Running Arma2 from SSD

[Leon86 13]

are there no horrible registry entries?

if it really is as easy as cut-n-pasting the install folder then creating a new shortcut i will be delighted.........

you can copy the "addons" folder to the ssd, almost all gamedata is in there, then you can start it by making adding -mod="driveletter" to the shortcut.

[jerryhopper 286]

are there no horrible registry entries?

if it really is as easy as cut-n-pasting the install folder then creating a new shortcut i will be delighted.........

i think pieter means that you need arma installed.

but once installed ( yes with registry keys and all) you can just move it around, make copies to other drives (on the same pc!)etc etc.

so yes, i guess you are delighted now :)

Note: there is a reg-key that points to arma install dir but i never had problems with moving a arma copy around on my drives and play from that.(without changing that reg-key )

Edited June 5, 2010 by jerryhopper

[MavericK96 0]

Honestly, I didn't see a significant performance increase in terms of stuttering when going to an SSD. Load times improved pretty dramatically, but the stutter is about the same.

[jerryhopper 286]

Honestly, I didn't see a significant performance increase in terms of stuttering when going to an SSD. Load times improved pretty dramatically, but the stutter is about the same.

well, i dont play much.

i do a lot of frap recording atm. with my superfast writespeed on a ssd, i certainly feel the improvement in stuttering/switching textures.

the FPS sometimes drops to 20, in certain scenes. note thats with fraps recording.

i have stuttering sometimes, but i blame multiplayer for that.

here is some fullhd recording

there is stutter in movement of the plane ( a online player )

well, im happy with my ssd.

[Dead3yez 0]

Since my SSD is only 30gb I've recently moved some files to a mechanical HDD, to conserve space. I have kept everything relating to the islands/environment and the anims.pbo on my SSD. Everything else, such as vehicles/weapons/misc, I have moved onto the mechanical drive (stuff that should use less read "bandwidth"). I think that this has made things a little more efficient, I can save space on my SSD and still have nice - if not nicer - lod switching and load times.

The only disadvantage is having to move the files back when patching.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Dead3yez

[cream-t 10]

Hi,

Just fitted a Kingston V 64gb (£80!). 200mbs/110mbs. OA DVD is in post ETA tomorrow. Have ARMA2 DVD.

I have WIN7 on SSD C: (35% free, *4GB page file)

I have a 200Gb Spinpoint HDD for F:

Gaming wise I will be 100% on OA (plus Brit addon), note not ARMA2.

Q1. What size is ARMA2 and OA on disk?

Q2. If I do not install ARMA2 will I have problems playing MODS and Servers that mix?

Q3. What are the problems with OA on C: and ARMA2 on F:? I believe you can do this. Will OA performance be effected.

Q4. Where's the postman!

*I've read good and bad things in equal ratio. Only clear point is it does use up space.

(I have read through many posts here)

[Dead3yez 0]

Q1. What size is ARMA2 and OA on disk?

Q2. If I do not install ARMA2 will I have problems playing MODS and Servers that mix?

Q3. What are the problems with OA on C: and ARMA2 on F:? I believe you can do this. Will OA performance be effected.

Q4. Where's the postman!

A1. ~16GB with no addons.

A2. A lot of servers run CO (Combined operations), you will not be able to play any missions with A2 content if you don't install ArmA2 as well and run CO.

A3. I have installations on multiple drives. I have steam version of OA so I am stuck on C:\ with that. I moved most of those files over to D:\ (SSD) and run them as a modfolder.

A4. On strike for the next month.

[flattermann 12]

Hi,

Just fitted a Kingston V 64gb (£80!). 200mbs/110mbs. OA DVD is in post ETA tomorrow. Have ARMA2 DVD.

I have WIN7 on SSD C: (35% free, *4GB page file)

I have a 200Gb Spinpoint HDD for F:

You should probably move your pagefile to F: since SSD's have a limited write longevity (unless you are using a SSD based on DRAM)

[Baff1 0]

Regular hard drives have a limited write longevity too. Not to mention read.

As I understand it my SSD's longevity is expected to be substantially greater than that of most HDD's.

[flattermann 12]

I read a bit further, even Microsoft state that the pagefile on an SSD is perfectly fine, so the decreased write longevity may be a myth

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx

Edited December 17, 2010 by Flattermann

[infiltrator_2k 29]

I read a bit further, even Microsoft state that the pagefile on an SSD is perfectly fine, so the decreased write longevity may be a myth

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx

I've disabled my pagefile. Having 12GB of ram I didn't feel the need to have one.

