Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by dnk

  1. and thats about to end
    And I'm sure A4 (perhaps an A3 expansion) will support these architectures far better when it ends. It may support them better by release - that's quite a ways away still.
    Steam survey isn't relevant because the majority of users couldn't even play ArmA3.
    Technically, I can't play A3. I still do, though, with better overall graphics and similar framerates to A2. Hardware requirements are pretty flexible things, and many people make do with less than them, suffering low framerates until they can upgrade, which many will by launch (and likely some will get 6 and 8 core CPUs, which is why it might be that BIS starts focusing on them more while polishing things up for the release).

  2. kind of off topic but parallax or normal mapped bullet holes would already do a lot for me. bigger ones for big calibers and stuff. it's time to send the black dots into retirement. along with doubling the amount of destruction stages for buildings (like separating each wall from the rest) and working more on particle effects this would already be more than enough.

    lots of things about convincing destruction are about presentation.

    This would be enough for me as well. I would like more, but the devs seem to have their hands full already.

    Can't this be done through an addon, though? How hard is altering the current bullet hole decals (and increasing the limit to something much higher - I mean, I think Goldeneye had a higher limit of bullet hole decals before they'd start disappearing)?

  3. [TABLE=class: outer_border, width: 200, align: left]



    [TD]Arrow keys[/TD]




    [TD]R Shift[/TD]












    [TD]Num 0[/TD]




    [TD]Num .[/TD]



    [TD]Stance up[/TD]













    [TD]R Ctrl[/TD]



    [TD]Stance Adjust[/TD]












    [TD]Tac Pace[/TD]

    [TD]Num 1[/TD]



    [TD]Talk VON[/TD]

    [TD]Num 2[/TD]




    [TD]Num 4[/TD]



    [TD]3rd Person[/TD]

    [TD]Num Enter[/TD]




    [TD]Num +[/TD]




    [TD]Num -[/TD]




    [TD]Num /[/TD]




    [TD]Num *[/TD]




    [TD]Num 9[/TD]



    [TD]Optics Mode[/TD]

    [TD]Num 8[/TD]



    [TD]Weapon Raise[/TD]





    [TD], .[/TD]



    [TD]Fire Mode[/TD]




    The only issue I have with this is the difficulty of using lean. It requires removing my hand from the movement keys to use, but with the new stance adjust lean, it's less of an issue than before. Additional keys, for map and such are on the right side of the letters area. I use them much less often, so having them in easy reach isn't as important, especially if it means I'm not going to need the movement keys (not in direct combat).

    This system is easy to use because finding the buttons with your fingers is easy without looking (save leaning), and you don't risk accidentally smashing anything when excited.

  4. Yup, "other reasons" is the only reason to buy >4c CPUs at this point. Gaming isn't, and it's fairly ignorant to buy them for that, especially if you're going out of the big budget mainstream games with these chips, where engine support and coding are going to be far less. It is unfortunate for people who buy them for "other reasons" and also want to use them for gaming, I agree.

    Hahaha "stop spreading lies". 6 Core CPU is hardly exotic.

    (2.46% of all users right now, 8-core being about 0.5%, compared to 2- and 4-cores, which are about 45% each)

    Something that's:

    1. higher technical complexity

    2. more expensive

    3. rarely seen in use

    That's "exotic" for me.

  5. Am I the only one that uses an arrow keys-based keyboard setup? I find it a lot easier to not mash the controls when I need to do rapid movements, and when I'm under pressure from a sudden fright (happens more in MP than SP). I've died a few times because I accidentally hit "jump" instead of "strafe right" in a moment of panic, so I've found spacing things out helps a lot. Less important controls can go in the regular part of the keyboard (gear, light, map, etc).

  6. Going to have to nitpick some of that:

    1. HDR quality - Low has better performance and, imo, looks better.
    2. Shadow Q - lower values have worse performance. The highest has best performance.
    3. Maxframes - 4 is best. 1 is basically the lowest the GPU can do, and it has the opposite effect of what you described: it only prerenders 1 frame and makes FPS more volatile. I saw no difference in performance between 1 and 4, just smoothness.

