ArmA2 8GB RAM Problem

[slimSpencer 10]

can confirm it...

Q9550

Win7 x64

8GB

4870

no more -winxp required! :)

[=(+)=TheVoodoo 0]

GREAT NEWS!

I also tried it! It's really working ;P

nomore -winxp -maxmem=x !!!!!!

[bourkie 10]

vram dection still dosnt work, still reads wroung in my cfg even after deleting it forceing arma to make a new one

but i dont need to add anything to the shortcut and there is a peformance increase of about 5fps for me

[suma 8]

vram dection still dosnt work, still reads wroung in my cfg even after deleting it forceing arma to make a new one

Can you post here the numbers you see there? What card and how much VRAM have you got?

[liquidpinky 11]

8Gb texture problem is dead, long live the texture problem.

The recent patches have been good, thanks BI team and keep up the good work.

[Schurer 0]

All I can say is F*CK YEAH! Great work BIS!

[hoot 0]

Yep nicely done so far. But on the other hand, bring back the mp horn :music: pls. It's like the rotor downwash in ArmA. It was gone with a patch, and silently switched on again in later patches. I need this to keep Mr.Burns awake when we are cruising through Chernarus.

...i know, it's frickin' important :p

[bourkie 10]

Can you post here the numbers you see there? What card and how much VRAM have you got?

without beta patch

language="English";
adapter=-1;
3D_Performance=100000;
Resolution_Bpp=32;
Resolution_W=1440;
Resolution_H=900;
refresh=75;
Render_W=1440;
Render_H=900;
FSAA=2;
postFX=2;
HDRPrecision=8;
lastDeviceId="";
localVRAM=2146871040;
nonlocalVRAM=2146871040;

i deleted it so arma would than create a new one when i lanched the beta patch

language="English";
adapter=-1;
3D_Performance=93750;
Resolution_Bpp=32;
Resolution_W=1440;
Resolution_H=900;
refresh=75;
Render_W=1440;
Render_H=900;
FSAA=2;
postFX=2;
GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1000;
GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=3;
HDRPrecision=8;
lastDeviceId="";
localVRAM=2146871040;
nonlocalVRAM=2146871040;

the 3d peformance changed

1.4

3D_Performance=100000;

current beta

3D_Performance=93750;

i have a navida 9800gt with 512mb ram and a total of apx4079mb vram (from dxdiag tool)

i worked it out and it should read this

localVRAM=536870912;

nonlocalVRAM=3741430784

if you add the local and nonlocal vram it adds upto 4094mb so for me it still apears like arma is just halfing my total vram to get the 2 readings

my system

Gigabyte - GA-EP45-UD3L

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650

8gb ram (2X Corsair TWIN2X4096-8500C5D 4GB (2x XMS2 2GB) PC-8500 (1066MHz) DDR2 RAM, 2x240-pin DIMMs, Non ECC, Unbuffered, 5-5-5-15)

navdia geforce 9800 gt 512

windows 7 64bit rc build 7100

Edit: i checked the total vram in the navidia control panel and it is 4095

Edited November 4, 2009 by bourkie

[suma 8]

localVRAM=2146871040;
nonlocalVRAM=2146871040;

i have a navida 9800gt with 512mb ram and a total of apx4079mb vram (from dxdiag tool)

i worked it out and it should read this

localVRAM=536870912;

nonlocalVRAM=3741430784

if you add the local and nonlocal vram it adds upto 4094mb so for me it still apears like arma is just halfing my total vram to get the 2 readings

Great information. I am adjusting the VRAM heuristics to handle your situation better (revision 59949). The problem was when you have really lot of RAM and only 512 MB or less of VRAM. I think even with the values detected above the game should work quite well, still I guess fixing it will only make it better.

[The.Yield 10]

Putting in my two cents here: Yes, 8GB ram issue fixed! Yay!

Preliminary finding, however, seems like AA now doesn't work... More testing required.

EDIT: At least on my Crossfired 4870's, yes -- AA is broken.

Edited November 4, 2009 by The.Yield

[W1NDOWL1CKER 10]

can confirm it...

Q9550

Win7 x64

8GB

4870

no more -winxp required! :)

Since I installed my HD5870 I also had this problem (please look at my system specs below).

I never had any such problems before.

Nothing else has changed in my system, I just replaced my HD4850 with the new HD5870 and the troubles began...

I fixed it by using the -winxp modification.

Here comes my (maybe a little noobish) question:

Does the -winxp extension hamper performance? And if so, will the upcoming patch solve this?

And last but not least, if it does, should I remove the -winxp extension before or after installing the new build 59926 patch?

Thanks for your help guys.

[bourkie 10]

Great information. I am adjusting the VRAM heuristics to handle your situation better (revision 59949). The problem was when you have really lot of RAM and only 512 MB or less of VRAM. I think even with the values detected above the game should work quite well, still I guess fixing it will only make it better.

thanks a lot :), you guys are doing a great job, once i get my ssd i'l start playing again :D

[liquidpinky 11]

Since I installed my HD5870 I also had this problem (please look at my system specs below).

I never had any such problems before.

Nothing else has changed in my system, I just replaced my HD4850 with the new HD5870 and the troubles began...

I fixed it by using the -winxp modification.

Here comes my (maybe a little noobish) question:

Does the -winxp extension hamper performance? And if so, will the upcoming patch solve this?

And last but not least, if it does, should I remove the -winxp extension before or after installing the new build 59926 patch?

