BIS - help us help ourselves!

[shuurajou]

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 (http://store.steampowered.com/manual/33900/)]

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 (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=84974)).

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 (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=85081).

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.

[Sick1]

Yes please help us with this. You guys must have a good amount of people that worked on this game and one of them is bound to know what these things do. I know that most if not all arma players check and read these forums at some point so the stage is set and everybody is watching BIS.

You guys are the gods so bring the rain!

[W0lle]

The startup parameters are explained here (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma2:_Startup_Parameters).

[shuurajou]

The startup parameters are explained here (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma2:_Startup_Parameters).

Hi W0lle,

Thanks for your response. Sadly that is a community wiki so isn't official statements from BIS so is possibly inaccurate.

Based on my examples, and looking at the wiki...

Command line argument: -winxp
The information seems inaccurate on the wiki. We know -winxp helps some GTX 275/285 users (they only have on gpu) and it's suspected it forces using a windowsXP version of Direct3d 9 which may explain some it makes a difference for people who have only one GPU. So the explanation of 'use it in Vista/Windows 7 to enable multi-GPU support (Arma2)' is merely one of many results that using this command line can achieve, but not an explanation of BIS as to what they designed it to do and the effects it may have.

CFG parameter: localVRAM=X
The guidance on what this means, should have defined as a value or how it can be used to help is not on the wiki.

CFG parameter: nonlocalVRAM=X
Again, any guidance is missing on the wiki for this.

In Game Parameter/Setting: Video Memory
Guidance on the wiki is missing for this. Guidance is required on what each setting determines and how it should be used in correlation to your setup.

So all in all the wiki hasn't helped with these particular questions, and they are key questions as many times they are quoted as 'solutions' to problems when nobody knows what they really do.

W0lle, if you're happy to take these questions to BIS I think you'd be doing all of us a huge favour.

[W0lle]

This is the official BI Studio Wiki. More official it doesn't get, maybe check the domain it's hosted at. ;)

[BeerHunter]

-generateshaders Use unknown. (Possibly for use with Buldozer)
-download Use unknown. (Possibly set auto download of missing Mod pbo's from
server.)
-disableProgramDrawing Use unknown. (Possibly for use with Buldozer)
-useProgramDrawing Use unknown. (Possibly for use with Buldozer)
-gamertag= Use unknown.


Yep - thats really helpful ain't it..if BIS doesn't know what there for how are we supposed to ?? :p

All in all though it's an informative site. Txs

[shuurajou]

This is the official BI Studio Wiki. More official it doesn't get, maybe check the domain it's hosted at. ;)

I appreciate the Wiki is provided by BIS but the content is owned and produced by the community and can be changed by anyone. I'd imagine keen forum users put a lot of that information on there. Hence the ambiguity on some of them and inaccuracy in other areas.

The problem is the community made it, with their guesses, not BIS. Even I can go in and change things if I want with wrong information.

Regardless, the questions I've posted are parts of solutions people recommend all the time, but nobody is agreed on what they do and there's no guidance from BIS if we're getting things right or not. The manual provided to me on Steam doesn't actually have a 'Video Memory' setting.

The game isn't perfect yet, and we appreciate BIS is working on it, but to make the best of the things before the patches to come, we need help from BIS about the settings and parameters so we can help troubleshooting ourselves. We need support from BIS as they know what -winxp actually does an why/if we should use it. BIS will know what they created the different 'Video Memory' settings in game for and how we can use them depending on hardware (there are only guesses on the forum - everyone says different). BIS will know why/if we should look at the local/nonlocalVRAM cfg parameters and how we can use them to diagnose faults or if indeed we can use them at all.

If BIS can answer these key questions then we can make sure they are on the wiki, accurate, and locked (if that can be done), then that'd be really helpful. Only the developers can tell us the real answers to the questions I've posed - the community can only guess.

[W0lle]

First of all, the Wiki is not only filled with community knowledge but BI developers also add or edit articles.

Second, the Wiki is well moderated and the one who fills it with nonsense of false information has modified articles for a long time then.

We will see if a developer will answer this questions here, I wouldn't bet though. :)

[shuurajou]

First of all, the Wiki is not only filled with community knowledge but BI developers also add or edit articles.

Second, the Wiki is well moderated and the one who fills it with nonsense of false information has modified articles for a long time then.

We will see if a developer will answer this questions here, I wouldn't bet though. :)

Hi W0lle,

I appreciate you addressing our concerns here and contributing to the thread.

