ArmA2 8GB RAM Problem

[_Hurricane 0]

Arma2.exe is a 32-bit application. Which means it won't use more than 2GB RAM whether or not you have 4GB or 8GB in total! Putting in the -winxp parameter fixes your problem and ArmA will still not use more than 2GB RAM!

[bangtail 0]

They're shelving the game because it's not functioning as it was intended to for them

Fixed that for you.

I have it running on 1 x 12 gig machine, 1 x 8 gig machine and 1 x 6 gig machine on Win 7 64.

No problems to report.

I realise this is frustrating for some people who can't get it working, but it is not universally applicable.

That is all,

Eth

Edited September 18, 2009 by BangTail

[Dwarden 1125]

ethne can you please post full specs of your machines?

OS builds

driver builds (GPU/soundcard)

mainboard model/chipset

GPU

audiocard

+ anything specially special :)

[bangtail 0]

ethne can you please post full specs of your machines?

OS builds

driver builds (GPU/soundcard)

mainboard model/chipset

GPU

audiocard

+ anything specially special :)

Np mate

Machine one is in my sig

Machine 2 is :

i7 940 @ stock

Gigabyte EX58 Extreme

8 GB Mushkin DDR3 1600

EVGA 285 Factory OC

Auzentech Home Theatre 1.3

Etc

Machine 3 is :

i7 920 @ 3.33

Gigabyte EX58 Extreme

6 GB Corsair DD3 1600

BFG 280 (Factory OC)

SB X-Fi gamer

Etc

All Win 7 64 (Retail - MSDN) (but worked well with XP 64 before)

Latest driver builds/BIOS on all boxes. Using -winxp & cpucount=4 on all boxes

Cheers

Eth

Edited September 18, 2009 by BangTail

[mlenser 10]

They're shelving the game because it's not functioning as it was intended to.

Adding these command line switches doesn't limit the game or make it run with less function than it was designed to do??? In fact it makes it run AS it was designed!

Why do I have to go into MSCONFIG, manually change from maximum ram to less than 8GB just to get the game to function properly?

Never heard the need to edit MSCONFIG to run Arma2.exe - why do you do that when the command line switches fix the problem?

Same with the -winxp fix. Why drop your allotted amount of memory to less than 4GB with that option when you have 8GB?

Adding the -winxp doesn't limit system memory in any way so what are you going on about?

Arma2.exe is a 32-bit application that cannot address more than 2047mb no matter how much ram your system has installed or what command line arguments you pass it. Doesn't matter if you use 32-bit or 64-bit OS, XP, Vista or Windows 7 it cannot use more than 2047mb on anyone's system - period.

About the homework comment, don't presume to know what I have and haven't done. I'm quite versed in the Advanced Search Maybe next time it won't make you look like an ass.

From your own mouth.

[shuurajou 10]

Np mate

Machine one is in my sig

Machine 2 is :

i7 940 @ stock

Gigabyte EX58 Extreme

8 GB Mushkin DDR3 1600

EVGA 285 Factory OC

Auzentech Home Theatre 1.3

Etc

Machine 3 is :

i7 920 @ 3.33

Gigabyte EX58 Extreme

6 GB Corsair DD3 1600

BFG 280 (Factory OC)

SB X-Fi gamer

Etc

All Win 7 64 (Retail - MSDN) (but worked well with XP 64 before)

Latest driver builds/BIOS on all boxes. Using -winxp & cpucount=4 on all boxes

Cheers

Eth

So, with the -winxp command line argument, looking at your localVRAM parameter, it has correctly detected your video card memory on all machines? Might be useful to paste your localVRAM & nonlocalVRAM detected parameters for each machine.

Adding these command line switches doesn't limit the game or make it run with less function than it was designed to do??? In fact it makes it run AS it was designed!

Never heard the need to edit MSCONFIG to run Arma2.exe - why do you do that when the command line switches fix the problem?Adding the -winxp doesn't limit system memory in any way so what are you going on about?

From your own mouth.

The command line argument -winxp does not fix incorrect VRAM detection in the scenario of having 8GB+ RAM. On some setups it can change the VRAM detected so the game runs without graphical glitches but it still detects it incorrectly. MSCONFIG does help with this.

Edited September 18, 2009 by shuurajou

[bangtail 0]

So, with the -winxp command line argument, looking at your localVRAM parameter, it has correctly detected your video card memory on all machines? Might be useful to paste your localVRAM & nonlocalVRAM detected parameters for each machine.

Yup, detects the RAM correctly. It didn't detect properly with certain drivers (Although the game played fine - 186.xx's were a big culprit).

Eth

[shuurajou 10]

Yup, detects the RAM correctly. It didn't detect properly with certain drivers (Although the game played fine - 186.xx's were a big culprit).

