Game__On

Can i use stock sounds on servers that play ace mod without getting kicked of by the server ? I like the original sounds better

my steam id is Game__On

Another program i must install to play the game ? Great. I'll give it a shot . Anyway, ******* MODS ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

Online numbers will only decrease, with the retarded amount of different mods running on different servers. How the hell is a new player going to be able to actually get online and play a game ? It's impossible. BIS should make a mod manage program within the game . As it stands now, there are more mods then online players.

What is ACEX ? Well thanks for your help, but i honestly am not going to spend hours finding out what servers use what mods, trying to install all these mods, have them conflict with eachother just to play the game ... Too many mods are killing this game online . I know i'm done with it as it stands now. How on earth will someone that just starts playing be able to join any multiplayer game ? There are more mods then players lol . I have played many many hours already and i'm already sick of trying to find a server to play on . crap. :(

Yes that's right. It says something different each time though. From your response i'm guessing i'm missing mods ? christ that was what i was afraid for. For each server i now need at least 2 or 3 mods per server ? I have played arma 2 for hundreds of hours , then stopped playing for a couple of weeks and now i can't join any servers without spending hours installing fifty million mods. Also, what is 'running my modfolder' ? Man , i want to play the game not micromanage it ! :(:( Too many mods needed will not be good for online numbers.

Can't join any games. Installed 'ace' mod and up to 1.05 patch. I also see 'ace 2' in server names now and again ,,, Is that another version or something ? I'm getting frustrated. I hate installing mods, thought i'd do this one so i can join my favourite servers but now i can't join sh^t anymore Mods are ok and all, but if you need to install another mod (or multiple) for every single sever it will REALLY thin out the playerbase .

well for one thing, there usually is not TS in pvp . I don't know any PVP server that also has a TS or vent server . Voip is usually disabled to. Also i find the pvp servers usually just a frag fest . I play on DAO berzerk mostly. This 'tactical gamer' server , where is it based ?

Coop is awesome, because of teamplay and teamspeak/ventrillo whatever. teamplay, getting things done with your team by communicating, not because of the fast CS like action . If you're playing coop on a server with no teamspeak you may as well not be playing as well .

I don't get all these '9 fps is good enough' . It shows bigtime on the players side, especially if they have full auto weapons. Rate of fire is easily cut in half or worse . 9 fps server side may not be bad for those with their dmr sniping , but if you need to fire bursts you need higher fps on the server's side, or you simply won't hit sh^t as your bullets scatter like a shotgun . I beg all of you who are running a server, keep the server side FPS as high as possible ! I think it needs at least 20 fps to be completely smooth on the players side.

I think the jagerbataillon nordland have a hold server up now and then. This server runs very good (high fps) , but is located in germany i think. DOA also have a hold server, which is almost always full i think. Put 'Nordland' in your filter and check it out . Last time i played on there there were 60 people playing. "DOA" also have a hold server up permanently i think, usually it's pretty much full. Also located in germany if i'm not mistaken. "berzerk" in filter i think.

I would have spent some of that money on a bigger screen though

You need the server to be above 25 fps. Maybe not when all you use is the dmr , but with machineguns your rate of fire drops dramatically, and your groups (when you fire a burst of say 5 or 10 bullets) scatter all over the place, meaning you can't hit sh^t at larger distances (300 to 500 meters)

What evidence ? Your evidence totally proves my point actually :confused:.

Man i KNEW you were going to do this lol . First you say 90 fps in arma 2 isnt possible, i knew i had to show details and when i do it's 'i'm so l337' bla bla . Dude that's really weak . :( Also, Warhead is not at all performing better then the original crysis actually. ;) Crytek said it did, but it did not. You can read up about it if you don't believe me. And last, for the last frecking time , i only said that 24 fps is not the max the eye can see. Then it was you who started to derail the trhead with things you literally made up. And again, who said MAX setttings for arma 2 ? I sure didn't. Stop making stuff up plz man. :( YOU said 80 fps is only possible with 800 x 600 , and lowest settings. I show you it's not. Now it has to be fully maxed out at 3400 x 2800 and 16x AA ? :D ?

