Video memory, very high or default?

[W0lle 1050]

Back in the early days I had problems in some areas if my video memory was set to default, changing it to high solved them. Since that I haven't changed it but I guess with a GTX295 very high should work well (GTX280 here).

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

Back in the early days I had problems in some areas if my video memory was set to default, changing it to high solved them. (GTX280 here).

Dito....(GTX285 1gig)

[shuurajou 10]

I still haven't got this sorted out.

- In game settings do not change the CFG (it always reports 255mb when it should be 512mb)

- Altering my system ram from 8GB to 6GB makes ArmA2 misreport the vram down to 213mbs. Again, in-game settings do nothing.

- CFG file is NOT read only

- SLI no longer has any effect. Better frame rates with it off.

None of that was true with Win XP 32bit and 2gb of ram, but going to Win7 63 bit and 8gb totally screwed things over. I am getting less and less arsed to care about it.

Have you tried the -winxp command?

---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ----------

As PC gamers, we're used to getting our heads around the wonderful fun that video options present us with. Thanks to these options screens, the greater mass now understands what the hell anisotropic filtering is, and the rest.

But why, BIS, introduce an all-new setting never before seen, that is ambiguous in meaning, where there is no precedent, and despite endless forum posts on your own site - offer NO EXPLANATION?

Leaving us to speculate, trial and error test and end up in a bloody mess of confusion?

Can ONE member of the BIS team take 2 MINUTES to post and explain? ...please...?

It's like you hate us and are laughing at our collective confusion.

Amen.

[shuurajou 10]

Back in the early days I had problems in some areas if my video memory was set to default, changing it to high solved them. Since that I haven't changed it but I guess with a GTX295 very high should work well (GTX280 here).

W0lle, is there any means you have to get BIS to explain definitively how we should use the video memory setting. If it's linked to the localVRAM and nonlocalVRAM cfg file entries it'd be great to get an explanation on that too.

[Gutm@sher 10]

W0lle, is there any means you have to get BIS to explain definitively how we should use the video memory setting. If it's linked to the localVRAM and nonlocalVRAM cfg file entries it'd be great to get an explanation on that too.

now wouldnt that be nice?

[Kramxel 10]

I'll add on by saying that allowing the game to use all your memory my not be the greatest of things.

If you have a not so powerful machine, forcing it to load all textures in the memory may lead, and leads, to lower performance....

It's kind of a trade off...

In my experience, Q6600 (4GB) with Geforce 9600GT (1GB), using "default" has helped my frame rate...

[xclusiv8 10]

i have a q6600 @ 3.2Ghz, 4gb ram and a 8800GTS 512. Which setting do you guys think i should use??

[datter 0]

Have you tried the -winxp command?

---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ----------

Amen.

Yes, without -winxp I get the typical blocky texture problem you see with 8GB of ram. The -winxp switch does not help the other issues however nor does the various other suggestions people have been nice enough to send along. A new driver update (190.62) didn't help either, and yes that's after properly uninstalling the older ones.

I've run my gas tank dry trouble shooting this game. I freakin' had it too, prior to Win7 and 8GB... then it was back to square one. Real shame as Win7 is absolutely worth the upgrade, and given the work I do the 8GB is not going away either. I just haven't got any more ArmA2 troubleshooting in me right now, which sucks given my history with these games. Looks like it's just going to take up HD space for the time being, and hopefully I'll spot some sort of fix in here or get my energy up to sort this crap out again. Failing that, we'll see what the future holds in the next few months.

PS - As to BIS taking the time to explain some things about the game here... Placebo seems to have time to come bitch me out in the comments on my blog if I post something unfavorable so I don't think it's so much a lack of time on their part, as a complete lack of interest. :(

Edited August 25, 2009 by datter

[no use for a name 0]

i have a q6600 @ 3.2Ghz, 4gb ram and a 8800GTS 512. Which setting do you guys think i should use??

uh, whichever runs the game at acceptable frames....we can't magically tell you the best combo for your hardware. It's trial and error on your part

[shuurajou 10]

Yes, without -winxp I get the typical blocky texture problem you see with 8GB of ram. The -winxp switch does not help the other issues however nor does the various other suggestions people have been nice enough to send along. A new driver update (190.62) didn't help either, and yes that's after properly uninstalling the older ones.

