killaalf

1.) This should have been posted in the troubleshooting section 2.) Check if you have Geometry Instancing set to enabled, if it already is, try turning it off.

1.) This should have been posted in the troubleshooting section 2.) Check if you have Geometry Instancing set to enabled, if it already is, try turning it off.

Umm, AK47 != AK74

There is an Arma folder in the same location - "mydocuments" and the file to edit is called "arma.cfg".

Not at all - read the news section, all versions will be brought up to 1.07 eventually = When it's done!

There seems to be something not right with your PC: "3D_Performance=2000.000000;" On my PC (C2D 6400@3200MHz, 2GB, X1900XT) it says: "3D_Performance=12000.000000;" That said I also experience slight pauses when bringing up the map and going back to the 3D view, but I'd not classify them as a "freeze" myself. Hitting escape brings up the menu pretty much instantly. Don't know what's wrong with your rig, but something seems to be, no? "hardly that good looking" - you're joking, right? It may not have flashy graphics like any other run of the mill shooter, sparkly and shining everywhere, but I don't think that was the goal at all. ArmA strives for a realistic look instead and boy, does it ever succeed. Now, my PC doesn't have the horsepower to run it at max details and still have playable framerates, but sooner or later that day and hardware will come and you bet that I'll be there.

This might help, it was originally posted by MrZig in this thread: FOR ALL THAT ARE HAVING INSTALLATION ISSUES WITH SPROCKET VERSION!!! 1: Rename ArmA.Exe to ArmA.Exe.Bak 2: Rename ArmA.locked to ArmA.exe 3: Install patch 4: Rename ArmA.exe to ArmA.locked 5 Rename ArmA.Exe.Bak to ArmA.Exe 6: Launch the beta thingie and reactivate ArmA 7: Profit

Your rig is seriously underpowered, Raj. 512 MB RAM is not much, and that 5200, well, lets face it, it was a lowend card when it came out, what, 3-4 years ago. Don't know your budget, but you should be able to get a 6600GT or a 9800pro pretty much dirt cheap by now. I'd also recommend to get another 512 MB RAM. That's it basically, short of a complete system overhaul.

36 (for another 2,5 months at least) and wearing my bald head like a badge of honor, he! Oh, and I'm also playing BF2, kicking young'uns asses. So there...

Its a feature, actually. Have you ever tried stopping when running flat out in real life? That will take a couple of seconds, too, you will not be able to stop on a dime (you're bound to fall flat on your nose if you try, thanks to momentum/inertia) - just play with this in mind and it's no problem at all. The only problem, albeit small, I see with this is that the time it takes to stop is depending on the state of your characters animation when you release the button.

Never had that BSOD myself, and I always have A.I. on. The crashes I've had were just back to the desktop and I strongly suspect the handle problem to be the culprit. When I checked yesterday after about an hour or two of MP, my handles were up to 125.000!! This is with the 7.3 driver I installed a couple of days ago so today I'm gonna reinstall the 6.7 driver. ArmA never crashed with this one and my handles stay in the 200-300 range. X1900XT (512MB)

Must be something wrong with your setup, then. I'm also using an Audigy 2 (no plans on updating) and positional audio works flawlessly here on my Teufel CEM 5.1 speakers as well as on my headset (with CMSS3D enabled).

Yeah, these games support multicores through a patch, that does not mean they are suddenly multithreaded, though, which is quite a different beast. Most of what these supposedly supported games provide is the ability to run on multicore systems at all or just the ability of having the graphics driver run on a different core than the main application. Heck, I followed a few of your links (did you?) and I saw no marked improve in framerates especially at resolutions where the GPU becomes the bottleneck. A few quotes: "Our results with Call of Duty 2’s 1.01 patch weren’t nearly as spectacular as the results we saw with Quake 4 1.05 a few weeks ago. In our testing, performance was at best on par with the initial retail release of the game. At worst, we saw performance declines of 3% or more, particularly on AMD Athlon 64" "Call of Duty 2 shows far less impressive results, and indeed a drop in performance at all but the highest resolutions, where it ekes out a tiny advantage - A rather bizarre state of affairs in all honesty. It would be interesting to see what happens with this title on Intel's dual-core and HyperThreading parts - The 1.01 patch is titled as an 'Intel update' after all!" "Quake 4: Erste Tests des Beta-Patches auf einem unserer Testsysteme auf Basis eines Pentium 4 660 blieben in dieser Hinsicht jedoch erfolglos. Translation: First tests of the beta-patch on one of our test system based on a P4 660 were not successful. w/o patch 129,4 fps, with patch 126,7 fps (1280x1024 4xAA, 8xAF)" ArmA already supports multi-cores, as in it will run on them without a patch, it just was not built to seriously profit from them (as in being multithreaded), so I'll stand by my former statement.

