MacBradley

FVII probably is FFVII, or 'Final Fantasy 7.' I believe the whole planet in that game is referred to as Gaja, which is Japanese for earth or something of the sort. It also fits in with the video game theme's of the titles.

I bought Arma II when it was released, but am just now getting into it since it seems to run MUCH better now on my rig (same one, just patched game now). In the meantime I really like the STALKER series, so I've played on done a lot of modding with those games, but I've known since first hearing about this game I'd have another PC shooter love. From what I've played so far, I REALLY like the individual missions, keep having to restart campaign so haven't found Lebadov (or w/e his name is) yet so don't have much of an opinion on it, and the editor seems like too much for me to figure out given my modding time is dedicated to STALKER at this point (been working on a big mod for a while). Anyway, I was just looking to the community for some suggestions on what I should do. The game is so expansive, especially with mods, that I don't really know where to start. Here's what I've done so far: Pulled the FOV back about 10 degrees. I have a 22" monitor and it really helps with CQB movement, and I always have holding the right mouse button to see distance well. Feels like a good compromise for a single monitor setup. I'm open to key binding or different configuration options people might have. :) I have a Saitek X52 joystick that works amazingly for the couple flight sims I have, very smooth and accurate, but when I tried to use it on Arma II, it was a bit weird. There was a huge dead zone on the joystick in the game, and the throttle wasn't analog. I'm wondering if anyone has general tips with good slight control setups/ideas as well. :) I haven't got a chance to play online. I doubt I'll get into it, because I really don't know where to start my gaming time is very scattered, since I have a inconsistent work schedule and many other hobbies and activities that I do at non-scheduled intervals. Still, if you'd suggest some multiplayer stuff to do with Arma II, I'm willing to give it a shot for sure! :) I was also wondering what is a good AI level to play on. The first two both have me mowing down guys like Call of Duty, albeit with more strategy and a few deaths. I was wondering what would be the most realistic and challenging without the frustrations of "cheating" AI, if you get what I mean. Lastly, mods. Tons and tons, holy cow! I've downloaded and played ACE II mod, and it seemed very similar to vanilla to me, although that's probably due to my lack of experience with the vanilla game. I also tried the 'Conspiracies: Dead Rising' mod since I like STALKER, but it ran quite a bit worse than the vanilla game. I'm open to just about anything mod related, but don't want to spend too much time modding myself and don't care too much about infantry/gun skins, although new areas/missions/campaigns I have interest in. That WW2 mod in the workings looks interesting as well. Still, don't be afraid to mention anything you think I might like! :) If it helps any answers, here's my PC specs: AMD Phenom II Quad Core Black Edition @ 3.5 GHz (stock @ 3.0 GHz, forget the exact model. Sad for a CS major haha) Nvidia GTX260, overclocked @ 676/1382/1082 650 watt supply 22" inch Samsung LCD, 16x9 1 TB hard drive (forgot brand again haha) Thanks for anyone's time that reads and/or responds to this! Regards, MacBradley

I realize it depends on resolution and monitor size as well, but with a 24" screen that's not very far away, the people are far too big when 300 yards away and zoomed in with the right click.

Anyone else feel like the default FOV is too zoomed in? Instead of bringing the sight up to your eye, you're eye zooms up to the sight. You can see guys a few hundered yard away that look very close when you zoom in as well. Every gun feels like a scope is on it, even when it's a red dot sight or something. Pressing - twice leaves the guns sights too far away but feels like you're not 10 feet in front of the actor. Anyone else agree?

I have a gtx260 as well, OC'd, and I suffer from this game getting half the FPS of Crysis. Many people with gtx295's, even two of them, are reporting FPS under 30 as well. For some reason Arma 2 seems to have issues with the NVIDIA gtx2** series.

I'm using a gtx260 on Vista 32 and I get between 20-40 FPS, in towns other than the one in Utes, I always get less than 30. Otherwise it is usually more, sometimes even in the 50's with battles going on.

It seems that everyone with a Phenom II is having trouble running this game. Some benchmarks were done at... http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,687620/ArmA-2-tested-Benchmarks-with-18-CPUs/Practice/ ...and just like people have been reporting here, the Phemon II's seem to be performing slower than processors that normally can't even come close to their peformance. For someone who bought this game having specs better than the recommended ones, my money is basically thrown away. The game is near unplayable, which shouldn't be the case with a 3.45Ghz quad core, 4 gigs of RAM, and a gtx260. I highly suggest optimizing the performance of the Phenom II's since their are almost incompatible. If not, it would be wise to state that they run bugged with Arma II. A customer spending money on a product they can't use when they are under the pretense they can, is a customer lost.

Gameplay is great so far, but game runs so poorly outside of open fields with few enemies around, that I barely can make myself play it. Changing the options in settings seems to vary FPS by no more than 3-5 FPS from very high to low settings. I will wait until they patch up the optimization. If that never happens I wasted $50 and am going to be upset. I was mislead by a demo that didn't show how bad urban areas slowed the game down, and by the game's recommended system requirements being WAY lower than they actually are. I double them and am lucky to get over 30 FPS in low event, barren fields.

Tried everything mentioned in this tread and still am usually getting FPS in the 20's when in cities, low 30's when in big fields, single digits in big battles from editor. Everything I do mentioned here makes little to no difference. System Specs: AMD X4 Quad @ 3.45Ghz 4GB DDR2 gtx260 OC'd 20% Vista 32 I'm kinda mad I bought this game. The demo didn't quite put enough strain on my system to notice how bad this game runs. Now that I've hit the first mission that you're in a big city, I'm not going to play until I can do it with 30 FPS or more. I can play Crysis good on high, so this game should at least be able to do it on normal/low.

I used 186.18 and was getting pretty bad frames, so I switched to 182.50 after reading that it worked better, but I didn't notice a difference. Might have even been slower. This game runs so slow it's not funny. I understand there is a lot going on in Arma II, but I think it renders objects even when they're not in your view. If you start looking strait into a wall, the frames on FRAPs don't change, whereas in most games they do because all the game renders is the wall in front of you since it is all you see. I mean, c'mon. I've got... AMD X4 Quad Core Black Edition @ 3.45Ghz 4GB DDR2 RAM (although on 32bit Vista, so 3.something GB) GFX260 OC @ 20% ...which isn't the best, but it dominates most games on the market, and even games like Crysis I still manage to stay over 30 FPS for 99% of the game, usually in the low 50's with the worst case being mid 20's for a short bursts when I blow tons of stuff up with miles of island in view. That's with almost everything maxed except AA. Arma 2 shouldn't be struggling to get 1/3 the FPS of Crysis with everything on normal, low, and disabled.