*******Official Armed Assault 2 thread of official officialness*******

also the over-resolution thing - is that the GPU calculating that or the CPU ?

just that its the standard res thats actually being displayed by the GPU - not the higher res ?
 
rexehuk said:
Make a shortcut, it goes in the target path:

"C:\Program Files\Bohemia Interactive\ArmA 2\arma2.exe" -winxp
Click to expand...

Thank you very much, as i hoped my FPS just running around the "Basic Training" camp has gone from 35-57 upto 55-77! woo hoo!
It was very playable and smooth at mid 30's so now i have a decent increase it's time to up some settings.

Thanks again!
 
Buckster said:
I've noticed a lot of peoples trees/vegetation looks a lot sharper than I am getting - and more detailed

is this due to using the over-resolution feature (125% +) or a setting ?

or is for some reason my 8800GTX only rendering it to a degree due to memory limitation or something ?
Click to expand...
Buckster, I have the same issue with video quality running an 8800GTX. Also getting issues with "white" faces on other soldiers (details of the face not being drawn). Will try the over resolution thing tonight.
 
yeh i get the white faces thing aswell... I'm on manhattan at the moment, and didnt care to realise that i had no artillery support.. went back to the base after completeing a good ammount of objectives to find that the officer i reported to was dead on the floor.. while this is very comedic, i do have to ask , does this mean i cannot complete the mission?..
 
This is some weird ****...

I just reinstalled Arma 2, not updated to 1.2 patch yet. But my graphics options now shows fill rate, last time it had another option "3D Resolution" which has now disappeared.

Anyone running the game fine on pre 1.2 on vista 64? I had a lot of crahses in 1.2
 
rexehuk said:
This is some weird ****...

I just reinstalled Arma 2, not updated to 1.2 patch yet. But my graphics options now shows fill rate, last time it had another option "3D Resolution" which has now disappeared.

Anyone running the game fine on pre 1.2 on vista 64? I had a lot of crahses in 1.2
Click to expand...

The "Fill Rate" option was one of the things changed in the 1.02 patch, the latest version has the " 3D Resolution" tab.
 
creed said:
With that kind of fps and assuming ur above 1280x1024, i'd say ur xfire is already enabled...
Click to expand...

I assumed the same tbh, it was only because i have been reading this thread and realised peeps with the X2 flavour cards needed the " -winxp" to get the second GPU working i thought it might work for me too, and it has! :D
 
After getting fed up waiting for the demo, I just went out and bought the game yesterday as a fathers day present to myself :)

I'm unsure at the moment whether I like it or not.

The scope of it seems very ambitious and I could see it making for a good tv show (a bit like Time Commanders was by using the Total War engine), but I think it might just not be the right game for me.

It doesnt help that my AI squad mates seem to have graduated from the Pee Wee Herman military academy. If they were any more dumb at times I would shoot them myself. Had one mission to get into the town and I ran in and met up with a whole load of friendly armour and troops...meanwhile the rest of my squad dithered about 40m away saying things like "dont worry, nearly there" and "stay in formation" , "take cover" and so on...er...guys???...theres like 40 tons of friendly armour here and a whole bunch of troops. You really dont need to be taking 15 mins to go the last 40m, you could just run to them now.

Admittedly I've only done the first 5 or 6 stages of the campaign, but to be honest, so far I have had more success just going it alone than bothering with Squad PeeWee. Which kind of detracts somewhat from the point of the squad being there.

I did hop online for a bit, but the people in the game I played were taking it so seriously that I wondered why dont they just go and actually join the armed forces instead of taking a video game so seriously on the subject matter. Admittedly that was probably just a bad fit of server choice for me.

So overall...I'm sure its the right game, for the right kind of person. But at the moment I am not too sure its the right game for me. I'm kind of viewing it in the Microsoft Flight Simulator mode at the moment, great simulator but great simulators dont always make the most fun games. (for me at least).

One thing that did concern me, was that after playing for a few hours on the first night , I exited out and quite happily went and played something else. Thats usually a good sign that a game isnt drawing me in (normally I would be wanting to play the hell out of a new game in my collection).

Not being negative about the game, more its fit for me. May well just be that I'm not the right person for this game and vice versa. Still, at least I've given it a go now and can put the question to bed :)
 
are the UAVs bugged ? tried one in mission editor and when it came to its first turn - it turned too tight - and stalled and hit the ground

repeated this about 7 times same each time
 
Game is unplayable if im honest. The training missions are buggy as hell, the weapon training for the m4 is a joke, the guy gets stuck in an infinite loop and keeps saying the same thing over and over even if you don't select to retake.

