shuurajou

Hi All, I raised CIT bug #4042 and also a bug with the IDEA GAMES publisher reference 'IDEA-GAMES-RT #10871'. I raised both of these originally, specifically for the issue where the VRAM values in ArmA 2 cfg were incorrect (indicating ArmA 2 had incorrectly detected VRAM). If you're unsure what these values should read (i.e. so you can determine if the beta patch fixed it for you), export a dxdiag report and look at the Display Devices section, you'll see some memory values. Convert your ArmA2.cfg nonlocalVRAM & localVRAM values to MBs and compare. I'll test with the latest beta patch tonight and post my feedback.

Coincidentally I bought mine on steam. The publisher did say they are apparently working on it but it's not easy to fix.

Dissapointingly I've had a ticket open with IDEA games (publisher and our 'official' way to get support) since the 28th of August and I was told today that they recommend I return the game for a refund. This is after quite a lot of time providing dxdiag, specs etc to help them pass the issue onto BIS to troubleshoot and being told it was passed onto the developers... doesn't fill me with confidence this is going to get fixed if the publisher is telling users to get refunds.

For me I've found with or without the -winxp parameter, when using the BIS recommended NVIDIA drivers (e.g. latest) my VRAM is detected incorrectly (specifically VRAM, not RAM). Limiting to 4GB in MSCONFIG or removing 4GB resolves this detection issue for me.

So, with the -winxp command line argument, looking at your localVRAM parameter, it has correctly detected your video card memory on all machines? Might be useful to paste your localVRAM & nonlocalVRAM detected parameters for each machine. The command line argument -winxp does not fix incorrect VRAM detection in the scenario of having 8GB+ RAM. On some setups it can change the VRAM detected so the game runs without graphical glitches but it still detects it incorrectly. MSCONFIG does help with this.

