Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Jacky60

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    39

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Jacky60

  1. Posted

    would a gtx 560 (ti) run ARMA 3 on the highest settings?

    I think that's extremely unlikely since a 560ti is utterly incapable of running Arma 2 at anything like highest settings. It's a bit like having a car which can't go 70mph and asking if it will be capable of reaching 120mph when the next Grand Prix is held.

  2. Posted

    Two very different game engines with very different coding approaches and challenges, so I think this may be a poor comparison. But yes, it's probably not impossible to make it more efficient, and I'm sure the programmers are doing their best to make it so, given the abundance of quad-core CPUs nowdays.

    Additionally I think it would be a bad idea when comparing two engines to say one's more optimized than the other just because it uses 100% of all CPU cores (Note that I'm using a hypothetical example here, not BF3). Rather than this meaning that it threads well, it could also mean that its code is inefficient compared to the other, as it needs more CPU cycles to do the same job.

    I think it's an entirely fair comparison. Arma 2 makes enormous demands on the cpu so it should be more optimised for multi-core not less so than BF3. Arma3 will no doubt be much more demanding still so suggestions that because it's a different game engine it should somehow be forgiven for the inevitably poor performance and cpu scaling it will exhibit seems very odd. It should be coded from the ground up to properly use 4-8 cores fully then BIS would actually make a lot more money because a far bigger audience could play it without it looking shabby or running like a dog on even high end cpu's which I fully expect.

  3. Posted

    Off ARMA3 topic, I think if your computer can handle BF3 very well, then ARMA3 is a piece of cake. :P

    I'm pretty sure Arma 3 will cripple most modern PC's. Arma 2 doesn't run at max settings on even the fastest PC today and Arma 3 looks way more demanding. Comparing it to BF3

    and assuming your PC will walk all over it is wishful thinking. IF (and it's a big IF) Bohemia can get all threads/cores working fully on the game then there's a chance high end modern PC's will be able to handle it but its taken three years for top of the range PC's to be just about able to run Arma 2 adequately so I'd say a top PC from 2015 should be able (hopefully) to give 60fps quite a lot of the time.

  4. Posted

    Gtx 285 4gbs of ram windows xp 32bit old drivers theres your problems.

    +1 You have a great modern cpu with an old os, not enough ram (as xp 32 can only use 3.2gb) and ancient drivers plus a graphics card that is nearly 3 years old. The system is unbalanced and while you may well be able to get better performance from a few tweaks you need a new and much much better card to take advantage of that cpu. You have a Porsche 911 cpu that has been coupled with a Hyundai lantra gearbox gpu hence crap performance.

    ---------- Post added at 02:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 PM ----------

    yet another example of the lack of knowledge about PC components. A gtx285 should handle the game just fine.

    axelb9 - have you tried the latests beta drivers fron nvidia?

    http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=127363

    Thats nonesense any card will handle the game but I suspect the op wants playable frame rates and the game to look good which it won't on a 285gtx. I went from one 4890 to 4890xfire to 5970/5870 trifire and then two 6990's and from a E8400 at 4ghz to i7 920 at 4ghz. Until I upgraded the cpu it was not much fun to play(either low fps or poor image quality) and until I got 2 6990's it was still sluggish with fps regularly dropping to 20's in cities during firefights.

    You need a top end CPU AND a top end graphics card or two to get the game running well with a decent amount of eye candy. Then it starts looking beautiful.

  5. Posted

    I had the same rig but with a 920 a 4ghz and it still lagged, I upgraded to 4890 crossfire and it still lagged so if you can overclock you cpu to 3.6 -4ghz you will see a big improvement BUT your gfx card is holding you back a lot. Set video memory to default. I'm running 2 6990's and my frame rate drops to 30fps occasionally so the comment about HAL 9000 and Skynet is appropriate.

  6. Posted

    I'd like fire extinguisher to put out burning vehicles that draw enemy attention.

