ArmA 2 : OA Beta Build 82128

[f2k sel 164]

I've had two crashes so far, something about Arma 2 reinforcement and direct3d error. 12 months previously with no crashes. The first time it crashed was loading a blank map. Drivers haven't been changed either. I'll clear out the logs and if it happens again I'll try and post them.

[Steakslim 1]

Short Specs:

Nvidia 9800 GT

AMD PHENOM 2.2GHZ Multi Core Processor. (is this my major bottleneck)?

6 GB RAM

Very much likely, yes it is.

[Li0n 10]

Tested: this beta in compare to main patch cause average fps drop from 14 to 11 ( Benchmark 2 ). I thought latest betas are about to increase performance.

[victim913 10]

I'm sure someone will have seen this question asked already, i just can't find the answer.

I haven't installed a beta for a while now, but when I did try this one I got an error. It said:

"Game version 1.58 required. Your current version is 1.54"

But I have patch 1.59, I double checked it and made sure i installed it.

But if there is a 1.59, then why would the latest beta say that it's for 1.58?

If it's been answered somewhere else, I apologize. Hard to search "beta" when the whole section is beta.

Thanks

[manzilla 1]

I'm getting a bunch of CTDs with this new patch. THis is the first time I've ever experienced CTDs with OA on this system.

I'm running:

i7 2.93Ghz

Win 7 64

4Gb Ram

ATI 5870

The CTDs have only occurred as of today and me implementing this patch. The CTD occurs randomly in missions at various times. I've had crashes in all the missions I've tried.

This is all I have in the .rpt after the crash:

Exception code: C0000005 ACCESS_VIOLATION at 00907FC1

and here's an .rpt of the most recent. I was trying it with CWR2 and still a crash.

== C:\Program Files\Bohemia Interactive\ArmA 2\Expansion\beta\arma2oa.exe

== "C:\Program Files\Bohemia Interactive\ArmA 2\Expansion\beta\arma2oa.exe" -mod=Expansion\beta;Expansion\beta\Expansion;@CWR2;BAF;PMC -noSplash -showScriptErrors

=====================================================================

Exe timestamp: 2011/06/23 10:21:47

Current time: 2011/06/23 14:25:38

Version 1.59.82128

Item str_disp_server_control listed twice

Conflicting addon HotFix_OA in 'ca\hotfix_oa_154\', previous definition in 'ca\hotfix_oa\'

Warning: looped for animation: ca\wheeled\data\anim\uaz_cargo01_v0.rtm differs (looped now 0)! MoveName: kia_uaz_cargo02

Warning: looped for animation: ca\wheeled\data\anim\uaz_cargo01_v0.rtm differs (looped now 1)! MoveName: uaz_cargo02

=======================================================

-------------------------------------------------------

Exception code: C0000005 ACCESS_VIOLATION at 00907FC1

I had the same CTD when I was playing a mission with just the beta as well. Unfortunately I erased the .rpt after that one and the CWR2 one is all I have. It did have that same access violation thing immediately after the ctd though.(That violation seems to be the last thing in .rpt with all the ctds I've had today.) There never is an actual on screen error that appears.

I hope this helps. Now I gotta run.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Manzilla

[Hanzu 10]

To test the performance I made with each version "E08: Benchmark" 3 times in a row. I usually test this way the performance, because the benchmark doesn't run always the same.

Here are the results...

1.59: 57 - 54 - 50

Beta 82128: 59 - 59 - 57

I was wondering why the fps numbers from 1.59 without the beta patch were so bad, so I started it without beta and made the benchmark again...

1.59: 59 - 50 - 56

Well, I would say, the fps is more stable, but you can't really trust this benchmark. :D

Run Benchmark 3 times, but close the game in between. This way you decrease probability of memory leak/memory fragmentation to cause those 4-9 FPS changes. Suma said he fixed a memory leak a few betas ago, so it is possible that leak was already present in 1.59 non-beta.

Tested: this beta in compare to main patch cause average fps drop from 14 to 11 ( Benchmark 2 ). I thought latest betas are about to increase performance.

I think recent betas offer no performance optimizations, but at least stability fixes and gameplay optimizations spiced with new technology which according to benchmarks eats a little more hardware power.

I'm sure someone will have seen this question asked already, i just can't find the answer.

I haven't installed a beta for a while now, but when I did try this one I got an error. It said:

"Game version 1.58 required. Your current version is 1.54"

But I have patch 1.59, I double checked it and made sure i installed it.

But if there is a 1.59, then why would the latest beta say that it's for 1.58?

If it's been answered somewhere else, I apologize. Hard to search "beta" when the whole section is beta.

Thanks

Deleting old beta folder completely before installing new one might help. Helped my gamebuddy when it said he had 1.57 when he actully had 1.59. Also he had not been installing betas for couple of months or so.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Hanzu

[gabe_ruckus 5]

An old bug is back with the beta where I can't turn in any vehicles. Vanilla OA+A2, no mods.

[NoRailgunner 0]

CTD with "Arma 2 Reinforcement" message and those fast artifacts (looks like a spike out of the forehead model) are still there.

[ast65 10]

CTD with "Arma 2 Reinforcement" message and those fast artifacts (looks like a spike out of the forehead model) are still there.

Confirmed, artifacts in sky box are still there, very rare, though.

Had two CTD´s when loading missions, too, maybe mod- related; had none with vanilla yet.

