Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

SAYSteez

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    30

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by SAYSteez

  3. Posted

    Steam will auto update the patch, you dont patch steam copies like other digital copy or CD copies.

    Try getting the OA only patch for the OA cd copy that you have. or try to use your cd serial key and add it into steam if it accepts it you can have full steam copy.

    Hi, first I would like to say that there is no standalone OA patch; they're OA+CO+RFT. Second BIS doesn't allow you to add your retail keys to steam as it doesn't work.

  4. Posted

    Hi, I just installed ArmA 2 via steam and I installed my ArmA 2 OA via DVD which auto installs into the ArmA 2 steam folder. My problem is that when I try to patch ArmA 2 and OA(CO) with the ARMA2OACORFT_Update_160 it gives me an error saying "Error found in file EXPANSION\ADDONS\wheeled_e.pbo" and if I click 'Ignore' it just gives me an error with another .pbo file.

    I ran ArmA 2 before installing OA but I can't seem to dodge this error message

  5. Posted · Edited by SAYSteez

    I'm about to pull my hair out... 6+ hours straight trying to get this to patch to work and not a **** thing! 4 reinstalls, cleaned registry/folders.. :mad:

    I'm trying to patch my CO, but OA(retail) keeps getting expansion/addons and /common .pbo errors.. My steam version of ArmA2 works just fine and patches just fine! but OA just doesn't want to patch.. The most common error is "Error found in file EXPANSIONS\ADDONS\wheeled_e.pbo" but even if I ignore it; the error just goes to another file like ui.pbo :mad: I can play CO or just regular OA/A2 just fine, I just can't patch it..

    P.S. My OA patched just fine before I uninstalled it so I can get CO with my steam version of ArmA2 that I just bought today.

    **EDIT** I just tried installing OA in a different folder other than the steam folder that ArmA2 is installed in and the patch worked without a hitch.. Does anyone know why?

  6. Posted · Edited by SAYSteez

    )rStrangelove;1909332']If you search for a pc to get higher fps in all other games why are you posting here on the BIS forums?

    You don't listen to us' date=' you write heated posts, you hate ArmA2 - plz go troll somewhere else.[/quote']

    Because I wanted help on the ArmA2 FPS problem... I never wrote a heated post? I don't hate ArmA2 I used to play it all the time when I had XP... Sorry you feel that way though :( :rolleyes:

    **EDIT** And about all the other games! Do you really think I would buy a whole new computer just to play ArmA2? I mean seriously? I'm fine with the other 20+ games that are out... I'm not going to trip over one game! Makes 110% no sense...

    ---------- Post added at 03:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 AM ----------

    BTW Can a mod close this thread? I got what I came for :) Thanks to everyone who helped it's playable!

  7. Posted

    No, you're missing the point. His system is so out of date that replacing just one aspect of it won't change things very much for him. He needs a new motherboard and CPU at the very least.

    Not out of date just doesn't like ArmA2... The 460 will fix my problems with every other game which is all I need... I have to ask... Why do you think the 955BE is so out of date? It's pretty much the i7 920 and it can reach almost the i7 920 speeds overclocked... If there is one thing I hate is people who need to get off of the i7s dick :)

  8. Posted

    Jumping from a 9800 to a 460 will help you, but please do not expect a perfect game and then loose your cool.

    I've gone from SLI 8800GTX, 260's, 285's over the past 4+ years and I've found (for my old cpu's) that only 1 285 is needed to give me a smooth game. It will take you a lot of testing of all game and pc performance options before you find your "sweet spot".

    And as others say, faster harddrives/ssd will help just as much as a new up to date video card.

    I learned my lesson going SLi or having a dual GPU card... The 9800GX2 was a nightmare for me...

  9. Posted

    I'm not sure if i'm doing any good on replying but after some reading.

    To my knowledge a game's mini/maxi recuirments are most of the time tested on normal maybe advanced settings and not on the highest settings, if you want to maximise on your system then it will disappoint you whatever you try.

