Sniperdoc

Actually PC Gamer did not rant and rave about it. Rather even tore them a proverbial new one.

I run it fine on Win7 64-bit, just had to use MSCONFIG to edit the memory so less than 8GB was being addressed as a whole.

64-bit support More than 8GB memory support Better command interface Better audio responses/speech system for AI Better AI period, right now AI is mildly retarded and requires way too much user intervention

Wizardry... those games rocked!!! What did they have 7 of them? We had all the boxes for them!

Ya... when you take something from 1999 (OFP) and just marginally build upon it (Arma 1) and then do some minor upgrades (Arma 2) you're bound to get issues that get carried over from older versions. But that's just my complaint with BIS' use of an antiquated process/engine. The graphics glitches that are in those YouTube videos look like possible GPU overheating issues? Could that be the case? I have other problems myself more related to LOD and texture loading which is entirely a problem with Arma not being able to address memory at or above 8GB properly. (The issue of which is STILL not fixed properly)

Enermax Galaxy 1KW No graphic issues other than poor LOD and Texture loading due to the 8GB RAM issue. 400W nowadays seems awfully low...? I'd go with nothing less than a 550W at LEAST.

I think fade only affects your shooting/aiming ability. I'm not 100% on that though...

Considering that half the population of computer gamers is still on Windows XP 32 bit (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/) would probably be a bad indication of making games exclusively for 64-bit. But, to think ahead and make it 64-bit compatible... that would've been a nice thought. One of the reasons why I think this game has failed to catch on. It's a great game, great concept, with an unbelievably shoddy follow-through as people with 8GB and a 64-bit system have still not had their issue resolved by BIS. How long has it been since the last patch... oh... never mind. They're not patching anymore... they're working on an expansion for a half-finished game.

Is there a way to notify devs to look at this tool and possibly incorporate it somehow? I've actually used it for Empire Total War and it was extremely helpful before the game was patched to include that tool's modification for X64 systems.

TRI-SLI is only useful for resolutions on a 30" monitor. PC Gamer and MaxPC had articles about that.

Kind of interesting when players have to run through hoops and handicap their computers to get this game to run properly. http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1467099&postcount=1 - 1 AI vs the player and it still runs like garbage? Or: http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1348685&postcount=120 - I mean come on... 20fps??? That's a great rig and 20fps??? Or: http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1465516&postcount=1 - An ATI 5870 and STILL runs crappy? Or: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=88629 - running Arma 2 on a SSD or a RamDrive??? Are you kidding me? You're going to invest up to $800 just to play a game that is designed poorly and scales even worse? What about the people that have this problem? http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/4141/arma28gb.jpg I mean seriously... It's been 7 months... a brand new generation of GPU has been released and the game still doesn't perform...? There's a problem here people.

I am trying... I really am. But it gets really aggravating when I see the texture popping... the slow LOD changes and the overall slowness that happens when the LOD changes. All in all... it does have great features and it CAN be fun... but man... It's really a pisser when you're trying to just run in one direction, then go 90^0 and your game becomes a slideshow... I get better performance out of Crysis. Now that I've seen the post about the hard drive access, the AI being having no CPU use issues, etc. It's like, "WTF did they test this game on... the Blue Gene, NECs Earth Simulator or the MDGrape-3?" There should be no excuse for all these issues because the game should have been optimized to reduce those types of problems. That's my beef... it's not the fun factor, it's not the amount of people playing, and not that Joe-Schmoe enjoys playing the game at 320x200 CGA gfx if that's what floats his boat. It's that they advertised these really nice graphics, that the system specs were WAY below what I had, and the game on it's highest settings and even all settings (if you include the 8GB issue) has issues that should not exist because they should have been optimized or resolved. That's my beef with BIS/Arma2.

Interesting... MSSQL 2008 states multiprocessor optimization and optimization for a cloud network environment. So X company buys MSSQL but finds it performs worse on a multiprocessor server environment... hmmmm who is at fault... the company that bought MSSQL or MS for presenting a product with X capabilities and then doesn't deliver? Do they have the highest settings in there just so you can take nice looking screenshots or what? I mean seriously... You make a lot of assumptions there. I'm actually impressed what CM has done with OFPDR considering they put it on a console and designed it for the console. Is it worthy of the type of PC games nowadays... no, by far not even a chance. But I also didn't have expectations of OFPDR since I knew they were making it for the consoles. Of Arma 2, I also had no expectations other than "Hope they fixed Arma 1's problems". But that wasn't the case. Hmm considering I have better specs than you, I'd be curious to know if you get texture popping and LOD issues. I appreciate that observation. I speak my mind and people resort to name calling... very mature and against TOS.

