German Patch 1.01 released

[MATRA 0]

To all the guys who installed this patch :

Do you notice other improvements beside the performance?

What about the AI?

- improved combat reactions

- Improved AI reaction to soldier being hit nearby.

- Improved AI reaction to friendly units observed being killed.

- AI reaction improved for enemies disembarking vehicles.

...etc...

Better now?

If AI have improved after this patch... I cant imagine how it were before

[Universel 0]

Speaking of some undocumented changes, I noticed that the patch seems to have modded some chopper armor values.

1.00 : One strela always brings down a Cobra, while 2-3 are required vs a Kamov/Ka50

1.01 : Cobra still flys after a Strela, but now ONE Strela brings down the Ka50. aka the Ka50 is super weak now.

Tests were made as AI AA and me as chopper pilot. And a chopper "can fly" when it's still able to fly for 30s or more after the hit.

In 1.01 every time I tried, a single AA hit leaded to crash or emergency landing of my Ka50...

Could any of you test and confirm/infirm that pls.

[xnodunitx 0]

Argh,its an AH-1Z,Super Cobra and AH-64 Apache are two different things,why must people get them confused so much...

Why would it lead to a Ka-50 emergency crash,is it because the nose is shot down or the armor is so weak?

Try using a stinger against the cobra and kamov and see if they still have the same effect.

[Universel 0]

Sorry for the mistake

Well I can't get AI to fire Stinger on my Cobra because same side, with my basic editor knowledge.

But I clearly remember (and I made dozens of tests of me trying to evade a AA Stinger/Strela - which btw is impossible so far - so I got shot down countless times, from any angle) that before patch my AH-1 was forced to land after one Strela hit, while my Ka50 hit twice by a Stinger often could fly ; while with 1.01 I never managed to keep the Ka50 in air after a single Stinger hit (and btw chopper still cannot evade AA in this ver.)

[Placebo 29]

stisoas cross posting for the purpose of gaining extra or quicker attention is not tolerated under the forum rules, you have a thread in troubleshooting.

[stisoas 0]

[Placebo 29]

Spamming by means of emoticons is also not accepted, if you have nothing to contribute don't post, find a thread that you do actually have something to contribute in.

[-BR--Dawnrazor 0]

Can we expect more major Performance Improvement?

because the Game is without a 8800 not really playable

[Maddmatt 1]

-Dawnrazor @ Dec. 06 2006,15:08)]Can we expect more major Performance Improvement?

because the Game is without a 8800 not really playable

That's not true, people with 6600s are running the game, obviously on low to medium settings. Some are even playing with Radeon 9600s - on low but what do you expect. 8800 is only really needed if you want to push viewdistance all the way to 10000 and have every other setting at its highest.

[NeMeSiS 11]

-Dawnrazor @ Dec. 06 2006,13:08)]Can we expect more major Performance Improvement?

because the Game is without a 8800 not really playable  

If it works fine on my x1600XT it should work on every average PC, just keep it optimized, a game like ArmA is really sensitive for unoptimized PCs (spyware, virusses, fragmentated, 3 million processes running in the background, etc)

[-BR--Dawnrazor 0]

When you play Missions with more than two tanks and a few Soldiers in the Woods, then you got not more than 15fps in the woods on a new installed system with a 7800GT, Vsync off...

I can play it of course, but even Gothic3 and Obliovion has better Graphics and a better Performance.

[robert(uk) 0]

-Dawnrazor @ Dec. 06 2006,13:47)]When you play Missions with more than two tanks and a few Soldiers in the Woods, then you got not more than 15fps in the woods on a new installed system with a 7800GT, Vsync off...

I can play it of course, but even Gothic3 and Obliovion has better Graphics and a better Performance.

Have you ever considered that perhaps there is something wrong with your computer?

