Vista Black load screen?

[=(+)=TheVoodoo 0]

Well, i guess its a nvidia issue, because ArmA runs with 4GB Ram on Vista x64 with old 158.45 drivers... But i also have to say that arma doesn't use the most favor gameengine... No other game(engine) causes such trouble with nvidia gpu's like arma does...

however, all other games im currently playing working without any trouble in connection with 4GB and remapping.

[Lange 0]

Well, the responsible item has been identified meanwhile at german official support website. it seems that BIS's ArmA has an issue with system havin 4GB or more running. Since PC architecture needs remapping for accessing high memory address ranges, most boards do the remap automaticly or have a switch for it in the bios (e.g. memory hole, ...).

if you want to use 4gb or more you need to enable that switch. the PCs/OSs memory remapping collides with BIS's unusual way how they remap videomemory to the mainmemory of the system. they just developed ArmA too close to the hardware. now they got the answer of the PC - the got a memory bug in the engine (good work!.

Frankly, this does not make any sense to me. We are not performing any video memory remapping - fact it, even if we would be crazy enough like to try to do things like this, we would not know how to do it. All we do is we use Win32 + DirectX APIs which handle all of this on their own.

Well, then explain why - if the system has more or equal 4GB RAM - ArmA has trouble creating texture surfaces and spamming the logfile with that errormessage?!

Other games using win32 + and directx too and dont have an issue with 4gb systems. To be accurate: Armed Assault is worlwide (as far as known) the ONLY Windows-based Game havin such an issue.

No matter if ppl use nvidia, ATI or S3 gfx, its always the same REPRODUCABLE bug. if you got 4gb or more, ArmA does produce the black screen bug (even in the menu you dont have ANY textures). If you disable them (as described in this thread or using the bios switch OR removing them), ArmA does not have that blackscreen bug anymore.

this is being validated reproducable under XP 64bit and Vista 64bit. (32bit OS wouldnt have that bug since they are not able to address 4gb and more ram)

This bug is known for nearly a year and no bugfix or hotfix in sight. when will it be fixed?! the package didnt told us maximum versions and maximum ram amount.

Simon

[klasu 0]

Maybe they dont know how to fix it.

[Lange 0]

Maybe they dont know how to fix it.

then they should communicate this. but ignoring the complaints of customers and not doing anything is the wrong way how to treat customers.

[sickboy 13]

@Lange, ever considered the fact that XP 64bit and Vista no matter which version, are all unsupported OS'es to run this game on, which also has been confirmed by them?

Those OS'es are the only OS'es that can address more than 3GB, and as such the only OS'es where this problem occurs.

IMHO this also means the smallest customer group out there, and as such I don't mind them putting priority on issues that a much larger customer part has issues on, Windows XP 32-bit.

Besides, you have a workaround, which only involves a simple reboot when you either enable or disable the memory-removal on XP and Vista 64, as such, I can hardly see the requirement of high priority, compared to more pressing issues that still need to be resolved, and probably will be with 1.09.

For the record, I have a Vista64 + 4GB machine myself aswell, though I use either the memory removal boot method, or I simply run from my XP32-bit installation.

Anyway, I agree that it's time that they start working on support for such OS'es but until they do, you have nothing to complain about, imho.

Quote[/b] ]This bug is known for nearly a year

Not that it matters, but where do you get this info from?

To my knowledge, at least people with Nvidia cards only have this bug since the 163.xx series, which is how long now? 1-2 Months?

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

Quote[/b] ]This bug is known for nearly a year

Not that it matters, but where do you get this info from?

To my knowledge, at least people with Nvidia cards only have this bug since the 163.xx series, which is how long now? 1-2 Months?

yea...when I used 158.24 drivers..4 gig memory worked.

So whom do you blame?

[sickboy 13]

First I blame the customer for running this game on unsupported OS'es, and then complaining.

