Mega_Death

No, it goes into it. Might be too big for the starter back pack, not sure though.

PC users don't mind if it's a PC game ported to consoles. We have a problem if it's a console game ported to PC.

Absolutely this. Consoles have their place. But it's what consoles have done to game development that is the issue. Due to the low price of consoles millions have been sold when compared to decent gaming pc's. Look at trailers for the Crysis3 and Frostbite engines. That's everything a console can't do and those game engines are not fully mature. They are the future but cannot be used now due to the current console hardware. The next generation will be far better but they will once agin be the limiting factor for pc's. Those of us that play on pc's get graphics and textures limited by an aging console platform. And this is done for the sake of money, Since such a large segment of the gaming industries sales are on consoles, game designers and publishers are forced to program games with the outdated consoles of today. It's the publishers that are ultimately responsible for giving us trash console ports for the sake of profits. When I play on a console I know what to expect. When I play on a PC I expect more, far more than most of the trash that's fed to us today. I use a PC for its ability, not for the limitations of todays consoles.

+1 I do not see a console having the ability to render such large maps. Shrink the maps for consoles=no sale for me.

His information on a cpu installation/change is correct. The problem is that's a LGA 775 motherboard, the Q6600 was the best processor you could get for it. You cannot buy a cpu not designed for the 775 socket, it will not fit. The Q6600 was a great cpu but it's days are done for some games, and Arma2 is one of them. A better graphics card will help, but as previously stated the cpu is quite old and is your main issue.

I like the Frostbite engine too, but I don't think it is capable of maps as large as the Arma egine. They are big, but not on the same scale.

I don't like what you said. And yeah, Arma is a total rip off of CoD. Pffft. Just wow. It's post like this that keep you coming back for the laughs.

I do agree the engine has its quirks. But you guys never had the pleaseure of playing Arma 1 I take it. :P

No problem. If it was Sickboy, that's the guy who did ACE for Arma and Arma2. He's pretty good at scripting, but yeah I prefer what is being done with Commander.

There is no need for core i7's with hyper threading. It does nothing for gaming. Built my pc 3 years ago and has a i7 920, hyper threading has been turned off since day 1. If the op has the money he can go top end. But if you are constrained by a budget, as most of us are, do some reaserch. I recommend Intel cpu's. You get a higher return on investment regarding frame rate with money in a great graphics card over a high end cpu.

I like Commander better than SixUpdater, but to call them bad coders is plain silly. Did Sickboy do SixUpdater?

Yeah, I know. He doesn't understand it's been the consoles holding back PC games.

Back on topic..... Agree %100. A few of the guys I play DayZ with actually tried ArmaII, and they really liked it. If you are into CoD and high pace games it's not going to be your cup of tea. But typically the older generation will appreciate Arma for what it is, a great military simulation unlike anything else on the PC.

Not really, 1.7.2.5 will not be available through Six Updater until Rocket is happy with the update.

Don't you see the irony of your post?