Memory Issues??

[Bullseye112 10]

When i play the game with 4gb memory its works fine, but when i put my full amount of memory in to my system (8gb) the graphics get all messed up it looks like a really poor cartoon drawing in game, the trees look square blocks etc. I have taken all the memory out and used the second 4gb on its own and its fine the graphics are spot on. Also had my Motherbaird tested by Asus and its working 100% with all Ram slots fine.

Any ideas on this one or if possible a simple fix.

Thanks

My Rig

Windows Vista Home Premium Edition 64bit

AMD 6000+ 3.0ghz Dual Core

Asus M3A Motherboard

8GB Memory

XFX 9800GTX XXX Edition 512MB GFX Card

Samsung 23" Widescreen Sync Master 2343BW Monitor

Antec 902 Case

650W CoolMaster PSU

[private plowjoy 0]

When i play the game with 4gb memory its works fine, but when i put my full amount of memory in to my system (8gb) the graphics get all messed up it looks like a really poor cartoon drawing in game, the trees look square blocks etc. I have taken all the memory out and used the second 4gb on its own and its fine the graphics are spot on. Also had my Motherbaird tested by Asus and its working 100% with all Ram slots fine.

Any ideas on this one or if possible a simple fix.

Thanks

My Rig

Windows Vista Home Premium Edition 64bit

AMD 6000+ 3.0ghz Dual Core

Asus M3A Motherboard

8GB Memory

XFX 9800GTX XXX Edition 512MB GFX Card

Samsung 23" Widescreen Sync Master 2343BW Monitor

Antec 902 Case

650W CoolMaster PSU

Sorry mate but you're seeing classic examples of VRAM being filled up, thus the engine takes its time to reload the correct textures.

I saw exactly the same thing on my 295, until I installed the SLI EVGA fix, thus the engine started to use both GPU VRAM, not just one.

Bottom line is that a 512mb GFX card just doesn't cut it in games like this.

One fix, I guess, would be to bottom out the texture setting to the lowest option but the game won't look very good. That's the trade-off when using lower spec kit.

Again, sorry. Its just a sign of the Arma2 time.

[blanghorst 10]

Sorry mate but you're seeing classic examples of VRAM being filled up, thus the engine takes its time to reload the correct textures.

I saw exactly the same thing on my 295, until I installed the SLI EVGA fix, thus the engine started to use both GPU VRAM, not just one.

Bottom line is that a 512mb GFX card just doesn't cut it in games like this.

One fix, I guess, would be to bottom out the texture setting to the lowest option but the game won't look very good. That's the trade-off when using lower spec kit.

Again, sorry. Its just a sign of the Arma2 time.

Sorry, this just isn't accurate. The patch you installed might have done something to fix your problem, but it was not related to the amount of VRAM you had unless perhaps one of your cards has bad VRAM.

I have 8 GB of RAM and a GF 8800GTS 512 MB card, and have the exact problem as the original poster. Add the -winxp switch to the shortcut (so it reads arma2.exe -winxp or something similar, for example) and it should fix the problem. Once I launched with that switch, the graphics were fine and I was able to crank everything up to high/very high (including textures) and had no problems.

I've read that this switch emulates having 4 GB of RAM, though I am not 100% sure what it does. All I know is that I researched the problem, found the switch mentioned as a possible solution, and can confirm it works.

[private plowjoy 0]

Sorry, this just isn't accurate. The patch you installed might have done something to fix your problem, but it was not related to the amount of VRAM you had unless perhaps one of your cards has bad VRAM.

I have 8 GB of RAM and a GF 8800GTS 512 MB card, and have the exact problem as the original poster. Add the -winxp switch to the shortcut (so it reads arma2.exe -winxp or something similar, for example) and it should fix the problem. Once I launched with that switch, the graphics were fine and I was able to crank everything up to high/very high (including textures) and had no problems.

I've read that this switch emulates having 4 GB of RAM, though I am not 100% sure what it does. All I know is that I researched the problem, found the switch mentioned as a possible solution, and can confirm it works.

Well, I run on Vista 32 and do not use that switch. Plus I only have 2GB of RAM.

Pre SLI fix, I had exactly these problems. Trees would at first render as rectangles of brown, then the geometry would warp into a more tree like shape (round) and finally the branch and leaf detail would come into view. All in all taking about 2-3 seconds and all only occurring after the game had been running for a while in built up areas, like in a town. I should note that at this point I had the texture settings set to High.

Post SLI fix, using exactly the same graphics settings in exactly the same place in game, I have no rendering problems apart from the very occasional building texture 'popping' into view, which takes milliseconds to fix itself.

To me, this indicates that both my GPUs VRAM was being not being used in the first instance as pre SLI fix I had the VRAM setting, in-game, set to Very High (as you'd expect with an Nvidia 295 running at almost 2GB of VRAM). Thus the game was attempting to utilize a Very High amount of VRAM when only half that amount was actually being utilized because SLI was not being correctly recognised.

There's not much more I can say. Nothing else in my PC has changed and I haven't amended any shortcuts to include switches. All ive done is install the EVGA SLI 'fix' and running with every setting on High to Very High, including an insane level of AA and AF, I no longer get the same level of geometry problems that I had previously. The game runs smooth as butter at 1920x1200 apart from where I get too close to buildings where things start to stutter.

As I replied to the OP, it may be that their in-game texture settings are set too high for a 512MB GFX card to correctly swap textures when the VRAM gets too full and, with all due respect a 512MB GFX card does not qualify as being suitable to run new games of this nature at their best.

Arma2 isnt a linear game where all the textures can be preloaded well ahead of time, due to the player only being able to venture down a predetermined linear path. The engine requires off-the-cuff texture swapping, thus the more VRAM you have, the less problems of this nature you'll experience.

[Bulldogs 10]

Same issue different cause.

Effectively if you have 8gb check that first (-winxp)

if you have sli, try the evga fix

[thr0tt 12]

As I replied to the OP, it may be that their in-game texture settings are set too high for a 512MB GFX card to correctly swap textures when the VRAM gets too full and, with all due respect a 512MB GFX card does not qualify as being suitable to run new games of this nature at their best.

Sorry but you are talking out your backside or are you calling the devs liars ?

Minimal PC System Requirements

•Dual Core CPU (Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz, Intel Core 2.0 GHz, AMD Athlon 3200+ or faster)

•1 GB RAM

•GPU (Nvidia Geforce 7800 / ATI Radeon 1800 or faster) with Shader Model 3 and 256 MB VRAM

•Windows XP

•DVD (Dual Layer compatible), 10 GB free HDD space

Optimal PC System Requirements

•Quad Core CPU or fast Dual Core CPU (Intel Core 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or faster)

•2 GB RAM

•Fast GPU (Nvidia Geforce 8800GT or ATI Radeon 4850 or faster) with Shader Model 3 and 512 or more MB VRAM

•Windows XP or Windows Vista

•DVD (Dual Layer compatible), 10 GB free HDD space

Optimal PC System Requirements

•Quad Core CPU or fast Dual Core CPU (Intel Core 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or faster)

•2 GB RAM

•Fast GPU (Nvidia Geforce 8800GT or ATI Radeon 4850 or faster) with Shader Model 3 and 512 or more MB VRAM

•Windows XP or Windows Vista

•DVD (Dual Layer compatible), 10 GB free HDD space

[private plowjoy 0]

Sorry but you are talking out your backside or are you calling the devs liars ?

Minimal PC System Requirements

•Dual Core CPU (Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz, Intel Core 2.0 GHz, AMD Athlon 3200+ or faster)

•1 GB RAM

•GPU (Nvidia Geforce 7800 / ATI Radeon 1800 or faster) with Shader Model 3 and 256 MB VRAM

•Windows XP

•DVD (Dual Layer compatible), 10 GB free HDD space

Optimal PC System Requirements

•Quad Core CPU or fast Dual Core CPU (Intel Core 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or faster)

•2 GB RAM

•Fast GPU (Nvidia Geforce 8800GT or ATI Radeon 4850 or faster) with Shader Model 3 and 512 or more MB VRAM

•Windows XP or Windows Vista

•DVD (Dual Layer compatible), 10 GB free HDD space

Optimal PC System Requirements

•Quad Core CPU or fast Dual Core CPU (Intel Core 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or faster)

•2 GB RAM

•Fast GPU (Nvidia Geforce 8800GT or ATI Radeon 4850 or faster) with Shader Model 3 and 512 or more MB VRAM

•Windows XP or Windows Vista

•DVD (Dual Layer compatible), 10 GB free HDD space

I worked in development with games for a couple of years and I know for a fact that minimum and optimal requirements printed on boxes means absolutely nothing.

My remit was to make sure that for the minimal requirements, the game would load. That's it. Nothing else. If I could get the game to the in-game menu, that was the official sign-off on minimal requirements.

Optimal requirements are completely open, due to the open nature of the platform. Note the...

"Fast GPU (Nvidia Geforce 8800GT or ATI Radeon 4850 or faster) with Shader Model 3 and 512 or more MB VRAM"

Sure, the game will run on 512MB if you're happy to stomach pauses for texture loading/popping effects every other minute. That they've specifically said 'or more' is a get-out clause for every problem that a 512MB user will have.

I'm not arguing the case for the developers here. Arma2 clearly has many different problems which manifest in game. All i'm saying is that using almost 2GB of VRAM in a correctly recognised SLI mode, I do not experience the problems that the OP stated, any more.

---------- Post added at 12:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 PM ----------

Same issue different cause.

Effectively if you have 8gb check that first (-winxp)

if you have sli, try the evga fix

It's not the same issue, AFAIK.

The 8GB check using the -winxp switch is to sort out problems with system RAM allocation.

The EVGA SLI fix gets the card correctly identified by Arma2 as an SLI all-in-one solution. The knock-on effect of that, double the amount of VRAM for one, is what causes such a noticeable jump in performance. Especially around loading new scenes and swapping textures out.

[thr0tt 12]

Its funny that whatever forums and whatever game has an issue every other person 'used to be a developer' or 'worked in games industry' and somehow knows best, well I work in the cable industry and have done for the past 10 years doesn't make me an expert in this game nor do I profess to be. If a company releases specifications that are optimal then that means this is what we should run the game on. We all know that minimum is just that, the least system spec to get the game functioning.

On your system with 2Gb of VRAM it runs optimally whereas it should run on the spec'd out optimum system as stated. It is a fact that the game has issues and doesn't run as it should on many system configurations, if it works for you then there is no point trying to assist in 'fixing' other folks machine unless you did something drastically differently from everyone else to get it from a poor performing game to an optimally running work of art.

On the added '...or more' statement, of course you would put that, adding memory or VRAM won't harm a system so if you have over spec'd then it shouldn't be detrimental to the game engine...

Next patch will solve everyones issues, screen corruption, optimisation, lag, mouse lag, dodgy controls etc., maybe you can help them with your 2 year work experience ?

[Bulldogs 10]

Sorry, wrote that on my Ipod while watching some bad show on TV

What I meant was that people are getting an issue with textures vanishing. For some people applying the SLI fix fixes the problem, for some people adding -winxp or reducing the amount of ram fixes the problem.

So all I'm saying is give these things a try. If they work then hooray, if not, try something else.

[Alex72 1]

I dont see PlowJoy to state he is all knowing...

What he says makes much sense. Optimal is usually not what means "play on full and no problems with the optimal specified gear". Most games ive played as well where they state optimal has never been optimal. All systems are so different and how people handle their gear is so different that its hard to state anything else. But in my very long gaming experience optimal spec is usually useless. Its a guide though to what you should have but please go above. Thats been the truth for me so what he writes makes all the sense in the world.

[private plowjoy 0]

Its funny that whatever forums and whatever game has an issue every other person 'used to be a developer' or 'worked in games industry' and somehow knows best, well I work in the cable industry and have done for the past 10 years doesn't make me an expert in this game nor do I profess to be. If a company releases specifications that are optimal then that means this is what we should run the game on. We all know that minimum is just that, the least system spec to get the game functioning.

On your system with 2Gb of VRAM it runs optimally whereas it should run on the spec'd out optimum system as stated. It is a fact that the game has issues and doesn't run as it should on many system configurations, if it works for you then there is no point trying to assist in 'fixing' other folks machine unless you did something drastically differently from everyone else to get it from a poor performing game to an optimally running work of art.

On the added '...or more' statement, of course you would put that, adding memory or VRAM won't harm a system so if you have over spec'd then it shouldn't be detrimental to the game engine...

Next patch will solve everyones issues, screen corruption, optimisation, lag, mouse lag, dodgy controls etc., maybe you can help them with your 2 year work experience ?

Well, I think you're making it very clear for everyone to see that your naive view of software development is skewing your opinion. What you demand and expect is a country mile from what developers are required to deliver.

That I have two years of game development experience is dwarfed by the fact that I have over ten years of enterprise software development experience. While business software doesn't see anywhere near the same level of rollercoaster requirements as game software does it still adheres to the same requirements principles...

Minimal, the application will load and run but no guarantee is given as to its performance.

Optimal, the application will load and run, satisfying the requirements of end to end usage. However, the more hardware you add (memory, CPU, etc) the better it will perform.

Not really sure where your anger is coming from or why its been directed at me. All im trying to do is make you aware, coming from a background in game development what kind of consideration system requirements are given for a release. The fact is, they invariably are not given the correct level of consideration and more to the point in a game like Arma2 where the engine is clearly not even stable how can they put out accurate requirements?

There are people on these boards, me included that are seeing fundamental problems with the engine. Frames dropping around buildings, huge differences between single player and multi player experience performance, CTDs, and on it goes. That there's all this variance means there's no way BIS could have said they have correct requirements because they too must have had a rollercoaster ride of performance highs and lows.

[Bullseye112 10]

Sorry, this just isn't accurate. The patch you installed might have done something to fix your problem, but it was not related to the amount of VRAM you had unless perhaps one of your cards has bad VRAM.

I have 8 GB of RAM and a GF 8800GTS 512 MB card, and have the exact problem as the original poster. Add the -winxp switch to the shortcut (so it reads arma2.exe -winxp or something similar, for example) and it should fix the problem. Once I launched with that switch, the graphics were fine and I was able to crank everything up to high/very high (including textures) and had no problems.

I've read that this switch emulates having 4 GB of RAM, though I am not 100% sure what it does. All I know is that I researched the problem, found the switch mentioned as a possible solution, and can confirm it works.

Thanks for evryones quick replies, Blanghorst any chance you could post up the exact text in your shortcut so i can give it a try.

Thanks Again

[private plowjoy 0]

Thanks for evryones quick replies, Blanghorst any chance you could post up the exact text in your shortcut so i can give it a try.

Thanks Again

Just add -winxp outside the main part. For example, your Arma2 shortcut already has...

"D:\Armed Assault 2\arma2.exe"

...so just add -winxp to the end of it, so it looks like...

"D:\Armed Assault 2\arma2.exe" -winxp

Good luck.

[Fenrir 10]

To those saying 512 mb is hardly sufficient for most modern games, i have a 9600gt 512mb and i can run most modern games (even crysis) on high - very high settings.

Even though i could run arma 2 on high settings if i wanted, i've opted to drop them down to normal due to the fact that i tend to fly in 3rd person view, and when youve got view distance up and flying over cities, normal tends to be the most sufficent for performance and quality ^^

Processor: Intel® Core2 CPU 6400 @ 2.13GHz (2 CPUs)

Memory: 2046MB RAM

Hard Drive: 500 GB

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT

Sound Card: Realtek HD Audio output

[Bullseye112 10]

What I meant was that people are getting an issue with textures vanishing. For some people applying the SLI fix fixes the problem, for some people adding -winxp or reducing the amount of ram fixes the problem.

So all I'm saying is give these things a try. If they work then hooray, if not, try something else.

I have added the winxp switch and it works a treat... thanks to all for inputs much appreciated

[blanghorst 10]

Well, I run on Vista 32 and do not use that switch. Plus I only have 2GB of RAM.

Pre SLI fix, I had exactly these problems. Trees would at first render as rectangles of brown, then the geometry would warp into a more tree like shape (round) and finally the branch and leaf detail would come into view. All in all taking about 2-3 seconds and all only occurring after the game had been running for a while in built up areas, like in a town. I should note that at this point I had the texture settings set to High.

Post SLI fix, using exactly the same graphics settings in exactly the same place in game, I have no rendering problems apart from the very occasional building texture 'popping' into view, which takes milliseconds to fix itself.

To me, this indicates that both my GPUs VRAM was being not being used in the first instance as pre SLI fix I had the VRAM setting, in-game, set to Very High (as you'd expect with an Nvidia 295 running at almost 2GB of VRAM). Thus the game was attempting to utilize a Very High amount of VRAM when only half that amount was actually being utilized because SLI was not being correctly recognised.

There's not much more I can say. Nothing else in my PC has changed and I haven't amended any shortcuts to include switches. All ive done is install the EVGA SLI 'fix' and running with every setting on High to Very High, including an insane level of AA and AF, I no longer get the same level of geometry problems that I had previously. The game runs smooth as butter at 1920x1200 apart from where I get too close to buildings where things start to stutter.

As I replied to the OP, it may be that their in-game texture settings are set too high for a 512MB GFX card to correctly swap textures when the VRAM gets too full and, with all due respect a 512MB GFX card does not qualify as being suitable to run new games of this nature at their best.

Arma2 isnt a linear game where all the textures can be preloaded well ahead of time, due to the player only being able to venture down a predetermined linear path. The engine requires off-the-cuff texture swapping, thus the more VRAM you have, the less problems of this nature you'll experience.

His 8 GB of RAM is the issue, not his graphic card RAM. See other threads with many users having the same issue with 8 GB. I don't doubt that the SLI fix fixed your particular issue; as another poster said, it is the same symptom, different cause.

512 MB of graphic RAM is enough to play this game at most common resolutions (this was the qualification you missed); I have everything on the highest setting and it runs fine at 1600 X 1200 and looks great.

Edited July 3, 2009 by blanghorst

[sate 10]

i have 4 gb ram running vista ultimate 64bit and im playing the demo and it says out of memory. this is the first time this ever happened to me. Can someone help plz thx

[private plowjoy 0]

His 8 GB of RAM is the issue, not his graphic card RAM. See other threads with many users having the same issue with 8 GB. I don't doubt that the SLI fix fixed your particular issue; as another poster said, it is the same symptom, different cause.

512 MB of graphic RAM is enough to play this game at most common resolutions (this was the qualification you missed); I have everything on the highest setting and it runs fine at 1600 X 1200 and looks great.

Resolution alone does not dictate whether a game will run at acceptable levels.

What about texture detail? The whole point being that the more VRAM you have the more (larger) textures can be held without having to be swapped out as much. If you don't swap out textures as much you get much less 'stuttering' and 'popping', especially in built up areas.

I'm really happy that he's got the game running ok now. Truly. I did some MP last night and it was an absolute blast, so I can only hope more people can get the game working.

However, that doesn't change the fact that the more VRAM you have, the better the game will run when you have in-game settings to higher values. Its not just a case of '512MB VRAM will run this game, no problem' its more a case of '512MB VRAM will run the game, providing that in-game settings are set to lower values'.

As i've said previously, when I had my in-game VRAM set to Very High and the game didn't utilize both my GPUs VRAM (just one), I saw dozens of instances of exactly the same problem that the OP stated. That clearly shows that there are two variables to consider when attempting to run the game...

Available VRAM

and

In-game GFX settings

As soon as these two variables start to get out of sync, via in-game settings being set too high compared to the amount of VRAM there will be many instances of geometry rendering problems and associated graphical anomalies. Irrespective of system RAM or anything else.