beugnen

hi jonney, as you have probably guessed, the application is trying to allocate graphical memory but sadly the buffer is too small. not all vertex buffers are the same, some are just the 3D co-ordinates, some have extra colour information and some have additional vertex normals. if the application specifices a request for vertex-cord+colour+normals for a coord-only buffer then well...boom.:eek: sadly i dont know what you can do to get around it. is it happening in a particular mission or save game?

disable antivirus if you are installing from DVD, try putting it in a different drive(if you have one) if you're on vista make sure you are an admin EDIT: another tip for DVD, try a media test by running DVDInfoPro

though im glad you got a performance improvement, it is perhaps hardly a conclusive test moving to a new OS obviously included you to install all new drivers along the way, which is to say perhaps a driver update was responsible? additionally, the game runs much faster in the editor than 'in-game' :cool:

well im still waiting for them to patch A1, it still runs like a game written using Glide

actually consoles have a three (3) year lifespan. though it is true that patches can not miraculously and spontaneously resurrect old hardware, patches can improve game performance if the bug was in the software to begin with. case in point was our old friend DCS BS which has a rather unfortunate inability to mitigate itself across cores. users have found and proven that setting process affinity doubles FPS on multi-core systems. this fix DCS has reported will come out in a patch so users do not have to do it manually anymore. yes FSX was a pig at release. SP2 though, improved performance. then there is REX which increases it a further order of magnitude. not bad for software updates, whether they are official or not. i fear your knowledge of FSX is perhaps out of date so im happy to assist here. also not bad for a 2006 vintage game. oh wasn't A1 released around the same time? what models more complex elements and which looks better? win on both i think. while BS ground detail may be low, then again following all the suggestions in these forums of running A2 at 50% native, low settings, AA off, shadow off, low ground/object/mesh detail has a very striking resemblance to certain BS setups anyway. i fail to see how A2 is better in this respect. QED --------------- crysis - is irrelevant to this conversation. all my samples FSX, BS, X2/X3 and PMDG model large worlds, complexity, 1000s of objects and rendering. crysis while stunning, does not perform all these tasks.

made no difference sadly. i think this is another urban myth

hi datter, thanks for the tips, though it isnt really a very good scientific approach perhaps. would have been better to measure with fraps before and after. the human eye is so easily fooled so its difficult to make firm judgements.:cool: others and myself have tried this before, in fact the game tends to like defaulting to 80% native rez or so for some bizarre reason. performance differences were not significant in our tests. and besides, the last game that made players play at underrated resolutions at say 640x480 was doom3, but at least it did not look pix-elated. its quite possible that you are reducing FOV which is reducing load on the CPU (yes CPU not GPU, A2 is CPU-bound)

dont worry chris, everyone is getting poor performance with this game. intensive testing has shown that the game is very cpu-bound. case in point: max settings = 25fps, min settings = 25fps. changes to video cards, video drivers, sli settings, pre render limit have moot effect. cpu monitoring shows significant cpu load across all four cores ranging from 50-75%. very unusual considering this is no FSX + PMDG; X2/X3; X-Plane or DCS BS which model much more complex environments, systems and are visually more stunning. please ignore posters who may blame your video card. even latest model cards run like a DirectX 6 game, though some Dx6 games probably look better. ---------- Post added at 12:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 AM ---------- well i hope so, i played A1 last month to see what the fuss was about and it ran light a dog. reports say A2 is using the same 'engine' as A1, they've had 3 years to fix it and it is quite clear they have not. strange when they are supposed to be the same team from OFP and yet OFP runs better. so wait we shall try, surely it cant get any worse...:cool: ---------- Post added at 12:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 AM ---------- yes, i did a similar test to very the engines world clipping by looking at the ground in game, it was not conclusive sadly. my aim was to remove the graphic element by removing all visible objects (looking at the ground or sky), the resulting FPS would be the 'max FPS', the difference between the max and normal eye-level would be the overhead in running a normal game with friendly and enemy units. since there was insignifant difference it was unclear whether volume clipping is working or the game is cpu-hungry. but like you in the armory my FPS jumps 3x to a rock steady 60 FPS, even it a equally complex envionment as in-game. further evidence for a cpu-bound nature. there is something seriously wrong with the CPU workload in this game. it is quite clear that the GPU is sitting there twiddling its thumbs waiting for the game to give it something to do.

more importantly we are still subjected to the same low-performance game engine of A1 let alone toon animations. i wish the former be improved.

hehe, i was going to post on this very thing this morning. glad it wasnt just me, thought i was going mad. i agree, wish the game looked like that all the time

well that's surprising, why on earth does A2 have a Shader 3 requirement if its not using VS at least? sadly, adding any eye-candy is more than likely going to reduce FPS even more on this game. i would be happy on fixing the graphics pipeline optimization bug first and find out why the CPU is being overly used

well perhaps the player is manning a AA gun or SAM. im not sure if these are in the game having just started. but if the feature goes in perhaps add these new guns too. as for good radar systems, in 1960 the Ruskies were able to shoot down a U-2 spy plane at an apparent 80,000ft so i guess their system had no problems with 'dots'.:D ---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 PM ---------- if the game utilised a progressive mesh system then ground buildings would automatically reduce to nothing over 3km but at the same time allow much greater view distance for airborne objects. ground scenery, ground moving objects and airborne objects can be clipped individually.

i think the original poster has some merit. living near an airport, i'm pretty sure i can see that plane coming in for approach at 10,000 ft or 3,000 ft for that matter. considering that A2 is a realistic sim, adding the ability to see high-altitude aircraft would be most beneficial. if progressive meshes are used it would add little impact to the game's performance.:cool: