Game Specs roughly stated

[GAZ NZ 0]

Ive been studying the whole Havok vs Aegia issues.

Currently Havok if there system - which is more "do able" ( in that i mean affordable) is used - they indicated the use / support of a dual processor and a single GPU with physics built in - part of the GPU.

This was in a seperate development article I read on the Nvidia site.

Something to consider.

You need a good CPU and single GPU at least etc to handle physics.

I will be upgrading soon to a dual core myself.

I wont be getting two PCI E cards - only one but ill get an SLI motherboard to make sure im covered. if I needed two and get an extra cheap one at a later point.

And in regards to changes in tech its hard to buy at the moment - plan ahead.

I think there will be a period of 2-4 years while all this sorts it self out.

Look at it like this

We have new physics cards coming out. - Havok vs Aegia

Direct X 10- probably comig out with Vista.

New CPUs and RAM

GPS in DUAL or Quad setup

Quad setups are not realistic for 99% of purchasers out there right now - dual setups even push it for some peoples budgets

And Windows Vista - 64 bit applications ( yeah right )

Blue ray Discs and HDTV

Its a revolution going on in front of us.

A very expensive one to play games and confusing when looking to buy.

Im simply going to get a really good system now and wait it out over the next 2-3 years or so.

Its pretty crazy trying to keep up with it all.

I dont have the money to waste on an ok system every 3 years - PC expensive to buy - around $1900 NZ dolars or so each time.

I only every upgrade to play FP.

Thats a good reason.

Im just pray my buy plays AA well.

Direct X 10 im presuming will come with - be part of the whole Windows vista release.

Therefore will the whole Vista thing which is up in the air - buggy - and full of compatibility issues will delay most peoples use of it.

I wont be touching it for 1-2 years or more.

Ill be forced over when you need direct 10 at a later point - maybe when game 2 comes out in 2 years.

If that is intended to work in 64 bit mode under vista.

Who knows?

[ralphwiggum 6]

10km is the target of the programmers for a computer in the 3Ghz class.

..........I think I need a new pair of pants........

*EDIT* http://www.ggmania.com/pics/06/specials/armed/armed06.jpg

That is just absolutely beautiful.

looks like southwest of Everon to me...

[redface 1]

See this interview

http://www.armed-assault-zone.com/news.php?readmore=45

"Not to come across as overly euphoric  Armed Assault leaves graphical beauties such as Oblivion far behind.

sorry, your summary of the German article needs to corrected as far as the translation of "hinterherhinken" is concerned:

"OFP is still being left behind by nowadays highly-graphical shooters

the game is still lacking in graphical details but there is more density to the bushes and the game still excels in drawdistance"

[Hauk 0]

OMG, my god! BI as long as you keep producing such quality detail, take as long as you need!

Hauk

[ag_smith 0]

Here is something I'd really want to see answered in some of the upcoming interviews: is ARMA engine able to make efficient use of dual core CPUs?

With Intel's Pentium D prices going down a lot, they're starting to become better choice than Athlons 64. Unfortunatelly, not many games make use of dual cores nowadays... I hope this is gonna change soon.

[PriMo_ 0]

They better make use of dual-core! Otherwise I dont even pass minimum!! I got 1.8Ghz Opteron 165, but dubble that and its 3.6Ghz. And OC to 2.6Ghz its an 5.2Ghz. How much viewdistance can I get out of that? ^^

[Marco.A.Aguilar1 0]

So what exactly is dual core (it is what I am going to get soon and don't even know...)? If I get a 3.2 GHz machine with a dual core processor, does that mean it will technically be 6.4 GHz?

[GAZ NZ 0]

Here is something I'd really want to see answered in some of the upcoming interviews: is ARMA engine able to make efficient use of dual core CPUs?

With Intel's Pentium D prices going down a lot, they're starting to become better choice than Athlons 64. Unfortunatelly, not many games make use of dual cores nowadays... I hope this is gonna change soon.  

I think from the sounds it it will - although it depends on Havoks physics engine used now by Nvidia for new GPUs. - how that works and if AA use it.

I wouldnt be surprised if dual cores become standard in regards to how Havok/ Nvidia pres release said the setup was for a good GPU unit single or SLi and a dual CPU for providing good graphics for a game.

I found this article below also mentioning hardwar aspects recently from Havok.

The article re havok speaking about Ghost Recon.

Ill post the response from aegia when it is made to this Havok comment.

Sure its sounds like they are trying to sell there products better but its interesting.

Havok Sounds Off On Ghost Recon AGEIA Physics - tech

(hx) 06:27 PM EDT - May,03 2006 - Post a comment / read (2)

Game physics software engine company Havok has decided to go on the offensive and take on some claims on the newly released PC version of Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, which is the first game to support the AGEIA physics processor. Here is some statements Havok sent over:

Havok Physics (on the CPU) is used for all game-play physics in both the multiplayer and single-player PC versions of the game. All persistent collidable objects in the game are simulated using Havok software technology running on the CPU.

Havok's logo is on the GRAW PC box, substantiating Havok's use in the game (confirmed by Ubisoft marketing). Havok was also used in recent GRAW releases including Xbox360, Xbox, and PS2 skus.

AGEIA Novodex is said to be used in the single-player GRAW version for added PPU-accelerated effects - at the most AGEIA appears to be used for particle effects - and in no-way affects game-play outcome. AGEIA is NOT used in any way in any GRAW sku other than the PC.

From our inspection, differential effects in the GRAW PC game when using the PPU are not significantly obvious - but where they can be observed, additional particles do not appear in volumes greater than 100's of particles (a range that is typically easily in the domain of the CPU/GPU for particles). These observed particle effects are also only particles and not apparently persistent rigid bodies. They pass through the environment after a short time (seconds) at most.User comments back this up: "to be honest it looks exactly same with the PPU as it does without it, the only difference is you get the extra blocks/debris, the strange thing is these extra blocks/debris seem to appear unrealistically out of no where when you shot things like the wall, floor etc, it really is like they've just been tacked on just to say *this game supports PhysX*."

Consumer reports from users who already have purchased the PPU and GRAW indicate that the PPU "actually slows down the game" in moments when effects are generated that are unique to the PPU. The effects described above appear to be the cause of the slow down - our observations here using a DELL/PPU confirm this. Also see here. One user comments states: "10-16 FPS slower with hardware PPU, I guess I need another GPU (SLI) to help render the added debris and effects I get from using the PPU, the price of PC gaming just went up again :-(, I can't believe that I have to disable the hardware PhysX card I just paid 200 quid for so that I can play GRAW at an acceptable FPS, to be honest I just feel like giving up on PC gaming these days."

AGEIA appears to imply and consumers conjecture that the PPU is generating so many objects that the GPU cannot handle the load. Multiple direct tests on the game by using NVIDIA's and ATI GPUs indicate the GPU has room to spare and in fact, if the PPU is factored out of the game, that the particle content generated by the PPU can easily be drawn at full game speeds by the GPU. So the introduction of the PPU most certainly appears to be the cause of the slow down in this case. NVIDIA specifically can technically verify that the GPU is not the cause of the slowdown.

We should stress that Havok is supportive of efforts like GRAW and Ubisoft specifically is a valued and strong business partner. More generally, Havok is a strong supporter of the PC development community with over 38 titles shipped to date on the PC using Havok technology. Havok is very enthusiastic about the prospect of additional acceleration for physics in PC games - specifically coming from multi-core CPUs and GPUs - both dual configurations and cutting edge GPUs targeting both graphics and "GP-GPU" applications.

[Metal Heart 0]

Quote[/b] ]If I get a 3.2 GHz machine with a dual core processor, does that mean it will technically be 6.4 GHz?

No. Technically it's still 3.2ghz. And it's not two times faster than the same processor running with only one core either. Looking at the tests on magazines, the performance boost is from 0%-60% depending on the task of course. That, and Windoze GUI will be more responsive when you're doing something cpu intensive.

[ArchangelSKT 0]

Looks like I will pull off Armed Assault for now, but of course at which level ?

I agree with the previous poster that alot of stuff is going on now within the technology, more then ever before is like I feel it.

