MavericK96

I really, REALLY, REALLY hope they fix the memory leaks, specifically the crashing issue with selecting "Default" Video Memory even when you have 1 GB+ VRAM. This is game-breaking to me, since any other setting other than Default pretty much stutters like crap and has horrible LOD texturing errors (i.e. low res textures right up close) Please, BIS...PLEASE!!! :D

Very excited for this to come out. Dammit, June, get here faster!

I had an issue like this before where all keys would stop working. Turns out (for some reason) it was related to running ArmA2 through Steam as a non-Steam game (for the overlay). Apparently it didn't like that, because I started running it normally and it's been fine since.

Because OA is what they're working on OTHER THAN new beta builds! :p But yeah, thread has kind of gone off-topic...

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but OA is a standalone expansion, meaning you don't need ArmA 2 to play it. I'm not sure how the two games interact (if at all) but it seems more like it will be: ArmA2 ArmA2 ACE OA OA ACE (?)

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I have a couple of pretty glaring issues (not including the AI bug that was introduced in 1.05 that everyone keeps talking about): -Game crashes over time with Video Memory set to Default -Random crashes regardless of settings due to apparent memory leak -Would be nice if game addressed more than 2 GB RAM, would probably help/fix the memory leak crashing issues, too.

MaxFrames and DetectedFrames should be 0? I've always read they should be higher than normal, if anything. Is there any more information about this you could link me to? Not saying you're wrong, just curious as to what difference this actually makes.

Well, that's probably the difference. Although, even without the HDD stutter I'm still getting pretty low FPS with 200% 3D res. I run it at 125% now and no AA and it seems to look/run about as well as with AA on low, maybe a bit better but it's hard to tell. 150% might be playable, not sure. I'll just wait till I get my SSD tomorrow and let you know. :cool:

With the lack of new betas, I can only hope there's a BIG patch coming soon. :cool:

What res? I run 1920x1200 max and I get stutter but I think that's a HDD issue, soon to be solved by an SSD. Frame-rate wise, I've tried running at 200% screen res and it was too slow to be playable on my 2 GTX 280s.

Dear god, a MILLION TIMES THIS! I hate having to set my Video Memory to Very High rather than Default because Default runs soooo much better, but I get a memory leak-related crash after awhile. So annoying. :mad:

That's really interesting...I'd like to see some benches with AA vs. greater-than-100% 3D Resolution with ATi and nVidia cards. :cool:

I just ordered an X25-M 80 GB and am getting it Tuesday! :D I didn't get it JUST for ArmA2, though... Wait...Yeah, I pretty much did. :cool:

I'm running Win7 x64. :( I ordered an SSD yesterday, and I'll do a clean install of Win7 when I get that, so I'll see if that helps at all.

I think it's only a priority for some (many) users regarding this game because it's a pretty significant issue. Even with a super-fast machine, it's difficult to get reasonable framerates with ArmA2. True, there is a lot more going on than other games, but from a gameplay perspective none of that matters if the game is slow or unplayable.

I've seen the same thing, not sure what causes it really. But yeah, it typically only happens on far-away textures. It's really noticeable when running ArmAIIMark, Test 5 (Space Capsule), the water seems to "fight" with the land texture until you get closer.

If I can't run this game all that smoothly with my rig, I can't imagine trying to run it on a console... Maybe at super-low detail settings.

Well, and I just played a long game with Video Memory set at Very High. It looks fine and runs fine at first, but as the game goes on more and more stutter happens, and also LODs will not display properly (sometimes you will be right next to a unit and it will be low LOD). I think this is going to have to be something fixed in a patch, I don't really see any other way around it. Setting it to Default makes it try to use more RAM than is there (or something, I really don't know) and setting it to Very High degrades performance/quality over time.

I can't seem to win with this game. If I set Video Memory to Very High, I get stuttering, seemingly sluggish performance and LOD thrashing, but if I set it to Default, I get much better performance and little to no LOD thrashing, but after an indeterminate amount of time all the textures will flash grey and the game will crash. :( Anyone else experienced this kind of thing? It seems like the "Default" option is sort of broken. I have 1 GB of VRAM per card in SLI so it should be plenty for the Default setting.

The 8800GTX is actually still pretty decent. It's say it's aged well over the years. Of course they're going to be super expensive when they first come out, but that's how it is with all technology.

Some interesting results here regarding SLI/Crossfire scaling of the GTX 480 and the 5970. http://www.maingearforums.com/entry.php?23-So-You-Want-To-Buy-A-GeForce Interestingly, 2 GTX 480s in SLI are faster than 2 5970s (dual-GPU cards, mind you) in Crossfire.

I have yet to try this, but I'll give it a shot, thanks. However, I have noticed that regardless of which .pbo files I include on the RAMdisk, performance doesn't seem to be all that much better. I still get pretty noticeable LOD thrashing and stutter, even with a view distance of around 3500. EDIT: I ran ArmA2Mark (I know it's kind of synthetic but still) and I actually get more than 100 points less using the RAMDisk versus just having it all on my C: drive. I actually got about 100 points more than standard when I put most of the .pbo files on a USB flash drive and ran it from there. Very odd results. I am using the ACE2 mod, however, maybe with the mod it doesn't make as much difference simply using the standard .pbo files? Someone should run the game with ACE2 and do that I/O analysis and see what is actually used the most.

I've been having issues with the RAMDisk. From my sig, you can see that I have 6 GB of RAM, and so I've tried a couple of options with no real success. First, I tried making a RAMDisk with 2.5 GB of space. I loaded on some files, and off I went. Stutter seemed less, but it was hard to tell because I was also running ACE and several other mods on a very crowded server (also it was a night mission) so there was a lot else going on. After a couple minutes I started getting windows messages saying I was low on memory. Then, after a very short time, ArmA2 started showing the "Receiving..." window over and over and over, with short bursts of black screen in-between. I had to exit and reload the game. On the second try, I played the game for a little while, but eventually the game froze up and I got a BSOD, rebooting the PC. So, I then switched to a 2 GB RAMDisk (I was going to do a 1.5 GB, but it wasn't really enough to get the files on there that cause the most stutter). I played for a longer period of time with this, but after awhile I again started to get "low memory" errors (though no "Receiving..." screen again) and eventually another BSOD. So my question is, why does Windows 7 + ArmA2 need more than 4 GB of RAM to function? This should be way more than enough, and even when I alt-tab out of game, ArmA2 is not using more than 1 GB, and it says the system has at least another GB free. I was under the impression that a 2 GB out of 6 GB RAMdisk would not affect Windows/ArmA2 performance negatively, but so far it's done just that. Do I need to turn off SuperFetch or anything? I have my page file turned off, but so far that hasn't caused any issues in ArmA2 or otherwise. Only after trying the RAMDisk have I been getting BSODs and low memory errors.

What are you talking about? The 5870 is $400, the GTX 480 is $500, and the 5870 is upwards of $700.

Check out the Guru3D review. Definitely a lot of games where the 480 is ~10-15+ FPS higher than the 5870. The margin closes as you increase resolution, but nonetheless, that is what the results show. Then again, I don't know what you consider "considerably faster". To me, 10 FPS gain is pretty considerable. Also, they tested Crysis in that review and the 480 was faster at all resolutions, so I'm not sure what benchmark you're referring to. And yes, in games like Metro 2033 with DX11 and tessellation, the 480 has a very significant lead over the 5870.