ARMA 2: OA beta build 92477 (1.60 MP compatible build, post 1.60 release)

[Dwarden 1125]

http://www.arma2.com/beta-patch.php

[92463] Fixed: AToC ATi 77xx

+ fixed squad.xml vs missing picture crashes

Edited May 2, 2012 by Dwarden

[.kju 3245]

[92463] Fixed: AToC ATi 77xx

This seems new.

[Dwarden 1125]

This seems new.

in theory it might fix also ingame AA issue with AMD Catalyst drives 12.4 and newer on all HD cards

please everyone with HD cards retest and report Your findings

+ BattlEye already supports this beta

[On_Sabbatical 11]

When ordering AI to to keep stealth , they go prone too !

[xeno 234]

Still massive performance problems in MP.

In just 6 minutes 3313 Observer bla messages:

Observer B 1-2-I:1 REMOTE in cargo of B 1-2-I:1 REMOTE; message was repeated in last 60 sec: 479

Observer B 1-2-I:1 REMOTE in cargo of B 1-2-I:1 REMOTE; message was repeated in last 60 sec: 472

Observer B 1-2-I:1 REMOTE in cargo of B 1-2-I:1 REMOTE; message was repeated in last 60 sec: 466

Observer B 1-2-I:1 REMOTE in cargo of B 1-2-I:1 REMOTE; message was repeated in last 60 sec: 463

Observer B 1-2-I:1 REMOTE in cargo of B 1-2-I:1 REMOTE; message was repeated in last 60 sec: 468

Observer B 1-2-I:1 REMOTE in cargo of B 1-2-I:1 REMOTE; message was repeated in last 60 sec: 965

Xeno

[SaOk 112]

AI unit/vehicle spawning seem to stutter more in this beta. Having noticeable pauses even after playing some time when the spawning classes are already used before.

[Janez 531]

All user made campaigns seem to be displayed 2x. Stock are fine.

Another thing I noticed compared to 1.60. Order of mods listed on right side of main menu screen is upside down.

i.e. 1.60:

CBA

...

JSRS

1.60.92477:

JSRS

...

CBA

I dont know if this has any actuall effect though.

[Dwarden 1125]

Still massive performance problems in MP.

In just 6 minutes 3313 Observer bla messages:

Xeno

i trade imaginary kingdom for simple repro on this, to cause so many messages

[giorgygr 61]

When ordering AI to to keep stealth , they go prone too !

So what's new? :confused:

I m sure we have this behavior since ArmA1 :D

[metalcraze 290]

Yep. In auto stance mode they will go prone whenever possible, unless they can't see something - then they will choose a higher stance.

It's perfectly logical.

[Cereth 1]

in theory it might fix also ingame AA issue with AMD Catalyst drives 12.4 and newer on all HD cards

please everyone with HD cards retest and report Your findings

+ BattlEye already supports this beta

So I have been thinking long and hard about the issue that I reported in the last beta thread and I did some additional tests in 1.60 and I found that the 'grain' anomaly I was seeing is actually present in 1.60 and if anything it now actually looks better (at least in this most current beta version) and there is a great reduction in white dots showing through as well now. I have recently upped my contact prescription so I guess I just never noticed it before with my terrible eye sight :) Thanks for all the hard work on all these great changes that have been coming to arma 2!

[Paintface 10]

getting some hard spiking polygon artifacts in cities on chernasus with a 6950 latest beta drivers for AMD and this latest beta.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Hey,

Metis lock seems to be broken ... it locks but not instantly it takes a lot of time before the square shows.

[Dwarden 1125]

getting some hard spiking polygon artifacts in cities on chernasus with a 6950 latest beta drivers for AMD and this latest beta.

if this is with DayZ mod then it was bad models used, fixed in new DayZ patch

[OMAC 254]

Hey,

Metis lock seems to be broken ... it locks but not instantly it takes a lot of time before the square shows.

Very old news:

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/28865

[ast65 10]

Very old news:

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/28865

This shit really gets annoying...not one launcher with lock-on function is working :p

javelin, metis, stinger etc...all broken.

Come on BIS, u CAN fix it ;)

(i get no lock, no matter how long i wait; there´s no locking-sound, either)

Edited May 9, 2012 by @ST

[OMAC 254]

Looks like BIS has been very busy lately, with ToH 1.06, A3, and Iron Front. I've had to go back to 1.60 vanilla. :(

[Tonci87 163]

I don´t think that BIS works on IF....

[OMAC 254]

Oh, I think they do, as the IF engine is derived from OA 1.61 beta builds (including mouse driving :)). I think BIS has been making some stability improvements lately for the IF engine. At least that is my understanding. I also have to say that IF is a damn MASTERPIECE, and everyone who loves A2 should get IF. You won't be disappointed! :cool:

[gossamersolid 155]

Once again, I don't think IF is being worked on by BIS. I'm pretty sure BIS just licensed out the engine to the IF team.

[OMAC 254]

True, but I think that BIS is still tweaking the engine a bit right before the IF release. BIS has a stake in the success of IF. BIS didn't just throw the 1.60 engine at them and walk away, but are taking the best 1.61 beta improvements and implementing and stabilizing them for IF. I have heard this from someone who is an IF developer.

[Ch3v4l13r 1]

After beta patch 90242 ever beta patch i installed gave me a red battle eye client message when i joined a server and it also seemed, but i am not 100% sure of this, that they gave me a high desync. At least it was pretty much gone when i went back to the 90242 beta. Has anything been done about this or should i stay with 90242 ?

EDIT: this question actually applies for the latest 92612 beta

Edited May 10, 2012 by Ch3v4l13r

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Once again, I don't think IF is being worked on by BIS. I'm pretty sure BIS just licensed out the engine to the IF team.

When a studio licenses their engine out to third party developers, it's incredibly common for them to also give support for their engine for the 3p devs working with it. No dev studio in their right mind would buy an engine license from someone without engine support coming with it.

And OMAC has a pretty good point. BIS should have a strong interest in seeing IF succeed, because one successful game built on a licensed RV engine will lead to other lucrative license sales.

[OMAC 254]

When a studio licenses their engine out to third party developers, it's incredibly common for them to also give support for their engine for the 3p devs working with it. No dev studio in their right mind would buy an engine license from someone without engine support coming with it.

And OMAC has a pretty good point. BIS should have a strong interest in seeing IF succeed, because one successful game built on a licensed RV engine will lead to other lucrative license sales.

Well said.

[raptor90 1]

Well said.

Tripled.