    Additionally, GPU settings:

    1. Threaded optimization: no clear impact on performance, but it does decrease the CPU's thread usage and smooths it out
    2. Texture filtering: Full quality. This actually increases performance when loading new textures. At least on an older card.

  7. My friend did of course check if the Mac version was available. He downloaded it on the Mac OS version of Origin so you'd expect it to be a Mac game anyway. It said it was available for Mac OS in the requirements.
    And yet it hadn't been made. Seems like something is amiss in your story...

    Anyway, everyone knows that EA is not to be trusted, despite your claims to the opposite (which are odd given how despised EA is by the general gaming community - WHATS YOUR ENDGAME?!!! :p). And this is why I support BIS in these threads, because for all the money and super-utilization EA can put into its games (and I've seen complaints to the contrary in other forums, as with nearly every game ever made, the "under-utilization" issue crops up there too), they treat their customers poorly, care only about profits, and make lowest-common-denominator games while squeezing out every last ounce of quality from every franchise they suck up through their money hole.

    When people want to then come in and hold up an EA game as the shining example of what BIS should achieve, it's hard to take them seriously sometimes. Small studios that create niche, unique products and care a lot about their communities (and hire from "within" even) are never going to be able to keep up with EA, Unreal Engine, Crytek, and the rest in engine performance, no, but you're getting something special with their products that you can't get from another mindless twitch MP game. Also, I'm still not seeing where BF3 does half the things A3 does in terms of map sizes, draw distances, and AI. /rant

  8. Take away all the AI's weapons... Much smaller impact. I can do 100 AI without guns and get ~25-31FPS (pathing and basic routines). Add the guns in, and it's 10-15. Normal is about 34. The combat routines are definitely tying up the CPU somehow (and it doesn't seem related to whether units are in squads or all individuals). This is also related to utilization numbers, as usual. I'm not sure it's bullets/explosions so much, because even when these aren't occurring (fighting lulls), the difference in FPS is minimal.

    How BIS can fix this issue is beyond me. As is why AI threads should hold up the GPU commands when the CPU is only going at 50% (even though it's capable of more, as when the AI first encounter each other there's usually a few-seconds spike up to 100%). Something that doesn't occur at initial "combat activation/engagement" but does subsequently is definitely a culprit, and fixing that could have drastic improvements, if possible. That's where my CPU limitation is coming from primarily.

    Also, a note to try disabling GPU optimizations for texture quality (setting nVidia's to "Full Quality" or whatever). That made a significant improvement in my tests. Prerendered frames only changed how smooth the FPS changes were, as one would expect.

  9. Well this would be a great example if the majority of the problem was the car. But it's not. The majority of the problem is the engine, hence why we've actually seen some improvement after patches. The local mechanic didn't design the car anyway. The real analogy is buying a supercar that uses a faulty engine made by another manufacturer. While you can't blame everything on the other manufacturer (in this case, BIS), more likely than not, the problem the car is having is due to the faulty engine, and not as much on the car being a supercar.
    More like you bought a super-engine (CPU) that needed to use 3 flywheels (8 cores: it's imaginary, k) to get its power to the wheels, then tried putting it in a car/drivetrain that only had 1 flywheel (4 cores). And, yeah, the car also has other issues, like a faulty differential and a clunky gearbox that cause problems for many other people, but then here you are adding to the problem with your exotic engine choice that the car manufacturer never considered something important to design for.
    because why is it in ArmA 2 Editor I come from 80+ fps to 20 fps when zooming into a forest on empty chernarus with no AI - no Objects no anything at all? Sth. with that streaming process that utilizes CPU, and must run sequential is maybe the bottleneck.
    After testing more with AI, I've found the clearest correlation is between:

    GPU memory controller load + FPS

    It's nearly 1:1 how these move together, along with the actual GPU utilization, of course.

    A LOT more:

    These changes happen especially when the AI are fighting actively. As soon as there's a lull in the fighting, the FPS/etc increase (though not to pre-fight levels), and drop when it resumes. But, without AI, when the FPS drops, the GPU stays ~100% while this controller load figure stays with the FPS (though it appears it has a ceiling, and when it hits that it will not increase while the FPS still can).

    Here are 2 more charts. The first shows me just standing in a forest, looking around. Here, zooming in causes a large FPS drop, while zooming out does the opposite. It appears that the engine decides which LOD to show based on FOV as well as distance, so this is likely why: zooming out causes LOD shifts to lower detail, while zooming in does the opposite. Moving one's head around while zoomed in seems to really stress the memory use of the GPU by forcing rapid loads of many nearby objects, and also hurts CPU use (perhaps getting hung up from all the texture loading onto the GPU, though VRAM is unaffected (orange line))... The purple line at the top is GPU usage (basically always maxed).


    The second is another AI test over Agia Marina. Here, I stay clear of the fighting (and high-res LODs) with the same system settings. I mess with the settings a bit midway. Dropping the resolution has the biggest impact, and lessens the memory controller's load greatly (while having a negative impact on GPU use). For the most part, though, as soon as the AI start fighting, there's a sharp dropoff in controller use and FPS, which bounces back slightly during lulls, but otherwise remains low throughout. When I use the binos here, however, the FPS jumps up at the end (with a huge VRAM usage spike for all the newly loaded mid-res LODs).


    Overall, it seems that the CPU usage has both positive and negative correlation with FPS in AI fights. My impression of the data is that running the "combat" AI routines is using up too much of the CPU's resources to properly send the necessary data/instructions to the GPU, however the GPU's memory bandwidth may also be a severely restraining factor when AI is not an issue (my card is old, though, so newer hardware with higher bandwidths and faster GDDR5 memory might not suffer from this specific limitation).

    bought SimCity for freaking $80 for his Mac PC. So after downloading the game it appeared to be a .exe file. Apparently the Mac version isn't even made yet!!! You think he should study about how retarded EA is before buying a game?
    Anyone that buys something without research is (apologies to your friend) an idiot, basically. Your friend apparently bought a game for a Mac without even seeing if they had a Mac version available. And it's EA's fault! :D You have a very, very warped and lacking idea of "personal buying responsibility" and due diligence. Should I inject another automotive analogy here, too? "caveat emptor", always. And the rest of your post is the typical "lazy/stupid devs" trash that for some reason hasn't gotten you infracted yet.
    Has ayone ever seen Arma use more than a 1-1.5 gigs of ram? Not me. Normally it's 750-900 or so.
    Usually it's around 2GB system + 800MB VRAM. Tried the startup parameters for -maxmem and -maxvmem (something like that) yet?

  10. I get this with full buildings also: they will get stuck inbetween LODs and start flickering every 100ms between two. THAT needs to be fixed first. I saw a lot of it in the video above. It's not just abrubt switches and uncoordinated textures, but also this twitching between LODs.

    There seem to be a ton of "flickering texture" issues on the tracker for many different textures, so it's hard to just upvote one into prominence. So....


  11. Helicopters and guns are both really f'ing loud in reality. See how well you can communicate standing 30ft from a military helicopter without shouting. Same for standing in a firing range with 30 people unloading. Hell, just make it 4 or 5 people with assault rifles. I really appreciate that BIS is trying to get the levels realistic this time, instead of making footsteps on short grass half as loud as an M4 on full auto.

  12. You honestly sound like one of the 'elitest' ArmA players that believes ARMA should only be played one way (your way) and that if public servers are hacked, it is their own fault for not restricting their player-base to a small bunch of tight-knit people that have to jump through hoops to get approved. PvP, Warfare, DayZ, Wasteland, Life mods... all of these are probably not your cup of tea, but they deserve a place in the ArmAverse as much as tactical coop does.
    I have played on at least 2 separate DayZ communities' servers, which would regularly see 50+ people playing, one of which has a good number of the highest-player servers on DayZ Commander (BMRF - 3-4 at a time at peak with 30-50 players each, the other is now mostly defunct but was fairly secure in its heyday). These are communities with hundreds, perhaps 4-digits, of players. Yes, they suffered from cheating/hacks sometimes, but what community that large doesn't in any game?

