ArmA Public Beta Patch 1.05.5143

[snkman 351]

What to do, if i like to play with the new beta Server .exe?

I always get an error message "No entry","using Default"

[mr reality 0]

I don't want to sound negative, but isn't it a bit sad when there are so many people installing a beta patch to get there game running the way they would like. Don't you guys realise BIS isn't doing you any favours here, your beta testing the US release for gods sake...As some have already mentioned earlier in this thread,

Quote[/b] ]BI doing public beta tests? Is this a bad April's joke or a very nice change?

They don't want the US release to have anywhere near the amount of bugs the Czech release had or this could damage there reputation.

First it was the Czechs beta testing the game, now it's europe beta testing the US game. Where will it all end, if it ever will

[Dallas 9]

I fail to see how less bugs for you and less bugs for me, is sad or a problem. I also seem to remember this is the same approach BIS took with 'what-it's-name' first game.

V.1.96 BETA

V.1.95 BETA

V.1.94 BETA

Regards

[mr reality 0]

I fail to see how less bugs for you and less bugs for me, is sad or a problem. I also seem to remember this is the same approach BIS took with 'what-it's-name' first game.

V.1.96 BETA

V.1.95 BETA

V.1.94 BETA

Regards

So your admiting that ver 1.05 is unplayable or you just like to see what the next patch has in store. Either way your not actually playing the game the way it's meant to be played, your just testing it...If ArmA needs to be patched all the way upto 1.96 then that is sad.

[KeyCat 131]

@ Mr Reality: IMHO you are way off here!

1. No one forces you to participate in any Beta tests if you don't want to (nor are you forced by BIS or anyone else to buy ArmA if you don't like it).

2. The more a software/patch is tested on different user machines the lesser the bugs are for all of us, how can that be a bad thing!?

I may be wrong but to me it sounds you just trying to stir up shit here!?

/KC

[Dallas 9]

Oh a trap!

I'm not beta-testing it that's for sure. Because I've beta-tested other games before and beta'testing isn't really much fun and I've really having great fun in ArmA.

Quote[/b] ]If ArmA needs to be patched all the way upto 1.96 then that is sad.

That's not correct. If ArmA needs to be patched all the way up to 1.96 and isn't, then it's sad. But v.1.05 BETA loves my computer, so again, how can a patch be a problem, just because it's called Beta?

[mr reality 0]

@ Mr Reality: IMHO you are way off here!

1. No one forces you to participate in any Beta tests if you don't want to (nor are you forced by BIS or anyone else to buy ArmA if you don't like it).

2. The more a software/patch is tested on different user machines the lesser the bugs are for all of us, how can that be a bad thing!?

I may be wrong but to me it sounds you just trying to stir up shit here!?  

/KC

(1) I agree no one forced me to buy ArmA, but to be able to play this game i am forced to download the patches.

(2) Although correct to some degree it also has the opposite affect of introducing bugs to systems that were otherwise stable.

I'm not trying to stir up anything honest. I just find it strange that there are so many people 'testing' this game instead of playing it. ArmA has become one big testing arena.

[Bunkers 0]

Ok, just want to add a couple more issues I've had. I get CTD's more often with the beta patch than before, and when I press esc to bring up map and options the game sometimes freeze. This plus LOD problems and lower fps sums up the troubles I've had.

E6600

2GB RAM

8800GTX

Vista 32bit

[kavoven 4]

I fail to see how less bugs for you and less bugs for me, is sad or a problem. I also seem to remember this is the same approach BIS took with 'what-it's-name' first game.

V.1.96 BETA

V.1.95 BETA

V.1.94 BETA

Regards

So your admiting that ver 1.05 is unplayable or you just like to see what the next patch has in store. Either way your not actually playing the game the way it's meant to be played, your just testing it...If ArmA needs to be patched all the way upto 1.96 then that is sad.

Well I rather count me as one who is quite critic regarding ArmA and BIS common policies, but what you're telling is untrue and unfair.

We all know that we're beyond the stage of critizising BIS because of the start version of ArmA. Period. Now people have to get along with it. And why should beta testing be bad for the situation? Doesn't it improve YOUR game?

Perhaps ArmA needs to be patched until 1.96. Considering that it took 3 years in OFP to reach that version and that BIS was quite generous with the versions. (1.10, 1.20,1.30,1.40,1.43,1.44,1.45,1.46,1.75(Res),1.85,1.90 and then the Beta patches which were minor fixes anyway) I don't think that there is anything bad with it...

[mr reality 0]

Perhaps ArmA needs to be patched until 1.96. Considering that it took 3 years in OFP to reach that version and that BIS was quite generous with the versions. (1.10, 1.20,1.30,1.40,1.43,1.44,1.45,1.46,1.75(Res),1.85,1.90 and then the Beta patches which were minor fixes anyway) I don't think that there is anything bad with it...

