All,
Edit: crap, I posted this in the wrong thread. Apologies.
Running 1.04 (steam) with 59875 beta on a Phenom X3 8400 at 2.1ghz, 3gb ram, GTX 260 card in XP32.
Resolution is set to 1680x1050, 100% fill, textures normal, objects normal, HDR/AA/AF disabled, view distance 1000m, vsync off in drivers. I've tried max prerendered frames between 0 and 8 with no appreciable difference.
I use the PROPER low setting texture packs for buildings and plants. These are excellent for low/mid-spec machines.
Using CAA1 and having downloaded the SP Arma missions, I have had a blast playing missions from the first Arma that used to chug along when I played them the first go round when the game was new.
To my point (finally).
Arma2 campaign missions are painfully choppy, particularly Chernogorsk. FPS ranges from 14-25 fps. The beta release smoothed out the streaming of building textures to a large extent. In the scenario missions such as Village Sweep, I get mid-high twenties, upwards of 40.
I'm well aware of the limitations of my CPU, but is it the AI that are chugging the game, or is it Chernorus, or both? Loading Sahrani and playing the single player campaign missions I get over 45 fps constantly. Seems as if it's Chernorus that's the killer, perhaps?
I just picked up arma2 when it was on sale for 24.99 on Steam after having played OFP:DR for a couple of days and thinking it was NOT what I wanted. This IS what I want to play, but funds are limited and if I have to play on Sahrani for the time being, that's the way it is.
Time for a CPU upgrade? Higher clock = less chugging with AI-intensive missions? Thanks in advance for your anticipated insights.