troop

Release Date: 10.05.2007 16:00[4:00PM] [GMT +1hour] Edit: Following sites will mirror the patch at written above time: - http://www.jbtl-nordland.eu http://www.foxyfighters.de http://www.ofp-2.com http://www.thecenter.at http://www.bis-ingame.net http://www.armed-assault.de http://www.arma-base.de http://www.morphicon.de http://armatechsquad.com http://arma.valuenet.nl http://www.armamdb.de http://www.armed-assault-zone.com http://www.armaholic.com http://www.themedicstation.com http://bis.4players.de http://whitewolf-kampagne.de http://www.utw-squad.net http://www.airborne-hq.de http://www.globalearth.de http://gbe-clan.com http://www.Worthplaying.com -

1. no and 2. yes (Still LOD and/or 8007000e with too high settings) Edit: ohh and btw;..ArmA under Vista is affected slightly/medium worse than XP...plus the LOD problem kicks in much sooner.

There was an problem with an recent security patch by microsoft which triggers this error, if certain programs are started. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/935448/en-us (Realtek Audio Control Panel, for one) Did you install their latest drivers off their website? MB vendor ones tend to be outdated. You need to download an hotfix from MS, to get rid of this. http://www.microsoft.com/downloa....lang=en You need to change the language to 'Deutsch'

hardocp: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article....WFzdA== My own tests showed at least 25% less performance on the same HW with ArmA(1.05+) installed under Vista vs. XP SP2 two weeks ago. No matter the tweaking. Vista/latest drivers and ArmA on separate drives (Raptors 150GB/16MB cache) installed. So, I guess be prepared to wait a long(er) time until Vista provides at least same overall performance in gaming.

NGO modified 158.22 here (XP SP2) and no problems so far. Good IQ and performance. Used NGO 97.92 before that; also no problems. (no problems = with proper, lowered[not max] settings)

May I ask, which setup you got when OFP came out back then? (Did you have it from version 1.00 or did you attend way later? ) I'd say, it was exactly the same story back then. OFP was that advanced and ahead of its time that *no* technology was able to run it fullblown. Now, how does it run on your current setup; which I consider stellar for *today*? This is six years later... And again, BIS pulled the stunt to deliver an simulation which no current technology of today is capable of running it fullblown. Did you accept the fact back then? In many opinion, like written numberous times, it is impossible to compare OFP/ArmA to any other simulation in existance. But you [should] know that. And I do understand your anger. Have a beer (or ten) and just come down, willyaa? You *know* ArmA will run much better on technology avaiable 2 years from now... [duck] Does OFP [1.96 tricked out + addons] give you 100+ FPS today? Edit: I'm an idiot. Even with an single 8800GTS I get 160+ in OFP Yours should be more like 250+ lol. But that was the point I was trying to make;..back then I barely scratched 30...with top-of-the-line hardware.

Suma [Dev] stated somewhere that ArmA [as OFP before it] uses some unique techniques, different from 'standard' ones used in many other [say; mainstream] games, which go pretty much to the border of whats possible. There are differences in their implementation of vsync and texture filtering to accomplish things in ArmA[optimizing]. If he reads this, I hope he just jumps in and give some explanations, because my description is pretty weak. bagman, you should also try out nhancer 2.2.3 http://www.nhancer.com/ to be able to define game profiles for each game separately, rather than using the Nvidia control panel. Major reasons are, this little prog keeps all your settings [make one global profil for 'everyday' use and specific ones for certain games] whereas if you install new drivers, your Nvidia profiles could get lost easily. Since ArmA works in an different way than most other games, forcing AA/AF/vsync through nhancer will increase visual quality in the game, but *decrease* performance a lot. So, if you are just using it for forcing vsync off, you're all set. Just keep in mind that some games need vsync turned on to avoid tearing. Note, that ingame 'maximum' settings will provide less visual quality but better performance due to optimizations; vs. nhancer maximum possible settings. (including forced transparency AA/CSAA) You'll see, if you want to try it out. Btw;..1.06(US demo and soon retail) is even more heavily optimized compared to 1.05...more performance, but it shows.

Of course;..I will also download the patch (1.07 then) until the time the US version is shipping to me.. - But I need 3 copies;..2 for my PCs, one for my brothers. He'll keep the german version.

Can you guys (US) please help me out some? I want to buy the North American DVD-version of Armed Assault: Combat operations (v1.06 from Atari) I do *not* wish to purchase any download version. What I need is an shop, which accepts online order, Mastercard, and ships to germany; with no further hassle, see below. To compare, I bought german 1.00 (Morphicon) 1.04 UK (505 games) via play.com/UK with Mastercard and just ordering online; sent once avaiable, and now wish to buy latest 1.06 US (Atari) DVD-version. Gamestop would require me to provide them information/verification from my bank /account, before I can even order...and I am just asking you, if there is an shop which can do without that. Thank you in advance! - 2nd option: If you absolutely do not like your copy of said version; come back to me via PM (and we'll work something out)

Aww; how bad can it get? Btw;..I have issues with my MSSWFF2 not beeing detected correctly sometimes in its USB port (unplug/replug registers it again)...did you try to juggle your Track-IR to different port(s) and then reinstall the software?