I've run my gas tank dry trouble shooting this game. I freakin' had it too, prior to Win7 and 8GB... then it was back to square one. Real shame as Win7 is absolutely worth the upgrade, and given the work I do the 8GB is not going away either. I just haven't got any more ArmA2 troubleshooting in me right now, which sucks given my history with these games. Looks like it's just going to take up HD space for the time being, and hopefully I'll spot some sort of fix in here or get my energy up to sort this crap out again. Failing that, we'll see what the future holds in the next few months.

PS - As to BIS taking the time to explain some things about the game here... Placebo seems to have time to come bitch me out in the comments on my blog if I post something unfavorable so I don't think it's so much a lack of time on their part, as a complete lack of interest. :(

Datter, with NVIDIA driver 190.38 (WHQL) installed, click start > run > msconfig > go to boot settings > advanced and limit memory to say 3584. Then reboot. Run arma 2. Close it - see if your localVRAM is reported close (will be a few megs out probably). Despite popular belief, it seems that the values populated in the CFG are only what Arma 2 had detected, Arma 2 doesn't seem to actually use those values - merely shows you what it's working with - you have no control if you fiddle with localVRAM=X in the CFG.

Although as BIS haven't told us officially this is all speculation.

Edited August 25, 2009 by shuurajou

[rstratton 0]

gtx 260 1792mb

video memory set to default with no issues

localVRAM=1865092864;

nonlocalVRAM=527433727;

[datter 0]

Datter, with NVIDIA driver 190.38 (WHQL) installed, click start > run > msconfig > go to boot settings > advanced and limit memory to say 3584. Then reboot. Run arma 2. Close it - see if your localVRAM is reported close (will be a few megs out probably).

Mentioned that in the other thread. Tried limiting it to 6GB to no effect, and while restricting things more might help I just don't want to be doing that everytime I feel like playing this damned game. :(

Despite popular belief, it seems that the values populated in the CFG are only what Arma 2 had detected, Arma 2 doesn't seem to actually use those values - merely shows you what it's working with - you have no control if you fiddle with localVRAM=X in the CFG.

Although as BIS haven't told us officially this is all speculation.

Interesting thought, but as you said as no one at BIS seems to give a shit (unless you post negatively about things on your blog), we're left guessing. They're awesome at moving threads around for no fucking reason though.

[S-M 10]

Just to update, i switched to "default" last night with my gtx275 and it smoothed everything right out a treat :D

Especially the texture pop i was getting.

[shuurajou 10]

Just to update, i switched to "default" last night with my gtx275 and it smoothed everything right out a treat :D

Especially the texture pop i was getting.

I think it's what I'd expect. The GTX 275 has more memory than 512 (which I think (yet to be confirmed) is the limit of 'very high'). The default setting should basically allow Arma 2 to auto-detect the amount of memory your GFX card has. As you have less then 8GB Arma 2 was able to do this successfully hence your improved performance.

[kklownboy 43]

i can run veryhigh or default on ATI and the performance is the same. I think the whole default issue is more a nvda thing? Or GDDR3. Maybe do to GDDR5 that ATI has, the issue of fragmentation they had, that was fixed...( maybe when they fixed that they broke nvda...) but if you do get more vidram usage your ability to use the filltering is much improved. But i havent a clue. i have 4gb of vram with 2gb usable.

[Kramxel 10]

I think it's what I'd expect. The GTX 275 has more memory than 512 (which I think (yet to be confirmed) is the limit of 'very high'). The default setting should basically allow Arma 2 to auto-detect the amount of memory your GFX card has. As you have less then 8GB Arma 2 was able to do this successfully hence your improved performance.

