private plowjoy

I suspect that the speed that the crashes happen is directly influenced by the in-game settings. With everything aside from Post Processing on Very High I crash in less time, compared to having the settings lower.

Well, just to give you an idea i'm running on Vista 32bit, C2D@3.2ghz, 2gb 1333, X-Fi Fatal1ty, Nvidia 295 GTX and running with the OS and Page on separate physical drives to the game install (all hard drives being 10k Raptors). All in-game settings are set to Very High, including AA apart from Post-Processing which is set to low. Distance is 3500. External to the game I force v-sync off. Game performance starts of great, with fluid gameplay. However, the longer the game is played for the longer it starts to take for textures to load (especially after respawning in multiplayer) until the game just dies with a 'Not Responding' dialog. This tends to happen a lot sooner if the area i'm in comprises of lots of buildings. Viewing Task Manager on a second monitor the point where the game dies is when the client occupies 1 gig of physical memory. In my system, that comes to 75% of all physical memory in use. Every single time, I can repro this memory leak/critical mass where the client will fall over and die. So yeah, if you upgrade to something akin to my rig you'll be quite impressed with the performance but sadly things do degenerate until a game restart is required.

I've had the same problem. I have all settings apart from Post-Processing set to Very High (including AA) and yet I still get those odd shimmering effects around building geometry.

You're creating too many potential problems. Get the game running first and then start to play with the various system settings (such as disabling the page).

Yeah, that's the next step. Make sure you're editing the correct CFG.

Well, for what its worth I had this last night in a MP game. But, and this is the thing it only occurs when I access the map and then attempt to switch back to the game. I'd been playing the game for an hour or so before this started to happen, so i'm inclined to believe that the engine is having problems getting the render in place after a lot of system and VRAM has been occupied. The bigger question is why on earth does switching to a map require the game to 'reinitialize' anyway?

The obvious question is, is the CFG being made read only after you've set everything up via in-game, or before?

For 8GB system ram users, it's apparently recommended to use the '- winxp' switch on the shortcut, to force XP RAM compatibility. Sadly it means that you won't get to utilize all 8GB system ram for Arma2 but then again it was unlikely the game would ever 75% of it anyway. Give it a try.

Resolution alone does not dictate whether a game will run at acceptable levels. What about texture detail? The whole point being that the more VRAM you have the more (larger) textures can be held without having to be swapped out as much. If you don't swap out textures as much you get much less 'stuttering' and 'popping', especially in built up areas. I'm really happy that he's got the game running ok now. Truly. I did some MP last night and it was an absolute blast, so I can only hope more people can get the game working. However, that doesn't change the fact that the more VRAM you have, the better the game will run when you have in-game settings to higher values. Its not just a case of '512MB VRAM will run this game, no problem' its more a case of '512MB VRAM will run the game, providing that in-game settings are set to lower values'. As i've said previously, when I had my in-game VRAM set to Very High and the game didn't utilize both my GPUs VRAM (just one), I saw dozens of instances of exactly the same problem that the OP stated. That clearly shows that there are two variables to consider when attempting to run the game... Available VRAM and In-game GFX settings As soon as these two variables start to get out of sync, via in-game settings being set too high compared to the amount of VRAM there will be many instances of geometry rendering problems and associated graphical anomalies. Irrespective of system RAM or anything else.

AFAIK just add an extra switch, so it looks like.. "C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\Steam.exe" -applaunch 33920 -winxp

Just add -winxp outside the main part. For example, your Arma2 shortcut already has... "D:\Armed Assault 2\arma2.exe" ...so just add -winxp to the end of it, so it looks like... "D:\Armed Assault 2\arma2.exe" -winxp Good luck.