    Also how about getting the game engine to use MEMORY effectively. Instead of loading GB of data from the HDD how about allowing some of the data textures to be stored in MEMORY-the lack of efficient memory usage is one of Arma 2's Most annoying features.

    I have two 6990's and an i7 920 at 4ghz plus 2 ssd's and still the fps slows to 30fps incherno when drawing losts of grass-I imagine because even with SSD everything is waiting for the textures etc to stream from the SSD rather than from memory (16gb and it barely gets used.

  7. Posted · Edited by Jacky60

    Pendragon you're right when I disable crossfire on ccc I get half the frme rate in unigine but in Arma2 the frame rate stays exactly the same and it looks exactly the same. Don't know what's going on. Please advise! Actually I'm sure crossfire is working as all the gpu's monitored in Afterburner are showing the same usage between 60% and 85%.

  8. Posted · Edited by Jacky60

    I am a beginner and have to choose between i7 2600 and i5 2500 .If you buy the most expensive lot of performance drops?

    ---------- Post added at 12:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 AM ----------

    thanks PuFu.

    Get the 2500K unless you do a lot of video encoding. Get the K version not the standard as K allows overclocking. Don't say you don't want to overclock because you'll get a masive performance increase and 4.4ghz will be easy-if unsure go to anandtech.com and look up overclocking in forums. Unless you're going to overclcok theres not that much point going sandybridge. Also get a radeon 6950 2gb NOT the 560 as the 2gb video memory really helps in this game.

  9. Posted · Edited by Jacky60

    I'm running 2 x 6990's as in 2 seperate cards as I stated. I'm familiar with how to memory flush just wasn't sure if this event required one. I'm CPU limited as the cards rarely get above 60-70% usage but if I'm on Cherno and bump AA to SSAO in Catalyst then things start slowing down though this is probably my Intel 320 SSD slowing things down. Video memory is default.

    It's definitely using both cards as I noticed frame rate jump a lot after seconds card install, one card was slower than my previous setup. The game just recognises better hardware so draws grass and vegetation much further away (without any intervention on my part) meaning the hardware has to run faster just to stand still. It does look and play a lot better than it did on 5970/5870 trifire though but I still disable postprocessing and keep shadows/aa on high otherwise in forests on cherno things get choppy (choppy is of course relative in this context). I'm pretty sure I'm also limited by server -when lots of players have a lot of AI it seems to slow the server (WASP). Not sure about 100%fill rate never really adjusted it but will experiment now.

  13. Posted

    Thanks for the replies that's what I thought. I actually have 2 ssd's-a vertex 2 with the OS and a Intel 320 120gb for Arma 2 and it really is vastly better than it was BUT after an hour or two of gameplay everything seems to slow down a bit. I suspect the server is the reason but many years ago playing wargasm ( again big maps for the time and lots of AI) the same would happen and additional memory solved the problem.

  14. Posted

    I use windows 7 64 bit and I'm considering upgrading to 12gb ram for arma 2.

    Will arma 2 use this memory (vs 6gb I have at moment) or is it a waste of money. I know on release it only used 2gb or thereabouts but since then it's supposedly become 'large address aware', will it now utilise more ram?

  15. Posted · Edited by Jacky60

    so guys what do you think?

    I think you're deluding yourself if you think you'll get a smooth gameplay experience from that setup. The reason as previously outlined is that when you're in game your hard drive needs to stream enormous quantities of data to give you a smooth experience. Anything short of a fast ssd setup will struggle. People say its smooth BUT either buy 2 or 3 SSD's OR setup a ram disk OR accept the annoying fact that your setup which will be fine for 99.5% of PC games can't cut the mustard with this one. A guy online went from 2 raided SSD's and still wasn't happy with the stuttering. Even with my setup and 2gb per gpu textures on distant trees are not fully rendered. It's just sheer volume of data. Your PC is trying to paint a picture and your HD is the paint pot. The paint pot is trickling out paint and you have a good quick painter always waiting for more paint but twiddling his thumbs as he waits. I personally intend to setup a ram disk inthe next week or two once I've sold my 5970 and 5870.

