Maizel

Hey guys. I haven't played any of the earlier BIS games online, so i don't have a good idea of what to expect from the more 'exotic' multiplayer modi. Could someone give me a brief outline on what each multiplayer mode is about? Thanks.

Indeed. And I get less performance with the same settings with a I7 3.4 Ghz, 6GB's 12800 and a GTX 285. Broken? Yes.

i love it how people act like the game isn't horribly broken. Hardrock even with a top of the line PC, It's you'll hardly get playable FPS

Join the club, mate. There are several fixes posted on the forums, but their effects vary from person to person, but are usually quite slim, if noticable at all. I think they just serve as a placebo, just so that the majority of players with a fast rig here, can leep on denying that he spent his money on (as it stands now) mess of a product fo a little longer.

I find that everything said about the Multiplayer also holds true for the singleplayer. The game is one big mess overall.

I really hope they take a real effort to improve the performance on Arma II. I just installed Arma + patches to see how that ran. With a machine that tops the recomended specs several times, it stil runs like relative crap. I reeally hope they fix Arma II.

I7 920 3.4 Ghz. Definitely not the problem.

Oh, I put $250 for my single GTS 285. ANd it actually takes away from my enjoyment that I know this game should run alot smoother than it does.

Meh, if I put down $600 bucks for my video cards alone, I wouldn't be satisfied with ~30 fps if there's action going on.

GTX 285, 24 FPS while looking at a wall in the second mission. >.> And I don;t even have my settings up that high. A mix of high and meds, on a FR of 100% No post processing. But it dips as low as 10 fps when there's actually something going on

It does work. And strangely enough, this seesm to bumb my framerate a little while playing as well. Not near what ie xpect from a machine like mine. But I'll take everything I can

Setting The rez and fillrate to the lowest keeps me at 60 fps constantly. I was actually just complaining how poorly optimized this game appears to be. I'm running at ~25 fps whenever there is ANY action going on. And I don't even use too wild settings, even though I have a pretty decent machine. Vsync is on. Even though i forced it off in the control panel. Nhancer?

Sorry Kklownboy? What are you saying? What do you want me to do? I'm saying that the preformance was more or less the same, no matter my settings. If I were running at 60 fps all the time, I wouldn't be complaining, hehe.

I've got Vysnc'd forced off per my Nvidia control panel. Samsung Syncmaster 2223NW, if you must know.

I;'m running Vista x 64. An I7 920 @ 3.2 Ghz. GTX 285 6GBS of DDR:12800 Everything maxed out gives me 24 fps's on a certain spot. Standing on the exact same spot with everything on thre lowest setting i get 30 fps. Something's not right.It may be Vista, If it is, I hope it gets fixed soon.

The funny thing is. on my 285 GTX. While standing on the same spot. The differenc ebetween everything maxed out, and everything set on lowest is only 5 fps. There's something really wrong with this game.

I don;t think it'slimited to the 295. The entire 2xx series have crap performance.

The dreamcast is much more powerful. it could handle so muchm more stuff. That said, pointless thread.

Funny, but this happens in alot of games.

Are bombing runs a lot harder in reality? I'm no expert, but I can imagine that, with today's technology, bombing something doesn't require alot of human input.

It doesn't matter if they got it ready or not. I don't get why loads of people think they deserve a demo. You should be glad you'll eventually get one, not demanding for one to be released.

Oh yeah, let's démánd a demo. That's sure to help get it released faster.

Delete please

The downloadable versions apparently have a pdf manual as well.

I ouldn;t know about the manual. But I can imagine that it doesn't cover everything in the game. And the box, I would assume it;s your standard DVD case.