View Full Version : New Beta Build 70951 is up!
MadDogX
May 27 2010, 13:34
New beta patch 70951:
Changelog:
[70817] Fixed: Crash while rendering some custom worlds, e.g Schmalfelden
[70793] Fixed: Character animation jerky after a unit disembarked a vehicle (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/3116)
[70790] Fixed: Fps stayed low after spawning and deleted many units. See http://dev-heaven.net/issues/5147
Download (http://www.arma2.com/beta-patch.php)
Great to see they fixed the problem with low FPS when units were spawned and deleted. MP Missions like Domination should benefit greatly from this, right? :)
New Beta Build 70951 is up!
Click here to download (ftp://downloads.bistudio.com/arma2.com/update/beta/ARMA2_Build_70951.zip)
Changelog:
[70817] Fixed: Crash while rendering some custom worlds, e.g Schmalfelden
[70793] Fixed: Character animation jerky after a unit disembarked a vehicle (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/3116)
[70790] Fixed: Fps stayed low after spawning and deleted many units. See http://dev-heaven.net/issues/5147
JW Custom
May 27 2010, 13:47
New beta patch 70951:
Great to see they fixed the problem with low FPS when units were spawned and deleted. MP Missions like Domination should benefit greatly from this, right? :)
Yup thats a real nice one :cool:
Excelent patch. FPS is returned correctly now after deleting units. Good job! :)
MP Missions like Domination should benefit greatly from this, right? :)
We shall see. The issue seemed to be with units spawned and deleted, not with units spawned, deleted, and more spawned again.
Sickboy
May 27 2010, 13:54
Also updated on Six-Updater Network (http://updater.dev-heaven.net/mods/show/3733eb94-a75b-11de-9ec9-0021855d3b6d?_method=get)
sent 7.72M bytes received 35.82K bytes 224.66K bytes/sec
total size is 26.07M speedup is 3.36
Excelent patch. FPS is returned correctly now after deleting units. Good job! :)
We shall see. The issue seemed to be with units spawned and deleted, not with units spawned, deleted, and more spawned again.
Thank you. So. SO Much. Almost lost for words on a patch that fixes this much (even though it may seem so small).
I now have 2000 units theoretically in game, even though they are not always existing... I am just ecstatic!!!
Spawned, and de-spawned, and spawned... oh? and de-spawned spawned de-spawned.
I can set up the graphs, but they are consistently 60 fps after deletion so...
WillaCHilla
May 27 2010, 14:38
[70790] Fixed: Fps stayed low after spawning and deleted many units.
Wow-that would be one of the greatest fixes.-Will test it after work.
SAbre4809
May 27 2010, 14:39
Ok does this mean the desync that starts to come on dom and any of the long lasting, whole map missions, warfare etc will be slightly helped?
Ok does this mean the desync that starts to come on dom and any of the long lasting, whole map missions, warfare etc will be slightly helped?
Not Desync. Persistent FPS lag throughout play and server performance. ;)
FPS is returning nicely also with bigger playtime. I´ve played my SP mission "Black Forest" (with heavy unit spawning and deleting) to point in late game where FPS dropped and stucked to 22 before. Now it came down only to 29 and its getting back to 34 and probably higher. Fantastic. :)
Because Sickboy asked me too :p, and I did promise it last time. But the conclusion is the same; however slightly more comical.
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/9715/graph.gif
Loving the upward trend :yay:. Its clearly just a data anomaly, as with all the low FPS spikes, they are simply because I didn't leave enough time for the unit deletion to catch up, or I had alt tabbed at some point (this test data took 56 minutes to complete).
