blurgh

I have three 22" monitors which are running eyefinity at a resolution of 5760x1080. There native resolution is 1920x1080. In arma 2 I have chosen 5760x1080 for resolution and 3d resolution and the only triple screen aspect ratio available. This unfortunately is not the correct aspect ratio as far as I can tell. The two side monitors look very stretched and so does the middle one (although to a much lesser extent). it seems like arma 2 does not support the correct aspect ratio for my eyefinity setup. Is there anyway to get around this if so... How ? I am pretty computer retarded so please try and explain what to do as simply as possible especially if it involves editing config files etc. I got these monitors specifically for arma 2 and to find out they don't work properly with arma 2 is a big disappointment. Any advice or help would be greatly appreciated. thanks in advance :cool:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8792315/ITV-Gaddafi-documentary-claimed-videogame-was-terrorist-footage.html Truly amazing lol

Ah sorry, too many forums to keep track of !

Ok but if 7 is the default why the hell am I getting silver grass ???

My current system is as follows intel i5 2400k @ 3.2ghz 6970 2gb How much of a performance increase in arma 2 would I get if I were to upgrade to Intel i5 2500k overlocked to 4.6ghz ?

My current system is as follows intel i5 2400k @ 3.2ghz 6970 2gb How much of a performance increase in arma 2 would I get if I were to upgrade to Intel i5 2500k overlocked to 4.6ghz ?

I get white grass if i set it to 7

What should I set atoc to if I want the best looking trees/vegetation possible ?

It's just deeply confusing to use. For example I'll be running through a field and I'll have these trees on my right monitor that look like they are next to me and then I turn round and focus on them (putting them on centre monitor) and they are nowhere near me whatsoever. It gives you a completely distorted perception of distance, so much so that I would argue it's more of a hinderance to run three screens than it is to run a single one. May just sell the screens and get track ir tbh

Ok cool, cheers I'll try that out. Ater doing some reading I'm finding that stretching in the corners of side monitors is apprantley normal for eyefinity and it does it for pretty much every game which is a bit dissapointingto say the least... It looks especially bad in arma unfortunately.

hi thanks for the response, it's appreciated. I did the bezel correction which gave me a resolution of 6048x1080 I then went edited the file you mentioned so that the FOV top was 0.75 and the FOV left was 4. I then loaded up arma and selected my bezel compensated resolution which is 6048x1080. I went to look at the aspect ratio setting but it as set to custom so I thought I'd leave it at that. however whilst the centre screen now seems ok the two side screens are still stretched. Actually upon checking the centre screen doesn't seem completely centred either, in the menu screens the sides are slightly hidden behind the bezels. When I switch back to 5760x1080 it sorts out the centre screen and everything looks good but the side screens are stretched just like they are at 6048x1080 :( Anyone got any idea what I'm doing wrong and how to fix it ?

Since one of the last updates my grass in OA has some weird kind of silvery shinyness to it, not the best explanation but i don't really know how else to explain it. Does anyone know what im talking about and know of a way to fix it ?

Cheers, i set ATOC to zero but it still has this weird silvery look to it !

Cheers, i will try it out. What do you mean i have to do it with Clippi running ? what exactly is Clippi ?

a couple of noobie questions: 1. Is it possible to disable the white text that automatically appears when you look at another unit ("rifleman" for exampe) ? Id like to have it so that it only appears when i hold space bar and scan over them ? having it appear automatically looks a bit ugly and ruins immersion a bit for me. 2. I was testing medic system so put some squad mates and myself as a medic in the editor along with the AE enable wounding system. i then shot a team mate, inspected him and it said he needed endorphine, morphine and bandaging so i did all of the above but it said he still needed endorphine, so i gave him some more... checked him again and said i still needed to give him some but when i tried to apply it the little progress bar in top left didn't appear as it did before... does this mean i've run out of endorphine ? i tried giving some anyway but again when i checked it said he still needed some, he also kept getting up and then falling over again. Im quite confused. 3. I dont have a right windows key so i went into ACE settings in game and set it to right windows and clicked save, but everytime i restart a session it defaults back to right windows ? any idea how i can fix this ? Anyone care to explain what im doing wrong ? Cheers

Solid State HD Request/Question I'm thinking about getting a solid state drive purely for arma 2 as I hear it fixes a lot of the texture pop in problems and improves performance around areas like zagrabad. My questions are : 1. Do I need to buy anything else for my pc to be able to connect a solid state hd to it ? Or do they use the same connection methods as standard hard drives ? 2. Once it's plugged in is it simply a case of choosing that hd as the location to install the game ? Or do I need to setup anything specifically for it to work ? 3. If I'm only going to be using it for arma can I just save money and get a small size hd ? If so does anyone have a suggestion for a cheap but good Solid state drive which will work well with arma ? How about this one ? http://www.microdirect.co.uk/Home/Product/47138/OCZ-32GB-OCZ-Onyx-Series-SATA-II-2-5-inch-Flash Should be big enough for my arma directory but do I need to reinstall windows on the SSD as well or can I just put arma on it and keep OS running on my standard HD. 4. Does anyone have any links to gameplay in zagrabad or anywhere for that matter where the player is using a SSD, I'd like to see how big difference is and if it is indeed worth me getting one. My current specs are Intel i5 2400 @3.10ghz ATI Radeon 6970 2gb 4th Ram Any help and advice is appreciated, cheers

