yarex

I play arma on rig with following specs: Intel core2 duo 6400 4gb ram, nvidia 240gt, sata hdd All graphics settings at minimum except particle effects resolution 1200xsomething on fullhd lcd. It's still playable - in woods and aread around cities i get like 10-20fps, but if there is a lot of AI on the move, or in cities it drops to 5-10fps ;)))). You have no idea how hard is to hit the enemy sometimes, but i still love this game.

Arma should introduce bullet winding. Best would be wind indicator similar to stance indicator, something like: XXXXX : 000XX and every shooter at 500+m distance should counter that. Also earplugs should be introduced into game. When used - soldier would hear only loudest explosions and environmental noises. When not used, after each shot would hear high tone ear whistling for some random time greater then 30s.

This is nice example how helis are handled and how it feels and looks like from the cocpit:

There is more, then just better support of latest instruction sets, compiler is doing much better job at auto-parallelizing loop (distributing single loops over multiple threads automatically) than any other compiler - and in some cases that can make hell of difference and there are more advantages...... Intel C++ compilers are also source and binary compatible with Microsoft Visual C++ If the code is computationaly expensive, with aggresive compiler settings speed improvement can be up to 20x faster then compiler from microsoft. (but in that case compilation can take hours) Based on statistics, on average is code faster by 10%, so its really suitable for time critical operations. Also Intel C++ compilers are also source and binary compatible with Microsoft Visual C++ - that quote from intels website is valid - i tested it using my local VS2010. More can be read here: http://software.intel.com/en-us/intel-parallel-studio-xe/ and http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/151375/are-intel-compilers-really-better-than-the-microsoft-ones I dont want to make any advertisment here, but devs could check Intel Parallel Studio XE 2013. Compiling with perf. settings is easier way to squeeze more performance from game before code logic optimizations and i believe devs should give it try atleast for testing purposes.

Tell him to ALT+TAB to other application and then back. This should fix mouse problem. He is probably not using full resolution of LCD. I hope developers will come with the fix soon. Also you can use bugtacker instead of forum to report bugs.

That is what i mentioned. If i have to simplyfy, intels compiler makes better use of intels processor instructions sets and produces more optimized = faster code for intels processors family then the one from microsoft. Disvantage is, that for AMDs processors it switches to default settings, even if instructions are supported - but there is way around for that case too. I was just wondering what would be performance difference in case arma3 was compiled using intels compiler, because i'll bet, that in game that includes so much physics and calculations the difference could be measurable. You can google advantages easily.

I was just wondering, if they did not try to use intels compiler, that is way better them the one from microsoft for intel processors. (what would be performance gain over the one from visual studio) Intels compiler can be included into visual studio and from code side should be compatible.

I'd like to know if possible, what compiler is used to compile arma source code? Is it visual studio (microsoft compiler)?

Nope, in this case i'd say that c# is better overall. (but Java has better runtime (JVM) Please check this presentation comparing those 2 languages: http://www.slideshare.net/jeffz/why-java-sucks-and-c-rocks-final I spent 10+years coding in c# (3 in perl, javascript, vbs and grown up on c++ since university) and now learning Java (basics are the same, because of syntax similar to c/c++ or c#, but i learn it because of poor android support for c++ (-: ) so i think i can compare. All programming languages are based on mathematical theory of Turing Machines and computation theory. For me - the difference is not only what language can do, but for me most important is how easily, elegant and clean code looks like. (compare coding in assembler vs coding in java as an example - both can create the same result, but code in java is more readable, faster to code and more error prone) And when i compare same code in c# and same code written in Java, then c# is much more easy to read and quickier to understand. (but i love c++ because of speed and full control over everything rather then c# or java that are higher layered languages)

Batto is right. JIT loads assembly just once, then it's reused until recompiled. (or restarted), but both languages work the same way - both have some Runtime that executes kind of Intermediate Language - compiled code and runs binary. Javas problem is, that for UI it's a crap - it's slow and sluggish, am not sure how good it will be for Arma scripting. Still, i think C# would be a better option then Java because of it's simplicity. However, i agree that C#rps garbage collector is a shitte. (causing for example stalls on web servers in some cases) Regarding overflows checks in C++.... i guess you haven't noticed that i was comparing checks on overflows in C# against C++, and what i said was, that it's pretty easy to overwrite memory using c++ (using arrays, pointers or whatever else) and cause application crash. - try that in c#.

Dont be personal, if you know nothing about me and my programming experience. To be more accurate, i as talking about default java namespaces and their naming conventions and not comparing how many 3rd party libraries are there out for c# vs java. I;v stated, that personally don't like how default java libraries are being organized. (and i don't attack you if you do) I can provide example and list of advantages (and disadvantages of .net over java) but i see no reason to do that, because it's easy to google it. So if you don't like my personal preferences, it's your problem.

Language is similar (.net has better language extensions that have no equivalent in java (linq, etc) ), but the libraries in Java from my point of view (.net developer) are very messy. When i compare them to .net libraries (their naming conventions, etc.) then .net is a clear winner. Configuration stuff in java is a pain.

Nope, it could not. (not for so complex 3D game) C#, as a higher level language, (is similar type as java) is in general quite slower then c++. (so suitable for web services, web apps and rapid application development) c# code is by compilation translated into Intermediate Code, that is at runtime loaded, compiled into assembly and executed. Slowness is caused mostly by that loading, and miscelanious program structures checks and checks for overflows at runtime that do not exist in c++ (it's not possible to overwrite piece of memory that belongs to other program so easily as in c++) But in my opinion, would be more suitable for programming extensions then chosen java - because is easier to learn and use, but for engine and all lower level stuff there is no other option then c++.

Rebind my keyboard