Second I blame BIS for not supporting these OS'es

Third I blame MS+Nvidia for the long struggle of hotfixes and graphics drivers

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

ooops. my question was actually to Lange.

I see now, sickboy's quote of him, doesn't have his name.

I myself fiqured, that if Vista would not run games, I would just put XP on this pc.

Well, since my bios has the MHR option.... this particular Vista issue, is not enuff reason to install XP.

I've been patient, since Feb 07`, and I can still wait on this one.

Hell, I bought Asus video cards for Gamer OSD, which, drivers for Vista64 were just released recently in October.

[sickboy 13]

Hehe, no worries BigBear, I guessed you was expecting the answers from someone else but I just felt to answer it myself aswell )

[Lange 0]

ooops. my question was actually to Lange.

I see now, sickboy's quote of him, doesn't have his name.

I myself fiqured, that if Vista would not run games, I would just put XP on this pc.

Well, since my bios has the MHR option.... this particular Vista issue, is not enuff reason to install XP.

I've been patient, since Feb 07`, and I can still wait on this one.

Hell, I bought Asus video cards for Gamer OSD, which, drivers for Vista64 were just released recently in October.

Well the issue is not a vista issue. its a BIS issue. sickboy cannot read as it seems since the questions he stated i already mentioned in my post before! but as far as i can see he is just another fanbot without arguements. Why else he would state arguements which are already proven not true.

he and other fanbots should consider the often quoted package's minimal requirements. minimal by definition means MINIMAL and not exactly or maximum.

means. if there stand 2000/xp as minimum, vista is still supported since it is the NEXT version (higher version and not lower! of 2000 and xp. so if someone would try to run the piece of software on NT ME or 98 those fanbots were right. (cannot believe that i have to teach them that logical lesson again). its the same logic as we can expect that recent gfx cards do run and not only the mentioned (on the package) ATI Radeon 9500 (and the equal nvidia competitor).

Same goes for memory. there is NO sign that there is a memory limit. they - again - tell you only of MINIMAL requirements.

the bug is not bound to a specific nvidia or ati driver issue. it is a pure BIS bug. fanbot may consider reading the meaning of "preproducable bug". REPRODUCABLE on different machines. only factor that causes that bug is the amount of available memory. and the fact, that other games DONT HAVE that issue.

so the question is is BIS want to fix this or if they want to lose their already damaged reputation completely. with operation flashpoint they blamed Codemasters for many decisions. this time they cannot blame anyone but themself. Especially since many old behaviour shows up again at BIS.

so the only way to refurbish their reputation is listening to the market rules and the customers voices and not only to the weird logic of subjective ground reasons.

so again, explain why other games dont have that issue.

explain why ArmA has an issue with 4GB+ RAM

explain why the dont fix it although this bug is known for nearly a year (just look for the blackscreen bug yourself, dude)

most ppl wouldnt be that upset if BIS would say something like "hey, we know about the bug and we are working on it but cannot tell you when the fix will be there, but we ensure that this bug will be solved." but telling ppl they can put their game in the trashcan since BIS has their money is a rude and stupid attitude. especially if BIS is not right in their arguements.

Simon

[Madus_Maximus 0]

ArmA does NOT officially support Vista. It was released before Vista and started development before Microsoft handed out developer packs of the new OS for companies to make their software/hardware compatible (in theory, they should have extended this period by another year IMO considering the state things are still in).

The "minimum" OS being 2000/XP does NOT by any stretch of the imagination mean it'll support Vista. If it did then Vista would be included in this "minimum" section also. Look on the box of any game with the "Games for Windows" tag on them and you'll clearly see on them (at least every one I've looked at with said tag) Vista is listed in the "minium requirements" box.

For BIS to make a "hotfix" to make it Vista compatible will cost them resources they can't really spare and will take time and money from developing their next products. Naturally we'll get people moaning if they don't do this, but we'll also get people moaning when ArmA 2 is delayed because of it (most probably the same people actually).

The OS in Minimum requirements has never equated to "all later versions will work". Look at when XP came out, how many games made for Windows 98 didn't work with it?

Oh and the 4gb "bug" is only showing up in Vista afaik. So it's a Vista issue. It's an issue on an operating system BIS don't officially support for ArmA. Windows has always had very poor memory managment and it seems Vista has carried on this legacy. I'm sure I've read of similar issues with other games (not just ArmA) with 4gb of RAM and Vista.

[Lange 0]

Oh and the 4gb "bug" is only showing up in Vista afaik. So it's a Vista issue. It's an issue on an operating system BIS don't officially support for ArmA. Windows has always had very poor memory managment and it seems Vista has carried on this legacy. I'm sure I've read of similar issues with other games (not just ArmA) with 4gb of RAM and Vista.

Wrong its also in XP. You would know this if you would have read my posts carefully.

ArmA is currently the ONLY game havin that issue.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

Go to Google and search for "vista 4gb ram issue". It's a common issue for 32bit versions of Windows. And yes XP included, appologies. It's a Windows issue, not an ArmA issue.

[Lange 0]

Go to Google and search for "vista 4gb ram issue". It's a common issue for 32bit versions of Windows. And yes XP included, appologies. It's a Windows issue, not an ArmA issue.

it is not. just read. seems that you are another uncovered fanbot.

the results you are refering are a complete other scenario (getting 4gb usable under 32bit os).

its a bis issue. just read and understand what there has been written.

ps: if it WOULD be a windows issue, explain why ArmA is the ONLY program that is "affected"?! you cant since the evidence and reproducable bugs are pointing to BSI blaming them, since

(A) only ArmA has such an issue

(B) the only factor producing that particular bug is 4GB ram and more AND running ArmA

© no other game is known havin such an issue. no matter what windows version.

These are unbreakable facts you cannot ignore. no matter how hard you try.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

Well if Windows can't address 4gb of RAM, then how can ArmA address it? It's not it's own operating system now is it? ArmA uses typically more resources than most other games out there, it gives every bit of hardware a work out, aswell as the software. If Windows can't address the memory available properly then when ArmA comes to use what Windows says is there, but can't work with it, then bam, it crashes. It's not rocket science and has nothing to do with being a "fanbot".

[Lange 0]

Well if Windows can't address 4gb of RAM, then how can ArmA address it? It's not it's own operating system now is it? ArmA uses typically more resources than most other games out there, it gives every bit of hardware a work out, aswell as the software. If Windows can't address the memory available properly then when ArmA comes to use what Windows says is there, but can't work with it, then bam, it crashes. It's not rocket science and has nothing to do with being a "fanbot".

Jeez, learn reading. Windows can address even more than 4GB. only limitation are the 32bit os which can max address 4gb using PAE.

seems u dont have a clue what you are writing about.

im going to ignore your posts now since they dont even worth reading them since you are not reading posts and stating weird ideas which focus is only to blame anyone but BIS. unprofessional indeed.

Simon

[Madus_Maximus 0]

That's my point! I'm betting that almost every user on this forum with ArmA will have the 32-bit version of Windows! Now, if that's the case, and 32-bit OS's have problems addressing 4gb of RAM, then isn't that a logical assumption that MAYBE it's a Windows issue? It sure as hell can't help matters now can it? I can't ever see a game no matter how well programmed being able to address more memory than the operating system it's running on. It's just not possible unless it's running in a virtual machine with 64-bit support.

I put forward a different idea other than "It's BIS' fault". 32-bit OS's are known to have issues addressing more than 4gb of RAM, and ArmA will be running on 32-bit OS's for the majority of users. I'm not saying it isn't a BIS problem, it may very well be, but the simple fact that a 32-bit version of Windows (even 64-bit versions according to many sources) are having problems with so much RAM installed you can't say that this is purely a problem with ArmA and that it's BIS' fault. At the best it's a mess up on both camps (BIS and MS). It's just illogical to assume that ArmA is causing all the problems when the operating system you're running it on is well documented for having issues running so much RAM.

