[Game] The ArmA 2 thread (hurr hurr, no Armed Assault 2)

[Lt_Kettch]

The campaign is just awesome so far. After the first few missions it completely opens up - I'm really enjoying it. I just love how alive Chenarus feels, I'm currently playing the 'Manhattan' mission and it actually does feel like you're in a warzone. While you and your team are off completing a bunch of different objectives, there's hundreds of units from different factions populating the entire map, patrolling, fighting - all of it completely unscripted. Not to mention the civilian population caught in the middle, some of whom might tip you off about nearby enemy camps if asked, whereas others might just tell you piss off or ignore you completely.

You even get random missions and assignments along the way. Only on my second attempt at the mission did I get a call asking to secure a crash site for a downed civilian chopper, which of course you're able to accept or ignore as you see fit. There's a surprising amount of choice on the part of the player in almost every mission I've done so far.

My only real complaint would be performance, specifically in the campaign. It's like my CPU is acting as bottleneck, I get pretty much the same performance (never above 26fps) regardless of settings. This is with a Q6600, and even people with i7's are reporting the same thing. If I open up the editor and wander around I'm getting 40-50fps with the settings almost maxed out, yet during the campaign in the same spot I'll be getting 26fps with everything set as low as it can go.

Most likely because you have a quad core they messed that up a bit. You have to change your start setting so the game thinks you have a dual core.

Quote from IRC

<NKato> Guys. I got a tip.

<NKato> If you're on a quad core PC,

<NKato> You'll need to set the game's affinity to only two cores, since it's optimized for dual core CPUs.

<NKato> To do that, add -cpuCount=2 to your ArmA II shortcut.

<Lt_Kettch> lol thats stupid (but works probably)

<NKato> I had a significant performance improvement.

<NKato> Without it, it would stutter quite often

<NKato> But with it, it ran a lot more smoothly.

<NKato> Plus it means I can dedicate the other two cores to FRAPsing.

<triath> uh before it was released they claimed it was quad/dual optimized

<triath> a few spots int he wiki that I can't find now :|

<triath> go figure

<NKato> Not as much for Quad, but for Dual, yes

<NKato> It can use all four cores, but not to their maximum

 

[Reddog]

Don't forget to use Nvidia Control Panel or ATI Catalyst Control to force vsync off, it will eliminate annoying mouse lag just like it did in Arma 1.

I'm running it all on high and having no problems, runs beautifully in the country side and chunks up a little bit in the cities but not enough to hinder gameplay.

C2D E6600, 2GB DDR2, GTX280, Vista 32

 

[Tomcat_ha]

how much does arma like more than 2gb of ram?

 

[fiftyone]

how much does arma like more than 2gb of ram?

Probably as much as I do .

 

[Jimmy]

Most likely because you have a quad core they messed that up a bit. You have to change your start setting so the game thinks you have a dual core.

Quote from IRC

Over on the BI forums they've been testing quad-core usage using 'ArmAIIMark' - a benchmarking mission. Changing the command line alone showed no effect whatsoever on performance, so I'm not sure what NKato was experiencing. You have to add the command line and edit the affinity settings of ArmA2.exe while you're running the game for anything to change. And from the results posted so far, there's a ~20% increase in performance when using all 4 cores instead of 2.

The problem I'm having is specifically linked with the campaign, there's definitely something up with the way the AI/scripting works. I posted this on the official forums too, but I'd be interested if anyone here can load up the 'Manhattan' mission and get over 26fps, regardless of what settings you choose. I wouldn't be surprised if this is affecting everybody, whether they realise it or not.

 

[Pvt.pile]

Im on the Mahatten mission this now and ive noticed a drop in my FPS it was fine on the othere mission's but it doesn't really matter what I change it still feels the same. I just thought it was because maybe I was in a more densely forested area of the map.

 

[SiC-Disaster]

You can try it out in the editor, the framerate really is thanks to the mission and not the area.
When i place only myself in the location of FOB Manhattan i get a solid 50 fps (with lots of settings toned down ofcourse) but when i play the Manhattan mission in that same area the fps is down to 20.

I think it's down to all the AI going on its own way in that mission.
The AO is really huge, and in that AO are 4 factions each fighting random battles etc, you've got the USMC, CDF, ChDKZ, and NAPA all fighting random battles when they run into eachother.
All that calculating of bullets and AI must break down a lot of fps.

The campaign so far has been nothing else then pure sex, i loved every second of it and i'm quite impressed, this goes so much farther in terms of campaign then OFP ever did, and i already thought it couldnt get much better then that.

 

[I. Kant]

You people so make me want to have it. Omagad, omagad!

 

[fiftyone]

For those of us waiting to receive the real ArmA2, this is fun...

[url]http://www.arma2.com/flash-arma-ii_en.html[/URL]

It works like a browser, so don't do as I did and hit the previous page button on your mouse...lol.

 

[Xendance]

Sounds like you'd need a dedicated server to handle the missions for you.

 

[Dcode]

Does the German download version contain any DRM? Like Starforce or SecuROM?

 

[[VFD]HH]

Both my video card and my processor are to weak, and it will be a year before I can get a new computer.

*Sigh* guess I will stick to RO and DH

 

[Dillinger]

So, anyone else having problems with the first mission in campaign? I completed the sweep of the town, and escorted the doctor to the cabin. Then I declined the secondary mission, and was radio'd to go somewhere else but didn't get any waypoints or anything for it and my squad is just standing around in the woods not doing anything?

 

[DraKon2k]

GameStar gave 66%, saying that they however are very much willing to update the score when further patches are released that solve the problems, because the game as incredible potential as they say.

 

[KrazyKraut]

Considering they gave ArmA I 75% that was a bit harsh. But I like this sentence:
"The fact that there's no real alternative in the genre doesn't make ArmA 2 one bit better, only more bearable."
That sums it up pretty well.

 

[PNV]

Does the German download version contain any DRM? Like Starforce or SecuROM?

It uses SecuROM as well as the FADE system.

 

[Lt_Kettch]

I think ArmA 2 isn't for everyone is the better summary ...

Game Star ratings are random and biased buggy big budget games like GTA4 and Empire get 90+ ratings and from a technical point of view it was a horrible game.

Sure ArmA 2 has short comings but nothing game breaking and yes some things are annoying (walls failing through vehicles running into them) because they are like that since OFP. But things like that don't make a game better or worse ...

If people complain about getting shot and not knowing from where, complaining the game is too hard, they should realize this is a war simulation war isn't nice.

And KrazyKraut why are you even posting here in this thread?

I hope people realize how grat this game is and support BI. Dragon Rising will sure be the better game ...

 

[KrazyKraut]

Why not?

 

[Tomcat_ha]

oh yeah.... GTA4 is one hell of a unoptimized son of a *****

 

[fiftyone]

Just got hold of a hard copy, nice box.
After 4 hours of playing, I think I like this a lot.
Not as smooth as I would like, but it runs pretty well.

E8400,8800gt, 3giga ram XPsp3.

I pumped it to the max, then set everything to normal except textures uberhigh & post-processing (or whatever its called) 100%.

Well done BIS, I can play this game outadabox!

Will have a closer look tomorrow.