    The point is your GPU is like said out of leage with ArmA 2 for nearly four years, i think you can be happy that you can still run it somehow pretty ok. You got tips to improve your performence slightly not like huge but slightly.

    Im going to give you a other tip, i saw some screenshots from you. Maybe its time you kill some backlaying programs running in your system tray while you are gaming and not only by klicking it away but actualy kill the running by going in to your system and deactivate it, it will not improve huge but it also might help a little, also openening up your rig and look inside of it, it might help to clean the dust out! And believe me you would be supriced how much dust it takes on daily base when you use your rig intensively. I clean mine every 3 monts. And because of the age of a system a lot of people forget that it will affect performance. I think by this all the advice is given what we where able to give, and as last i want to say related to the fact you say newer games perform better, you also oughta know that Arma II renders a hell of a lot more then a general game that comes out to date ;-)

    Overal: if you want better performance, save some money for a better rig or improve your rig if you're board allows it.

    Kind regards.

    Thank you sir!

  10. Posted

    Certainly this game isn't cutting edge and it's not without it's faults, but you have to know, we get posts like yours every month, ney, week. So maybe you'll forgive us if we're a little jaded in our replies.

    New users rock up, quoting system specs that are really quite out of date, some of them even try to run this game on 3 year old laptops, and then they get upset when they don't get the answers they expect.

    You (and I'm speaking generally, not directly at you) can't compare this game to other FPS games, the engine is very different so all the old rules are out. You need a lot of CPU grunt in this game plus fast HDD. GPU power is not quite as important as you might think.

    Well I do know just by looking at the scale of the game it can't load the map off the DVD drive as fast as the HDD so I'm sure that's what's causing part of my slowdown since I read somewhere that this game reads a massive amount from the HDD itself so just having two drives isn't enough.. I know how it is getting answers about laptops and stuff playing any game.. I ask myself the same question as you do I'm sure, which is why do they even ask? But I was just wondering some simple things and now I know this engine isn't anything like any other game. I will be getting the MSI GTX 460 Hawk in a month give or take so I'm sure I'll be able to run this game at 50-60fps since I've seen videos with the same hardware do so.

  11. Posted

    So, you come here asking for advice... and some of the most helpful people on this forum answer you, all basically saying the same thing, and yet you want to disagree with their answers and place blame somewhere else.

    So what did you exactly want to hear? That outdated shit runs a modern game good? Sorry, not here...

    Disagree? Are you even reading?

    ---------- Post added at 11:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 AM ----------

    If it helps, until quite recently, I was playing this game with an 8800 GTX which is mostly the same as yours, but my CPU was more powerful than yours. I too was getting 30 FPS at native res, but I found that quite playable.

    It's been said before, but this game is not a bunny hopping smartbomb fest. It doesn't really need any more than 30 FPS unless you're in a fast jet below tree top height.

    As regards optimisation given your PC specs, you got most of your answers in the second post. Turn off AA and PP. View distance is more dependent on the CPU, not the GPU, so keep that below 3000m.

    At the end of the day, your GPU was top range 4 years ago, your CPU too. Unless you can replace them both, you're going to have to optimise and live with what you get.

    You were getting 30 fps steady probably I'm getting 25 fps through 35 if I'm looking close to the sky, and I can't reach 30 fps if I tried on any map while looking straight, and this CPU really isn't that bad as you're making it out to be! back in 09 the 955BE @ 3.8 with DDR2 RAM beat the i7 920 with DDR3 sure it's not an i7 clocked at 4.0 but seriously theres no need for that right now and also I am getting the MSI GTX 460 Hawk but after seeing my 9800GTX+ run all the other new games at 50 fps + I would've thought ArmA2 could've done just a little better... :rolleyes:

    ---------- Post added at 11:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 AM ----------

    Myke;1907907']To 2:

    Did you ever noticed that ArmA 2 is using the 2GB Ram it is allowed to use? Did you ever asked yourself why it doesn't? Could it be it just doesn't require 2GB Ram? You would even get less FPS (although barely noticable) due to the raised management overhead caused by 64 bit.