[Tankbuster 1746]

I read a bit further, even Microsoft state that the pagefile on an SSD is perfectly fine, so the decreased write longevity may be a myth

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx

Reading between the lines there, I think they are saying that on average, mechanical hard drives either fail, or simply be replaced before most users will run out of write cycles on their SSD.

---------- Post added at 08:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:05 PM ----------

A1. ~16GB with no addons.

A2. A lot of servers run CO (Combined operations), you will not be able to play any missions with A2 content if you don't install ArmA2 as well and run CO.

A3. I have installations on multiple drives. I have steam version of OA so I am stuck on C:\ with that. I moved most of those files over to D:\ (SSD) and run them as a modfolder.

A4. On strike for the next month.

That's sensible. My Intel SSD is pretty full with the OS and the game, so I run all my addons off my system's HDD.

[breeze 0]

bought a 120 gig ssd drive and have a dual boot win 7 32 bit for arma2 and 64 bit OS for reg applications and it flies and I am running it on an old quad chip but I do have a good MB and 8 gigs of 1600 mhz ram. I got the drive for 220ish I am gonna buy another one Im so impressed,

[jumpinghubert 49]

My Intel SSD is pretty full with the OS and the game, so I run all my addons off my system's HDD.

Master of facepalm FPDR

[Tankbuster 1746]

Explain?

[kklownboy 43]

Master of facepalm FPDR

hmmm dbl FP.

Because you have lost any benefit for your game on SSD when the game calls up a addon from your HDD.

Addons/game on SSD, OS on separate SSD, HDD for DATA/storage.

[Tankbuster 1746]

Game, Addons and OS don't fit on my SSD. Well, they would, but it'd be getting quite tight.

Look at it this way. My game can call up data from an addon at the same time as it does from the game as they are on different disks.*

*I reserve the right to look even more foolish if someone explains to me that both disks are SATA and on the same bus anyway (or similar)

[lao fei mao 21]

Obviously a PCI SSD is faster than a SATA2 SSD

[infiltrator_2k 29]

I just ordered a Crucial 64GB C300 and I'm hoping to get W7 and ArmA2, OA and BAF to fit on it. Obviously, if it does, I'll have to manage and allocate other data on my other HDDs.

I was in 2 minds about going to SSD, although after reading the raving reviews about solid state drives it was a no brainer. I read that gamers can also get an FPS increase of around 6%. Of course, the only cons about buying a SSD is they'll more than likely be half the price next year and twice the performance. The Crucial C300 is at least Sata III 6GB with a decent read speed.

[bangtail 0]

SSDs do not increase FPS period.

They may alleviate hitching issues to some degree (which can make a game seem smoother) but they have nothing to do with rendering.

[liquidpinky 11]

SSDs do not increase FPS period.

They may alleviate hitching issues to some degree (which can make a game seem smoother) but they have nothing to do with rendering.

Correct, even using a RAMdisk there is no noticeable FPS increase. Resource loading is smoother though.

The current build of ARMA doesn't really require to go to the extremes of RAMdisks now as they had sorted most of the loading issues.

[infiltrator_2k 29]

SSDs do not increase FPS period.

They may alleviate hitching issues to some degree (which can make a game seem smoother) but they have nothing to do with rendering.

So the person(s) who done this research report is wrong then :confused:

http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/products/SSD/downloads/SSD_vs_HDD_is_there_a_difference_Rev_3.pdf

[bangtail 0]

So the person(s) who done this research report is wrong then :confused:

http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/products/SSD/downloads/SSD_vs_HDD_is_there_a_difference_Rev_3.pdf

Dead wrong as far as FPS goes.

Don't get me wrong, SSDs are great, but they have nothing to do with how graphics are processed.

Using a solid state drive will give the gamer the extra edge he or she is seeking.

I actually read the whole thing through and it sounds like a sales pitch rather than an objective technical document.

Edited December 20, 2010 by BangTail

[mosh 0]

SSDs do not increase FPS period.

They may alleviate hitching issues to some degree (which can make a game seem smoother) but they have nothing to do with rendering.

Yep, everything's smoother, but no FPS gain... biggest difference is loading times.

[kklownboy 43]

Obviously a PCI SSD is faster than a SATA2 SSD

? PCI? or PCI-E? And thats not really true. Onlytime i see any real improvement over IHC10 is with a "real" controller card in raid.And thats just benchmarks.

Or did you mean a Full SSD PCI-E card. either way they both cost more than most " good" computer systems.

Also on the 6% FPS gain... 6% of a Vsync 60hz? Or 6% of some 30fps. which is basically nothing.