GunSlingerAUS

I'm using a Patriot TorqX 128GB for my Win7 OS install and ARMA2. Good news = fantastic OS and app performance, faster loading of ARMA2. Bad news = it doesn't fix ARMA2's performance. I still get texture pop-in, and sub 20 fps. Still, if you can afford one I highly recommend it. Windows and productivity apps run beautifully. Just make sure you buy the right SSD - some older/cheaper ones have major issues which can make them perform worse than a mechanical drive. Anandtech has a fantastic article on why, and which drives to avoid.

Please explain? Sounds intriguing.

I'm guessing performance improvements would be outside the scope of the ACE mod? Hey, I had to ask!

Note that the full game is much more demanding on system resources than the demo, due to the size of the island and number of AI entities.

You should also consider that some people find 20 frames per second to be very smooth and highly playable, while others can not tolerate such a low frame rate. I think this is a massive reason why there are so many conflicting reports about performance, with some folks saying its fine, while others think it's a slideshow. Unfortunately I'm in the latter camp :(

The devs recently mentioned that they're looking at performance in urban areas in 1.04. While it doesn't mean our woes will be solved, this news is at least better than nothing...

Hehe, I find it hilarious when novice programmers whip out "easy fixes" to create new game features, without taking into account the millions of lines of code that already exist in the game.

kju - I've only been a member of this community for a short while, but whenever I see a post with your name on it, I know I'm in for a treat. Thank you so much for spending your time on mods that we can all enjoy, free of charge. As for this project, I'll be installing it as soon as I've got a few hours to spare, but I'm sure it'll be amazing.

Fantastic work guys. Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!

Those framerates are normal for your PC. You won't notice much of a change with a better video card - your issue is the CPU.

The main singleplayer level in the demo (can't remember the name, but you land on a beach in a chopper) runs MUCH, MUCH smoother than the full game. I get around 40 to 50fps on that level, yet 20fps in the real campaign.

Ahh, found their thread - awesome stuff. The modding community for this game is simply amazing. We don't deserve to reap the benefits of all their hardwork for free!

After browsing through all of the amazing work the modding community is doing, it surprised me to see no mention of a Falklands mod. There are a lot of elements already in the game, and being worked on here by modders, that suggest to me it wouldn't be an impossibly complex conversion: - the game engine is suited to islands. - the grassy plains with rocky outcrops of the Falklands would lead to great performance (FPS). - there's already a Harrier model which could be a good basis for modifying into a sea harrier. - there are already ship models which could be a good basis for modifying into the necessary ships. - somebody here is already working on British troops (though I'd assume they're quite different to the 1980's era Brits who went to the Falklands). Having said that, I don't have the time, patience or knowledge to build anything like this, but thought I'd throw this seed out into the ARMA2 wilderness to see if it takes root...

I beg of you - please don't add these performance-sucking monsters (aka large towns) unless BIS can optimise the way they're rendered. The one thing that will get me to install these third party maps is better fps than the Chernaraus map.

Any performance increase in urban areas, as mentioned in the community update?

Quick note guys - a CPU is a VERY complicated piece of technology. Folks like to think of CPUs as a garden hose - if it's running at 100%, the hose is full of water and is being fully utilised. Yet that analogy is far too simplistic for these intricate devices. There could be one bottleneck within the CPU's architecture that is limiting it, and is running at full capacity, yet the overall CPU capacity will still appear to be running at 50%.

I think you've summed up perfectly why there's such a gulf between those who don't have an issue with ARMA2's performance and those who do. Unfortunately I'm in the latter camp - having been spoilt by 60fps in most of my games for the last few years, with 30fps as a minimum, I now perceive 20fps as a slideshow.

Good point Bulldogs. And I think we can all agree that regardless, we all want ARMA2 to be the best that it can.

Have you read the developer's comments on Patch 1.04, and how performance is a key focus? If that's not a fact supporting my theory, then I don't know what is. :p

Sorry, I used it in this context to reflect the depth of the simulation. Ie if OFP2 is "hardcore", it'll take the realistic, studied approach that the ARMA series is renowned for. "Hardcore shooter" is a phrase that many gamers associate with that meaning.

No, but you did blame the problems on the user's hardware. You make this claim regardless of the fact that there are countless folks on these forums who have tried clean OS installs, with the latest hardware and drivers (myself included). Their other games run fine. Yet you suggest ARMA2 isn't to blame? :confused: Heck, even the devs have admitted it's an issue (take a look at what they're focusing on for the next patch), but you can't?

One last post just to make something clear - I actually love ARMA2 when I'm playing a well-built co-op mission with a few buddies. When the framerate is smooth, the AI isn't doing its psychic sniping/blind pathfinding and the game hasn't crashed, this is one of the finest co-op games I've ever played. It's just that, for us, those moments are in the minority, which makes it all the more frustrating when it's not running well.

Are you seriously telling me you can't see the thousands of posts on these forums complaining about performance? Or the fact that it's the #1 issue here? Still, if you've missed it so far, there's no way a sentence from me is going to make the blinding obvious apparent to you. And I'm sure that for the miniscule amount of people here who use tri-GTX280 cards, it's great - I'm pretty sure you're part of a rather tiny minority.

Each to their own, I'm the exact opposite to you. Considering the uninformed nonsense I hear from most gamers, I'd take the word of a decent journo over theirs any day of the week. Though I am slightly biased - many of my pals are gaming press, as am I :)

Could it be the fact they run at more than 15fps? All the detail in the world isn't worth jack if it's running like a slideshow. Or hadn't you noticed the several thousand posts on these forums about ARMA2's performance? Having said that, I'm not going to weigh in on ARMA2 vs OFP2 until I've got the shiny new OFP2 box in my hands. But I must say that nearly every preview I've read of the game - many of them from trusted journos rather than frustrated forum addicts - suggest it's a hell of a lot more hardcore than most of the folks around here are suggesting.