    To 3:

    To actually really know that the game could have been way more optimized you would need to have programming knowledge and the source code. The former i just can guess that you don't have but on the later i'm almost sure you don't have it.

    Beyond that' date=' anything else is just wishful thinking (which a lot of people do in here, me included).

    To 3:

    Excellent attitude...

    If you want to know why a game depends on this or on that, IMHO you should at least know how programming works and where the tricky parts are and why.

    But at least for the latest question i can give you a answer: because your GPU is sub-par measured by nowadays hardware. Deal with it.[/quote']

    I like your attitude against this like I came out and said oh !$%# all of your answers since the game is not working haha! I was just starting a simple forum on the subject but clearly you can't stand it :rolleyes:

    ---------- Post added at 11:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 AM ----------

    There is also a couple of little tweaks they have not mentioned that made a big difference for me.

    Not exactly a massive fps increase, but a much more stable and improved overall performance!!

    In your documents folder/Arma 2 folder....open your arma2oa.config in notepad.

    Change ATOC=7 to ATOC=0

    Change Maxprerenderedframes = 3 to =8

    save and close

    Then go into your nvidia control panel and for arma 2

    set your maxprerenderedframes to 8

    also force v-sync 'off'

    This i read on these forums and made a massive diffference to my stability and performance!

    As for what to do next; upgrade and think about using a RAM Disk to load the games .pbo files via shell link to get the most from all of your RAM. You want at least 8gig in your machine for that though [4gig for a RAM Disk]

    Check the forums out!

    That did give me some FPS... Thanks

  12. Posted

    Myke;1907882']Your PC is giving the performance which can be expected based on the hardware. You might not understand the reasons (to be honest' date=' i'm sure you wouldn't) but that's how it is.

    Besides that, at first you come in complaining about a non-patched game where everyone knows (and not only related to ArmA 2, goes for every game out there) that trying with the latest patches first before goin into a supportforum for "help".

    Then bumping the thread twice unnededly (also the forum rules state it isn't allowed anyway).

    And finally, complaining about that it is a 32bit app, which clearly shows you have no idea about programming.

    Probably you expect the game loading all your cores at 100% aswell as your GPU and filling your RAM up to the max. Get some basics on programming, especially about multithreading and the difficulties of it, then you might come back and discuss about.

    Until then, clean up your PC, kill unneeded tasks, defrag your Harddrive and make sure you have the latest drivers for [b']all[/b] of your hardware.

    1. I did try the game out with the latest version before I reinstalled it but I didn't try the level I was playing with and I didn't bench the FPS.

    2. Yea I'm complaning about a 32bit app! I'm sure I would get about 5 fps or so if it used over 3GB of RAM because it's loading all that land and all of those objects which would give me about 30fps steady.

    3. I wasn't expecting anything I was just saying the game could've been way more optimized.

    4. I don't need to learn anything about programs, all I need to know is why they would depend on the GPU almost 90% of the time for such a huge game.

  13. Posted

    You bumped this thread an hour after the previous post? *sigh*

    Is this going to turn into one of the many threads where a new users comes in, complaining their POS PC won't play the game at a million FPS, then turns abusive when everyone, quite rightly, tells them their PC isn't up to the job?

    LOL POS PC! A million FPS! Complaining! Troll harder please :yay:

  15. Posted · Edited by SAYSteez

    Try with the campaigns or the built in "Diplomacy" mission.

    I tried the village life one since I couldn't find the one you were talking about but this one has people walking around and this is what I got http://img814.imageshack.us/img814/4010/wtfjv.png BTW what I don't understand is how the hell is it using 70% of my CPU in windows mode but fullscreen it uses 1 core at 90%+? theres no way it drops the CPU when I minimize since task manager pops up so fast...

