Jump to content
Richard.biely

64-bit Executables Feedback

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Drift_91 said:

DDR3-1333 @666GHz 9-9-9

 

Back on topic, I'm pretty sure that BI have the whole 2017-2018 roadmap laid out with more DLCs planned. Hopefully after the 64-bit build gets pushed to stable they'll be able to start doing optimization of some kind though.

666 * 2 = 1333, so your DIMM's are functioning perfectly fine...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NoPOW said:

666 * 2 = 1333, so your DIMM's are functioning perfectly fine...

At first I thought you weren't getting the point, then I watched the video again and realized that he set it to DDR4-800 and not 800MHz. So this whole time I was making a fuss over nothing thinking he was using a higher speed than me when in fact he was using DDR2 speeds.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personaly if they would fix the LOD issues and memory leaks that would do for me. Im not ever expecting higher fps as the game is cpu dependant and mainly is all done on one core. My 1080 usage sits between 35-55 most of the time and the temps stay very low too not much more than idle temps.

 

I will be honest and say I will not buy any more DLC for arma 3 as i feel like i am just funding the creation of the new engine. I too respect the devs to keep on working on Arma 3 but there are clear large issues regarding LODS and fps spike drops. Tanoa is just a step too far for the engine to cope with even before using any AI.

 

64bit should be helping wirh stability but for Tanoa and LODs of all maps its not. Even the games own missions like Armed assault are running worse and have larger fos drops now once the AI reacts.

it would be intersting to see why the map proving ground runs flawlessly without a single grass lod changing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree completely with Ray.  I’ve been lucky enough as well to get a pretty damn awesome PC lately, and the game at its best has been running around ~50 FPS in SP missions.  The engine is at fault here.  As much as I don’t want to believe it, or see ARMA3 move on because of all the content + awesome MODS, it might be the best option for future performance gains.  I would still love them to stabilize what we have now (make it playable), but after that, maybe it is best to move on.  :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to add, trust me it hurts to say that.  I'm a big armaholic fan here.  With over 5850 hours recorded. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nikiforos said:

Really not hyped with the 64 executable , 32 is far better at least for now.

 

 

From a Terrain Builders and Pilot PoV im very happy for that, and how well the engine handles huge terrains now.

 

Some tests with 8k heightfield  30x30km map with 3m cell grid and 40k viewdistance

5734606FF66142BC12F5ABAEB83F01A8BCE1427F


 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, dwarden said:

FYI: pagefile swap is must for A3 to operate properly, both 32 and 64 bit , no/too small swap = unforseen consequences ....

I don't even know what this means. Can someone break this down in less technical talk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HeroesandvillainsOS said:

I don't even know what this means. Can someone break this down in less technical talk?

Let Windows control the size of the pagefile...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, HeroesandvillainsOS said:

I don't even know what this means. Can someone break this down in less technical talk?

 

You need a pagefile mandatory for Arma 3 - and for MS Windows too - game, without it you have errors, BSOD, CTD, etc.

 

There's an idiotic idea that you can work/play a pagefile but this is another stupid idea from the some "illuminatis" that spread FUD on internet.

 

No pagefile, no fun.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NoPOW said:

Let Windows control the size of the pagefile...

 

Why do you say that?  Because of technical experience?  Or based on what others have said?  Not sure if you saw my reply to his message shortly after that, but people dont seem to really explain or share experiences with different settings/setup.

 

I'm not questioning the need to have it enabled, i'm just asking whats the difference if one goes in and plays with different setups verses leaving it to Windows to decide....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, jcae2798 said:

 

Why do you say that?  Because of technical experience?  Or based on what others have said?  Not sure if you saw my reply to his message shortly after that, but people dont seem to really explain or share experiences with different settings/setup.

 

I'm not questioning the need to have it enabled, i'm just asking whats the difference if one goes in and plays with different setups verses leaving it to Windows to decide....

They are not really different "setups," there is nothing to gain here...

The whole 'disable pagefile'-discussion is secondary: it stems from a time when SSD's were rather expensive and ppl didn't want to have a lot of writing cycles on their SSD, but neither wanted to place it on the much slower HHD. Since large amounts of RAM was rather cheap, why not disable the pagefile altogether, since the chance it being used was nihil? It had nothing to do with a difference in performance between a system with/without a pagefile.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

why not disable the pagefile altogether ?

 

Window XP pagefile recommended settings - same settings for Windows 7,8,8.1,10 -

 

https://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/sysdm_advancd_perform_change_vmpagefile.mspx?mfr=true

 

Quote

Microsoft strongly recommends that you do not disable or delete the paging file.

 

The entire O.S. design is based in the pagefile usage, you cannot remove the pagefile without instability issues.

 

Answering the other question:

 

Quote

Why do you say that? 

 

MS answer for the same link:

 

Quote

To have Windows choose the best paging file size, click System managed size.

 

But if you prefer manually setting your pagefile then:

 

Quote

For best performance, do not set the initial size to less than the minimum recommended size under Total paging file size for all drives. The recommended size is equivalent to 1.5 times the amount of RAM on your system. Usually, you should leave the paging file at its recommended size, although you might increase its size if you routinely use programs that require a lot of memory.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply guys.  So one thing that really confuses me is really the following:

 

-Wouldn't it make sense to manually set page file to as large as you can/want it to go?  Why have windows limit it?    Even if Windows changes the size on the fly  (does it?)