I got a AMD 2 ghz (3000+) sempron, 1 gig of ram and a GF 6600 GT, I wonder how long I will be able to push it.

As long as I can play "Armed Assault" and Hitman:Bloodmoney I`m covered for a while actually until the release of Game 2 potentially.

(OT: 200 posts WOOHOO )

[Commando84 0]

nice looks like im safe for now but i wonder if its time to upgrade my old amd xp 2000 + cpu well see if i can save up a little bit of money in the summer for it maybe

[ag_smith 0]

I wouldnt be surprised if dual cores become standard in regards to how Havok/ Nvidia pres release said the setup was for a good GPU unit single or SLi and a dual CPU for providing good graphics for a game.

We know for a fact, that arma will use a BIS propertiary physics engine rather than havok. That's why I'm not sure if what you've posted, applies here. As I said before, most games nowadays don't make any use of the second core, thus dual core Pentium is usually slower in games that single core Athlons.

[berghoff 11]

=) Then just buy an Athlon.

[ag_smith 0]

=) Then just buy an Athlon.

If ARMA is able to make use of both cores, Pentium D will be a much better choice. After all, that's much more of raw processing power..

[Average Joe 0]

Lets hope its a typo

[rundll.exe 12]

Its already known ArmA wont have Havok physics, but only a slight updated OFP physic system.

Its impossible for the current PC's (even with PPU) to keep up with that many calculations on such a battlefield. You dont want to limit the nr of units on a map by a crappy phisics system.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Wtf is Auto Assault?

[DBR_ONIX 0]

Auto Assault is a MMO car-fighting-game..

http://eu.autoassault.com/

Armed Assault with rag-doll phsyics would be..hsyerical

- Ben

[martinovic 0]

Oy my slow internet strikes again i got beaten to it.

[berghoff 11]

=) Then just buy an Athlon.

If ARMA is able to make use of both cores, Pentium D will be a much better choice. After all, that's much more of raw processing power..

What about a Dual Core Athlon then? Or don't they exist? :P

[echo1 0]

=) Then just buy an Athlon.

If ARMA is able to make use of both cores, Pentium D will be a much better choice. After all, that's much more of raw processing power..

What about a Dual Core Athlon then? Or don't they exist? :P

They do, the Athlon 64 X2 line

@ag_smith: Pentium Ds are slower in games than A64 X2, raw processing poweris only important for Video editing and scientific applications. What Pentium D has on its side is lower cost and better bang for buck. However, the new Core Duo Conroe coming out in a few months will be better than all of them (or so Ive read). Im sure we'll see them before ArmA at this rate we're going

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Reading through this, I felt a bit more relieved. I'm sure my 3.91 P4 will be able to handle it - hopefully!

[christud 0]

i have an x2 4200 and when i alt tab out of ANY current game (Oblivion, GRAW, Battlefield 2 etc.) there is always a load on both cores. this generally follows a pattern of about 80% on core 1 and 40 - 50% on core 2. this appears to be the way the chip works in all situations whether the game specifically supports dual core or not but i'm no expert. anyone care to enlighten me?

[GAZ NZ 0]

Sorry I cant answer your question Chris but as a small question for some one with dual core CPU?

What type are you running?

And how does FP original play with it?

[ag_smith 0]

=) Then just buy an Athlon.

If ARMA is able to make use of both cores, Pentium D will be a much better choice. After all, that's much more of raw processing power..

What about a Dual Core Athlon then? Or don't they exist? :P

They do, the Athlon 64 X2 line

@ag_smith: Pentium Ds are slower in games than A64 X2, raw processing poweris only important for Video editing and scientific applications. What Pentium D has on its side is lower cost and better bang for buck. However, the new Core Duo Conroe coming out in a few months will be better than all of them (or so Ive read). Im sure we'll see them before ArmA at this rate we're going

Yeah, I know about Athlon X2, but I'm going after a lower cost this time and Athlon X2 is a little above my budget ATM. So it seems I'm gonna go for Pentium D805 and good cooler. People manage to overclock these things up to 3.6GHz easily.