameplay on standard settings.
  

Thank you for a proper reply. Downloading the game now from Steam, I hope it will work. Will keep you updated, troll's out.

Troll says LOL to you guys :)

---------- Post added at 08:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:23 PM ----------

Do I have to install the beta patches one after another? Or just install the latest one?

[vilas 477]

Few questions to developers.

Question 5

My system is a XPS M1730 Laptop with Intel Core 2 Duo T7300 2.0 GHz + 4 GB RAM + SLI 8700M GT 256 MB (it's 512 MB in SLI) running Windows Vista 64. Will I be able to play the game on medium up to high settings?

heh

such hardware is poor and not for games, on this computer you can play COD2

[De_little_Bubi 1]

Do I have to install the beta patches one after another? Or just install the latest one?

only latest.

[jw custom 56]

Thank you for a proper reply. Downloading the game now from Steam, I hope it will work.

And trying the demo first was absolutely not an option :butbut:

[W0lle 1048]

If the flamebaiting and name calling doesn't stop we simply close the thread. That goes especially to the threadstarter.

[zoog 18]

Personally I don't think your system can run the game decently, but it also depends on what you expect from it. I want at least 5000 viewdistance, stuff like that.

Let us know how it runs. Be sure to install the beta patch too, and launch the game via the arma2.exe inside the beta folder, because running the regular arma2.exe will launch just the official version without beta.

[An Fiach 10]

That processor is not up to the task, not even in minimum specs.

[kklownboy 43]

1900 x 1200 is a big nice rez, and for your awesome laptop! Really its a nice laptop!, But.... 1900/1200 is way to much for your GPUs... You only have 256MB of actual Vidram... And though your GPUs for a Laptop in 2007 where the top Laptop GPU(s) they are about = to a 8600GT,so two 8600GTs with less ram on a 128bit bus... Here are some posts and benches to compare to other games ( using the 8600GT or 2x8600gt= 8800gs? with 256mb vidram)

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46754

this post is best;

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1126099&postcount=12

Then your CPU is not the high end one they used to offer(2.8) and is actually very slow for most missions, ( dont even think about the campaign!).

On average A2 is the MOST demanding game there is. Your best bet it to scale you Display screen down to 1024/768, and run on low to med detail. At 4000$, or 2900$ for your version? you can buy Desktop Build your own that is 20x faster....

[Colt45_GTO 10]

i know whats going to come next.....

he will possibly turn round and try to confirm everything he asked in his OP and slate the game purely because the laptop wont run it smooth.

but then we never know, his laptop may have been built by chuck norris and kick Arma's ass!?

who knows? personally i hope it works for him, bad start or not. atleast he is giving it a try!

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

i know whats going to come next.....

he will possibly turn round and try to confirm everything he asked in his OP and slate the game purely because the laptop wont run it smooth.

but then we never know, his laptop may have been built by chuck norris and kick Arma's ass!?

who knows? personally i hope it works for him, bad start or not. atleast he is giving it a try!

OK, no Chuck Norris jokes. Or I'll have Chuck Norris beat up your Chuck Norris. What is this Barren's Chat?

[FGM 10]

Well after hours of testing it runs o.k. on beta (it's a bit choppy), with :

Both res.-1280x1024

Visibility-3000

Texture-High

VM-Default

AF-Disabled

AA-Disabled

Terrain-Low

Objects-Normal

Shadow-High

PP-V.High great improve in fps if I turn it off but I like the effect :)

[andersson 285]

I suggest you have a look at Q's tweaks http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=85739

I guess you can find a few that can improve the performance (+ there are other tweaks that you might like).

I use quite a few on my laptop, arma2 is not playable for me (Dell latitude D620) but atleast I can edit and make missions while Im away on a job.

[Colt45_GTO 10]

i'm glad its working ok for you.

[InFireBaptize 0]

Well after hours of testing it runs o.k. on beta (it's a bit choppy), with :

Both res.-1280x1024

Visibility-3000

Texture-High

VM-Default

AF-Disabled

AA-Disabled

Terrain-Low

Objects-Normal

Shadow-High

PP-V.High great improve in fps if I turn it off but I like the effect :)

lower down your view distance to 1600, it will increase your fps and slowly increase, normal texture should be fine.

[zoog 18]

Well after hours of testing it runs o.k. on beta (it's a bit choppy), with :

Both res.-1280x1024

Visibility-3000

Texture-High

VM-Default

AF-Disabled

AA-Disabled

Terrain-Low

Objects-Normal

Shadow-High

PP-V.High great improve in fps if I turn it off but I like the effect :)

On this page http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,685770/Armed-Assault-2-Graphics-card-benchmarks-and-visual-quality-compared/Practice/?page=2 you can see screens regarding different settings (low/high) and how that looks in-game. Many settings can be turned low while the difference in visuals is not *that* significant.