There's a huge amount of debate and discussion about all these things below - so I've tried to make some sense of it... FYI - my specs are at the bottom. In Arma 2, there is a setting called 'Video Memory'. There is a massive amount of debate around what it should be set to and a huge amount of what I suspect, is misinformation. This setting doesn't appear in any Arma 2 manuals I can find (I bought Arma 2 from steam myself), so as the community we'll have to guess what BI want us to do with this setting. Digging around the forums, someone (sorry, can't remember who now) highlighted that back in Arma 1, it was a time when the biggest amount of memory you could get on a GFX card was 512mb. When the 8800 card series started to come around, obviously that GFX card memory ceiling increased, and apparently, I think in the Arma 1 1.05 patch, BI introduced the 'default' setting to be used with cards higher than 512mb. Although this is unclear, it seems BI just carried this over 'as is' to Arma 2. It also seems when the default setting is selected, Arma 2 will try to utilise and work with what GFX memory Arma 2 THINKS you have as a result of it's autodetection. It's commonly believed (although unconfirmed), what GFX card memory Arma 2 thinks you have, is documented by Arma 2 in the localVRAM parameter found in the Arma2.cfg file... Many people believe that the 'localVRAM=X' parameter in the Arma2 CFG file is something that you can change, and Arma 2 will use. Despite this popular belief, I think (and could be wrong) that it's actually something else. We know that Arma 2 itself, does automatic VRAM detection. It seems that, once Arma has been started and done this automatic VRAM detection, it enters the values it has detected (in bytes), into this parameter. It's unclear what it should read if you have SLI (although it's debated it should be 1 of the 2 cards memory), or that it's actually your GFX card memory at all (as nobody from BI has confirmed any of this - let's assume for now this is accurate). There is also a 'nonlocalVRAM=X' parameter, and many believe that SHOULD if Arma 2 has detected it correctly, show your PCs page file size - I'm not too clear on this, so I won't go into it further for now. So... VRAM detection. In 64bit Vista (and let's guess Win 7 inhereted this too), Arma 2 has had a bug where it incorrectly detected VRAM, specifically if you had 8GB (perhaps other values of RAM too). BI's CEO confirmed in the 1.02 change log that the bug should have been fixed. It seems that this may not be the case. In my own experience, I had previously run 2x Leadtek 8800 GTXs in SLI. At the same time, I also had 8GB and was running Windows 7 64bit (release version from MSDN) and the 190.62 WHQL nVidia driver. At this time, I did not need to add any command line arguments (such as '-winxp') onto my Arma 2 shortcut. However, at this time, Arma 2 thought my GFX card had 2GB RAM (if the localVRAM=X value is believed) and 2GB of 'nonlocalVRAM' (both incorrect). The game worked though - not perfectly (average 30fps?), but it did work. After wiping my HDD and formatting, installing a fresh Win 7 with the same drivers etc, the outcome was the same. After formatting again, I installed a BFG GTX 285 OCX (flashed mobo CMOS at the time). Same drivers as previously (190.62 WHQL). Interestingly, without the '-winxp' parameter (just as before with the 8800 GTXs), Arma 2 gave me loads of blank textures (a problem people often associate with having 8GB of RAM). Looking at the CFG file revealed that Arma essentially though that my GFX card only had 2mb of memory (incorrect - it has 1024mb) & 2mb of nonlocalVRAM (again, unclear what this is meant to show). That kind of made sense to me - you can't do a lot with only 4mb total available memory I suppose - so the textures weren't able to load properly (and were blank as a result). To try a test, I changed the values in the CFG file to what they should be (assuming nonlocalVRAM is pagefile), and set it to read only. The textures were still blank. So, I genuinely don't think that Arma actually looks at these values for instructions, just fills them for diagnostic purposes. Adding the '-winxp' command line argument changed things. Arma 2 then started to detect that I generally had '2GB' of GFX card memory (localVRAM) & 2GB of nonlocalVRAM. This is incorrect, but as before, the game would run - just not great. Interestingly, if I loaded an old 186 driver, Arma 2 would load, with the new card, and my 8gb RAM, without -winxp & without blank textures. So what does this tell me? Having 8GB doesn't seem to be the sole root cause of people having blank textures. What GFX card you have, and the driver your using, does seem to influence Arma 2's ability to correctly detect these values. Having 8GB does seem to be related though... from what I can tell (again, it's a guess, as it is for everyone, as BI haven't told us what it truely does) using the -winxp command line argument has the game use the WinXP version of Direct3D 9 (Vista/Win7 use a slight varient Direct3D 9EX which works with WDDM) which seems to not use Vista/Win7's WDDM. It may also be reasonable to assume to some degree, that in this case, Arma 2 can't see all your 8GBs of RAM, so it doesn't get subjected to a bug with 8GB RAM, but if this was true, why did 8GB ram work without issue when I had an 8800 GTX and the same drivers? So the graphics card or it's drivers do seem to influence this somehow. So, even with the -winxp command line, or with my old 8800 GTXs, Arma 2 still didn't seem to detect things correctly. So, I tried limiting the RAM my machine can utilise with msconfig to approximately 4gb. After rebooting, it seems that with my GTX 285, Arma 2 then successfully detected my video card RAM (it said 1002mb, but you know, it's pretty close). That's interesting, so having 4GB vs 8GB does influence the localVRAM detection & nonlocalVRAM detection to a degree. So I guess, that 1.02 hasn't 100% fixed this yet. So folks... this is all I've been able to find out, and make sense out of, and all I can. It's all 100% speculation as BI haven't confirmed what these different parameters and command line arguments actually mean/do. Until then - maybe this'll help us get to the bottom of this. Shuurajou Version of Arma used in all of the above is 1.03. I quoted 1.02 only as reference due to BI stating 1.02 should have fixed incorrect VRAM detection in systems with 8GB RAM. GFX: BFG GeForce GTX 285 OCX Sound: X-Fi Fatal1ty Mobo: ASUS P5N-T Deluxe (BIOS 1303) CPU: Intel Woldfale E8400 Intel Core 2 Duo Cooler: Tuniq Tower 120 (on the CPU) Case: Cosmos S Keyboard: Microsoft Natural 4000 Mouse: Razer Diamondback OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Final RTM Build RAM: OCZ Reaper HPC 8GB (4x2GB) DDR2 PC-8500C5 @ 1066MHz Display: Dell 2005FPW PSU: Hiper Type M 880W

I have 2nd computer I've also bought ArmA 2 for, it's an iMac with a 3gz core 2 duo & this card - 2gb ram and whilst you won't get blazing FPS if you turn up the GFX, it's certainly playable. Of course 'playable' is subjective.