[twisted 128]

this beta feels v smooth to me on my average rig. tried experimenting with different view distances again and settings and got very acceptable performance while flying over empty takistan with 10,000 view distance, high texture, high shadows, low post effects and no AA. on ground during 2nd baf mission found that the smoothness dropped due to ai presence (mostly when looking in their direction) but dropped view dist to around 5000 and texture to normal and reach 23-30fps which is feels ok.

still digging the extended object distance as it makes things feel more immersive. great steps forward bis and look forward to seeing what comes next.

[maturin 12]

Ooooooh faster visibility checks.

If you're investigating this facet of AI behavior, might I suggest expediting AI visibility checks at very close ranges? They are helpless in CQB, you know.

[froggyluv 2136]

Ooooooh faster visibility checks.

If you're investigating this facet of AI behavior, might I suggest expediting AI visibility checks at very close ranges? They are helpless in CQB, you know.

Hi. I agree but what are you referring to?

Edit:Sorry, I get ya now :)

Edited June 24, 2011 by froggyluv

[maddogx 13]

still digging the extended object distance as it makes things feel more immersive.

Check a page back:

The object draw distance was not increased since the last non-beta patch (at least not intentionally).

[.kju 3245]

Unintentionally it was it seems. Still need to do some more tests to confirm though.

[twisted 128]

Check a page back:

thanks for pointing that out. i should have been more specific. i meant since last patch where i'm pretty sure i noticed a increase in draw distance where trees were being draw further out than i had noticed before. :n:

[bluesteel 0]

Unintentionally it was it seems. Still need to do some more tests to confirm though.

I have just compared screenshots taken from 82128 and the last patch (79384). There is absolutely no difference in object draw distance between these versions. Tested on Chernarus, standing on the Green Mountain tower.

But if I remember correctly, there was an object draw distance increase a while back in one of the previous patches; even if I can't find any mention of that in the changelogs.

[suma 8]

thanks for pointing that out. i should have been more specific. i meant since last patch where i'm pretty sure i noticed a increase in draw distance where trees were being draw further out than i had noticed before. :n:

Can you (or anyone else seeing the same) provide some evidence, e.g a screenshot from identical location in both version? I would definitely hate such important changes to be done on their own, without someone doing it intentionaly.

[dmarkwick 261]

I cannot say I have noticed any object draw distance change. I tried to see it but it looked just the same to me.

[SaOk 112]

Sorry, I was wrong. The object draw distance really is the same as in 1.59 (I took identical screenshots). Somehow the distant trees have looked much more noticeable in this beta, but the amounth of objects is the same.

The game is smoother than never before. Only the big villages feel about as heavy as before.

I spotted also a AI flaw yesterday. I drove past an enemy group, with truck full of my AI group members. After disemparking over 1km away, the my groupies stayed in alerted mode giving constantly detailed information of the enemy soldiers 1000m away. There was line of sight (with binoculars), but no shooting so the AI behaviour feeled unneeded and made moving slow on foot until reaching nearby mountain top.

[twisted 128]

Can you (or anyone else seeing the same) provide some evidence, e.g a screenshot from identical location in both version? I would definitely hate such important changes to be done on their own, without someone doing it intentionaly.

i was wrong. no visible difference when actively comparing this beta to prepatch. wonder why i thought it was like that? sorry for stuffed up feedback.

[stk2008 14]

Just a quick Q.

Will there be any plans to add render to texture to ARMA2? or will we only see this when ARMA3 is out.

I would love to see this in ARMA2 as I was watching Future weapons a mo ago with te new A10c and the screens in the cockpit displays what the camera can see up to 15 miles away.

I was thinking WOW this will rock in ARMA2 imagine the Apache with this :O.

I know 15 miles targeting in ARMA2 could present some balance issues but any way just think how cool it would be with this feature :)

[Dwarden 1125]

Sorry, I was wrong. The object draw distance really is the same as in 1.59 (I took identical screenshots). Somehow the distant trees have looked much more noticeable in this beta, but the amounth of objects is the same.

The game is smoother than never before. Only the big villages feel about as heavy as before.

I spotted also a AI flaw yesterday. I drove past an enemy group, with truck full of my AI group members. After disemparking over 1km away, the my groupies stayed in alerted mode giving constantly detailed information of the enemy soldiers 1000m away. There was line of sight (with binoculars), but no shooting so the AI behaviour feeled unneeded and made moving slow on foot until reaching nearby mountain top.

i think we doing something right if with same viewdistance as before You think You see more and the game is smoother and faster than before :cool:

[SaOk 112]

:D, Definitely you are going to right way. If the big cities and villages would work as smooth as currently the medium villages (e.g. Anar) the game performance would be near perfect.

[Muahaha 10]

Since we are in the topic of view and draw distance, is the current draw distance for vehicles such as planes and helis still bounded to the 3k limit ? purely assuming here since last i remembered there was a 3k limit. If so will it be possible to have it increase further via engine patch or there is a need of data change as well?

[Alwarren 2767]

Is it just me? Recently, I have had CTD's when starting a multiplayer game on my machine. It happens erratically, but if it does happen, I get into the lobby, other players connect, the mission loads, I get the briefing, and a second later it crashes.

Anyone else seen this? I have a log and dump file for this, but I don't want to send any developer on a wild goose chase if this is just on my end.

Addons were low(ish), just Jarhead's sound mod, CBA and warfx.