You are confusing video memory with system memory...

[shuurajou 10]

You are confusing video memory with system memory...

In what context? BI support have confirmed that Arma 2 autodetects the amount of RAM on your video card.

[ONINQOSMIOX300 10]

:bounce3:

HEY i used flush memory in the arma 2 and it was great,,,i can play with 1440 x 900 resolution with my qosmios x300-130 laptop with very high settings..i have nvidia 9700m gts graphics card and a 2.40 ghz dual centrino 2 p8600 processor...thanks guys for the help....

[methods 10]

I have gotten higher performance ona 1gb 8800 using default rather than Very high.

Before textures would take a long time to load, and if I looked away from my team then looked back their textures would be unloaded. The issue is much less of an issue on Default.

[datter 0]

I have gotten higher performance ona 1gb 8800 using default rather than Very high.

Before textures would take a long time to load, and if I looked away from my team then looked back their textures would be unloaded. The issue is much less of an issue on Default.

That is exactly because "very high" gives you 512mb, or half of your video ram, where "default" lets it use all 1gb of it. Try upgrading your system to Win7 and 8GB of ram and see how things work out, it's entirely likely you'll see something like 200mbs of vram detected. :(

[Kramxel 10]

In what context? BI support have confirmed that Arma 2 autodetects the amount of RAM on your video card.

Re-read your post...

You're talking about VRAM and then you talk about RAM at the very end....

The setting is for VRAM not RAM!

[shuurajou 10]

Re-read your post...

You're talking about VRAM and then you talk about RAM at the very end....

The setting is for VRAM not RAM!

VRAM stands for Video RAM - it is the RAM that is on your graphics card. However, I knew what I was saying. There is a bug, that if you have 8GB normal system RAM, Arma 2 doesn't correctly auto detect your VRAM. It was meant to be fixed but has not been.

In Bohemia's words from the 1.02 change log - "Fixed localVRAM detection on Vista x64 systems with 8 GB RAM and more" - this bug is still present in 1.03 sadly.

I am well aware the in game setting is surrounding video memory (VRAM). However, the in game 'default' video memory setting, autodetection of VRAM, the localVRAM paremeter & 8GB of PC RAM are linked.

The 'default' video setting makes use of Arma 2's auto VRAM detection - but if you have more than 8GB RAM, the auto-detection is often broken for VRAM, making the default 'video memory' setting do more harm than good as in some examples it only detects 2MB of VRAM.

Edited August 27, 2009 by shuurajou

[Kramxel 10]

VRAM stands for Video RAM - it is the RAM that is on your graphics card. However, I knew what I was saying. There is a but that if you have more normal system RAM, it doesn't correctly auto detect your VRAM. It was meant to be fixed but has not been.

In Bohemia's words from the 1.02 change log - "Fixed localVRAM detection on Vista x64 systems with 8 GB RAM and more" - this bug is still present in 1.03 sadly.

Oh ok!

Sorry then!

Didn't know about that... just thought you had it mixed...

---------- Post added at 12:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 AM ----------

2 MBs LOL!!!!

[shuurajou 10]

Oh ok!

Sorry then!

Didn't know about that... just thought you had it mixed...

---------- Post added at 12:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 AM ----------

2 MBs LOL!!!!

No worries... I know - 2MB is crazy.

Many GTX 285/275/260 users with 8GB RAM may get blank looking textures when you do not use '-winxp' or anything like that - if you look at your CFG file and calculate the bytes value into megabytes users will likely find a similar value to 2MB has been detected (if you're one of these users). It explains the blank one colour textures really - you can't fit much of any maps textures in 2MB.

Edited August 27, 2009 by shuurajou

[Slain 10]

Wow...setting the video memory back to default fixed all the problems I was having with my GTX295...slow texture loads and slow fps.....the only setting I hadn't tried lol....