That's great to know BI developers contribute to the Wiki. It's also great to hear it's moderated.

It'd be great to see if a developer can come and help us out here, as if they can't - who can?

[Karhis]

Some of the stuff in the startup parameters Wiki are remnants from old ArmA1.

Like


-world=empty (for faster game loading.. no island and no menu animation loaded (1.05))


refers to old ArmA version 1.05, doesn't it?

And



-openal Use OpenAl sound.


refers to OpenAL sound which is not used in ArmA2 according to moderator Dwarden in his first post in sticky thread " Missing xAudio2 file(s) & sound issues"

This information seems to be copied and pasted from older information applicable to ArmA1 and therefore leaves us guessing what certain parameters do if anything.

[datter]

We will see if a developer will answer this questions here, I wouldn't bet though. :)

Me either, which is of course the problem.



.

[shuurajou]

Well, it's the publishers job to support us, and I've asked them to answer the questions in the thread... they claim in their automated email response...


For Game Playing Issues: This issue is most likely going to be upgraded and a developer will have to deal with it so this will normally take longer to expedite. During the wait please upgrade your system and components especially Direct X!

[datter]

We're on our own I'm afraid. Maybe if this was a pay per month type game there would be something in the way of ongoing feedback, but the fact that it isn't is both a blessing and a currse.

Hey look at all those other games on my HD. :)



.

[shuurajou]

I did get an email from the publisher today - but it was a blank one. Perhaps it was an accident. I'll keep you all posted.

W0lle, as you can see highlighted by others in this thread, the information on the wiki is incorrect/incomplete in a quite a few areas (specifically for Arma 2), and as I've highlighted, is completely missing the answers to many of the specific questions I've asked. If you can prompt a response from BI, that'd be very useful. I'm sure you read the forums, but the specific parameters & the specific options/command line arguments I have raised questions about seem to be the most popular 'solutions' suggested by people, when nobody actually knows what they do and & merely guessing, so it'd add a huge value to get this information.

[shuurajou]

Updated main thread with current communications with the publisher.

[datter]

Thanks for all your trouble, I'm definitely following thing. You really shouldn't have to go through all this of course, especially since some of the people who can sort this out once and for all are reading the thread. Makes you wonder.

[shuurajou]

Thanks for all your trouble, I'm definitely following thing. You really shouldn't have to go through all this of course, especially since some of the people who can sort this out once and for all are reading the thread. Makes you wonder.

Your welcome, hopefully in the end we'll have the answers we need. Good news is that this chap says the information he's providing is sourced from BIs programmers & he is official BI support.

---------- Post added at 05:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 PM ----------

FYI updated with some BI developer comments.

[shuurajou]

Sadly BI support seem relucant to assist us further - see my update in the main thread.

[BangTail]

Sadly BI support seem relucant to assist us further - see my update in the main thread.

What a load of old cobbler's. They more than sufficently answered your questions from what I can see.

Eth

[shuurajou]

What a load of old cobbler's. They more than sufficently answered your questions from what I can see.

Eth

Regarding localVRAM=X parameter. Miloslav advised this is the autodetected 'GFX resource' - I asked if he meant video card RAM - he did not answer thie question so the question is unanswered. The answer he provided is ambiguous, I am merely trying to fully understand it before it's relayed to the community.

Regarding nonlocalVRAM=X parameter. Miloslav advised this is the autodetected 'available resources from main memory via AGP' I asked if he meant AGP aperture size and if this mattered to PCIe users - he did not provided an answer, again, I was merely trying to clarify his ambigious definition if the parameter.

Regarding '-winxp'. I asked Miloslave if this forces Win7/Vista to use Direct3D 9 vs Direct3D 9EX, he did not confirm this. He only stated it minimalised OS differences and helped multi-GPU users.

Regarding video memory, there are several settings.

- low
- normal
- high
- very high
- default

They should be configered based on the amount of RAM your pesonal video card has, however, no guidance is offered on what setting is for what GFX RAM amount - there is no answer to this question.

[BangTail]

Regarding localVRAM=X parameter. Miloslav advised this is the autodetected 'GFX resource' - I asked if he meant video card RAM - he did not answer thie question so the question is unanswered. The answer he provided is ambiguous, I am merely trying to fully understand it before it's relayed to the community.