Eth

For me I've found with or without the -winxp parameter, when using the BIS recommended NVIDIA drivers (e.g. latest) my VRAM is detected incorrectly (specifically VRAM, not RAM). Limiting to 4GB in MSCONFIG or removing 4GB resolves this detection issue for me.

[datter 0]

For me I've found with or without the -winxp parameter, when using the BIS recommended NVIDIA drivers (e.g. latest) my VRAM is detected incorrectly (specifically VRAM, not RAM). Limiting to 4GB in MSCONFIG or removing 4GB resolves this detection issue for me.

As said many times elsewhere, I've got exactly the same problem.

[Sniperdoc 0]

Yup, detects the RAM correctly. It didn't detect properly with certain drivers (Although the game played fine - 186.xx's were a big culprit).

My system ran fine with the 186.xx's. It was the 190.38's that caused me the 8GB problem. This was a brand new Win7 64-bit build. Why were the 186's so bad? I didn't really notice anything major? At least no different than the 190s using the MSCONFIG fix?

Adding these command line switches doesn't limit the game or make it run with less function than it was designed to do??? In fact it makes it run AS it was designed!

Never heard the need to edit MSCONFIG to run Arma2.exe - why do you do that when the command line switches fix the problem?Adding the -winxp doesn't limit system memory in any way so what are you going on about?

Using MSCONFIG is probably a bit more "natural" to the game. If they INTENDED for the game to run properly by running the switches, why didn't they just add the -winxp as a default startup? But instead you have to fudge with your system for hours, try to figure out how you can get it to do what it's supposed to, and then you shortcut yourself by running -winxp.

Arma2.exe is a 32-bit application that cannot address more than 2047mb no matter how much ram your system has installed or what command line arguments you pass it. Doesn't matter if you use 32-bit or 64-bit OS, XP, Vista or Windows 7 it cannot use more than 2047mb on anyone's system - period.

[sarcasm]Really? That's strange, because I thought there wasn't any limitation at all...??? [/sarcasm] Actually, just to educate you a bit. It's all dependent on how the application was programmed to run with the OS and how the OS was programmed to handle memory addressing.

Just because something is a 32-bit application does NOT mean it is limited to 2048MB of RAM. For example:

1. Windows Server 2008 Enterprise 32-bit can address up to 64GB of memory.
   
2. Windows Server 2003 Enterprise 32-bit can address up to 64GB of memory.
   
3. Windows 2000 Advanced Server can address up to 8GB of memory.
   

So, going on from there, if you'd run a program such as MS SQL Server, you'd really benefit from using as much of the 64GB of memory as possible. But again, SQL server was written to address that much memory.

Now, I have yet to see a post by a BIS developer stating that Arma 2 was built to run with only 2048GB of memory. If that is the case, once again, why did they not hardcode the -maxmem=2047 switch right into game. [patronize]I'll tell you why... it addresses more than just 2047MB.[/patronize] Whether they implemented a good detection algorithm or not is another matter. 32-bit applications, by physical limitations of hardware, are limited to 4GB of memory, per process... not 2. [more patronization]Just FYI, Arma.exe would be considered a process.[/more patronization]

Fact of the matter is, there's a problem with Arma 2 and the video drivers and it's up to BIS to get a dialog started with nVidia/ATI to figure out how to resolve this issue as I think it is causing a lot of the performance issues.

I had no texture or LOD issues running the drivers before 190.38. It wasn't until I used the 190.38 drivers that the LOD/Texture problems started showing up. It is all dependent on how the drivers decide to offload memory requirements to non-VRAM memory. I use driver and registry cleaners when I install drivers, so I know it's a clean system. I've been working with computers for 17+ years and it's what I do for a living.

I'm really saddened by the fact that in Arma 1, the game had inherent flaws with LOD and texturing that was never really resolved and now here we have this "improved" Arma 2, that supposedly has been made better, and those same LOD and texturing flaws have carried over. Personally, I think it's a huge slap in the customer's face that they didn't address that issue.

Running this on a system like mine, Frame rate, LOD and textures should not be an issue.

Although it does seem that 1.04 did clear up some frame rate issues, because it doesn't seem to react as slowly going left to right and vice versa. On my system it looks as if motion blur was reduced a bit? I hadn't checked if my Arma 2 configuration settings have been changed due to the latest update.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Sniperdoc

[Desert 10]

If they acknowledged it, then I haven't seen any semblance of validation from BIS about the matter.

Look at this M8:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1325931&postcount=69

Im thinking that fixing this, isnt that easy as they expected. :cool:

[Sniperdoc 0]

I've seen that several times... but it isn't a validation of what the problem is about and what could be causing it. They've also not written anything about how they're wanting to address it.

