Jump to content

oldbear

Member
  • Content Count

    2486
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Community Reputation

305 Excellent

About oldbear

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer

core_pfieldgroups_3

  • Occupation
    Retired human, active bear!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Mt Ventoux North Face
  • Interests
    Arma*, what else ... ?

Contact Methods

  • Biography
    Player for 70 years ... playing video games since Pong.
    Played on Apple IIe, MO5, N64, Atari1024ST, MacIntosh LCIII / PowerMac6100 / 66.
    OFP / Arma / Arma2 / Arma3 player
    Clan [ADO] member - Arma2 Terrain-Maker
    Self-proclaimed Armavangelist

Recent Profile Visitors

3583 profile views
  1. In fact, I don't understand what you're looking for with this fps limitation. The main concern of Arma 3 players is to play above 30 FPS, if possible in the 45/50 FPS zone which is for me the playable zone. Whatever configuration I play today, i7 7700K / RX5700 or R5 3600X / RTX 2060, I never get 60 FPS stable in game the FPS display jumping continuously from 25 to 80. It happens that on some terrains like Stratis or Malden to briefly have a 120FPS jump while looking at the sea, but most of the time in combat on my Clan's dedicated server I have an average level of 35 FPS. As I am a mission maker, I do my best to ensure that none of my teammate has less than 30 FPS in game. Regarding a code to limit FPS, there was a developer code under Arma that you can find it the BI Community Wiki. These codes are mainly intended for development and testing, their use in game may prove to be counterproductive.
  2. OK. I understand in this case the use of VSync, it is probably a side effect of the use of a widescreen. I have never had screen tearing while playing an Arma series game since the Iiyama Pro 17 " and Operation FlashPoint (now Arma: Cold War Assault). Considering the way the game engine works, I find it difficult to imagine how it would be possible to set a fixed level of FPS. Note : you are right about the FSAA x4, sorry.
  3. Thanks! Can you, according to some Old Bear method ™ suggestions ...😎 - set down a bit in the 3200m/3500m range, the Global Visibility parameter, - disable Vsync in the "Display" section, - in the "AA & PP" use FXAA : X4 and PPAA: CMAA ... and tell us if it helps a bit ?
  4. @Flaux82Great! So It seems I was over cautious... Could you send us screens from your Video parameters and do some runs with YAAB mission benchmark and give us your results ?
  5. @Flaux82 I have been probably a bit overcautious in my previous answer as I found an interesting topic ou our forums : Arma 3 and 21:9 monitors I am still cautious because even if resolution is mainly a GPU job, in Arma* all render is depending on simulation. If nothing happens, the display is going to be perfect and very immersive, things will get complicated from the moment there is action. Although the RVEngine is multicore since Arma2: OA with some serious improvements with Render Time Scope for example, the game is still dependent on a single thread doing the game world simulation which will quickly get very busy in game. You have just to remember that 3440 x 1440 = 4 953 600 pixels will be processed by the simulation before being sent to rendering and then to display.
  6. @Smokejumper Hi, welcome in our Armaverse 😎 Answer to the question about "max settings" is difficult. Arma3 because it is powered by an efficient but now outdated RVEngine shows limitations compared to current games. The first limitation is that the game is absolutely dependent on the frequency and efficiency of the CPU. To put it simply, to play here and now at the maximum level you need the fastest processor, an Intel CPU with a Turbo max at 5.30 GHz with all the consequences and drawbacks that go with it, in particular a special motherboard, a consumption and a very important temperature involved. If you opt for an AMD processor, you have several options in my opinion, either to play right away, choose an R7 3700X on a B550 motherboard 16 GB DDR4 3600MHz C16 or to have more choices wait until the release in October of the CPU with Zen3 architecture and choose the most suitable RAM. I have done a lot of tests playing Arma3 with a R5 3600X, whatever the GPU over the GTX 970 level, you can play in "Ultra" video quality. @FluffyPlays Welcome and sorry to hear that. I will suggest you ... - to disconnect all unnecessary connections, USB key, gamepad for example. - to disable any profile created in the Nvidia panel and use Arma3 parameters, - to create a new profile, use AutoDetection to get the BI parameters, - to shut off all so called "social media" and browsers then run a YAAB mission test-benchmark and show us your results using Standard bench parameters, here or there ... @Flaux82 Hi, welcome. Here I think 21: 9 is not the problem, on the other hand playing at 1440p on a wide screen with the current CPU / RAM / GPU combo can be difficult.
  7. oldbear

    What's your gaming set up?

    @a.schmied200 Welcome in our Forums 😎 Why going OFFTOPIC ? If you want to play Arma*, you can have a look at the dedicated Will-my-pc-run-Arma3? What cpu/gpu to get? What settings? What system specifications? topic. The latest entries on the topic give a good idea of what is best for playing Arma3, but in fact also for playing other games.
  8. Do not use lower settings ! Your GTX 1660 allow you to play at the Video Quality the game must be played. The only parameter you can lower is General>Visibility>Overall because this parameter is 100% CPU. It defines for the processor the surface of the ground which will be calculated and will be used as base for rendering.
  9. Well, getting a CPU having a 4.50 GHz Max Turbo is a move in the right direction. But it is with good reason that Groove_C tells you that, "the problem with laptops is mainly cooling, to maintain max advertised frequency". Getting a more powerful CPU means generating heat so you must think about "balance". I am not speaking of your friend bank account balance but about power used in game/heat generated and the way laptops are built. An Arma3 gaming laptop is not an extra thin object, it' a bit bulky due to the presence of an elaborate and efficient CPU cooling system, it' heavier and often more expensive. Very often, the thin sexiest laptops you can find even with high level CPUs have build in security to level down power consumption before a BSOD.
  10. Hi Gardner95x, welcome in our Armaverse 😎 A laptop based on "an i5-9300h and a GTX 1650 with 8gb RAM and a SSD" will allow your mate to play Arma3. Arma3 is still "CPU dependent", it means that first of all, you must try to get the fastest/efficient CPU you can allow. In this case, the i5-9300h [4 cores/8 threads running at 4.10 GHz on Max Turbo] is not a bad candidate. The GTX 1650 will follow and allow displaying the game in "High/Very High" quality. The 8 GB of RAM is a bit low, 16 GB would be better. A SSD is a must-have. With Arma 3 a decent framerate, it's above 30 FPS, this laptop should allow it in my opinion
  11. oldbear

    Request for a "Minimum" requirements update

    Updated suggested "Minimum" requirements in "APEX Standard" Based upon what I had post on JeuxVideo.com Arma3 Forums [edit 16 January 2020] A Recommended Minimum config to the "APEX Standard" must allow playing at a good level of FPS, regularly above 30 FPS with a graphic quality in "Very High" and a visibility of 3000 to 3500m. This level of performance can be achieved in 1080p with a config based upon ... CPU: Ryzen R5 2600 /i3 9100 RAM: 16 GB (2x8 GB) 3000 MHz Graphics card: RX 570 / GTX 1650 SSD: 500 GB (Windows + Arma3) Of course it's a bit more than the "Minimum" allowing to run the game over 20 FPS based on ... OS Windows 10 64-bit PROCESSOR Intel Pentium Gold G5400 / AMD Ryzen3 1300X GRAPHICS NVIDIA GT 1030 / AMD RX550 RAM 8 GB HARD DRIVE 50 GB free space, SSD / Hybrid HDD / SSHD storage From my point of view, this game must be played over 30 FPS in order to be enjoyable !
  12. Memory speed not so important but it matters à lot ! With an i5-10600K/ASUS TUF Gaming Z490 Plus, you can use almost almost the same 16 GB (2x8 GB) 3600 MHz C16 you can plan to use on an AM4 MoBo, such as G.Skill TridentZ or Ballistix Black. Likewise, the ventilation of the PC case will matter as much with this Intel CPU as with an AMD CPU for slightly different reasons. This generation heats up a lot as shown by the Intel Core i5-10600K Review - All You Need for Gaming at TechPowerUp.
  13. Yes, Lisa Su confirms that Zen 3 CPUs are on track to launch in 2020, but she doesn't tell us anything abou the availability of the 4000 series CPUs in Zen3 with architectural improvements and in particular L3 management. What we can be pretty sure is that the first processors to benefit from these improvements and the first to be announced and released will be the EPYC processors as indicated in the news on TechPowerUp. A launch at the end of the year can be a paper launch with twists and turns during the last quarter of 2020, a release in small quantities at the very end of the year, availability in the first quarter of 2021 and accessibility at a correct price at the end. 1st half of the year.
  14. Hi, opus132, welcome in our Armaverse 😎 We know nothing about future performance of upcoming Zen3 desktop CPU. But what I can say is that Arma3 doesn't need a 60 FPS holy grail to be fully playable and enjoyable. I experienced a performance jump between the R5 2600 and the R5 3600X which I both tested. My current advice would be to upgrade to an R7 3700X here and now. It will always be time in 2021/2022 to upgrade to a possibly more efficient CPU. We are the powerless spectators of a game of poker between Intel, AMD and Nvidia. We must not be prisoners of their deadlines, especially since playing a game that is now old, we can accept to play it with its qualities and its issues.
  15. OK, I will suggest waiting a bit before spending your money !
×