Hi gollum13, Your graphics card lacks the *minimum specifications* needed to run ArmA. Radeon 9200 is an DirectX 8.1 card, whereas ArmA needs an DirectX 9 as a *minimum* to be able to even start. (For example: Radeon 9500 series) You need to update your graphics card. And do not get an cheap one to begin with. imho. And you *definetely* need more RAM! (1GB is good;..2GB is much better) Check this out: Radeon 9200 specs (only Pixelshader v1.4; ArmA needs 2.0) http://ati.amd.com/products/radeon9200/radeon9200/specs.html --- ArmA specs; minimum needed/recommended: Minimum Specification: * CPU: 2.0 GHz Intel Pentium 4 or equivalent processor * RAM: 512 MB * Graphics card: Nvidia Geforce FX series or ATI Radeon 9500 series or higher (Pixel Shader 2.0) * HD space: 1 GB (or more as needed for downloadable addons) * Operating system: Windows XP or Windows 2000 Recommended Specification: * CPU: 3.0 GHz Intel Pentium 4 or equivalent processor * RAM: 1 GB * Graphics card: Nvidia Geforce 6800 series or ATI Radeon X800 series or higher * HD space: 4 GB (or more as needed for downloadable addons) * Operating system: Windows XP --- Personal opinion: If you decide to upgrade(for ArmA, that is), do not buy an graphics card below NVidia 7800GS+;..better yet save up for an 8800xxx card. If it has to be an Radeon, then do not buy something below Radeon XT1950. ArmA is an very demanding game and if you want to fully enjoy it (performance; graphics) without sacrificing too much details, you should aim high. Again; imho.

7.9? surely you mean ATI Catalyst 7.4? big black strings on objects? Did you check your gfx card fan lately? Is it still working? Dust? Temperature may be too high.

Did you already install 1.05? Or even tried the BETA version 1.05+ ? Your card should be fine to run the game without this error. - You can play 3 mins..so, did you change your GFX-card driver lately? (Which one you use for ArmA?) Did you crank up your settings, before it started crashing? Did you try out one or more of the tweaks posted on this forum and *then* it started crashing?

Hi NeoJD, We are unable to help you without some info of your sys. From the looks of the msg, your display adapter is not able to run ArmA. Please give some detailed infos. Read above. Did it run once for you or not at all after installation?

^ yah. I do have only Raptors left in my 2 machines (3 each) and for me, it was worth it. Performance is very good compared to my former EIDE drives - However; newer 7200rpm drives with more cache are cheaper, provide more room, run cooler and quiter as well. You made an good choice with SATA 2 with more cache! I want solid-state, dangnit! hehe.

If you still run ArmA 1.05 or below, there is an rearming bug, which you can workaround, if you always keep 1 missile, for example. http://bugs.armed-assault.net/view.php?id=1829 From 1.05+(Beta) onward, this bug has been fixed. Rearming chopper missiles takes the most time, which is ~30 secs;..everything else reloads faster.

I'd say, the 'basic' functions of ArmA dont task the CPU and/or GPU that much. ~35% max? But as soon as you got AI involved, the demands are rising;.. and steeply so, the more AI is present on map. The more powerful the CPU, the more AI is beeing able to handled, while still keeping up good performance overall. Your GPU is fine if you stay at/below 'normal' settings. 8800s are providing much better performance at greater possible detail settings;..but *also* there are still many problems reported. (LOD-error, CTD-8007000e-error, Vista drivers, ect) That is with 1.05+(Beta) Version fullgame. - Version 1.06 (Demo engine; soon in US retail..probably 1.07 international later) was an major performance boost for many; including me, but unfortunally there are also reports on *worse* performance. I guess only way to find out is try it on your setup. Also, keep an eye on this thread: ArmA > streaming > HDD interface/cache/performance[increase] http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=61642 plus, make sure you read what Suma[Lead Dev] wrote about ArmA here(scroll down abit) ArmA taxing everything in system to the max. (and thus is able to point out weaknesses of OS/hardware) http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....;st=165 I am running ArmA 1.05+(Beta) and 1.06(Demo) on an Opt 165 @2.8GHz 2GB RAM 8800GTS/640MB (formerly 7800GS+ 512MB AGP) Raptor 150GB SATA 16MB cache WinXP SP2 and I do have above mentioned problems/errors *only* if I choose certain, too high settings. (Texture Detail for example) Other than that ArmA 1.05+ runs well;..1.06 engine runs better. Higher FPS and even more fluid (no studder)