 

Not trying to go off topic here, but with the 64b release, and new the "large pag support" param, just trying to see what ARMA wants that works best since we all want to squeeze every little bit of performance we can get.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't think too much about it.

 

Windows knows what's best for itself at any given moment and changes the pf size accordingly.

 

You can do some googling if you want to read up on it more, (imo it's out of the scope of this thread) but tbh you're better off letting Windows sort it out for you (unless you know exactly what you're doing - which some people claim to have that knowledge, but really, most of them are flaky on the subject when pushed for definitive answers).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manually you can move pagefile to the start of HDD (first sectors) and prevent its fragmentation on HDD. That will make it faster. On SSD it doesn't matter, so no reason to set it manually, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Ray Solar said:

I understand that many play games on pc's at under 60 fps, many are fine with that. I understand that the cost of pc's means we cant all afford a nasa super computer but the reality is that 60fps is the minimum norm for pc gaming. If the pc you have struggles getting 60fps on other games then really Arma is never going to be viable in your pc.

 

This is just so blatantly wrong, I don't even know what can be said. I have a 2600K with a 970, and get somewhere between 25 and 45 FPS at any given moment. The game is not just acceptable but totally playable as long as one doesn't face a texture loading situation that creates stuttering.

 

I'm not contesting that more FPS is better and creates a smoother gameplay experience, but to suggest that 60 FPS is the "minimum norm" for PC gaming is an extreme and innacurate claim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, focher said:

 

This is just so blatantly wrong, I don't even know what can be said. I have a 2600K with a 970, and get somewhere between 25 and 45 FPS at any given moment. The game is not just acceptable but totally playable as long as one doesn't face a texture loading situation that creates stuttering.

 

I'm not contesting that more FPS is better and creates a smoother gameplay experience, but to suggest that 60 FPS is the "minimum norm" for PC gaming is an extreme and innacurate claim. 

 

60 fps is the minimum norm for AAA fast paced shooters and such. Arma isn't that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, cyruz said:

 

60 fps is the minimum norm for AAA fast paced shooters and such. Arma isn't that.

I'm genuinely curious as to where this statement actually comes from especially if the minimum specs that games require have cards that are still below GTX 960's ?

Is this coming from owners of GTX 1070/1080's GPU's and i7 CPU's or is it coming from gaming manufacturers themselves ?

Which games are we also talking about here too please?

Cheers

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my 2 cents on the last couple posts.

 

I came from a PC that was somewhat decent.  Arma usually ran ~35 to ~45 PFS max.  I always thought it was playable for Arma, being that your not running door to door moving side to side when shooting like battlefield or something.  However i recently was able to upgrade to a monster PC.  Since then, my averages have bounced up to ~45+ FPS.  And with 64b, in some cases averaging ~50+.  Although playable, with lower specs, once you experience higher FPS, the smoothness of mouse movement is incredibly different.  Your aiming becomes so much more precise.  Your movements and moving head side to side becomes so much more satisfying.  So someone who has a good PC where normally average 50+ FPS in all games, i can totally understand why their upset.  Keep in mind also, everyone has different play styles.  Just because someone may sit back more and aim and fire, others like to run door to door which having a higher FPS makes the difference.

 

All i'm saying, is keep different play styles in mind, and unless you had the change to experience higher FPS, don't rule out their experiences.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2017 at 10:12 PM, dwarden said:

FYI: pagefile swap is must for A3 to operate properly, both 32 and 64 bit , no/too small swap = unforseen consequences ....

 

Not if you have 16> RAM and an SSD. There is no need for a pagefile file if you have both of these. I get 40-60FPS in the game and I don't use any pagefile whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cyruz said:

 

60 fps is the minimum norm for AAA fast paced shooters and such. Arma isn't that.

500m draw distances, tiny maps, simplified ballisitics, no mod support and no editor is the minimum norm for AAA fast paced shooters and such. Arma isn't that.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, road runner said:

I'm genuinely curious as to where this statement actually comes from especially if the minimum specs that games require have cards that are still below GTX 960's ?

Is this coming from owners of GTX 1070/1080's GPU's and i7 CPU's or is it coming from gaming manufacturers themselves ?

Which games are we also talking about here too please?

Cheers

 

I had Doom in my mind when I said this, the developer made a point of wanting it to run at high frame rates due to the movement and speed involved in the game, wasn't referencing a specific spec per say, but I'd say the general standard that some people expect is to run newer titles at 60fps, then again I don't pick up much new stuff these days so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

But you're right, I think a lot of PC master race blah blah leaks in and it's probably more the community than the devs.

 

5 hours ago, domokun said:

500m draw distances, tiny maps, simplified ballisitics, no mod support and no editor is the minimum norm for AAA fast paced shooters and such. Arma isn't that.

 

No shit, we're arguing the same point from the same side...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

For 60 fps we need to wait:

 

  • "DX12 Engine, 5'o clock, one hundred!"
  • "All, Attack single-core bound engine!"
  • "single-core bound engine is history!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In IL2 Sturmovik BOS was the same problem that is in Arma (single core performance needed). They moved to DX11 and gave us x2 FPS than before.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×