Hi BIS, This isn't a whine post, it's a cry for help on behalf of the community. The publishers (who we're meant to 'officially' go to support) can't answer this, only you can help. There are issues with Arma 2 right now, and in many cases, it seems like little tweaks here and there using Arma's settings can help us help ourselves. There are many threads where users are struggling with issues and the solutions to these issues being suggested are things like using command line arguments '-winxp' or '-maxmem=2047' (these are only 2 examples). Many people are also being told to change their 'localVRAM' and 'nonlocalVRAM' values set in their CFG file. The problem is I believe many people are guessing what these things do, and giving them out to each other wrongly. Would you be able to help us, by defining what the what the different parameters do and mean, and how we can use them to help ourselves. An examples would be the 'video memory' setting - it's debated constantly what the different settings mean, who should use what and what governs the default setting setting. Another example would be the localVRAM & nonlocalVRAM cfg values. Some people suggest changing them - some people say Arma doesn't read those values, merely fills them with what it thinks are your video card memory and page file values. The problem is BIS, only you can tell us truely what these settings mean, and how we can use them to help ourselves, or how we can look at these values to identify problems. I think everybody appreciates the efforts to bring us the beta builds and that you are working to improve the game, but these basic bits of guidance will really help us further. So BIS, will you support us in supporting ourselves? I'll update the thread as we get answers below: Arma2.cfg parameters: localVRAM=X [The localVRAM parameter is auto detected and is used by the Arma 2 engine for graphical optimization, this specific value indicates Arma 2's autodetection of GFX card resources (cited from official BI suport)] [localVRAM parameter was made for debuging purposes only during developement(cited from BI Developer)] Oustanding Question(s): It is not clear from the information provided that 'GFX card resources' means the amount of RAM on the video card, although this is likely nonlocalVRAM=X [The nonlocalVRAM parameter is auto detected and is used by the Arma 2 engine for graphical optimization, this particular value indicates Arma 2's autodetection on local available resources from main memory via AGP (cited from official BI suport)] [localVRAM parameter was made for debuging purposes only during developement(cited from BI Developer)] Oustanding Question(s): Whether or not this value matters in anyway for users with PCIe cards isn't clear. It also isn't clear if "local available resources from main memory via AGP" means AGP aperture size. In Game Settings: Video Memory [UNKNOWN - missing from the manual] Command Line Arguments: -winxp [The -winxp command line argument minimizes the different approaches in Win7/Vista to XP, in some cases it has seen to enable multi-GPU support (cited from official BI support)] Oustanding Question(s): It is not confirmed if this command line argument forces Arma 2, in a Windows 7/Vista environment to use Direct3D 9 instead of Direct3D 9EX. Many Thanks, Shuurajou (to see my own personal troubleshooting journey, click here). PS> I have highlighted this thread to Miloslav Cinko (Customer Support) of Idea Games (BIS exclusive publisher) to see if we can get the ball rolling on some answers via that channel too. Update #1 - 26th August 2009 - 11:12 UTC: Blank email received from publisher in response to my request. Hoping it's just an accident and have highlighted to them if they did send me any info - it's not showing. Update #2 - 26th August 2009 - 11:25 UTC: The publisher has responed to my email and has queried if this thread has provided me the answers we need. I've advised so far this isn't the case, and highlighted the questions we have outstanding that need the attention of a BI developer. Update #3 - 26th August 2009 - 12:42 UTC: I have had a further response from the publisher via someone called 'Lynx', although their comments seem to be as a result of looking on the forum/wiki, not validating with the developers if the forum/wiki 'guesses' from users are accurate/inaccurate. I've requested absolute confirmation. Update #3 - 26th August 2009 - 13:10 UTC: Lynx has advised he is official BI support and the information he is providing me is from the programmers at BI. I am confirming more granular details to ensure this information is useful. Update #4 - 26th August 2009 - 13:10 UTC: I have ongoing discussions with 'official BI support' via the publisher 'IDEA GAMES', but have also received contact from an actual BI Developer (I sent a request for help when I created this thread). I won't name the developer as people will likely fill their inbox thinking they will get help, however they have sent me to another developer to get concrete answers to my questions - however they have advised that the parameters were only created for debugging purposes (not meant to be a user configurable option). Updated #5 - 27th August 2009 - 11:40 UTC: Sadly, BI official support feel that my questions are as a result of my own personal frustration and seem reluctant to assist. Please see the email chain for your viewing here here. Updated #6 - 27th August 2009 - 12:37 UTC: Trying to source this information from official sources (so the community doesn't have to guess) has been time consuming and resolving any ambiguity around the information given seems not to be a possibility as the publisher seems not to view this as their responsibility. I have tried to do this for the community as there are threads with several thousand views and no answers - however, I really don't have the time and effort to continue this further without the support of the publisher. I hope the information in this thread is post proves helpful to some people - good luck.

