eosteric

Hey, Seamus, for now, until the new official patch is out, use Catalyst drivers 10.4. Make sure you set your vram to 0 in the config file before you run the game.

Because it's the same problem. Just a lot of CF users don't seem to understand that. But it's the exact same problem affecting both CF and non-CF users. Why don't you post something useful instead of asking me why I'm posting what I'm posting. It's really tiring having to explain myself to those who don't understand what's going on, I've explained the problem in multiple threads already, and it's a confirmed, acknowledged problem by the devs, I've found out. Now I'm just waiting for the fix, in an official patch. Oh, and BTW: It's not affecting just ATI users either.

I hear you. But there's no need to focus on what the game does right. I play the game and enjoy it. I try to bring attention to things that needs fixing so it'll be even better, so it can reach it's full potential.

This isn't just about crossfire, I'm not a CF user. It's a VRAM detection issue affecting texture LODs. It happens with single cards as well as crossfire.

I'll be coming back here with videos, from Arma, to show better what I mean.

Look, it's a simple thing. The tanks are too slow, compare to videos of real tanks and you'll see. Oh, and it's not just speed, sometimes your tank will get stuck on a bush, or a log. Haha, yeah, that's realistic. And not being able to climb up, not very steep, angles, and have the tank just stop, midway, then slide down. I could show videos, but what's the point, apparently I'm the only one who sees the game's fault. It's weird how so many people can't admit that what they like or own have problems. I like the game so much, that I wish it's problems where fixed. That's the only reason.

Why is it such a big deal to give us an aprox. release date of the official, not RC, 1.59? Treat your customers with a little respect, we paid for your game. We're the only reason you're working as a game dev. If this was any other product than a game everyone would get their money back as it's not working as intended when released. The state the game was in on release was awful, at least it's come a long way since then, but still, all this time after, there's such a LONG way to go. It's a game with lots of complex systems and calculation, but the visual side, especially something like detecting the correct amount of RAM should be extremely simple. How can you do something like that wrong, and take such a long time to correct it.

How slow are you? Who said I would? One poster made a claim about games could be "faking" utilization of multiple cores, I said as a test, just run the game in single core and you'll see the performance drop and know it's not just some faked shit. Come on, keep up. Don't make me have to type the same thing twice just because you can't read everything posted. Oh, and Myke, great, your game is perfect. Too bad the rest of us isn't playing your immaculate conception of a unique release. You seem so infatuated that you're blind to the game's and engine's faults. And there's a lot. OPF/ARMA series have always had a reputation of being filled to the brim with bugs. And changelogs are proof of this as well.

Man, you don't understand anything. It's weird how all other games manage to utilize the GPU more than Arma 2 right? Run any other game and measure utilization of your GPU and you'll find it can often run at near 90% load whereas Arma 2 it's at 5%. And there's lots of graphic stuff in Arma 2 not happening at GPU level, proof? Because a lot of the graphic settings you change, don't affect performance one way or the other, and doesn't change GPU load when measured. And no, using all threads of the CPU is not difficult. That's why so many applications and quite a few games do that. Again, weird how everyone else manages to do things easily that Arma 2 doesn't do at all. And the way you check for proper usage is by running any game with just two cores enabled instead of four, and check the performance decrease. And I haven't seen a single game yet using four cores heavily not drop in performance when you run it with just two cores. Sounds like this Suma dude is just making excuses. What he's saying is a bullshit line, he's implying that, oh, the competition, they way they've done it is fake, it's just bullshit, and illusion. Well, it's not. And again, the proof is, run the game in two or single core mode and you'll see the performance drop. And this Suma should stop talking smack about arbitrary competition, and instead do what they've been doing for a long time. You too. The engine used is just shit, and Bohemia probably wishes they could just scrap the whole thing, and they will too. You have noticed it barely has physics right? And how shit an exploding vehicle looks, they mostly just change texture. Not to mention buildings. There's no graphically dynamic systems at work at all in this game, except for particles, but they suck as well, compared to just about any other game. This game looks great at a stand still, a screenshot, moving, it looks and behaves like all simulators have come to, sub-par. I know it's far fetched to expect say Crysis level shaders, and Bad Company 2 level destruction, but if this game had at least some of the effects of either of those games it would that many times greater. Just vehicles exploding in a fairly realistic way would be a great addition, and proper vehicle physics so when driven they behave in a realistic way. Just to mention one thing. And all the countless bugs like flying vehicles, hovering items, explosions throwing cars up in the air about 10 times, things getting stuck in loops, etc. It's falling apart at the seams. But just wait and see, Arma 3 or Arma 4 engine will be built from scratch. The 3D rendering part at least. And all the other CPU tasks they will distribute properly between all threads. If you don't believe that, then wait and see. I don't believe they suck as programmers, I just think they've been living too long in the past. They've probably discussed this, new engine stuff a lot of times, but maybe it has come down to resources, or they've just felt it wasn't necessary. I think they will make a new engine and we'll see that it not only looks better but performs much better as well.

No, I see the fix is listed, but I don't need an RC as my servers don't run RC or beta. When will 1.59 non-rc be out?

Obviously it needs something more, since it could always perform better. Most people would agree that it's a very demanding game. More and better utilizing of GPU/RAM would give it a performance increase. Not very difficult to understand.

Whatever you want can be done on the GPU. http://developer.nvidia.com/object/gpu-ai.html And last I checked, more than 2gb ram does not equal 64bit application.

Yes, when? Because right now, the only way I know to get around this is by setting vram to 0 in config and starting beta, but I have to run beta, can't go back to official. And beta is not supported on the online server I play, so there's no work around for that. All I want at this point is a confirmation the vram detection is fixed, and I want to know what patch it will be included in, OFFICIAL PATCH, and when that patch will be released.

Fine, what I'm wondering though, is why isn't this fix in an official patch? When the fix was introduced in beta 76930. When was that beta patch released?

Don't you get it, Arma is old school, the programmer's have no idea how to utilize modern GPUs, so much happens at CPU level in this game. Up until recently they didn't even utilize more than 2GB RAM. So yeah, old school. I wish they had better programmers. Just check GPU utilization while playing, it's barely doing any work.