Lagg Solution

[arma2disapointed 10]

The solution would be, Tyan Thunder K8QS Pro S4882UG2NR with 4 CPU´s

http://www.tyan.com/archive/products/html/thunderk8qspro.html

And that will reduce all the lagg you could think of, could be worth it.

Or do anyone have a better resonable idea?

---------- Post added at 06:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 PM ----------

Or maybe this only 2 CPU´s but 16 cores, and a more resonable price.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,677813/16-virtual-cores-in-a-desktop-PC-Asus-presents-ATX-motherboard-with-two-sockets-1366/News/

2 Intel I7 CPU´s

Or AMD 2 CPU´s 8 cores even better price.

Edited July 22, 2009 by arma2disapointed

[bangtail 0]

The solution would be, Tyan Thunder K8QS Pro S4882UG2NR with 4 CPU´s

http://www.tyan.com/archive/products/html/thunderk8qspro.html

And that will reduce all the lagg you could think of, could be worth it.

Or do anyone have a better resonable idea?

---------- Post added at 06:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 PM ----------

Or maybe this only 2 CPU´s but 16 cores, and a more resonable price.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,677813/16-virtual-cores-in-a-desktop-PC-Asus-presents-ATX-motherboard-with-two-sockets-1366/News/

2 Intel I7 CPU´s

Or AMD 2 CPU´s 8 cores even better price.

Or maybe go back under the bridge?

:bounce3:

Eth

[S7_Mega 10]

This personality type is a real concern for our society. When I was a kid if you didn't like something you voiced your opinion, once. Then you moved on.

Today's kids voice their negative opinion, then again and again and again and again....

Check out the name, "arma2dissapointed". Ok so now we know your aren't happy. Then posts like this. Then add in all the other hate this game" kids who fill gaming forums and turn what use to be a helpful and intelligent Arma 1 community into what we see today.

I can't wait for some other hyped up game tittle to be released so all the addicted "twitch" players can move on and pollute another forum site.

[bangtail 0]

This personality type is a real concern for our society. When I was a kid if you didn't like something you voiced your opinion, once. Then you moved on.

Today's kids voice their negative opinion, then again and again and again and again....

Check out the name, "arma2dissapointed". Ok so now we know your aren't happy. Then posts like this. Then add in all the other hate this game" kids who fill gaming forums and turn what use to be a helpful and intelligent Arma 1 community into what we see today.

I can't wait for some other hyped up game tittle to be released so all the addicted "twitch" players can move on and pollute another forum site.

Amen.

Thankfully they don't have much of an attention span. As soon as OFP : DR shows up (or some other odious FPS fest) most will be gone for good.

Some of them will no doubt return to tell us that they are getting 150 FPS and A2 sucks because it won't run properly on the $4000.00 rig that they don't have a clue how to use and finally how "leet OMGZOR!111!!1111" they are.

The "caliber" of the newer gamers in general is the reason that I play on a private server with a very select group of people.

I personally can't wait until October 8th :)

Eth

Edited July 22, 2009 by BangTail

[arma2disapointed 10]

Trying to solve the lagg problem here, and think what could be best solution, going for 4 or 8 or 16 cores 2 or 4 CPU´s.

Dont bother the name pleas. On topic about lagg isue.

Actually i have a clue about the rigs above and they would sure affect FPS in Arma2, question witch would be the best.

I would say 4 CPU 2 cores, but the price is high on both that and the 2 CPU 16 cores.

So most for money would be 2 CPU´s 8 cores maybe.

Edited July 22, 2009 by arma2disapointed

[S7_Mega 10]

I disagree. You are being ridiculous. This is Arma, for better or worse. Those of us that went through the growing pains of Arma1 understand this. Is Arma2 perfect, no it isn't. Will BIS fix the issues? Yes they will, as they did in the first release.

In today's society of immediate satisfaction I understand that you cannot believe that they have not yet waved the magic wand to fix the issues.

Again, something I was taught that is not common these days, patience.

For those of you that are new to the ArmA experience, go download Arma1. Play that as it was released before any patches, same thing we see with ArmaII.

And for those of you that don't understand why it takes so long to fix gaming issues, any game, have a look at the raw code. Do yourself a favor and learn how to mod in any discipline. Try map creation, modeling, animation or scripting. You will come to respect the work it actually takes to create a game.

Patience.

Edited July 22, 2009 by S7_Mega

[ViperNL 10]

Have an admin change it then, it makes you look rather childish.

[bangtail 0]

Trying to solve the lagg problem here, and think what could be best solution, going for 4 or 8 or 16 cores 2 or 4 CPU´s.

