New Beta Build 71382 Up!

[-=seany=- 5]

^ if people get 1 fps more they think the patch improved perf...

[EricM 0]

I seem to get more stutter as now than a couple of betas before (when they introduced exthread=3)... I don't see much difference with any of the exthread settings either...

[mcvittees 0]

Will the AI still use + waste AT ammo to blast a single soldier away?

Or will we get an AI that knows how to use + switch to different ammo types? Why is it for BIS so hard to implement such basic things?? :confused:

From my perspective, I want AT soldiers armed with RPGs to blast away at soldiers. It is totally keeping with insurgent tactical doctrine.:)

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I would want it to be skill based. A skilled russian AT soldier would know what ammo to use on what. An unskilled insurgent would fire anything he had on anything he saw.

[todayskiller 10]

You shouldn't need to set cpuCount with the latest beta(s). It sets it to "4" automatically for quad-cores.

I have to set mine everytime...Well idk about the cpucount=4 or w/e, but on the exthreads I have to, notice worse fps if I don't, goes from 28 when I don't add exthreads or cpucount, then 32 when I do add them.

[Evil Weasel 0]

Generally the betas have offered increasing stability and a slight increase in performance for me. The removal of the grass when flying has been particularly good as I find that it's now possible to fly at speed over Chernarous without fps dropping to single figures.

There is one thing, which was mentioned in previous beta threads, that I would like to see addressed. My default add-on set contains a lot of add-ons that run additional scripting ( Mando missile, SLX etc..). It's noticeable with the betas that the running of the scripts is very slow, to the extent that it can take 10's of seconds for them to respond to user input. Effectively a lot of the add-ons become useless.

I appreciate that Bis's main responsibility is to maximize the performance of the vanilla game but, given the number of people who use add-ons that run scripts, it would be great if they could look at this issue. I don't exactly know how the different threading options work, but if it was possible to introduce an option that prioritized the running of scripts that would be fantastic.

[mcvittees 0]

I believe these issues are with the scripts themselves. They will only run as fast as your CPU can process them - it's the nature of the beast.

[Evil Weasel 0]

"I believe these issues are with the scripts themselves. They will only run as fast as your CPU can process them - it's the nature of the beast."

I appreciate this and I know that I probably do try and run a silly amount of scripts at one time. However there is a noticeable difference in the speed that scripts are run between the current betas and previous engine versions.

[quicksilver67 10]

Reporting an increase in random server crashes after system slowdown/artifacts with beta 71382. Occurring on custom map Isla Duala 4 times, Quesh once, and Utes once. Crashes occurred both with vanilla game and with addons. Server crashes seemed to occur after periods where a large amount of particles were being rendered at the same time (server is a quad core running at 4.06 gigahertz with Nvidia 295 GTX 1792 GDDR3 RAM video card, 64 bit Windows 7, and 6 gigs of RAM, so it should not be related to computing capability). Beta 71275 by contrast had one unexplained server crash on Quesh, and one on Isla Duala. Beta 71275 seemed to have periods of time after heavy particle rendering where the game was lagging, but did not crash as a result and regained speed after a few minutes.

[jw custom 56]

"I believe these issues are with the scripts themselves. They will only run as fast as your CPU can process them - it's the nature of the beast."

I appreciate this and I know that I probably do try and run a silly amount of scripts at one time. However there is a noticeable difference in the speed that scripts are run between the current betas and previous engine versions.

Some beta patches back there was a "script lag" issue but last i checked it was fixed, almost, they still don't run as fast as in 1.05(haven't tested latest beta though). But a 10s delay most be something your end!

[Wolfstriked 11]

Edit NM it is fixed.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Wolfstriked

[rübe 127]

I would want it to be skill based. A skilled russian AT soldier would know what ammo to use on what. An unskilled insurgent would fire anything he had on anything he saw.

Why not go one step further and take it to the faction level, where it really would belong. Sure, skill is important too in this regard, but even more important is the implemented doctrine, training or tactics of a faction. Skill represents only variance, but isn't anything that would change your combatbehaviour fundamentally. In fact, the chain of AI thought should go something like: faction tactic > unit class tactic > skill.

Open it to be modded, get people to implement their own faction including faction tactics and start the tournaments (just like the robotards olympics)!

Only this would make it really valuable to have lots of different factions/units, for they wouldn't be simple reskins anymore, instead a new faction would really alter gameplay. Also it would be fun as heck to watch groups fighting with really different tactics.

Sorry for the interruption (and beeing slightly offtopic), you guys may go on now with the beta patch talk. Runs fine over here. :D

[otrebla_snake_ita 2]

there's still the AT launcher vs infantry bug?

Here's a user-made fix

http://www.armedassault.info/index.php?cat=news&id=4353&game=1

BIS should solve it asap

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Why not go one step further and take it to the faction level, where it really would belong. Sure, skill is important too in this regard, but even more important is the implemented doctrine, training or tactics of a faction. Skill represents only variance, but isn't anything that would change your combatbehaviour fundamentally. In fact, the chain of AI thought should go something like: faction tactic > unit class tactic > skill.

Open it to be modded, get people to implement their own faction including faction tactics and start the tournaments (just like the robotards olympics)!

Only this would make it really valuable to have lots of different factions/units, for they wouldn't be simple reskins anymore, instead a new faction would really alter gameplay. Also it would be fun as heck to watch groups fighting with really different tactics.

Tying it to a faction doesn't make a lotta sense (what if you have highly trained special forces in your normally poorly trained faction?). However, the appropriate place to define such behavour would be in the AI FSMs. This will tie it to specific units, afterall the type of unit would determine what training they have and what tactics they use. So if you give the Insurgent base class the "waste all rockets on infantry" FSM, all Insurgent units will inherit and use it.

FSMs are still not being fully utilized since all combat units use the same one AFAIK. They only differ between soldiers, civilians, and (well of course) animals.

[Gera_CCT 12]

Got 3 Crashes today with this beta...The way this is going, we will have OA earlier than 1.06 .

[Big Dawg KS 6]

You do realize that ArmA 2 will be patched anyway when OA is released, to add those updates in OA to ArmA 2.

[demonlord89 10]

Got crashes also with exthread=7 havnt tried any else. And much worse performance than before.

[Protegimus 0]

I absolutely do not want this 'fixed', there's no reason to prevent the AI or anyone else from using whatever assets are available to them.

As there is a third party config available for those that want it, can we please leave it at that?

;1649511']there's still the AT launcher vs infantry bug?

Here's a user-made fux

Build 71382 runs very well for me with -cpuCount=8 -exThreads=7 parameters

...until I join a public server and someone is using an addon that I don't have or that isn't compatible, at which point it will CTD - not really BIS problem, but certainly a consideration.

Protegimus

[nobrainer 0]

-exThreads=N

Should you enable multiple threading on the cpu or not?

I have a i7 960 running and turned of threading in the bios, but with this new setting, should I turn it on again?

I use -exThread=1 since it's a dedicated server and I think it should not need to load any geometry or textures or do I think wrong here?

And why does my Win7 64-bit, 4 cores, 12 GB memory server only use 1 core and not all 4?

[MavericK96 0]

-exThreads=N

Should you enable multiple threading on the cpu or not?

I have a i7 960 running and turned of threading in the bios, but with this new setting, should I turn it on again?

I use -exThread=1 since it's a dedicated server and I think it should not need to load any geometry or textures or do I think wrong here?

And why does my Win7 64-bit, 4 cores, 12 GB memory server only use 1 core and not all 4?

I assume you mean you have HyperThreading off in BIOS, and you should leave it off because it is not useful and is sometimes even detrimental to performance in gaming. Having a quad-core, your exThreads is set to 7 automatically unless you specify otherwise. And it should be utilizing all cores; it does for me and I have a similar rig.

[sbsmac 0]

Build 71382 runs very well for me with -cpuCount=8 -exThreads=7 parameters

It will almost certainly run significantly better with -cpuCount=4 (ie avoiding hyperthreading). Here are my results (i920 like yours)...

Edited June 14, 2010 by sbsmac

[kroky 1]

this beta keeps on crashing for me either.

[InFireBaptize 0]

no crashes for me so far in SP and MP. Used ACE in MP and no ACE in SP. Set exThreads to 7 and worked fine with my CPU. As you can see from my sig. my CPU is O.C to 3.8 GHZ.

[bensdale 0]

It will almost certainly run significantly better with -cpuCount=4 (ie avoiding hyperthreading). Here are my results (i920 like yours)...

Can you make a Test with disable HT in bios?

I ask because i noticed if i set cpuCount 4 with HT on (in the bios options) it runs still one vitual core with three native cores.

thats not so serious but i think with many AI this can make the difference.

[otrebla_snake_ita 2]

I absolutely do not want this 'fixed', there's no reason to prevent the AI or anyone else from using whatever assets are available to them.

As there is a third party config available for those that want it, can we please leave it at that?

Build 71382 runs very well for me with -cpuCount=8 -exThreads=7 parameters

...until I join a public server and someone is using an addon that I don't have or that isn't compatible, at which point it will CTD - not really BIS problem, but certainly a consideration.

Protegimus

No, that makes no sense: if one of my soldiers use one rocket against ONE enemy soldier (just injuring) him I don't want this rocket-waste and yes, it's a bug.

Enemy infantry shot me RPG rockets a lot of time just injuring me, so I was able to kill them. If they would have used their rifle, they could kill me.