    On the whole, though, they were well administered, with whitelists and active admins who knew their stuff, and consequently I could count on one finger the number of times I had obvious, clear cheating happening in over a hundred hours of gameplay. There may be "health cheats" and some others happening rarely, but looking through cheat reports lately, more come down to "bugs" than to cheats/exploits, maybe 1 real cheating incident per 24 hours of hundreds of players' playing (players seem to overreport if anything). That's extremely low by any gaming standard. It can be done even for the MP community, not just the tactical realism types with a 30-player base.

    Understandably, many servers don't have this level of security, and it does take a good bit of knowledge/effort to keep them secure, so it would be best if there were easier options available, especially regarding the low-hanging-fruit sorts of blatant supercheats (mass object spawning, movepos stuff, etc).

  13. Too bad. The game is fucked and sure enough, its not my fault.
    And I'm saying it actually is partially your fault for buying fringe equipment and then expecting every developer to code appropriately for it. It's like buying a supercar and expecting the local mechanic to be able to repair it and source parts for it. Then saying "it's not MY fault you can't fix my car. Stupid/lazy mechanic."
    What is your goal/end game here? Obviously if there are 100 pages in this single thread your opinion is meaningless and the wider majority are having fps issues.
    "End game"? :D To destroy the universe, of course.
    Its not just AMD users you fool.
    Never said it was. Just because someone says "A is a problem" doesn't preclude "B is a problem". You will come up against this sort of logic many times in your life, so it's best to learn now that someone taking issue with one detail does not mean they disagree with everything you say. It will save you and others much trouble. I have little patience for people who read into my arguments everything and anything they want to because they're on full tilt over an issue and can't handle any sort of criticism. Sorry if I talk down a bit, but I'm going to be blunt when you waste my time and put words in my mouth.

    My point was that AMD users are likely to have more issues than Intel users, here and in general, due to their purchasing less common products (and those products generally being poorer quality for gaming).

    The rest of your post I don't disagree with. I'm not disagreeing with the fact that some people have issues with under-utilization. Forgive me for not repeating this in every post of mine. You know, you can help prevent this on your side by buying more mainstream products on your next build. With infinite hardware combinations to deal with, developers and such can't always get it right for everyone. Ensuring you have a fairly common setup also helps ensure that you get covered by performance tweaks, "optimizations", and bug patches.

    Please, if you're going to be here, please contribute more than just bashing everyone who's got an issue with the game.
    Believe I've posted a few long ones about my own experiences, including graphs and such.


    My GPU Load still drops down from 99% after some time playing (usually 10 to 20 mins), and that's when I experience severe FPS drops.
    I get a 10-20% drop with heavy AI (but only when fighting) too. It correlates with lower FPS. This happened in A2, though, and it's definitely improved in A3, so I'm not complaining as much because, you know, I expected it. Expecting total engine overhauls with smaller studios is setting yourself up for disappointment, and it creates unrealistic demands on the developers. I think they've already done a lot with the new engine, buggy as it is in alpha, but yes I do hope they can improve performance further. Many of the issues people are calling them out on here, though, are "generalizing personal anecdotes", like that it isn't coded for multicore systems, when clearly it can run just perfectly fine on a quadcore, etc.

    Because I disagree with these statements doesn't mean I don't believe the individuals are having problems, or that these problems may be endemic (but they may not as well, see below). But I will input my own experiences as well to give another side to the discussion and critique poor logic as I see fit, including defending people who are being told to leave because they dare to have different experiences.

    Why shouldn't people with 6 and 8 cores be allowed to discuss this and people with 2 or 4 cores can?
    They can, but we shouldn't use 3% fringe hardware as a base for the engine's limitations. If all the people discussing 6 and 8 cores in this thread actually have them, then well it just goes to show how an extreme minority can overrepresent itself on forums where the "silent majority" steer clear of the discussion, partially because they don't have the issues and partially because people tell them to "leave and stop bothering us and disagreeing with us", as has happened to me now twice at least.

    If you have a 6/8 core system, my above comments towards Planetside apply to you as well.