Well, I think you're making it very clear for everyone to see that your naive view of software development is skewing your opinion. What you demand and expect is a country mile from what developers are required to deliver. That I have two years of game development experience is dwarfed by the fact that I have over ten years of enterprise software development experience. While business software doesn't see anywhere near the same level of rollercoaster requirements as game software does it still adheres to the same requirements principles... Minimal, the application will load and run but no guarantee is given as to its performance. Optimal, the application will load and run, satisfying the requirements of end to end usage. However, the more hardware you add (memory, CPU, etc) the better it will perform. Not really sure where your anger is coming from or why its been directed at me. All im trying to do is make you aware, coming from a background in game development what kind of consideration system requirements are given for a release. The fact is, they invariably are not given the correct level of consideration and more to the point in a game like Arma2 where the engine is clearly not even stable how can they put out accurate requirements? There are people on these boards, me included that are seeing fundamental problems with the engine. Frames dropping around buildings, huge differences between single player and multi player experience performance, CTDs, and on it goes. That there's all this variance means there's no way BIS could have said they have correct requirements because they too must have had a rollercoaster ride of performance highs and lows.

I worked in development with games for a couple of years and I know for a fact that minimum and optimal requirements printed on boxes means absolutely nothing. My remit was to make sure that for the minimal requirements, the game would load. That's it. Nothing else. If I could get the game to the in-game menu, that was the official sign-off on minimal requirements. Optimal requirements are completely open, due to the open nature of the platform. Note the... "Fast GPU (Nvidia Geforce 8800GT or ATI Radeon 4850 or faster) with Shader Model 3 and 512 or more MB VRAM" Sure, the game will run on 512MB if you're happy to stomach pauses for texture loading/popping effects every other minute. That they've specifically said 'or more' is a get-out clause for every problem that a 512MB user will have. I'm not arguing the case for the developers here. Arma2 clearly has many different problems which manifest in game. All i'm saying is that using almost 2GB of VRAM in a correctly recognised SLI mode, I do not experience the problems that the OP stated, any more. ---------- Post added at 12:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 PM ---------- It's not the same issue, AFAIK. The 8GB check using the -winxp switch is to sort out problems with system RAM allocation. The EVGA SLI fix gets the card correctly identified by Arma2 as an SLI all-in-one solution. The knock-on effect of that, double the amount of VRAM for one, is what causes such a noticeable jump in performance. Especially around loading new scenes and swapping textures out.

Well, I run on Vista 32 and do not use that switch. Plus I only have 2GB of RAM. Pre SLI fix, I had exactly these problems. Trees would at first render as rectangles of brown, then the geometry would warp into a more tree like shape (round) and finally the branch and leaf detail would come into view. All in all taking about 2-3 seconds and all only occurring after the game had been running for a while in built up areas, like in a town. I should note that at this point I had the texture settings set to High. Post SLI fix, using exactly the same graphics settings in exactly the same place in game, I have no rendering problems apart from the very occasional building texture 'popping' into view, which takes milliseconds to fix itself. To me, this indicates that both my GPUs VRAM was being not being used in the first instance as pre SLI fix I had the VRAM setting, in-game, set to Very High (as you'd expect with an Nvidia 295 running at almost 2GB of VRAM). Thus the game was attempting to utilize a Very High amount of VRAM when only half that amount was actually being utilized because SLI was not being correctly recognised. There's not much more I can say. Nothing else in my PC has changed and I haven't amended any shortcuts to include switches. All ive done is install the EVGA SLI 'fix' and running with every setting on High to Very High, including an insane level of AA and AF, I no longer get the same level of geometry problems that I had previously. The game runs smooth as butter at 1920x1200 apart from where I get too close to buildings where things start to stutter. As I replied to the OP, it may be that their in-game texture settings are set too high for a 512MB GFX card to correctly swap textures when the VRAM gets too full and, with all due respect a 512MB GFX card does not qualify as being suitable to run new games of this nature at their best. Arma2 isnt a linear game where all the textures can be preloaded well ahead of time, due to the player only being able to venture down a predetermined linear path. The engine requires off-the-cuff texture swapping, thus the more VRAM you have, the less problems of this nature you'll experience.

Sorry mate but you're seeing classic examples of VRAM being filled up, thus the engine takes its time to reload the correct textures. I saw exactly the same thing on my 295, until I installed the SLI EVGA fix, thus the engine started to use both GPU VRAM, not just one. Bottom line is that a 512mb GFX card just doesn't cut it in games like this. One fix, I guess, would be to bottom out the texture setting to the lowest option but the game won't look very good. That's the trade-off when using lower spec kit. Again, sorry. Its just a sign of the Arma2 time.

