Operation E3

[Tonci87 163]

Yeah were both in a sinking ship! :eek:

I wonder who will be able to run the game at 20km view distance holy cow!

I don´t think 20k viewdistance will be the problem, but 20k viewdistance+20k object view distance+ 20k shadwodistance=melting CPU and GPU

[Mr. Charles 22]

I don´t think 20k viewdistance will be the problem, but 20k viewdistance+20k object view distance+ 20k shadwodistance=melting CPU and GPU

It is a problem. Play Take On.

[Flash Thunder 10]

Quantum computer is now the recommended configuration to play Arma 3 at more than 10fps at 20km view distance.

Problem community?

[jerryhopper 286]

It is a problem. Play Take On.

try watercooling?

i dont have it myself, but my GF loves it. ( now she dont have to clean the fan's so often inside pc. )

Personally i love to use a brush and stroke my baby once in a while :p

[ziiip 1]

try watercooling?

i dont have it myself, but my GF loves it. ( now she dont have to clean the fan's so often inside pc. )

Personally i love to use a brush and stroke my baby once in a while :p

Ahahahaha.:cool:

[jerryhopper 286]

im officially abandoning this topic now.

got more people to meet & recordings to make,

not to mention the stuff i need to do for the LimnosRadio Prize-Quest ;)

[Steakslim 1]

I'm screwed, my system is getting old! My processor is definetly starting to show its age.

Proc: Intel Q6600 @ 3.0Ghz

Ram: 4GB DDR2

GPU: GTX 560 TI

I feel like arma 3 isn't going to run the best haha.

Kinda in the same boat as you lol

[Gera_CCT 12]

Me too, same cpu, but will hold until benchs are released

[Black Cat 10]

Is the GTX 560 TI getting old? Oh no!

EDIT: Oh wait, its the CPU you guys are talking about. nvmind.

[Steakslim 1]

When i find employment that can fund my costly hobbies, I'm looking into upgrading anyways, regardless of ArmA3. Benches or no benches i'm already planned for a sandy bridge build which currently puts me at under $900 to upgrade. Good times.

[Bee8190 10]

No need to get overly impressed by 12 core i7 970 guys. The i5 2500K is on par or even better in many tasks, according to this - http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/157?vs=288

[sethos 2]

No need to get overly impressed by 12 core i7 970 guys. The i5 2500K is on par or even better in many tasks, according to this - http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/157?vs=288

6 cores, 6 threads. Game won't support HT and most likely won't utilize anything beyond 4 cores for a performance gain.

[PuFu 4600]

No need to get overly impressed by 12 core i7 970 guys. The i5 2500K is on par or even better in many tasks, according to this - http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/157?vs=288

some stuff is weird in that graph, some seems to be fair.

from a gaming perspective, although i never had any i5 since their release, my 2 i7s (see spoiler for specs) behave almost the same, with an unnoticeable upper hand on my 2600k (tested them with the same card, drivers, and same clock speed). The above goes for OA, as well as some other games i own and never actually play (RO2, BF3 etc).

BUT, from a workstation perspective, my 970 is still king. Just this week i did a test on the same scene in max (vray render engine), on my work computer at the studio -> i7 3820 and my older home workstation - i7 970.

While i am aware of the slight difference in terms of CPU clock speed, the 6 core / 12 threads was about 20-30% faster per frame (vray was set to use a max of 14gb of ram from the available 16 and 24 respectively).

with all the jazz about said, unless A3 actually make use of the additional threads (which is something i sadly doubt), the i5 is still the best bang for the buck out there for gaming purposes.

[liquidpinky 11]

I don´t think 20k viewdistance will be the problem, but 20k viewdistance+20k object view distance+ 20k shadwodistance=melting CPU and GPU

Should be okay, I am running 20k in Chernarus right now in ToH with 4k object draw. Getting 20-30 FPS.

The South Asia map I am running 20k and 12k for the objects, these would be dream settings in A3 as the 12k makes no visible object pop in whatsoever and I have found to be the optimum for realism on a 1080 monitor. 40 FPS upwards, apart from at the tree riddled estuary which becomes a slideshow.

[Panda_pl 0]

Game won't support HT

You make it sound as if it's a bad thing. As if saying "game lacks support for this nice feature".

It was being discussed in other places I believe: there is not a single video game in which HT enabled would give any benefits.

@PuFu, certain tasks simply cannot be split into more threads. I don't know 3ds well but I bet there are many times when editing mesh or UVs when it only uses a single core.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Panda_pl
shortened

[sethos 2]

You make it sound as if it's a bad thing. As if saying "game lacks support for this nice feature".

