jaundiced

this is my monitor at work as well. 1680x1050 is the native resolution. if you want 1440x900 whip out a calculator, figure out the percentage difference, and change the render resolution in graphics options. simple stuff mate. off the top of my head it should be 85-86% for render resolution.

it's dishonest. saying every 1.00/1.01/1.02 save load will result in CTD is a little more simple and clear than what the patch notes said. the way it reads suggests that your saves will play, but the fixes will not be implemented until the next mission - when in fact, you have to revert, there is no way of getting to the next mission for the changes to implement without doing so. ---------- Post added at 08:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 PM ---------- take your angst out on someone who actually whined and moaned, not people experiencing problems due to an unclear patch note.. how many people here are new to the game from steam and have no clue that this is how it worked with all other patches? why would they say save games work but fixes aren't implemented until next mission when it's patently false - the game crashes, or you have to revert to previous mission, not play through to the next.

that's still not true though. all of my 1.02 saves result in CTD, not what the patch notes say. not a single one of about 12 do anything other than CTD. reverting to the last checkpoint is the only way to proceed for me and many others i've seen in the forums. simple would be stating that no 1.00, 1.01, or 1.02 save will load and will result in CTD upon loading ;)

oh sorry, last i read it wasn't available.

patch 1.3 didn't include dedicated MP server exe. my guess is version incompatibility. i believe for the time being you have to be 1.2 to play online. at least thats my understanding. correct me if im wrong. which is ridiculous considering steam users have to redownload and disable updates to get online.

is it a coincidence your post is identical to the one on the first page? :butbut: JohnnyBoy755 Doing this greatly improved my performance, I have the ArmAholic thread favorited.

funny that paying unsatisfied customers expect more communication than a 'its done when its done' approach.

welcome Bob :) when considering using lower resolutions it is important to consider aspect ratio (at least to me). if you select lower resolutions with the same aspect ratio you will not suffer any distortion (read stretching). your native resolution of 1920x1200 is a 16:10 aspect ratio resolution. the following resolutions are also 16:10 resolutions, so if you pick these as your render resolution you will have an image that maintains the proportions of your native display - much easier on the eyes: 1680 x 1050 1440 x 900 1280 x 800 you may also want to consider disabling post processing. it gives a cleaner image and increases performance. if you like the blur effects keep it on. let us know how it goes :) good luck.

well it hasn't been on top for a while when i look at it, and certainly isn't now. is barely making top 5 for action games on steam... being beaten by older games. either way, minor petty nitpicking by both of you on a very valid point. this game isn't on the top of GS popularity list because people are buying it or because its great.. it's because a lot of people are using the forums due to bugs and issues with the game. their list isn't populated based on sales or reviews - purely on community activity.. trust me - ask them if you don't believe. this game has great potential, but needs GREAT work yet to be done - this is being reflected in public reception, review, and sales. this is the only point i care about, and the only point BI should care about. stay on top of community updates. release hotfixes if you have to - don't just adopt this sit back and say 'its done when its done' attitude. people don't take that these days. this is coming from someone who has been supporting the company for nearly a decade and can prove it if need be. people that suffered throught his with Arma I especially are getting quite frustrated - this shouldn't be the norm. development should lead to less bugs and a more high quality product.

did anyone update with the gametrailers review that points out this is a faulty product? just curious. http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/952481-arma-ii/index.html averaging 75.60 on Gamerankings metarating now. bugs and optimization issues are a common theme in all reviews i've read. ---------- Post added at 02:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:10 PM ---------- um. do you know that one of the main drivers of popularity for achieving that is the forum activity for the game? check out the GS forum - it's active as hell because of all the bugs and complaints... nearly all posts are about buggy AI, performance problems, hardware compliance, etc. and a lot of the posts are made by a few users... having it on the number one does not mean it's the number one played game in other words. it means a lot of people are looking at the forums and a lot are looking at the page - which makes sense seeing the review was posted recently and there have been a couple features on GS. either way, wait for sales to come out for the month if you don't believe me. or check out steam - it hasn't been on the top 10 sales list for weeks.. nowhere to be found there so obviously not even the most popular PC game at the moment on Steam.

