hotel

I agree the game has "code insufficiencies" and I cannot even count how many times my game has crashed on 4 different hardware combinations. If you look at the polls for "How Satisfied are you with Arma2" you will see the majority of the community is having issues which you dont seem to have. This alone proves root's point. Personally the people that marked the game perfect I feel are either blind or simply grabbing BIS's back no matter the state of the game. I love the game but it does lack the general finished feel I get from most games I play. The performance is god awful and the stuttering is terrible as well. I am sure its just my hardware;) ROFLMAO I got your back roots :)

I notice a lot of people are able to increase performance with there Nvidia cards by makign the Pre Rendered frames 8. Does ATI have this setting as well? I do not see it in the Catalyst Control Center but was more or less wondering if I could change it in a config file somewhere? Any help on this matter would be appreciated

Same here. There was no difference in the game whatsoever for me. I even ran benchmarks that proved nothign was better. Waiting for the patch I guess.

Thanks bro. Got it wroking by just installing as admin

I am on Windows 7 and ATT does not work.

Im sorry to tell you this but Arma2 has huge open worlds with a lot of interaction and cpu intensive features that a 2.1 ghz processor will struggle with. Wait for the patch to see if it will help but all in all i think you might want to consider a better computer if this game is to be your main form of entertainment.

LOL. People like you make make me laugh.

I agree! This is how the game is supposed to look LMFAO!!!

You’re funny Placebo! It was Bohemia that announced a console date right? I can’t remember why they pushed it back or killed it but I am sure I can take a wild guess. Releasing a game with these kinds of bugs and performance issues would NOT be heard of by any other company producing PC games. This game should be playable from box when in fact it only is for select part of the community (LESS THAN 50%). Even then you can argue they used fixes and editing to make their game run. It shouldn’t be necessary to edit game files and placing switches in the shortcut to make the game function as it was supposed to. Also none of these help performance one bit for me and many others. Furthermore half the community meets or exceeds “recommended†system requirements and has yet to get enough time to match the time they spent trying to make the game run correctly. You think because the majority of us are computer literate one guy should be flamed because he/she does not have an understanding? You cannot ask the consumer to become computer literate because they want to play a video game either. There are a lot of people that like to game with PC that knows nothing in general of how to edit cfg files or any text file for that matter. These people want to install the game and play it and furthermore all of us gurus would prefer it that way as well. Obviously Bohemia knows nothing of this concept and in all honesty I think even a lot of the fan boys can agree with me on that. I don’t blame the way he felt because he spent 50 dollars for something he would have to tweak to make function in the end. I can’t believe Bohemia got this past Quality Control lol!! You do realize Operating Systems are gearing towards being easier to use as well as software right? If the complexity is why there are so many problems why the early release date? Can anyone answer this? Can someone say “Make Money before OFP2 Releases� Also all this blaming on the hardware vendors is just ridiculous. SLAP IN THE FACE really.

The average game consumer out there expect games to run out of the box. I dont blame him for thinking the game was horrible and suppose to look like that. Not everyone is technical with there computers and this title in its current state is pretty sorry. The point of "Recommended" and "Minimum" requirements are so that a user know he/she can run that particular game. When you exceed or meet those requirements you should not be having the issues this game tends to be plaqued with. Putting command syntaxes to combat graphics issues should not be necessary in our days of computers. Eight GB of ram should have been properly tested with the game as of many other things as well. The time will come where people are going to get wise to Bohemias strategy of sell first then fix later. To all fanboys I apologize but games should not be released like this simply because its a slap in the face to the consumer. The graphics in this game are GREAT! The effects I feel are outdated. The smoke is good but the fire and blown up vehicles look dated pretty bad. This is my opinion ofcourse and many feel the effects are the best out there. I came across a recon aircraft that crashed in SpecOps and it was the same model you see flying around in the air with a chared texture. To me this is bad effects for what computers are capable of today. Also the ground skid mark was an absolute joke.

In all honesty I blame both the devs and the managment. I also blame myself for not waiting until this game is 19.95 before buying because that is all this game is worth in its current state. In the future there will be no purchasing of Bohemia's games until a year after release. Purchasing before that will equal more time tweaking than playing. Sorry fanboys ;)

I own the Steam version of Arma 2. Recently I downloaded ArmaMark and ran some tests to be dissapointed by a low score with normal settings of around 3490. My Texture Memory was set to Very High as I have a 1 GB Gfx card. I changed it to Normal then back to Very high and re-ran the test. To my suprise my armamark scored was 4181. Then I rebooted the game to only see this occur again. I figured maybe this is a cold boot problem so I changed the setting immediately after entering game and another 4100+ score was the outcome. Can anyone else confirm this? System AMD Phenom 2 X4 955 BE @3.8Ghz Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5P (790FX and SB750 Chipsets) Sapphire HD4890 1GB @ 930/1125 (Catalyst 9.7) Patriot DDR3 1600Mhz 2x2GB (4GB) Western Digital 500GB 32MB Antec 500W Windows 7 RC-7100

Test 1 - 44.7744 Test 2 - 53.0004 Test 3 - 40.7987 Test 4 - 55.0711 Test 5 - 27.5627 OFPMark - 4424.15 Settings All MEDIUM / Post Proc - LOW Video Memory - HIGH AF - MEDIUM AA- OFF Draw - 1600 3D Res - 1920x1200(100% fill) - this does not effect frames for me System AMD Phenom 2 X4 955 BE @3.8Ghz Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5P (790FX and SB750 Chipsets) Sapphire HD4890 1GB @ 930/1100 (Catalyst 9.7) Patriot DDR3 1600Mhz 2x2GB (4GB) Western Digital 500GB 32MB Antec 500W Windows 7 RC-7100 Conclusion Overall the game is running decent even on campaign. The only issues I have now is the damn stuttering. I am going to try a raptor HDD soon to see if that cures it.

Im sorry but you said your game runs great with all settings cranked with 10 KM draw. Your game actually runs good with 10KM draw..... Find that really hard to believe man. The draw distance depends a lot on CPU and with a 2.5 i just see how its possible.

When OFP2 comes out Arma2 will not be giving no fingers. Wether or not the game is arcadish etc they will kill BIS in sales. I watched a video with the devs for OPF2 and they will be having real world ballistics in there game as well as modding tools for the PC. I would love to stick with Arma2 and would love for them to suceed in giving OPF2 a run for there money.There engine simply does not give them a chance to do that as its dated and it seems there engine cannot evolve to use our systems correctly. In my personaly opinion I feel Arma2 was released months prematurely for the sole purpose of making sales because it would not be able to compete with OPF2. Hopfully they made enough to support there expenses ;)

In the game is there a way to turn off the speech from the AI? The acting is so terrible it takes away from the immersive feel and the repetitive manner in which they use each line is damn awful.

If anyone would read the release notes on the site you would see it says these drivers helped to improve games limited by CPU and gave the examples of Crysis and Lost Planet Colonies. By using the word "Examples" I would say this CPU limited improvment can be effective on many other games and quite possibly may improve Arma2 to a small degree. EDIT: After installing the latest drivers I notice a decrease in performance of the Arma2 demo benchmark by 3 FPS. The Frames I was getting in the campain are the same with no improvment of smoothness. I honestly wasnt expecting this driver update to help this game though as I feel the game itself needs fixing before drivers can help increase performance enough to make a difference. Campaign - 20 - 25 FPS after first mission Single Missions - 25 - 35 FPS Online - Not enough inccentive to go online with this piss poor performance Rig AMD Phenom 2 X4 955BE @3.8Ghz Gigabye 790FX and SB750 chipset Partiot 2x2GB 1600Mhz DDR3 Sapphire HD4890 1GB @930/1150(4.3) Western Digital 500GB 16MB Cache 650W BFG

No refund here m8. I was able to upgrade my pc enough to run the game somewhat decent and the new CPU I bought died. In the process of RMA'ing it. I am scared to try my new CPU with the game because i feel like the game overstressing the components in my machine for nothing really. I ordered a Phenom X4 955 BE. With the Phenom X2 550 BE i was getting 30 to 35% improvement over my 6400+ X2. That was with the two extra cores unlocked. I am hoping the new 955 BE i ordered will get 10% or so more improvement. I managed to get a stable 22 FPS in that mission in the industrial city (forget what its called). That kinda framerate is still unacceptable :(. The game consistantly stutters even in high framerate areas and seems to lack a overall smooth feeling. I never had an CPU die on me brand spankin new so I am not sure what to say about it. If I put down how I really felt the cpu was killed I am sure I would get flamed but fanboys. Anyway Im waiting for the arrival of my new CPU and heatsink/fan. I should have never contradicted myself because now I am wasting money on a video game that quite frankly does not deserve the time.

The game has issues loading textures. I get this too after I start a saved game and it is loading the textures. My teammates will be running around with blurry faces or white heads. I seriously doubt this to be hardware related.