But why should it need to be pathed up to 1.96. Patches break almost as much as they fix (ok that was a bit of an exaggeration). It's just a catch 22 situation for some systems.

I'm realy only responding in this thread with regards to what i've read in the troubleshooting forums about, ver 1.04 worked fine but 1.05 now runs 15% slower and so on and so forth. It's just a shame that many of the bugs that are fixed, were fixed in flashpoint many years ago. Like i said, were on a merry-go-round with BIS and if you like the ride you stay on, but if it's becoming a bit of a chore, then you step off.

[dm 9]

But why should it need to be pathed up to 1.96.

Because its not humanly possible to code perfect software (especially that as complex as OFP/ArmA) first time round (or even 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc, time).

The options are:

1. What we have now, which is an early(ish) release which gets patched (quite a bit) to bring it up to spec.

2. A "late" release which is simply what we would have had in scenario 1, but all the "patches" are internal to the company, so we're none the wiser.

3. A very very late release which is just like what we've got in scenarios 1 and 2, just with more patches applied internally by the company.

4. Any of the above, just without ANY patches at all.

Personally, I like the option we've been given by BI, which whilst a bit frustrating does give us the oppertunity for input at an early level.

[kavoven 4]

Perhaps ArmA needs to be patched until 1.96. Considering that it took 3 years in OFP to reach that version and that BIS was quite generous with the versions. (1.10, 1.20,1.30,1.40,1.43,1.44,1.45,1.46,1.75(Res),1.85,1.90 and then the Beta patches which were minor fixes anyway) I don't think that there is anything bad with it...

But why should it need to be pathed up to 1.96. Patches break almost as much as they fix (ok that was a bit of an exaggeration). It's just a catch 22 situation for some systems.

I'm realy only responding in this thread with regards to what i've read in the troubleshooting forums about, ver 1.04 worked fine but 1.05 now runs 15% slower and so on and so forth. It's just a shame that many of the bugs that are fixed, were fixed in flashpoint many years ago. Like i said, were on a merry-go-round with BIS and if you like the ride you stay on, but if it's becoming a bit of a chore, then you step off.

Because BIS added new content and functions with each patch

[stabiz 0]

I`m loving this patch, much better than 105.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

I`m loving this patch, much better than 105.

Ubisoft releashed a patch for Rainbow Six Vegas that lead to anyone installing having to reinstall the entire game when they withdrew it and fixed it a few days later.

The latest beta has fixed Bugs for many. It also means you have to turn down GFX setting furthe as the fog reduction appears to be causing more power to be used by a GPU.

MS spend BILLIONS developing this OS's and they need patching all the time LOL So it takes time for ARMA to be perfect.

As another thread pointed out ARMA works on a Laptop with a 5200 and 1.6 CPU all the way upto 8800's with quad cores. The texture, Object LOD bus has affected many. But most poeple are beggining to cure it by.

Using XP not vista

Unistalling Ntune and Nvidia memory manager

Updating the BIO's for their Mobo or CPU

Defragging their Hard drive

Adding more RAM

Upgrading kit.

Upgrading rolling back their video card drivers.

8800's have issues with quite afew games this is Nvidias issue not BIH. And every patch and beta driver improves the 8800.

Arma gives you the freedom of a flight sim in a sandbox with the detail of Oblivion. If you don't like the idea of trouble shooting the game or tuning your PC to play the very latest next gen game. Go play a different game for a few months and come back in a few patches.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

gota say I'm generaly happy with the beta, have been using it on non-beta servers and found that the LOD switching takes a bit longer to be a problem (I realy hope they fix that one).

I've also experienced two rather bad CDT, the first halved my resolution left me with 16 colours on screen untill I'd restated my comp, the second wouldn't let me restart ARMA (cannot create 3d device....) until I'd restarted my comp, if it happens again I'll grab the details. So all the probs now seem to be graphic.

3G CPU

7950 GT 512m

[4 IN 1 0]

this is a:

Quote[/b] ]Jeremy Clarkson @ Top Gear

How hard can it be?

question, ArmA, as many points out, is something that noone in this world who ever attemped to do

shinRaiden have some nice point at "Crysis Nukes" topic at off topic

not totally about this topic but never the less a good read which have something related to here

[Maddmatt 1]

But why should it need to be pathed up to 1.96. Patches break almost as much as they fix (ok that was a bit of an exaggeration). It's just a catch 22 situation for some systems.

It did not need to be patched to 1.96. BIS supported OFP way more than they needed to, how could you possibly hold that against them? Not everything added in patches was bug fixes. Eventhandlers were added in 1.85, that was a pretty big thing and allowed mods like ECP to work and add the features that they did. OFP was playable way before 1.96. Before Resistance it was 1.45 which was also just fine and playable.

