Jezza_09

Hey buddy, it seems like an awsome idea - I really liked Ghost Recon. But I have to warn you, I cant even begin to name you all the copyright and intellectual property rights issues that you have on your hand with bringing something like GR to ArmA II. GR is from a totally different producer and they are not going to be impressed if you nick their music and stick it in a mod for another game. And in terms of intelectual property, its their ideas, being brought to another game. The guys from GR wont be happy at all. Just be careful about importing the actual ghost recon music, lay out, things like that.

Personally I think the Chernarus scenario is very realistic, I remember first reading about it a while back - and thinking 'wow this sounds so similar to the Russian invasion of North Ossetia, its not even funny'. I think many game-makers have avoided the current 'sandbox' wars for three reasons: *It's not really politically correct - many people believe 'the west' should not be fighting the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Some will argue that making a commercial game out of these wars is just another manifestation of the 'western imperialism' that led us to invade the sandbox in the first place. *Its complicated: Imagine having to reproduce the warring factions of the Iraqi civil war of 200-07. There were (and still are) literally dozens of warring factions, and nothing is what it seems. Same for Afghanistan. There's three different tiers in the Taliban, AQ, villagers who will be your friend one day, but then get paid to attack you... etc. *And imagine implementing COIN-strategy in a game. How are you suposed to run a counter-insurgency operation in Afghanistan in a game like ArmA II? Imagine having to run shura's with tribal elders in-game as a means of getting ahead in the game... Also, what is the outcome of both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars? How are you suposed to represent that. *The bluefor and opfor would be completely different. One is a modern, tech-reliant, mechanized military, the other a hit-and-run guerilla army, with no armour, air support, but focused on using non-conventional strategies and tactics. Not exactly balanced. Having said that, I personally would LOVE to have an Afghanistan or Afghan-like expansion to ArmA II. The terrain of Afghanistan, especially the south, would lend itself very well to the game engine and mission editor. Its incredibly varied terrain, but importantly there is alot of open space, dense urban ops is just not an option in this game. I imagine BIS wisely chose to create 'Takistan' to represent the war in Paki-Afghanistan, allowing it to create simpler scenario, that will still represent current conflicts.

Mate theres more guns and ammo at the main base then you could possibly shake a stick at. First of all, theres a few weapons and ammo crates near Cpt Shaftoe's field office. You can pick up all kinds of special forces weapons there. Also, near the heli landing spot theres an ammo truck, where you can rearm. Just take a look around!

Suggestion regarding the Aimpoint sight: In real life the Aimpoint is meant to serve as an 'open sight', meaning you can aim with it with both eyes open. Its lenses are designed as such that when you aim with both eyes wide open - and therefore remain far more aware of your surroundings than keeping one eye closed - the red dot will be centred perfectly at the point of impact. In the game, because you cant look through it with both eyes open, the sight is actually quite restrictive, even the ACOG has a wider field-of-view! I reckon it would be best to either fade much of the parts around the lens on the left hand side of the sight, to simulate both eyes being open, or to make the field of view wider by making the lens look bigger. The Aimpoint was designed to be used at close quarters, and allow you to remain aware!

Perhaps this is of interest to others: As said before, I had issues with my FPS, it was usually around 15 in most missions, including the campaign, but especially in the campaign it would get right down to 10 or even less average. The two weaknesses I identified before were my CPU, (2.1Ghz) and my old video card (nVidia GeForce 8600GT 256MB). I just bought a new video card: NVIDEA GeForce 9600GT 1Gb memory. I have to say this made some very decent improvements to gameplay and FPS. My CPU is still holding me back a little, but during intense missions I now get around 20FPS on average, still not very fast, but at least its much more stable now. I've also been able to increase the settings for some visuals. Also, in lighter missions I can now get FPS as high as 50, the highest I got before was 30. Does anyone have any more low-cost solutions to getting the FPS up a bit more?

Hi there, I was just wondering if I could get some advice. Arma II runs fairly well on my pc, at least its stable, but during the campaign - and on Chernarus island in general - I do tend to get really low FPS. My FPS usually ranges from about 12-20, but in the campaign it gets down to 6FPS at times. Only in really light missions on Utes do I get an FPS of 30, which really is the highest I ever get. Ive been doing some research, and I believe its mostly down to my graphics card. I have had to put all the graphics settings on low, to be able to get a playable game, I really dont think its a CPU related problem. These are my specs: Power Supply 500W Motherboard nVidia nForce SLi AMD DDR2 Motherboard Processor AMD Athlon64 X2 4000+ Dual-Core Processor Memory 2GB (2 x 1GB) DDR2 Memory Hard Drives 160GB 7,200rpm Serial ATA-II Hard Disk Drive Video Card nVidia GeForce 8600GT 256MB PCI-Express Video Card 1st Display 19" LCD Monitor TFT Flat Panel Display Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit Version I am now considering replacing my graphics card with a GeForce 8800 GT, with a standard memory config of 512Mb. Would this help get my FPS up, and perhaps allow me to play on slightly higher standards? If anything, please recommend video cards that are compatible with my system and would improve FPS and allow me to play on higher visual settings. Many thanks