I'm thinking about getting a solid state drive purely for arma 2 as I hear it fixes a lot of the texture pop in problems and improves performance around areas like zagrabad. My questions are : 1. Do I need to buy anything else for my pc to be able to connect a solid state hd to it ? Or do they use the same connection methods as standard hard drives ? 2. Once it's plugged in is it simply a case of choosing that hd as the location to install the game ? Or do I need to setup anything specifically for it to work ? 3. If I'm only going to be using it for arma can I just save money and get a small size hd ? If so does anyone have a suggestion for a cheap but good Solid state drive which will work well with arma ? How about this one http://www.microdirect.co.uk/Home/Product/47138/OCZ-32GB-OCZ-Onyx-Series-SATA-II-2-5-inch-Flash ? Should be big enough for my arma directory but do I need to reinstall windows on the SSD as well or can I just put arma on it and keep OS running on my standard HD. 4. Does anyone have any links to gameplay in zagrabad or anywhere for that matter where the player is using a SSD, I'd like to see how big difference is and if it is indeed worth me getting one. My current specs are Intel i5 2400 @3.10ghz ATI Radeon 6970 2gb 4th Ram Any help and advice is appreciated, cheers

Sorry for noob question but what exactly is render to texture ?

Im standing still, im looking at some trees, hold down right click to zoom view and all of a sudden they all start moving/morphing like the leaves move position or something. Its bizarre... How do i fix this ?

because the AMD was overclocked before it was purchased, i don't have a clue how to overclock and i have no desire to learn either... as i said before i now understand that there are separate threads for this type of topic and in future i will not be creating my own thread for such an issue, but this thread is here now so may as well use it...

not an option im afraid, im making a pc for my mate out of components i have lying around and these are the two chips i have in front of me... plus i wont be overclocking anything. I notice you say im "stuck with an ATI graphics card".... im assuming this means i would get better performance with an NVIDIA card. What NVIDIA Card is the equivelant of my 69702gb card in terms of price and offers better performance with Arma ?

Simple question, which CPU will give better performance for Arma 2 / OA ? AMD Phenom II 955 BE overclocked to 3.8ghz or Intel Core i5-2400 3.10ghz (Sandybridge) Which one wins ? and by how much or are they relaitively evenly matched ? my graphics card is 68702gb if that matters at all !

is anyone running this card, if so what version of catalyst drivers are you using ? i find i get a massive drop in performance with the latest ones, especially in vegetaed areas, i drop to like 18-20fps just standing in a bit of grass and then when i move to side of the road it goes back up to 30-40fps. im pretty sure the drops in performance didnt used to be this drastic with previous catalyst drivers, so i was wondering if people here could suggest what version of the catalyst drivers gives them best performance in OA.

Whilst i admire the scope and ambition of the Arma series i feel BI are being too over ambitious for their own good. I would happily sacrifice some units/content/features in order to have a more polished experience. There are just way too many bugs that still exist from previous arma games and from the original operation flashpoint. Why not spend less time adding features and instead polish the ones which already exist such as: - the terrible optimisation (i shouldn't have to defrag my HD to get half decent performance and a few trees and houses shouldn't make my FPS drop by about 15-20fps...) - player movement/reload/death animations - the weird texture issue you get when zooming in on trees in the distance - the poor netcode - the voice acting - the overall presentation It would be a truly great game if it just had a bit more polish and wasn't so rough around the edges. Instead of putting out substandard DLC why not put more effort into tweaking the things i mentioned above, the things which really stop a good game from being a truly great one. Im sure a few hardcore arma nerds will cry at the thought of having a few features ditched but if it leads to a more polished experience then i think it would ultimately attract more people to the game than it would alienate a few hardcore fans. I know so many people who checked out arma only to ditch it because of its lack of polish. All agreed it had great potential but after being used to playing polished games its really hard to go to something like arma which constantly feels like a "work in progress". Anyone else agree ?

this place really is as bad as its reputation. 2 people give a negative view on the game and you get chumps like Walker telling you that you're the same person and trolling. It's ridiculous. So many people on other forums all talk about how bad the netcode is, its renowned for being poor and yet you come on the official forum and everyone is blind to it and blames it on server config. Even on the smoothest of servers the game still doesn't run smooth. Infact my very first online game there were about 4 people in a chopper and the chopper was jerking through the air and i ask if anyone else has this and if their is a way to get around it and their response was "welcome to arma online". Ask yourself why has this game developed a reputation for having such bad netcode ? Why are so many people on Project Reality forums worried about the lag in the forthcoming Arma mod ? I tell you one thing, its certainly not because the game has a reputation for having good netcode and lag free games ! ---------- Post added at 01:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 AM ---------- ain't that the truth !