Regarding nonlocalVRAM=X parameter. Miloslav advised this is the autodetected 'available resources from main memory via AGP' I asked if he meant AGP aperture size and if this mattered to PCIe users - he did not provided an answer, again, I was merely trying to clarify his ambigious definition if the parameter.

Regarding '-winxp'. I asked Miloslave if this forces Win7/Vista to use Direct3D 9 vs Direct3D 9EX, he did not confirm this. He only stated it minimalised OS differences and helped multi-GPU users.

Regarding video memory, there are several settings.

- low
- normal
- high
- very high
- default

They should be configered based on the amount of RAM your pesonal video card has, however, no guidance is offered on what setting is for what RAM amount - there is no answer to this question.

As Planck said, you need to tweak your settings to your preference. There is no "ONE" magic answer. You got very extensive answers to your questions which is more than you would have received from other developers.

Eth

[shuurajou]

As Planck said, you need to tweak your settings to your preference. There is no "ONE" magic answer. You got very extensive answers to your questions which is more than you would have received from other publishers.

Eth

I'm not asking for 'one' magic answer. I'm not saying 'medium' video memory should work for everyone regarldess of configuration. I'm saying, tell us what you made each setting for, so on the basis of our computer specs, we should be able to configure. Video memory is only about the graphics card memory, so this isn't about every possible configuration and every possible varient of PC, this is purely about GFX card RAM. I'm saying, if they designed 'medium' video memory to be selected for 256MB graphics cards then they should say so - if they haven't then they need to give guidance and explain so.

Some people say 'default' is for 512mb+ cards, but nobody from BIS or support has said this, people are guessing - people shouldn't have to guess, there should be guidance.

If the manual said 'For GFX cards with 1025MB RAM or more, select default', as a user, I'd know what to do. I would be able to tweak my settings as I know what they did. Nobody knows how to use the video memory setting, that's why there's a thread 7700 people have looked at as they don't get it either.

Quality settings are entirely different of course as that depends on the whole system configuration.

Some of the details support offered were ambiguous, I sought to resolve this ambiguity. There are threads with several thousand views because people don't understand these settings. I am trying to help them understand by getting the official statement around these settings.

[JW Custom]

I'm not asking for 'one' magic answer. I'm not saying 'medium' video memory should work for everyone regarldess of configuration. I'm saying, tell us what you made each setting for, so on the basis of our computer specs, we should be able to configure. Video memory is only about the graphics card memory, so this isn't about every possible configuration and every possible varient of PC, this is purely about GFX card RAM. I'm saying, if they designed 'medium' video memory to be selected for 256MB graphics cards then they should say so - if they haven't then they need to give guidance and explain so.

Some people say 'default' is for 512mb+ cards, but nobody from BIS or support has said this, people are guessing - people shouldn't have to guess, there should be guidance.

If the manual said 'For GFX cards with 1025MB RAM or more, select default', as a user, I'd know what to do. I would be able to tweak my settings as I know what they did. Nobody knows how to use the video memory setting, that's why there's a thread 7700 people have looked at as they don't get it either.

Quality settings are entirely different of course as that depends on the whole system configuration.

Some of the details support offered were ambiguous, I sought to resolve this ambiguity. There are threads with several thousand views because people don't understand these settings. I am trying to help them understand by getting the official statement around these settings.

Just try with different settings and see what do your system best!!!!

Personally i have tried tons of settings, turning off PhysX, VSync etc. etc, tried all the command line stuff and honestly it doesn't give or take on my system.

Only thing i found weird and working is to NOT set my video settings too low, meaning that if i set options to high/highest i get much better performance than with settings on normal/low!

Also noticed a performance boost with postprocess effects off, this also gives a crystal clear view instead of being annoyingly blurry!

[EricFr]

the devs don't know their own engine :yay:

[shuurajou]

Just try with different settings and see what do your system best!!!!

Personally i have tried tons of settings, turning off PhysX, VSync etc. etc, tried all the command line stuff and honestly it doesn't give or take on my system.

Only thing i found weird and working is to NOT set my video settings too low, meaning that if i set options to high/highest i get much better performance than with settings on normal/low!

Also noticed a performance boost with postprocess effects off, this also gives a crystal clear view instead of being annoyingly blurry!

I too have tried all the different settings. For me to make educated tweaks against my settings though it's important to understand their functionality.

The video memory setting systems mostly a mystery to everyone though (some people think very high is for 2GB GFX cards, some people think very high is for 512MB GFX CARDS) - I tried to uncover this mystery... but alas... I guess we'll have to keep on guessing.

