Jump to content

HaseDesTodes

Member
  • Content Count

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

61 Excellent

About HaseDesTodes

  • Rank
    Sergeant

Recent Profile Visitors

517 profile views
  1. well, i don't think this boat is meant for operations on rivers in that form. and from what i could see, the tower doesn't provide any gameplay function in vanilla. diver has no working displays and the commander has the displays bound to the GMG in the front. all other boats provided by BIS can pass underneath all of the bridges, even APCs (not sure if i've tested the Marid, but i think i did). imo the bridges look realistically placed the way they are. no one would build a ramp for a bridge for such a small river unless there was a need for it. to me it doesn't look like the river was large enough for any proper ships. and even if they did build a ramp, i fear this would not only look silly, but also might cause some more problems with the AI. i really wish it was possible to use armed boats on that river for more than 2km, or whatever the longest distance is you can travel on the river. but having thought about it, i don't think changing that the bridges should be the way to go. it'd probably look silly. imo, the best way would be to give the option to hide the tower of the boat, but that's probably more than a bit work. second best would probably be an armed version of the RHIB for all factions. it even looks like it has a weapon mount in the front. but that's probably as much work as option #1. (i think there should be one or two versions in CUP, but i'm to lazy to check. and using mods for every little thing isn't really an option for me)
  2. and that's not even the worst bridge, just the most annoying, because you think you might just pass under it. you can't pass under 4 of the river bridges with a Speedboat HMG. all other boats, and even APCs are fine, but that damned tower on the boat blocks it from passing under. if only we could saw that stupid tower off the boat
  3. Ryzen 3000 series CPUs will (almost certainly) be a good buy. but since there are no proper benchmarks out yet (at least i haven't seen any) we can't tell you. having a quick look in the benchmarks posted in the last month or two, i came to the conclusion, that Ryzen 2 are almost the same when it comes to FPS/GHz. now AMD claims to have increased the IPC (instructions per cycle) by 15% so the performance per clock should increase as well. but we will have to see how well. now the thing is, the I9 9900K has a maximum boost clock of 5GHz while the Ryzen7 3700X you mentioned has only 4.4GHz. so the intel has a 13.6% higher boost clock. taking those figures into account, makes me believe, that the R7 3700X might be as fast as or only slightly slower than the I9 9900K. but i think no one here will be able to give you a certain answer. just wait until the official release, there will be benchmarks shortly after. about the ram thing. tests have shown, that faster ram, or ram with faster timings helps increasing the FPS in Arma3. i would explain it this way (but without knowing for sure): Arma requires lots of different data from the memory but no large files. So the CPU will have to wait for that data in order to complete it's calculations. the faster the memory delivers the requested data, the faster the CPU can complete the calculation = higher FPS faster Ram not only has higher bandwidth, but also can often respond in a shorter period of time, given the timings didn't suffer to much.
  4. bring the good ole skybox to arma 🙂 just not like usual where you are inside the box. like a large box 20m high and 4km wide surrounding the whole map, with different textures for the side and the top. not sure if the engine would support this, but sounds like a proficient way to deal with this.
  5. that't the Chernarus+ version of that chapel. you can see it's enterable, unlike the A2 version. but in this case it seems to me, like there is a LOD issue with the roof. i really like the look of this map. one grain of salt i have found so far is, that you can't pass under 4 of the river bridges with a Speedboat HMG. all other boats, and even APCs are fine, but that damned tower on the boat blocks it from passing under. i still have the hope for armed boats to be part of the new factions, but deep inside i'm sure that won't happen.
  6. HaseDesTodes