Just to make sure;..does your mainboard controller natively support this SATA 2 drive(newer mainboards), or did you connect the new one to just an SATA (1) controller, and *still* this improved performance for you? SATA 2 HDDs are backward compatible, but not every combination SATA 1 controller -> SATA 2 drive will work! - Also, does the new HDD have more internal cache than your former? Those questions are very important for others. Please share this info. Thanks. Say, your former Maxtor had 8MB internal cache; does the new one have the same amount or more? (16-32MB cache?) Since ArmA has this streaming technology, I think the amount of cache would be *more* important than the interface speed alone. (150 to 300MB/s in theory)

Finally came around to install and try US demo 1.06.5149 I must say, on my machines this is an MAJOR improvement wrt. performance against 1.05+Beta Fullgame. For an reason... - I also must say, coming from 1.00, there are some 'optimizations' to the GFX, which are (still) subtle but nevertheless; ArmA 'feels' way less detailed(maximum settings). Trend from 1.04 onward. May I intervene? Probably not;..but please..I fully expect ArmA to regain the full GFX detail in one year from now; once everything is matured to handle it fully. Do not get me wrong;..ArmA 1.06 is just beautiful at max detail and much more performant;..but there *was* more... I understand.

I agree (path finding problem) They should notice, there is some fence in the way, backup two steps and then recalculate path out of the (usually) enclosed area. 1,6: Yeah works. But its an chore, if you are used to order single units around a lot (taking positions to cover you, for example) and once the area is clear, order (all) to fall back into formation to move to next firing position. The problem with TeamSwitch (as defined in editor by author of mission) is, that your complete tactic/manual placement of AI is fubared, if you switch to unit in question and your second-in-command immediately orders 'engage at will' Ok, thats an personal problem of mine; playing style.

^ I'd like to keep my buds alive throughout the mission and retain max. firepower when needed. Call me whatever;.. but I *never* kill any of my (stupid) AI guys;..because they saved my arse way more than once. Also, since it happens fairly often (city environment) I cant be arsed to babysit everyone missing by sticking his nose to an fence...let alone track back whos stuck where. If however I get the third 'negative' on the map-move command, I usually let him chew on the fence and move on. Whats sourly missing in that case is the 'shut the fuck up' command.. Edit: Not to mention, you will be shot on the spot as traitor, if you kill your own men.

So, can anyone else confirm the error with the US demo like Matt wrote? (Simply crank your advanced settings to 'very high' everything and play some minutes to intentionally provoke error;..happens faster, if flying) Apparently, it is engine version 1.06something, and the Bugtracker lists this error *fixed* as of 1.06. http://bugs.armed-assault.net/view.php?id=1583 If it is not, then the issue must be reopened immediately. I guess, its to late for US retail release to be fixed for good (1.06) so BIS got to look at it again for 1.07 international patch.

Oh, and while we're at it;..if you walk through an city with your buds, they may get stuck in the scenery. You may only learn about someone missing, if he constantly yells 'Where are you?' and is not returning to formation, like you ordered. Sometimes(unfortunally not always), you will be able to 'shake him loose', if you open your map..spot his icon..press his number and click onto the map (Move to..) in the opposite direction of where his icon is heading. (or other directions; try) Shortly after you see his icon moving again (if) you can order 'Fall back in formation' again;..he most likely will choose another route now and return. Edit: How to find out, who it is fast? 'Where are you' msg will be given, if any soldier is ~150-200m out from you. So, in tactical view, press '~' (selecting all soldiers) and all their numbers and distances to you, as well as direction from you, is displayed. Note the number of soldier (stuck), which is farthest away. Then, open your map, press his number and click on the map for move order.

Also, you must take good care of your boys(in various formations) if you are close to any water;..they tend to really *take their position* in the formation you ordered. (btw;..I have only seen this if 'disengage' is ordered..they dont do it if 'engage at will' is in effect. Someone confirm? Cant right now) Say, you are moving alongside an lake in wedge formation and are too close to the water, your outermost buddies will happily keep their position in the formation and waterthread(sp?) thus losing their weapons! In such situation (try it out) you want to order column or compact column formation, so they stay (close)behind you. BUT: If say, you ordered column or Delta formation, and you *turn* inland (close to the water) be aware, that they will reform on you (behind in said formations) automatically, thus again sipping from the lake and losing their weapons. So, take good care of your stupid bastards...

Dudester; you got an good card already right now and if you plan for really good performance in addition to high settings in most current and future games, just hold yourself back from buying an 8600GTS. Just a little longer... (~summer season) You should really aim for the 8800GTS/640MB *at least* if you want to be set for the next 2 years to come. Then, there is still ATI to come out as well. (8800GTS/prices will come down) - In my opinion, the 8600GTS are just cut down (features) way too much and you wont enjoy this new card (@medium to high settings/let alone ArmA) as you may hope for now. Its not even a tough decision, if you monitor some benchmarks. -- Check those numbers! (8600GTS vs 8800GTS) http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/8951/86xmi4.jpg - Most important: Stream processors, Memory interface, Texture Fill Rate, Memory Bandwidth. The clocks are way less of interest. Some advice: (second to last paragraph) http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2970&p=9