To all those hoping for multicore-support via patch: don't get your hopes up, it's just not gonna happening. See, to make an application multi-threaded it has to be decided from the start to make it so. Have the AI run on one thread and the graphics rendering on another, sound on yet another and so on and then there's the difficulty of getting all those threads running in sync. That, my friends, is far from trivial. Patching in something of that magnitude, pff, I don't think it is even possible without going back to the drawing board and do the whole thing from the ground up again. Obviously, ArmA was not developed that way and that is the way it is going to stay, like it or not.

I second that, I only have the FDF sounds but "-nosplash -maxmem=1024 -mod=FDF_Sounds" works flawlessly here.

and btw, thats not realistic for this weapon! You must visual lock on the target. Once the missile has locked on you can fire and it will be tracking the target automatic... You got me there   I clearly overlooked that little fact and as I've never used Javelin in ArmA I'm afraid I just shot from the hip, sorry for that. So how does it work in ArmA, do you just swing around until you lock onto an as of yet not visible target? Then I would have to see I agree with you. The only game that portrays Javelin realistically then is Americas Army, where you have to visually id and lock the target. Sorry!

Uhm, Javelin works like that in real life, fire and forget, ArmA is supposed to be a realistic game/sim, so what has balancing got to do with it? In case you haven't noticed, real wars are rarely, if ever, balanced. What's next then? Nerf the machine guns, the SAW, just because they are overpowered? I don't think so.

I would very much like to be able to move while the binocs are equipped, just as MrZig explained. Switching back to your main weapon, take one step to your left/right and switch back to the binoculars - well, this clumsy method already bugged me to no end in OFP. Maybe couple it with the "lower weapon" button, so that you can only move once you've lowered the binocs.

Rightclick the ArmA icon on your desktop and select "properties/Eigenschaften", then in the window that pops up find "target/Ziel" and add the commands after "arma.exe" so it looks like this: x:\your path\arma.exe -nosplash -openal

From a gamer's perspective I'd say that running Vista at the moment is not advisable at all, regardless the specs.

But have you tried low settings yet? Your card does not have enough memory onboard to render high details, so it just shows the untextured polygons.

Sorry to say this, but with your rig you should forget about setting the details to their highest settings, in fact I would advise you to set the game to the lowest possible setting and work up from there until you have found a nice mix of looks/playability. Your motherboard has an integrated graphics board - are you sure that this is disabled and that the game is really using your 6600GT?

I would say that PRMM is a step in ArmA's general direction but it's still a way off. For example you still have the same small mapsizes that make aerial or armored combat a joke, imo.

Asking this question in here, what do you think that most people will answer? But what is better for one guy does not necessarily mean it must also be better for you, now does it? BF2 is an arcade shooter with realistic looks and thats were the realism ends whereas one of the strongest assets of ArmA is its realism. BF2 has discrete maps whereas Arma has one big (and compared to BF2 the mapsize is gigantic) island. Both can be sheer fun or extremely frustrating, depending on the people you play with. BF2 is pretty much player vs. player only, while ArmA features not only PvP, but also coop (it's the mode I like best). ArmA gives you a very powerful editor and with it even a beginner can throw up a simple mission in a matter of minutes. In the end it boils down to what I wrote above, it's a matter of personal preference. Me, I like and play them both, but I care more about ArmA.

Sprocket download, memnoch, it is quite a legal way to obtain the game.