Posts posted by Punisher5555
I am still testing, but so far my stuttering (LOD thrashing) is gone. I have only run the stock BIS infantry missions so far. Also it is now correctly using all my video memory in my 285 GTX 1GB when I set the video memory to very high. I am very impressed.
I have not seen any missing textures. My setting is normal on that.
Only issue so far is I keep getting that I am missing the "cfg.markers.xxxx" at the start of the stock missions. I just hit continue.
Windows 7 Pro x64
EVGA 285 GTX 1GB w/197.45 drivers.
view distance 3000
no mods except Beta.
If you just change the engine over to 64bit this would all be a moot point. RAM is always light years faster than HD/SSD.
Specs for this is game with a 64bit engine should be minimum 6GB RAM, blah-blah HD space, blah-blah CPU, ... Then this whole game would smoke.
I have 4GB RAM and Win7 x64, would I see some benefit in Arma when creating a ramdisk?
I don't think 4GB is enough. Isn't what you are supposed to "load" into the ramdisk 3.5GB? The author of the setup had 12-16GB RAM. I think 8GB would be the minimum. 2GB for windows, 2GB for ArmA2, 4GB for ramdisk.
Forget it!!!! That model WAS a stealth modification. Never implemented. The few birds were converted back to standard D config except for the nose and I think those have finally been converted.
The "new" OH-58E is being tested right now and should be fielded sometime hopefully in the next 3 plus years. The MMS is being replace with a nose mounted sight. A ton of the black boxes are also being removed or replaced with more efficient less weight models.
Also as we speak the older .50 cal is being replaced lighter weight and higher cyclic rate M3P model in the current OH-58D®. You will notice this in current pictures as the "cage" housing is gone.
As others have pointed out people need to stop confusing moving to 64 bit architecture with building a new engine.
64bit architecture != New Engine.
A couple of decades back I was involved in changing a product from 16 Bit architecture to 32 bit it involved no change to the core engine. We just replaced a few 16 bit modules with their 32 bit equivalent.
The core engine and the way it worked remained exactly the same, any change to a winning engine with its inherent 10 to year development and training cost is commercial suicide.
The Real Virtuality Engine (RVE) is still the most advanced simulation there is in a gaming engine that can run in a PC environment. COD CRY, Unreal and BF engines are just not in the same league. None of them has the terrain streaming or AI capabilities of RVE. NOT ONE! Nor do they have a development environment in the same league. And not even the dedicated Real Time Strategy games can match RVE's entity count, view distance or terrain size.
The only thing I would perhaps look at is the Unlimited Detail Technology for the graphics.
The posibility of running ArmA as a unversal game engine on a Nintendo Wii platform would be a commercial nuking of all other platforms and game engines.
I would want to see a technology demonstrator on a PC I provided and they installed on first though as I am a little sceptical but I can see the concept working as it sounds similar to some things we did at AGG LLC.
Either way any new engine that BIS use will remain the RVE even if they convert it to a 64 bit architecture RVE.
Kind Regards walker
The number ONE thing about changing to 64bit is the access to RAM. This one thing alone will stop the hard drive thrashing. This engine or future RVE begs for it.
As stated a million times before we the community applaud BIS for all the optimization/tricks they have used to squeeze a resource hungry SIM/GAME into the 2GB RAM 32bit space. EA/Activision,etc.. can't begin to compete to what BIS has wrung out of that limited space.
IF BIS continues with the MilSIM line of games I and others hope they take that bold step of moving to pure 64bit to give their excellent coders the CPU/RAM resources they so rightly deserve.
The ACE2 one looks pretty sweet actually.
Isn't this the ACE model?
Have you asked the ACE team for the use of their model, if they have one?
You have come so far in you setup. Maybe way beyond them.
How about it ACE team? Anyone want to throw Eble a bone? He is doing great work.
Nice update, but in real life the XM is gone. It was/is replaced by the M3P.
Would be way easier to model too. Since the cage is gone on the M3P.
RV engine could use some 64bit OS support and the stuff already mentioned a million god damn times.
Rebuilding an engine is:
A) would put BIS into bankruptcy
B) Training the devs to learn new code would be costly in itself
C) Little benefit over entire input
Its fun to speculate about, but honestly this wont happen.
Anything is possible, so BIS could maybe add 64bit support, and other new rendering techniques and tech, that wouldnt warrent entirely rebuilding their base foundation for the RV platform.
