cjsoques

Sorry to be off-topic but the vista comment irked me. I agree Vista was and is very unstable on older machines, but the new guy in town, Windows 7 is absolutely incredible. It starts up in seconds, extremely stable (not a single crash in 4 months) and faster than windows xp and prettier than windows vista. I really am shocked how well Microsoft has done with 7.

This is an issue that BIS never fixed from ARMA1 Basically my solution was to sell my two SLI cards and get one better single card :) lost a few dollars but got great stability and performance in both ARMA1 and ARMA2 after that. Basically SLI is more or less FUBAR unless you have the same exact config the BIS guys had when they tested the game in SLI config. I can be fairly certain this bug will not be fixed anytime soon

I agree with the original poster on this issue, it makes sense to limit ground units but how much strain would it put to have the few air assets displayed at larger draw distances, you can see aircraft for miles, even if they are at 30,000 feet some aircraft are still identifiable to the naked eye. I also agree with the OP that some people on this form can really be self righteous pompous douchebags with nothing better to do than to prove why they are better than someone in an online forum. I just think that he reacted in an overly strong manner. I've said it and I'll said it again, people on this forum should lighten up. Especially when another game is brought up, he clearly wasn't saying WW2 Online is better than ARMA just an observation....jeez, lets chill out. ---------- Post added at 11:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 PM ---------- Oh and apparently the one with the quick snoody comment of no value for some reason though the OP meant increasing draw distance of all objects to 10km....nope. Just the aircraft, should be minimal performance hit if the graphics engine would allow the modification.

What exactly are all the problems you are dealing with. Is your game unplayable?

This thread just goes to show that the majority of people here need to lighten up... At first I was like T-Rex, what vehicle is that!? then had a good laugh

I felt the same way about ARMA1 when I first got it. It was unplayable and crashed all the time, the most unstable piece of software I ever used and it was pretty much a waste of my money at the time since I coudln't even use it, not until the very last major patch. Now I see that the money I wasted back then is now worth it with all the improvements in performance and stability that I personally see in ARMA2...for the price of ARMA1+ARMA2 I def. got my money's worth. It was just sad to wait a couple years for ARMA2 to get here. What I mean is, wait for the big patches and you'll see most of your problems will get worked out. I'd rather BIS release something that is playable (it is for me) with some annoying bugs right now, than waiting 2 years for them to work them out on their own.

That's not it at all. ...the problem here is that the new guy (like me) did not understand some of the terminology to pull off a search. Give him a break. I love the ARMA community and there is no need to get angry when someone doesn't catch after their 2nd post. He obivously didn't know that PvP meant player vs player and used the words team vs team instead since he had no idea what the search for. Searching for team vs team would probably bring back nothing useful to him. In summary, lighten up guys.

I agree completely

Eastern US

Just to clarify, there is a difference between "Casual" play and "Arcade" play. For example, I love the realism effect of ARMA as I am used to complex simulators such as DCS:BlackShark, X-Plane 9, and FlightSim X. I play them for shorter periods of time than most but I still play them on just as hardcore mode as those that player for hour on end. Hence I am a casual short time-frame player. Not an arcade player. Just like them, I play ARMA for shorter periods of time and keep the realism up. In singleplayer I am able to save. Unfortunately in multiplayer, I would like the option of joining a server and going head to head quickly against some human players. There is big fundamental difference between playing casually, and playing an arcade game. ---------- Post added at 02:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 PM ---------- I actually got to try AAS for a short time last night and had a blast. Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately only a few servers are running AAS :(

Just tried AAS last night for the first time. It was by far the best experience I've had in ARMA2 mutliplayer. I don't have time to player for hours on end (only a couple hours if I'm lucky and usually only 30min or so). AAS is perfect for this casual type of play. You just jump in, your close to the battle and off you go. Sadly enough though, the latency for all available AAS servers were pretty high >150 and there were only three of the tons of servers available. I had a blast though finally playing again a human player, no clue why there aren't more :( ---------- Post added at 12:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 PM ---------- Dude, it's just a game. It make it much more exciting and immersive when it is human players that you can't predict movement. If it really bothers you that much, just pretend they are fully aware AI bots run by a quantum computer or something It's just a game against people you will never meet who are across the country or even across the globe. Take a chill pill, more people need to play PVP in ARMA2! You win some, you lose some.

I absolutely love this game and there is nothing that comes close, but the multiplayer let me down big time. The base infrastructure BIS provided for multiplayer is, for a lack of better words, pathetic. I do not see why optimizing their code for better multiplayer and simplifying the multiplayer process wasn't on the top of their list. I join servers with 20-60ms latency and the movement of other players are still extremely laggy and stuttery. I hope patches fix this and they spend more time on the net code, it just doesn't seem to work good enough to even be playable unless over a LAN. Love the game, but dissapointed in the multiplayer...just wasted potential in my view.

In a game last night, someone hacked in that such a way that everyone died every 20 seconds or so, pretty much forced everyone to leave...where is the fun in that?

Yeah I don't agree with that logic, on the demo there was a PVP Team Deathmatch mode that I've had the most fun with so far, but haven't been able to find a populated server with something like that in the full version.

^ I had no idea. I do not know all the possibilities when it comes to editing ARMA, but has anyone done something like this yet or working on it?