Dont bother the name pleas. On topic about lagg isue.

It's not "on topic"

You don't need anything like the stupidity you posted in order to run the game properly. It was a pretty obvious troll from a guy who has spent his entire stay here whining and complaining. Right down to your username I might add.

Eth

[S7_Mega 10]

It's not "on topic"

You don't need anything like the stupidity you posted in order to run the game properly. It was a pretty obvious troll from a guy who has spent his entire stay here whining and complaining. Right down to your username I might add.

Eth

Amen. I simply don't understand this mentallity. You see this behavior more and more these days. This type gets some sort of perverse satisfaction out of constantly complaining.

[bangtail 0]

Amen. I simply don't understand this mentallity. You see this behavior more and more these days. This type gets some sort of perverse satisfaction out of constantly complaining.

It's getting out of hand IMHO. Parents are slacking and the world is far too PC. When I overdid it as a child, I got a crack, not a reward. I might not have liked it at the time but it has made me a far more disciplined adult.

Cheers,

Eth

[S7_Mega 10]

We can tell.

[arma2disapointed 10]

Pleas go on topic

---------- Post added at 08:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 PM ----------

Witch of the systems would boost the FPS most for the money?

The 2 CPU´s 4 cores is even a cheap choise, not more expensive than many single CPU motherboards. Saw it from 100$

---------- Post added at 09:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 PM ----------

I really have issues with lag when it comes many unit same time.

Could you at least say somthing bad about those systems? Other that the first may be very expensive with 4 CPU´s

Anyway it´s the only way games could get larger in the future.

Edited July 22, 2009 by arma2disapointed

[bangtail 0]

Pleas go on topic

---------- Post added at 08:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 PM ----------

Witch of the systems would boost the FPS most for the money?

The 2 CPU´s 4 cores is even a cheap choise, not more expensive than many single CPU motherboards. Saw it from 100$

---------- Post added at 09:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 PM ----------

I really have issues with lag when it comes many unit same time.

Could you at least say somthing bad about those systems? Other that the first may be very expensive with 4 CPU´s

Anyway it´s the only way games could get larger in the future.

They aren't systems, they are motherboards and the first 2 are not designed with gaming in mind.

The M2N SLI board is decent enough. I don't really do AMD as Intel are far superior CPU wise, but you can definitely build a decent box using that MB.

Eth

[Particle 10]

The solution would be, Tyan Thunder K8QS Pro S4882UG2NR with 4 CPU´s

http://www.tyan.com/archive/products/html/thunderk8qspro.html

And that will reduce all the lagg you could think of, could be worth it.

Or do anyone have a better resonable idea?

---------- Post added at 06:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 PM ----------

Or maybe this only 2 CPU´s but 16 cores, and a more resonable price.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,677813/16-virtual-cores-in-a-desktop-PC-Asus-presents-ATX-motherboard-with-two-sockets-1366/News/

2 Intel I7 CPU´s

Or AMD 2 CPU´s 8 cores even better price.

None of this would help. The game doesn't even work with more than 8 CPUs present. It will crash to desktop when the menu loads. I say this from first hand experience, so don't waste your money.

With 8 CPU cores enabled on my dual 6-core machine, I still get tons of input lag and such anyway.

[bangtail 0]

None of this would help. The game doesn't even work with more than 8 CPUs present in my experience. It will crash to desktop when the menu loads. I say this from my experiences which do not reflect the experiences of others who are playing the game with no issues

With 8 CPU cores enabled on my dual 6-core machine, I still get tons of input lag and such anyway.

Corrected :)

Eth

[Particle 10]

Corrected :)

Eth

Broken, you mean.

You may have missed the entire point of my post. I'm stating that the game has issues when running on a system with more than 8 CPUs present. To my knowledge in searching the net, nobody else has even attempted this. I've seen one person using a dual quad core machine where it worked fine. This coincides with my own ability to run the game when I only have 4, 6, or 8 CPUs enabled. With 10 or 12? The game crashes where I specified.

You suggest that my experience doesn't reflect others who have no issue. Who? I seriously doubt there are a lot of us posting with systems having more than 8 processors.

I also tested this against multiple operating systems including 32-bit Vista, 64-bit Vista RTM and SP2, Server 2008, and Server 2008 R2.

What I suspect happened is that you got caught up on when you saw the phrase "game doesn't even work" and either totally missed the point and context of my post (of under which conditions it doesn't) or quit reading for content entirely.

It's also exceedingly rude to edit a quote of someone in that way...especially so when your edits are unjustified or incorrect. Your "I'll end with a smilie emoticon after being obnoxious" tactic is just the icing on this insidious cake.

