New beta patch 1.16

[$able 2]

Firstly, Patching from 1.15 to 1.16, battleye did not update, as a result, I could not join any MP game (bad version error). I overcame this by manually uninstalling battleye in the battleye sub-folder, then uninstalled the beta, then re-install the patch before any sort of connectivity was permitted.

(Attempting to run the 1.16 installer with 1.16 already installed was not permitted, therefore, the patch had to be uninstalled)

With battleye manually removed, the patch then prompted the installation of battleye during the 1.16 install process.

BattlEye should be updated silently in this patch if it is already installed, so obviously you won't be prompted to install it again.

Also, I don't think your bad version error is related to BE at all, but rather to ArmA itself.

[ozanzac 0]

BattlEye should be updated silently in this patch if it is already installed, so obviously you won't be prompted to install it again.

Also, I don't think your bad version error is related to BE at all, but rather to ArmA itself.

I was unaware that BE updated silently (the patch readme indicated that BE would be prompted to be installed, assuming no exception if already installed).

I noted on my first 1.16 MP connectivity attempts, that the GameSpy Server list did not update. I could retrieve individual servers manually via 'Remote Connection', but even with servers updated to 1.16 (GamingSA), I had a 'red cross' indicating an incompatibility.

This then led me to beleive that my firewall may have been interfering, so I disabled that, but produced the same result....which lead me down the path of uninstalling BE, (as the readme indicated that BE would be prompted to install during the patch process, (which isn't the case it's a silent update).

It's only after further testing that I've come to realise the MP list in 1.16 is updated considerably slower than 1.15, which is almost near instant. I may have mistakenly identified the delayed reaction time as nil connectivity when had I waited longer, the list would've appeared, but it still doesn't explain why a manually set remote connection to an updated server would produce the red cross, and I don't beleive that's a BE problem, so therefore, can remove that from the equation.

However, the following paragraph in the readme file could be better clarified if it's ammended with the bolded text.

If BattlEye for ArmA is already present on the system, this betapatch will automatically and silently update BattlEye to the latest version that is needed to use BattlEye in ArmA 1.16. Note that it is possible that in order to play on BattlEye enabled servers in 1.14 you will need to downgrade BattlEye to older version.

But, the problem with the uninstaller stands...

That'll be 3 hours beta testers wages, thanks. :nono: (j/k)

[Sudden Death 0]

thanks BIS-team for another small but usefull patch.

[Rexxenexx 0]

I'm getting "Game version 1.14 required.Your current version is 1.12" when it is 1.14.5256 at the splash. It's been updated with 1.14 official patch for a while. I seem to remember something similar on an old beta relating to sprocket installs. Ideas?

[Maddmatt 1]

I'm getting "Game version 1.14 required.Your current version is 1.12" when it is 1.14.5256 at the splash. It's been updated with 1.14 official patch for a while. I seem to remember something similar on an old beta relating to sprocket installs. Ideas?

Delete the "ArmA\beta" folder before installing the new beta patch.

[kklownboy 43]

or if you want to test, rename the 115 to beta15 ect...

[Rexxenexx 0]

Delete the "ArmA\beta" folder before installing the new beta patch.

Thanks! That worked. :D

[eJay 1]

I have a problem with this patch. Game freezes when I click Online icon in main menu. 1.14 works perfectly.

[kklownboy 43]

it may be do to the new .exe (1.16) and your Firewall. Need to Ok it?

Edited May 1, 2009 by kklownboy

[BlackEagle1 10]

hello.

why did he release with 1.16beta only a windows server ???

no linux server, i find this very very bad.

the patch is very great, its work very fine (Vistax64, 6GB, ati HD 4850)

at me!!!

BUT,

i can´t play on my lovely servers, that have running linux servers !!!

i am still waiting one week !

that is very awefull for me.

why did he do this ?

please release linux 1.16beta beta server or 1.17 for player and linux/windows servers!!!

thanks for understand.

sorry for my bad english but iam a german.

[Binkowski 25]

Here's one thing, and maybe it doesn't go in here. Sorry if it is. But, on my ArmA server, I uploaded the 1.16b patch no errors. And the server command line is set properly. But the server does not appear in game even when it is running. Any suggestions?

[alef 0]

This has not been fixed in 1.16beta. Please have a look at the thread/video/bugtracker.

[FallujahMedic -FM- 866]

Thank You Maruk

I made the mistake of not using separate folders and it messed things up for me. An error on my part.

Thanks for supporting the game long after its release.

As for the others, yes there is division amongst us. Though I do not believe it has to do with BIS. I think it has to do with our "comfort zone". Some folks like A.C.E. , others don't. Those that like it ... play it and even those that hate its bugs play it. I have a sort of solution. Instead of the hundreds of incompatible servers we need to support those that cater to our needs. If you play on a server that uses 1.16 and A.C.E. 1.07 (and that's what you like), why not donate to the cost of operating that server? It is not an "end all" fix, but it will ensure that you get to play what you like.

[bravo 6 0]

This 1.6 beta is better them previews but it is kinda strange though.

I say this because "low settings" work worst then "higher settings". Should be the way around.

Per example:

'Very high shadows' settings seem to work smoother then the Low shadows.

