Reverend Crast

No man, it uses lame scripting language Ruby. It opens at least 3 or 4 (didn't want to count) command line/console applications and asks you to use 1,2,3,4 menu. Then, it tries to start a web server and use your browser as an interface. After all of it, it doesn't work. Great mod, but I won't use it until this abdomination is gone. The same stuff can be done in very simple C++ or C# program with nice user friendly interface (just to answer incoming question, no I can't write one, I develop software for money and don't have time for community projects, I'll gladly donate to ACE2 team if there is a way and if I can download it and install it without using that "installer").

Nice mod, but that installer/updater is beyond horrible, one of the worst pieces of software I have ever seen.

Vry nice guide, thanks! Although I don't think Keep Low command ever worked...

I've got some news for you. I own all three current gen consoles aqnd do most of my gaming on them. My PC is only of ArmA 2, DCS Black Shark and some MMOs. I also have dev kit with oversized HD and more memory than regular xbox (to hold debug information and what not) on my desk at work (latest dev kit has shiny bluish HD and dvd cover and these are quite rare). I know what is needed to get a game certified for release on xbox and budgets involved in making AAA games. Considering hardcore nature of ArmA 2 and average xbox demogrpahics (and in consequence, sales not guaranteed), that would be very risky project. Very stripped down version at most, if very, very lucky.

No you obviously aren't. My adivce for you would be to stop talking about things you completely do not understand, because you just make a fool of yourself.

Never. There is no way such a big game would run on any current generation console. Buy a PC.

"And there is a letter from him to the community peting himself on the back for the game being so good welcomed by the console gamer" I am sorry to say so but this is bullshit. I own both PC version and PS3 version (yes, I have paid over 60£ for both). We (me and my friends) have tried to have some games up tonight on PS3. PS3 servers are completely broken. You get stuck at friend's list, creating a lobby is next to impossible and people very often get disconnected and cannot get online at all.. We have spedn 2.5 hours trying to get a game up and running but to no avaliable.. I still think DR is decent game, but nowhere near close to ArmA 2 (minus performance, which is a big thing and big plus towards DR) ps. as a console and PC player, I must say that controls are clunky on both platforms. I find them even worse on a console. Also, I find the game very easy, even on hardcore mode, I am not harcore player tho, playing ArmA 2 casually.

Around 300,000 trillions flies eat shit as well.. it doesn't mean that the are right and we should do the same. DR is decent game, definitely good for console shooter, but has got really big identity crisis on PC and it's nowhere near the scope of ArmA 2

Played a couple of missions. I wish ArmA II could achieve the same performance (FPS wise) as DR - it would be perfect game then.

I don't know if it's only me, but I've noticed that when running latest build 59323 all 4 cores are at 60-70 load all the time. Might be windows 7 tho (I upgraded recently from Vista). No noticeable performance gains.

Don't make me laugh. I'll buy Dragon Rising and probably enjoy it, but I have no hopes for anything even remotely near the scope and size of ArmA2. DR is glorified free roaming COD. I'd gladly trade Dragon Rising release for 20-25% ArmA 2 performance improvement.

I can only nod to that, although it shouldn't be like that. All my other games (Team Fortress 2, World in Conflict, AA3, Fallout 3, DCS Black Shark) work great under Vista. No performance loss.. it's only ArmA 2 thing. ---------- Post added at 12:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 AM ---------- Actually ArmA 2 does use all 4 cores, on my Q6600 they are all loaded.... to 30-40%, but it's pretty even load spread between cores. ---------- Post added at 12:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 AM ---------- Lots of grass. And seriously, if I knew that upgrading my mobo and processor would help, I'd go and order the best one you can buy today (my gfx card is all new gtx295)... but I know it won't... :(

Yes, despite all the problems it's is great game.

That's weird. It's exactly the opposite to what I get. Maybe I should look at my Vista install.. hmm..

No it isn't borked :). The game is just under utilizing the hardware, so hardware switches to low power silent mode, that's it. When I play World in Conflict, I am getting 100+ FPS most of the time and processor is fully clocked all the time, same with gfx card. I don't really believe you that just enabling another card in Crossfire or SLI automatically doubles frame rate. I've never seen it in any game. I never played campaign, I only play MP and sometimes SP user made missions. From the other hand, difference between XP performance vs Vista performance is so big that's it's not even funny. I get around 3k in Arma Mark under Vista, 4600+ under XP and that seems to be general trend based on other people tests. Can't tell that about other games, they perform almost the same under XP and Vista. Hopefully fixes are inc... but I am not keeping my hopes high.

Not really. My quad core normal clock rate is 3Ghz, but when I play ArmaA II it slows down to 2.1 Ghz or less and stays like that, because ArmA II uses only 30-40% of each core at max..(rarely, usually it's 2 cores working at around 40-50% each) so processor enters power saving/silent fan mode. Setting clock to fixed 3Ghz (no silent mode) doesn't change anything frame - rate wise. Same with graphics card, ArmA II doesn't really utilize full power of top end graphics cards (I have gtx295) Hopefully we will see improvements soon.

Thank you very much for the advice. I don't have a pile of 30" screens :)

Just like in real life.

I juts observed my comp is GPU limited in Arma2 (wierd, I know - but I have no change of frame rate when I change cpu clock from 2.4 to 3.2 Ghz, I use workstation class graphics card which isn't very good for games, not for Arma2 at least). Question is which Nvidia card should I buy (I don't want ATI, I use my home comp for professional 3D work and gamer ATI cards are not good for it). gtx285 or gtx295? Well, correct question would be - do you think ArmA2 will use SLI in near future? I don't really want to wait for 300 series cards as well..

I usually don't sign petitions, but that one I'll. Signed, thanks!

Sorry for being blunt and bit off topic but what you just wrote is really funny. If someone works long hours for inferior pay.. well, unless that person lives in 3rd world country, there is a very high chance that person is intellectually inferior and/or poorly educated. To get back on topic - personally I have no interest in playing ArmA2 in a "COD" way, so I never play on public servers.

It's like playing guitar hero comparing to playing a real guitar. ie.. not even close.

Small market? I don't know. I only know that I see it on top shelf in my local Game store (it was on 4th place best selling games last week)

What do you mean? I never buy physical PC games anymore, it's inconvenient. p.s. I've already bought it, downloading now.