BIS knew this game was not ready and released it as a way to earn income before OFP2 kills it. They know in this day of digital purchasing and fanboys they can keep there sales strong enough to keep the company alive. As we all know if you digitally purchase it takes an act of god to get your money back. I for one have seen this tactic used in various companies over and over again. Enjoy Arma 2 because i doubt the company will stay above water enough to produce another one. They have not even released a retail box version in the US. They keep pushing it back. Wonder why......... I honestly cant see how the bug plagued game and more importantly performance plagued game can go unnoticed to some of you who praise this waste of 50 USD. I have replaced most of the guts in my machine (which exceeded rec sys req) to some good stuff. I bought a high end board and dual core cpu and even some 1600 ram. In the campaign im still luggin 22 to 25 FPS. I even tried a quad core and various other combinations. Through testing I actually tried 4 different hardware combinations and the performance was all over the place. The bugs were always there to remind me where my money went. With all of that said how is it some of you dont experience any issues? Where is the truth in this poll? I looked at the poll and was shocked to see 39 of you selected the "Extremely , Awesome game! no problems what so every". You gotta be shittin' me, seriously. Some people cannot even admit to the game needing patches?

Thanks for that info m8. I am saving your post so that i can try and get my refund Monday. I got the game running decent with the upgrade but Steam and Arma2 in my opinion do not mix well. The retail version on DVD will be what i buy in the future.

I basically sold the guts (board, CPU and RAM) out of my machine so that I could upgrade without killing my pocket. I contradicted myself in doing this because i refused to upgrade. In reality I spent 100 bucks after selling my old stuff. New Specs AMD Phenom X2 550 @ 3.1ghz Patriot DDR3 1600 Ram Gaming Edition 500 GIG 16MB Cache Western Digital HDD 500 Watt Antec PSU ATI HD4890 1GIG DDR5 256-bit OC @ 930/1150 Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5P 790FX North Bridge/SB750 South Bridge Previous specs AMD X2 6400+ @ 3.2ghz A-Data DDR2 PC800 500 GIG 16MB Cache Western Digital HDD 500 Watt Antec PSU ATI HD4890 1GIG DDR5 256-bit OC @ 930/1150 Gigabyte GA-MA78G-DS3H 780G North Bridge/SB700 South Bridge With the old PC specs I was getting 26 FPS average between Arma2 Demo benchmarks. The new one is giving me 40 sometimes 41 average. At the lowest I had 37 averages. My CPU is dual core but my board had the ability to unlock 2 extra cores on the CPU (reason I bought this one). I did that and re-ran the bench and to my surprise no change. It was still around 40. I went into the game and with everything on high I was getting like 5 to 8 more fps average than with the dual core. I actually did a whole mission without going below 30 FPS believe it or not (Trial by Fire). On average with the new machine I have about 35 to 40% performance gain. When I was shopping for upgrade parts I told myself I was going to buy a really good motherboard. The RAM and CPU I went more budget than performance. I am really happy I bought a better board and feel maybe the cheaper end boards create bottlenecks you otherwise wouldn’t see in a quality board. If I am wrong please correct me I will edit my post. Game Settings Resolution - 1920 * 1200 Fill rate - 100% Draw Distance - 3600 AF - HIGH AA - OFF (This makes my game blurry / reminds me of GRAW) Texture, Texture Memory, Object Detail, Terrain Detail - VERY HIGH Shadows - HIGH Post Processing - HIGH (not sure why nobody likes this the blurry feel when running to me make the game more challenging and realistic, just my 2 cents) Overall after the upgrade I am pleased with the games performance. Now if they fix the building performance robbing characteristics I will get even more FPS. When I get some money I’m going to get like a 80 gig Raptor drive and install my games on it. I think the hiccups i get in game is HDD lag. Other than that I am happy. It is a shame in every aspect that this game cannot run medium on recommended specs. My previous spec exceeded the recommended and I was unable to play the campaign. Even the Trial by Fire mission would drop below 20 frames.

Steam is not letting me return as there giving me the runaround about 3rd party vendors. I think I am done buying games from online as it has been more headache than just going to store to get a copy of whatever. Now I have been double screwed. I should have just waited for the North America release that way I could get the game at a huge retailer and have no headaches in returning it. Was watching a OFP2 video and there game seemed like it was lagging too, but it most likely will not have the huge flucuations in frames as Arma2 does. I will buy this game at wal-mart or target in a year or so and try it then. This is if OPF2 comes out so horrible I have to.

I paid 50 dollars for a digital copy of this game. I have 100% right to complain and so does everyone else. Just because you have nothing to complain about doesn't mean we do not. These post about complainers floods the forum just as badly.