Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

-1 Poor

1 Follower

About Callaghan

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. How does turning off Intel Virtualisation help? Even with large page files enabled, the game doesn't use more than 4-5gb of RAM, even if it desperately needs it. 10gb pagefile and 4gb RAM. I've been playing since OFP 2001, and I know Arma 3 isn't well optimised, but this is shockingly bad for a game that needs it so badly. Still only two cores being used and less than 50% GPU and only 25% RAM even though it's running under 60FPS. My RAM speed is 2666.
  2. Thanks I'll try large page files. Graphics settings aren't the issue, I have a 1080ti, which doesn't get stressed at all by Arma 3. That's why I'm wondering about being under 60fps at certain times even though the CPU and GPU aren't anywhere close to being fully used. Not to mention 4gb of ram usage vs a sometimes 16gb pagefile. It's crazy.
  3. Is this idea still relevant or has it been made redundant by recent patches?
  4. Creating this as a new topic as all existing advice ranges from 2013-present day, over a number of different patches, full of self-contradictions, and is generally a bit of a mess. The 8700k has six physical cores, with six more logical cores. What is the optimal way to set the launch parameters and/or any other settings in windows/bios to maximise CPU usage for the game? Currently my launch parameters include the following modifications, based on advice seen in various different threads. - 64bit platform - Extra threads (all three sub boxes ticked) - Enable Hyper threading - Enable large page support - System memory limit (64bit) = 16312 Are any of these options redundant? Am I missing anything? I know that Arma will not use all cores effectively, I just want to use what's available to maximise performance.
  5. Some good points in this thread but at the end of the day. ArmA 3 is coming, it offers a more complex engine, and that is where the community will be. The community needs to adapt to the changing situation, like they say you have to go forwards just to stay in the same place. A good start would be a greater deal of collaboration and less petty competition and 'ownership', i'm not saying the mod community should be a communist regime, and I appreciate that it is one of the closest and most productive mod communities out there, but so many man hours are wasted on 'lesser' mods, pointless addons that we already have 100 different versions of (yes I appreciate that people will make only what they want to), but we would all benefit from mod teams coming together to help each other out. We really don't need more than one ww2 mod based around the western front, people choose the best one, and leave the others for a 'bit of messing around in the editor'. Think about how much better your favourite mod would be if its rivals came together to collaborate on one big project, actually released it on time, and had the manpower to support it after. At the same time, a bit of healthy competition is always good, but I strongly believe that 90% of the problems of having an increasingly complex engine could be dealt with by the community organising itself a little better.
  6. I really hope they are implementing physx in this way, to enhance the simulation aspect, and not just for hardware-wasting eye candy. Partial destruction of vehicles, loss of doors etc through physx would truly add something to the gameplay. Working doors on vehicles would be a step in the right direction. At the very least there will be no more bouncing 100m in the air when driving a 70 ton tank over any geological entity larger than a fingernail. Physx destruction would allow for different destroyed models, rather than just spawning in a detailed wreck model. Only detailed wreck models would allow for that aesthetic you get in movies, but physx destruction would allow for better simulation and greater variety, that seems to be the best way to go for the style of this particular sim.
  7. Callaghan

    No DX11?

    "OpenGL is out of question even with consideration of its qualities. It's huge amount of work/fixes/tweaks/optimization to rework engine from DX9 to DX11. I can't imagine we'd make OpenGL in a real scope. And yes, we are targeting DX11, hovewer DX10 should be supported. Although... We are not in the end, things/ideas can be changed." I'm somewhat confused by his phrasing here. Especially considering that dx10 appears as a 'requirement'. Is Damu saying that the engine is being designed around dx11, with support for dx10? Or that it has been designed for dx10, and that they are currently working on a dx11 version? I couldn't care less about opengl, but dx11 is certainly a better choice than dx10 in the way it distributes data across the hardware.
  8. Callaghan

    ArmA3 Wishlist and Ideas

    Improved geometry and collision detection, maybe including the physX model, so that we can finally walk around that C130 and actually run out of the back to jump rather than using an 'eject' action, which is totally unimmersive. It would also allow for vehicles and cargo to be transported in and on vehicles and would simply be an awesome addition to the engine. Also make the rain the non-armour-piercing variety, so that it no longer rains indoors. Also the lighting needs to be vastly improved in terms of fidelity, and in turn the AI should respond to how well a particular object is lit, would make stealth operations feel a lot less random in terms of being detected.
  9. Callaghan

    You love Green land or Dessert POLL

    Leading questions, please rephrase, there is cover in desert environments.
  10. Callaghan

    Arma 3 Officially Announced!

    If it is a Merkava then it is probably that active defence system, Iron Hammer/Fist I think it is called. Shoots RPGs out of the air, T90 has the same thing.
  11. Callaghan

    Arma 3 Officially Announced!

    Sexy as hell, only the mix of equipment certainly makes the conflict very ambiguous right now. Israel, Greece, US, Russia and maybe Iran? Curious and curiouser.
  12. It isn't supposed to be, so don't expect it to be.
  13. Are there known compatibility issues with the following server set-up? Combined Ops ZEUS AI Full ACE 2 package Someone recently pulled mando missile from our server, we have been using it religiously for many years now. The reasons given were that it was causing the Javelin to be inconsistent, sometimes unuseable, in particular with regard to locking. It also seemed to be firing 2 missiles at a time. Any help would be greatly appreciated, as I am highly skeptical that mando would not be fully compatible with ACE, and would be very sad to play any serious operation without mando missile. I know next to nothing about server management, so I just need to convince our server admins that it is not in fact a fault with the mod, but with our server setup.
  14. Callaghan

    WarFX : Blastcore

    Anyone else tried the LB? Seems fine when I fire the miniguns but as soon as you hand over to AI the weapon goes crazy, all of the rounds seem to come out of the barrel in 4 seperate directions 45 degrees away from the expected line of fire, it was very amusing to watch actually, but a strange bug indeed. NOTE - this was with ACE