If a game promises to deliver a maximum setting experience and it fails on a system that's 4x more than what is advertised I would hardly call that dumb. Actually I'm after a graphically whole experience. Arma 2 was touted to offer that, and it did not and as several high spec rig people are posting on the forum. The game fails to deliver at the settings they stated using the recommended specs. So, to speak up because of this is wrong? I can guarantee you there's not a single person on this forum getting smooth gameplay using max settings, using a rig specd to their "recommended settings".

K... even if that's sales.. how do you explain ~400 people playing MP? (Ok according to MadDog it's 800... still a bit off from 50,000) No... because it's observable fact. (then every time I'm on, EST in the evenings must be a lull in Arma time) You like having to compromise to play a game? Ok... if that's your gig... I'm cool with that. Personally, I don't want to have to compromise to play a game. It advertises specs, I'm well above those specs, and I can't max out the game? What's the point in having better hardware then... every other game out there at least scales well with better hardware. This one... not so much. I don't just look at the negatives... I don't. Like I stated, I see good in Arma 2 (sound like frickin' Obi Wan... wtf), but I don't understand how BIS could be so blind as to not have resolved issues that have been prevalent in previous versions. Instead they "prey" on the die-hards to buy more of their stuff. They continue to propagate garbage, and the die-hards are eating it up fine because they say "it's good enough". How about that for some esteem issues? Get the damn thing fixed. It's your right as a human being to have a fully functional and working product. If you're compromising because you say "this is good enough for me" then you are one of the people contributing to the software industry's decline in quality control.

Meaningless idiocy eh? Everyone on these boards has touted the MP aspect and how great it is right? So, how come, in MP I see about 400 - 450 people playing... and that's it? Friggin' christ... come on... I'm even being generous here. Look at the Steam stats: http://store.steampowered.com/stats/ Arma 2 is 4th from the last with less than 100 players and a max of 200 in the last 48 hours. That's just using Steam statistics. What about the others that used physical media or other e-media. Lets be generous... 1000 if you're lucky??? No idiocy there DM... I mean come on... NBA2K9 has twice as many players listed and that's a niche MP market. America's Army with almost 3 times the amount of players? Half-life 2... 10x the amount of players... and it's how old? So, who are you trying to fool? This game should be well in the 10,000's of players. But... There is an inherent flaw with Arma 2 and people are tired of it. That's why the MP is usually only filled with ~400 people. It's a broken game, and all of you are making excuses for having to use extra hardware, software fixes, special switches, etc etc... Hell, if I have 4GB of RAM my game should run better right? If I have two GTX280s vs one 8800GT it should run MUCH better right? But it's almost the opposite with Arma. Those with 8GB of RAM have nothing but issues. So, if you want to use HIGH settings on a medium/low end rig... you make the excuse that you can't run it cause your rig is only average. But those people that WANT to use high end settings CAN'T even though the specs are WELL 4x beyond what is required by the Recommended Specs on the box??? How is that right?! This isn't frickin' linux... You paid for a product... it shouldn't be the communities responsibility to fix this game... if you don't see that the supporters of Arma 2's success are in the MINORITY... then... I don't know what else to say. This is about making BIS wake up and smell the coffee. That they should be doing better and should be doing for the community. Instead they're coming out with an expansion instead of fixing the inherent flaws that have existed since at least OFP and Arma 1. Instead they've done nothing but propagate the issue instead of mitigating it. That's my ultimate problems and the consistent reason why I keep coming back. I see nothing but good in this game, but because of whatever reason, it's being held back. I'm no coder, but a large amount of posts on this forum just point to inherent flaws in this game that need to be fixed.

But if the gameplay suffers because of texture popping, intermittent lag because of LOD loading, etc... I mean come on... you can't fool anyone that the Dev's system (mentioned in one of the posts) that was a Q6600 (non-overclocked) with 2GB of RAM with a 8800GT ran this thing maxed? Did the developers say: "Oh well, the game is just laggy and has poor texture/LOD loading issues because we coded the game with the future specifications in mind"? I mean seriously... the same problem in Arma 1 present in Arma 2??? What kind of slap in the face is that? Running a single AI on a map and experiencing slowdown? I don't see godrays, high dynamic shadows, great physics consuming gpu power here...?! What is making it run like crap? Can't be the view distance as after 500m's all the sprites pretty much disappear... so wtf is the issue? This game has maybe 400 solid players... MAYBE... you don't think there's issue with that? As far as the Longbow 1 & 2, EF2000, etc comment... those were the days when games worked. I never had a problem running any of the games using the specs advertised on the box... this is one of the few (aside from Crysis) that doesn't and requires an SSD/RamDrive, only 2GB of RAM, and Windows XP 32-bit to play. Instead, people that run specs well beyond that have all kinds of issues... that's really great scaling... :(

Sure that's why there's what... 400 people playing this game... maybe?? Don't tell me Arma is a niche market... If the game actually worked, I would say more people would play it. More people play IL-2 still to this day than Arma 2... Flight sims are a niche market... FPS... don't think so. Arma still performs like crap because it still has the LOD/Texture issues that were present when it was released. Funny how that same problem persisted in Arma 2...? The developers surely do care about your gaming experience...