  17. Posted

    In my experience most stuttering caused by hard drive access delays. The game is loading gb of textures (think max is about 8) from HD and doesn't use memory that efficiently. I come from 5870 trifire and i7 920 at 4ghz. but my stuttering only occurred at sub 60fps (monitor refresh rate) and before my ssd. Buy the cheapest fastest 50Gb plus SSD and things will be loads better. I have come from E8400 at 4Ghz and WD 7200RPM 160GB HD to i7920 with 2 x 6990's plus 2 x ssd (vertex 2 and Intel 230 120 GB) and 1tb disc HD but without SSD theres always significant stutter, video memory is also really important but unless you can get consistently over the refresh rate of your monitor or a fast HD (ideally 2 ssd HD's one for windows and another for Arma 2) OR install 12-16GB of memory and make a ramdisk stuttering will continue.

  18. Posted

    Hi I apologise if I wasn't clear-I mean in game I am NOT trying to edit the game-write code or scripts I simply want to transfer ammunition to a vehicle in game. I know its possbile but as it was done by a colleague in multiplayer I know its possible.

    The other player did it with a pickup truck. We drove to a hilltop and engaged armour with AT missiles and got extra ammo from the vehicle.

  19. Posted

    I can download CBA but then how to install it. It seems very complicated and there is not step by step guide. Do I unzip the files and if so I then have a bunch of cba.stuff and some still unzipped files. Any instructions on installation I have seen are worthless-not step by step but beforwe and after.

  20. Posted

    In multiplayer if I want to load a hummer or pickup truck with ammunition for a Javelin launcher or other hand held weapons how do I do it?

    Do I buy an ammo crate or what. I can't see where or how to do this but know it can be done because I travelled with a teammate in his pickup and we had loads of spare ammo to use against nme tanks etc.

    please help

  21. Posted

    I have to agree with all the OP's points. I've played for 20 months and although I've seen the occasional bit of teamwork it's very poor in comparison to BF2 mod project reality. The general lack of communication amongst players, the poorly structured incentives to reward teamwork and the rarely used voip combined with the reluctance of players to help others learn means it takes forever to get to grips with. It is however still an amazing multiplayer experience in mho.

  22. Posted

    The armor fights in Arma2 are usually fine, except when an APC meets a tank.

    Here is what usually happens. An APC meets a tank, spams with 20/25/30/40mm rounds and destroys the tank in a matter of seconds even though it is just hitting the frontal armor or the front of the turret. Also, if the APC manages to fire first, then the tank will not even be able to respond. Realistically, any tank except the T34 should be able to withstand AP/HEAT rounds of that caliber. I find it relatively hilarious that a 30mm AP round can apparently penetrate over 500mm of armor(~basic T72). It is absolutely impossible for such a round to penetrate so much armor. If it would be just the T34's 60mm of armor, then it would be fine, cause it is realistic. Oh, and for the argument that will surely come up: "You know, if you fire a 50cal/AP shell in the same spot it will actually penetrate the armor, even 1000mm(~Abrams)." That is actually BS for two reasons: 1- you would theoretically need to fire hundreds if not thousands of rounds to penetrate even 200mm of armor. 2- Your rounds will very likely not hit the exact spot again. The low caliber gun is not a laser gun. The rounds will not hit in the same spot again and again. They will hit the target usually in an oval shaped area, depending on the speed/weight/movement. They will not hit the same spot again and again.

    Second thing. Apparently HE rounds of the same calibers are able to do the same thing. The APC can just spam HE rounds into the tank's armor and the tank will just blow up. That is not even half realistic. vBF2 is more realistic because of the firing rates. Right now, it takes like 15 sec for a BMP2 to fire its HE rounds and kill an M1 Abrams.

