70054-70184 stability and performance feedback, compared to 1.05

Describe 70054-70184 stability and performance compared to 1.05 version.   75 members have voted

1. 1. Describe 70054-70184 stability and performance compared to 1.05 version.

• Stunning - performance a lot better, a lot more stable
2
• Great - performance is a lot better, no new crashes or stability issues
4
• Good - performance is a little bit better, no new crashes or stability issues
24
• Mixed - performance better, but unstable (sometimes crashing)
4
• Stable - performance same or not improved much, but a lot more stable
8
• Same - it seems the same, I cannot see any significant difference
17
• Slower - it runs a little bit slower, no new crashes or stability issues
6
• Bad - it runs slower, it is somewhat unstable
5
• Terrible - it runs a a lot slower, or it is very unstable (crashes a lot)
5

Recommended Posts

How would you describe 70054 stability and performance compared to 1.05 version?

Share on other sites

I voted for "Good - performance is a little bit better, no new crashes or stability issues" as, well, it is. Got a little bit of a stutter/slow-LODs issue, but it seems inconsistant.

Perhaps it would be good to merge this thread with this one?

Share on other sites

Thank you for the new beta and again FWIW...

Unfortunately the micro stuttering is still there on my machine and I've tried to figure out whats causing it??? Maybe it's my machine but nothing has changed and 1.05 final nor beta build 63826 are experiencing these problems.

For previous two builds I was suspecting the micro stuttering was when the HDD was accessed but now with this 70054 build even if the HDD light isn't (very) active and FPS is ~30-40 the micro stuttering is still evident while running on Utes.

I tried to restoring GPU_MaxFramesAhead and GPU_DetectedFramesAhead to default settings but no go. Also tried to change the Video Memory settings in game and there I noticed that if set to High or Very High the micro stuttering actually became a bit worse (I usually have Video Memory set to Default).

As previous this simple test was done on Utes with me as infantry walking/running in terrain, no other units/scripts running.

Windows XP Pro

Intel C2D E6850 @ 3.41 GHz

2 GB RAM @ 1066 MHz

2 x Seagate ST3250620AS SATA-II 250 GB HDD

GeForce GTX 260 896 MB with drivers 191.07 WHQL

Haven't experienced any stability issues but voted "Bad - it runs slower, it is somewhat unstable" in the poll.

/KC

Edited by KeyCat

Share on other sites

I'd like to hear comments from the guys who voted for "great", I didn't notice any performance increases :p

Edited by Kristian
fixed my poor ol' grammar

Share on other sites
I'd like to hear comments from the guys who voted for "great", I didntnotice any performance increases :p

:(

I used to get around 25-33 FPS in the city, and 33-40 in the forests, now i am getting 34-45 in the city, and 40-50 in the forest. I'm quite pleased :)

I don't know what this patch has done compared to the last beta patch, but it does seem to run better.. i think... :p

GPU mem usage is around 963MB for me

edit:

I notice some slight stuttering in the city, as well as some trees looking low-detail from close up.

edit2:

I can now fly comfortably @ high speeds in a jet :) 50 FPS everywhere.

Edited by Fox '09

Share on other sites

Hello and good evening,

this is the first time I give a feedback on the arma2 Beta, but I try to explain everything as good as possible for my Level.

Situation:

I have a little Linux Dedi Server (You can't call it a "Server", it isn't a Hardcore Bam Bam Computer, it is only a computer :D). Well, I made settings for a Server with ACE Mods (For Warfare BE 2.059 ACE Lite) and Vanilla ArmA2.

Definately a problem:

If I run the ACE Warfare mission, my Client crashes after some time (the 69872 ran for maybe 2minutes, than crashed). With the new Version, it stays for... 10 minutes? But it still crashes - means - he restarts.

I didn't test it this much without ACE, but it seems to run more stable on Vanilla, but I can't give 100 % for me.

My System:

ASUS P7P55D

Intel i5 750

2x2GB DDRIII 1333 (means 4GB)

ATI HD 5870 (with 10.4 Driver)

OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64Bit

My last RPT entries:

=====================================================================

== D:\Games\ArmAII\beta\arma2.exe

== "D:\Games\ArmAII\beta\arma2.exe" -nosplash -world=empty -mod=beta;@CBA;@ACE;@ACEX;@ACEX_PLA;@isla_duala;@panthera

=====================================================================

Exe timestamp: 2010/05/03 19:31:41

Current time: 2010/05/03 22:04:50

Item str_disp_server_control listed twice

Item STR_USRACT_ZEROING_DOWN listed twice

Item STR_USRACT_ZEROING_UP listed twice

Updating base class ->Default, by ca\characters\config.bin/CfgFaces/Man/

Updating base class ->SoldierEB, by ca\characters2\config.bin/CfgVehicles/Ins_Soldier_Base/

Updating base class ->Ins_Soldier_Base, by ca\characters2\config.bin/CfgVehicles/Ins_Commander/

Updating base class Soldier->CDF_Soldier_Base, by ca\characters2\config.bin/CfgVehicles/CDF_Soldier_Light/

Updating base class Turrets->Turrets, by x\ace\addons\c_vehicle\config.bin/CfgVehicles/BMP2_Base/Turrets/

Updating base class MainTurret->MainTurret, by x\ace\addons\c_vehicle\config.bin/CfgVehicles/BMP2_Base/Turrets/MainTurret/

Updating base class Turrets->Turrets, by x\ace\addons\c_vehicle\config.bin/CfgVehicles/BMP2_Base/Turrets/MainTurret/Turrets/

Updating base class MainTurret->MainTurret, by x\ace\addons\c_vehicle\config.bin/CfgVehicles/AAV/Turrets/MainTurret/

Exe version: 1.05.70054

327.113 (0) XEH: PreInit Started

338.327 (0) XEH: PreInit Finished

345.847 (0) XEH: PostInit Started

349.265 (0) XEH: PostInit Finished

0:05:50,035 (0:00:00,000) [x\cba\addons\common\init.sqf:4] MISSINIT: missionName=WarfareV2_059Lite-ACE, worldName=Chernarus, isMultiplayer=true, isServer=false

I don't know if this is helpful - but I will try to gather a bit more information about how it runs on my system

Share on other sites

I voted "stable". Performance seems about the same as the previous beta (which is improved from 1.05, so still good) and I did my standard Chernogorsk low flyby test about 10 times in a row and I couldn't get the game to crash with this new beta. So all in all it looks like virtual memory allocation is much improved. I still get noticeable drops in framerate flying over Chernogorsk, as well as some what I guess I would call "micro-stutter", where sometimes the sound will cut for a split second and the framerate will stutter a bit. But typically these only happen over Chernogorsk, which is the largest city, so performance elsewhere should be better. However, this is also testing with only myself in an A-10 and no AI, so it's hard to say how that would perform. I'll probably run some more tests with AI running soon.

All in all, good beta! I'd like to see the real changelog, though, since it doesn't seem to have been updated.

Share on other sites

Are the latest betas nvidia- patches or what? I still have up to 30% performance- loss since 63826 with i7 920/ 5850.

Share on other sites
Hello and good evening,

Situation:

I have a little Linux Dedi Server (You can't call it a "Server", it isn't a Hardcore Bam Bam Computer, it is only a computer :D). Well, I made settings for a Server with ACE Mods (For Warfare BE 2.059 ACE Lite) and Vanilla ArmA2.

Definately a problem:

If I run the ACE Warfare mission, my Client crashes after some time (the 69872 ran for maybe 2minutes, than crashed). With the new Version, it stays for... 10 minutes? But it still crashes - means - he restarts.

I didn't test it this much without ACE, but it seems to run more stable on Vanilla, but I can't give 100 % for me.

Yes, be careful with ACE2, since they need to adapt everytime a new beta patch appears, use vanilla for testing and feedback. Check back with ACE2 in a week or so, until they caught up with Beta.

For me recently, the issues with the trees got worse, but I think it's driver related; see http://dev-heaven.net/issues/7866 - if you notice this issue too, please give some feedback about GPU, CPU and drivers involved. Thanks!

EDIT: Well, since -FLUSH resets the FPS, it's probably not only driver related...

Are the latest betas nvidia- patches or what? I still have up to 30% performance- loss since 63826 with i7 920/ 5850.

Can you see if your issue disappears by rolling back to the february Beta patch? You probably experience the same as I do, and yes if rolling back does not help, it's the driver.

Edited by Fireball

Share on other sites

With this last beta patch i have this entries in .rpt file

=====================================================================

== K:\ArmA 2\arma2.exe

== "K:\ArmA 2\arma2.exe" -nosplash -world=empty -maxMem=2047 -cpuCount=2 -noFilePatching -noPause -showScriptErrors -mod=beta

=====================================================================

Exe timestamp: 2010/05/03 20:51:39

Current time: 2010/05/04 00:07:03

Item str_disp_server_control listed twice

Item STR_USRACT_ZEROING_DOWN listed twice

Item STR_USRACT_ZEROING_UP listed twice

Exe version: 1.05.70054

Share on other sites

I'm crashing a lot since this beta patch. Here's my RPT...strange...

Last created message is bad:
sending message: 43cc9c78 (type Type_124), id = 17f44
attached object info: 6d1b518
last created message: 4834a138, id = 17f44
last sent message: 1d4d8eb8


Share on other sites

Can you see if your issue disappears by rolling back to the february Beta patch? You probably experience the same as I do, and yes if rolling back does not help, it's the driver.

Rolling back to 63826 or 1.05 vanilla makes it AAA+ again.

Share on other sites

I dont know if it is related to this patch, but explosives near the player "blow" him back on the floor.

Share on other sites

VOTED STABLE

When compared to 1.05 my home computer has not benefited much from the betas â€“ albeit the FPS does overall appear to be less subject to random fluctuations. My laptop is blazing along however.

As for 70054

I notice few changes. The only new thing was a texture artefact on a RPG18 worn by a Russian soldier. Viewed from certain angles the texture would whiteout or appear missing.

Oh, also as I was zooming around in camera(.sqs) mode I noticed that I could only hear part of what the soldiers were saying. I didnâ€™t really experiment with it, Iâ€™m guessing it appeared fractioned _because_ I was zooming around. :P

In terms of gameplay I still see the tired old things.

Suicide Squad leaders, Pistol-animation mobility freezes, excessive bounding (near immobile in combat mode), etc

How ARMA2-AI is going to handle the heavily urbanized terrain OA seems to offer or just the plain ol' open desert will be a sight to see. Not as a negative. I'm pretty excited.

-k

Edited by NkEnNy

Share on other sites

For me the fps itself is better. But still during saving (bigger missions) and longer time playing the game often crashes. It has gotten somewhat better over time but it still happens often enough.

One of the generated errors is:

ErrorMessage: Out of memory (requested 0 KB).

footprint 941076214 KB.

pages 16384 KB.

This crash came during saving.

So all in all, good performance, bad stability...

Share on other sites

"10067: Too long modline crashes the game at startup" (must be a lie)

Or in the new beta case, comes up with

error " error compliling pixel shader PSSpecularAlpha:0"?

if you have any addons in the target line, only starts for me when no addons are in target line and it looks like this

"C:\Program Files\Bohemia Interactive\ArmA 2\Bohemia Interactive\beta\arma2.exe" -mod=beta -nosplash

any body got this problem as well?

Share on other sites

Have been testing more:

All of these were done on Chernarus.

First one was with UH-1 with 7 KM view distance. I could not get it to crash actually with it, probably over very long time I would, but it felt very smooth and stable. I even was able to put the view distance to 10 KM.

Second test was with SU-34 still with 10 KM view distance. Also smooth and did not crash.

Third test was again with SU-34, 10 KM view but this time 150 units added to it. The performance was quite good but it crashed quite quickly with the following errors in .rpt file:

ErrorMessage: Out of memory (requested 1790 KB).

footprint 697923904 KB.

pages 16384 KB.

Share on other sites
error " error compliling pixel shader PSSpecularAlpha:0"?

delete the beta folder, reinstall beta, use shortcut created

Share on other sites

I voted same (as 1.05).

1.05 - good

63826 - good (used since day it came out)

69645 - bad, white textures, stuttering (used for about an hour, then back to 63826)

69782 - good as 63826 (used for 6 hours +)

70054 - good as 63826 (used so far an hour +)

All settings VERY HIGH (video memory - DEFAULT), 1680 x 1050, 3000 VD, PP off.

Playing 'When Diplomacy Fails', as host with AI, and runs fine.

Everything feels about the same (performance wise, I don't pay attention to AI) since 1.05.

But 69645 was as bad as the game has ever run (I should say the only time the game ran bad, performance since release has always been fine for me).

The benchmarks, with all the different betas (vanilla, no mods, using my VERY HIGH settings), have all been about the same, 1 or 2 FPS difference... I go by feel not FPS, so I pay little attention to numbers. CTD are very rare (almost never, once a month maybe?) and I honestly don't look at the reports either.

Share on other sites

Stable - performance same or not improved much, but a lot more stable

That means, in some areas performance has increased pretty much. Unfortunately, not in the areas I would like it the most, or rather, is forced to fight the most, which is in the woods. Those red trees? Still a nightmare for my 9800GTX card at normal.

Arma has always been pretty much rock stable for me. Only highly annoying hang is during editor in windowed mode when I alt-tab back and forth between i.e. a text editor and Arma editor. Has been like this for way too long.

Share on other sites
delete the beta folder, reinstall beta, use shortcut created

I tried that and i still get the error..

Sorry it was the "@okt_noblur" mod i was running that was giving me that error.

Edited by OrdeaL

Share on other sites

seems about the same as the last beta for me. 22FPS on benchmark 1; but playable as I don't get the stutters. Got ~18-19 for benchmark 2; but that's understandable as my CPU is lacking.

In multiplayer I maintain a constant 28-32 FPS and is very smooth

Share on other sites
Script lag still not fixed... and back to 63826 :(

Xeno

http://dev-heaven.net/issues/10383

That was what I was talking about.

And it causes me a lot of trouble as some things simply don't work as expected anymore.

Xeno

^ This :(

Share on other sites

Please do not run any addons when testing the new betas as they can cause slowdowns or errors. This to be sure BI gets proper information.

Thank you. :)

Share on other sites

My test results are basically identical to the test results done with the earlier patch (differences between 1.05 patch and the beta).

So I'd dare to speculate that this beta is more or less the same as the earlier one ;)

And yes, the script lag is definitely there so +1 for that issue here too.. :(