The thing of it is that Project Reality found mechanisms and ways to enforce team play or nothing fun would happen...hence no one acted retarded about 90% of the time, I've only had great experiences with my little bit of PR time and very few times where idiots were in control. The problem is not with the missions makers but the underlying structure of ARMA2 multiplayer. Here are the clear issues: 1. Multiplayer instability, when you join a game (irregardless of genre and realism) you should be able to choose your server and seamless enter a staging arena. ARMA fails miserably, here is the sequence of events: Choose Server Waiting For Server Some Random screen that sometimes shows users to the right and "Receiving" Another Window with Lobby Enter Game Receiving Mission Loading Map Receiving Again Into Game It's absolutely ridiculous and this alone is a huge turnoff that must be fixed for ARMA multiplay to flourish 2. Clear Objectives. Project Reality did a very good job of making known was the objective was and every worked together for that goal. In most of the missions I have seen the goal is very vague and not clearly setup, this leaves way for idiots to muddle around whereever they want since there are no clear goals and never an ending saying "You Won!". There should be some end goal and it simply isn't really there for the casual player like it is in PR. 3. Scale. I know ARMA maps are absolutely ginormous, but when you are in a server of only 30 people, why is there a need to have the whole map at your disposal. There is the target, there is the base you start from, and some where to get there. You aren't going to do circles around the island to get there. ARMA2 should scale and lock out huge sections of the map that are unnecessary and would never be used in a normal situation. Just like BF2 (realism and genre aside) the map should be scaled according to the players and vehicles available and the mission at hand. This would keep players together and the mission clear. In Summary, at this rate it won't be until ARMA4 or 5 that multiplayer will be fixed to the point where there will be large scale realistic combat for the casual player. The devs working on multiplayer just don't seem to get it.

yeah I wish some of the other play types were filled, I'm sick of only Evo and Dom being populated, they really don't work at all

Wouldn't be as nasty as the OP, but yeah the multiplayer really let me down. They threw in a bunch of bells and whistles with no real foundation that facilitates and enforces teamplayer...pretty sad. I would pay an extra $50 for a decent multiplayer system for casual players that still want realism and teamwork

ARMA public online is ridiculous and I don't play enough to be in a squad or a clan but I do love serious play. BF2-Project Reality did a great job of finding ways to make casual players play as a team. I'm heavily dissapointed in the missed potential of ARMA2 being somewhat like PR but on a larger scale...oh well maybe in ARMA3 they'll get their crap together. I wanted good casual multiplayer so bad.

Yeah I don't know if Richiespeed is on this forum or not, but his stuff is pretty incredible and shows the true potential of ARMA. They should hire him for marketing in the US

there's a demo, try it

the whole infrastructure, base, and potential of ARMA2 can not be beat by any game every made, hell OFP still beats most games in the pure potential and depth of all the possibilities. the problem with ARMA2 (ARMA and OFP also) is the execution, particularly in the multiplayer arena. I don't blame OFP because when that was out latency and bandwidth for most people did not allow large scale combat. Nowadays there is no excuse. If BIS just concentrated on multiplayer (scripting and wasting time for such an open game like this for single player makes no sense and seems to go against the flow of what this game is meant for) they would make game of the year no problem. Battlefield 2 although a extremely highly simplified example of this makes perfect sense. The basic mechanics of the game do not allow for good single player but amazing and addicting multiplayer. ARMA is very similar in this respect. I would be fine if this game has NO singleplayer and instead non stop mutliplayer, either in the way of human vs. human or just persistent co-op on large scale servers...hell I would even pay a monthly fee to support the payment of these high performance servers. If they concentrated on optimizing their netcode and allowed a more seamless entry into multiplayer matches, and even hosted their own high performance large player servers, it would be huge. It makes me so dissapointed when I see the potential of this game go to huge wastes when it is easy to see what this game could be. Potential of the GOTY for sure, but the choices that BIS has made in concentrating on single player instead of multiplayer they block themselves from realizing the amazing potential of this game. ARMA2 has made huge improvements in the smoothness of control in the game, but the game is also just a little too clunky and the interface still too outdated to be a contender as well. I'll keep buying BIS and ARMA series games in hopes that this potential eventually get realized...maybe even in a later patch overhaul :) I don't know if anyone agrees with me on this, but I love the game none the less.

Compared to my initial experiences with ARMA (I had nearly same configuration/hardware then as I do now except new video card and using Windows 7) I am shocked by the quality of their first release as ARMA was unplayable for me for years. I can't wait until the download unlocks for the full version on STEAM. The game ran super smooth on high, love all the new effects and the feel of the game. It is much more intuitive and smoother than ARMA. Even more so, I was so worried with the hardware compatibility issues in ARMA that I could bet my life I'd have issues just running ARMA 2 due to the fact that I am using Windows 7 x64 and did not think it was a supported OS, at least not initially. The game started up no problems. Completed the first mission, had a blast, no problems. Tried multiplayer but all populated servers either locked or had some kind of timeout issue so no go on that yet. Overall, I have high hopes for the full version and looking forward to trying out the multiplayer.

Make sure to state what settings you used or else the FPS info is worthless Mission: ARMA 2 Benchmark Graphics: High (Nothing Modified from Default) Average FPS: 35 System: Windows 7 RC1 x64 Intel Q6600 2.4ghz Quad eVGA NVIDIA 260 GT 896MB 4GB DDR2 800MHZ RAM

With my experiences in a couple of days and a total of 10 min "play" time if you can call it that, I have experienced every single issue I have read about in this troubleshooting forum: -I have experienced blue screens of death both in multiplayer and campaign -I have experienced white flicker in any game mode -I have experienced texture problems but fixed that -I have experienced crashes to desktop in both multiplayer and campaign -I have experienced the game not running when I clicked the exe after installing 1.08 but I fixed that -I have experienced shadow tearing right before a BSOD or CTD -I have experienced game lockups that crash the computer and requie a reboot -I have experienced black screens and still have sound that require a Cntrl-Alt-Del to get out of Let me remind you this is only in a few minutes of "play" time.....this game COULD be so good. You suck Bohemia