Wen

Hi, I'm in a network that uses OpenDNS. Apparently they claim your website is distributing malware, and was hence blocked. Have you received any notification about it yet?

Ah, alright. Thanks for the information

Hi all, I've recently got started on ArmA 2 multiplayer. I've read through the manual, got the game tools set up, and have played with the vanilla version a couple of times. I'm looking to start playing with mods. As you know, most ArmA multiplayer groups require weekly or fortnightly attendance, so I'm wondering if there are many public servers running ACE that do not belong to any clans or groups? Can I have some advice please? Thanks in advance.

Passmark weighs multi-threaded performance as much as grunt-per-core. Well, we all know that ArmA does not utillise that many cores efficiently

not sure if this has been posted, but it seems not. I should really like to zee these improvements in the new game: realistic shoulder launched rocket trajectory, realistic handling of single shot weapons like at4 and realistic aeroplane physics. these errors are fixed every time in each and every title by mods yet bistudio just stubbornly reimplement them in the next game.

not likely. arma 2 is particularly heavy on CPU, so I'm afraid k10 based apu will fail you. the integrated GPU doesn't even satisfy the recommended hardware requirements, not to mention the actual requirement. is there no way the budget can be increased slightly? if not, I recommend that you'd build one yourself. I3-2120+b75+hd6870 should be manageable :)

I have got exactly the same issue lately and I got it working through third party server browsers. six updater/launcher is the best one if you ask me

Hi, I tried to play the game online recently with operation arrowhead (steam version). When I opened up the multiplayer window, there were no serves but one called "clanvikingos.com" or something of that sort (no player on that server either). What I did: I turned off the antivirus software, authorised ArmA2:OA to connect to the internet in firewall settings. Nothing changed. I'd have reinstalled the game, but I happen to live in a place where internet usage is very limited, only 30GB per month.

Got it working with SIX Launcher. Real lifesaver, it is. Thanks for the views, everyone, any intention to help is appreciated :)

As you said, in applications that are well threaded and can use as many cores as there are, an 8-core FX8120 is more powerful than a 4 core i5 which does not even support hyperthreading. And, yes, in more GPU reliant games most CPUs on the market are overkills. However, does ArmA fit in either of the two catagories? We've seen that the OFpoint series of games has always been CPU dependent. To date, not a single game can use up to six cores(maybe Empire Total War does? Can't remember), not to mention eight, thus a 4 core CPU with great single core performance will do a lot better than an 8 core CPU that is just atrociously bad in terms of single thread performance. And that is the reason why so many people out there are recommending 2600k.

Oh. i see. Nice #post BTW.

I hope it turns out that I'm misinformed, but is it true that for Arma 3 Physx can only be handled by the CPU? Well if so it is another bad news for me because it's more burden upon my 1090t BE, which already struggles at times in OA. How come Physx can be implemented so that it cannot be handled by the GPU?

The 550ti was designed as a mid-range gaming card at its time. It is hardly more powerful than the GTX260, which is listed as the recommended GPU for Arma3. 8800GT is recommended for running Arma 2. Can you imagine playing ArmA 2 properly with a 8800GT? I've got a 1090t@4Ghz & GTX560 OCed past 1Ghz core, and in certain official campaigns(Arma 2), the FPS rate drops to ~20fps. Expect the same ridiculous performance in Arma 3 as the nature of the calculation is the same: large amount of path finding, etc... and PHYSX in addition!! Do yourself a favour and get a SNB platform... i5 2500k+ GTX 560ti will be good. Well, an i5 2500k is not much more expensive than a 1100t(less than $50 USD/AUD) and the performance at the same clock is not even close. Please do not mention OC ability as both CPUs have unlocked multipliers. 2500k does not use as much power either. AMD did not stop producing desktop CPUs, yes, but its starting to give the majority of its attention to its APU product line. FM1 will be favoured over AM3+ and AM3, I'm afraid.

