OldGeezer

I'm using Nvidia's latest beta driver: "ForceWare Release 169 BETA 169.28" dated January 10/08. When you select the driver section from the main page, you can click a link for beta drivers to be included in your search. I chose it because it apparently improved Crysis performance.

Even where the game only makes use of one core, it's not like a quad-core is a waste of money or anything, heh heh. I just upgraded from a 3GHz P4 to a 2.4 GHz Core2 Quad. With only one core in use, one might think I'd be better off on the P4 at 3GHz...at least I wondered about that at first. But then I remembered that my P4 was on a motherboard with an 800MHz front-side bus, using DDR 400MHz ram. The Quad runs on a front-side bus of 1066MHz and uses DDR2 800MHz ram. I'll stick to my measley 2.4GHz thank you very much. Out of the four games I have installed at the moment though, I think ARMA is the only one that doesn't use multiple cores.

Arma Gold comes prepatched to the 1.08 version. I ran the 1.09 beta patch before even firing it up. On my brand new Core2 Quad/SLI system, it runs beautifuly well...which is a relief. I actually owned the standard Arma but couldn't find it (I think I might have tossed it a long time ago after running into one bug too many). Hopefuly with this latest beta patch it represents a more finished product, but I bought it more as a benchmark than anything else (it brought my P4 3GHz/Geforce 7600 AGP to its knobby little knees, but makes me grin on my new beast). Now that I see it running like a dream at 1440x900, and that it's been patched twice since I've last tried it, I may just start the learning curve again and get into Arma again...as pretty and smooth as Crysis is, the arcadish action is starting to get old. With 3 full campaigns, Arma Gold should fit the bill...hopefuly the add-on campaigns are a tad more exciting than the original one (I made it about half-way through before getting fed up with the bugs and dreadful performance on my machine).

I just got Arma (1.09 beta-patched) loaded onto my new machine with two 8800GT cards running in SLI mode, and with graphics set to "very high" but with no AA or AF, it's running great so far (gotta figure out how to display fps)...much better than I expected it to. For 1800 bucks CDN, this puter can run ARMA and Crysis at the highest settings (dx9) at 1440x900 (no AA and AF) at perfectly acceptable framerates, so I can't complain. I like my SLI setup just fine. Motherboard: Asus P4N32-E SLI CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4GHz Ram: 4Gigs Corsair DDR2 800 (4,4,4,12) Video: Two "BFG 8800 GT OC 512Mb" cards in SLI mode Sound: Creative X-Fi Extreme Gamer Hard drive: 500Gb SATA Case/PSU: Antec Nine-Hundred "Ultimate Gamer Case"/Antec TruePower Quattro 1000 Watt

I'm disappointed in ArmA because it doesn't have animals. It would be so much more realistic if there were natural wildlife around. In real life, when possible, soldiers will often airdrop big bunches of bananas into enemy encampments where there is a large gorilla population, causing them to invade the encampment and instinctually attack the military personel. Hopefuly someone will make a gorilla warfare mod. Even cattle could make things intersting with a couple of well-placed gun rounds causing strategic stampedes. I thought there was going to be wildlife.

Totally understandable. Different strokes for different folks. IMO, death should not be belittled. I'm one of the few weirdos who hates dying without consequence. That time-out instills the importance of being careful out there, at least to me. I either go make a coffee or call it a day.

dumb statement. The reason Evolution gets played so much is because so many want to play it. In fact I cant thank of a game that does co-op better than ArmA I think people who are flaming the co-op side of Arma are afraid to work in teams. And all this sh...eek about co-op people being afraid of fighting real people is stupid. Try some of the team vs team stuff and you'll se what it is to be out gunned and afraid Instead of running and blasting through the caos of 'nobody knows whats going on' till you die and spawn for the umpteenth time. There realy is enough stuff out there to suit all play styles, and I lovem all and play them all. When I have the time...speaking of which, it would probably be better spent PLAYING right now. Why is it some people insist that playing against humans rules out the ability to work as a team? Nonsense. I see absolutely no logic in that argument. If you're not playing bots, you suddenly feel you and your teammates must play like lone-wolf Rambos?

Coop isn't defined by "people playing cooperatively", it is defined by "people playing cooperatively against fake computer opponents taking the place of real (human) opponents", just in case you're missing the point (my apologies if you're not). It may not mean the death of ArmA, but guys like me are gonna write it off if the popularity of PvP games doesn't take off in a big way. Hopefuly some like-minded individuals will set up dedicated servers (I wish I had an extra computer) either with the current maps or with mods that have absolutely no AI (with prolly a nice little performance boost as a result), running some single-objective-based teams game with no respawns. I say single-objective-based because the maps would be too huge for standard team-deathmatch where you'd end up with the last two guys hunting for eachother forever -you'd need them to have a meeting point (base or other objective to invade/defend). Coop (fighting idiot AI soldiers with killer aim) and respawns are the total opposite of what ArmA wants to be: "Realistic". Getting whacked by a bot that has zero brains and incredible detection/hit-rate is NOT realistic. Neither is running out knowing as soon as you get killed, whoop-tee-doo, you get to reincarnate and run right back out again. THAT makes ArmA (or any "tactical" shooter) barely one notch above Quake or Unreal Tournament...I found it extremely ironic that one of the Coop-playing posters in this thread suggested that PvP players would be more at home in arcade games like those. Then again, some people cannot stand sitting out a round (or just finding another server) when they get killed and will only play with respawns. I have no problem with sitting out when I die (like I said dying is supposed to suck, and it makes for a more heart-pounding, even frightening experience), but it's totally understandable if others don't as they are two entirely different types of gaming experience. It's prolly also more convenient to play coop in the sense that there is always a whole 'other team' present which makes it much faster to fill a server up and get a game going. However, there is no substitute for a human opponent if you want a realistic tactical experience. Your enemy is almost always unpredictable, sometimes cunning, and when teamwork is used, downright scary. An opposing team of serious human players is the only way you can actually claim to be truly playing a simulation of military combat. Claiming that Coop is somehow more serious or realistic than PvP is laughable at best.

Your reply makes me wonder if everyone's on the same page as to what "coop" means. Coop, to me, has always meant a human team vs an AI team. How does playing against humans instead of dumb-as-a-post AI remove the possibility of "helo inserts/extracts, the fireteam movement, tactics"?

Heh heh! That was the biggest complaint on my GR servers...at least with some types of players. I hate respawns and never enabled them. And I always had one response: "Dying is supposed to suck" When you're playing against humans, and you only get one life, you'd be surprised how careful everyone gets...becomes an entirely different kind of game. I don't care if I have to wait a half an hour or more for the next round. It's like playing poker with real money vs a pile of free plastic chips. Your heart pounds more when you know there's something at stake. I think respawns are as hoakey as coop is. Not that there's anything wrong with playing coop...it just sucks to some player types and rocks for others.

I don't mean to insult anyone, but I not only never play coop type games, but I can't even understand them. Whenever I want to play against AI, I play the single-player portion of a game (usually the main reason I buy a game). I've always been of the (admitedly possibly wrong) opinion that coop is generally played by those who do not fare well against human opponents. Sure, AI can be extremely hard to defeat in a game like ArmA, but it's hard because it can detect you instantly and can reliably kill you from a great distance if it is programmed to do so, presumably to make up for the fact that the AI can have a difficult time walking around a rock or crossing a bridge, much less devising a clever strategy...at least in a game like ArmA or OFP or Ghost Recon where you (or the AI) can't just run and jump around shooting maniacally ala Quake or Unreal Tournament. Playing against humans, at least to me, is the whole point of multiplayer gaming, with human allies working as a team being an excellent, but secondary feature when possible. I used to run a Ghost Recon server regularly (fanaticaly for a while) way back when -the original GR, not that newer crap- and I usually found that people asking to switch to coop were usually the ones on the bottom of the scoreboard. Not that they're bad players in general, obviously they do well at coop which can be exceedingly difficult, but it's an entirely different type of "difficult", and I've already gotten sick of that type of "difficult" in the single-player portion of ArmA (an enemy that has amazing aim and superhuman detection skills). Not that I totally suck at it or anything...I think I'm most of the way through the campaign so I can take on the AI, but unlike OFP, I'm not really finding it all that fun...not fun enough to play it all over again after each patch to see if the absense of all those bugs makes a difference. I feel bad for some of the Europeans countries who played the campaign when it was at the alpha stage [ducks behind cover]. Anyways, I find Coop is pretty much the same as the single-player game except your teammates aren't idiots (relatively speaking at least). Getting my ass handed to me because a human snuck up on me by crawling behind cover would be refreshing in ArmA, but I wouldn't know because every time I check, the few servers that are local (have acceptable pings) are invariably playing coop. Maybe I've been unlucky the few times I've tried so far, but I know where you're coming from...I figured the multiplayer aspect (all humans) would be where ArmA shines. Maybe with time human vs human will become more popular. Maybe someday someone will create a must-have mod that excludes coop mode entirely

I have yet to actually enjoy playing the original ArmA campaign, due to either bugs or mission design, and even though people are still complaining about bugs, now they're working on expansions?! I'll pass. The PC gaming industry currently sucks because there is apparently no real incentive for publishers to release finished products that pass rigorous testing before being sold. I swore I was done with PC games after I bought that bug-ridden pos Silent Hunter 4, and stupid me, I renegged on my own word and bought ArmA. Serves me right I guess. I'm done supporting the PC games industry, since obviously nobody is ever going to regulate and police it.

Then get a GF and Get a Job then have a wonderfull life. Â or just be a nerd at the computer.. i knw which i choose along time ago lol. Once you get laid for the first time you will understand too. Â Yeah...Someone who uses his computer specs as a signature and 3550 posts logged in these forums telling someone else to get a life and lose his virginity...right. You tell 'im, you superstud you! This thread's title makes all complaints about the game entirely on-topic, and makes the illiterate moanings of obvious losers who tell them to lose their virginity entirely off-topic. I just hope all the bugs and campaign issues get resolved, and the devs ignore the requests for trivial cosmetic changes until that is done.

Any chance of nude patch in the future? Just for my character though, not the other soldiers (I'm not a sicko or anything like that).

I remember walking into Electronics Boutique (in Ontario), and asking Mr Pimples at the counter if he had any copies of Armed Assault in stock. He checked on his computer and said "nope". Then I glanced at the shelves a few feet over and there it was on the shelf. I had forgotten that the game was annoyingly renamed to "Combat Operations" in North America, so naturally "Armed Assault" comes up blank at the store. Yeah it was my fault, and I'm not suggesting that's what happened in this case, but I wonder how many North American customers phoned around trying to find "Armed Assault" and figured nobody had it in stock (coz technically nobody does), even though there are lots of copies on the shelves.

Thanks for the mirror! All the sites I tried were agonizingly slow. I just cancelled my current download when I tested your link...it's coming in at my usual 523kb/sec limit. Thanks again.

Ugh! Now I get it. I started really noticing in the Beaten Dog mission that the enemy AI is stupidly super-accurate...and selective. I would run up to a spot where my teammates are running around willy nilly, go prone, and get killed from 200 yards almost instantly while my teammates, alot of whom are standing/crouching, aren't getting shot. The enemy certainly seems to have a hardon for me, specifically me. Also, in the next round of missions, after completing one of the secondary missions (take out the vehicle column coming down the road) I start the main mission, and I'm told to plant bombs at the bridge, wait for the signal to blow it up, and then, unbelievably, I'm told to look around for some anti-tank missiles. What?! How realistic is that? There should be some AT weapons lying around somewhere and I should hunt for them?!! Didn't the designers realize how ridiculously contrived that sounds? And while I'm waiting for the signal, I'm hiding in a building, and I take a quick peek around a corner of a hallway to look out a window that's on the other side of a room to see what's coming across the bridge, and a tank on the other side of the bridge instantly starts shooting at me (and naturally hits me). I'm all for a challenge, but the AI is the equivalent of an instant aimbot and has such superhuman reflexes and accuracy (even from a moving vehicle) that it destroys the realism as much as arcade shooters do, it's just at the other extreme (from ridiculously easy to ridiculously difficult). It's like playing a multiplayer game where I'm the only one who isn't running a cheat hack. Hopefuly the multiplayer aspect has more redeeming qualities to tide me over until the modders design missions that make a modicum of sense and are actually fun to play. Restarting the same mission a dozen times trying to find a magic spot to lie down where I won't get killed within 2 seconds from a rifle-toting enemy that's 2-3 hundred yards away (while my team-mates standing up beside me aren't getting shot) is about as fun as pulling my toenails out with pliers.

I played and loved OFP. However, I don't get why everyone insists the single-player campaign in OFP is so much better than that of ArmA. Granted, I've only finished the first three missions in ArmA (as well as all the tutorials to refresh my memory), but I still don't get it. If they're refering to the mission objectives and possiblities in execution, then I'll have to wait till I've finished it to say for sure, but it's looking fine to me so far. On the other hand, if they're refering to the storyline (cutscenes and whatnot), whatever! It was ok I guess, but I couldn't care less about character development or plotlines in a strategic combat game. I played it for the combat scenarios, and so far, ArmA looks like a blast. Then again, I'm the type who'd prefer to bypass all cutscenes and just read the mission objectives text. Also, I recall reading somewhere (could just be a rumor) that someone is planning to port the OFP campaign into ArmA, so if I ever decide to get nostalgic, I'll do it with the new engine. The only bug I've experienced so far is the sounds of gunfire going mute here and there (though I've just started). No crashes or anything like that yet. I was really worried it would run exactly like the old demo did on my rig (like crap), but even the performance surprised me, again, so far so good. No regrets here.

First of all, don't bother with OC utilities unless you're willing to gamble on your card's life. It's handy when your card is near obsolesence and you don't care if you fry it, but unless you have extremely good airflow in your case and have extra fans etc..., you're taking a chance for the sake of a few extra frames per second. Secondly, if your card was fried, odds are you wouldn't even see the post screen when you turn your computer on, much less see the windows desktop. Symptoms of a fried card are typically either odd colored squares or other shapes flashing up on the screen or no display at all (black screen from the moment you power up). So set the gpu/memory values in that utility back to default if you can and then uninstall it, or uninstall it and make sure all registry entries pertaining to that util are deleted (assuming you know what you're doing). And finally, it is becoming a commonplace for people with butt-kicking new hardware to be getting absolutely dismal performance in AA. I only have a BFG 7600 GS-OC/3Ghz P4 with 2 gigs of ram, but the demo is unplayable for me unless I'm playing coop by myself, and it doesn't sound like the full version is any better performance-wise. Normaly I'd say that the devs' goals were too lofty for today's hardware, but then I've heard some people claim they get great performance with lesser hardware, and people with computers vastly superior to mine complaining about horrible performance, so who knows what the heck is going on. I can't justify buying a whole new computer for one game when my current one runs everything else perfectly, especially not knowing for sure it'll even fix the performance issues, so I guess I'll have to give up on AA until I can't run other games and I absolutely have to upgrade. I've never seen a game like this where some people with older machines can run it smoothly at medium settings and others with cutting-edge hardware cannot, even at lower settings, with no discernable common denominator indicating what the problem is. All I know is that in any capture-the-island game I try to join, I end up watching a 3d slideshow and it makes no difference what my graphics options are set to.

Now that is not a good plan. You can't discount that idiots will try hosting too. And it could be some nut makes sport of getting people on the ban list for no reason, or bans anyone who kills him fair and square. Alot of good players would probably find themselves banned from alot of servers coz some idiot was having a bad-hair day and put them on The List. Banning should be each host's own responsibility. If it can be a simple ingame click of a key and mouse, shouldn't be a problem. There's a big difference between kicking somebody out of your private home and getting him kicked from everyone's home. It's no less self-important to trash someone pubically for behavior you don't approve of than it is for someone to take that behavior to your server. Hopefuly after a few individual bannings even the biggest idiots will get the hint.