Groups Units Vehicles FPS(During) FPS(After)
2 11 0 55.56 55.56
3 21 0 31.25 55.82
4 31 0 12.35 55.82
5 41 0 22.22 55.82
6 51 0 16.39 55.82
7 61 0 12.35 56.82
8 71 0 55.56 55.82
9 81 0 20 58.82
10 91 0 43.48 55.56
11 101 0 45.45 55.56
12 111 0 55.56 52.63
13 121 0 55.56 55.56
14 131 0 45.45 55.56
15 141 0 41.67 30.3
16 151 0 55.56 55.56
17 161 0 31.25 55.56
18 171 0 55.56 30.3
19 181 0 30.3 55.56
20 191 0 35.71 55.56
21 201 0 55.56 58.82
22 211 0 23.26 55.56
23 221 0 30.3 32.26
24 231 0 33.33 55.56
25 241 0 38.46 58.82
26 251 0 32.26 58.82
27 261 0 33.33 58.82
28 271 0 31.25 31.25
29 281 0 31.25 55.56
30 291 0 31.25 55.56
31 301 0 31.25 55.56
32 311 0 31.25 55.56
33 321 0 22.22 55.56
34 331 0 30.3 55.56
35 341 0 26.32 55.56
36 351 0 22.73 55.56
37 361 0 21.28 55.56
38 371 0 25 55.56
39 381 0 22.22 55.56
40 391 0 20.41 58.82
41 401 0 21.28 55.56
42 411 0 18.52 55.56
43 421 0 17.54 55.56
44 431 0 20 55.56
45 441 0 18.87 55.56
46 451 0 18.18 55.56
47 461 0 18.18 55.56
48 471 0 20 30.3
49 481 0 18.87 58.82
50 491 0 18.52 55.56
51 501 0 20.41 58.82
52 511 0 17.24 55.56
53 521 0 19.61 52.63
54 531 0 16.95 58.82
55 541 0 17.54 55.56
56 551 0 16.67 58.82
57 561 0 20 58.82
58 571 0 18.52 55.56
59 581 0 18.52 55.56
60 591 0 18.18 58.82
61 601 0 17.86 55.56
62 611 0 15.87 58.82
63 621 0 16.39 55.56
64 631 0 16.67 55.56
65 641 0 14.93 55.56
66 651 0 18.87 55.56
67 661 0 16.13 58.82
68 671 0 16.67 58.82
69 681 0 16.39 58.82
70 691 0 9.71 55.56
71 701 0 11.49 55.56
72 711 0 12.66 58.82
73 721 0 9.8 55.56
75 741 0 11.36 55.56
76 751 0 10.1 55.56
77 761 0 6.45 58.82
78 771 0 6.9 55.56
79 781 0 6.17 55.56
80 791 0 7.94 58.82
81 801 0 6.41 30.3
82 811 0 5.99 31.25
83 821 0 6.49 55.56
84 831 0 5.65 58.82
TRexian
May 27 2010, 16:02
hehe
Me likey graphs. :D
Can you overlay the data from a test with a previous patch?
I'm curious, as I had a mission that iterated through the max-group limits and after it hit the limit (even though I was deleting groups), there was a HUGE drop in FPS, and strange spawning of units. Along those same lines, do you ever let it reach the 144 group limit?
It took that long for 84 groups, at 10 units per group, so around 840 units... I had some things to do so... if you wanted some less detailed tests, I'm sure they could be done, I have not yet tried reaching the 144 group limit, and the effects that may have.
TRexian
May 27 2010, 16:35
Here is one effect.
The premise of the mission was that I spawned 100 red and 100 blue (10 groups of 10 units on each side), then had them fight. I logged the unit tags for the units that hit an opponent (in the .rpt). I looped that so that when either side was reduced to less than 15 units, all the units/groups for that iteration were deleted. Then, spawned another 100v100 battle.
When I get to iteration 14, the log records this as the unit names:
B 3-4-M:7 -- rating 400
B 3-4-M:8 -- rating 1000
B :4 -- rating 800
B :6 -- rating 600
You can almost identify when it runs out of group names to assign. At that point, the FPS would take a HUGE drop, and fewer and fewer units would even spawn, and they would spawn over a longer period of time.
I didn't document the FPS hit, but it was staggering.
Sorry if this is a derail. I'm just very interested in your observations. :)
Edit:
Threads/posts related to my issue:
http://www.ofpec.com/forum/index.php?topic=34292.0
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?p=1502778&highlight=iteration#post1502778
Edit2:
hehe
Rommel - just realized you were part of the OFPEC conversation. :) Sorry to repeat myself....
RobertHammer
May 27 2010, 17:24
Very Nice fixes there Suma :)
btw when will be fixed Antialias bug??
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/3563/buggedantialiasaoc.jpg
I know its from other game ,but ArmA2 have same bug - easy repro - (set AA to max) take any gun and point into shadow or smoke and you will see those "white" AA lines
WoW... OMG ... Great Patch ;)
...When I get to iteration 14, the log records this as the unit names:
B 3-4-M:7 -- rating 400
B 3-4-M:8 -- rating 1000
B :4 -- rating 800
B :6 -- rating 600
You can almost identify when it runs out of group names to assign. At that point, the FPS would take a HUGE drop, and fewer and fewer units would even spawn, and they would spawn over a longer period of time.
I didn't document the FPS hit, but it was staggering.
...
That is because you are not cleaning up the groups that are empty! If you remove the empty groups, then it is fine because it re-uses old group names.
If you are going over the 144 group limit (somehow!) you are most definitely on the road to breaking your game. :p
TRexian
May 27 2010, 18:40
hehe
But that's the problem - or it was in that version at least. :) I was deleting the groups, but it wasn't re-using them.
This has re-piqued my curiosity about this whole experiment, though... I may try again.
btw when will be fixed Antialias bug??
I know its from other game ,but ArmA2 have same bug - easy repro - (set AA to max) take any gun and point into shadow or smoke and you will see those "white" AA lines
Probably never for ArmA 2. Fixing it would require DX 10.1, there is too little control over anti-aliased surface sampling in DX 9 (and this is also the reason why you can see the same artefact in many games).
Brainbug
May 27 2010, 18:46
But instead of using high AA settings with low res, you can use the overdraw option, i.e. higher 3D rendering res than monitor res (even a 125% settings helps a good deal). That won't make the white edges disappear, but makes them appear smaller because the pixels are smaller, and it also smoothes them out so they are less prominent.
Ok does this mean the desync that starts to come on dom and any of the long lasting, whole map missions, warfare etc will be slightly helped?Warfare is probably also still choking on some scripts, so that would be a different matter. But this fix is certainly not bad at all ;)
MavericK96
May 27 2010, 19:20
So does anyone have any performance numbers since the last patch? Or did they only fix the things listed?
---------- Post added at 12:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 AM ----------
Just tried it myself. No change in framerate or stutter from 70709. Not sure about stability, yet.
Fox '09
May 27 2010, 19:26
beta runs good for me.
I believe in 1.05 when I had larger units they all ran to the waypoint (with careless) at once and together. But now they stop.. they look around.. (but don't shoot). hmm
TonyGrunt
May 27 2010, 19:34
@MavericK96
I did some tests for the problem I had, and things seem a lot better with the new beta.
My test scenario of BM_coastalFlight.Chernarus.pbo from ArmA2 FPS Analyzer that always CTD or produced graphical errors on the 1st loop, I have managed to pass 5 tests, with only once getting the "Receiving" message.
Can you retest too for problems?
MavericK96
May 27 2010, 20:08
@MavericK96
I did some tests for the problem I had, and things seem a lot better with the new beta.
My test scenario of BM_coastalFlight.Chernarus.pbo from ArmA2 FPS Analyzer that always CTD or produced graphical errors on the 1st loop, I have managed to pass 5 tests, with only once getting the "Receiving" message.
Can you retest too for problems?
Yep, I'll definitely test for stability. Thanks for the info.
