Jump to content

oldbear

Member
  • Content Count

    2544
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Everything posted by oldbear

  1. @Smart Games It should be remembered that we run our PCs in different climatic conditions. Whatever the hardware, the air temperature in the room where the PC is located is decisive. I had played in Marseilles for years, with over with more than 35 ° C in the house in summer. I always had to use extreme solutions such as a pair of 50 cm fans blowing on the components to be able to continue playing. Now in the mountains, I have come back to more traditional solutions, ... in addition the air conditioning helps a lot 😎
  2. Welcome in the "Will-my-pc-run-Arma3? What cpu/gpu to get? What settings? What system specifications?" thread. It looks like your problem is not related to your hardware and game settings. So, here is not the right place to discuss this issue, sorry. Have you looked for other topics specifically related to Arma 3 Tools and Steam ?
  3. @Groove_C I would like to correct here inaccurate information that is wrongly attributed to me. To help gamers disappointed with the performance achieved with PCs that still meet the official "Minimum Requirements", I tested many CPUs which I listed earlier in this topic. During these experiments, I was able to verify that some CPUs, like the Athlon II x2 250, AthlonX4-870, Pentium G-3258 or AMD A8-9600 allow to open the game and even access the editor, but do not allow to play regularly above 20 FPS with any setting other than "LOW", which is unsatisfactory video quality given the quality of the game. I have also seen that the requirement that says "Intel Dual-Core 2.4 GHz or AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz "is wrong, because this type of processor [2 cores / 2 threads) regularly causes crashes. During these experiments, I was able to verify that the indications set by the game designers, accessible at the time of the settings, were a good indication of whether it would be playable or not. With an average rate below 20 FPS, it's Red and unplayable, above 20 FPS and below 30 FPS, in Yellow, it's laggy but more or less playable, above 30 FPS, when the 'indicator comes White, it becomes playable. Since the release of Visual Upgrade in 2016, the requirements for the entire configuration have become higher, the requirements for graphics cards have increased, but the CPU requirements have become completely inaccurate. It is for this reason that, on the one hand, I got in touch with Devs at BI and on the other hand, I launched what I called the "Minimum Recommended Requirement". Let's look together at the last post on this topic, sorry, but I quote myself ... 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) In my opinion, based on my gaming experiences, I say again that it is possible to play Arma 3 between 25 and 35 FPS with a PC that has sufficient configuration. I also believe that in order to enjoy the game, enjoy the remarkable work done by the A3 game Devs and Mod creators, you need a configuration that allows you to play regularly at over 30 FPS. To achieve this goal, it is not necessary to have an extraordinary configuration.
  4. Well ... here is an interesting difference between theory and practice. Basically, the platform on which I play FS was the test platform on which I did my tests with the Ryzen 5 5600X. During the period when the Ryzen 5 5600X initially bought and returned to AMD for after-sales service, I bought an R 7 3700X taking advantage of an offer. It was then that I decided to mount this FS 2020 setup, more than 2 months later when I received a new Ryzen 5 5600X, I mounted it, but I quickly found that temperatures during long flights became excessive despite the Noctua NH-C14S and an over ventilated 19"rack box with 3 Noctua NF-P12 Redux-1700 PWMs. So I disassembled the Ryzen 5 5600X and found correct temperatures with the Ryzen 7 3700X. In practice, in my testing, I found that the Ryzen 7 3700X regularly held a 4.3 GHz working frequency close to its 4.4 GHz Boost frequency while the Ryzen 5 5600X climbed to 4.6 GHz, then returned to 3.7 GHz continuously, the end performance being ultimately very close during a flight of more than an hour. With lower temperatures and less noise inconvenience in the case of the Ryzen 7 3700X.