Even if you set the read as read only ArmA 2 only writes to those parameters to help with debugging, it doesn't read from them so you can change them to 2MB and it won't help.

That may be true, but if you look at the nonlocalVRAM & localVRAM parameters in your ArmA2.cfg are they accurate (convert bytes to megabytes)? If they are inaccurate and then you are likely getting performance that isn't taking full advantage of the RAM on your video card.

VRAM detection is still broken even if you use -winxp.

FYI for me, if I removed 4GB of RAM from my comp, performance improves dramatically as VRAM detection then functions and the 'default' video memory setting allows me to take advantage of my 1024MB RAM on the video card. So this is certainly a bug linked with 8GB RAM. BIS attempted to fix this in 1.02. Hopefully they'll try again! On that basis though the game won't 'always' be bad, and isn't 'always' bad now. Just depends what bugs impact you.

The thing is you can't actually manually change the VRAM in the config - ArmA 2 writes those values, it doesn't read them - so even if you change them to 2MB it doesn't make a difference, they were made for debug so developers could validate what VRAM ArmA 2 was detecting. You can't change them sadly :(.

In the end of the day the OS supports 8GB so it's not acceptable to have bugs because a computer has 8GB. That's like saying it's OK for the game to have bugs on 24" monitors or an xbox 360 is OK to have bugs with wired controllers. If it's officially supported by the core OS then all subsequent pieces of software need to be able to co-exist with that config without negative impacts.

The only problem being in that case I believe VRAM detection will still be broken and the 'default' setting won't result in the optimum performance of his 4890. May be different with ATI though.

You can use SLI setups without the -winxp switch since newer 190 nvidia drivers. Which are a multi GPU setup of sorts. It seems '-winxp' forces Arma 2 in vista/win7 to use XPs version of Direct3D 9, the GPU enabling on some setups seems to be just a side effect. It sounds like your VRAM detection is working fine. Again, you have 2GB RAM so I'd expect no issues with your VRAM detection. If you run dxdiag, and 'save all information' to your desktop and look at the dxdiag.txt file. Scroll down to the 'display devices' section, then, look at 'dedicated memory' I believe this is what localVRAM should translate to (after you've done bytes - megabytes conversion). I believe 'shared memory' is what your nonlocalVRAM value should translate to.

It'd be worth trying 4GB I think. Just as a test :).

Thanks for your contribution Dwarden.

That is absolutely fine and I have no expectation that ArmA 2 will actually make use of my 8GB RAM. I mention 8GB RAM because it seems that because my computer has 8GB RAM ArmA 2 is unable to accurately detect my video card RAM (1024MB). I haven't used one of these tools before - can you suggest one? I don't want ArmA 2 to use 2GB of VRAM as I only have 1024MB of VRAM - I just want it to use that correctly. It cannot use it correctly if it doesn't realise it's there (because autodetection of VRAM for me (which the 'default' video setting requires to be accurate) is broken). I don't know enough about Datter's specific problems to really comment on that side of things. I too am coming to the conclusion though that 8GB is a massive pain for very little gain in most circumstances. Regardless, the OS supports it so it should work. I could do with a beer right now too... The thing is, the way BIS have designed the game, in order to get the benefit from having a GFX card with more than 512MB VRAM, you have to use the 'default' setting, and that is dependant (seemingly) on the VRAM detection working, which it doesn't with the 8GB bug. So, BIS can let us manually define our VRAM value so ArmA 2 doesn't have to autodetect, or, they can see if they resolve the bug. I acknowledge that ArmA 2 cannot make use of more than 2GB system RAM. It's 32bit of course. However, I have come across instances where the nonlocalVRAM value has been detected at 3GB, but this is the graphics card shared memory, so not necessarily wrong. If you run dxdiag & export dxdiag.txt, I believe, if VRAM autodetection is working as designed, the values detected in nonlocalVRAM & localVRAM should be very close to the 'Dedicated Memory' & 'Shared Memory' output in dxdiag under the 'display devices' category.For example... This is a snippit from my DX diag. I believe if I have 4GB RAM, the values ArmA 2 detects align almost perfectly with 'dedicated memory' (localVRAM) & 'shared memory' (nonlocalvRAM) from dxdiag. I just want to be clear I'm not here to argue - just trying help everyone get the most from the game with their systems and where possible, furnish BIS with as much information as possible.