    These rounds should be able to damage the sights/weaponry/engine of the tank at best, but most of the times they will just be useless, because of their low caliber and therefore low quantity of explosive. They should NOT destroy the tank hull and turret of the tank. LOL, in the best/most lucky case, they should be able to make the turret get stuck. Also, if fired at the engine of the tank, they should theoretically be able to damage it, but that depends on the tank. For example the engine of the Abrams is slightly more exposed than that of a T72s. What should be done is to neutralize the damage of the small caliber AP and HE rounds on the hulls and turrets of the modern/post WW2 tanks in ARMA 2 and OA. Another improvement should be the ability of these rounds to disable/damage the sights of vehicles. Also the tracks are apparently very easy to disable, just fire a couple of shots and tadaaa, they are gone. This is however debatable, because it depends on the thickness of the tracks/ road wheels, so I won't ask to change that.

    I've read first hand accounts of German 20mm quad cannons disabling tank tracks in WW2 so I reckon tracks are relatively easily damaged-not 50 calibre MG but heavier auto weapons OR accurate at/rpg rounds.

  23. Posted · Edited by Jacky60

    Sorry but that seems rather foundless. I run OA with most settings on High, VD at 2000m, at 1920x1200 and enjoy +30 fps yet I'm only running an e8400 (albeit at 4Ghz) and 4890. The system I outlined above would easily provide better performance.

    Well I'd agree if my previous system wasn't identical an E8400 at 4ghz and 4890 BUT I found it pretty much a stutter fest on only medium quality settings. If you can enjoy playing it like that good for you but my fps constantly dipped into high teens and I felt dizzy after 2 minutes.

    It really needs a quad core -here is the evidence http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,687620/ArmA-2-tested-Benchmarks-with-18-CPUs/Practice/

    Also i7 cpu destroys the others even without overclocking and with a little OC makes the game fun.

    I'm running a i7 920 at 4ghz with 5870 trifire and that at least does look pretty good. I had 2 4890's crossfired in current system which was a big improvement on one but still a long way from looking its best.

    Domokun's advice is good BUT get a quad core CPU if you can possibly afford it ideally i7 if not intel Q9550 or similar the Q8400 isn't the best choice as its not that good.

    Also the graphics card choice is difficult but here's an approximate ranking (Arma 2 isn't Crysis but both are similarly demanding and very few sites benchmark Arma 2)

    http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/10/18/asus_engtx460_top_1gb_video_card_review/4

    5770 will run it ok but no faster than a 4870 1gb which launched September 2008. The 460 1gb will be almost twice as fast even before you overclock it and cost only £40 more. They are also outstanding overclockers. A second hand 5850 would also run it WAAY better than the 5770.

    http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/11/23/powercolor_hd5770_video_card_review/6

  24. Posted

    Hi guys, since im thinking of upgrading would these be adequate?

    Processor:Intel Q8400 Quad core 2.66

    Graphics: nVidia GT430 1GB

    Anymore suggestions would help loads

    Thanks :)

    No really not adequate at all!

    Try and get an i7 cpu sandybridge ideally and a decent graphics card. Maybe try ebay for your card if short of cash get a radeon 5850 or nvidia 460 1gb would be the minimum I'd try for a vaguely half decent (pretty crap really) game experience.

    Look at pre-overclocked bundles at overclockers.co.uk and assemble yourself to save money but what you're currently 'upgrading' to will not be worth keeping for long especially not the graphics card.

  25. Posted

    Thanks for the replies,even the harsh replies have opened my eyes..I am now going to upgrade so that i never repeat this.

    If you're going to upgrade cheapest decent system will be Intel i7 overclocked and radeon 5870's or 5850's best from ebay. Get a crossfire or SLI capable motherboard but you're looking for £500 plus at least for a system that can the run the game with a minimum of good eye candy and frame rates.

×