[-BR--Dawnrazor 0]

<!--QuoteBegin--

-Dawnrazor+Dec. 06 2006,13:47--><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote (

-Dawnrazor @ Dec. 06 2006,13:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When you play Missions with more than two tanks and a few Soldiers in the Woods, then you got not more than 15fps in the woods on a new installed system with a 7800GT, Vsync off...

I can play it of course, but even Gothic3 and Obliovion has better Graphics and a better Performance.

Have you ever considered that perhaps there is something wrong with your computer?

Yes

I have make a new install of Windows...

and Gothic3 works perfect

Arma works perfect in Desert and free Areas, but in Citys and Woods it is bad

[Maddmatt 1]

-Dawnrazor @ Dec. 06 2006,17:13)]

<!--QuoteBegin--

-Dawnrazor+Dec. 06 2006,13:47--><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote (

-Dawnrazor @ Dec. 06 2006,13:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When you play Missions with more than two tanks and a few Soldiers in the Woods, then you got not more than 15fps in the woods on a new installed system with a 7800GT, Vsync off...

I can play it of course, but even Gothic3 and Obliovion has better Graphics and a better Performance.

Have you ever considered that perhaps there is something wrong with your computer?

Yes

I have make a new install of Windows...

and Gothic3 works perfect

Arma works perfect in Desert and free Areas, but in Citys and Woods it is bad

Turn down viewdistance. Unless you got SLI or an 8800 your pc wont handle anywhere near 1km view.

[-BR--Dawnrazor 0]

<!--QuoteBegin--

-Dawnrazor+Dec. 06 2006,17:13--><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote (

-Dawnrazor @ Dec. 06 2006,17:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

<!--QuoteBegin--

-Dawnrazor+Dec. 06 2006,13:47--><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote (

-Dawnrazor @ Dec. 06 2006,13:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When you play Missions with more than two tanks and a few Soldiers in the Woods, then you got not more than 15fps in the woods on a new installed system with a 7800GT, Vsync off...

I can play it of course, but even Gothic3 and Obliovion has better Graphics and a better Performance.

Have you ever considered that perhaps there is something wrong with your computer?

Yes

I have make a new install of Windows...

and Gothic3 works perfect

Arma works perfect in Desert and free Areas, but in Citys and Woods it is bad

Turn down viewdistance. Unless you got SLI or an 8800 your pc wont handle anywhere near 1km view.

I turned the Shadows off, no i have 30-40fps in the woods

but the Shadows are so beautifull

[Maddmatt 1]

-Dawnrazor @ Dec. 06 2006,20:08)]

<!--QuoteBegin--

-Dawnrazor+Dec. 06 2006,17:13--><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote (

-Dawnrazor @ Dec. 06 2006,17:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

<!--QuoteBegin--

-Dawnrazor+Dec. 06 2006,13:47--><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote (

-Dawnrazor @ Dec. 06 2006,13:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When you play Missions with more than two tanks and a few Soldiers in the Woods, then you got not more than 15fps in the woods on a new installed system with a 7800GT, Vsync off...

I can play it of course, but even Gothic3 and Obliovion has better Graphics and a better Performance.

Have you ever considered that perhaps there is something wrong with your computer?

Yes

I have make a new install of Windows...

and Gothic3 works perfect

Arma works perfect in Desert and free Areas, but in Citys and Woods it is bad

Turn down viewdistance. Unless you got SLI or an 8800 your pc wont handle anywhere near 1km view.

I turned the Shadows off, no i have 30-40fps in the woods

but the Shadows are so beautifull

Try turning shadows to high/very high. Some newer video cards perform better on high than medium due to the different ways the shadows are programmed for different detail levels. At least I read that somewhere.

[walker 0]

Hi All

Be realistic, at its highest setting ArmA is the most graphically and sound intensive simulation engine available today. It will not run very well on your old AMD Athlon XP 1800 with a GeForce MX440 128 mb. You will need to upgrade.

Where to test and optimise.

Test in the editor.