'Hight textures detail' settings seem to work smoother then the 'Low texture detail' settings.

now i prefer to use better setting detail then i used to had because it just runs smoother.

Since the 'Shadows detail' also look strange, ie, it looks somehow better in 'low detail' then in 'very high'.

The only positive thing i notice in 'very high shadow detail' option is that the 1st person view character also is affected by shadows (weapon and body).

I ask: is it possible, in a future patch, to make the 'low shadow' option to have shadow (like when using very high shadow detail) in the body while using 1st person view?

ps- don't make funny of my settings please, its what my PC can handle with reasonable smoothness. :o

edit: witch picture seems better? I prefer the low detail shadow but shadow does not affect body, sadly.

Edited May 6, 2009 by bravo 6
added pictures

[mr.g-c 6]

Bravo6, the Shadow (Performance-) Issue was already explained by Maruk some time ago.., i freely repeat it here:

As soon as you chose higher than normal shadows, shadows are switched to be calculatd by your graphics card (the blocky shadows), which gives on fast cards a siginificant Performance boost.

Maruk said this over one year ago, at point as my GF9600GT was also considere to be "fast" for Arma, lol.

I'm running currently on a crappy (today) 80bucks GF9600GT, but also here it gave me a significate performance boost, so i play since that day with "very high" shadows only.

[bravo 6 0]

I'am saying that i think the 'Low shadow' option is much better, it has more details then the 'very high' option. Can't you see the details you lose in 'Very high' option compared to the 'Low' option?

The only thing positive in 'very high' is the shadow in body while in 1st person view. Since i only play in 1st person view im asking if it is possible to add this shadow in body while using 1st person view and while using 'Low shadow' option.

Also, if you notice the FTP i have a lost of 11 fps from 'Low' and 'Very high'. Im just asking to add the shadow in 1st person view when using 'Low shadow' option. If it was added would we lose so much fps like in example?!

Edited May 6, 2009 by bravo 6
typo

[amadieus 0]

ps- don't make funny of my settings please, its what my PC can handle with reasonable smoothness. :o

QUOTE]

What?!? u got like 60Fps, u can easily put some more things on very high and put the resolution higher.

i play on 15 Fps and its still smooth

[Zipper5 74]

Dude, 15 FPS is not smooth, and definitely not good for gameplay. ;)

But yes, bravo6, if you're getting that FPS on such low settings you should be able to up them a bit. 30 FPS is the mark, for me.

This patch has given me a really large performance boost. I already had great performance on my new PC, but now I'm getting over 100 FPS more often on full settings. It's quite nice.

[twisted 127]

Bravo6, the Shadow (Performance-) Issue was already explained by Maruk some time ago.., i freely repeat it here:

As soon as you chose higher than normal shadows, shadows are switched to be calculatd by your graphics card (the blocky shadows), which gives on fast cards a siginificant Performance boost.

Maruk said this over one year ago, at point as my GF9600GT was also considere to be "fast" for Arma, lol.

I'm running currently on a crappy (today) 80bucks GF9600GT, but also here it gave me a significate performance boost, so i play since that day with "very high" shadows only.

i missed that nugget. wish there was a maximising performance of arma sticky as i have been sticking with low/normal shadow even though my gfx card should handle well enough.

[kklownboy 43]

This 1.6 beta is better them previews but it is kinda strange though.

I say this because "low settings" work worst then "higher settings". Should be the way around.

Per example:

'Very high shadows' settings seem to work smoother then the Low shadows.

'Hight textures detail' settings seem to work smoother then the 'Low texture detail' settings.

now i prefer to use better setting detail then i used to had because it just runs smoother.

Since the 'Shadows detail' also look strange, ie, it looks somehow better in 'low detail' then in 'very high'.

The only positive thing i notice in 'very high shadow detail' option is that the 1st person view character also is affected by shadows (weapon and body).

I ask: is it possible, in a future patch, to make the 'low shadow' option to have shadow (like when using very high shadow detail) in the body while using 1st person view?

ps- don't make funny of my settings please, its what my PC can handle with reasonable smoothness. :o

edit: witch picture seems better? I prefer the low detail shadow but shadow does not affect body, sadly.

The higher look better to me.. But all i can say is with my ATI card setup and the arma2.exe, the veryhigh shadows look even better. they can us the AA, and shadows look like the object they are shadowing really well. AA and shadows! thnx BIS.

[max power 21]

Sometimes low options work better than high options because the high options use a different process. I think that one of the shadow options renders from the gpu and another from the cpu.

[desertjedi 3]

i play on 15 Fps and its still smooth

WOW! You can make yourself really sick playing like that. On a lower end box, I'd recommend shooting for a minimum of 25fps with an average of 30fps or higher. But for some lower rigs, a min. of 25 can be tough.

[FallujahMedic -FM- 866]

Patiently awaiting 1.17 so the Servers will let us upgrade.

No Betas allowed :(

Again, thanks!

[deady 0]

I'd upgrade my server, but all I see are lots of 1.16 servers sitting empty, while 1.14 servers are busy. So i'll stay at 1.14 thanks :P

[kklownboy 43]

Patiently awaiting 1.17 so the Servers will let us upgrade.

No Betas allowed :(

Again, thanks!

Need ( all who pay for that kinda service) to get a new server provider.