ArmA feedback thread - based on Beta Patch 1.16

[W0lle 1050]

Download the 1.16 patch here.

Use this thread is for general feedback, both positive and negative. For problems with the patch see the troubleshooting forum.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

positive positive positive...

Thanks BI

Graphically, the patch is a PLUS.

AI's seem more responsive, aware, and the overall behavior is a PLUS.

Edited April 25, 2009 by SWAT_BigBear

[sparks50 0]

I heard some complaints that the turning radius for bikes have been drastically reduced to be even worse than a truck? Can someone confirm this?

[Deadfast 43]

I heard some complaints that the turning radius for bikes have been drastically reduced to be even worse than a truck? Can someone confirm this?

I can.

As much as I enjoy this patch the bike handling is just horrible.

You can't even turn around a corner without ending up all over the place. The truck comparison fits.

Bikes are supposed to be agile, this defeats the purpose :)

[KorpeN 0]

I did a benchmark on ArmA with same settings 1.14,1.15 and 1.16 and the results are

1.14 = 2048.61

1.15 = 2740.93 (dramatically improved than 1.14)

1.16 = 2680.59

So I have FPS drop.

All other things went well.Much improved multiplayer mode. :)

Edited April 25, 2009 by KorpeN

[thr0tt 12]

Graphics appear more responsive and sticking to the buildings better i.e. not flickering. Overall it all looks good for me. I have not had time to play for a prolonged period but hopfully will test later tonight and report back.

Good work BIS.

Edit: After 30 min or so I still get texture popup on buldings in busy areas but overall it appears better. Looks like this is just a 'feature' of ArmA engine ;)

Edited April 26, 2009 by Thr0tt

[M.Andersson(SWE) 4]

STILL!!! An issue with the sights...

The CrossH and actual hitpoint is FAULTY...

The Hit is 10-15 cm below, to left of aiming....

Amazing...

EDIT 1:

AND....STILLL the same zoom....Comon get back to 1.14 default zoom...

EDIT 2: Bridge pathfinding and handling!!

Open 5T Truck

Test scenario1: Single AI no passengers

Test scenario2: Single AI me as passenger

DOLORES: Remark A+

CORAZOL: Remark A+

OBREGAN: Remark A+

PESADAS MIL INSTALLATION B (Something wrong in the middle of the bridge... AI will cross, but sways abit in the middle)

ISLA DE VICTORIA: Reamark A+

IGUANA: Remark A+

LA CORONA: Remark A+

Edited April 25, 2009 by Andersson[SWEC]

[cross 1]

Anyway, 1.16 focuses more on low level architecture and not any gameplay improvements over 1.15 and that's how it is going to stay.

from the boss himself...1.16 focus on coding...design+gameplay-> maybe in 1.17

[cole 0]

I heard some complaints that the turning radius for bikes have been drastically reduced to be even worse than a truck? Can someone confirm this?

Yeah, the bikes are pretty useless now.

They should use 1.15 bike handling, that one was pretty good.

Edit: Maybe the handling change is related to MP bike ejecting fix?

5257 - Fixed: MP: Player driving motorcycle could be ejected with no apparent reason, sometimes leading to death. (taken from ArmA\beta\changelog.txt)

Overall this patch is a plus, I could increase my viewdistance from 3000m to 4500m without losing a single frame, very cool! :)

Edited April 25, 2009 by Cole

[Deadfast 43]

Edit: Maybe the handling change is related to MP bike ejecting fix?

I don't think so - this was already fixed in 1.15.

[SaOk 112]

Thank you for this patch. Arma feels much better now even with 8800GTS on 64bit Vista - its lighter and save/load-games are much faster on heavy missions. And my graphics card havent "crashed and booted back" yet.

[cross 1]

Arma server seems to use less cpu with 1.16b compared to 1.15b. No affinity allocation made...

1.15b used 25 % of our Quad-core where as 1.16b now uses around 15-19%.

It also seems to use 2nd core more than the others...

[EricM 0]

I've got a Missing IFC22.dll error message launching the Beta... anyone else ? I'm under vista 32 and updating from 1.14...

EDIT : Sorry, my bad. Found the solution. Thanks Cole.

Edited April 25, 2009 by EricM

[cole 0]

I've got a Missing IFC22.dll error message launching the Beta... anyone else ? I'm under vista 32 and updating from 1.14...

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA_Beta:_Unable_to_Locate_IFC22.DLL

Hope this helps you ;)

[CyDoN 0]

I won't use a beta patch... I wait the official.

And about the feedback:

Didn't see any differance... But please if its going to be out soon at least make 1.08 FOV standard or at least adjustable form the options or something, or make and official addon like UNA Filed of View addon so we can choose from... Hate to say but 1.14 FOV or 1.09 had many problems, mostly of FPS nature...

Edited April 25, 2009 by CyDoN

[NoPOW 59]

I won't use a beta patch... I wait the official

It IS an official... BETA. Linguistic juggling doesn't make the fact that due to the large variety of mods testing in the wild is inevitable, go away...