I think the devs certainly do know their own engine, just that no devs with the knowledge of that part of the engine have shared that knowledge yet...

[JW Custom]

some people think very high is for 512MB GFX CARDS)

Really?? when in 2003??

[=WFL= Sgt Bilko]

Honestly I'd be more happy if they worked on a patch that will solve performance issues rather than having them babysit the forum for people who try workarounds for the same issues.

Don't get me wrong I'd try anything that will make the game smooth (and btw that doesn't necessarily mean high FPS, there is a difference). But in the end I want a patch that fixes it instead of 99 opinions about parameters in game and in gfx drivers.

[JW Custom]

Honestly I'd be more happy if they worked on a patch that will solve performance issues rather than having them babysit the forum for people who try workarounds for the same issues.

Don't get me wrong I'd try anything that will make the game smooth (and btw that doesn't necessarily mean high FPS, there is a difference). But in the end I want a patch that fixes it instead of 99 opinions about parameters in game and in gfx drivers.

Well thats exactly what they are working on for next patch!!!! Please do not read the forum is forbidden :eek:

[=WFL= Sgt Bilko]

Not sure what you mean, I'm not saying that devs should not read the forums.

But if you rather have them put all their energy on answering questions on parameters that might not even make any difference than working on the patch. Then I guess we will never see a patch.

[JW Custom]

But if you rather have them put all their energy on answering questions on parameters that might not even make any difference than working on the patch. Then I guess we will never see a patch.

If you rather put all YOUR energy in posting whine posts then go ahead.... BUT if you actually read a little around the forum you would know that what your asking for is EXACTLY what the devs are working on... PERFORMANCE and "mouse lag" :eek:

[ProfTournesol]

Really?? when in 2003??

He meant "people think that the setting "very high" for video memory in ArmA2 video settings is suitable for 512MB cards".

[JW Custom]

He meant "people think that the setting "very high" for video memory in ArmA2 video settings is suitable for 512MB cards".

I know but who the hell think 512mb is VERY HIGH when you can chose normal or high!!!!

That been said, i dont think it will do much difference but only let you be able to chose higher settings for stuff like textures etc ;)

[shuurajou]

I know but who the hell think 512mb is VERY HIGH when you can chose normal or high!!!!

That been said, i dont think it will do much difference but only let you be able to chose higher settings for stuff like textures etc ;)

It's actually Bohemia that defined 512MB as 'Very High' in Arma 1 and in v1.08 of Arma 1, they created the 'Default' setting for people with more than 512MB video card RAM. Change log is quoted below.



Summary
* New texture detail "Default" that autodetects the amount of VRAM. Recommended Texture Detail setting for users of cards with more than 512 VRAM.

Nobody knows what 'very high' or 'default' means for Arma 2 (apart from the devs), however, it may be reasonable to assume BI didn't change this in Arma 2 so you should still use default in Arma 2 if you have more than 512MB RAM on your video card.

However... there are still bugs in auto video card RAM detection in Arma 2, so if you're impacted by these bugs default might turn out to be worse for you. If you have a video card with more than 512MB RAM, default is likely the right setting for you, but only if you're not affected by the VRAM auto detection bug where Arma 2 incorrectly detects your VRAM.

In Arma 2 patch v1.02 BI did attempt to fix the VRAM bug (change log quote below) but it seems to not have been entirely successful as I (and others) still suffer from incorrect VRAM autodetection.


Engine

* Fixed localVRAM detection on Vista x64 systems with 8 GB RAM and more

That's what I think... but nobody can say for sure apart from devs.

[JW Custom]

It's actually Bohemia that defined 512MB as 'Very High' in Arma 1 and in v1.08 of Arma 1, they created the 'Default' setting for people with more than 512MB video card RAM. Change log is quoted below.



Nobody knows what 'very high' or 'default' means for Arma 2 (apart from the devs), however, it may be reasonable to assume BI didn't change this in Arma 2 so you should still use default in Arma 2 if you have more than 512MB RAM on your video card.

However... there are still bugs in auto video card RAM detection in Arma 2, so if you're impacted by these bugs default might turn out to be worse for you. If you have a video card with more than 512MB RAM, default is likely the right setting for you, but only if you're not affected by the VRAM auto detection bug where Arma 2 incorrectly detects your VRAM.