Proper multiplay would be awesome indeed. Never took off with the other SH games unfortunately.

lol i hate when people do that, especially when walking into a claymore or some other crappy way to die :mad::)

OMG you can't be serious :( . For the 6 th time now. I only posted about the "24 fps is eyez maximum" . You made the rest up , literally lol. ! Read it back , do it now plz. It's not rare AT ALL. Also never said i NEED it. You can't just make stuff up, and then 'disagree' with it . Really man why ? My words "For some games it takes 100 fps for it to see absolutely no choppyness whatsoever" . How is that the same ? :mad: Oh , did i mention 100 fps is not rare at all ? But you just said that ''perceived acceptable gameplay" was subjective ? ;) (not to mention i NEVER EVER said 80-100 fps is necessary, i honestly haven't got the faintest clue where you get that from ? You just made that up, then 'disagreed' with it. Sure we are. 3d res 2000 <> interface res 1600 (filtrate 125%) AA : Low Object detail: normal Terrain: normal Texture detail : very high Shadows : high Video memory : very high Anisotropic : very high Bleeding eyes feature (post processing) : off View distance 2300 The ABSOLUTE lowest i get with these settings, is 57 fps, with the whole screen filled with bush, or standing on top of a cooling tower in chernogarsk with the WHOLE screen filled with buildings. On average it's 75 easily, going well over 90 in smaller villages or woods. Look man, just because you can't doesnt mean it's "impossible" . Welcome to present time. Where have you been the last 2 years :) Really man where on earth do you get this info from !? :confused: Look ethne, see my first post about this, "24 fps is not the max your eye can see" is really all i said. Then came your posts. Plz look em up again, so when in the future, you click the reply button, you can check if you aren't accidently making stuff up to disagree with.

No, it's not about 'their experience'. It's the claim made by some that anything about 24 fps is not noticable "TO THE HUMAN EYE" . Not what they find 'good enough' . Honestly i don't really give a crap to what another person finds smooth enough. Just don't say "The human eye cannot detect anything above 24 fps" . How many times must i repeat this for you to understand ? Yes i did it in bold again, because apparently it's still not clear. And do you know why i never look at fraps ? Because i don't have to lol. At some point the game is smooth. Then i'm happy. I do check back sometimes, for instance when hearing another weird claim, and see that (depends on the game) sometimes it gets smooth even above 100 fps for me to see absolutely no choppyness. For antother game (like arma 2) it might be 80 . I don't know, and i dont care honestly. It sure as hell isn't 24 fps though. :)

What a person finds acceptable, or just claiming there is no difference between 24 fps and 100 fps is not the same. There is nothing subjective about that. "what is acceptable" is all up to the individual. I personally can't game at 25 fps because it literally makes me sick. If you can great for you . It just bothers me to no end that people keep saying that anything above 24 fps does not matter, because 'the human eye can't detect' that. It bothers me to no end for some reason. Maybe because i keep hearing this ignorant statement over and over again. Well i hope it clear now. Your eyes are not limited by a meazly 24 fps. If i don't write it in bold, I have to read this stupid "But the eyz cannort detact over 24 framez perz seconsz !" nonsense on the next page again. p.s: Why do you write your name below every post ? I see this sometimes but i have never understood why people do this ? Your name is in the upper left corner as well.

Lol, so you can't see the difference between 3, and 4 fps. That's because it's both CHOPPY as hell :rolleyes: Try 90 fps, you will spray your pants instantly. Just try it ffs and see for yourself instead of spouting all this nonsense. By the way i game on a 22" hp p1230 , a CRT monitor. Also, IF i were to put that monitor on 60hz , do you have any idea how annoying that flickers ? AGAIN, you can look at an LCD with 60 hz sure, but not a CRT it will make your eyes bleed and give you a headeache. Again it's not the same. Just because a movie "SEEMS SMOOTH" at 24 fps , does not mean "ze humanz eye cannot detect anything more then exactly 24 fps" , mythbuster say it! A videogame is a completely other story. http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm < Dwarden posted this earlier. WIKI http://whisper.ausgamers.com/wiki/index.php/How_many_FPS_human_eye_can_see Your eyes are not a simple webcam. Please try it yourself everybody. Higher frames is BLISS :)

Man that's so much crap :butbut: You are honestly telling me, that you can't see the difference between 25 fps and 100 fps ? I dare you to try it, and see if 25 fps is not choppy like a slide show. Movies are not games, it works differently. With games, especially 1st person shooters, above 80 fps it becomes completely fluent to me. Still if framerate changes between 80 and say 150 fast, you can still see a differenct. I'm so tired of this 'you can't see the difference above 25 fps' . Man PLEASE try it out yourself TRY IT, and if you really can't see the difference, you are almost blind

I loved SH3, but i can't help but wonder what SH5 will bring compared to SH3 besides prettier graphics ? I should say what can SH5 bring what SH3 already did actually .

Probably because people downloading instead of buying games nowadays. They had to make it for consoles to make money. So it turned out like crap. GTA 4 on console = fun. Millitairy sim on console = down the toilet It's ****** up. :(

Put your clocks back to stock, and try again. I know you want to say "but all my other games work" , but i would really suggest you try it.