  14. You got to be fucking kidding me. At least 75% of the ArmA 3 owners, if not 90% is having this terrible FPS. And everyone is having this utilization issue. Though AMD owners seem to get totally screwed.
    I was talking specifically about people complaining about 6- 8- cores being underutilized, NOT that the issue didn't also exist for others with 2- and 4- cores. Why don't you try to follow my logic before ranting next time, if you can...
    My mother's laptop runs this better than my PC -.- Even 2x better. The lappy has an i5-3230M and a GT 645M and runs the game at Low or Ultra at 30 FPS. . That hardware is worse than my PC's. I have a Phenom II X4 955 (OC'd from 3.2 to 3.8 Ghz) and a GTX 460. I run this game at Low or Ultra at 15 FPS. Looks like Bohemia hates AMD.
    Well, don't buy AMD if you want to do gaming. That's been true for some years now. Besides the fact they've been uncompetitive for a couple years at least now, they only have 25% of the market, so smaller developers aren't going to spend as much resources on optimizing for them as they are for the bulk of their customers, who are using Intels.
    90% of the CPU is not utilized, only 1 core uses 60%.
    My quadcore is seeing perfectly even usage now. Have you tried the -cpucount= parameter in your startup? Basically, you've bought a processor that almost no one else owns, and you expect development studios to optimize for your 3% clique. Good luck with that reasoning in life in general, but it's only going to end up giving you more frustration than it's worth. Consider this a life lesson. Don't buy cutting edge next time.
    Since you run A3 just fine, why are you posting here? Clearly this thread is not geared toward you. Posts like this do nothing to help people who are actually having issues.
    Actually, knowing what works is as important as knowing what doesn't work.
    What are you trying to say? Doesn't change the fact that A3 only utilizes a third of what BF3 can utilize.
    What are you trying to say? Easy game, this. May I direct you to "substantive internet posting for dummies"? Check Amazon for it. It will be helpful in your future as well.

  15. I've modded in vast overhauls of health in other games. The way I usually do it is to severely limit the actual bullet damage, then set bleeding as the primary killer. A way to do it in Arma would be:

    Low initial damage, each cartridge has an intrinsic damage and bloodloss coefficient.

    Each limb has "normal" and "critical" damage possibilities, measured by likelihood of being shot in soft tissue or being shot in an artery. Additional possibilities for limb disablement from severe bone/nerve damage.

    Torso/chest/neck/head have special system of "normal" and "critical" damages. "Critical" now has an additional randomization between "severe bleeding" (shot to liver, spleen, lungs, major arteries), "extreme bleeding" (shot to heart/aorta), and "paralysis" (shot to spine/brain = instant death in-game). Being shot forces an odds roll which then determines the nature of the wound (so, shooting someone point-blank in the heart doesn't at all mean they're getting "extreme bleeding", the random roll may turn up as a "flesh wound").

    Obtaining the percentages is simply a matter of mapping the human body (from 1 or 2 axes) and seeing what %age of each of BIS' distinct regions is appropriate for each type of wound.

    The hard part of this system is figuring out how long to make it between when someone starts, say, bleeding from the brachial artery, and when they are effectively "out of combat" as an incapacitated wounded (and then how long before fully dead after that). This would require a balancing between real-world stats (which perhaps you guys have - I see one for the femoral artery) and gameplay (perhaps, perhaps not). If you do have any numbers to go on for the various types of wounds, I would appreciate it, as I would like to mod this into A3 as well.

    This creates a multi-tiered health system of:

    1. Fully healthy
    2. Light bleeding (flesh wounds)
    3. Heavy bleeding (arterial, blood organs)
    4. Loss of limb function (bone or nerve injury)
    5. Incapacitation (rolling on the ground, unconscious but revivable (but still may die regardless), in shock)
    6. Death/out of combat (bleed out, CNS paralysis/damage)

    Additionally, first aid can be applied (as in ACE2) which will limit bloodloss (partially or fully, but not regenerative). This, in addition to reviving incapacitated soldiers (again, as in ACE2) becomes the role of medics. Currently, they're fairly pointless to have given the extreme lethality of the game.

  16. Making sense wasn't my point.
    Almost sig-worthy.

    Also note that while my CPU only saw about 50% use, it was evenly spread among the cores. For a quadcore system like mine, then, it's not a multicore/monocore issue at all. It may become more of a multicore issue as you move past 4 (looking at previous charts, that seems to be the case), but as I argued earlier there's no reason for anyone to expect BIS to optimize for 3% of the market (6- and 8- cores are such), so let's stop discussing this extreme fringe (that you are a part of).