On top of this i'm getting multiple crashes on vista sp2 x64, game just freezes and error pops up.

Might give windows 7 a try later on, if that doesn't help then I might just wait a month or two until patches fix it all.
 
wunkley said:
Regarding performance I have one thing to say - USE WINDOWS XP. I knew I'd kept a dual boot system for a reason, and only now have I found it!

I really cannot enphasise this enough, but I was getting awful frame rates and stuttering in vista 64. I thought to try it under XP (32 bit) and the difference is absolutely unbelievable!

I literally get double, sometimes triple the frame rates I was getting in Vista64 now using XP. On my set up at least, Vista clearly has major issues with the game as it stands (1.2 patch applied). For example, in the training missions performace with vista was great - often got 6ofps (can't turn off vsync in vista). But, in any of the 'scenario' single player missions or campaign I would only get around 30fps max. Mostly 25-30 with dips and stutters below that.

I'd read this game likes quad core and was reluctantly thinking that may be the problem, but as a last ditch attempt thought to try under XP.

Under XP, playing the 'scenario' missions (1 and 3 I use for testing, 3 being the most intense) I now get 30fps as a minimum and it mostly runs along at 45-70ish in mission 1 (turning off vsync in catalyst control panel works under XP). This is with the graphics settings all at high except terrain and object at normal, view distance 2000. I can even set 3D resolution at 133% to get 'fake' AA and still get this fantastic performance.

THE MOST IMPORTANT graphics setting I have found that affects smoothness, for me anyway, is the video memory one. I had it set at 'very high' as I have a 4870x2, but I think this setting may be for 'true' 2BG cards, that don't yet exist. On very high setting performance would fluctuate wildly. Selecting 'high' gives me the best and smoothest performance.

The other thing to do, is if you've been messing around with all your graphics settings - delete the Arma2 folder (containing your config file) in your documents and start again. This also helped me a lot.
Click to expand...
I wish to confirm that running the game in Xp really does help. In Vista my fps was 17 to 25 during the more intense missions and now with Xp my fps is 25 to 35fps. It also feels allot smoother and I am now able to disable vsync (ony Xp). I get much higher fps on less intense missions.

edit: I was a bit pessimistic with the improved fps in XP - more like 30 to 40 in that particular missin.
 
Last edited:
DennisK4 said:
Surprised that such a niche and hardcore sim game is doing so well

http://www.chart-track.co.uk/index.jsp?c=p/software/uk/latest/index_test.jsp&ct=110022
Click to expand...

It's a shame companies like Bohemia release unfinished products with so many bugs. This game could easily of been one of the "wow" games of 2009 and talked about everywhere, instead it has wow'ed a few and left others feeling lost and unable to play it.

I never get why developers do this, same happened for stalker clear sky, game was fantasticly beautiful, yet they decided to rush release and pretty much ruin any effort they had put in.

If a game is going to be good, the playing population will wait for it in anticipation, I don't see why they need to rush them out! Set an appropriate deadline, not something that cannot be achieved.
 
rexehuk said:
It's a shame companies like Bohemia release unfinished products with so many bugs. This game could easily of been one of the "wow" games of 2009 and talked about everywhere, instead it has wow'ed a few and left others feeling lost and unable to play it.

I never get why developers do this, same happened for stalker clear sky, game was fantasticly beautiful, yet they decided to rush release and pretty much ruin any effort they had put in.

If a game is going to be good, the playing population will wait for it in anticipation, I don't see why they need to rush them out! Set an appropriate deadline, not something that cannot be achieved.
Click to expand...

Completely agree but I think if it was purely down to the people working on the game they would release it more 'complete'. Publishers and the like set deadlines and push the game out before its released a good example is AA3.
 
rexehuk said:
It's a shame companies like Bohemia release unfinished products with so many bugs. This game could easily of been one of the "wow" games of 2009 and talked about everywhere, instead it has wow'ed a few and left others feeling lost and unable to play it.

I never get why developers do this, same happened for stalker clear sky, game was fantasticly beautiful, yet they decided to rush release and pretty much ruin any effort they had put in.

If a game is going to be good, the playing population will wait for it in anticipation, I don't see why they need to rush them out! Set an appropriate deadline, not something that cannot be achieved.
Click to expand...

Ok the reason the game was released as is
BIS signed up to morphican , they said they would deliver the product last month ,
contracts were signed - first mistake they signed to a deadline that was optimistic to say the least.

Morphicon did not want this date pushed back , so the game that was released to them was ropey to say the least.

Sad but true
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom