Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

ixnay

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    117

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by ixnay

  1. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]All I'd need is a good several hundred dollar editing program heh, or is that 1,000? I know Pro Tools is close to a thousand dollars.

    you could go for Adobe Audition that would do the trick as well.

    I'll second the vote for Adobe Audition. Since it was based off of Syntrillium's Cool Edit Pro (back in they day), it's an extremely intuitive interface. I've found no other editing program that works as well or is as fully featured.

    I use it for my voice-over work on a fairly regular basis.

  4. Posted

    Your video card does not support Shader Model 2

    Your video card supports Shader Model Zippo. It's a DX 8.0 card.. Way behind the times as is the rest of your system, to be perfectly honest.

    the 1950 from ATi is a good card, however you might want to also look into perhaps a whole new system if you're going to be playing ArmA with any fervor.

    Not sure what your budget is, but buying a new machine will net you quite a bit more performance for your enjoyment than simply tossing in a video card. Since you're limited to the AGP world, a more advanced video card is going to be gobs more expensive than an equivalent PCIe (modern graphics interface) card would be.

    My Recommendation? Complete overhaul. Splurge and get yourself a new system.

    Or, let us know what your budget looks like and what you reasonably afford to throw at this.

    Good luck!

  5. Posted

    That's it, mate. Use maxmem=512, or if you're like me, head all the way down to 256. It's the only way I can get the game to run for more than 5 minutes.  smile_o.gif

    Weird, I can play for hours now with no -maxmem command at all confused_o.gif

    Perhaps it's the whole 4GB thing again. Sucks that you paid more and are having to deal with jumping through hoops in order for it to work; Bollocks imo.

  9. Posted

    Also, for the record: (even though I use my XP partition to play) I no longer require the -maxmem command in order for vista to be stable, using the above hotfix.

    over 2 hours of playing and not one CTD. Ran sluggish as all heck compared to XP, but no crashies. So for what it's worth, that's a nice step in the right direction.

    My Setup:

    C2D 6400 o/c'd to 3.2ghz

    2GB (2x 1GB sticks) of Geil PC2-6400 C4

    8800 GTX running 163.44 drivers

    X-fi sound card

    Vista Ultimate 32bit / XP SP2 partition

    For those who don't like to read so much:

    NO MORE  -MAXMEM in VISTA !!!! (from my experience anyhow)

  10. Posted

    Vindicated! I posted this http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=67011 a few hours ago, but your post just gives this fix the credibility it deserves.

    Is it a problem that I also posted download links to the hotfix via 3rd party means? (Since MS is currently only taking these requests on a per call/email basis?) If so, I'll remove the download links, unless a mod beats me to it.

    Thanks Suma! Further proof that you guys do care and aren't "brushing off Vista just because...".

  14. Posted

    From the good folks at Locker Gnome: http://www.lockergnome.com/nexus....g-vista

    Quote[/b] ]Those who have been following the problems when using Vista for gaming are certainly aware of the memory problems being faced. Anyone using video cards with large memory caches (512 and up) have certainly hit the ceiling where games can do strange things without warning - and up until lately, without explanation.

    The testers at AnandTech have been doing a series on this problem, and have noted when and where the problems occur, but until part 3 of the series have only been able to postulate what the root cause could be.

    Now Microsoft is helping out, with the release of the above mentioned hotfix, which is not, as yet, available widely. While awaiting the widespread release, the reasons for the fix, and the cause of the memory grab by the operating system, not duplicated in Windows XP, have been given.

    The Windows Display Driver Model, rewritten for Vista, is the culprit here. The explanation for the problem has to do with Microsoft making the memory management for the system video a part of the OS, and relieving applications from doing the management. The problem occurs when older games (at this point, nearly all of them)are used. The games are trying to manage memory, and setting aside a pool, while Vista is doing the same. The memory pool is doubled, and there is where the system runs out, and experiences strange behavior.

    KB940105 will take care of this - but Microsoft also says that the fix is still ‘really hot’, as it is still in the process of change. It will be available for wide release soon, and testing shows it does alleviate some of the memory usage. Perhaps the further tweaking will bring memory usage in line with the same game’s memory footprint when used with XP.

    Here's the AnandTech article (good read) : http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3060&p=1

    Quote[/b] ]Microsoft has published knowledge base article 940105 on the matter, and with it has finalized a patch to reduce the high virtual address space usage of games under Vista. From this and our own developer sources, we can piece together the problem that was causing the high virtual address space issues under Vista.

    As it turns out, our initial guess about the issue being related to memory allocations being limited to the 2GB of user space for security reasons was wrong, the issue is simpler than that. One of the features of the Windows Vista Display Driver Model (WDDM) is that video memory is no longer a limited-sharing resource that applications will often take complete sovereign control of; instead the WDDM offers virtualization of video memory so that all applications can use what they think is video memory without needing to actually care about what else is using it - in effect removing much of the work of video memory management from the application. From both a developer's and user's perspective this is great as it makes game/application development easier and multiple 3D accelerated applications get along better, but it came with a cost.

    All of that virtualization requires address space to work with; Vista uses an application's 2GB user allocation of virtual address space for this purpose, scaling the amount of address space consumed by the WDDM with the amount of video memory actually used. This feature is ahead of its time however as games and applications written to the DirectX 9 and earlier standards didn't have the WDDM to take care of their memory management, so applications did it themselves. This required the application to also allocate some virtual address space to its management tasks, which is fine under XP.

    However under Vista this results in the application and the WDDM effectively playing a game of chicken: both are consuming virtual address space out of the same 2GB pool and neither is aware of the other doing the exact same thing. Amusingly, given a big enough card (such as a 1GB Radeon X2900XT), it's theoretically possible to consume all 2GB of virtual address space under Vista with just the WDDM and the application each trying to manage the video memory, which would leave no further virtual address space for anything else the application needs to do. In practice, both the virtual address space allocations for the WDDM and the application video memory manager attempt to grow as needed, and ultimately crash the application as each starts passing 500MB+ of allocated virtual address space.

    This obviously needed to be fixed, and for a multitude of reasons (such as Vista & XP application compatibility) such a fix needed to be handled by the operating system. That fix is KB940105, which is a change to how the WDDM handles its video memory management. Now the WDDM will not default to using its full memory management capabilities, and more importantly it will not be consuming virtual address space unless specifically told to by the application. This will significantly reduce the virtual address space usage of an application when video memory is the culprit, but at best it will only bring Vista down to the kind of virtual address space usage of XP.

    Here are the fixes that you otherwise have to contact MS to get. They'll probably be made available later in the month on the KB article page... But for now...These folks have made them available to us. Download away!

    Download the Vista 32-bit Hotfix:

    http://thehotfixshare.net/board....le=2830

    Download the Vista 64-bit Hotfix:

    http://thehotfixshare.net/board....le=2840

    ===== NEW nVidia Drivers!! =====

    Just in time for the new BioShock game, nVidia has released updated 163.44 drivers for XP and Vista. These fix TONS of issues with many games and could very well have some positive impacts on ArmA. They're at least certain to be more likely compatible/compliant with the above fix, anyhow.

    http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_downloads_rel70betadriver.html

    [EDIT: Changed verbage to better reflect that there are indeed download links. You don't have to contact MS. Everything is here; Thank you, drive through.]

  15. Posted

    Posted this in another thread about vista, but nobody seems to have seen it and/or commented on how it affected their gameplay:

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ar....ed.html

    Quote[/b] ]KB 938194, also known as the "compatibility and reliability" update, should probably be called the "now you can play games with your computer" update. It purports to address a handful of gaming-related problems, including compatibility issues with NVIDIA's G80 series of cards.

    Please post with your results, good or bad.

  16. Posted

    Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but:

    Quote[/b] ]KB 938194, also known as the "compatibility and reliability" update, should probably be called the "now you can play games with your computer" update. It purports to address a handful of gaming-related problems, including compatibility issues with NVIDIA's G80 series of cards. The lame printer spooling bug that was afflicting many of you has also been addressed.

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ar....ed.html

    Perhaps this is the shot in the arm that vista needed.

  17. Posted

    i have amd 3000+ xp ~2.14Ghz

    1gb of ram

    7800 GS 256mb

    and i can barely get a playable FPS on all low settings WTF???

    thats disapointing

    Your processor is 4 years old.

    You don't have a a lot of RAM.

    Your video card (while newer) probably can't keep up with your processor, which is probably dragging your system down.

    I'm guessing that since you're running an AthlonXP, you're probably running an AGP video card, which tells me that it might be time for a computer upgrade; Hope this helps.

  19. Posted

    Ahh, i couldn't find a "Force 24 bit Z Buffer" setting but i checked "Force Triple Buffering" setting (dunno yet if this is important in my setup)

    These two particular settings with the associated verbage are strictly for the ATi users and the Catalyst Control Center. Nvidia users have similar settings in their control panel, but are likely worded (and placed) a bit differently.

    Are you noticing the spikey polygon issue with your 7600GT?

  20. Posted

    That seemed to fix it for me as well. Checked the "Force 24 bit Z Buffer" and "Force Triple Buffering" in OGL section (shrug). Oh well, it works, so guess the features span both API's. Hurrah!

    As a matter of course, I also forced vsync, as having either vsync or triple buffering on without the other causes some very unwanted results in games. All or nothing with those two smile_o.gif

    Thanks for the suggestions! I haven't come across the crazy polygons since those two changes. Hope this works for others as well.

    Happy ArmA'ing!

  21. Posted

    go into you API specific tab and you will see 2 setting under Open GL settings.If not already checked check the boxes marked: Triple Buffering and Force 24bit buffer depth.

    AFAIK, ArmA (and OFP) use Direct3D API and not OpenGL. This should have no bearing whatsoever, unless somehow these particular tweaks are shared under both API's and not OGL specific.

    I'll check it out when I get home from work. If anyone else can reproduce this or find some combination of tweaks to alleviate the frenetic polygon issue, that'd be swell smile_o.gif

    Thanks for the help!

  22. Posted

    Same problem here with a 9800 128MB with 6.11 drivers. Very Low doesn't fix it either.

    Wondering what would happen if I went back to a 5.x series driver and tried it...

    Went and tried every version of Catalyst from 6.10 back to 5.13.

    Same thing (in varying intensities) across the board.

    Looks like this is either an ATi problem with ArmA (or vice versa) or some rendering tweak/option that needs to be turned off somehow.

    I'll keep trying things and see if I can't find something that helps.

    iXnay

    P4 3.0ghz

    2GB PC3200

    9800 128MB (6.11 drivers)

  24. Posted

    If you do not have a Soundblaster Audigy (1 or 2) or an X-fi, you are *not* hearing OFP the way it was meant to be heard. ... .. Period.

    If you do not have one of the above sound cards, you have no business saying what OFP sounds like, whatsoever. Your sound card cannot properly reproduce what the sound engine is attempting to give you. It may be close, but no cigar.

    I'm by no means a big creative labs fan (I don't care for their monopolistic ways), but these sound cards are the only ones that can do OFP justice. I've heard OFP on just about every other sound card out there.... Nothing compares.

  25. Posted

    Patience icon_rolleyes.gif

    Kurayami has quite a bit to go through and tweak/change. There are many features that will be in this version that have not been seen yet and are probably adding to the existing workload.

    We're all just as eager to experience the new EECP. It should be something amazing to behold, for certain.

×