So I guess they go bankrupt. Win8 is 64bit only. All Microsoft server products from the current 2008 R2 forward are 64bit only. Heck even the majority of Linux servers will be 64bit only in the next years. And why would I run a 32bit VM just play a game on a kickbutt 64bit system?
Even now when the average person goes to BestBuy to get a computer it is loaded with Windows 7 64bit. This is a mandate/requirement from Microsoft. Even if it has only 3Gig RAM. They are on the push to change it all to 64bit. Maybe BIS does not know this as they are in Europe?
As a company you either adapt to your customers or go out of business.
The Real Virtuality Engine (RVE) is still the most advanced simulation and gaming engine that can run in a PC environment. COD CRY, Unreal and BF engines are just not in the same league. None of them has the terrain streaming or AI capabilities of RVE. NOT ONE! Nor do they have a development environment in the same league. And not even the dedicated Real Time Strategy games can match RVE's entity count, view distance or terrain size.
I know many competitors hope BIS will abandon it so that they can steal it.
BIS are already doing some thing none ArmA; in the form of the Carrier Command sequel.
My own thoughts are as I have often said is:
1) Ignore the morons with no Software Engineering training or experience who say build a new engine from the start again, at the best such people are imbeciles at worst they are out to steal abandoned tech or feed a myth into the BIS business model with intention to cause BIS to fail as a business.
2) BIS have a massive 15 year investment in RVE with its unrivaled extensibility and its tools. They should continue on the same policy of changing out modules of the engine and increasing its usability.
Reuse of existing code is the same business model as in all major successful software development from OS's like Linux, Windows and MAC, to business packages from SAP to Adobe Acrobat, to virtually every successful game package.
The cost of retraining all your staff to use new tools and code alone would bankrupt you.
BIS just need to keep adding to and improving RVE. That is the software engineering paradigms of Rapid Application and Agile software development based on iterative development and the incremental and evolutionary models.
The opposite BIG PLAN, Big Design Up Front (BDUF) Waterfall models have been the seen of the biggest Software engineering disasters in history.
3) The third thing BIS need to do is segment the development market by realizing that BIS are not merely some military/simulation/game developer they are an Universal Engine Developer.
RVE is a universal engine.
As such BIS needs to realise they are the hardware seller making and selling Jeans or Shovels, and running the Sarsaparilla stand in the gold rush and not the people panning for gold. In other words they are Levi Strauss, Sears and Coca Cola, not Larry the prospector. When Marek and the board of BIS realise this, then they will seriously change the game and simulation developer business market. And could even end up controlling it.
Then they can segment the market and license the engine they have developed and make use of the Million Monkey effect to spring off cloud development of multiple game types using RVE, paid for by both development license sales and a big percentage cut plus future licensing on MODs that are good enough to sell via the likes Steam to begin with then on to other.
4) The other thing BIS need is Console Developer version of the engine.
Like I said BIS ignore the develop the new engine numpties, they are idiots.
Kind Regards walker
Now that 64bit is here to stay and as stated before that Win7 is the last 32bit OS for Microsoft BIS needs to change over at some time in the next couple of years. "Windows 8" comes out in early 2012. It is 64bit ONLY. Either change the current RVE to 64bit which would give it the much needed memory space it needs or build a new 64bit RVE. Other options are license a 64bit engine then modify or move on to greener pastures.
I hope they build a new 64bit RVE. I love what BIS has done and I will continue to support them.
imo the eye candy of arma 2 is fine. its just the physics that are sub par. You can level a building dynamicaly like in BC2. you can destroy trees and other vegetations liek in BC2/Crysis.
If you want to simulate a real war you need to make the world itself act and feel like your in a war.
When i play arma 2 and inside a town being bombed my fighter jets and large heavy tanks, i still see buildings standing.
Now take a look at a real world location like iraq. Where ever their has been a conflict, that area has been smashed to bits. i just dont see that in Arma 2 at all.
Also, the sound effects on Arma 2 are sub-par imo. They really need to make the sounds more realistic and dynamic. BC2's sound effects are amazing and many here would agree on that.
Just look at the arma 2 expansion thread. people are wishing the new expansion will have BC2 kind of audio effects.