---------- Post added at 12:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 PM ----------
Well, that was quick. I did one run of that BM_coastalFlight test and it didn't even make it through an entire test before CTD with "Out of Memory" error. :(
---------- Post added at 01:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------
The BM_coastalFlight test is actually a really good repro for the "Out of Memory" error. I ran it twice with exThreads=0 and it crashed both times, in similar places (the first time it was just before the end of the first run, the second time it was just after the end of the first, at the beginning of the second).
Oddly enough, using exThreads=3, shortly after the first run I got a "Receiving..." screen, and then later in that same (second) run the game started to slow to a crawl (1 FPS and dropping continuously; slideshow). I alt-tabbed out to the Task Manager, and then went back in game, and the speed picked up for about 2 seconds before starting to slow to a crawl again. Weird issue, I've never seen it happen before and not crash the game.
langgis08
May 27 2010, 20:16
just finished playing @70951 (-exThreads=3) SP Harvest Red/Manhattan for 2 1/2 hours.
no problems, no crashing, having often saved and reloaded the mission.
then I let run ArmA 2 FPS Analyzer, result here: nearly equivalent graphs to previous beta build, so no significiant changes referring to FPS here. if there's a small difference for FPS then it's the mean variation, that could be a little higher with 70951 than with 70709, but average is same.
(btw BM of FPS analyser didn't make any troubles here)
all in all, ArmA2 has never been so stable as it is since the beta's of May 2010, including this one of course.
(no tests for MP so far, it's late and I will have a self made caipirinha now, cheers ;) )
TonyGrunt
May 27 2010, 20:23
Arma settings that I am using for testing are VD 10k, Memory: Default,Terrain :Normal,PP:Off,everything else VH.
With vertical sync on I have completed close to 20 runs with half of them getting the "Receiving" message.
Tried once with vertical sync off but arma dropped me to desktop and had to close through task manager.
Used your own arma settings with vertical sync off and I got the "Out of Memory" error.
Tried again with vertical sync on and it completed with once displaying "Receiving".
Could you try vertical sync on?
MavericK96
May 27 2010, 20:26
Yeah, I'll give it a shot. I recall using Vsync drops performance a fair bit, but I will try it for stability purposes. Thanks for the data.
Zipper5
May 27 2010, 21:25
I just came across this bug when I was creating a custom radio action:
http://zipper5.armaholic.eu/pictures/beta_radio_issue.jpg
Seems something happened to the stringtable(s)?
todayskiller
May 27 2010, 21:25
Holy Smokes!!! Idk what BIS did, but boy have I gotten better performance from this new beta...I use to get 25 fps with 1.05...26 fps with the last beta patch...and now 29!!! with this beta, idk what they did to optimize it, but 3 fps IMO, is a great achievement for BIS, and for people like me (makes me very very happy).
I haven't tried out the MP, or actual In game stuff yet, will in a little bit...but now I'm just so happy with the FPS :)...good job :)!!!
I also have that radio bug and compass "needle" looks bugged. Like the compass, also eyeglasses have some weird looking white-black artifacts with my HD4890 (Drivers 10.3).
@todayskiller, try warfare in mp. Its very smooth now. FPS could easily be two times better (for me ~20 -> ~40).
todayskiller
May 27 2010, 21:53
Alright saok, I will in a little bit :)...and yes it could be.
EDIT: I did the same Benchmark 1, and got 32 FPS!!!...So scratch out my last post, I'm finally in the 30s now with -exThreads=3 Enabled! :) :) :)
With the Benchmark 2, however...I still get 10 FPS...BUT, if I get an increase in one of the benchmarks that is fine with me! especially if it is 7 more FPS :)
MavericK96
May 27 2010, 22:59
What settings/specs are you guys using? I literally saw zero performance increase with the new build...
---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:44 PM ----------
Arma settings that I am using for testing are VD 10k, Memory: Default,Terrain :Normal,PP:Off,everything else VH.
With vertical sync on I have completed close to 20 runs with half of them getting the "Receiving" message.
Tried once with vertical sync off but arma dropped me to desktop and had to close through task manager.