  16. Posted

    Set yout game up in windowed mode, leave task manager up, run a heavily populated AI mission, let us see those screenshots of your "cpu" usage. At this point memory usage doesn't matter, the game uses max available for 32bit!

    Wait it's a 32 bit program? Who's idea was that? And do you have a mission in mind?

  17. Posted

    I'll try it

    ---------- Post added at 10:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:08 PM ----------

    I usually delete both after patches and let the game wrinte new ones. Lots of changes done since 1.59 so a new .cfg files can change a lot.

    Ok I did that and I kinda felt like my FPS went down... but still now my CPU usage was 20% 40% 20% 20% with 1.82GB of ram being used for 10 minutes straight

  18. Posted

    If you're talking about the CFG file in the documents arma2 folder than I only have one which is called ArmA2OA and than under that is a Lar.ArmaA2OAProfile file and than a Saved folder

    ---------- Post added at 09:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------

    Sorry I forgot to reply so you get the notification

  21. Posted

    Is your game patched to the latest?

    There is a Vsync video option offered with the last two full patches.

    It's 1.50 OA but seriously.. Unless they have a use 100% CPU and RAM button I don't see Vsync giving me the 20FPS I need :don 11: PS. I'm going to sleep so I might not reply for 12 hours :P

    ---------- Post added at 08:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 AM ----------

    -Ziggy-;1907147']ewww ! game shortcut spam on desktop ! :protest:

    http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/Bigtires79/Untitled2.jpg

    I have waaaaay to many tabs open at once to have my taskbar like that...

  23. Posted

    Sure the engine isn't as optimised as it could be but it also does WAY more than another out there. So try these settings:

    Visibility: 1500m

    Interface: 1920x1200

    3D res: 1920x1200

    Tex: normal

    Vid mem: default

    Anisotropic: normal

    Antialiasing: disabled

    Terrain: normal

    Objects: normal

    Shadows: high

    Post-proc: disabled

    That should provide you with half-decent framerates (30-40 fps) without compromising the image quality TOO much.

    With those settings I get 25-35 FPS... BTW heres screen of what my system is doing after I minimize the game http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/2295/arma2notusingcpuorram.png

  24. Posted

    It's actually the other way around, shadows =/>high = GPU, shadows <high = CPU

    Ok, its still too old to expect great framerates at that resolution. Set both interface and 3D resolution to 1680x1050 - this will get rid of the blurryness and should run acceptable.

    Ok I did that and even turned everything to very low and yet my fps was 37-45 max! not even a gig of system memory being used and CPU core 1 and 3 are 50% while 2 and 4 are 20% my GPU is 100% and only using 354mb of VRAM... I know for a fact this game has something wrong with it... I could be using all 4 cores at 100% and use more than 1GB of system ram and I bet I would be getting 40-50 FPS on normal atleast...

  25. Posted · Edited by SAYSteez

    Take a look at your advanced video settings. What is antialiasing, postprocessing, shadows etc. set to? A screenshot of the whole advanced video settings screen would be helpful.

    Arma2 settings need some tweaking to get the most bang for your buck. Some settings are also counter-intuitive, meaning that setting them to high instead of normal can improve performance.

    Just post a screeny and I can assure you a bunch of peeps will step in to help you tweak them. ;)

    Yea here you go http://img683.imageshack.us/i/arma2oa2011042804185723.jpg/

    ---------- Post added at 04:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 AM ----------

    9800GTX (=8800GT) + 1920x1080 don't mix, it does not matter that you have 1GB of VRAM, the GPU is just too old/slow to drive this resolution at good framerates.

    No the 9800GTX itself beats the 8800GT by 25-30% the 9800GTX+ SSC beats the 8800GT by atleast 40-50% and I have it overclocked a good amount.. Oh and I even tried running the game at 1680x1050 but still only 500mb of VRAM and not even 2GB of system memory was being used and only half of all 4 cores are being put to use...

×