I guess I'm still stuck on the fact that if you can't see it happening as a player, why it would have to be calculated, but to be honest... now that has even been debunked as being a problem. There was a post where a player made a single AI map and the game STILL ran like garbage. This is on a Q6600 at 3.6Ghz and a GTX285... I mean seriously...? So, if it's not the AI causing all this slowdown... wtf is it? Why is the game, that DOESN'T have a HUGE amount of graphical splendor performing so poorly... seriously...? I think it would totally resolve all Arma's problems. MEMORY... RAM...

When it works... I don't see all of these issues in Crysis:

I would suggest you up your CPU speed. That 2.5 is probably severely limiting your GPU. Not that it's going to matter much since even a 4GHz CPU can't make this game shine (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=88585). This game has severe texture loading issues and still has LOD problems that have persisted since Arma 1. Can't believe people still defend it.

Weird...I only see the 50 to 64 player servers. The entire gaming community for Arma seems to not even top 400 players... why would 1 server have 100 players? But... still falls short of that 2000 number that was quoted earlier... Back to on topic though... the Crysis engine definitely has way more to offer than the Arma engine as a whole. If people claim that Arma's engine does stuff better, then why do less players play Arma? Because it's a niche game and even total die-hard players can't see the flaws for what they are. They're so blinded and locked into Arma that nothing else could possibly be better. I can admit that Crysis has its flaws... it requires a really powerful machine (But so does Arma) but at least it runs as it's intended to run if you scale the systems... keep this in mind... the INTENT. Arma has an INTENT, but fails to deliver on that intent. Despite super gaming rigs with SLI setups and Extreme quad-core processors and 12GB of RAM... Arma 2 can run like crap. As anyone with 8GB of RAM can attest to. That to me... is a major flaw that should have been fixed a SHORT time after release... not 6 - 8 months down the road. And I don't think they'll ever fix it, because it's a limitation of the engine. You don't see other game developers having to have their players put a special switch into the shortcut to fix the game's addressing problem do you? Their games just run and they run well. Arma 2 struggles to run well. So, in this case, someone (the OP) made an observation about a new engine that's coming out, and all he got was flack by Arma fanboys... not really fair is it?

I would love to see a game with over 100 players! Sure Arma 2 is capable... but I've yet to see servers loaded with people at that level. I've seen 32 people maybe... but that's about it. What good is an engine that can do 2000 people when the most you see on there is 32?

I guess I have YET to see something that massive. For some reason I have this really strong belief there's no way the Arma Engine can handle it either. Probably way easier in MP than 300 AI... I just don't buy it. Also just to kind of prove a point, you said: I would say if the engine runs like crap because it IS keeping track of so much stuff then it IS an engine problem. Personally I believe it HAS those problems, because it's tracking things that are unnecessary. Kind of the, "If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound?" methodology. Why would the system need to track how Natalia is walking from City A to City B because her car blew up and that there's military guys hidden in the woods. Is she walking left foot first or right foot first? How is she turning her head to observe the military guys in the woods? (Just using generalized examples) If it's story line specific and the military guys killing her has some effect on the game... it can just be a scripted event. Reducing the amount of calculations being done... but instead, we get a full fledged, free environment that has soooo many options that the system gets bogged down. And that's what's happening with the Arma engine. There's too much freedom for the AI to do STUFF even when the player isn't even aware of what is happening...! How does that STUFF affect the next mission? NOT ONE IOTA!!! The only thing that affects the next missions is what the player has done. SO... in effect... the whole process of giving non-visible or non-storyline affecting entities the FREEDOM to do what they want... is pointless and consumes CPU cycles that the ARMA engine just does not have to give. That's ONE place where the Crysis engine is way ahead of the Arma engine. Sure even if it can ONLY do 63 entities as was "assumed"... why does it matter... are you EVER fighting more then 60 guys at one time in Arma? It's not relevant and not conducive to making the most out of the gaming experience.

I don't know... Sounds pretty much like he's trying to state that Arma 2's engine is the same as CryEngine... which considering it's not at all the same, is furthest from the truth. And you were trying to tell me that: I don't know... sounds pretty much what I was trying to say already...??? Sure, just like all the OFP DR videos were done. I get it. But the matter at hand is still that CryEngine does most things better than the Arma 2 engine. Period. A majority of the issues in Arma 2 are limited to an antiquated engine programmed towards an antiquated OS. I don't think that there is one game out there yet that uses real-time procedurals besides Crysis. Crytek (I believe) was the first to implement them and is still the only devgroup that is using them. Even the AI is highly impressive. The fact that the CryEngine 3 is able to almost flawlessly present on a PC, XBOX and PS3 at the same time... that's an amazing feat if it truly works as it was represented.