Used your own arma settings with vertical sync off and I got the "Out of Memory" error.
Tried again with vertical sync on and it completed with once displaying "Receiving".
Could you try vertical sync on?
I gave this a shot. It got about halfway through the 2nd run and crashed with an "Out of Memory" error. :(
Also, Vsync on takes off about 5 FPS average of my framerate.
todayskiller
May 27 2010, 23:07
I'm using a nvidia 9800 gt
AMD PHENOM 9550 Quad-Core 2.20 GHZ
6GB RAM
.................................................. .............
Like on my old post I have seen 7 more FPS increase :)
I'm running on all Medium settings except Quality Preference or w/e that is on high Maverick, what type of Processor do you have? and is it Quad or Dual? I think this is really helping out Quad Core users a lot more than Dual (but I could be wrong, for me it isn't wrong though lol)..but I have a question
Is Antialising Really needed? because I get 3 more FPS increase if I have it disabled, would it make that big of a difference? Thanks.
MavericK96
May 27 2010, 23:30
I've got a fast quad core (see my sig), but I've seen no improvement in the latest betas. Actually, Builds 70100 and 70313 gave me the best performance out of all of them (very low stutter and highest avg framerate) but I still had issues with stability.
In terms of AA, it's not needed, but it makes the game look a lot nicer around the edges of objects, because what it does is smooth out the edges so they don't look "jagged", or pixelated. I can run Very High AA with little performance hit so I just leave it on.
On another note, I tried setting my Terrain Detail to High instead of Very High, and in the bm_coastalFlight benchmark I was able to run through it several times without an "Out of Memory" error. However, after a few runs I did get the "Receiving..." screen and drastic slowdown in performance (slideshow stuff like I mentioned before), so this helps but is obviously not a fix.
It seems apparent, based on the symptoms, that there is a memory leak somewhere in the game. It may be based on terrain rendering, or that could have just been a coincidence since I lowered a setting in general.
Also, running at High versus Very High, I saw no performance difference either up or down, so it's apparent my system can handle Very High, but it just causes the memory leak to build and crash the game faster.
I run -cpucount=4 wich let me have HT on and no problems in A2.
Tested the latest patch and very nice to have the stuttery AI animations fixed. :) Performance wise its about the same - wich is good - but i guess the new beta adressed some other things than that. Hopefully grass will be looked at later as well. Some optimization in that area would be superb.
todayskiller
May 28 2010, 00:17
I run -cpucount=4 wich let me have HT on and no problems in A2.
Tested the latest patch and very nice to have the stuttery AI animations fixed. :) Performance wise its about the same - wich is good - but i guess the new beta adressed some other things than that. Hopefully grass will be looked at later as well. Some optimization in that area would be superb.
what does -cpucount=4 mean? it runs all the cores?...
Also, Maverick...I guess there is a memory leak in there somewhere, because your system blows mine out of the water, but I'm getting 7 FPS more than with 1.05...so I have no idea.
slay0rwr4th
May 28 2010, 03:07
this beta is intermittent for me. my first error is No entry '.profilePathDefault'. Once I click ok the game continues to load, almost as soon as it enters fullscreen mode it CTD's with an always unhelpful "ARMA 2 has stopped working, windows is looking for a solution to this problem".
So, I've tried compatitiblity mode (I'm running Vista Home 32 bit) with no difference, administrator mode with no difference.
The last beta worked great, I'm going to try and reinstall it now and see if the problem goes away.
** Nevermind, Apparently I had a dodgy shortcut on the desktop... I'm in :) **
Hey did you guys notice that Horns are network synced again, hurray! Now if only the reload animation was synced again. (both of these issues started with A2's release I think, they worked fine in OFP/ArmA1)
At least I can honk for people to get the hell out of the way or tell the to get in with the horn, etc. Simple things like this make me happy. :D
---------- Post added at 12:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 AM ----------
what does -cpucount=4 mean? it runs all the cores?...