It is no use optimising your system on the flat airfield on Rahmadi. Go to Saharin and find the forest and the biggest town. Make a Load Test mission. Move the units around. Include some vehicles and aircraft. and at least 20 groups set them all to guard waypoints then intiate contact with your group. Let the AI do the rest.

When optimising ArmA do not work from top down, work from bottom up.

Test the affect of each setting in turn.

Be systematic, test each settin in turn against the lowest setting for all other settings first, then start to ramp it up.

Be prepared for some surprises.

Start at lowest settings and work your way up but do not assume setting to lowest settings is the fastest for your system. I have noticed a few people saying who have had better frame rates at higher settings.

Some other setting improvements come with only marginal costs in frame rate. Is it worth turning down shadows from normal to low to just gain one FPS

Remember FRAPS uses up CPU and slows your system so turn down settings for recording videos.

At least on my system sound also seems to adversely affect Video as well as sound. Sound cards are so diverse that there is no way BIS can have tested them all. I suggest turning off hardware acceleration and EAX in ArmA to see what effect it has on your frame rate.

I am Playing ArmA on a Laptop

AMD Athlon 64bit 3400+

ATI Radeon Mobility 9700 AGP 128mb

512mb of Ram

It runs fine.

Kind Regards Walker.

[Stealth3 0]

Quote[/b] ]Be realistic, at its highest setting ArmA is the most graphically and sound intensive simulation engine available today.

Graphically Yes, sound intesive, no way in hell.

red orchestra sounds are light years ahead of ARMA's.

It doesn't matter if the map is more limited because that has nothing to do with the sound!

[walker 0]

It doesn't matter if the map is more limited because that has nothing to do with the sound!

Hi all

In reply to Stealth3.

I would dispute this on the following grounds:

Intensive is not the same as high quality or intricate.

It matters precisely because the map is larger.

The more sounds and sound sources you deal with particlarly if you are modeling sound reflection and dampening due to object and terrain occlusion as well as direction the more intense the work load on your sound card and CPU.

I personaly think the graphic card may be the best location to do the sound occlusion and reflection calculations (ArmA may already do this only Suma can tell us) This was suggested in a paper at a conference I went to.

Kind Regards walker

[Shadow NX 1]

<!--QuoteBegin--

-Dawnrazor+Dec. 06 2006,13:08--><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote (

-Dawnrazor @ Dec. 06 2006,13:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can we expect more major Performance Improvement?

because the Game is without a 8800 not really playable  

I use a 7800GTX and it runs good on normal settings with a  viewdistance of 1500 meters.

And i must say my PC has seen no fresh windos install since a year and is on nearly full capacity harddisk wise.

But before the patch it was also laggy as hell for me.

[robert(uk) 0]

With regards to the sound quality, it has been stated elsewhere on these forums that the sound is currently much better if you use AC97, as apposed to Creative soundcards for example. So if you are getting crap sound quality, try uisng your onboard audio, or try disabling Hardware Acceleration on your soundcard...

[Maddmatt 1]

With regards to the sound quality, it has been stated elsewhere on these forums that the sound is currently much better if you use AC97, as apposed to Creative soundcards for example. So if you are getting crap sound quality, try uisng your onboard audio, or try disabling Hardware Acceleration on your soundcard...

There is no reason to use onboard audio if you can just disable HW Acceleration and EAX. Sound quality with onboard audio sucks.

[robert(uk) 0]

Okay, I'm no expert on computer soundcards, so it was just what I heard...

[frederf 0]

I use on-board sound, and while the "quality sucks" compared to maybe a Creative X-fi, it renders the sound properly. The sound engine and EAX are very complicated and I hear lots of reports of people using all the fancy gear getting lots of sound errors like things far sounding near and stuff.

AC97 sound with hardware and EAX off might not sound as good, but it is far less complex parts and more likely to work right.

[-CS-SOBR-1st-I-R- 0]

I have AC97 onboard sound.... didnt experience any difficulties and the sound is not bad at all