[sickboy 13]

It's sad that one has to include personal addressing like fanbot (wasn't it fanboy anyway?) in their reasoning.

I have nothing more to add, and wish you good luck with ur quest for bashing.

[kklownboy 43]

Jeez, learn reading. Windows can address even more than 4GB. only limitation are the 32bit os which can max address 4gb using PAE.

seems u dont have a clue what you are writing about.

im going to ignore your posts now since they dont even worth reading them since you are not reading posts and stating weird ideas which focus is only to blame anyone but BIS. unprofessional indeed.

Simon

PAE on a 32bit... right... really isnt a working solution its a fake.. but your so smart you should know... I will ignore your ranting from now on..all you do is bash. goodnight now

[Evishion 0]

No, you should execute this in a dos prompt ("Command prompt" under accessoires in the start menu).

type in: bcdedit /set removememory 1024

and press enter

Just thinking now, you probably must run the command prompt as administrator to make it work, you can do that by right clicking the command prompt icon and choosing "Run as Administrator", otherwise you get:

Quote[/b] ]Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]

Copyright © 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\sb>bcdedit

The boot configuration data store could not be opened.

Access is denied.

okay, i know u explained above, how to do all this, but i dont really get it sorry

can u try to explain step by step how i make, like 2 boots ?

1 for 3gb and 1 for 4gb. so when i wanna play arma, i just restart comp and load up 3gb boot, and when i play normal games, i restart and load 4gb boot.

would be awesome if u could

[OFPCAT 0]

Maybe it's the problem of VISTA operating system? And it couldn't be compatible with that of ARMA? I just bought a Soni Notebook with VISTA TM system and T7700 CPU and 8600m GT graphic card. But even couldn't play ARMA demo! It said there was no D3DX90-30 found! When I tried to play OFP, it also failed. Is the damned VISTA system workable for ARMA or OFP?? I never got such problem for WinXP. But now my new computer could just use VISTA since XP couldn' be installed...

[sickboy 13]

@DiabloTerror

I might do so soon mate, kinda in the middle of a lot of things atm

@OFPCAT

The mentioned error is documented on the wiki.

Also searching google for the exact message gives a million hits. (Don't search for D3DX90-30 though, as that's not the exact message )

[Madus_Maximus 0]

Vista is the biggest pile of steamy crap I've had the misfortune of working with for years. There's so many issues with it it's silly. I know this is off topic but still. ArmA doesn't officially support Vista, as most games don't unless they have the "Games for Windows" tag on them.

MS Should have delayed Vista for another year IMO to give 3rd party vendors the extra time to catch up with drivers and so on. They have a habbit of changing a huge number of things all at once as opposed to more gradual changes that is done on other systems like OSX and Linux based systems.

In all fairness though ArmA worked for me when I tried Vista, although it asked me if it could run the damn auto-run thing on every single disc I inserted into the system (even though I said "use this answer for all").

If you can the best solution for having ArmA work (or at least lowering the chances of it not), have XP as a dual-boot on your system with Vista if you can't live without it. You'll appreciate it in the long run untill more compatibility issues are fixed in Vista.

EDIT:

To make a dual-boot, the normal way you achieve this is to insert your OS disc into the drive and change your boot order so that the CD/DVD drive is 1st on the list (or just make all of them say CD/CD). You can do this through your BIOS. Depening on the make and model of the board you have you get into it in different ways, but the most common ways are pressing the "Delete" key as it boots (or just keep pressing it when you turn it on so you know you have haha). The other way on some boards is pressing F2. (REMEMBER TO SET THIS BACK TO HARD DISC WHEN YOU NO LONGER NEED THE DISC! OR IT'LL START OVER AGAIN WHEN IT REBOOTS)

Anyway, it'll check your system specs when it boots from the disc then prompt you with a series of new screens to install it. It's very simple really. The first thing you normally see with a Windows install is the disc partition. If you want to keep your current OS, then make a new partition. Depending on how much disc space you have left and how big the drive is it'll vary on how much space you'll want to assign for the new partition, but 20-40gb should be more than enough for XP if you're just going to use it for game play.

