Jump to content

Callaghan

Member
  • Content Count

    86
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Everything posted by Callaghan

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Is this idea still relevant or has it been made redundant by recent patches?
  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
  15. Hi all and great work Mandoble. Quick question before I commit hours to trying something - do you think it would be possible in theory, with the way you set the script up, to use the air support console reconfigured to use addon munitions and even 'advanced munitions' i.e. I basically want to be able to get the AI freefall bomber to drop CBU-87s or 97s from ACE: which classname would I need, the bomb itself or some kind of second-stage that it converts into when dispersing? My scripting knowledge is limited but i'm familiar with the config for the console and the basic engine principles.
  16. Sexy work guys, esp on the armour. Is there somewhere I can read the latest dev news without trawling through pages of 'the bangalores dont work' and editing questions?
  17. Callaghan

    J.S.R.S. 1.5

    Maybe make a suggestion to BIS that they add another entry specifically for sounds on rounds falling below a certain altittude?
  18. Callaghan

    Slaving the Apache Gun with trackir

    Damn thats a good idea OP
  19. Callaghan

    WarFX : Blastcore

    And at the same time there is nothing wrong with raising the awareness that a huge percentage of the community drawn to this mod, are in turn drawn to the realism of ACE. To encourage an addon maker or at least alert him to the fact that a certain compatibility is incredibly important to many gaming groups is in no way ungrateful, unreasonable, nor selfish. When it is done reasonably and politely it is certainly a more worthwhile contribution than simply suggesting that he doesn't make any changes. Those who oppose such suggestions probably dont use the incompatible mods themselves and generally have less invested in the game and the community than those who demand more, so are being irrational and selfish by suggesting that cross-compatibility should not be encouraged. This is a strong community, but it's flaw is lack of collaboration between mod makers and teams, that is a simple truth and you guys should give OS more credit, he knows what he is doing and knows how to treat a suggestion, he doesn't need you mollycuddling him everytime someone says something that isn't purely positive support - he's English remember, he's not as explosively sensitive as you guys. Anyway, I love OS's work, always have, but to act as if constructive criticism should be avoided, well then you understand neither the community nor the basic concept of progress.
  20. Callaghan

    DLC - Canadian Forces

    Perhaps you should follow your own advice. My comment was in response to the Canadian DLC, I was saying it is the last thing we need, that resources would be much better directed elsewhere. Grow up and learn to speak respectfully on these forums or please hold your peace.
  21. Callaghan

    Graphics engine improvement

    Why is there no sticky for engine suggestions? Seeing as that seems to be the critical selling point, and ultimate limitation, of this game. As much as I love what you do BIS, it really is time to stop faffing around with the lukewarm DLC aimed at expanding the market, it does nothing to expand on the game in a substancial way and you could maybe get away with one more insipid DLC release before people start getting loud about wanting real engine updates. Arrowhead brought some significant improvements, but it really is high time that we had intergrated texture/render for 3d scopes, more variables added to all forms of ballistics, to allow for better missile and bullet simulation, (perhaps even some gesture towards a comprehensive physics system, but not so important) scalable explosives and explosions - some truly 'new' things you know? Rather than just retextured units and a few altered models that add nothing to the game beyond 10 minutes of eye candy and perhaps a new look for your AI opponents to enjoy while you kill them. Perhaps most importantly, I get the impression you start work on these editor modules, and then abandon them before they are either finished or fully intergrated with the other modules. Editors make the most of what is out there, but really that artillery module should be far more comprehensive and useful for ALL artillery. I have yet to see a working bm-21 since release. So before you go modelling five men and a car from each nato force (I was disappointed that BAF contained neither the new sharpshooter rifle, which is pretty mission critical, nor the challenger 2, and the lack of a bipod on the L96 was rather shortsighted considering the predominance of ACE mod), how about you work on the cohesion of all other content so far? BAF could do with a booster patch, A2 content needs updating to arrowhead standard, and all of the new features need finalisation before we get any new gimmiks. I don't mean to sound angry, as I said I love BIS's work, but like many of you, I have more invested in this game than just some a desire for instant-gratification, and I would hate to see it ruined by industry trends, which is threatening to happen.
  22. Maybe I dont know enough about cryengine3, but this sounds like a terrible, game-destroying idea. Cryengine would use so many resources just off the bat that the simulation end of things would have to be greatly thinned out. This would reduce the simulation to such an extent that most of us old timers would simply refuse to play it. This suggestion seems to come from console kids who have only just started playing arma. Just as importantly, the licence would be so expensive that BIS would have less resources for the game in general. I'm not against them looking for 3rd party engines - esp, when it comes to physics. At the same time, lets not let the only combat game remotely worth playing become ruined by some shiny 'flavour of the moment'.
  23. Callaghan

    DLC - Canadian Forces

    As much as I love what you do BIS, it really is time to stop faffing around with the lukewarm DLC aimed at expanding the market, that does nothing to expand on the game in a substancial way. Arrowhead brought some significant improvements, but it really is high time that we had intergrated texture/render for 3d scopes, more variables added to all forms of ballistics, to allow for better missile and bullet simulation, (perhaps even some gesture towards a comprehensive physics system, but not so important) scalable explosives and explosions - some truly 'new' things you know? Rather than just insipid unit models that add nothing to the game beyond 10 minutes of eye candy.
  24. Callaghan

    Do you want upgraded Arma 2 content?

    Yes, upgrade the ArmA 2 content to OA standards, no - don't charge us for it, it will not be well received considering you are already making the necessary revenue from DLC, we are perhaps the most supportive community around, a free patch seems only like the right thing if we are to support all future releases to the same extent.
×