Also, Maverick...I guess there is a memory leak in there somewhere, because your system blows mine out of the water, but I'm getting 7 FPS more than with 1.05...so I have no idea.
CPU count switch sets the number of CPU's the game will use. (maximum limit, not guaranteed) It's needed for people that have hyper threaded processors, because they want the game to use the real cores, not the virtual cores. (I don't know if the game detects real vs logical cores) For example, with an i7 920 which has 4 cores and 4 virtual cores (ht), taskman shows 8 cpus, the game would sometimes use a virtual core and that doesn't offer them any performance benefit. (people said their FPS was low) Personally I just disable HT in the bios because it makes my CPU run about 10c hotter. I use the 10c headroom to then overclock it further, which makes ArmA2 very happy. :P (faster cores are better than more cores, when you have at least 2 cores to begin with..)
Please use the forum search or Biki to find out obvious things like command line parameters do, here's a list: http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma2:_Startup_Parameters There are many threads about CPUCount.
See this post (http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1636277&postcount=107) for a graphic demonstration of the problems HT seems to cause for ArmA2 on a quad-core i920.[COLOR="Silver"]
This beta gives me the best performce out of all previous versions ever released so far. I gained +3 fps in Benchmark 1 and get demo fps that are counted as playable for the first time: 26fps.
No new quirks found so far!
SP game still suffers from........ a large pause and stutter during gameplay.
rowdied
May 28 2010, 14:19
This beta seems to be better performance wise for me with no thread option but when I connect to my home server to play evo, I can pick the mission and my slot but it just hangs there indefinetly. Same goes for friends trying to connect. Not sure why, but normal 1.05 works fine and also the previous
69645 worked no problems. Yes I know more beta's were released but I had a long standing mission that we just finished.
JW Custom
May 28 2010, 15:53
Like with previous beta patch i keep getting CTD's while playing Domination.
CarlGustaffa
May 28 2010, 18:01
@rowdied. So why not use the thread options? I had to do that to get in.
I know I'm gonna love the AI shake fix :)
NoRailgunner
May 28 2010, 18:56
From the benchmark test the -exThreads=0 and -exThreads=3 results are very close to each other. A very slight difference is with -exThreads=1 where I lose one fps in "FPS-STAT" and gain one more in "FPSm".
AI issues and bugs are still there. :confused_o:
Protegimus
May 28 2010, 19:11
Build 70951 is running really well, much smoother than 70313 - 70709 and some much appreciated fixes to boot - nice work BIS.
Audio rendering appears to have improved wrt number of simultaneous sounds played since 70313. This is especially noticeable in benchmark 2 where there's plenty going on.
Played a good selection of missions over a six hour stint without a glitch.
Couple of key points to clarify the information regarding hyper-threading and core i7 CPU's:
the problem with ArmA 2 performance only applies to Win7 (Vista).
For Windows XP performance is actually better with all cores and yperthreading enabled, np with overheating limiting overclocking potential either.
Second, -cpuCount=4 is only a mechanism to limit the number of CPUs/cores available to ArmA, it has no influence on which core (physical or virtual) the thread is scheduled to run, i.e. it's not the application that dictates which CPU the software runs on, it's the scheduler in the O/S. The only way you are going to do that is through processor affinity, or disabling cores in the BIOS.
start /affinity, or for XP Sysinternal's psexec's -a flag can set processor affinity (and priority) so that's the way to get optimal performance with -cpuCount.
Protegimus
On the i920 HT issue: it would be interesting if someone posted benches with sbsmac's tool for:
-HT on, no cpucount param used
-HT on, cpucount=4
-HT off
I've heard several people claim that cpucount=4 also aides a lot.
It might be better for BIS if we split this HT issue thing in a separate topic, so they can focus on their works and not on a general cpu issue.
ricmaughn
May 28 2010, 23:44
Having problem with ACE US ARMY soldier and last two Beta patches
soldiers missing body parts.
doesn't happen with patch 105
anyone no the cause
happens with Bink 2008 US soldiers also (same soldiers as in ace)
is this a problem with this addon or the patch
rundll.exe
May 28 2010, 23:47
@ricmaughn, this is a question for the ACE devs, not for this topic. Beta patches should be tested without addons at all times.
ricmaughn
May 28 2010, 23:50
OH ! sorry
thanks anyway
will check with ACE
jpinard
May 29 2010, 03:12
Probably never for ArmA 2. Fixing it would require DX 10.1, there is too little control over anti-aliased surface sampling in DX 9 (and this is also the reason why you can see the same artefact in many games).
Thank you for the honest answer. I was going to ask about this as well.
Suma, I would like to request you increase the # of simultaneous sound/sound sources. The current limit appears very low currently in modest battles. Sound cuts out. Maybe give us the option to increase it and see what the fps hit would be. Obviously sound is just as important as visuals for the immersive feeling of being in battle.
PCIe Creative Labs X-Fi Titanium Fatality - NOTE: you may have addressed this already in the patch - will test
---------- Post added at 11:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 PM ----------
On the i920 HT issue: it would be interesting if someone posted benches with sbsmac's tool for:
-HT on, no cpucount param used
-HT on, cpucount=4
-HT off
I've heard several people claim that cpucount=4 also aides a lot.
It might be better for BIS if we split this HT issue thing in a separate topic, so they can focus on their works and not on a general cpu issue.
Yoma, honestly it's not worth investigating HT. I spent 2 months benchmarking, testing, and overclocking my rig and worked with a few enegineers on the best timings and properties. Hyperthreading puts too much strain on quad core processors and is universally been shown to hurt gaming performance. It has two main features - marketing and some desktop applications benefit. If you don't believe and want to waste your time on it start with this basic article and I can provide a hundred more: http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=6
In the end you'll find for the power and strain on the processor you get ~20% increase with pure clock vs. HT and as you increase the strain Hyperthreading starts to actually cripple perfomance because it can't keep up with faking 4 extra processors.
langgis08
May 29 2010, 08:28
I just came across this bug when I was creating a custom radio action
http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1636895&postcount=30
I had this error, too, playing SP (Manhattan) when calling "Boomerang", function of radio was ok but the buggy text also has shown up
Thanks for the beta's. Runs fine here.
Q9650 @3 ghz - win xp sp2 - 3gb ram
Suma, can you please fix the zoom issue sometime? On foot 2x keypad + or - locks zoom levels, but not in- or after using vehicles.
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=99474
Every beta i keep hoping it's adressed.
Spent some time with latest build 70951 last night and the "sound cutting out issue" seems to be fixed or greatly improved, nice! Don't know if following was just a temporary thing but noticed the mouse pointer behave kinda wierd in UI menu, kind of laggy or steppy for me.
Can't say much about performance or AI since I played against humans but may get some more time with it this weekend.
Only tried with -exThreads=0 so far.
/KC
thebarricade
May 29 2010, 19:44
Don't know if following was just a temporary thing but noticed the mouse pointer behave kinda wierd in UI menu, kind of laggy or steppy for me.
I've recently experienced the same myself (for a couple of weeks), not using the beta. I'm wondering if ACE could be the culprit, since it is the only thing I keep downloading/updating on a constant basis (it's too intermittent to draw any conclusions anyway and only seems to occur in the gear-dialog).
I've recently experienced the same myself (for a couple of weeks), not using the beta. I'm wondering if ACE could be the culprit...
FYI - I tested vanilla yesterday, no addons loaded at all.
/KC
@ricmaughn, this is a question for the ACE devs, not for this topic. Beta patches should be tested without addons at all times.
I want to clarify this, if you report problems(testing, as rundll says), you better not have any addons loaded. But most addons work fine with the beta normally.. Just don't have them loaded when reproducing/documenting bugs or they will be invalid and ignored.