:mad:

[bangtail 0]

Broken, you mean.

You may have missed the entire point of my post. I'm stating that the game has issues when running on a system with more than 8 CPUs present. To my knowledge in searching the net, nobody else has even attempted this. I've seen one person using a dual quad core machine where it worked fine. This coincides with my own ability to run the game when I only have 4, 6, or 8 CPUs enabled. With 10 or 12? The game crashes where I specified.

You suggest that my experience doesn't reflect others who have no issue. Who? I seriously doubt there are a lot of us posting with systems having more than 8 processors.

I also tested this against multiple operating systems including 32-bit Vista, 64-bit Vista RTM and SP2, Server 2008, and Server 2008 R2.

What I suspect happened is that you got caught up on when you saw the phrase "game doesn't even work" and either totally missed the point and context of my post (of under which conditions it doesn't) or quit reading for content entirely.

It's also exceedingly rude to edit a quote of someone in that way...especially so when your edits are unjustified or incorrect. Your "I'll end with a smilie emoticon after being obnoxious" tactic is just the icing on this insidious cake.

:mad:

Lol, fair enough. This thread was a troll from the beginning so I was in "reaction" mode.

I understand what you were getting at now.

No harm done :)

Eth

[Bulldogs 10]

I found it both entertaining and informative.

Anyways, I agree with both of you. It didn't work for Particle and he's absolutely right, don't waste your money. That said, it may work fine but testing in one scenario isn't definitive especially without a control.

But don't waste your money on something very expensive that may have a chance of slighly increasing performance.

(smiley face, mad face, hungry face)

[bangtail 0]

I found it both entertaining and informative.

Anyways, I agree with both of you. It didn't work for Particle and he's absolutely right, don't waste your money. That said, it may work fine but testing in one scenario isn't definitive especially without a control.

But don't waste your money on something very expensive that may have a chance of slighly increasing performance.

(smiley face, mad face, hungry face)

I don't advocate running out and upgrading just for one game, people who do that are foolish but it's their money at the end of the day.

I do, however, believe that when you are dealing with older hardware, it might be time to consider an upgrade. Again, this doesn't need to break the bank but having a fairly current machine is going to eliminate many potential problems across the board.

Eth

[guynumber7 0]

Look im having trouble running this game too. My rig aint the greatest but i shouldnt have to run it on low to get any fps what so ever. i have a gtx 260 and a e6400 @ 2.4 ghz, and it should do better than that. and 3gb of ddr2 775 ram.

the guy above me only runs with no problems cause he has a 6000$ rig, and not everyone does.

ill get an i7 and ddr3 soon enough but this is still crap and needs to be optomized.

[Master gamawa 0]

Dear arma2disapointed.

I think you are a maniac. A crazy train! A loose canon! An anrgy droning robot stuck in a loop for ever. I don't think your problem will be solved no matter how many cores you get. Even if BIS sets view distance to 5 million km. Even if characters become 2d sprites WITH NO ANIMATION PLEAS!

There is nothing ANYONE can do for you!

I had to get this off my chest.

[Particle 10]

I do want to be clear that I agree--certainly, with the current sample size, my view is not conclusive. It's just the best available conclusion with the data points available, be they as scarce as they are.

It seems pretty unlikely to be something other than the game itself, however, given the nature of the problem and the testing performed. The only change is the number of cores available.

[Bulldogs 10]

I agree

as a sample of performance, I don't believe I'm affected by any performance bug so I'll put my stats here :

test bench :

e7300

2 x 2gb ddr2 800

Asus p5k/epu

asus 9800gt

under vista :

CPU at 2.6ghz

all settings low

1280 x 1024

26 fps average in campaign

32 fps average in non campaign missions

changing the video setting, everything stays constant with mix of normal/high/very high

CPU at 3.5ghz

30 fps average in campaign

40 fps average in other missions

under xp :

CPU at 2.6ghz

30 fps average in campaign

38 fps average in other missions

CPU at 3.5ghz

41 fps average in campaign

50 fps average in other missions

hope that helps for comparison

[kremator 1065]

Already told him that his negative opinions are NOT what we want in these forums - still doesn't learn.

PS It's LAG not LAGG. Looks like spelling has also gone out of the window these days !

[Herbal Influence 10]

Amen!

And:

Take a look at my poooooor rig!

It's from Dec 2006 (600 Euros).

I upgraded then for AA2:

99 Euros on 9600 GT + 60 Euros on AMD 6000 X2

Done it few minutes.

I am happy as can be doing AA2 a lot in all kinds of variants.

In fact I did again change graphic options for interest only and my average fraps is about a 35 now.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Herbal Influence