Question about performance in demo vs full version

[petz_e 10]

Hello,

The Demo does not work on my computer. It quits back to the desktop without a message right before the main menu.

2 x 2.26 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon

10 GB DDR3 RAM

ATI Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB RAM)

Windows7

Does this mean that the full game will not work either, or might this be just a problem with the demo?

[SASrecon 0]

That's quite an odd computer, 10GB RAM but only 2.26x2?

Are you sure this is right?

In this case I'd get a much better CPU if I were you...

I also wouldn't get the full game if you don't get it working on the demo ; )

But keep trying, it'll be worth it.

[Jack_Ryan_ 10]

Maybe check "can you run it" website.

[Angle 10]

That's quite an odd computer, 10GB RAM but only 2.26x2?

Are you sure this is right?

In this case I'd get a much better CPU if I were you...

I also wouldn't get the full game if you don't get it working on the demo ; )

But keep trying, it'll be worth it.

He has 2.26GHz*4*2 not 2.26x2. Quad, As in the number 4. I must say having two quad core intel xeon is fairly good specs for a desktop.

And i think that is a bit to good for the demo. I think there where some bug fixes concerning high ram issues lately.

But im not sure.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Angle

[walker 0]

Hi petz_e

Theoretically your system should run ArmA II very well. As Angle says ArmA II was built when 64 bit OS'es were very, very flaky and rare. Since then ArmA II has been patched to live with them though it is not 64 bit Application. The Demo was not built to be compatible with a 64 bit OS though and is long in the tooth. So did you install the ArmA demo as a 32 bit program in compatability mode?

What does it say caused the crash in MS Event Viewer?

What does it say happened in the ArmA 2 RPT file?

C:\Documents and Settings\YOUR WINDOWS USERNAME\Local Settings\Application Data\ArmA 2\arma2.RPT

Under windows XP

Not sure where it will be for the Demo or in Windows 7. Try searching for the full file name "arma2.RPT"

Kind regards walker

Edited April 3, 2010 by walker

[mosh 0]

What does it say happened in the ArmA 2 RPT file?

C:\Users\Mosh\AppData\Local\ArmA 2

for Windows 7

[Alex72 1]

Yep. The full game is much better. Your PC should definatelly run ARMA2 pretty good. Sometimes the video memory option in the game (options - video options - video memory) has to be set properly depending on how much VMEM you have. If its 320MB (example) then the setting "HIGH" is too much and could cause a CTD. If you have 1GB VMEM then try "HIGH" for example.

But i think there was some issues with much installed RAM as well in the previous builds so the patched up full game fixed that. And as long as your system isnt messed up somehow you got nothing to worry regarding the full game.

PS. Check what Walker said about the RPT wich is located at: C:/documents&settings/Username/Local Settings/Application Data/ARMA2/arma2.RPT

Chose Notepad to open it.

[petz_e 10]

Thanks for the replies.

I am using an Apple Computer with Bootcamp (no emulation). It's a MacPro. I am going to check the RPT file when I am back this evening.

[Noraf 0]

from the wiki :

Arma 2: System Requirements

From Bohemia Interactive Community

Jump to: navigation, search

[edit]Official System Requirements

[edit]Minimal PC Requirements

CPU: Dual Core Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz / Intel Core 2.0 GHz / AMD Athlon 3200+ or faster

RAM: 1 GB

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 / ATI Radeon 1800 with Shader Model 3 and 256 MB VRAM or faster

OS: Windows XP

[edit]Optimal PC Requirements

CPU: Intel Core 2.8 GHz / AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or faster

RAM: 2 GB

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT / ATI Radeon 4850 with Shader Model 3 and 512 MB VRAM or faster

OS: Windows XP or Vista

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_2:_System_Requirements

so, it might be the apple thingie that gives you trouble.

Though, i'm definently not sure, being that i don't have one myself

[Deadfast 43]

As Angle says ArmA II was built when 64 bit OS'es were very, very flaky and rare. Since then ArmA II has been patched to live with them though it is not 64 bit Application. The Demo was not built to be compatible with a 64 bit OS though and is long in the tooth. So did you install the ArmA demo as a 32 bit program in compatability mode?

First, he doesn't say that and second WoW64.

[walker 0]

Hi Deadfast

In reference to your first point. It was the implication in this paragraph:

...And i think that is a bit to good for the demo. I think there where some bug fixes concerning high ram issues lately.

But im not sure.

that the ArmA II game has had patches to deal with high memory that the Demo does not have as it was released long before those patches were made.

As to your second point I was suggesting this as a possible solution:

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Make-older-programs-run-in-this-version-of-Windows

I fully recognise that much of compatibility in Windows 7 is now automated.

Kind Regards walker

Edited April 3, 2010 by walker

[ar15 0]

I'm thinking about picking up ARMA 2 while it is on-sale through impulse.

However, I would like to find out if the performance has been improved since the demo version?

Performance with the demo version was somewhat iffy at 1920x1200 on my 8800GTS (N92).

[node_runner 0]

You are probably going to get referred to one of the existing threads on this topic. The moderators here like to keep things clean and organized. Make sure you use the forum search feature and check out the existing sticky on this topic.

As a quick answer, there have been many patches, many of them increasing performance A LOT. So yes, performance is much better, especially with texture loading around towns and buildings.

[Placebo 29]

Searching for "performance demo" finds a number of threads asking (and having answered) the exact same question, I merged a few of the most recent into the one thread.

[selanderk 10]

Hi everyone,

I recently downloaded the demo and am curious if the latest version patched up to 1.07 (is that right?) runs any better then the demo. I loved the original Operation Flashpoint but have some problems with frame rate and motion blur. I have tried video settings ranging from normal to Very High and with Postprocessing off, low, etc.

I have a quad 2.8 over clocked to 3.5, 12 gigs of ram, ATI 5970 running the latest drivers, OS and game are installed on seperate drives and windows 7 64 bit. You would think the game would run pretty well but unfortunately it doesn't.

With everything at the highest I get 20 frames a second with post off (damn motion blur). If I scale back it gets acceptable but the graphics are hideous espically compared against the newer shooters out there.

Can anyone tell me their thoughts between the demo and the current patched version? Does the demo take advantage of multiple processors? How about the 5970? That card is essentially 2 to the operating system

Edited July 8, 2010 by selanderk
Typo

[cossack8559 10]

The demo is very old version and yes latest arma2 is much better in terms of bugs and performance... latest patch for arma 2 is better for quad cores than previous versions.

also, Operation Arrowhead runs much better for me than arma2 did before lates patches so if you decide to buy ARMA2... buy ARMA 2 Combined Operations you will not regret it.

so i am guessing that you will get improved performance over the demo for sure but not to much... gameplay always before graphics my friend.