Brew Crew

Here is the flaw in your comment. Many people CAN'T get a playable frame rate in the campaign regardless of the graphics settings used. I am one of those people. I have an i7 920, with dual GTX 295s and can't get above 27 fps for an average on LOW settings. Clearly not acceptable. I would be ecstatic with an average of 35-40 fps on normal settings. Before you start attacking those of us in the community who are expressing our dissatisfaction due to the fact that we can't even play the game, maybe you should educate yourself on the issues people are having. Now go back to playing your copy of Arma 2 that clearly works on your pc at a playable frame rate, as you clearly have nothing of value to add to the troubleshooting board.

Let us know how it works. It would be great if you could post fps from the 3rd mission in the capital city, as this seems to be the most intesive section of the game. I'm sure you're already aware, but be sure your settings are identical so the results are comparable. I'm in the process of doing the same and will hopefully have some results in the next day or so.

I also have dual 295s, but don't have the crashing to desktop problem. My issue is poor frame rates in the campaign. No matter what I try, I can't get above 26-27 fps.

I'm either not communicating my point clearly, or you just don't get it. A - The only reason I brought Crysis into this was to state that my pc is fast enough to run what was considered the most resource demanding game (perhaps it's now in second place) on very high settings. I am very well aware that they are two very different animals. I was just trying to set perspective. B - With a pc that could run what was the most resource demanding game with all the eye candy on very smoothly, one would simply think that I could play Arma 2. C - I never said I'm looking for 200 fps. But a consistent 35 fps would be great. And I don't even care if I can't get that on Very High settings. But not being able to get that at normal, or even low settings? THIS IS MY POINT. If you must, reread the very first post in this string. So before you go off and insult some of us who would just like to play the game, try to comprehend the point being communicated rather than only seeing the word "Crysis" and minimizing the problems some of us are having with non relevant banter about how it's nonsense to compare the two. Or maybe you just need to turn the MJ coverage off already! ;) ---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 PM ---------- Thanks for the info. I figured they are working hard on it and hope it's something that can get fixed in a reasonable amount of time, cause it looks like they have a gem of a game here. Regards.

Basically it appears that there is no good fix. And it seems as if there aren't any good answers either. I don't mean to keep comparing performance to Crysis, but Crysis requires a beast of a pc in order to play on very high. And I can achieve that at a consistant 45 fps and the game looks and plays fantastic. But this game doesn't even work on normal/low settings (23-25 fps with spikes into the mid teens) on the very same pc that tames Crysis, which is abosolutely ridiculous. And the part that puzzles me the most is that some people with much slower computers can run this game with higher settings and get better frames than I can. I don't even know what to say. Guess I'll go play some Project Reality until there is word on the cause of poor performance on high performing machines.

Hi all - 1st post here, but I've been reading A LOT here since launch as I've seen many with similar issues. I have a pretty beefy pc and shouldn't be seeing such issues. I can play Crysis on Very High settings with all the eye candy and get a consistent 40-45 fps. This game kills my pc - even on normal and low settings. System specs Processor: i7 920 Factory Clock Memory: 6 GB DDR3 Video: 2X Nvidia GTX 295 in SLI OS: Windows Vista64 Downloaded via Steam Issue: Low FPS - ranging from an average of 21 - 26 depending on the video settings. When the issue occurs: - Single player campaign, city areas are the worst. I have to drop my view distance down to 650 meters in order to get any type of playable frame rate with normal-high settings. - 1st night mission: Into the Storm - get about an average of 33-35 fps on high-very high settings and view distance of 3500 meters. Little lower than I would have thought, but still runs smooth as it doesn't dip below 25 fps at all. - 3rd mission in the capital city: Harvest Red - fps drops to an average of 22. The only setting that appears to make any sort of difference is view distance. When I drop this down to 650 meters, I get an average of 26 fps. Not very playable though since it dips into the mid-teens fairly often and is choppy. When the issue does not occur: - In the Armory mode I have well over 60 fps on all Very High settings and AA maxed out with the view distance set at 3500 meters. Game looks great and runs silky smooth. - In the Scenarios mode I get about 29-31 fps on Very High settings with AA maxed out and a view distance of 3500 meters. Still very playable as it holds the mid-upper 20's fairly consistantly. - In my very brief multiplayer venture, I was getting about 27 fps on Very High settings with AA maxed out and view distance at 3500 meters. Again, not super high, but seemed very playable as it normally stayed above the 24fps mark. Fixes Tried: I've tried nearly all the fixes mentioned in the forums. - Disabling the Physx setting in the Nvidia Control panel - Installing the EVGA SLI enable patch - -winxp - -maxmem 2047 - older Nvidia drivers - adjusted all combination of video settings all the way down to low and 600x800 resolution - added SLI profile (copy of Crysis) with nHancer - plus others that I can't think of off the top of my head Benchmark Score: I ran the dowloadable ArmaII Mark test and had a score of 2450. I've seen people post scores in the 5000+ range with computers that should be much slower than mine. What gives? Has there been any break through? Why would my pc not run this game at all - even at low settings? And why do I see many people with lesser pc's stating that they're playing this game just fine with 40+ fps? Clearly I shouldn't be bottlenecking in my cpu and certainly not my gpu. This game appears to be a blast to play. I just wish I could find out first hand. Hope anyone can give me some insight that I may not have tried. I've heard that Vista may be part of the culprit - but haven't seen much evidence of that yet. I don't have any other operating systems that I could load to test the theory. So if anyone has found Vista hampering their performance, please feel free to share your results. Regards