Spectre-63

Even take into account that maybe they thought it was ready and ran into an unexpected bug or a conflict after the release of 1.08? EvEnLeaSe: please don't stop your updates or sharing your video because of person. Â There are a lot of people who are interested, not only in the release, but in the latest developments.

cool...many thanks smoke52!

Hi all - a friend and I were discussing making missions earlier tonight and he brought up something neither of us knew how to do: place troops and/or positions on top of different buildings. He said that the majority of the buildings wouldn't allow him to place the troops on the roof...when he put them there, they'd wind up inside. He was only able to place them on the roof if it was a building that the player would normally be able to walk up to the roof, if that makes any sense. Is this just a limitation of the engine, or is it something he's doing wrong? Thanks!

You're making a rather large assumption here though: that everyone else bought the game for the same reasons you did. Yes, the graphics are impressive but, for me, the topic of the game and it's expandability were at least as important. It's entirely possible that the differences in graphics won't be noticeable to at least a part of the community because it's not what they're focused on when they're playing the game. Yes, ArmA's environment is beautiful and I like the graphics but, when I'm in the middle of fighting of a squad of SLA troops, the proper representation of the shadows on the ground isn't my primary focus.

Some visual quality was "sacrificed" to improve performance. I wouldn't consider my computer "high-end", but I can still set many settings to medium or high while retaining a good framerate in 1.08. I took the time to take and upload some example screens, all including framerate overlay. I also included my settings: <snip> Screens are all from 1.08 and I don't know what would make me want to throw up here... Performance is great and the visuals are still good. Notice though, that I have brightness and gamma on 1.2. I'm curious, MadDogX, what kind of system specs are you running on? My settings are very close to yours (I disabled Aniso, preferring to set it in ATITrayTools and set my Shadow Detail and AA to Low) I run at 1680x1050 on the following hardware: Intel C2D E6400 4Gig OCZ DDR-II 800 ATI X1950XT 256M PCI-E Thanks and apologies for the derail.

Admittedly, I haven't had a chance to play at all since 1.08 was released and I find the differences displayed in the 3 versions in insomnianshadow's picture somewhat disappointing. At least for now, though, I feel that the dev's did what they could to respond to many of the community's complaints. We know that the community has been complaining practically since the game was released about the poor graphic performance. While insomnianshadow states that "if it were up to [him] games would always run a bit slower but looking better", I doubt that the majority of the players would agree. As such, the devs responded, dropped some of the graphical "oohs" and "ahhs" down a notch and, as a result, many people are seeing smoother performance in the game. It's always going to be a trade-off - graphic detail versus performance and each individual will have to decide for themselves what they can live with. A couple of other points: 1.) @insomnianshadow: as others have pointed out, there's little to be gained (other than arguments) from starting a thread the way you started this one...saying that someone's hard work "makes [you] want to throw up" and that they've "turned one of the greatest games into a joke" isn't likely to get you anything but quickly dismissed. 2.) @Marines: I agreed with your point that approaching the topic with tact and maturity was the best way to get things done. Unfortunately, Chops also has a point that referring to someone's post as "speak[ing] out of your ass first, hoping no one will catch the stink" while pointing out the need to approach things with tact and maturity is a bit hypocritical. 3.) @Sc@tterbrain: I don't agree that complaining is ineffective in these parts. From what I've seen so far, the devs have been reasonably amicable to addressing issues that the community brings up, as long as it's done tactfully and with a modicum of maturity. As I pointed out to insomnianshadow though, stamping your feet and throwing a temper-tantrum is more likely to get your points ignored, regardless of whatever validity they may have. My 2 cents worth...

Looking forward to the opportunity to try it out!

Why don't you do a poll of guys returning from Iraq and ask them how many times they adjust their M-16/M-4's elevation while in combat. It's simply not done...fiddling with your zero is a good way to wind up with an inability to accurately engage your target at all.

beautiful work guys! Count me as another anxiously awaiting the English release.

The -maxmem parameter places an artificial limit on how much memory the ArmA.exe can have access to. Most people (including myself) have used the -maxmem commandline parameter to avoid the "Cannot Create System Memory Surface" CTD. Much to my surprise, I found that prior to the release of 1.08 my ArmA Mark results were BETTER if I used -maxmem=512. My suggestion: get ahold of the ArmA Mark and test it out for yourself.

Designing an "ArmA sucks" type sig and showing it off in the developers forums is not appropriate. I won't try and comment on whether it's "appropriate" or not...that's a mod's decision. I will agree that it's somewhat rude and doesn't seem to give the developers the credit they deserve for their hard work. Some people are having problems but, without significantly more information, it's still impossible to tell whether their problems are ones of their own creation (like the 'shooting from the chest' bug) or are a direct result of the patch. From an OFP n00b's perspective, this patch release seemed somewhat chaotic to me: EU users had to download one patch, US users another...EU users had to patch to 1.05 first, US users could patch from their base install. Had the patch release been more coordinated (in the sense of a single set of simple instructions), I have to wonder how many of these issues would have not occurred. Not meant to be a criticism of BI or the devs....they might not have had a choice.