dunno if i am alone in this issue, but I seem to get extremely low performance in official campaigns. I get at least 40~ 60 fps even in the most involved environment( and 110 fps in relatively less complex settings) in the mission editor, but it goes right down to ~20 in the 2nd and 3rd mission of Harvest Red. All the latest drivers applied, all the components OCed by reasonable amount, newest patches applied. (excluding OA 1.6, which is still in its RC state). Here are my specs: CPU:Phenom II 1090t @ 3.8Ghz Mobo:M3A32 RAM:2G*2 DDR2-800 video card: Zotac GTX560 extreme OCed to 1Ghz core, 1.2Ghz memory, 2Ghz shader. PSU: Cooler Master GX-650W Bronze(those made with new OEM) OS: win 7 64 bit Thanks in advance. It seems that at least 60% of all my posts are for asking for help:p EDIT: lowering graphics settings does little. EDIT：It feels CPU related. However, this lousy mobo cant really take all 6 cores up to 4Ghz or higher. Would Blocking 2 cores and OC to 4Ghz+ help?(As I've heard that this game uses only 4 cores)

I tried with OA 1.59 today. It is supported, you just have to change the focal points and that. However, with it enabled, the framerate drops nearly by half and nightvision looks brwonish. It is absolutely amazing to aim through the reticles though. You can try it if you like, but don't expect to play the game normally with it.

1. Buy another game off steam. I've had enough of the freezing issue, wonky updates, lack of flexibility and everything else. I'm now completely happy to pay AUD$20 more and buy a retail version. 2. Buy another ZOTAC video card. This is the single most irritating manufacturer out there and by all means avoid them. A damaged card within warranty takes more than 1 month to repair. This happened in China, where there headquarter is located. Think of the pain if you ever need to have a card repaired in England, Australia, or the US and they send it back to either Shenzhen or Hong Kong SPR without a second thought. By the time it returns I daresay your card will have been obsolete. Learn from my mistakes.

I believe ACE fixes some of the penetration issues, to a degree at least.

Oh. Yes, it is an F-35 that I'm flying. Thanks for the information. BTW, I believe the ACE team is aware of this? ---------- Post added at 05:27 ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 ---------- Well, Sir, I created a flying F-35 in the mission editor and the result is the same, so I'm guessing it's not the issue.

are the requirements the minimum requirements or are they the recommended specifications?

Does anyone else have this problem? In my copy of the CO, when the mod is applied, fixed-wing aeroplanes are barely flyable as I get over-G and subsequently a blackout whenever I tilt the bow in any direction. Is it intended so? I did some calculation and from the results it seems 3G is enough for the pilot to start panting and losing sight. By the way, shouldn't I get a redout instead when I'm accelerating downwards? Mod compatibility is not the issue because when I ran ACE for OA and ACEX alone it was the same result.

I'm running CO on an acer 5742G. Very poor result, indeed, even with everything turned down to either low or disabled, the frame rate rarely exceeds 20 FPS, especially so in urban settings. Here are the specifications: CPU: intel core i5 M460 at 2.53GHZ.( because it's a laptop I don't want to risk overclocking the CPU) GPU: Nvidia GT 420M, 1GB of video memory; 500MHz by default and overclocked to 650 MHz. RAM: 4GB DDR3 All the drivers are of the latest versions. I've included most of the the FPS enhancing addons as well: PROPER vegetation and building (very-low versions), VFFPS, etc. I've got Game Booster 3.1 installed which terminates unnecessary processes when the game is running. Anyway, I've done what I can with my computer, I'd say. So is it the normal FPS that I should expect? According to the reccomended specifications all I need is a stronger GPU, and considering that the GPU is not so very obsolete and I've overclocked it, it shouldn't be very far away should it? Could I please have some advice on how to obtain more FPS? I don't care about visual appearance anymore, really. I just want to be able to run it properly. Thank you. ---------- Post added at 12:33 ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 ---------- Oops sorry didn't see the threads on top. Could someone please close the thread?

Yeah 800*600 with all parameters set to "low" or "disabled" in for some great visual sensations, aren't we:yay:

Hi, I was trying to run ArmA 2 CO on Acer 5742 with a 16:10 wide screen. After setting the resolution to 1024*768, some of the screen elements seem to be displayed outside the screen. Any possible fixes? p.s. aspect ratio set to 16:10.

Oh, I see. no wonder I get the prompt saying that for some settings to work I need to restart the game. Thank you for the information.

That means I can't run it properly, then :( too bad that Steam does not have a refund policy. thanks for responding, mate.