PuFu

the real show stopper, although the game still has a lot of bugs, undocumented features etc is the performance everyone seems to be getting it, or in fact the lack of it due to un-exsiting optimization, as well of lack of scale down ability this game has. Just look in this part of the forums what a heap of post got made regarding performance since it's release...Does that mean no-one is able to work the settings out to get a decent/smooth gameplay, or is it due to the game being such a resource hog for no-real reason? <- that is a rhetoric question

Hmmm, check my results. I got a e6600 OCed at 3Ghz (no performance between stocked 2.4Ghz, 2.7Ghz etc, as i tried going down with it for testing), and a GTX 260 216. you can read my whole impression on ArmA2 with my rig here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1331861&postcount=225 Conclusion - i wouldn't be expecting dramatic improvements really if upgrading your rig as you stated.

ok, after messing around with settings for about 10 days or so since 505 release, saying that a game can't beat me, i was wrong. I gave up. encountered issues: - MP - almost unplayable - FPS stuck at about 24 FPS no matter what mission i play, no matter what settings i choose from very low to very high (, same thing, which i actually find beyond weirdness. Changing resolution from 1680x1050 to 640x480 doesn't move that FPS counter at all for instance.... Note that while in editor i get around 45-60 FPS everywhere on the map settings my details to High/V high - PP - off, in MP (the reason i bought this game) are around 23-24 FPS, going around 20 FPS if huge battles occur. Looking UP or down or straight into a wall makes no difference to me, the most i can get is 27 (in the conditions stated above) - Framerate seems to be pretty unstable, more than A1 has ever been. jumps up and down like a gum ball. tryouts so far: * all the renaming exe file etc * -maxmem=2047 thingy * -winxp (although i am already running on Win XP64, but had to try it). * messing in the riva tunner/nvidia control panel - tried all settings changing and switching about. Found the ones which are performing better, but that doesn't render my MP problems null. * redid, changed and edited my profiles several time, pending on information i gathered from other ppl. * defraged, cleaned up registries etc. This is done under normal circumstances once every week at least anyways * tried all drivers from 180 series to current 186.18 - there is no 190 for XP64 yet PC used: * C2D e6600 OCed @ 3Ghz - tried it with stock clocks, with 2.7, even pushed it today to 3.4 for a test, same results (back to 3.0 since on 3.4 was acting too hot) * 4 GB DDR2 800Mhz CL4 high performance modules * GTX 260 216 stock OC 896MB * 2x320 HDDs 7200 16mb * OS - Win XP64 PRO running on 1680x1050 - current drivers 186.16 Personal conclusion - i am bottlenecked by the CPU, since ArmA2 is pretty intensive on those. Still i am unsure why would this game would need so many horsepower on an average PvP game - no Ai, etc etc. Is it the netcode, sending information across the board? My personal conclusion was that the game is beyond any optimization, netcode, engine code etc - non scalable, at all. I am looking forward to seeing this fixed in some near future. PS: seems i am getting worse and worse performance by patch release, rather than the other way around for some reason PPS: sorry for the long read.

That is because you are playing only evolution....no wonder it is disappointing, and i agree with you on that

wrong thread I am sorry, i don't get it. What you are saying here is that the game is optimized in your opinion, and the pile of people posting about crappy FPS - read unplayable, numbers don't count, i agree, are one of a kind, weird, and they should be resolving their issues with their PCs (which basically covers the whole range from low to enthusiastic)? I know you have nothing to do with the development of this game, so there is no pun directed to you, i am just wondering what you meant in the quoted post. Br/ PuFu

everytime sometimes gets to the conclusion that A2 needs countermeasures, would there be a new thread made? There is 4 already

No. Once you have finished your pbo(s), they should be \ArmA2\YourModFolder\Addons\ I am not really sure what you are talking about, but i can only guess you read about Hex editing a p3d paths...Yes, when editing a path, the size of the path you wanna edit with the new one needs to be the exact same size in number of character used. Hex editing is something used to be done in ArmA 1, before MLOD were released, since every retexture needed it's own new 3d model file (.p3d). Now, with arma2, it is possible to be using hiddenselection. I am not really sure how that works, i need to check configs. "ca\characters2\usmc\data\" needs to be replaces with "\~pboname~\~folder~" and needs to have the same exact lenght in terms of characters used. IE: 25 chrs for your example of root, would need 25 in your modified/created new root. the .paa are the texture files, while the .rvmat are the material files(setting up those textures). For what you'll need to do, you'll have to derapify those, change their name (or not), but make sure you change the paths for the textures you'll find in them to your own. http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/TexView_2_Manual#How_to_use_it It's mostly trial and error. There are a few places where you can find tutorials, and some information, but not all that many. I guess it's because ppl tend to spend time on making those addons rather than writing tutorials. Also, asking about can save you from this trial and error part, but bear in mind that holding ones hand has its limits. yes, you will need config files. You can base yours on ArmA2 ones, and for a retexture is not really much work to do config wise really. You can inherit all properties from the USMC entries you are redoing models, and just add their name etc. yes, config.bin is what you should be look at, you will need it derapified first. There are a number of tools available to do that (i think you managed to go that far). Regarding the confuse created by all the entries there, you will just need to find the class name of the original USMC unit you want modified, and go from there. Configs holds a lot more inforation that you will need for your small project

You can blame that on Nvidia, and not really on BIS. Since SLI is detected and activated by driver and not game, renaming the exe only makes the drivers detect that .exe is a game and thus needing SLI active They are supporting all kind of crappy games, but not even their latest drivers have been designed for arma2 (or at least had the arma2 in their profile as supported game).

yes, grab an 4890. Best perf/buck atm

YES http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1328506&postcount=16 "your version" = retail version

sounds like you have no idea what you are actually talking about...

Was a really nice read...Good job on the original post! This game has no competitor, and i don't foresee one in a near future. I would like to add to your points: * The community, or most of it :P, and that includes the developers as well, since they do reply, answer and ask questions on these forums. One of the only forums where i have seen it happen. * The modding capability this game has, beeing able to mold it, based on an engine, to whatever you like - from very realistic mods *cough*, to RPG style mods and gameplay, SF scenarios, zombies, new islands etc etc etc. The list is basically infinite OT: @Gedis: there IS such a way of playing for A2 right now, unfortunatly is not thousands (due to harware limitations really), but 100+ per server (military ranked system TvT). Check www.cfarma2.com

try installing the forceware drivers (i a, guessing you are using a different type of drivers_

using signaturecheck=1; would at least stop ppl from connecting with cheats/hacks via addons. I am sure that BIS will introduce either BE, or a similar cheat protection system in a future patch anyways (which will not render signature checking obsolete btw). Until then, all you can do is making sure that at least part of the duck-ups are not getting in

We are somewhat dependent with some things on BIS tools, in order to make the models in ACE use the new A2 shaders. It's not gonna take as much as it did for A1, rest assured, but i believe we're talking about months (although not that many). Besides it's always better NOT to give an exact date so that ppl don't complain for you not sticking to it and/or "demand" an update both Not sure what website you are talking about. Yes, we do. Can random public members see it/have access to it? Not yet http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ACE_Features

Not really no. Even if possible(which is not), it's a bit NO without original author consent. Be sure that ACE2 will have it though

1. rename arma2.exe file to crysis.exe, crysis64.exe, fear.exe or arma.exe. 2. run with -winxp command in your startup line

both values are in bites. And yes, there's a lot of ppl in this thread who have edited those values as if it was in MB. And yes, they are wrong indeed. It changes how precise the HDR works. Accepted values are 8/16/32. Render_W= ; Render_H= ;

by the mission. There is no such thing as locked or unlocked in ArmA

and i am not sure what you think about when you say "rank" (score, military rank, statistics etc), but for A2, there is no centralized database that holds this records. So, every time you connect to a server, or you disconnect etc, all your stats will be reset

get off from that camel hump you standing now. Excuse the mortals over at BIS for not fulfilling your expectations. if PR has it all, why did you bothered buying this game then?

Squad name - Kelly's Heroes Timezone/location - GMT / UK based, EU members (English mandatory) Squad gamemode preference (eg coop or pvp) - Team Based CO-OP Contact email - admin@kellys-heroes.eu Website address - http://www.kellys-heroes.eu

While i understand some reasons behind changing this around, does the above have any implications towards the modding community?

tbh, i don't remember A1 eula, although i read it at that time. But still, while i understand why mlods should not be ripped of before BIS release them, from what i can understand from the quoted section, this applies to configs, textures, etc. While i haven't panicked or anything, i do have some ? marks

i don't really get your question. anyways, you might wanna try with setposASL as well