Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Beugnen

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    40

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Beugnen

  1. Posted

    Hi all,

    Can someone explain what this means please:-

    'Error during v-buffer creation: error 8876017c'

    Basically the ArmA2.RPT file is just a long list of the above message with a smattering of 'Vertex Buffer too small (19819<16384)' and finally ending with either

    'Cannot commit

    ErrorMessage: Cannot commit

    Cannot commit

    Link to 94c9a0ba (Obj-308,166:186) not released'

    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?

  3. Posted

    I just want to say that when i went from XP to windows 7 RC 64bit and all my problems are gone! :shine:

    No more corrupt texturebug, framerates are no longer 8 in the big cities but 20-30 when in editor, att high graphics.

    I still got some flickering textures sometimes, and the sound somethimes get weird but its nothing compared to what problems i had before.

    Can finally play the game! :D

    So if you have problems with an ATI card in XP try Win7, worked for me anyway.

    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:

  4. Posted

    BI dev team is one of the most dedicated to their community / players, releasing patch after patch for all their games. So keep your bitterness for yourself, we all know those troubles will be solved one way or another.

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

  5. Posted

    Ignore posters who think that budget/old hardware will run new games with all the bells and whistles (if at all).

    Go buy a console if you want something that will last for 5 years.

    The game has problems, I've said it a 1000 times but patches will not solve the problem of of old/substandard hardware.

    Yes, spending money on hardware is a pain (especially if you don't have a lot of money) but PC gaming costs money and there is no way around it. You can build a nice, current system for under $1000.00 (and if you shop around, even less).

    And before we get into the "Crysis does this and Crysis does that" argument,

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-295,2123-4.html

    4 x GPUs (2 x GTX 295) and a 4.00GHz i7 are barely getting it over 50FPS @ 1920 x 1200 with AA/AF enabled.

    In my case and many others here, A2 is performing better than that with less horsepower.

    Eth

    PS : I would also like to say that FSX was a mess at release and still runs like a pig on even the most beastly machines and DCS Black Shark's (while I love the game) ground level detail is nowhere near that of A2's (it simply doesn't have to be).

    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.

  7. Posted

    I've come across two performance items that might not seem immediately obvious, but are worth trying. The first I found mentioned about the original Armed Assault and around here related to ArmA2, and the second just something I tried on my own.

    1. Try setting shadows to "Very High". I've heard that this setting may perform better than "High" or even "Normal" on some systems, and for me personally it is in fact much better. I have yet to fire up Fraps to determine any actual frame rate increase, but I can say that the game plays much smoother and feels much better at "Very High" shadows. Worth a shot.
    2. If you're running on an LCD monitor you'll no doubt be trying to run ArmA2 at your screens native resolution. In my case that is 1680x1050. In the campaign however I found some slow down so out of annoyance I lowered my 3d resolution to one step below my native res (should be 1440x990... though in ArmA2 it shows up as 1436x984 or something odd) with the AA set to "Very High". This gave me an obvious and quite noticeable increase in performance of course, but I initially thought it was going to be a bad decision since it wasn't my monitors native res. I would describe the picture as "soft" when running this way, and after playing for a minute or two I found I actually liked it better than the perfect crispness of my native res. The softness somehow makes it feel more lifelike, and when switched back to the native res (with AA) I find the crispness to be very... computery.

    So, try "Very High" shadows as well as setting you resolution one notch down from you native res. You might be surprised, and you've nothing to lose.

    datter

    Cave of Distraction - Gaming articles, including lots of ArmA2 material

    Your Thread Sucks - A web comic about life on the internet

    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)

  8. Posted

    just uploaded arma2 adjusted the settings etc , the games running slow and everything is on high/ veryhigh. i then tried it on low and its still the same. my comp can handle it becasue i have everything the optmal requirements ask for, except graphics card i have a n-vidia 8500 gt

    can anyone help?

    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 ----------

    I'll wait for the next patch, we'll see if they can improve performance.

    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 ----------

    Edit2: Ah, my fps are 8-20 in campaign and 25-35 in armory (if I watch the sky I can have a 50 fps boost sometimes)

    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.

  9. Posted

    What bugs me is the reload animation. Bis has all this time into the command animations, which is really ausome but I cannot believe we are still playing with the same shit animation from Arma!

    or am i blind?

    reload animation for the sniper rifles is like WTF are you doing, just put the clip in, instead your hand is dancing all over the dam thing, like your cocking the gun and wiping it off, and doing the ritual with your hand like your asking the lord for his blessing before you go off, for crap sake just reload the thing.

    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.

  10. Posted

    you know what's funny? I love the graphics when my game is being saved. Seriously. There is a weird contrast shift and a fluffyness that looks really good. Especially in the night and when I am wearing NVG.

    It looks almost real for a few seconds. Then the game saves and graphics become flat and geometrical again! I have no complaints I just wonder what happens to the graphics during saving and if I could replicate the effect somehow!

    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

  11. Posted · Edited by Beugnen

    I created this thread to discuss anything about the entire graphics engine as a whole. (Of course I'm not an expert in this)

    We were told BIS is working on pixel and vertex shading, this is extremely important if OFP2 is to look better but I'm worried about one thing:

    improper use of this may rended the entire game to look pale and faded. Unrealistic like Raven Shield. If you don't know what I am talking about, go play the R6 Raven Shield Demo or full game and look at the colors. It's missing all bright clear colors. Even the fireworks look like a joke. I have seen this in other new games, I don't remember the titles, shading is nice, but it has to be limited and checked with real life appearance.

    Also, as discussed before, I would like to see harware vertex tessellation/subdivision as supported by ATI,TRUFORM...

    ATI's TRUFORM

    General Surface subdivision

    Pixel and Vertex Shading (ATI)

    Pixel and Vertex shading

    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

  12. Posted

    Without good radar systems that can distinctly tell altitude and position it is a bit pointless to be looking up at a dot. Sure, you can shoot your stinger up there, but in the current ArmA 2 package there is no reliable way for a soldier on foot to be able to identify friend or foe. Of course if it was in the game that would be a different ( as the stinger does have IFF ), but it doesn't.

    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 ----------

    I'm totally agree with Uziyahu. I've mentioned this in another topic.

    In an equity purpose, not everybody has the computer to push the game to 10km and some like me have serious performance issues with Arma2. Sky isn't a performance killer and there is lods ..

    Note that even with max settings "10km, objects vhigh ect.." every object and unit is occulted after 2,2Km, no matter zoom magnification.

    I don't know if it possible on this engine, only Bis can say, but i'm certain that lot of people would appreciate such feature in a simulator.

    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.

  13. Posted

    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:

×