wow, you contributed nothing to the thread once again. Bravo. ---------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ---------- i think you've got the right plan jack. just be patient and see what the next patch brings. no sense whatsoever in buying new hardware to overcompensate for poor optimization. if it were clear that hardware was the issue i'd suggest otherwise, but after spending hours going over this board that is quite obviously not the case.

sure it does...

^^ this ^^ save your frustrations. i wasted many a weekend trying to sort it out - it's obviously in dire need of a patch by all accounts but those who would like you to buy new hardware :)

wait for a patch Jack, and disregard those that suggest hardware is to blame until it is known if hardware is indeed the issue. they just like to flex their PC knowledge (using the term lightly) muscles in an attempt to impress with little knowledge of the real issues at hand. this game is based on the original Arma engine, only modified - by no stretch of the imagination should the game require more than it suggests on the box. use common sense, and exercise patience while we wait on the patch - then make a decision. it's performing poorly for a broad range of systems from old to new - certain configurations yield better results. all signs point to a software issue at this point. you do not pay to play unless you need to pay to play. making any assumption without that knowledge is ridiculous. i do not have another game in my library which performs nearly as poorly as this one - and i'll be damned if one poorly optimized game makes me shell out cash to make it run slightly better (or perhaps not judging by the posts on these boards :)). gametrailers review calls it a faulty product. gamespot review says everything but bugs and poor optimization are great. all reviews say something similar. bugs & performance problems.

ignore everyone suggesting its your hardware - they obviously don't understand the issue in the least. even if you had insufficient hardware there would still be a marked difference in framerate with different render resolutions and settings.

i'm not saying this is a universal issue, but it definitely happens to me when i use it with Vista x64 and the Steam install. others seem to also encounter it. it could be i'm using an older version of fraps, or something else altogether - all i know for sure is that i'm now noticing performance differences with settings being changed - but fraps always shoots up to 30-40fps (which honestly feels about right when playing) only to quickly be pulled back to 20-21fps where it hovers for the duration of my testing. definitely odd...

perhaps you should do your homework :) many have reported it not working properly with Arma II for Steam version.. sorry. why would arma mark show different values and other framecount software while fraps always returns a 21fps regardless of settings / render resolution? c'mon genius...

are you using FRAPS? it doesn't work with ARMA if you are.. at least not for many here. some people think it might be counting the patched screen overlay for the Steam version.. which might explain why all of us with steam seem to get 21fps back regardless of settings. just a thought.

i really get the sense that this game was needlessly rushed out of spite and personal feelings re: the Operation Flashpoint game coming out shortly. hopefully they fix things up quick though - i know many that are losing patience.

Dwarden has stated repeatedly that they are watching this board closely and fixes / improvements are in the works. Just because you didn't stumble upon his comments doesn't mean they don't exist ;)

it was recommended, and worked, for Far Cry 2.. but i haven't noticed much of anything changing for this game when adjusting it personally.

just wanted to give this thread a bump for the weekend warriors. it has drastically increased the performance / enjoyability for me :)

i would try these: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=79143 helped me out quite a bit. not sure if it was disabling hyper transport in bios, or the nvidia mipmap setting, but things are much better now.

i disabled HT for CPU/GPU in bios. i also disabled spread spectrum after reading that can cause issues. i changed nvidia mipmap to trilinear. seems to have worked a charm ;) if the mouse lag is your issue then i would just play around with different 'max frames rendered ahead' until you get a setting you like. i find that has the most impact on mouse lag. you may also want to turn off pointer acceleration if you use this with you mouse (some mice give the option) as i've read in the past that this can cause mouse lag in certain applications.