I really don't understand all this complaining. The devs have already explained themselves more than they're obliged to: just ignoring their reasons is plain rude...

Edited April 25, 2009 by NoPOW

[CyDoN 0]

It IS an official... BETA. Linguistic juggling doesn't make the fact that due to the large variety of mods testing in the wild is inevitable, go away...

I really don't understand all this complaining. The devs have already explained themselves more than they're obliged to: just ignoring their reasons is plain rude...

no it is NOT considered official, this is a beta. The official is 1.14 live with that. I NEVER use ANY addons for no reason I like the game as it is, go away...

IT says feedback and thats why I am giving it. With my PC I didn't see any differance, it runs a bith smoother but there is no improvement with the FPS thingy.

I only hope for an adjustable FOV this will only save the FPS on LOW-END machinery 1.08 was the best.

[Mojo 0]

Server 2008 (64 bit) | quad core proc | 4 gig RAM

1.16 with ic-addon-pack (combines SW and FFAA mods with a few other pieces)

Player numbers: 80 | Duration 3 hours

@15 Minutes = 16-18 FPS (normally 25) - 78 Players - BW: 11200 out and 1700 in

@30 Minutes = 11-12 FPS (normally 25) - 80 Players - BW: 3100 out and 780 in

@45 Minutes = 11-12 FPS (normally 25) - 79 Players - BW: 3600 out and 1021 in

@60 Minutes = 08-09 FPS (normally 20) - 78 Players - BW: 4900 out and 1046 in

--Server Locked, FPS increased to 11-12 after 3 minutes locked.

--Allowing Players 1 at a time - 2 FPS drop at join lasting about 60 seconds.

@75 Minutes = 08-09 FPS (normally 20) - 79 Players - BW: 2194 out and 983 in

@90 Minutes = 11-12 FPS (normally 18) - 79 Players - BW: 3339 out and 903 in

@105Minutes = 05-06 FPS (normally 15) - 78 Players - BW: 2539 out and 967 in

@120Minuets = 10-11 FPS (normally 12) - 77 Players - BW: 2844 out and 1035 in

@135Minuets = 10-11 FPS (normally 10) - 78 Players - BW: 3786 out and 947 in

@150Minuets = 10-11 FPS (normally 08) - 78 Players - BW: 3818 out and 838 in

@165Minuets = 09-10 FPS (normally 08) - 76 Players - BW: 2873 out and 849 in

@180Minutes = 10-10 FPS (normally 05) - 74 Players - BW: 4778 out and 840 in

CPU utilization was 10 to 15% lower through the battle.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Mojo

[Noraf 0]

so far it looks good, something must be right, because it looks like i have a smaller loade on my cpu when playing, compared to 1.14 ( not mutch, but a bit there is )

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

1.16 with ic-addon-pack (combines SW and FFAA mods with a few other pieces)

Player numbers: 80 | Duration 3 hours

Is there any chance of seeing the results with no addons?

[cross 1]

Is there any chance of seeing the results with no addons?

If you can convince 80 players to replay the 3 hour long battle ... YES :D :D

[Mojo 0]

Is there any chance of seeing the results with no addons?

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? Not much chance of getting them in for any real length of time (heck, you should see the kneecaps we have to break for beta testing our mod-pack releases).

If you wish, you can use Yoma's Tool to DL our pack and try it on your server. ic-arma.net/liveupdate/updater :)

Our missions are 'special' so even without the SW/FFAA we have pushed most of our scripts off to the mod, so....

Edited April 25, 2009 by Mojo

[SlipperyJim 0]

It is really hard to test how well Arma runs in coop because there are only about 7 servers with 1.16 running and almost all of them require different addons (how many versions of Ace are there?).

We REALLY need the Linux dedicated server released as a beta at the same time.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

@Mojo,

It was just my curiosity as to "if" the addons/mods caused any difference.

I remember when we had an open OFP server, addons/mods did make fps a lil lower when many players were in.

Our current server is overloaded and old, thus we use a private server for ArmA. We are looking into a more up to date dedi after ArmA II is released.

OT..I've got to play a few long games with this patch, and it really feels alot smoother on my end as the host and player.

Xeno's 3.61 Domination is under a long term run atm. A member located in Canada, seems to be having a better game also, while connected to my in home server.

Edited April 26, 2009 by SWAT_BigBear

[Mojo 0]

We have been running that setup for about 4 weeks thus far and the normal FPS baseline was listed there in the report.

@15 Minutes = 16-18 FPS (normally 25) - 78 Players - BW: 11200 out and 1700 in

It was odd that we started off a lot lower (I was sweating it there for a while). But over all I'm thinking that it was more stable, particularly at the end.

We never adopted any previous Beta patch until they were full releases, for the first time in IC's 3 years running Armed Assault, we will be (not counting our internally developed mod-sweetness).

@Cross - I've been grooving to the mellowness on KH Radio all morning.