engel75 10 Posted July 24, 2009 Hi BIS, I wonder if there is any developement roadmap about ArmA2. Even if the version number is 1.02 at the moment it feels more like a 0.02. It would be nice to know what BIS is planning to release with the next patches and which features are planned in the future. - 64bit client version? - 64bit Linux server? - DirectX10? - Crash to desktop fix? - Performance boost? - Better RAM usage? Would be nice to know what's planned. Regards, Flo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leopardi 0 Posted July 24, 2009 Hi BIS,I wonder if there is any developement roadmap about ArmA2. Even if the version number is 1.02 at the moment it feels more like a 0.02. It would be nice to know what BIS is planning to release with the next patches and which features are planned in the future. - 64bit client version? - 64bit Linux server? - DirectX10? - Crash to desktop fix? - Performance boost? - Better RAM usage? Would be nice to know what's planned. Regards, Flo And -Fix for mouselag that's preventing lots of people from enjoying the game? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
no use for a name 0 Posted July 24, 2009 (edited) - 64bit client version? - 64bit Linux server? - DirectX10? you can't just all of the sudden make a game 64bit or make it DX10...it has to be specifically written with those in mind from the start as for the other stuff I'm sure they're well aware of it and are working on them for a future (hopefully the next) patch Edited July 24, 2009 by No Use For A Name Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
engel75 10 Posted July 24, 2009 (edited) - 64bit client version?- 64bit Linux server? - DirectX10? you can't just all of the sudden make a game 64bit or make it DX10...it has to be specifically written with those in mind from the start as for the other stuff I'm sure they're well aware of it and are working on them for a future (hopefully the next) patch The server version has nothing to do with the client version. So even if the client is 32bit and was never planned to be a 64bit application the server could be a 64bit application. Yes directx10 would be a major change but directx9 is so 2002 (!)... Listen to the features of directx10 - some of them could help a open world environment a lot... Arma2 already has got a lot of "directx10 features" like soft shadows and sunrays but directx9 does not support those things from scratch. So some of those effects might be rendered by the CPU. This could be why the GPU is not that important for Arma2 and the GHz of the CPU increase the performance most. So moving those effects from the CPU to the GPU world increase overall performance a lot - imho Recoding the client from 32bit to 64bit is not that big deal and should be on the roadmap. Edited July 24, 2009 by engel75 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deadfast 43 Posted July 24, 2009 (edited) One of the BIS employees (Suma?) said that there is no real advantage for a 64 bit version. It would only lead to increased memory consumption. DX10 would a major unnecessary change. You'd still have to retain DX9 rendering for backwards compatibility anyway. Too much effort for too little gain. Edited July 24, 2009 by Deadfast Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
engel75 10 Posted July 24, 2009 One of the BIS employees (Suma?) said that there is no real advantage for a 64 bit version. It would only lead to increased memory consumption.DX10 would a major unnecessary change. You'd still have to retain DX9 rendering for backwards compatibility anyway. Too much effort for too little gain. Yes much more RAM CAN be used by a 64bit application (about 8TB?). So for example my system has got 6GB of RAM but ArmA2 uses only about 1,2GB of my RAM. It could use all my free RAM to cache game data what would lower those ugly lags while moving over the map because of all those reloads from the harddrive. 32bit was yesterday... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
derk yall 0 Posted July 24, 2009 Well, Dx10 is also not supported on many of grafic card, and if i remeber corectly, but I am not realy sure so dont take it 100% like truth until confirmed, that Suma, the lead developer stated somewhere, that the DX10 doesnt add something usefull to be implented into the game. Its a fact, that DX10 is hyped like hell. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Murklor 10 Posted July 24, 2009 Well, Dx10 is also not supported on many of grafic card, and if i remeber corectly, but I am not realy sure so dont take it 100% like truth until confirmed, that Suma, the lead developer stated somewhere, that the DX10 doesnt add something usefull to be implented into the game.Its a fact, that DX10 is hyped like hell. It may be hyped as hell but DX10 is standard on ALL modern graphics card. In fact its DX10.1 now. ALL mainstream cards have it and ALL budget cards (yes even those costing less than $50) have it. Of course there are older cards that users still have... Though you have to go pretty far back. Geforce series 7 and HD1XXX was the last of the DX9 cards I believe (ignoring non ATI/Nvidia or non regular desktop cards). The problem is that DX10 requires Vista and as we all know... Vista is not supported by many users ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deadfast 43 Posted July 24, 2009 Yes much more RAM CAN be used by a 64bit application (about 8TB?). So for example my system has got 6GB of RAM but ArmA2 uses only about 1,2GB of my RAM. It could use all my free RAM to cache game data what would lower those ugly lags while moving over the map because of all those reloads from the harddrive.32bit was yesterday... Increased memory consumption as a negative effect. Found Suma's original post. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
galzohar 31 Posted July 25, 2009 Yes, memory consumption is not a good thing, unless you consume more memory to increase speed, which is usually not the case. Though TBH I'm quite surprised the game just plain out doesn't have any use anywhere near 2GB of RAM. I mean, it's good that it doesn't need that RAM, but I hope the low RAM usage isn't achieved at the cost of excessive HDD reading, which is much worse than using more RAM. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
engel75 10 Posted July 25, 2009 Yes, memory consumption is not a good thing, unless you consume more memory to increase speed, which is usually not the case.Though TBH I'm quite surprised the game just plain out doesn't have any use anywhere near 2GB of RAM. I mean, it's good that it doesn't need that RAM, but I hope the low RAM usage isn't achieved at the cost of excessive HDD reading, which is much worse than using more RAM. Just get microsofts sysinternals process monitor and watch the crazy amount of I/O's ArmA2 does while playing. ---------- Post added at 03:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 PM ---------- Increased memory consumption as a negative effect.Found Suma's original post. Strating crysis in 32bit and 64bit mode does not show this effect. Both executables use the same amount of memory... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