  5. I would like to put some order in the matters in which I am involved and correct some inaccuracies. Since April 2017, I have been playing Arma3 with a configuration based on an i7-7700K which I was impatiently awaiting availability and since then I have had no reason to regret this choice. The PC runs like clockwork, the performance is not out of the ordinary but suits me perfectly. The ways it runs today ... In addition, since the release of Arma, I have done tests with the available hardware. My very first test, that of a config around an Athlon XP2000, was published on the ArmedAssault.info site in 2006. Since then, depending on the circumstances, I have tested many processors with Arma2 then Arma3. Athlon II x2 250, Core2 Duo E6600, i7 875K, i7-4790 / 4790K, AthlonX4-870, Pentium G-3258 / G4500 / G4560, i7 i3-4130 / 6100, AMD A8-9600, Ryzen-3 1300X / 2200G, Ryzen-5 1600AF / 2600/3600 / 3600X / 5600X, Ryzen-7 3700X. All the PCs built around these processors, and some others, have been distributed around me for family, friends but also people who need a PC without the means to buy one. These different tests but also the regular help given on French forums to players having difficulty playing Arma3 led me to define on the one hand what I call the "Minimum Recommended Configuration" to correct the official specs for in "Minimum" and "Recommendable" and on the other hand to propose, which at first was a joke in our Clan, "The Bear Method". Some of my tests had been posted on CanardPC Arma3 dedicated forums (yes ... in French!) So I'm playing Arma3, Civilization 5/6, World of Warplanes, Insurgency with the i7-7700K. I built a second configuration dedicated now to Flight Simulator 2020 around the Ryzen-7 3700X. I do not intend to upgrade my configuration immediately. In my opinion, too much will change in the coming months, whether for Intel or AMD, whether for RAM formats or PC power supplies. My advice is to wait, not only for the release of the next Intel CPUs at the end of the year or AMD next year, but also for the dust to settle.
  6. ... so what ? From my point of view, being able to play Arma 3 at 45 FPS on average on a dedicated server, not having an FPS drop below 30 FPS and a fast texture loading to avoid stuttering is the goal to look for. The search for the highest levels of performance in Arma 3 is not without a theoretical interest, but its practical interest seems weak in view of the means and the real needs of the players.
  7. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not looking to get the most out of the now obsolete RV Engine, but just to enjoy playing Arma3 at a good level without having to tinker with. I do my tests as I play, with the processor, as it came out of the box. Here, the only modifications concern the activation of the XMP profile of the 2 x [G.Skill Neo 3800 C16] 8 GB sticks and the improvement of the CPU cooling with a Noctua NH-C14S. What should be kept in mind is that Arma 3 is particularly sensitive to quality and memory management.
  8. Here and now, in order to play Arma 3, but also other games like Flight Simulator 2020, it is not necessary to have a high-end configuration. I am regularly playing with a Ryzen 7 3700X / RTX 2060 / Asus TUF B550M / 16 GB 3800 MHz C16 in 1440p configuration, it is just OK.
  9. @Mckennitt Welcome On the RAM topic, yes, there is a possibility of gain, but this gain is very small. Here what I get on my own test with various RAM kits ... ... in fact, from my point of view it is irrelevant, the in-game FPS gain will be lost in the midst of gains and losses due to other factors. Nonetheless, I can say is that I observed the highest level of FPS with a G. SKILL TridentZ NEO 16 GB (2 X 8 GB) 3800 MHz 16-19-19-39 kit, but on a R7 3700X based rig, I am still playing with it 😎 @d.kamenik15 Welcome, I don't understand your question, even if I guess it. 1° on this forum, one of the rules is to use English, this kind of english we use is our lingua franca, our common dialect. All posts must be in English language. I must admit that it is not always easy when English is not our mother tongue, but it is the only way to understand each other and share knowledge in a simple way. 2° it can be difficult to play Arma3 on a laptop which is based on a processor with a low base frequency and low TDP. In order to get the best in game performance, the i7-8750H must run at maximum frequency constantly. It all depends on how the laptop is designed and built. There is a high probability that the CPU throttling will then be activated, which in the best case will drop the frequency to 2.2 GHz and the FPS to the 10/15 level and in the worst case cause a blue screen. In addition, it would be better to have 16 GB of RAM. Then, we can discuss the sacrifices to be made to obtain a playable game, if that is really the question ...
  10. I am currently using Crucial Ballistix BL2K16G36C16U4R 3600 MHz on my Bench#1 rig, it runs quite well. Platform : Asus TUF Gaming B550M / Ryzen 7 3700X / Samsung 970 EVO Plus 500 GB + Sabrent Rocket NVMe 1TB I'm sorry to notice that the red sticks don't go faster than the black ones 😉 I had previously run G.Skill Trident Z Neo - 2 x 8 Go (16 Go) 3800 MHz CL16 [16-19-19-39] on the same platform, performance is slightly better, around 2 FPS on average over twenty YAAB runs. I haven't done enough testing to confirm this trend, but I'm not sure if it's worth it.
  11. Let me make a guess ... by buying the fastest CPU and a priori the flagship of a generation of processors, you can hope to have outstanding performance in all areas, ultimately this is not the case. Something like that ... Intel Core i9-11900K review: Rocket Lake fails to take off
  12. On the GPU topic, the Real Virtuality 4 engine makes the render totally dependent on the simulation computation, schematically the card must therefore wait for all the calculations to be executed before displaying. Since the release of Visual Upgrade in 2016, the CPU is more stressed, but at the moment what I see is that the level of FPS remains unchanged whether I use either a GTX 970 4GB or a GTX 1060 6 GB or an RX 5700 8 GB. The only difference is that the GTX 970 is used at 80/90 ° and heats up enormously while the other cards are used at 60%, their temperature remaining in the standard around 70 °. You can get a look at my results and settings on a previous post. I will also suggest you to look for The Old Bear method ™ ...
  13. @logan357 Welcome in our Armaverse 😎 Reading your post, I had the idea to check for myself the use of the 4 cores / 8 threads of the i7 7700K of Arma 3 gaming rig ... ... as you can see, even if a core has a heavy load, all cores are used. However, like all older simulation games and because of the peculiarities of its now obsolete game engine, Arma3 is definitely CPU dependent. In-game performance depends on the efficiency and operating frequency of the processor.
  14. @ZeratulSC Welcome ! The thing to know is that Arma3 is a CPU dependent game, the performance in game is dependent on the efficiency and frequency of the processor. So, whatever the graphics card, it is the settings related to the processor that determine the level of FPS. Here, it is the "Visibility" parameter, a 100% CPU parameter which will determine the area of terrain that the processor must compute, which is decisive for the FPS level. The game engine imposes a total dependence of the rendering on the simulation and therefore on the processor calculations. The power of the graphics card does not intervene at this level. It intervenes at the display level, for which Arma3 has become much more demanding since 2016 and the release of Visual Upgrade. More hints with The Old Bear method ™ 😎 30 FPS, is the playable level for Arma3. Nevertheless, as I am myself playing Arma3 every day on an i7 7700K / RX 5700 based rig, I can tell you that you can play on custom settings at a higher average FPS level. I played almost at the same level previously with a GTX 1060 6 GB. Here custom "Visibility" setting was set at 3200 m, the distance used at that time on our Clan dedicated server. Note : I still use the excellent G.SKILL TridZ K2 3200 MHz C16 16 GB kit bought at a very high price in 2017. A SSD is now almost mandatory to comfortably play Arma3. This SSD will not increase FPS but will deal with stuttering issues and make the game much smoother.
  15. No, Arma 3 has not reach an EOL status. EOL for “End of Life,” status would means that BI has decided that the game will no longer be supported and sell. In the present case, on the contrary, the game continues to be supported, sold and above all played. By the "criterion of practice" as W.I. Lenin would say*, this is the most important, this game continues to live and exist because hundreds of people around the world continue to play it regularly. *in Materialism And Empirio Criticism 😁
  16. From my point of view, what I think about first ... 1° 1080p vs 1440p. The extra pixels weigh heavily on performance. 2° Golden sample. It is possible to verify the qualification with CTR. The differences between a Gold CPU and a Bronze one can be significant. 3° Over-ventilated test platform. It' a bench table encased in a 19" rack featuring 3 x Noctua NF-P12 redux-1700 PWM just in front. Noisy but very efficient. Adding to the 140 mm Noctua cooler, CPU temp never over 58° C during the tests.
  17. oldbear

    Stuttering in multiplayer

    In case of overheating of a laptop, there are two possibilities, either the PC crashes with a blue screen or even a black one, or the laptop goes into throttling mode. The core and memory frequencies begin to drop, along with your FPS, until temperatures drop to a safe operating range. It could be the case here.
  18. Well ... First, I would suggest, first, to create some sort of John Doe profile specifically for testing. This achieved, for comparison purposes, before the test, set the presets to Standard, then at the start of the test press the "S" key. This allows the parameters to be set identically. For information, for these tests, I was using a 1080p screen. I was using ... G.Skill TridentZ Neo 16 Go (8Gox2) 3600 MHz C16 [16-19-19-39] G.Skill TridentZ Neo 16 Go (8Gox2) 3800 MHz C16 [16-19-19-39]
  19. According to my tests, the differences will be marginal, as here: With a given processor, the only effective way to increase the FPS level is to decrease the Global Visibility setting.
  20. Yes, Arma3 is particularly sensitive to the quality and quantity of available memory. This is particularly visible with the jump in performance between the R5 3600X and the R5 5600X.
  21. It seems, from my own experience, that it seems that the best option with a Ryzen 5000 is to do nothing, just turn on XMP memory. Personally, I'd rather spend more time playing than rack my brain with Ryzen Master, CTR or undervolting. I chose to use the fastest possible memory compatible with my savings to enhance the rig performances. Currently 16 GB (2x8 GB) G.Skill TridentZ Neo 3800 MHz C16, a C14 kit [CL14-16-16-36], would have been interesting to test but the price to pay was too high when I made my purchases.
  22. That's the reason why I had said " ... I will wait for more maturity from the upcoming Intel next gen." From Arma3 gaming point of view, my current equipment i7-7700k / RX 5700 and R5 5600X / RTX 2060 is more than enough. Rather, it is with Flight Simulator 2020 that the need to combine a more powerful graphics card with the R5 5600X arises.
  23. @Smart Games Your i3-9350KF is not the best CPU for Arma, but it's still a good asset. My own Game#1 rig i7-7700K is running at the same performance level at a steady 4.5 GHz on all cores under all circumstances like a good workhorse. So why change what works well. Regarding Arma3, I am getting better performances from the R5 5600X placed on the bench table. However, I will not change my game config, I will wait for more maturity from the upcoming Intel next gen.
  24. Well ..., I am one of the dedicated Medic of my team. We are playing very often The Unsung Mod since Arma / Arma2. On each mission, I spent most of the time caring for the wounded or reviving the hardest hit and looking for medical supplies. At that time the soldiers were not wearing protective gear and carried a minimum package with more magazines and grenades than 1st aid kits With ACE the medic will never play, at one time we played ACE, so I had that experience. For the sake of realism, it would also be necessary to add a Medevac team with its protection Hueys with each mission.
  25. Hi Aurora152, have you already played S.O.G. Prairie Fire ? Such a Mod is a world in itself and must be played and learn as it is before trying to add something which above all risks destroying the experience desired by the creators of the DLC. IMHO, the Mod is roughly placed in the period between Gulf of Tonkin incident in August 1964 and 1968 Tet Offensive. To respect the intentions of the creators, it seems to me necessary to add only elements corresponding to the technology of the period. That said if you have the DLC, you have access to the Cam Lao Nam map on which you can create the mission according to your own choices.
×