It was being discussed in other places I believe: there is not a single video game in which HT enabled would give any benefits.

Maybe you should stop assuming? I didn't say that, I didn't imply that whatsoever. The 970 is a 6 core, 6 thread CPU and as this game in fact no games support HT it would only be 6 physical cores max, and not that 12 mentioned - that was my point.

I wasn't advocating for or against HT.

[jerryhopper 286]

this popped up on my radar....

ArmA 2 VS 3 : Animation !

[PuFu 4600]

You make it sound as if it's a bad thing. As if saying "game lacks support for this nice feature".

It was being discussed in other places I believe: there is not a single video game in which HT enabled would give any benefits.

while very true, it shouldn't give you a hard time either like it happened when 9xx i7s hit the stores (and in fact it doesn't for some time now - oa 1.60 at least). ;)

@PuFu, certain tasks simply cannot be split into more threads. I don't know 3ds well but I bet there are many times when editing mesh or UVs when it only uses a single core.

yeah, i guess that come out wrong on my part.

I am well aware that some calcs cannot be split in more threads, and even then, those threads needs to provide the user with a synked end result, which might end up being slower if it is spread around cores.

That is one of the reasons i never said (max or maya or modo or whatever other software can do it, but rather than the non-RT engines can and in fact are design specificly to take advantage of it - vray was my example here). Of course simple tasks like poly editing and other jizz is handled by 1 to 4 cores max (since 2013, it seems some stuff is spread around cores more evenly, especially legacy functions that took minutes to complete no matter of the number of cores available).

That said, some quote of dwarden from some time ago saying that the calcs cannot be spread almost evenly around all the available threads (in general, not talking about a particular application) is false, especially when it comes to apps designed around taking advantage of all the available resources.

anyways, all this techy talk is besides the point here.

[Hellhound 10]

While games may not support HT, with 3d rendering (Lightwave 3d) i found out that enabling HT means my render times are cut in half!.

[themaster303 22]

this popped up on my radar....

ArmA 2 VS 3 : Animation !

video

the new animation are really a step forward. like them. can´t wait to get hands on arma3!

momo

[4 IN 1 0]

Maybe you should stop assuming? I didn't say that, I didn't imply that whatsoever. The 970 is a 6 core, 6 thread CPU and as this game in fact no games support HT it would only be 6 physical cores max, and not that 12 mentioned - that was my point.

I wasn't advocating for or against HT.

Ain't BI (in fact, Suma himself) address the problem in the multi core thread? You may try to speed up everything by forcing every single core to run 100% at all time, but it would of no use for the actual gameplay if it is not in scan with each other what so ever.

[ruhtraeel 1]

some stuff is weird in that graph, some seems to be fair.

from a gaming perspective, although i never had any i5 since their release, my 2 i7s (see spoiler for specs) behave almost the same, with an unnoticeable upper hand on my 2600k (tested them with the same card, drivers, and same clock speed). The above goes for OA, as well as some other games i own and never actually play (RO2, BF3 etc).

BUT, from a workstation perspective, my 970 is still king. Just this week i did a test on the same scene in max (vray render engine), on my work computer at the studio -> i7 3820 and my older home workstation - i7 970.

While i am aware of the slight difference in terms of CPU clock speed, the 6 core / 12 threads was about 20-30% faster per frame (vray was set to use a max of 14gb of ram from the available 16 and 24 respectively).

with all the jazz about said, unless A3 actually make use of the additional threads (which is something i sadly doubt), the i5 is still the best bang for the buck out there for gaming purposes.

From a workstation perspective... there are a lot better workstation in general than going with an ix. Yes, an i7 beats an i5 in a workstation environment with more cores. But at that point, I would rather just have something like the workstation in my house right now, with a dual cpu (2 sockets on the board), which means they don't share a FSB, meaning more efficiency per core. An Opteron or Xeon would be much much better than an i7 for a true workstation.

I guess if you can only have one system and you want to do a bit but not too much of both (gaming and workstation purposes), an i7 would do nicely, especially for not as demanding things such as 3DSmax and maya. For something like 3D seismic imaging software, it just won't cut it. For my purposes, gaming = i5 2500k with two 5870's, non-gaming = Opteron with a Quadro FX.

But yeah, I think i7's were mainly targeted towards the gamer/casual modeler people.

Edited June 9, 2012 by ruhtraeel

[darkiron 1]

Thanks Jerry ! You have post my video. :)

Animes will be more smoother in Arma III !