This might sound crazy but just try it. Remove 2x sticks of 2GB (leaving you with 4GB RAM), delete arma2.cfg and then setup your setting again, but choose default video memory this time. Then restart Arma 2. See if it makes a difference. This is assuming you have 64bit Vista or Win 7.

Updated as I misread the initial calculations. Without the -winxp command line argument the game actually only detects 2MB localVRAM & 2MB nonlocalVRAM (4MB total?!).

I can see from your other posts you have 4GB RAM, so default I think has worked as intended for you. If you have 4GB RAM it seems VRAM (Video RAM) autodetect works. So... going through the logic. You have a GTX 295. This card has more than 512MB video RAM, so you should use default video memory for best performance. The default video memory setting relys on Arma 2's automatic VRAM detection entirely. You have 4GB RAM so Arma 2's automatic VRAM detection works (if you had 8GB it likely would not), so, default has done the job it was meant to and now things are better for you :).

No worries... I know - 2MB is crazy. Many GTX 285/275/260 users with 8GB RAM may get blank looking textures when you do not use '-winxp' or anything like that - if you look at your CFG file and calculate the bytes value into megabytes users will likely find a similar value to 2MB has been detected (if you're one of these users). It explains the blank one colour textures really - you can't fit much of any maps textures in 2MB.

VRAM stands for Video RAM - it is the RAM that is on your graphics card. However, I knew what I was saying. There is a bug, that if you have 8GB normal system RAM, Arma 2 doesn't correctly auto detect your VRAM. It was meant to be fixed but has not been. In Bohemia's words from the 1.02 change log - "Fixed localVRAM detection on Vista x64 systems with 8 GB RAM and more" - this bug is still present in 1.03 sadly. I am well aware the in game setting is surrounding video memory (VRAM). However, the in game 'default' video memory setting, autodetection of VRAM, the localVRAM paremeter & 8GB of PC RAM are linked. The 'default' video setting makes use of Arma 2's auto VRAM detection - but if you have more than 8GB RAM, the auto-detection is often broken for VRAM, making the default 'video memory' setting do more harm than good as in some examples it only detects 2MB of VRAM.

JW Custom, if you are only here to try and add unhelpful, valueless, throwaway comments then feel free to stop. You aren't helping anybody at all in doing that. I'm just trying to do something to help people. This thread has over 7,900 views and over 91 posts with people trying to understand how to correctly use the video memory option because there's no guidance with it. This clearly demonstrates a need for assistance from an official source to explain how to use this setting appropriately. As you can clearly see, this thread isn't just me - so clearly this isn't my own 'personal frustration' but the frustration of every post in that thread. This thread has over 26,100 views and 177 posts. Many people in this thread are advising each other to change their localVRAM & nonlocalVRAM settings without actually understanding truely what they are there for and how to use them to help diagnose an issue. This also, clearly demonstrates that the community at large has issues here and needs assistance from an official source. I am aware that in 1.02 BI attempted to fix this issue however it's not completely fixed yet. As you can also clearly see, this thread too, isn't just my frustration. I suspect that the localVRAM setting is where ArmA 2 will update your cfg file with what it has autodetected your video card memory to be. It is not user configurable. If this could be confirmed as true then many users would be in a position to provide BI with data around when ArmA 2 does and does not correctly auto detect their video cards RAM. As it seems the 'Default' video memory setting is linked with this auto detection, if auto detection is broken then users with more than 512MB video cards won't be able to get ArmA 2 to run optimally.