That's what I think... but nobody can say for sure apart from devs.

Yes it's impossible to spent a little time tweaking to find out whats best for your computer and yet so many people are playing and having fun :confused:

[shuurajou]

Yes it's impossible to spent a little time tweaking to find out whats best for your computer and yet so many people are playing and having fun :confused:

I've spent hours tweaking and trying different things, but, there's on setting I can't tweak because it is totally reliant on Arma 2's auto detection.

Default 'video memory' should be best for my computer (going on the only guidance available on this setting) but auto detection of localVRAM is still broken as you can look in your ArmA2.cfg file and see what Arma 2 thinks you have. I know Arma's getting mine wrong, and Arma only READS from that part of the CFG, it doesn't write to it, so you can't change it manually.

Not everyone has the bug as it seems to depend on 4 variables - OS (must be 64bit), RAM (should be 8GB), drivers & gfx card.

Some people only have 32bit so don't seem to get impacted. If you have under 4GB RAM on a 32bit OS it seems autodetection of VRAM works...

I've tried hard to do as much tweaking and analysis as possible; it's taken hours, and this is what I've found.

[JW Custom]

I've spent hours tweaking and trying different things, but, there's on setting I can't tweak because it is totally reliant on Arma 2's auto detection.

Default 'video memory' should be best for my computer (going on the only guidance available on this setting) but auto detection of localVRAM is still broken as you can look in your ArmA2.cfg file and see what Arma 2 thinks you have. I know Arma's getting mine wrong, and Arma only READS from that part of the CFG, it doesn't write to it, so you can't change it manually.

Not everyone has the bug as it seems to depend on 4 variables - OS (must be 64bit), RAM (should be 8GB), drivers & gfx card.

Some people only have 32bit so don't seem to get impacted. If you have under 4GB RAM on a 32bit OS it seems autodetection of VRAM works...

I've tried hard to do as much tweaking and analysis as possible; it's taken hours, and this is what I've found.




[I]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.

Seems like they were right :rolleyes:

[shuurajou]

Seems like they were right :rolleyes:

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 (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=84863) 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 (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=73232) 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.

[datter]

100% behind shuurajou on this. Broken in that way for me too, but only since upgrading to Win7 64bit with 8GB.


I've spent hours tweaking and trying different things, but, there's on setting I can't tweak because it is totally reliant on Arma 2's auto detection.

Default 'video memory' should be best for my computer (going on the only guidance available on this setting) but auto detection of localVRAM is still broken as you can look in your ArmA2.cfg file and see what Arma 2 thinks you have. I know Arma's getting mine wrong, and Arma only READS from that part of the CFG, it doesn't write to it, so you can't change it manually.

Not everyone has the bug as it seems to depend on 4 variables - OS (must be 64bit), RAM (should be 8GB), drivers & gfx card.

Some people only have 32bit so don't seem to get impacted. If you have under 4GB RAM on a 32bit OS it seems autodetection of VRAM works...

I've tried hard to do as much tweaking and analysis as possible; it's taken hours, and this is what I've found.

[Dwarden]

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1295579&postcount=1

i have edited and added some descriptions to the commandline in first post in past ... you may find them useful or so ...

[shuurajou]

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1295579&postcount=1

i have edited and added some descriptions to the commandline in first post in past ... you may find them useful or so ...

Thanks for your contribution Dwarden.

[SylverFyre]

I have an ATi X1950XT 256Mb and my localVRAM config is 265662464
(256Mb * 1024 * 1024 = 268435456 so its pretty likely that this line is the game reading the amount of RAM on the card in bytes - maybe some is reserved by the cards firmware so that the game sees a little less than the true amount?)
Does that tie in with other peoples video RAM and config file contents?
The text itself implies that its the amount of RAM on the card, but the developer response of "resources" implies that my thought above may be true, that it's what's left available on the card after any firmware has allocated some.

My nonlocalVRAM is showing as 795791360, or a little under 759Mb when divided by 1024 twice. I'm on a 2Gb machine running Vista32 and my thought on this is that maybe there are around 759Mb available in system RAM after the game engine is loaded to use to cache graphics into? The use of nonlocalVRAM certainly implies that too, ie VRAM that is not locally on the card itself.

I think the -winxp switch, while a bit of a misnomer, has been cleared up. Reference the link in Dwardens post "use it in Vista/W7 to enable multi-GPU support", that shows that whatever code the switch activates also enables the Vista/7 graphics system to use multi-GPU with the ArmA2 engine

[datter]

Yes, thanks for the effort Dwarden. Any feedback or help about these issues is very much appreciated. Nothing is working so far, but your contribution here has not gone unnoticed.

[shuurajou]

I have an ATi X1950XT 256Mb and my localVRAM config is 265662464
(256Mb * 1024 * 1024 = 268435456 so its pretty likely that this line is the game reading the amount of RAM on the card in bytes - maybe some is reserved by the cards firmware so that the game sees a little less than the true amount?)
Does that tie in with other peoples video RAM and config file contents?
The text itself implies that its the amount of RAM on the card, but the developer response of "resources" implies that my thought above may be true, that it's what's left available on the card after any firmware has allocated some.

My nonlocalVRAM is showing as 795791360, or a little under 759Mb when divided by 1024 twice. I'm on a 2Gb machine running Vista32 and my thought on this is that maybe there are around 759Mb available in system RAM after the game engine is loaded to use to cache graphics into? The use of nonlocalVRAM certainly implies that too, ie VRAM that is not locally on the card itself.

I think the -winxp switch, while a bit of a misnomer, has been cleared up. Reference the link in Dwardens post "use it in Vista/W7 to enable multi-GPU support", that shows that whatever code the switch activates also enables the Vista/7 graphics system to use multi-GPU with the ArmA2 engine

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.

[SylverFyre]

dxdiags Display section reports 1012Mb total graphics memory - combine the local and nonlocal VRAM reports from the ARMA config file (and do the divide by 1024 twice) and that comes out as a match. Thats gotta be the VRAM section of config explained, apart from I cant think of any good reason to tweak this manually unless the game has managed to mis-detect the amount of RAM on your graphics card.

[Eppidemic]

the game is broken guys. stop waisting your time in the forums (for "fixes") and just play the game with lower settings. If you cant play at all. just put it down for now. This is just advise. An official patch is the only things that might solve you problems. save yourself the headache.

[Nazul]

Eppidemic is right. Even if you find the correct settings its not going to make the game run any better. It will always be stuttering and run bad.

[shuurajou]

dxdiags Display section reports 1012Mb total graphics memory - combine the local and nonlocal VRAM reports from the ARMA config file (and do the divide by 1024 twice) and that comes out as a match. Thats gotta be the VRAM section of config explained, apart from I cant think of any good reason to tweak this manually unless the game has managed to mis-detect the amount of RAM on your graphics card.

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 :(.

[W0lle]

Eppidemic is right. Even if you find the correct settings its not going to make the game run any better. It will always be stuttering and run bad.
My ArmA2 runs pretty well without any stuttering (except when in and around Chernogorsk or Elektrozavodsk.

But I play the game and don't spend the whole day trying to find the perfect setting and changing all kind of values in configs which are not supposed to be modified. I also don't have Fraps running all the time to check where I lose a couple of frames per second.

Maybe just play the game as it is right now and enjoy it where possible.

[datter]

At this point I'd be content with lousy frame rate, but I can't play longer than 10 min without texture corruption and a crash. That's the difference with my situation anyway.

[shuurajou]

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.

[Sabbath]

If I was part of BIS I would be sat in my chair thinking how the hell could we let this shambles go to market instead of saying


My ArmA2 runs pretty well without any stuttering (except when in and around Chernogorsk or Elektrozavodsk


Maybe just play the game as it is right now and enjoy it where possible


Thats the whole point, a lot of people can't even get this game running let alone play where it is possible.

I have got my fingers crossed for patch 1.04 like everybody else but come on BIS make this patch count.

[SylverFyre]

I'm not actually having problems with this game - my posts in this thread are trying to help with the understanding. The thread title is "help us to help ourselves" and thats what Im trying to do too.

Although I appreciate others are having problems with crashing etc and are trying allsorts to fix that - I'm happy playing with my 3 year old rig on low/very low settings and getting a lot of enjoyment from it. If some understanding of whats happening under the covers so to speak can help some track a cause to their particular problem, all well and good although I appreciate that nothing I post is likely to help that much. The developers cant spend all their time reading these boards and instead have their programmers working on the engine and their content guys working on a new expansion...
:)

[cashxx]

the game is broken guys. Stop waisting your time in the forums (for "fixes") and just play the game with lower settings. If you cant play at all. Just put it down for now. This is just advise. An official patch is the only things that might solve you problems. Save yourself the headache.




i agree with eppidemic on this!!!

