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

Runs fine with setings at "very high" and draw distance to "4000" all at 1680x1050. Not adjusted 3D res so will play with that as im currently getting easily 40-60 fps.

Good game but AI/missions are buggy, i've found i've had to restart missions as goals fail to acknowledge. Also none goal related issues occur e.g. enemy located by red marker, so i get to enemy marker and no enemy there, perhaps i needed to use action menu to state to my SL that its clear?! Many things in the game are not obvioius but i guess its part of the fun - working stuff out yourself. It takes time to understand the action menu, luckily early missions dont make use of the advanced stuff.
If you have patience then this game is for you, i can see the bugged AI only getting fixed in later patches. The helicopters arent as fun to control as in Project Reality but then i need to get used to them, a joystick would really help.
I really need to try muliplayer as this where i hope to play most of the game.

EDIT: i should have added this game is why PC gaming cannot die! Its different/has fresh ideas, immense in map size and complexity, you would never find it on a console and if you did it would be dumbed down to be yet another generic war FPS.
 
Last edited:
Picking this up in about half hour, but im a bit confused?! By reading the reviews i can't tell if the game is a sandbox where i can do what i want or is it just pre scripted missions all the way?

Thanks.
 
spoonjaffa said:
Runs fine with setings at "very high" and draw distance to "4000" all at 1680x1050. Not adjusted 3D res so will play with that as im currently getting easily 40-60 fps.

Good game but AI/missions are buggy, i've found i've had to restart missions as goals fail to acknowledge. Also none goal related issues occur e.g. enemy located by red marker, so i get to enemy marker and no enemy there, perhaps i needed to use action menu to state to my SL that its clear?! Many things in the game are not obvioius but i guess its part of the fun - working stuff out yourself. It takes time to understand the action menu, luckily early missions dont make use of the advanced stuff.
If you have patience then this game is for you, i can see the bugged AI only getting fixed in later patches. The helicopters arent as fun to control as in Project Reality but then i need to get used to them, a joystick would really help.
I really need to try muliplayer as this where i hope to play most of the game.
Click to expand...

Yeah, probably best to wait for a few patches to play the campaign.
I use a joystick and with that jets and helicopters handle really well. Not that the game is a flight-sim or anything.
 
wombraider said:
Some Benchies ETC that may help people out with what to expect from the this
game with different hardware configs

CPU Results:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,687620/ArmA-2-tested-Benchmarks-with-18-CPUs/Practice/

GPU Results:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...chmarks-and-visual-quality-compared/Practice/
Click to expand...

DennisK4 said:
A german mag has some CPU benchmarks
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,6...18-CPUs/Rennspiel-Sportspiel-Simulation/Test/
Click to expand...


Sigh , repostarama

I like the English one I posted a couple of pages ago better
 
this game is flippin amazing - here is an assault on a town (one of the old Arma 1 missions converted by someone other than me)

narma0.jpg


narma1.jpg


narma2.jpg


narma3.jpg
 
I made some benchmarkings with the rig in my sig.

All fps counts are averages from looking at sparse screens and busy screens.
Take everything with a grain of salt....I just jotted down the numbers I got and averaged them, I was not being super precise or anything. Its not science etc.

All settings MAX with 200 % Fillrate optimizer and Visibility set at 10,000
2560x1600: 10 fps (frequently below)
1920x1200: 13 fps
1680x1050: 14 fps

All settings HIGH with 100 % Fillrate optimizer and Visibility set at 2,000
2560x1600: 24 fps
1920x1200: 26 fps
1680x1050: 27 fps

All settings NORMAL with 100 % Fillrate optimizer and Visibility set at 2,000
2560x1600: 30 fps
1920x1200: 34 fps
1680x1050: 35 fps
 
Dennisk - as before - those benches definately show you are CPU limited at the moment :)

get clocking .. :)


DennisK4 said:
I made some benchmarkings with the rig in my sig.

All fps counts are averages from looking at sparse screens and busy screens.
Take everything with a grain of salt....I just jotted down the numbers I got and averaged them, I was not being super precise or anything. Its not science etc.

All settings MAX with 200 % Fillrate optimizer and Visibility set at 10,000
2560x1600: 10 fps (frequently below)
1920x1200: 13 fps
1680x1050: 14 fps

All settings HIGH with 100 % Fillrate optimizer and Visibility set at 2,000
2560x1600: 24 fps
1920x1200: 26 fps
1680x1050: 27 fps

All settings NORMAL with 100 % Fillrate optimizer and Visibility set at 2,000
2560x1600: 30 fps
1920x1200: 34 fps
1680x1050: 35 fps
Click to expand...
 
Buckster said:
Dennisk - as before - those benches definately show you are CPU limited at the moment :)

get clocking .. :)
Click to expand...

Yes !...but I must find the time. I am afraid that if I just start without knowing what I am really doing that my rig will end up in flames.

Edit: From the german CPU benchmarks it appears the i7 Quads really make a difference.
 
:) - presumably you are overclocked at the moment anyway ? Q6600 ?

i7 Quads -yes will be quicker - but note the likes of hte Q6600 are not overclocked

and massive difference between them @ stock and say at 3.5 gig ....



DennisK4 said:
Yes !...but I must find the time. I am afraid that if I just start without knowing what I am really doing that my rig will end up in flames.

Edit: From the german CPU benchmarks it appears the i7 Quads really make a difference.
Click to expand...
 
I think i will upgrade my PC very soon for this game :)

It is running rather nice actully on my

Core 2 DUo E6850 @ 3ghz
4gb ram
and a xfx 260 black edition :)

Just going thru the single player :D so many options of what to do :)
 
DennisK4 said:
I made some benchmarkings with the rig in my sig.

All fps counts are averages from looking at sparse screens and busy screens.
Take everything with a grain of salt....I just jotted down the numbers I got and averaged them, I was not being super precise or anything. Its not science etc.

All settings MAX with 200 % Fillrate optimizer and Visibility set at 10,000
2560x1600: 10 fps (frequently below)
1920x1200: 13 fps
1680x1050: 14 fps

All settings HIGH with 100 % Fillrate optimizer and Visibility set at 2,000
2560x1600: 24 fps
1920x1200: 26 fps
1680x1050: 27 fps

All settings NORMAL with 100 % Fillrate optimizer and Visibility set at 2,000
2560x1600: 30 fps
1920x1200: 34 fps
1680x1050: 35 fps
Click to expand...

Try using fraps , you can get it to log fps in a text file , max / min / average
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom