ARMA 2:OA beta patch 75445

[kklownboy 43]

there is no way i will buy PMC if those problems are not fixed now.

and we care?

1 month is gone since they introduced the chopper bug with a beta and didnt fix it till yet. now, if the patch would run good, im ok with that, but its not!

compared to this, the chopper bug is a small one...

textures[all textures] are constantly rebuilding itself if i look around, the game is absolutly broken for me now. i waited 1 month, tested with the betas to be able to play it. im more then pissed and i have good reasons for it. i just got a fresh install of XP and Arma, so this is definitly not the problem. As you see others reported this in the last beta, but it was just ignored.

BTW. i wonder if i get any feedback on this. Dwarden mostly ignores constuctive critism somehow?!

how do you know it was ignored?You sound like a spoiled brat. My "slow loading" is on Cherno, not any OA maps...So if you dont buy a DLC, then i guess ill have to buy a extra copy.Maybe you go buy BlackOpps for 60$ and take a vacation from real gaming....just saying...

[santafee 10]

well BIS should care cause this is what they live from. i dont say you have to care...

i just received a anwer from dwarden, so im satisfied for now.

still its very annoying to have a bugged patch again.

black ops...black ops is bugged like hell atm and i dont spend 60€ for a game which is censored in my country. if i got bad luck i cant even run it cause it will freeze. "real gaming"...this statement is just stupid, cause im a fan of arma and i also play BC2 and arcade games. why do you post here anyway if you dont have something constuctive?

[no use for a name 0]

well BIS should care cause this is what they live from. i dont say you have to care...

i just received a anwer from dwarden, so im satisfied for now.

still its very annoying to have a bugged patch again.

black ops...black ops is bugged like hell atm and i dont spend 60€ for a game which is censored in my country. if i got bad luck i cant even run it cause it will freeze. "real gaming"...this statement is just stupid, cause im a fan of arma and i also play BC2 and arcade games. why do you post here anyway if you dont have something constuctive?

Of course BIS cares or we wouldn't have new patches and/or beta patches to test; seems like a waste of time and effort if they really didn't give a shit lol!

And to 'REQUIRE' that a dev respond to you? Email any other game company and see how fast you get a response; hell search thru their forums and find any posts by one. I think people are getting spoiled with BIS support!

[santafee 10]

yaya. BIS support IS good! i just dont get the point with collecting beta feedback and then releasing a official patch, while the beta feedback was bad in the last state. Thats all. Dwarden informed me about it, so il wait with patience again to see the things fixed. You cant compare Arma with any other game out there, in terms of gameplay and quantity, but also in the complexity and amount of problems, so i think its required to have the devs interacting with the com.

[TRexian 0]

I have had some experience in trying to do patches that can update different versions, and it is an incredibly complicated task. For BI to even attempt to update something as complicated as A2 (with all the different versions and DLC) is proof of their commitment.

I hope they can work out something to do it more smoothly, but regardless, I respect the hell out of them for just trying. :)

[KeyCat 131]

Having objects detail on very high are curing the worst of the flickering for me, still some flickering though!

Just tried to reproduce it in 1.55 final as well as this beta 75445 bit can't see any flickering on trees (nor grass) as in videos posted prev. As JWC I'm having object details on Very High.

/KC

[Alwarren 2765]

i just dont get the point with collecting beta feedback and then releasing a official patch, while the beta feedback was bad in the last state.

As a developer, you have to decide at one point to release, otherwise you get "feature creep". The company I am working for had that once, you think "Ah, let's just fix this one thing before release". You'll end up not releasing anything.

Nothing is ever perfect, you have to decide when it is sufficiently close.

[=kct=blackmamba 44]

i think they gave us the final patch and go on to line up all the issues still left in game and sort them out one at a time.

the beta was getting pretty big tough..

[Alex72 1]

Apparently no. From the BI wiki:

"3D_Performance=93750 - written by engine each start, changing it manually has no effect!"

Bumped into that while fixing a related start-up error message.

I know changing them has no effect, but was thinking maybe its a measurment of current patch contra system. The final 1.55 patch braught me negative number for the first time.

The last beta was pretty good. The final gave new issues like weapon sounds dont travel with delay over distance (again), and missing heads on US soldiers from not so far distance. Doing some work to report these issues.

[Dwarden 1124]

that's interesting Alex72, we were fixing the the headless units and it's now in the 1.08 / 1.55

could you please recheck (or even do full reinstall) integrity of Your A2/OA data ?

[Carl_D 10]

I have had some experience in trying to do patches that can update different versions, and it is an incredibly complicated task. For BI to even attempt to update something as complicated as A2 (with all the different versions and DLC) is proof of their commitment.

I hope they can work out something to do it more smoothly, but regardless, I respect the hell out of them for just trying. :)

Seconded!

I've never encountered the community commitment to users of any consumer software that BIS shows, and I've purchased scientific equipment costing over GBP0.5 million and had months of rude, laggardly and abysmally incompetent support over the seriously flawed software until we threatened this global corporation with legal action by the Institute, the state govt., and the BMFT.

BIS is a small company and its user support is remarkable. They truly deserve our :pc:

Ciao

Carl

[Dwarden 1124]

thanks Carl_D

[Carl_D 10]

thanks Carl_D

My pleasure :)

Carl

[TRexian 0]

thanks Carl_D

What am I, chopped liver? :D :D :D

(That's a USian expression, I think... it may not translate well correctly.)

[santafee 10]

http://dev-heaven.net/issues/14554

Test the mission and vote please...!:rolleyes:

[Dwarden 1124]

What am I, chopped liver? :D :D :D

(That's a USian expression, I think... it may not translate well correctly.)

i noticed you :cool: thanks aswell

[=kct=blackmamba 44]

to all whiners over at these forums..:D

Friday, 12 November 2010 13:38

We would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused by BAF patch 1.01, which, temporarily prevented you, our loyal community members, from playing with BAF installed on BAF Lite servers. To get your game working correctly once again, and better, you need only download the last BAF patch again and run it.

You need to do this if you are getting error messages about wrong signature of one of our files. Otherwise, you have the latest data and need not take any notice of this incident, which we endeavour to ensure will not happened again.

i just copyd and pasted this from the arma2 website

it simply shows how loyal BIS is to its community...:rolleyes:

[KeyCat 131]

Is it advised to give BIS feedback/comments about 1.55.75445 final in this thread since AFAIK it's the same as Beta 75445?

/KC

[Dwarden 1124]

i suggest keep them separate cause they not exactly same

[KeyCat 131]

Anyone else experiencing more stuttering, LOD issues on objects/houses and a bit lower performance over all using this beta build?

I'm comparing with Beta 74630 which was one of the later ones that worked best for me.

/KC

[Nutlink 10]

Anyone else experiencing more stuttering, LOD issues on objects/houses and a bit lower performance over all using this beta build?

I'm comparing with Beta 74630 which was one of the later ones that worked best for me.

/KC

I am. This is the first patch that really lowered performance for me overall, but I haven't had enough time to test it out and see what the cause is.

[Brainbug 10]

i suggest keep them separate cause they not exactly same

Hmm, but what about playing with the Beta (the advantage being the absence of a DVD check routine)? Ok, or a really bad idea (for some reason)?

[Dwarden 1124]

i mean the reports should be separated e.g. beta goes here and retail goes to general/troubleshooting

[NoRailgunner 0]

So if people with OA patch 1.55 do install/use the latest 75445beta .exe they don't make wrong reports/feedback here?

[Brainbug 10]

Well, the main difference is of course that the big patch also updates content, while the beta only updates the engine. And as we all know the pbos alone have enough potential for errors. But it is not easy for us to distinguish if a bug is content- or engine-related.

If I encoutered something weird while playing 1.55 + beta, I'd check if it's still there without the beta, and if yes, then write it in the Retail thread, on the other hand if it only comes up while using the beta then it certainly belongs here.

My initial question hasn't been answered though. Usually there was never the opportunity to use an older beta on a newer retail patch (because betas always carried the preceding main version number), but this time that might be the case. In theory, even the older 74858 beta should work on 1.55 servers, but I'm fine when I can use the 75445 beta. Still that feels like downgrading to me, so there might be compatibility issues.

I'm just feeling better to ask before I run into any annoying problems which might eventually result in me reinstalling everything.