    Contact Expansion Feedback

    since it's in the game files now it should be possible. i think i will buy and test ("tomorrow"= after i wake up again) and it's not only the radar. i see some more chernarus+ structures on the screenshots.
  7. if you're interested in understanding, most things should be explained here: https://www.hardwaresecrets.com/understanding-ram-timings/
  8. and i'm saying, that A3 doesn't require all cores to run at their limits. otherwise it would benefit more from a surplus of cores. A3 does like higher singlecore performance, so the CPU will rather run with 1 core at a higher clock (=max clock) than all cores at a relatively high clock (=all core boost). maybe an owner of a i7 8700k can enlighten us about CPU 1/2/3/4/5/6 load and clock in A3. i actually don't know know how the CPUs are using their boost (especially those with more than 4 (physical) cores), so if it doesn't behave like i think it does, i'm always willing to learn. but simply saying max boost doesn't matter in a singlecore loving game like A3 doesn't sound plausible to me.
  9. and we all know how much A3 needs high performance on many cores and not maximum single core performance. right, not much. so i guess max boost is the dominating factor here.
  10. i have no doubt they are working on A4, but they just didn't officially announce it. and i think this will probably mean that it will still take a while until we can test it (if they make it EA again) or even longer until it hits version 1.0. i had a look on 80+ Titanium certified PSUs, and the only ones from Corsair i found had 850W+, and those were all more expensive. So i came to recommend the one of that's pretty much the one i have. I have no doubt that Corsair PSUs are of high quality, they just didn't match the profile in that matter. I hope that the Ryzen 3000 will deliver their performance (in A3) without much tinkering from the use side. Especially the relatively weak performance of the DDR4 memory from the Ryen 1000/2000 series keep me worrying, but if they improve that even more, i think it should pose no obstacles for good performance in A3. as mentioned I9-9900K (8x3.6/5GHz base/boost clock) and the coming Ryzen 9 3850X (rumored 16x4.3/5.1GHz base/boost clock) are almost the same boost clock wise. and the performance gap between the i7 8700k and the R7 2700X in the diagram oldbear posted are almost the same as the turbo clock difference I7 8700K: 4.7GHz R7 2700X: 4.3Ghz ratio: 4.7/4.3=1,093 (~9%) fps ratio: 63.9/57.6=1,109 (~10%) i9 9900K: 5GHz ratio: 5/4.3=1,163 (~16%) fps ratio: 70/57.6=1,215 (~22%) so the latest Intel generation seems to have a bit more performance per clock again. but even if the Ryen 3000 don't make any more progress in that matter they still have those extra 2% boots clock. so i guess from the current point of view, the Ryzen 3000 series looks very promising. when i bought my current CPU (i5 4670K) i didn't really want an Intel (because they were acting like *ickheads), but i decided by the performance (AMD FX series was abysmal) and didn't regret it. So if you want the best now, get the i9 9900K, but if you can wait, wait for Ryzen 3000 tests and make a rational decision then. I honestly have some doubts if the specs that are rumored for the R9 3850X can be true (5.1GHz with 16!!! cores (with SMT (AMD version of hyperthreading))), but if it is true, it should be a beast.
  11. For a PSU i can recommend the Seasonic Prime Ultra Titanium 750W ATX 2.4 (SSR-750TR). It should be a bit more efficient (less heat loss and, over time less electricity costs), so it would probably not matter much. And it should be quieter. The main advantage (apart from the price) of the Corsair would be, that it has a few more connectors (1x 20/24-Pin, 2x 4/8-Pin ATX12V, 6x 6/8-Pin PCIe (+2), 12x SATA (+2), 8x IDE (+3), 2x Floppy (+1)) The price difference (71 pounds at amazon), as well as the price level seems to be significantly higher than in Germany (UK seems to be like 25-35% more expensive for those PSUs, (again amazon)), so it should probably make to less of a difference to justify that upgrade. Nevertheless, i have the smaller brother of the Seasonic PSU (650W version), and i'm pretty happy with it, so i recommend it, and i'd buy it again. if you are not going to buy it right away, you might want to wait for the next generation of the AMD Ryzen CPUs and see how they perform in A3, and if Intel will lower their prices. I'm pretty confident, that the performance gap between the I9-9900K (8x3.6/5GHz base/boost clock) and the coming Ryzen 9 3850X (rumored 16x4.3/5.1GHz base/boost clock) will be less than 5% for Intel, if not even favorable for AMD (if AMD gets their memory clock improved). So i guess Intel will have to lower their prices at least a bit. Oh and don't expect A4 anytime soon, you will probably disappointed. It's not even announced, so I don't expect early access before 2022.
  12. HaseDesTodes

    General Discussion (dev branch)

    in case someone can't wait until it gets released again, i had it posted somewhere else... didn't copy the links they had for the commands though, but i think it were links to the commands in the BI WIKI, so you might still find those there.
  13. HaseDesTodes

    General Discussion (dev branch)

    Just say there were "logistical issues" that caused the update to be delayed. 🙂
  14. that's what i meant. what point does it have to change the settings, so that you can actually see differences, if it's all the same with normal settings. benchmarks with different resolutions make some sense, in order to help people see what performance they can expect with different monitors/resolutions with the respective GPU.
  15. i don't think you should use settings that are so far away from usual settings, just to force GPUs into a max-load state. if you wan't to find out what GPU is better, there are better ways than Arma3 benchmarks. and if you want to see how well a GPU performs in Arma3 you should use more realistic settings, because at the end of the day, that's how it will be used anyways. sure, increasing the display (or rendering resolution) for benchmarks can be interesting for people that own those monitors, but 600m view distance. i guess that's more for users with weaker CPUs playing in cities.
×