I'm not talking about guys who TK on occasion. I'm talking about those who just can't be bothered to make sure they're shooting at the enemy and TK over and over again. If I start seeing that the same guy has TK on five or more occasions in one round...buh bye! I don't care if it's accidental or not. I cant count how many times in any deathmatch I get killed because I hesitated, because I wasn't 100% sure it was an enemy, when if fact it was and he shoots first. I've TKed on occasion, it happens...I've also been shot whilst typing "damn! Sorry!" Some can't even be bothered to acknowlege that they screwed up or that they're noobs. A complete lack of manners is also enough to get you kicked out of my house, and it'll get you kicked out of my computer just as quickly. I can understand suggesting people be tolerant, and I am tolerant up to a degree. But the point is, it's nobody's business but your own how tolerant you are with guests in your own home. If I get kicked from someone's server for one TK, then yeah, he's a jerk, but it's his business coz it's his computer, and ultimately, his home I'm in. He can tell me to leave for whatever valid or stupid reason he wants. I'm very glad the option is there in AA, and I expect to make regular use of it someday

Awesome. That's even better than IP as some don't have static IPs.

Alternatively, they could just put in an option for the host or dedicated server owner to pop up a stats page, right-click on any player, and kick and ban him or her by IP adress. Maybe there is such an option in AA, I don't know. It's not like servers are public (I hate public servers). If you host a game, you're letting people into your house. Wether they come in through your computer or your front door is irellevant. I find it disturbing that most game developers are removing that kind of control from the customer/game host, presumably because alot of people get unfairly banned. If I don't want someone in my house, they're not getting in. There's no fair or unfair about it, it's my house! If I want to ban someone because they TK alot, or they can't team-play, or they swear too much or insult other players, or even if I just don't like the looks of their name, I should have a right to say wether or not I let this person into my house. Having that right removed by a game which doesn't allow for ban-by-ip is like being told I have to let anyone through my front door as my house is now public. I hope the option is there in AA, coz it's going to influence my purchase decision (assuming I can ever afford a computer that'll run it smoothly).

Lol. I noticed that too. I had just spawned, was running for the helicopter, and some prepubescent punk moron TKed me so he could get it for himself and take off alone (I was actually gonna wait around to see if anyone else got in). Private games are really the only option for no-nonsense adults.

I'm having similar issues. While I'm only using the demo, I've noticed that performance is pretty good when I start a coop game and when I join one. Capture the flag seems ok, I've played a decent round there. But but whenever I join a capture the island server, it may start out ok, nice an smooth, and after about 5 minutes it getting choppier and choppier until I swear I must be getting 3fps when I try to spin around. Funny thing is, it seems to make no difference what my graphics options are set to. I can run smoothly, for a while at least, at high settings, normal settings and low/lowest too. But that creeping framerate destruction happens at all settings. I've tried capture the island at the lowest settings at 640x480 and it still got bogged down in a mire of unplayability, heh heh. My XP system has every useless service disabled, most recent drivers, no background apps etc...CPU always idles at 1% Sounds like maybe a memory leak specific to my hardware or something, but I don't think it has anything to do with the video card, as lowering those options does nothing to cure the problem. I know my system aint exactly cutting edge, but something's got to be going on here. P4 3Ghz/800fsb 2Gb DDR400 ram BFG 7600GS OC with 512mb Creative X-Fi (tried with and without hardware/EAX enabled) Edit: I was running the demo today and my computer just went to blackscreen. I had to manually power-off, and I almost had a heart-attack thinking my video-card was fried. It wouldn't show a post screen while booting until the 3rd attempt. I'm assuming this must be my CPU sensing that it's overheating and shutting down due to some P4 autoprotection or something, but the fan is fine and checking the heat as soon as I could get it to boot showed the CPU at 85Celcius. Is that near the danger zone? I went into my bios and double-checked that all the setting were standard/auto (the only "souping-up" option I had enabled was "performance mode" on the ram, which I disabled). Same thing again. I think I'd better wait until I get a new next-gen computer before I get AA, coz a decent video card isn't enough, I suspect, and I'm afraid I'm gonna kill my computer in the meantime, lol. Runs all other modern titles I've bought flawlessly though.