(only saying this because someone said on TS to me last night that you aren't supposed to ever use addons with the betas, presumably after reading that. :D )
FLv*VeNoM*
Jun 1 2010, 12:35
Hello all.
some observations I've made using this beta:
Performance has improved for me, for the first time I reached 24fps in the benchmark :) and the game "streams" much better than the previous betas.
Is it just me, or has this overly blooming and glowing been reduced too?
However, I get some weird crashes with the game. Sometimes the game just freezes. And the dumb thing is: I can't reproduce it. Sometimes the game will freeze after 3 hours, sometimes after 10 minutes... I don't know what's wrong, I've never experienced that with 1.05.
But I have to admit that I had to do a complete reinstall of my entire pc some days ago, so I'm not sure if it's the beta or some other problems, because after having to reboot my pc always says: "building dmi pool data" and stops there.
Yoma, honestly it's not worth investigating HT. I spent 2 months benchmarking, testing, and overclocking my rig and worked with a few enegineers on the best timings and properties. Hyperthreading puts too much strain on quad core processors and is universally been shown to hurt gaming performance. It has two main features - marketing and some desktop applications benefit.
The only reason i'm asking this is because some users have a locked bios where it simply cannot be disabled... (I know it sucks allready, but as I had reports on it being a lot less of an issue using cpucount=4 it may be usefull for some people to see the difference)
I can't test it as i don't have the hardware :P
^^I tested so far with HT off (with no cpu limiter param to clarify), and also HT on with -CpuCount=4 (wich i run now) and to me its all the same. Heat, FPS and rest when it comes to A2. At least on my PC so if a cpu is in fact bios locked then use the startup parameter -CpuCount=4 and you should be good.
Cyclone83
Jun 2 2010, 08:24
Don't know if this was already mentioned but with this new build the 2 sights for the G36 in single and full mode are gone again :(
Punisher5555
Jun 2 2010, 12:08
There is still a memory leak somewhere like the last beta. After playing for 20 min I crashed out again.
Win7 x64 Pro
8Gb ram
285gtx 1Gb
BIS I will say one great thing about the beta's is the -exthreads. This has made the game so much more enjoyable now that the texture popping is exterminated with =3. To me with setup this is the greatest thing yet. The game may stutter here and there as it loads stuff from my HD, but game killing texture popping from standard 1.05 is dead. Thanks.
MessiahUA
Jun 2 2010, 13:32
Does anyone have a problem with latest dedicated beta server? It just hangs on mission loading and does nothing. If you close its window, it still hangs in process list. I've tried different missions and completely without mods. Everytime same story.
Edit: nevermind. I guess, I did something and it started to work... don't know actually what was the problem. I just added -exThreads=3 -CpuCount=2 in command line
netrocyn
Jun 2 2010, 14:02
I lost my ca_ah64D.pbo installing this. Never had any beta problems before though. FPS is up but still nowhere where it was back in 1.01.
Having problem with ACE US ARMY soldier and last two Beta patches
soldiers missing body parts.
doesn't happen with patch 105
anyone no the cause
happens with Bink 2008 US soldiers also (same soldiers as in ace)
is this a problem with this addon or the patch
Update BWMod to version 1.7.
After playing some more MP with build 70951 (-exThreads=0) my conclusion is that 1.05 final still have the upper hand when it comes to general performance/texture loading/LOD switching on my specific computer.
That being said I love some of the other fixes, especially the sounds not cutting out (as much) when lots of sound sources are within range!
/KC
And to add what KeyCat wrote...
I had multiple crashes while playing with the latest beta patch(es).
Switched back to 63826 and beside better performance no crashes anymore.
Xeno
WillaCHilla
Jun 3 2010, 08:51
Performance-wise, I cannot judge about decreasing or increasing, because I OCed my CPU and GPU during the last betas.
About crashes, I didn´t have one a with the latest betas. I played some Coops, Dom- and WF-missions with 1.05.70951 (playtime 2-4 hours for each mission) the last days and didn´t have a single crash.
The dedicated servers where I played were running on 1.05 official.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.