MavericK96

Finally I am back at my computer and can test out the new betas, yay! :cool: I haven't done any serious gameplay testing yet, but only the _TEST_FPS6 one so far: [b]Version Avg AvgLow Max Low[/b] [b]1.05 [/b] 35 24 51 8 [b]70100 [/b] 38 27 52 10 [b]70256 (exT=0)[/b] 37 26 52 11 [b]70256 (exT=1)[/b] 36 25 52 10 [b]70256 (exT=3) [/b] 37 27 52 10 [b]70313 (exT=0) [/b] 37 26 52 13 [b]70313 (exT=1) [/b] 36 25 51 12 [b]70313 (exT=3)[/b] 37 26 52 10 Basically, I had to conclude that 70313 with exThreads=0 was the best performance for me. For whatever reason, exThreads=3 on both 70256 and 70313 had worse stuttering than all of the other options. :confused: Or rather, I got a lot more noticebly long stutters with exThreads=3. I will do some more testing (e.g. my low flyby of Chernogorsk) to confirm, but as of right now it seems like 70313 with exThreads=0 is the best choice overall. EDIT: Did some quick flybys with 70313 and exThreads=0 and exThreads=3. exThreads=0 definitely seemed smoother overall. Framerate-wise, they seemed about the same, but I definitely got some longer, harder stutters on occasion with exThreads=3. It wasn't really anything major, but it was still noticeable because I was looking for it. LOD-wise I couldn't say, I didn't really see a difference between any of the exThreads options, but LOD thrashing seems improved in general. EDIT 2: Forgot to add, one good thing so far about the new betas is that I haven't gotten a crash yet! :D ---------- Post added at 09:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 AM ---------- Spoke too soon. Played online for about a half hour and got this crash again: Memory store: Failed mapping, already mapped 4692 KB, error 8 Virtual free 25989120 B, page free 4294967295 B, physical free 3186573312 B Memory store: Failed mapping, already mapped 4696 KB, error 8 Virtual free 25989120 B, page free 4294967295 B, physical free 3186573312 B File read error: addons\plants2_tree.pbo,ERROR_NOACCESS Error 3e6 reading file 'addons\plants2_tree.pbo' ErrorMessage: There’s a problem with the disc you’re using. It may be dirty or damaged. Same issue with 70100. I was running 70313 with exThreads=0. I will try playing with exThreads=3 and see if that makes any difference. Luckily, though, the game crashed when I was servicing an aircraft, and I was flying for the entire half hour with no crashes. :cool: ---------- Post added at 10:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 AM ---------- Played 70313 w/ exThreads=3 for about a half hour, got an "Out of Memory" error. *sigh* :( I had hoped the Out of Memory stuff was fixed by now.

Yeah, considering everything this game has to run in the background, the netcode is great. Only problems I've had with it are de-sync related, where sometimes the whole server will pretty much "lock", and everything is frozen in place until the server re-syncs.

What mainly annoys me about the lack of suppressive fire is when you're unloading on the AI with a machine gun, and they just sit there and manage to still take pinpoint accurate shots at you. They have zero reaction to suppressive fire whatsoever.

Benchmarks, stat! :cool:

Yeah I guess I didn't think about that, your proc is only at 2.2 GHz. Probably on the lower end for this game, even though it's a quad-core. And about exThreads...The only way to know if it improves your performance is to try it and see. It's an experimental part of the beta that allows you to alter some of the threading optimizations in order to see which one works best for the majority of users. However, it's probably not going to give you any more FPS overall, because its main purpose is to improve texture streaming and reduce stutter, from what I can tell.

You're running a 9800 GT, which isn't particularly super-fast. Also, we would need more information about what settings/resolution you are using in order to make that kind of determination. In reference to the exThreads, you have to run it in the command line with the parameter "-exThreads=N", where N is either 0 (same as no parameter), 1, or 3.

Yeah, I'd like to see something done about this as well. I've tried using suppressive fire and the AI doesn't seem to react to it at all, and you don't always feel all that "suppressed" as a player, either. Though when bullets are hitting all around me and I see dust getting kicked up (I hear it's more exaggerated with WarFX, but still) I usually feel some pressure to get the eff out of there. :cool:

Are you joking? The post I quoted said that the poster did not understand why the devs "did not take advantage of SLI and CrossfireX". The game does take advantage of SLI, and probably CrossfireX for that matter, if set up properly. Posts saying SLI doesn't work in ArmA2 is nothing short of spreading false statements and gets us nowhere. Therefore, I felt compelled to post because this is not the first time I've seen this in recent history. Whether SLI/CrossfireX works for every user isn't the point; the point is that it's not an issue on the ArmA2 end, but rather the user, because the game does in fact support multi-GPU rendering. That said, the only thing you are right about is that the SLI discussion, while somewhat related, doesn't belong in this thread which is about CrossfireX.

I was only referring to SLI, as I said in my post. "End of discussion" meaning "stop posting that SLI doesn't work". :rolleyes: The post I quoted was made today, so really it doesn't matter if it didn't work some time long ago. I also said that I couldn't say about CrossfireX, so...What was the point of your post, again?

I'd like to see some 70313 versus 70256 benchmarks if anyone is so inclined. :cool:

I saw this and was confused as to why the i7 870 was faster than the i7 920, but I guess the 870 stock clock is 2.93 GHz and the 920 is 2.66 GHz. Luckily the 920 is a great overclocker and can hit 3.8-4.0 GHz easily on air cooling. :cool:

*sigh* I can't speak for CrossfireX but this game definitely takes advantage of SLI. Kind of tired of seeing these posts about how SLI doesn't work in this game. It does, I use it, end of discussion.

There still has been stutter/lower FPS when flying low over buildings, though, so it is related if the new beta improves that.

+1, I'd like to have more information about this as well.

Not quite sure what you are asking here, but if you mean "Is it safe to use the betas and then uninstall them again?" then the answer is yes. All you have to do to uninstall the beta is delete the "beta" folder in your ArmA2 directory.

I didn't see an option for -exThreads=2, only 1 and 3, so I wonder what 2 actually does, if anything?

Agreed, voted.

In all fairness, that game is awful and definitely a disgrace to the name of OFP if nothing else.

If you're not sure if SLI is working, you can always go into the nVidia Control Panel and turn on the SLI indicator to make sure. For me SLI versus non-SLI makes a huge difference. The game is nigh unplayable with non-SLI on my current settings, but much smoother with SLI. Also, GPU-wise, you're right, this game is not super taxing on the GPU. Utilization is probably around maybe 50-60% at any given time on both GPUs in SLI. This game mainly grinds the CPU more than anything, with all the AI scripts running.

That sounds a lot like what used to happen to me with 1.05, where it would eventually lead up to a "v-buffer creation error" crash. What does your ArmA2.RPT file look like?

I haven't gotten a chance to yet, due to being away from my gaming rig at the moment. Probably won't get to test until Wednesday night or Thursday morning, but then you can bet I will do some thorough testing. :cool: I think a more interesting comparison would be this new beta with exThreads=3 versus 70100, as opposed to 70184. In my testing, I pretty much threw out 70184 because it gave me a LOT more stutter than 70100, and in my flyby test the game crashed after only 2-3 passes. I surpassed a dozen passes using 70100 with no issues whatsoever, and much less stutter than both 70184 and 1.05. The only crash I've ever experienced in 70100 was using ACE + other mods playing online, and it took almost 2 hours or so to crash even then. Thanks for the explanation link on maxMem. I do understand what the command *does*, I'm just not certain I've ever seen a difference in FPS or stutter whilst using it in ArmA2. I guess that was what I was most interested in, seeing as my ArmA2 will use up to around 1.8 GB of RAM by itself with no maxMem parameter, and I was curious as to what yourself and other users have gotten in improvements when using the command, in addition to what sort of PC specs it's most useful for.

So from what I can gather from summarizing the thread so far, running the beta with exThreads=3 seems to give only slightly worse FPS than 1.05, but seems a lot smoother in general? Has anyone tested the new beta against 70100/70184? Is maxMem=2048/2047 a parameter that is necessary/useful? I've tried several times using it versus not using it and never saw any difference either way.

Be careful which services you disable... :p

Patience is really the name of this game (other than ArmA2, of course :cool:). If you are expecting a fast-paced, always action-packed shooter, then you should probably look elsewhere. If you want a realistic virtual combat experience with squad-based gameplay, ArmA2 is your game.

I think the main problem is getting balanced teams, and teams large enough to still do the squad-based gameplay that people love in Co-op. It'd be cool to see some PvP clan matches or something, though.