I agree with you though... I don't think they know HOW to fix it since that problem has been there since Arma 1. :(

[shuurajou 10]

Dissapointingly I've had a ticket open with IDEA games (publisher and our 'official' way to get support) since the 28th of August and I was told today that they recommend I return the game for a refund. This is after quite a lot of time providing dxdiag, specs etc to help them pass the issue onto BIS to troubleshoot and being told it was passed onto the developers... doesn't fill me with confidence this is going to get fixed if the publisher is telling users to get refunds.

[Sniperdoc 0]

DANG!!! How about that being a slap in the face. Funny... cause if you get/got it through Steam... forget the refund. Sounds like finger pointing to me.

"It's not our problem, go to the retailer."

Sucks if the retailers have a "no refund" policy. Pretty much only Walmart will let you get refunds on software.

[shuurajou 10]

Coincidentally I bought mine on steam.

The publisher did say they are apparently working on it but it's not easy to fix.

[datter 0]

I wonder why this is an issue for ArmA and ArmA2 but not for any other game I've ever heard of?

[Desert 10]

In ArmA1 this is fixed already.

I've seen that several times... but it isn't a validation of what the problem is about and what could be causing it. They've also not written anything about how they're wanting to address it.

I agree with you though... I don't think they know HOW to fix it since that problem has been there since Arma 1. :(

Look closely, the VRAM Detection is the Problem. It happens when the VRAM goes over the 2GB Mark, like Suma said. ;) Edited September 18, 2009 by Desert

[Sniperdoc 0]

Well, I understand the issue... that's the problem here. The problem is that I don't even know if they've taken this up with nVidia at all. I had no issues when I was running 186 drivers. Once I switched to the 190s is when the problem cropped up. That leads me to believe that Arma 2 does not play well with driver changes. So, we need to narrow down where the disconnect is here. Not just the VRAM detection, but how it detects the VRAM and how it decides to assign a certain value to that VRAM variable. I'm sure that the drivers themselves play a role in that.

[datter 0]

I had no issues with 190.38 when I had Win XP 32bit and 2gb. It was when I moved to Win7 64bit and 8gb plus the 190.38's that this problem cropped up. I suspect it might be something more than just the drivers... but whatever it is, I hope it gets fixed eventually.

[willgimmence 10]

Well, I understand the issue... that's the problem here. The problem is that I don't even know if they've taken this up with nVidia at all. I had no issues when I was running 186 drivers. Once I switched to the 190s is when the problem cropped up. That leads me to believe that Arma 2 does not play well with driver changes. So, we need to narrow down where the disconnect is here. Not just the VRAM detection, but how it detects the VRAM and how it decides to assign a certain value to that VRAM variable. I'm sure that the drivers themselves play a role in that.

I have an ATI 4870 1GB and am having the same problems so I don't think contacting nvidia is the answer :) It is something arma 2 developers need to sort out!

[Sniperdoc 0]

Well... it has to do with how it addresses memory at 8GB and above. I still see this issue with Arma 1. At least the texture/LOD issue. So... it's a problem that's persisted since Arma 1. I'm very perturbed this issue is still around as they've hand ample time to resolve this.

@willgimmence:

Absolutely, sorry didn't mean to infer it was purely nvidia related. I just personalized the issue since I have two GTX280's.

[datter 0]

... since I have two GTX280's.

I've often thought that might have something to do with it as well. I have dual 8800GT's. Maybe it's 8gb + SLI?

[Sniperdoc 0]

I tried it without SLI turned on first. I've tried several combinations:

No SLI with PhysX

No SLI without PhysX

SLI with PhysX

SLI without PhysX

Pretty much same results concerning the LOD/Texture issues.

[kklownboy 43]

Sli or not IN SLi wont make the OS behave any different in how it allocates virtual ram for each device. The real test on the dual cards and 8GB would be to pull one to see if it makes a difference... Not that you want to play with only one card... but just to see if it is a dual card issue for you NVDA guys. There was a 4GB+ issue with ATI and A1 with the 1.14 patch, it was when Bis did there so called virtual Address space hack for 32bit Os's. It borked ATi cards, but to be fair there was also a fragmentation issue with GDDR5 at the same time, both where fixed in 1.16beta, and a new driver. But nvda users have posted they then had issues... And it seems the whole RAM problem has now been pushed out to 8gb on non i7/x58 platforms.... i blame the hack, 32bit OS's and NVDA.

[Bulldogs 10]

Is the problem only apparent on Vista 64bit and Windows 7 64bit or is it effecting Windows XP, and Vista 32bit/Win7 32bit as well?