I think this is it. If they are not making a new 64bit engine or willing to license one then it is over for ArmA. They have squeezed as much as they can out of this tired old engine. It made them money. Now it is either time to move on to a better engine or do something not ArmA.
I wonder why the ACE team has not released their model. Maybe they know something? Maybe the VBS2 model will be in the Arrow stand-alone?
Can you change the MMS view to green screen / black & White? There is no "color" view. Would add to the realism.
Can you add some sort of Arty to it too? Some way to add the ACE PRC command/arty radio automatically or something like that.
;1580633']If I use -maxmem 2047 ArmA 2 won't use more than 2047 gb of RAM...
Did bis applied "largeaddressaware" for ArmA 2 with 1.05 patch?
If yes' date=' if I use maxmem 2047 am I limiting the usable ram for ArmA 2? (I've 4gb of ram)[/quote']
ArmA 2 is 32bit. It can never use more than 2GB and if you search through the threads of ArmA 1 and ArmA 2 you will find your answers on the -maxmem switch. If I remember correctly it was used because memory "bugs/leaks" initially and depended on the setup of your rig whether you needed it or not.
Maybe we will get lucky and BIS will import the 58D from VBS2.
I got them too calo mir. Same thing in MP with the mod loaded. 10 to 20 minutes then crash.
The problem is that they would alienate a huge percentage of their established base, it would be nice if they could add support for asset caching for those who have 4+GB of RAM and have 64bit systems.
The "Established Base" will have to be 64bit. There will be NO more 32bit Microsoft OS's. Even now their ALL their server products from R2 to Exchange and beyond are 64bit only.
If you want to stay in business and continue your product line you must start over/fresh with 64bit.
64bit ungodly memory access solves all your caching/thrashing problems.
It has to be a 64bit engine. This is what everyone one should be asking.
Windows 7 is the last 32bit OS Microsoft is making. Windows 8 is already confirmed as 64bit only and is slated to be released in 2012.
This alone would solve all the hard drive thrashing. You make the game minimum 6GB RAM OS (4GB available because the OS takes 1GB). Load the whole kit and kabuddle into RAM. You don't to do it right away. When you first start a ton of it is loaded and then as you go it loads the rest into RAM. You are none the wiser and game is super fast. RAM is always faster than SSD or any hard drive.
If they are not making a new 64bit engine they might as well give up.
They need to make that giant leap forward to 64-bit only. If they aren't doing the next ArmA/VBS in 64-bit they might as well pack it in. They will be seen as just rehashing the same thing over and over.
64-bit is here. Almost all of upcoming Microsoft products are 64-bit only. In the next three years you will not be able to purchase a 32-bit product from Microsoft. That is their mandate. Windows7 is the last 32-bit home OS.
I wish they would stand-up and be that first company out there to embrace and demand 64-bit only. So what that you will lose some customers up front, but in the long haul your 64-bit engine and game will be light years ahead of the competition like COD:MW2/Battlefield/Crysis/etc... Make it 64-bit / 6 GB of RAM minimum. Once the community sees what you could do with that combination they will flok to you.
Be bold BIS. Get off the 32-bit engine rehash.
I will second that. 60141 so far the best in performance. No Addons.
Dual 3.4GHz Xeon
GTX 285 - 195.xx nividia drivers
Win7 Pro x64 (always kept up to date)
Latest DX versions (always kept up to date)
TrackIR4 - (v5 software)
Steam versionRunning ArmA2Mark: No change in performance compared to _61032.
Of the 1.04 beta patches, _60141 so far all time high in average FPS for me.
The pickup does not have anything. I just load as much as I can into the back. Basics like a Stinger.SMAW, sniper rifles, ammo.
Animals and people are still stuck in place. They don't move.
I have been grabbing that red 4x4 pickup truck in the nearest town. It seems to hold alot.
That is my one complaint too Mr. Centipede. Somehow CAA1 is tied too much to the ADDONSYNC. Making icons, or modifying Steam startup parameters to include CAA1 always seems not to work, but using the ADDONSYNC as the launcher makes everything work perfect. Weird.
oktNoBlur - Signed Blur Remover Addon
in ARMA 2 & OA - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE
Thank you for this mod. I have one issue. My basic 1.05 works perfect, but with this new version for the beta I can not get it to work. The blur/bloom is still there.
I am running the Steam version. PP set to very high. I have just the beta and the okt beta selected as my mods. Any tips?