Remember that at 1.75 it was where the Resistance expansion started, considering the huge engine changes there you could count that as ver 1.0 of a whole new game.

All this "it needed to be patched to 1.96" is complete garbage and is misleading to people who don't know that the patches were not released in 0.01 version number increments. 1.96 could have been called "Resistance ver 1.06".

BIS isn't even numbering the ArmA patches in remotely the same way as they did with OFP patches by the way.

[Hostilian 11]

I think that 1.05 Beta is much better than 1.05. It corrects a whole lot of bugs.. I don't think my version has actually crashed since before 1.02.

Who the hell cares whether it's called a Beta?? We've effectively been Beta testing since 1.0!! HAHAHahahahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha.

For everyone that complain about crashes etc and are running Vista...

Hint.. Vista sucks. Install XP and wait as long as you can before upgrading (Funnily enough, you are Beta testing it for M$.)

Yeah, it looks nice, If you really want it, dual boot your PC with XP - Please dont put games on Vista (yet) and wonder why you have problems.

#C

[4 IN 1 0]

really who cares if we are "beta testing" this game ground off if you want this game to be as good as it could?

you would , however, cares about being both "buyer" and "beta testers" at the same time if you really really hate this game

[CsonkaPityu 0]

I get the following error when i try to run the beta build:

Error compiling vertex shader VSTerrain.

I didn't read through the entire 23 page thread, so sorry if has been mentioned before.

I have an ancient comp that could run arma nicely on minimum settings: 2.4Ghz P4, 512RDRAM, 256MB GF7600.

[malick 0]

I have been testing this "beta" patch lately.

I must say that it pleases me in many ways. Even if I do not have an increase in fps, I now can have a fight in the wood without LOD flickering, game crashing, GPU overheating, dropping fps.

I don't know how BIS made it possible, but things tend to work much better regarding frame quality vs. quantity

This corrects some other bugs, and improves the way the AI handles boat insertions. By making this possible (even if not 100% perfect), this patch opens new fields for mission making !

Moreover, I haven't encountered any CTD or crash with this build.

Thanks, and keep up the good work !

Malick

[Danbri 0]

I have to step up a bit for Mr Reality here. What i understand he is saying, is that shouldnt most of these bugs have been fixed BEFORE the game was released (correct me if I misunderstood Mr Reality) so we could all be enjoying PLAYING the game today (several month after the initiall release) as it should/could be played not searching and reporting for bugs.

And the constant "nobody forced you to buy the game" has to become an altime high regarding stupid remarks.

Yes, nobody forced me, but noone told me that I wasn´t gonna be able to play it either. So just drop that.

[mr reality 0]

(correct me if I misunderstood Mr Reality)

You pretty much sumed it up there.

I suppose i was trying to get across the fact that ArmA is just OFP, simple fact. Now flashpoint had quite a few patches and tons of user made content. With ArmA were just starting from srcatch again. Now this long road ahead of us, which some of you see as improving the game, just seems to be deja vu for me. Ok, the graphics are far far better than OFP but if any of you really think ArmA is leaps and bounds ahead of OFP then your deluding yourselves. And at the end of the day you must think eye candy is what really matters.

Maybe i'm thinking outside the box here, but i don't play MP so i never take MP into account when i judge ArmA. I'm speaking from a SP perspective.

[malick 0]

Now this long road ahead of us, which some of you see as improving the game, just seems to be deja vu for me. Ok, the graphics are far far better than OFP but if any of you really think ArmA is leaps and bounds ahead of OFP then your deluding yourselves.

Although I like the game and really appreciate the improvements, what really pisses me off are all the bugs and limitations that were already there in OFP and that never got corrected. Most of them got (or could be) fixed or improved by some talented addon maker.

I won't make a list in here, the BTS and Wiki Wishlist are here for that. But ArmA doesn't seem to have benefited in any way from OFP lessons, even considering all the improvements. That's a shame.

Malick

[Danbri 0]

I have installed/played the Beta-patch but the only thing I´m having a problem with, the graphical issues (spikes etc.) is still there. Plz correct me if I have missed something somewhere but is this a bug or not? Both ATI and NVIDIA users are experiencing this "artifacts" so driver- or hardware issues?? Not sure!

Ohh how i long for just a flying tank, men not doing what I tell them to do or whatever ordinarie bug instead of ALT-TABBING every 5 minutes to actually see something.

But hey, thats just ME.

And yes, I to praise that BI are trying to fix so many bugs and yes i understand that beeing a small company is hard, and yes i understand that publishers put pressure to get the game out, and that nobody forces me to buy it etc.

A way of topic but so are several others.