[datter]

It has aspects that are absolutely broken for some people yes, but a lot of good points too that no doubt make it worth sticking with. Whether sticking with it means continuing to struggle to make it work, or as with me just waiting for a new patch and hoping... that's up to you.

I don't have the energy to screw with it anymore, and I am very hopeful the next patch sets things right. Last kick at the can in my eyes, so I hope they kick the hell out of it. :)

[Akilez]

i agree with eppidemic on this!!!

Hey cashxx..

I have a system quite similar to yours but my 920 is @<hidden> 3.6 Ghz and I'm having a great time with ArmA2. As a test I reset my BIOS to default settings which of course restored my processor's clock rate to 2.67 Ghz.

This had an enormous impact on this game making it struggle constantly. I am a huge fan of this genre and I think there's no escaping the fact that this milsim is very, very processor intensive.

If you're comfortable with the process you might try clocking that 920 up to say 3.2 Ghz (very modest OC) to see what performance gains this brings you.

Best of luck,

[nyran125]

hmmm,
Ok so far i have a 512mb 8800GTS adn an intel Core 2 duo, 3Ghz. I tested it on very high-unstable, i tested it on high- a little more stable but not really, i tested it on normal- now works fine without many issues at all with the game, unless i have loads of units on sceen at once, like everyone else. Low - i guess would work even better but that would degrade quality immensely. Play around with your settings. i havent had any problems really and have no real need for an explanation from the developers. I already understand that this game will only run really awesomely on very high settings with the next years or next generation or even 2 years of future hardware Cpu and gpu etc. its just one of those types of games. Like Crysis before it adn Oblivian before that. Every 3 years theres a game like Arma 2 that everyone cant run properly. 3 years down the track there will be another, probably Elder scrolls 5 i would imagine or the next installment of the total war series. Rome total war ran pretty bad on release a year later hey presto with new hardware everything ran awesome all of a sudden.
Do i get the feeling theres alot of new pc gamer's playing arma 2? because you know how pc gaming is. Its been like this since X-com Ufo Defense,lol. Matter of fact X-COM UFO DEFENSE is STILL LAGGY :(:(:( Operation flashpoint 1 was buggy as hell. Matter of fact operation flashpoint is STILL buggy with movement glitches and stuff.

I gave up on Single player mode and multiplayer modes ages ago accept the small co-op missions, they are still fantastic. The thing keeping me playing Arma 2 is its editing mode, you sould really try the editing mode before you ditch the game completely, you are really missing out on the CREME of Arma 2's brilliance if you dont indulge in its editing suite. Its really what Arma 2 is all about.

Play around with the editor , make your own missions , less bugs and its more fun than single player mode. lol. :)
Oh yeah and another thing, STOP trying to play this game on very high settings. You are wasting your time doing that. However the gamestill looks pretty and good on normal settings, you get use to it after awhile and you may actually start enjoying the game more. Some of these people are right, i dont think a patch is going to help. Might i also suggest to NEVER upgrade your computer to the latest hardware UNTIL the game you cant run, actually comes out , then wait a year or 2 THEN upgrade computer, never before, EVER. Its just a waste of money. This game has already made the nividia 295gtx's obsolete.

[Sabbath]

Do i get the feeling theres alot of new pc gamer's playing arma 2


Been playing PC games since the DX2-66, win 3.11 Dos 6.22, HDD 420 Mb, 32 Mb RAM and from memory I had a matrox millenium video card. First game Wolfenstien 3D, second game the mighty "DOOOOOOOOM". LOL

[datter]

Do i get the feeling theres alot of new pc gamer's playing arma 2?

I refuse to get sucked into this aside from saying that I'm almost 100% certain I have hard drives older than you.

[cashxx]

Hey cashxx..

I have a system quite similar to yours but my 920 is @<hidden> 3.6 Ghz and I'm having a great time with ArmA2. As a test I reset my BIOS to default settings which of course restored my processor's clock rate to 2.67 Ghz.

This had an enormous impact on this game making it struggle constantly. I am a huge fan of this genre and I think there's no escaping the fact that this milsim is very, very processor intensive.

If you're comfortable with the process you might try clocking that 920 up to say 3.2 Ghz (very modest OC) to see what performance gains this brings you.

Best of luck,



I have tried every BIOS tweak and nothing has helped here. Check this post listing where I have been posting lately.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=84156