Many instances of my squad standing still when i'm giving them orders to move. It kills the single player experience, completely.

All it really comes down to is a wind back to the older drivers, deleting the ArmA2.cfg, making sure that v-sync is disabled on the Nvidia control panel (in fact, make sure that you dont override any application settings) and then not messing about with the in-game graphics settings apart from maybe lowering them. I must have doubled my frames by doing just that. Things started to go wrong when I tried to up the settings (playing on Normal is just so wrong when using an Nvidia 295) and also when getting close to cities or built up areas. The first few missions were glorious in their performance and speed but it started to dip the more I progressed, as thats where the built up areas come into play.

Scratch that, just started to up the in-game graphics settings and almost straight away started to see my squad with white heads. Interestingly it was the video memory that I upped. I wonder if the 295 SLi isnt being utilized properly and as soon as you tip over that single-GPU memory cap, it starts to bug out? Also got performance drops around cities, which I guess is to be expected to a degree, but it really does drag the frames right down and I still get texture/model 'popping' going on. Not as bad as previously but still there. Such a shame too. I thought my PC would be able to easily run ArmA2 with aplomb. :(

Well, I've just done exactly what this post, http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1324488&postcount=14, said. Lo and behold, the game is now playable. Gone are all the odd artefacts, I get solid, fast, performance across the board and most of the problems I originally cited are now gone. Textures are solid and consistent and ive not had a single lack of texture load problem. Lack of AA is still right in your face but i'm now actually able to play the game as a fluid experience. Thumbs up from me...so far....

C2D Wolfdale @ 3.16ghz 2GB DDR 1333 Nvidia 295 GTX 10k Raptor HDs Running at 1920x1200 and it doesn't really seem to make any difference, what level the various graphics options are set to, except distance. I'm getting so many different performance results, its making my eyes go funny. One minute its out-of-the-blue stuttering, which oddly seems to only come into effect around buildings. The next its textures not being displayed (white graphics). Then I get horribly warping graphics, which seem to 'pop' into full bloom, especially noticeable on buildings and trees. The most recent one was that the entire game seemed to go into saturation overload. All colours were hugely pronounced, making it look like a console game. Even in full broad daylight, my BMP was so surrounded in dark shadows it make it very difficult to properly drive around. Lack of AA makes the entire thing look 10 years old and every scene seems to 'shimmer'. Just a country mile away from what i've been used to with this beastly 295 card. There has to be something fundamentally wrong.

Fantastic guys! Added the extra line, and it worked straight off the bat! Another victory for this great community spirit! Cheers!

Hi guys (and gals), Im completely new to these boards, but im hoping that this great community can help me out a little. Im running a dedicated server and my problem is that I cant get the 'messages of the day' to show upon player connection and also whatever I type for the 'host' details (so players can see a full server description, as opposed to my server name, on the gamespy list) isnt showing at all. Im sure ive set my config properly, to the extent of using a 'template' and replacing all my details, but it just wont work!! Can anyone help??

Aha, I see... So, once I amend that, it should work ok? I'll give it a go

Hey there Shrike! Speaking personally, as a player from the UK, the concept of a Stoners server operating in Europe is a great idea, but id kinda miss the regulars I think you'd be best leaving it the same mission 'styles' as you currently have going. Stoners has a great rep for offering low lag C+H games and, imho,I think thats the angle you should stick to. Co Op games can be ok, but when the same ones are played over and over again it can get tired very quickly. Thats the appeal of C+H, CTF etc. They are determined entirely by the actions of other players, not by predictable AI placement. Dont get me wrong, theres definately a case for Co Op games. They can be a great way to wind down after a few intense C+H sessions, but please dont make Euro Stoners any different than your current US Stoners setup. Thats my 2 clips worth, anyway BTW, im going to take 1

Thanks for helping Suma. Im not entirely familar with the commmands, so please forgive my next questions.. Are you referring to amending the ded server shortcut to include '-server.cfg'? Or do you mean actually inside the cfg itself? I feel pretty stupid having to query what is undoubtably a very simple question from you Suma, im sorry