Tankbuster

HAHA. He was joking, hence the (J/K)

I really wasn't expecting this. Patch 115 has really helped me, it's improved performance of the game across the board. But when I upgraded my E6600 CPU to a Q9550, the difference in the game was extraordinary. The headline clock speed hasn't changed much. I've gone from 2.4 Ghz to 2.83, but it's like playing a new game. No Z fighting, quicker recovery from tab out, hugely improved draw distances, faster load times and less slow downs when zoomed in forests. Overall reliabililty seems better too. So, what's done this? As I say, the actual clock speed has only increased by 20% and the PC is unchanged other than that. Weare told that ArmA doesn't make full use of multicore processors. Hmmm, I wonder if the motherboard FSB will have automatically changed when the new CPU was installed? That would mean faster memory, although the GFX (a 8800 GTX) would not be running any quicker.

Didn't you read the thread? The performance increases have been surprisingly high. That's why I started this thread in the first place. Also, I doubt that a E6600 can go past 3Ghz on the stock cooler easily. An experienced overclocker might be able to but for most of us, it's unattainable.

Unless the cache memory has been doubled too, there might be no increase in performance at all.

Guys, This week, I'm hoping to replace my E6600. I'm keeping the rest of the system and what ever I buy will have to be good for 18-24 months. It runs Win XP So as this machine is primarily a gaming machine and I'm hoping primarily, an ArmA 2 one, which of these two upgrade CPUs will be best? The E8600, two cores of goodness packing out 3.3Ghz of pure Intel grunt and costing approx £210. Or the Q9550. At £250 it's more expensive and slower at 2.8Ghz, but, it has 4 cores. I'm not into overclocking in a big way, but I know that the dual core is better for this. Any advice gratefully recieved.

Erm.... One version has AI and one version doesn't. The clue is in the title.

Guys, Is there a limit to the number of characters that can go in a unit's initialization field? Also, what code can go in there? Can I for example, execute a for do loop in there? Thanks Tanky -Paul-

Thanks!

Or Teamspeak, same address, usual password.

Xeno, I know I speak for most of the contributors in this thread when I express my sincere gratitude to you for all the hard work you put into Domination. As with many others here, it kept me playing ArmA. I'm sure to that we all understand when you say you want to move on. You are not just Domination and we all look forward to your next project. I do have one question. Deep down, I know that you're going to answer in the affirmative because you've always been helpful, but I have to ask, are you going to continue to support the hardy band of modders and coders (of which I'm honoured to be one) who regularly dip inside the PBOs for this mission?

Perhaps I should clarify; My paa files are called pic01, pic02 up to pic50. I want to know if I can use a loop in the init line pic(val(counter)) or similar. Same goes for the actual script itself. Can I use a counter and have it applied to a string to make a variable name. Damn, I can't think of how to word my request. I've not earned my money through real prgramming in 20 year and am feeling a bit silly having to ask for help now!

quoted for truth and accuracy

My guys and I are having great fun with this wonderful addon. I'll post some youtube links later. Meantime, I need a little guidance. I messed about with the script that puts images in sequence on the signs. The following lines have to go in a script which is called by the init line. <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> _billboard = _this select 0; _interval = _this select 1; _face = _this select 2; _tex1 = _this select 3; _tex2 = _this select 4; while {alive _billboard} do { _billboard setObjectTexture [_face, _tex1]; sleep _interval; _billboard setObjectTexture [_face, _tex2]; sleep _interval; }; That's fine. Because I have 50 (yes 50) little paa files to screen, I'm going to write a little loop to call them up. However, with the init line code, it's more complex. <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">nul = [this, 1, 0, "texture1.paa", "texture2.paa"] execVM "switcher.sqf" Because I have to declare each file used in the anim here in the init, it's going to be nasty if I want 50 files in there. How can I make this more elegant? Can I write a loop in the init line? Is there another way? Cheers! Tanky -Paul-

Did you do the secondary main target as well as the radio tower?

OK Myke. Yes you were right, I change the file dims from 640 x 320 to 512 x 256 and it works just fine. Also, using an M107 scope from a distance of 2km, the billboard was seen clearly. Not readable, but recognisable. Great addon, love it. Many thanks. Tanky -Paul-

I'm not sure if power of 2 is quite right. I assumed that as long as the aspect ratio of the pic was the same as the billboard itself, ie 2:1 twice as wide as it is high, then it would work. I'll try resizing them to 512 x 256. I'll change the order first to see if it's just that one file causing it or if the error will crop on the first file in the sequence regardless of which it is.

Hi Myke. They were all 640 x 320. Tanky - Paul- edit. I should add at this point that the file that caused the error was the first in the sequence. Should I change the sequence to see if a different file being first still causes the error?

The author requested it be taken down. You have PM, Matt.

I've used the script to create an large billboard with a series of 9 images, but I'm getting errors. It seems to choose any of the nine images, not just this one. In my test mission, this error was generated, but when I dropped it into another mission, it choose another of the paa files to error on. My paa files have 7 mipmaps, and were created in photoshop using kegetys plugin. The billboard works fine and shows all 9 images, but the mission always generates this error as it loads up. Any help greatly appreciated.

I don't have an SLI motherboard. When I bought it, nearly 2 years ago, I said SLI was not a good way of betting GPU power to the system and I reckon I was right. If and when ArmA2 comes along, and this system isn't up to it, then it'll be i7 and Vista time, but only then.

Error report. This seems to happen when a player rejoins a the game and takes a slot that he's previously held. It may or may not be relevant, but when trying to recreate this error, I found that simply spawning the player, then quiting and rejoining in his slot didn't make the error. I actually had to use the addaction menu, in this case I teleported from the flag to MHQ1 then back again, quit and rejoined in the same slot and bingo, got the error. I was an engineer at the time and it's west.ai.sara.

Ah yes. Well, I'm far from an inveterate overclocker and anyway, when I bought this rig, I made a poor choice of case and it cannot fit any decent CPU coolers in it. I have 100mm from the top of the mobo to the case side, so I'm stuck with the retail intel cooler, hence no real overclocking.

But that's sort of my original point. My dual core was at 2.4 Ghz, my new quad core is only .4 of a Ghz faster, yet the game performance has improved massively.

That's why I started this thread. We are told that we need a good graphics card to play this game, but it occurs to me that pretty much, any old clunker will do provided it meets the minimum spec, ie shader 3 etc. A fellow clan member had a Pentium dual core and X1950 pro GFX and could play ArmA quite comfortably. When he upgraded to a Q6600, the game was transformed. Still the same crummy old VGA, but loads more CPU grunt. I'm beginning to suspect ArmA players like myself have been too much importance on the graphics card and not enough on the CPU.

I didn't re-install the OS. I had been considering it to try and improve performance, but with the positive effects I've got with the new CPU and the patch 1.15, I've not bothered. I know the mobo supports this CPU fully as I checked and flashed the BIOS, so yes, I assume it has stepped up it's FSB speed. I'll check to make sure later on.