New Beta Build 71141 up!

[maddogx 13]

Seit dem Beta-Patch" 70951" und auch in diesem Beta-Patch" 71141" fehlen unter Einzelspieler/ Trainingslager die ganzen Missionen.

Könnte das jemand mal ins Englische übersetzen.

Danke

Translation:

Since beta 70951 and beta 71141 there are no more missions under Single Player or Training Camp.

AFAIK, no one else has reported that problem so far. It's probably something on your end.

/

Du bist soweit ich weiß der erste der von dem Problem betroffen ist. Wahrscheinlich ist bei dir irgendwas schiefgelaufen.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Seit dem Beta-Patch" 70951" und auch in diesem Beta-Patch" 71141" fehlen unter Einzelspieler/ Trainingslager die ganzen Missionen.

Könnte das jemand mal ins Englische übersetzen.

Danke

First, this is an English forum, meaning the only acceptable language to post in is Engish.

Second, thank you MadDogX for the translation. I can confirm that this is not an issue for me with 70951, and I haven't tried 71141 but I doubt it will change anything. So yea it must be something strange on his end.

[Nikoladis 12]

AFAIK, no one else has reported that problem so far. It's probably something on your end.

No, its not only on his end. Check out Link to bug.

[Eclipse4349 0]

I dont know if this is the appropriate place to ask this, and if not, I apologize. I was wondering if the latest beta patch has addressed AI subordinates never recovering from super-slow-moving-bounding-overwatch-pay-no-attention-to-the-squad-leader's-position-or-his-move-orders issue that always happens after they make enemy contact. It's a game breaker, and everyone I know who plays is anxiously awaiting a fix for it.

Thanks!

Edited June 3, 2010 by Eclipse4349

[darthmuller_cro 10]

This beta boost my preformance well with -exThreads=7. Benchmarks are the same compared to -exThreads=3, but my missions from editor i think are best for testing in this situation. In Chernarus while moving mouse to some arias with lot of buildings and vegetation there are much less slowdowns with command 7. No crashes in my case on my rig.

[Yapab 10]

Thank you BIS for working on the performance side of things :) Will be testing soon.

Can anyone clarify what the various options do?

exThreads=0 ?

exThreads=1 ?

exThreads=2 ?

exThreads=3 ?

exThreads=5 ?

exThreads=7 ?

Default for 2 Core cpu = 0 as Suma said, but what is the default for 4 Core CPU??

Thanks,

Yapa

[Muahaha 10]

My experience with this beta generally improving but having weird flashes when i used -exthreads=7 in benchmark missions.

Best gaming experience when I use default settings without specifying -exthreads while having 1 fps increase with -exthreads=7.

Since I am using a Quad processor, i assume it should be running under -exthreads=3.

[geloxo 2]

According to patch changelog should be:

Parameter exThreads=N to control extra threading. Following values of N are currently supported:

0 = no extra threads

1 = file operations

3 = texture loading

5 = thread geometry loading only

7 = thread all

So, in my opinion, the parameter it´s not dealing with how many number of cores your PC has but with what information those cores will manage as extra threads.

Cheers

[Insanatrix 0]

exthreads=7 has been giving me crashes throughout scenario missions. Not specifying exthreads in the command line seems to be the best for me. no crashes and good performance.

Specs are

Phenom II 940 @ 3.4ghz

4gb DDR2-800 OCZ gold

790GX chipset

4870 1gb Vapor-x

Win7 x64 home premium

[langgis08 10]

First, this is an English forum, meaning the only acceptable language to post in is Engish.

thx for reminding us of that :rolleyes:

det99 (you're welcome to the forum !) was asking very polite for translation, and that's what MadDogX did, very friendly both of them.

@Big Dawg KS: those comments should come from our moderators, and if it's necessary they'll do so.

I can confirm that this is not an issue for me with 70951, and I haven't tried 71141 but I doubt it will change anything. So yea it must be something strange on his end.

strange implication: there's a problem which you don't have and so you think it can't be a problem for anyone else ?

No, its not only on his end. Check out Link to bug

http://dev-heaven.net/issues/10884.

thx for that, Nikoladis

No. For dual-core default is set for -exthreads=0.

I guess, for quads default is set for -exthreads=0, too

did some testing: arma2 @71141 -exThreads=7 stable, but first benchmark (ArmA2 FPS analyser) lower than betas before (-exThreads=3), will test more of course with all possible -exThreads-parameters and in-game-testing is to be followed soon, too.

[Ish 11]

What does this do exactly, and why should I do it? If it's stated earlier, i clearly did not get it as I've read the entire thread. First I thought this had to do with hyper threading? :S:S

/edit, the why should I do it part comes to mind becuase nobody seems to have had any conclusive performance increase what so ever, and my A2 runs just fine most days, granted Chernarus is a bit unpredictable depending on location.

[Gera_CCT 12]

I was getting CTD, but like Xeno said, it was the option "no filepatching" that was activated in arma launcher, turn it off and good to go. :)

[todayskiller 10]

Well, on the FPS side...I get 1 less FPS than with -exThreads=3...with overall Geometry loading and such, It loads stuff a bit faster than -exThreads=3 so...Id take overall loading than 1 FPS.

-exThreads=5...has 2 less FPS, and slower loading times it seems like to me anyways. The last beta patch is the one where I had the best performance with -exThreads=3, had 34 FPS, now only 32 with -exThreads=3...but hey, if they even if it out between 30+fps and good loading times and such, I'm a happy man :).

Edited June 3, 2010 by todayskiller

[langgis08 10]

No, its not only on his end. Check out Link to bug.

so, I've checked this out for me @71141, too and: prob's on my end, too ;) : no training missions to select, selection menue totally blank

[Fox '09 14]

No crashes, but the results are similar to the default (no exthreads..?)

Specs:

i7 920 @ 4GHz

GTX 470 overclocked

8GB RAM (dual channel :( )

CPU usage was around 40~ percent,

Memory usage was around 900,000 K

GPU usage was almost always 80+ percent (good thing or not?)

Settings:

2500 VD

Everything else on Very high except..

Terrain was on normal,

Shadows were on normal

and Anti Aliasing was on 8.

Using the Inland benchmark from FPS analyzer:

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/2433/captureyti.png

Average was around 37 FPS... I cannot remember the rest, and I don't know where it saves that stuff :(

It felt a bit more smooth.

edit:

I am going to redo it with exthreads 0

new results are again similar. Colors go blue being ex threads 0. Rest are default being the slowest, exthreads 7 being the second, and 7 + cpu count 8 being the highest

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2922/capturekxs.png

Edited June 3, 2010 by Fox '09

[Yapab 10]

CPU usage was around 40~ percent,

Memory usage was around 900,000 K

GPU usage was almost always 80+ percent (good thing or not?)

.

Your GPU is almost maxed out, your CPU has plenty of room.

I would lower the AA to 4x or the "high" setting, you will notice your CPU usage go up and FPS too (probably).

Try without any AA and see how u go, should let the CPU usage go up.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

@Big Dawg KS: those comments should come from our moderators, and if it's necessary they'll do so

It's everyone's responsibility here to be familiar with the rules, and sometimes to remind others if they forget (or didn't read them to begin with). And here you're trying to tell me what I should and shouldn't say on these forums, to which I could respond the same way. You're no moderator yourself pal.

strange implication: there's a problem which you don't have and so you think it can't be a problem for anyone else ?

What is this now? All I said was that I in fact did NOT have this issue, therefore something is different on his end. Whether or not anyone else has the problem has nothing to do with it. I don't appreciate your apparent tone with that either. It was certainly not necessary for you to comment on my post like that, and now you're forcing me to go even further off topic, for which I am sorry.

[sbsmac 0]

I am going to redo it with exthreads 0

new results are again similar. Colors go blue being ex threads 0. Rest are default being the slowest, exthreads 7 being the second, and 7 + cpu count 8 being the highest

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2922/capturekxs.png

You can rename the traces with more user-friendly labels using the Benchmarks/Details menu option. Looking at this trace there are a couple of observations...

1) The auto-correlation is all over the place which means that you are seeing some really fast frames followed by some really slow frames. You might want to try sticking to -cpucount=4.

2) The best graph for comparison purposes is the "% time spent below frame-rate". I tend to look at where the curves cross the 20 fps vertical divider.In your trace you can see the difference is actually quite large at this end and remember it is the slow frames that are the ones that destroy the 'smoothness'. Ideally the curve would be so far to the right that it would miss the 20fps divider completely.

Edited June 3, 2010 by sbsmac

[Moxyz1 10]

Anyone have a setup with 3 Cores, and which exThreads= setting should i use with 3 core PC. ?? with this latest patch 71141.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Nemesis, can you upload that building destruction mission/script somewhere, so other peeps can test it? Sounds very interesting for performance testing, and I'm sure BIS would like to check it out too. :)

_ruin = this execVM "ruin.sqf"

sleep 5;

private ["_blgs", "_blg", "_blgtyp", "_scts", "_hitmx", "_sctcl", "_sct", "_chance"];
_blgs = nearestObjects [_this, ["Building"], 70000];
{ 
_blg = _x;
_blgtyp = typeOf _blg;
_scts = [];
_hitmx = (count (configFile >> "CfgVehicles" >> _blgtyp >> "HitPoints")) - 1;
for "_i" from 0 to _hitmx do {
	_sctcl = (configFile >> "CfgVehicles" >> _blgtyp >> "HitPoints") select _i;
	_sct = getText(_sctcl >> "name");
	_scts = _scts + [_sct];
};
_chance = round random count _scts;
if((count _scts) >= 2) then {
				{_blg setHit[_x,round random 0.75];} forEach _scts;
				_section = _scts select (round random count _scts);
				_blg setHit["_section",1];

			    };
if((count _scts) < 2) then {{_blg setHit[_x,1];} forEach _scts};
} forEach _blgs;

This is an edited version of the original version made by tcp which can be found here.

Please dont laugh at my changes, i never said that i could script properly. :p

[WillaCHilla 10]

Did a fast benchmark test with the new beta:

mission: TEST_FPS6-Chernogorsk.Chernarus

hardware/settings:- listed in my signature (video memory: default, terrain detail: normal)

Parameter:

-mod=beta "-name=[EC] WillaCHilla" -nosplash -world=Chernarus -maxMem=2047 -cpuCount=4 -exThreads=n

I did the benchmark-mission two times for each beta:

1.05.70951 -exThreads=3 : 39 (average), 26 (average minimum), 63 (highest), 2 (lowest)

1.05.71141 -exThreads=7 : 47 (average), 28 (average minimum), 74 (highest), 2 (lowest)

So-for me this is a big improvement in performance. Will test now how it works in some other missions.

[langgis08 10]

my results in a short formula ('>' = 'more fps than'):

(in game settings for BM/Arma2 FPS Analyser: all @very high except vd=3848, AA=high => these settings are just for testing, for gaming it's no fun with these and with my rig)

70951@exThreads3 > 71141@exThreads3 > 71141@exThreads7

so related to FPS build 70951 holds best benefits for my system

I guess especially my CPU (->spoiler down below) is too slow and can't keep up with the progresses the new 71141-build has made

[Tonci87 163]

I also have the Problem with missing Training Missions after the last Beta...

[Fireball 16]

I've made a comparison of patch 70951 (exThreads=3 vs 71141 exThreads=7) with the same settings (most settings to Normal, Shadows to Very High, PP off, AF Very High), Resolution 1680x1050.

I've used the Coastal Flight FPS BM.

Specially the % time spent below FPS tells the most interesting.

The lower (or flatter) the cuve, the better; so the blue measurement being the exThreads=7 from 71141 shows slightly better average FPS in the lower regions but it didn't go over 40 FPS so much anymore.

I guess that means with my 10% OC'ed Core i7 920 (HT off), that with my 8800 GTS 512MB, the GPU usage was already maxed pretty much.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Fireball

[NoRailgunner 0]

I got on a dual core overall 2-5 lower fps with this new 71141beta build than with previous 70951beta build. The parameters "-exThreads=0" and "-exThreads=3" give the best and roughly the same results. "-exThreads=1" gives the lowest and some more stuttering/slideshow.

Would be good to have some more ingame options to finetune A2 and to get smooth gameplay even in bigger cities. :)

Fireball do you have tested A2 with moving or attacking/defending AIs? Could be interesting how many AIs do have an impact on performance and how fast the performance drops down.