ARMA 2: OA beta build 82448

[HitmanFF 6]

My 1gb 4890 would read more mem than was installed all I did was manually set it to 1024gb seemed to work for me cant say it made much if any diff though :(

This was a long time ago to January maybe.

I did try this, but it didn't work for me, at least not in the long run. According Suma the localVRAM setting is write-only anyway.

[stk2008 14]

I did try this, but it didn't work for me, at least not in the long run. According Suma the localVRAM setting is write-only anyway.

yeah set it to what ya want then set the file to read only.

but looking at his write up I assume it does nothing in the way of increased performance.

Oh well we need a magic patch cus this game is pissing me off I can only keep throwing so much money at it to get a half decent gaming experience :(

I love ARMA and have done from OFP but damn its a rig killer hahahaha

[birtuma 28]

Performance with this beta: 52 - 50 - 54 (3 times "E08: Benchmark")

Performance of 82282 and malloc=3: 57 - 53 - 52

Performance with no beta: 50 - 51 - 52

[manzilla 1]

Performance with this beta: 52 - 50 - 54 (3 times "E08: Benchmark")

Performance of 82282 and malloc=3: 57 - 53 - 52

Performance with no beta: 50 - 51 - 52

What is your settings at and what does your system look like? I'm trying to figure out why I barely get 30 average on my rig.

[ast65 10]

K, after deleting my beta-, config- and profile folder and installing everything (except the game itself) new,

performance is well again and it seems artifact flashing is nearly gone

but still needs some serious testing...

[guttersnipe 1]

You have a 5970 if I remember correctly? Could you take a look at your ArmaOA.cfg and check what your amount of localVRAM is in there?

I have a 5970, and my ArmAOA.cfg is listing 2 GB with any Catalyst version newer than 10.5. It should list only 1 GB (each GPU has 1 GB). I mentioned some time ago that this was the case. If I get 2 GB listed, I also get the poor quality textures and other problems, so I'm sticking to 10.5 currently.

yep on a 5970 myself - local vram reporting 2 GB's - it also read 2GB's when I was using 1.58 which worked perfectly so I don't think that's the issue . . ?!

[HitmanFF 6]

yep on a 5970 myself - local vram reporting 2 GB's - it also read 2GB's when I was using 1.58 which worked perfectly so I don't think that's the issue . . ?!

Try dropping back to Catalyst 10.4 or 10.5, see if your texture quality improves (since ArmA 2 correctly detects 1 GB VRAM)...

[Rain^^ 10]

would like to see in ArmA 2 separate adjustment of sound. What would be possible to adjust the volume of engines, steps, environment, etc.

maybe it can somehow add to the patch?

[Steakslim 1]

that won't happen

[metalcraze 290]

Went back to 82407 and flashing artifacts returned to where they just flash once or twice in the beginning of the game.

With 82448 they are pretty much constant.

[guttersnipe 1]

Try dropping back to Catalyst 10.4 or 10.5, see if your texture quality improves (since ArmA 2 correctly detects 1 GB VRAM)...

Tried that, but can't get rid of the pixelization ... something changed in the patch between 1.58 & 1.59 in game - changing my driver settings/version seems to have very little effect on the pixel effect.

Not alone in this suspposition :

One thing I did notice is that the in game FSAA settings must also have a direct effect on the ATOC setting since it was obvious when you turned it off that the trees are much less full.

and

ATOC=0 with FSAA=2 still gave me this pixelated trees thing... It was only until i put ATOC=0 with FSAA=0 that it went away.

Logical Conclusion: FSAA is causing the bug not ATOC

I have a HD 6950

[ast65 10]

Morphological AA works fine for me (no pixel effect) if AA ingame is disabled and 'normal' AA in CCC is set to 'application controlled (default).

So yes: FSAA is causing that bug.

[birtuma 28]

What is your settings at and what does your system look like? I'm trying to figure out why I barely get 30 average on my rig.

Q6600@3,20Ghz, AMD HD6850...

[guttersnipe 1]

Morphological AA works fine for me (no pixel effect) if AA ingame is disabled and 'normal' AA in CCC is set to 'application controlled (default).

So yes: FSAA is causing that bug.

this definately helps the pixel effect (still noticeable close up), however the 'bush/brush work' from range is overly blurry, compared to what I'm used to. no improvement between low & high AA in game ... what seeting for 'filter' for CCC AA and AA mode do you use ?

ta for the help.

[manzilla 1]

Q6600@3,20Ghz, AMD HD6850...

Ahhh that explains it. My system is more powerful but my setting are a lot higher. I'll have to lower them and test. For example my VD is 5500.

[birtuma 28]

It's not necessary to have VD at 5500 if you play on the ground. When I fly, I set it higher, 4-5km are enough and I still have nice fps.

Btw, this were my MP settings (I play mostly online), in SP I have postprocessing effects and antialiasing on normal, in that case I have something between 30 (cities) and 50fps (open areas).

[Steakslim 1]

yeah Birtuma could get away with a higher Object detail setting at the least lol.

[ast65 10]

this definately helps the pixel effect (still noticeable close up), however the 'bush/brush work' from range is overly blurry, compared to what I'm used to. no improvement between low & high AA in game ... what seeting for 'filter' for CCC AA and AA mode do you use ?

ta for the help.

Ye, I have to crank up my monitor sharpness to compensate the slight bluriness that comes with MLAA :p

Regarding AA settings: you´re always on the safe side if you leave everything on default :rolleyes:

If you´ve resources to spend you can use edge detect filter;

same goes basically for the modes: supersampling is the most demanding and not working with every game while adaptive AA often produces artifacts.

MLAA is great for games that have no ingame AA (ie GTA4) while for ArmA2 it´s just a workaround, ingame AA with ATOC=7 looks way better imo but the pixelated bushes are a real immersion killer (more lookin for buggy bushes than for enemy :p).

ps a benefit of MLAA is, that it gives very homogenous IQ

Edited July 6, 2011 by @ST

[dmarkwick 261]

I know it's all subjective, but I get good mileage from disabling AA completely and rendering at 125%.

[kremator 1064]

Interesting. I used to do that but I've changed what I do and run at native 1680x1050 (I think) and low AA.

I'm getting about 40FPS on E08 benchmark with everything on Very High with 4000VD (except AA on low and PP disabled, Vsync On)

Maybe I'll have to do some other tests myself :)

[huxfluxd-luxe 10]

Guttersnipe,

what is your setting for VideoMem in graphics setting menu ?

I also have a HD5970, using 11.6 drivers on Win7 64bit and never had this issue. In addition, i do always use latest beta.

[MavericK96 0]

I know it's all subjective, but I get good mileage from disabling AA completely and rendering at 125%.

I keep hearing people talk about doing this instead of AA, but I've done a bunch of tests and the performance is not any better, and in fact sometimes worse (for me, anyway) when using a higher-res rendering. Also I don't think it looks any better than just using Normal AA, either.

[guttersnipe 1]

My settings as per request : -

5970 on 11.5's . .

language="English";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=93750;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Resolution_W=1920;

Resolution_H=1080;

refresh=60;

winX=16;

winY=32;

winW=800;

winH=600;

winDefW=800;

winDefH=600;

Render_W=1920;

Render_H=1080;

FSAA=1;

postFX=0;

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1000;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=3;

HDRPrecision=8;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=2113200128;

nonlocalVRAM=1341681664;

vsync=0;

Windowed=0;

AToC=7;