thats 14 pages of repeativily saying it wont start from a numbers person, not saying there is no problem what so ever, but be aware there are also many ppl say that the patch works for them Speaking for myself, I had no problems loading 1.08...I did, however, do some prep-work before loading it after seeing some of the issues on the forum. 1.) I did a full backup of my existing ArmA directory to simplify the recovery process if I ran into problems. 2.) I deleted all of my 3rd party addons prior to installing the patch, not only from their '@' directories, but from the AddOns folder as well. 3.) I patched up and ran a few tests before committing to an evening's entertainment, just to ensure I wasn't going to have to roll-back. This included running ArmA Mark and testing various command-line options (trying with and without the -maxmem parameter, as well as trying out the new 'Default' Texture setting). The "6 P's" have served me well over time: Proper Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

mad_rabbit - a couple of points: 1.) re: your monitor's limitation of 60Hz for 1440x900 digital - not anything you can do about it, simply a limitation of the monitor. Â LCD's, unlike CRT's, don't look bad at 60Hz though. Â My Gateway FPD2485-W runs at 60Hz at 1920x1200 and looks fantastic. Â If I'm not mistaken, Dell's high-end 24" widescreen runs at the same refresh. Â As I said though, 60Hz isn't a problem, especially since you can't see the refresh with an LCD (at least I can't) 2.) I wouldn't necessarily agree that the hotfix provided by ATI indicates a fault BY ATI. Â This article at Extreme Tech goes into some depth about what's going on with ATI's Vista driver development and, if you have an interest in some of the stuff going on behind the scenes, is a very interesting read. Â Pay special attention to the third page where Phil Rogers discusses the Delayed Surface Delete issue...one that's can be aggravated by programming decisions made by the software developer - in this case, CryTek. Â Unfortunately, software developers aren't in a position to fix the issue once the software is released - the time for modifying how the graphics engine works has come and gone. Â That leaves ATI in a position of having to provide a fix for an issue that is not of their own creation. Â They do so for the benefit of their customers, not out of a responsibility to correct the error. I most definitely don't know enough to say whether this driver handle issue was one caused by BI or ATI...I'm leaning towards the former but have no evidence either way. Â All I'm saying is that just because ATI provided the resolution doesn't mean that the source of the issue lies with them. Â It could come down to decisions made by BI during the graphics engine development.

/me listens to the crickets

I would expect so....you guys kinda got hosed, even after you got it first 'cuz you've gotta install, patch, and then patch again. I'm kinda surprised they didn't release a 1.0-1.08 patch for the EU distro. If you want a tester for 1.08, Chammy, allow me to offer my services....my install is at your beck and call.

I saw a performance increase as well...things just seem much more smooth. Slight increase in performance in the ArmA Mark 'mission' with the first run, slight decrease (IIRC) for cached mode but it definitely loaded more quickly. As a bonus, I didn't need to use -maxmem=512 to get thru the test run....at least not yet. Setting the Texture to 'Default' caused a CTD after the first run-thru...but I've thought I might've been pushing the envelope too far on my settings, too. Settings were: Resolution: 1680x1050 Normal Disabled High Low Normal Low Low High Low ArmA Mark stats: First run: 2342 Second run: 2506 System Specs: Intel C2D E6400 4G OCZ DDR-II PC6400 ATI X1950XT PCI-E 256M

Personally, I went thru and .rar'ed up my ArmA install directory, deleted all the '@' folders (plus ModWarSound), deleted the stuff in the AddOns folder that had a date that didn't match my install date and then ran the 1.08 patch. Came thru like a champ!

yeah...that would've been my choice of expletives!

Chammy - from what I've read over today, the patcher is VERY sensitive to mods being in place in the install directory. Â From what I've read, the 'xdelta3' errors usually mean you've got something modified. Â If you've got a lot of mods you may be best off to just nuke the directory and re-install. One other thing: after looking at your install log, it looks like you're trying to apply the US patch (based upon it trying to update from 1.06 to 1.08)...be careful, there's a couple of different patches out there, one for the EU version and one for the US.

Headphones: Speedlink Medusa 5.1 set has worked well for me and my GF. Great sound and the microphone is of good quality as well. TrackIR: wouldn't be without it in vehicles in ArmA - as JasonO has pointed out, it's of dubious value for playing 'grunt' but, if you're a flight simmer at all, these are well worth the investment.

mad_rabbit - your link to the ATI board is for the 7.5 hotfix, not a 1440x900 issue unable to duplicate your experience with the 7.5 Cats. I am running an X1950XT though, instead of the Pro. Have you verified that the card isn't setting the refresh rate too high? You may need to grab PowerStrip and modify the refresh rate settings for that resolution.

What's your LAN setup like? Do you have everything connected directly to the router or are you using separate switches/hubs? What happens when you connect to the dedicated server locally without having your friend connect? Do you still see the same issues?

why not try it? That's what I'm planning on doing. I'll .zip up my existing ArmA directory, delete the AddOns and @ folders, patch it and try it. If it doesn't work, 1.06/1.07b are just an un-zip away.

It's gonna be funny when someone discovers this is a problem with NVidia drivers.

Thanks for the additional info, Platty....all the info you provided is great stuff for assisting CSL with the troubleshooting.