[PuFu 4600]

From a workstation perspective... there are a lot better workstation in general than going with an ix. Yes, an i7 beats an i5 in a workstation environment with more cores. But at that point, I would rather just have something like the workstation in my house right now, with a dual cpu (2 sockets on the board), which means they don't share a FSB, meaning more efficiency per core. An Opteron or Xeon would be much much better than an i7 for a true workstation.

I guess if you can only have one system and you want to do a bit but not too much of both (gaming and workstation purposes), an i7 would do nicely, especially for not as demanding things such as 3DSmax and maya. For something like 3D seismic imaging software, it just won't cut it. For my purposes, gaming = i5 2500k with two 5870's, non-gaming = Opteron with a Quadro FX.

still OT:

It all depends on the environment you use it for. In my case, and a lot of others, some industry standard 3d modelling software (be it max or maya, cinema4d, lightwave etc), adobe suite etc.

There is also a dual CPU Xeon x5650 system in my office, running on a pretty expensive-for-what-it-does-quadro 2000, that was bought with post-production and composition in mind. For day to day CAD work, there is no difference between that and the other i7 systems in the 3d and 2d environments and software we use.

Surely, the xeon renders faster, but then again, from a business perspective, when we had to push 3000-5000 frames overnight we always used someone's else hardware-render farms. Otherwise any of the 8 threaded i7s does the job just fine for all the stills we produce daily, just as most of the freelance work i do home on my 970. I know of no-one running 3d seismic software from home, but i know plenty other lads working in the vfx and game industries as freelancers, most doing a pretty fine job on those i7s, if not on even on older systems.

Moreso, i had more problems with autocad drivers and max 2012 than any of the other nvidia gfx available. In fact, most viewports available in 3d modelling software are closer to rt game engines at the moment than they were before (especialy the dx ones, not the opengl ones).

But yeah, I think i7's were mainly targeted towards the gamer/casual modeler people.

i am not a casual modeler. modeling is part of the job i do on a daily basis and pays all my bills. besides, i know first hand a lot of other lads working in vfx, compositing, content creation and visualizing with different studios and companies. Only about 5% of those are using xeons for their day-to-day work.

[mr.g-c 6]

I made a ticket about to vote for it here:

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/30718

However there was a statement lately, either in an interview with Ivan Buchta or in a Dev-Blog were BIS was stating that they were "Upscaling jogging speeds to 22km/h and other stances upscaled to other speeds because the player demands that and would complain that the game would be to slow if it were realistic".

Now if you know me, i totally disagree with that. How about just design missions then different. There are Vehicles and so on. If i remember back to OFP, where soldiers were slower (and realistic) it was fun to look and search around for a vehicle everytime when you were stranded somewhere. Sure it added to the difficulty so you can't run from one side of the island to another in a few minutes, but it was better that way.

Remember my yesterdays claim?

Now guess how fcking long i searched for the proof... Jesus Christ xD

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?130175-Translator-required/page2&p=2092230#post2092230

Im Quoting the translator "myshaak":

Nice presentation, although a bit more tech-ey than I expected (aimed mainly at developement, not gameplay aspects) but still very interesting to watch, I really regret i didn't know about the event until it was over, I would definetely attend.

I don't think I noticed anything new regarding to Arma 3, mostly stuff we already know. A few things that may be deserving of pointing out:

• Limnos will not feature any rivers or streams. Even though BIS tried to incorporate them, they still were not pretty enough to include
  
• I really liked the part where they discussed the charatcter movement and how it should follow the basics of physics - fluid movement (no warping), fluid speed transition (no stopping from sprint on the spot), fluid acceleration... and how full inclusion of this would create other problems, namely with AI pathfinding (that is very closely tied to animations). It could be possible for the player but the result would be different of what people are expecting, it would feel a lot more clumsier and the player would feel less in control.
  
• The other thing was a problem where players expects some realistic things from the AI and something different (unrealistic) for themselves. What was specifically mentioned was player's running speed which is enhanced to about 22km/h (nor the weight of equipment neither the ground surface is even taken into account, so you can still run 22km/h across a muddy field with full gear).
  
• Another thing was a problem with long animations, namely getting in a tank. On one hand, players do not want to just press the "enter" button and be teleported inside the tank, on the other hand they do not want to go through the long animation of climbing into the tank which makes them very vulnerable. Among these lines another problem was also mentioned - how do you get out of a car stuck in a really narrow road between buildings and there is not enough space on either side of the car to open doors? Animation for crawling out through the back or the windshield?
  

I say it again, it was a pretty cool presentation, also great to hear Lord Ivan again! :)