When it's done that it'll load it onto the partition. When it's all installed when you restart your system in theory you should get a screen asking you which OS you wish to boot. Vista will most probably be the primary OS and it'll boot into that on it's own if you don't press anything within 30 seconds or so.

Anyway, it's more simple than you'd think. Google it for more info. There's ways to change the primary OS too so if you wanted XP to load on it's own without having to wait around for the list then you can do that.

This is also a hell of a lot easier with Linux Ubuntu aswell. The install system for that is seriously simple. It makes Windows look antiquated (it doesn't have to reboot as often either!.

There's plenty of guides on the net explaining how to make dual-boots. I think there's some on youtube too which is even better as you can actually see what to do rather than simply read it and look at some static screenshots.

[sickboy 13]

I agree partially with you Madus.

But a couple of things:

Vista was long available to 3rd party vendors before it's release. Probably not just Beta's and RC's but also Alpha's and other interim builds. MS prolly did change things in between still, but IMHO vendors had a long enough chance to work things out.

The problem is that they not always do so. Look at Creative for instance, they only started to work on their stuff until after the Vista release, or at least it seems so.

Creative in general is imho a shit company nowadays that barely improves or evolves, and just keeps adding minor features to an already milked out product line.

To me it seems that vendors basicly did what BI for instance did; Devote resources to the bigger group, which was XP and not Vista. Which IMHO is in some way acceptable from a software vendor but not from a (big) hardware vendor like Nvidia and ATI, not even from Creative (who basicly are the only ones that make mainstream gamers audiocards)

I think that going step by step would've been a good thing, but as Windows get's released every few years, I think it's not a bad thing to make a big step forward aswell. MS is to blame because Vista has/did have it's bugs, but IMHO the hardware vendors could've put more effort into this aswell.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

Microsoft release Windows more on a business scale. Service Packs are the prime example of this. A huge number of things all bunched into one big messy install. Most consumers prefer regular updates. If something doesn't work, it can be fixed and rolled out if and when it's done, rather than having to wait for the service packs. MS said Vista wouldn't have service packs before it came out, and it'd be more user friendly and have more incremental updates if and when they're needed rather than having to wait so long.

The thing is, Vista isn't even their main goal, Vienna is. It'll be out in 2009 (or so they say), and will be more like Longhorn, which was canned in favour of Vista for technical reasons. They scrapped the whole thing and recoded everything from new on the Server 2003 kernal insteas of the XP Kernal Longhorn was on. Ironically the last beta build of it is apparently more optimised and compatible than Vista is (from what I've read at least).

Anyway, unless Vienna is something seriously special I can't see many people moving from XP any time soon. Busniess especially. They need things to work, and XP does, another irony as MS seem to cater more for business than the home user.

My plan is to dual boot with Vista and XP when the service pack is out for Vista, that is assuming I'm happy enough with the reviews I read of it. From what I gather now, the current beta of it is nothing special and in many cases things are actually worse than the public build we have now. Eventually I'll most likely use Ubuntu (it's free for a start) and run WINE with it to run Windows apps within it. I'd love a Mac but my budget just went onto a new PC, which to be fair I could have got a better system for if I went with a Mac. Leopard looks feckin' sweet!

As a last thing. I think MS should have released Vista as a 64-bit OS with 32-bit support native, exactly like OSX. It'd be cheaper too as they'd only have to support one version as opposed to 2. It'd be easier for hardware vendors too when it comes to coding drivers and software developers when it comes to making their products. But oh well.

Anyway enough off topic ranting lol.