  17. My point is that 100% utilization = great game. Your opinion is 100% wrong and I guess your brain is being utilized at the same level ArmA3 utilizes my cpu!
    That makes no sense. It's like saying "getting 5 MPG means a car is fast". I hope you can see the fallacy.

    While it may be that BF3 uses processing power well and all that utilization is actually making the game better, a simple metric like "CPU utilization" does not at all prove this.

    ---------- Post added at 01:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 PM ----------

    8 Core here, it uses 20% of my CPU in comparison to BF3 using about 80%.
    Well, my prior comments plus a third.

  18. I wouldn't say the game is CPU heavy, rather that it's CPU bound or bottlenecked. It could be an issue of saturated I/O bandwidth on a specific interface, which if you understand what CPU utilization is, it's simply how much a core is used per I/O cycle. For instance 50% utilization means that for every I/O cycle, your cpu is active 50% of the time. There's 2 things that could be at play, either the core is finishing it's calculations before the end of each I/O cycle, or the core is waiting for something to be transferred in that I/O cycle to finish it's calculation, therefor the thread stalls which is why it's only being utilized 50% of the time.
    Unfortunately, I can't really dig into it as my CPU is not bottlenecking things in any way, given the disparity in CPU and GPU on my machine. Or is it...


    i5 3350P

    2x2GB 1066 DDR3, Dual Channel (moderate CAS)

    7200RPM WD (newish)

    GTS 250 1GB (oldish)



    2750/2750m/200m vd/Ovd/Svd

    no AA, 16xAF

    HDR low, PP off

    VH Tex

    St Obj

    Hi All else

    72 AI, me in 30-man squad assaulting 42 AI in/around Girna from the east. Short infil leads to mountain ridge -> Girna firefight ~5min. Then I enter city alone as AI mop up last few.

    Here's mine in Girna:

    FPS avg: 22FPS


    Same setup, now in Agia Marina:

    Again, trying to mimic original movements, but no AI:

    FPS Avg: 31FPS


    And now for A2:CO+ACE2




    FXAA 16xAF

    Hi Tex

    Low-mid settings elsewise (odd that I'm running higher settings in A3 than A2)

    Same basic scenario, but now in the NW of Takistan. First 3rd cut since it was empty desert with nothing happening (60FPS+). 2nd third is long-range engagement. Last third is CQC.


    FPS Avg: 34FPS


    My impression:

    On my system, the game is more multicore-friendly than I said previously. I guess I need to do more testing, but this is about perfect. The GPU is fairly maxed out throughout, but that's to be expected. Oddly, it seems that the more the disk is reading, the better the performance, but that's only with 2 examples, so another might have different results. Generally, that happens when in a city, where much of the long-range geometry/objects are obscured by buildings yet lots of textures/models need to loaded and the view shifts around a lot (at longer ranges, you tend to move your head around less when engaged).

    Obviously, with no AI things run more smoothly (about 45% more smoothly). Even so, inactive or unengaged AI have a smaller footprint on performance than actively engaged ones. I see no GPU unterutilization without AI, but about 10-15% underutilization with 30-70 AI. This is fairly minor, imo, but it seems with better cards it's worse. It might not just be the AI routines and pathfinding that are causing the "underutilization", but all those bullet trajectories and FX particles. All I can say for sure is that all my cores are being used equally.

    Lastly, though the sample size of tests is small, A2:CO is clearly utilizing the GPU far less than A3:Alpha, and the FPS in A3 without AI ends up almost equalling that of a far more bare Takistan with AI. To claim the devs haven't made any progress in the engine/code is, at least here, totally incorrect.

    "CPU heavy" is a wrong term, the issue is the utilization. ArmA III uses only 30% of a hexacore when BF3 uses 91%. Basically in BF3 a normal 3000MHz CPU is a 9000MHz CPU because of better optimization. If the A3 engine was that good utilizing the CPU, it'd be just as smooth as BF3.
    Stop using 6-cores as a bench for how "multicore" the game is. Quad/dual is far more important for the game. Besides, BF has no AI basically.