Thanks for your help guys.

The -winxp command can be removed when you like, it doesn't effect patch installation and you can still use it after the patch if you wanted too.

It makes your PC use XP DX9 instead of Vista DX9 and also lowers sound quality apparently. Possibly some other minor quality losses, if it works without the command then I see no need to use it after patching.

[haroon 10]

Hi everyone, I am having a problem too......

My Graphic Card is ATi R4670 1Gb DDRIII

When i try to set the PostProcessing Effects on High in both ArmA and ArmA II,the game crashes randomly after about 20 mins from the change of PP.

And nothing happens when it is at "Low"

I found an article stating that the R4670 is one of the best one to choose in Low-End Cards......

I bought it ,expecting that I could play ArmA with the Med Settings...but to my surprise,ARMA runs smoothly on all setting Maxed out @ 1024x768 ,except VD just at 500 and AA at "Low".

And it brought more surprises,I can even play ARMA II on all settings maxed out except those described in ARMA.

But FPS in ARMA II is not very much ,just around 15-28 (40-60 in Utes when exploring alone).

Is this causing because of my CPU?

Yes,my CPU is out-dated,very out-dated,everyone here is now using Dual Cores...which i cannot afford right now (i spent all of my money on R4670)

And i know that my mobo can't take Dual/Quad Core Processors......

Guys have you any idea of a combination of a good cheap mobo and a processor?

My System Specs are as follows:

Intel Pentium 4 Prescott 2.66 Ghz

MSI 915G Combo 2

2 x 1Gb DDRII (533 Mhz)

MSI R4670/HD4670 1Gb (DDRIII)

450Watt Standard PSU

Windows XP Pro (32 - bit)

[W1NDOWL1CKER 10]

The -winxp command can be removed when you like, it doesn't effect patch installation and you can still use it after the patch if you wanted too.

It makes your PC use XP DX9 instead of Vista DX9 and also lowers sound quality apparently. Possibly some other minor quality losses, if it works without the command then I see no need to use it after patching.

Thanks Liquidpinky.

I still have some questions though:

Does the -winxp command hamper performance, specifically fps? (I mean, why is everyone so glad that they don’t need it anymore?)

And if it does, will the issue be resolved with a patch (like build 59926)?

Do people install separate smaller patches (like 59926) in between the regular patches (like 1.04)?

Are build 59926 and other smaller separate patches integrated in a general 1.05 patch?

When will patch 1.05 be released?

Sorry for all my questions, I'm still a bit of a noob.

[liquidpinky 11]

Thanks Liquidpinky.

I still have some questions though:

Does the -winxp command hamper performance, specifically fps? (I mean, why is everyone so glad that they don’t need it anymore?)

And if it does, will the issue be resolved with a patch (like build 59926)?

Do people install separate smaller patches (like 59926) in between the regular patches (like 1.04)?

Are build 59926 and other smaller separate patches integrated in a general 1.05 patch?

When will patch 1.05 be released?

Sorry for all my questions, I'm still a bit of a noob.

A lot like myself install the beta patches, they are supported on MP servers too so no harm is done.

I don't know if the -winxp tag effects performance as such but there is no loss by not using it with the current patch, also I can run higher settings with the same FPS. Whether this is purely the patch or lack of -winxp tag I don't know for sure.

@bourkie: SSD no longer required thanks to latest beta patch, I previously ran a RamDisk for the game but no longer need to now.

[W1NDOWL1CKER 10]

Thanks Pinky, now that I know that betapatches don't affect performance and are compatible with MP I'll try the latest one.

[datter 0]

Dear lord. I don't know what else to say.

EDIT: ... but thanks to BIS if this works and I can actually play.

[shataan 1]

I`ll wait for the Official patch. ;p

[BrunoDerRabe 0]

Thank you Suma and all who did help to get this fixed :bounce3::bounce3::bounce3:

[W1NDOWL1CKER 10]

Well, I installed build 59928, the latest one on http://www.arma2.com/beta-patch.php.

I still have the same issues as Desert, the threadstarter (on page 1 of this thread he posted a screen of what it looks like).

As I've said before, the game worked perfectly with 8GB UNTIL I installed my new HD5870, and I never had to use any maxmem or -winxp commands.

Now, with the HD5870, the game works only when I use the -winxp command.

I have the feeling that performance is affected by this command however.

Any news of the upcoming 1.05 patch solving this issue?

[.kju 3244]

Post your arma2.cfg mate.

[shuurajou 10]

Hi All,

I raised CIT bug #4042 and also a bug with the IDEA GAMES publisher reference 'IDEA-GAMES-RT #10871'.

I raised both of these originally, specifically for the issue where the VRAM values in ArmA 2 cfg were incorrect (indicating ArmA 2 had incorrectly detected VRAM).

If you're unsure what these values should read (i.e. so you can determine if the beta patch fixed it for you), export a dxdiag report and look at the Display Devices section, you'll see some memory values. Convert your ArmA2.cfg nonlocalVRAM & localVRAM values to MBs and compare.

I'll test with the latest beta patch tonight and post my feedback.

[W1NDOWL1CKER 10]

Post your arma2.cfg mate.

Will try to post tonight around 6 p.m. when I'm at home.

Thanks.

Edited November 6, 2009 by W1NDOWL1CKER

[datter 0]

Tried this beta patch last night. Instead of ArmA2 thinking I only have 213mb of vram, now it thinks I have 214mb. Seriously.